Technical Report Template 28

TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE
PALMAREJO COMPLEX
SW CHIHUAHUA STATE, MEXICO
NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT
Effective Date: August 31, 2015

Report Date: November 2, 2015
Prepared by:
Paul Kerr, P. Eng., Coeur Mining, Inc.
Michael Gustin, CPG, Mine Development Associates
David Hlorgbe, RM, SME, Coeur Mining, Inc.
Justin Glanvill, PrSciNat, AMC Consultants (UK) Ltd.
Raul Mondragon, RM, SME, Coeur Mining, Inc.
Matthew Hoffer, RM, SME, Coeur Mining, Inc.
Miller O’Prey, EURGeol, P. Geo, Coeur Mining, Inc.
Palmarejo Complex SW
Chihuahua State, Mexico NI
43-101 Technical Report
November 2, 2015
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT ON FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This technical report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of United
States and Canadian securities laws. Such forward-looking statements include, without
limitation, statements regarding Coeur Mining, Inc.‘s (Coeur) expectations for the
Palmarejo Complex, including estimated capital requirements, expected production,
economic analyses, cash costs and rates of return; mineral reserve and resource
estimates; estimates of silver and gold grades; and other statements that are not
historical facts. These statements may be identified by words such as ―may,‖ ―might‖,
―will,‖ ―expect,‖ ―anticipate,‖ ―believe,‖ ―could,‖ ―intend,‖ ―plan,‖ ―estimate‖
and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements address activities, events or
developments that Coeur expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future, and are
based on information currently available. Although management believes that its
expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that these
expectations will prove correct. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ
materially from those in the forward-looking statements include, among others, risks that
Coeur‘s exploration and property advancement efforts will not be successful; risks
relating to fluctuations in the price of silver and gold; the inherently hazardous nature of
mining-related activities; uncertainties concerning reserve and resource estimates;
uncertainties relating to obtaining approvals and permits from governmental regulatory
authorities; and availability and timing of capital for financing exploration and
development activities, including uncertainty of being able to raise capital on favorable
terms or at all; as well as those factors discussed in Coeur‘s filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ―SEC), including Coeur‘s latest Annual
Report on Form 10-K and its other SEC filings (and Canadian filings on SEDAR at
www.sedar.com). Coeur does not intend to publicly update any forward-looking
statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except
as may be required under applicable securities laws.
CAUTIONARY NOTE TO U.S. READERS CONCERNING ESTIMATES OF

MEASURED, INDICATED AND INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCES
Information concerning the properties and operations of Coeur has been prepared in
accordance with Canadian standards under applicable Canadian securities laws, and may
not be comparable to similar information for United States companies. The terms ―Mineral
Resource‖, ―Measured Mineral Resource‖, ―Indicated Mineral Resource‖ and ―Inferred
Mineral Resource‖ used in this Report are Canadian mining terms as defined in accordance
with National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) under definitions set out in the Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Standards on Mineral Resources and
Mineral Reserves adopted by the CIM Council on May 24, 2014 While the terms ―Mineral
Resource‖, ―Measured Mineral Resource‖, ―Indicated Mineral Resource‖ and ―Inferred
Mineral Resource‖ are recognized and required by Canadian
ii
November 2, 2015
securities regulations, they are not defined terms under standards of the SEC. Under
United States standards, mineralization may not be classified as a ―Reserve‖ unless
the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and
legally produced or extracted at the time the Reserve calculation is made. As such,
certain information contained in this Report concerning descriptions of mineralization
and resources under Canadian standards is not comparable to similar information made
public by United States companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements
of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. An Inferred Mineral
Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated 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 Mineral
Resources with continued exploration. Under Canadian rules, estimates of Inferred
Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies.
Readers are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated
Resources will ever be converted into Mineral Reserves. Readers are also cautioned not
to assume that all or any part of an ―Inferred Mineral Resource‖ exists, or is
economically or legally mineable. In addition, the definitions of ―Proven Mineral
Reserves‖ and ―Probable Mineral Reserves‖ under CIM standards differ in certain
respects from the standards of the SEC.
ii
i
Palmarejo Complex
SW Chihuahua State, Mexico
NI 43-101 Technical Report
November 2, 2015
CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Property Description and Location ................................................................. 1
1.2 Exploration ..................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Sample Preparation, Security, and Analyses ................................................. 4
1.4 Data Verification ............................................................................................ 4
1.5 Status of Development and Mine Operations ................................................. 5
1.6 Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates ......................................... 6
1.7 Economic Analysis ......................................................................................... 8
1.8 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................ 12
2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Terms of Reference ..................................................................................... 15
2.2 Qualified Persons......................................................................................... 15
2.3 Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection ............................................... 16
2.4 Effective Dates ............................................................................................. 17
2.5 Previous Technical Reports ......................................................................... 17
3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ......................................................................... 19
4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ........................................................ 20
4.1 Project Description and Location .................................................................. 20
4.2 Coeur‘s Interest ........................................................................................... 22
4.3 Mineral Tenure ............................................................................................. 22
4.3.1 Mining Concession Obligations ........................................................ 24
4.4 Surface Rights ............................................................................................. 24
4.4.1 Coeur Mexicana ............................................................................... 27
4.4.2 Paramount Mexico ........................................................................... 28
4.4.3 Minera Gama ................................................................................... 28
4.5 Encumbrances, Liens and Royalties ............................................................ 29
4.5.1 Coeur Mexicana ............................................................................... 29
4.5.2 Paramount Mexico ........................................................................... 30
4.6 Environmental Liabilities and Permits ........................................................... 32
4.7 Significant Factors and Risks ....................................................................... 32
5. ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
PHYSIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 33
5.1 Accessibility ................................................................................................. 33
5.2 Climate ........................................................................................................ 33
5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure ............................................................. 33
5.4 Physiography and Vegetation ...................................................................... 33
5.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 35
6. HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 36
6.1 Pre-2003 ...................................................................................................... 36
6.1.1 Palmarejo Area................................................................................. 36
6.1.2 Guadalupe Area ............................................................................... 36
6.1.3 Guazapares District .......................................................................... 37
6.1.4 Other Prospects ............................................................................... 38
6.2 2003-2007 Bolnisi Gold NL .......................................................................... 38
i
v
Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
6.3 2005-2015 Paramount ................................................................................. 39
6.4 Previous Mineral Resource Estimates .......................................................... 40

6.5 Coeur Mexicana Production ......................................................................... 41
7. GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION.................................................. 42
7.1 Regional Geology and Mineralization ........................................................... 42
7.2 Property Geology and Mineralization ........................................................... 46
7.2.1 Palmarejo Deposit ............................................................................ 51
7.2.2 Guadalupe Deposit ........................................................................... 53
7.2.3 Independencia Deposit ..................................................................... 57
7.3 Guazapares Area Deposits .......................................................................... 60
7.4 Other Areas of Mineralization ....................................................................... 64
7.4.1 La Patria ........................................................................................... 65
7.4.2 Los Bancos ...................................................................................... 65
8. DEPOSIT TYPES .................................................................................................... 66
9. EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................... 68
9.1 Geophysical Surveys ................................................................................... 68
9.2 Field Mapping .............................................................................................. 70
10. DRILLING ................................................................................................................ 71
10.1 Core Drilling and Logging ............................................................................. 71
10.2 Reverse Circulation Drilling and Logging ..................................................... 73
10.3 Downhole Surveying .................................................................................... 73
10.4 Drill Hole Collar Locations ............................................................................ 73
10.4.1 Collar Coordinate Verification ........................................................... 73
11. SAMPLE PREPARATION, SECURITY, AND ANALYSES ....................................... 75
11.1 Sample Preparation ..................................................................................... 75
11.1.1 Diamond Drill .................................................................................... 75
11.1.2 Diamond Core Sampling .................................................................. 76
11.1.3 Reverse Circulation (RC) .................................................................. 77
11.2 Sample Storage and Security....................................................................... 77
11.3 Analyses ...................................................................................................... 78
11.3.1 Laboratory Sample Preparation ........................................................ 78
11.3.2 Laboratory Analytical Methods ......................................................... 79
11.3.3 Control Samples ............................................................................... 82
11.3.4 Bulk Density Analyses ...................................................................... 82
12. DATA VERIFICATION ............................................................................................. 83
12.1 Historic QA/QC and Third Party Reviews ..................................................... 83
12.2 Coeur QA/QC Programs .............................................................................. 84
12.3 2014 and 2015 QA/QC Summary ................................................................ 85
12.3.1 QA/QC Summary Table .................................................................... 85
12.3.2 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 89
13. MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ................................. 90
13.1 Palmarejo Historic Metallurgical Test Summary ........................................... 90
13.2 Guadalupe Metallurgical Test Summary 2007 - 2010 ................................... 91
13.2.1 Sample Selection ............................................................................. 91
13.2.2 Sample Mineralogy ........................................................................... 92
v
Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
13.2.3 Metallurgical Testing ........................................................................ 93
13.2.4 Metallurgical Results ........................................................................ 94

13.3 Guadalupe Metallurgical Tests 2013 ............................................................ 96
13.3.2 Metallurgical Tests ........................................................................... 96
13.4 Guadalupe North Metallurgical Tests 2014 .................................................. 98
13.4.2 Metallurgical Tests ........................................................................... 99
13.4.4 Whole Ore Cyanidation Metallurgical Results Highlights ................ 103
13.4.5 Rougher – Cleaner Flotation + Tailings Whole Cyanidation Test
Results Highlights ........................................................................... 103
13.5 Independencia Oeste 2014 ........................................................................ 104
13.5.1 Sample Selection ........................................................................... 104
13.5.2 Independencia Oeste Mineralogy ................................................... 105
13.5.3 Metallurgical Test Work .................................................................. 106
13.5.4 Metallurgical Results ...................................................................... 107
13.6 Independencia Este Metallurgy .................................................................. 108
13.6.1 Geometallurgical Domains ............................................................. 108
13.6.2 Sample Selection ........................................................................... 108
13.6.3 Metallurgical Test Work .................................................................. 109
13.6.4 Independencia Este Metallurgical Results ...................................... 111
13.7 Recovery Estimates ................................................................................... 112
13.8 Metallurgical Variability .............................................................................. 112
14. MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES .................................................................... 114
14.1 Mineral Resource Reconciliation ................................................................ 114
14.2 Key Parameters Used for Resource Estimation ......................................... 116
14.2.1 Mineral Resource Cut-off Estimation .............................................. 116
14.3 Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology - Palmarejo Deposit ................ 117
14.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 117
14.3.2 Geological Models .......................................................................... 120
14.3.3 Exploratory Data Analysis .............................................................. 121
14.3.4 Variography .................................................................................... 125
14.3.5 Density ........................................................................................... 128
14.3.6 Estimation ...................................................................................... 129
14.3.7 Estimation Validation ...................................................................... 135
14.3.8 Depletion ........................................................................................ 136
14.3.9 Classification .................................................................................. 138
14.3.10 Mineral Resources – Palmarejo .................................................. 138
14.4 Mineral Resource Estimates – Guadalupe Deposit .................................... 139
14.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 139
14.4.2 Geological Models .......................................................................... 141
14.4.3 Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) .................................................... 143
14.4.4 Capping .......................................................................................... 146
14.4.5 Contact Plots .................................................................................. 148
14.4.6 Variography .................................................................................... 149
v
i
Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
14.4.7 Density ........................................................................................... 153
14.4.8 Estimation ...................................................................................... 154

14.4.9 Depletion ........................................................................................ 158
14.4.10 Resource Classification .............................................................. 159
14.4.11 Mineral Resources- Guadalupe Deposit ..................................... 159
14.5 Mineral Resource Estimate Methodology - Independencia Deposit ............ 161
14.5.1 Data ............................................................................................... 161
14.5.2 Oxidation Modeling ......................................................................... 161
14.5.3 Density ........................................................................................... 161
14.5.4 Silver and Gold Modeling ............................................................... 162
14.5.5 Assay Coding, Capping, and Compositing ...................................... 166
14.5.6 Block Model Coding ....................................................................... 167
14.5.7 Grade Interpolation ......................................................................... 168
14.5.8 Classification .................................................................................. 173
14.5.9 Mineral Resources – Independencia Deposit ................................. 173
14.5.10 Comments on the Resource Modeling ........................................ 174
14.6 Factors that may affect the Mineral Resource Estimates ............................ 175
14.7 Mineral Resource Estimates – Summary of Palmarejo Complex ................ 175
15. MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ....................................................................... 177
15.1 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Estimation ................................................. 177
15.2 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Palmarejo Open Pit ........................................ 179
15.2.1 Mineral Reserve Estimate Methodology ......................................... 179
15.2.2 Resource Block Model and SMU Sizing ......................................... 179
15.2.3 Geotechnical Considerations .......................................................... 179
15.2.4 Hydrogeological Considerations ..................................................... 180
15.2.5 Dilution and Mining Loss ................................................................ 180
15.2.6 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Analysis – Palmarejo Open Pit ...... 180
15.2.7 Ore/Waste Determinations ............................................................. 180
15.2.8 Mine Engineering Design ............................................................... 180
15.2.9 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Palmarejo Open Pit Mine .................... 181
15.2.10 Mineral Reserve Sensitivity ......................................................... 181
15.3 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Palmarejo Underground Mine ......................... 181
15.3.2 Mineral Resource Block Model ....................................................... 182
15.3.3 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Determination – Palmarejo
Underground .................................................................................. 182
15.3.4 Stope Design .................................................................................. 183
15.3.5 Ore Dilution .................................................................................... 183
15.3.6 Ore Loss......................................................................................... 184
15.3.7 Open Pit/Underground Interface ..................................................... 185
15.3.8 Reserve Economics ....................................................................... 185
15.3.9 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Palmarejo Underground Mine ............. 185
15.3.10 Mineral Reserve Sensitivity ......................................................... 185
15.4 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Guadalupe Underground Mine ....................... 186
15.4.3 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Determination - Guadalupe............ 187
15.4.4 Stope and Ore Development Design .............................................. 187
vii
November 2, 2015
15.4.5 Ore Dilution .................................................................................... 189

15.4.6 Ore Loss......................................................................................... 190
15.4.7 Depletion ........................................................................................ 190
15.4.9 Mineral Reserve Estimate – Guadalupe Underground Mine ........... 191
15.5 Mineral Reserve Estimate – Independencia Underground Mine ................. 191
15.5.3 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Determination - Independencia ...... 192
15.5.4 Stope Design .................................................................................. 192
15.5.5 Ore Dilution .................................................................................... 193
15.5.6 Ore Loss......................................................................................... 194
15.5.7 Depletion ........................................................................................ 195
15.5.9 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Independencia Underground Mine ...... 195
15.6 Summary of Mineral Reserves Estimate – Palmarejo Complex.................. 196
15.7 Mineral Reserve Sensitivity ........................................................................ 197
15.7.1 Sensitivity of Mineral Reserve to the Mineral Resource Estimates.. 197
15.7.2 Sensitivity to Cut-off Grade Inputs .................................................. 198
15.7.3 Sensitivity to Dilution ...................................................................... 199
16. MINING METHODS ............................................................................................... 200
16.1 Palmarejo Open Pit .................................................................................... 200
16.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 200
16.1.2 Mining Method and Equipment ....................................................... 200
16.1.3 Pit Design ....................................................................................... 200
16.1.4 Mining Schedule ............................................................................. 201
16.2 Palmarejo Underground Mine .................................................................... 202
16.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 202
16.2.2 History ............................................................................................ 202
16.2.3 Geotechnical Conditions and Ground Support ................................ 203
16.2.4 Hydrogeological Conditions ............................................................ 203
16.2.5 Underground Design Philosophy .................................................... 203
16.2.6 Mining Methods .............................................................................. 204
16.2.7 Development and Production Mining Operations ............................ 204
16.2.8 Backfill ............................................................................................ 206
16.2.9 Development and Production Rates ............................................... 206
16.3 Guadalupe Underground Mine ................................................................... 206
16.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 206
16.3.2 History ............................................................................................ 207
16.3.3 Geotechnical Assessment .............................................................. 208
16.3.4 Hydrogeological Conditions and Dewatering .................................. 211
16.3.6 Mining Methods .............................................................................. 212
16.3.7 Development .................................................................................. 214
16.3.8 Production Drilling and Blasting ...................................................... 215
16.3.9 Mucking and Haulage ..................................................................... 216
16.3.10 Backfill ........................................................................................ 216
16.3.11 Development and Production Scheduling ................................... 217
vii
i
Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
16.4 Independencia Underground Mine ............................................................. 217
16.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 217

16.4.2 Geotechnical Assessment .............................................................. 219
16.4.3 Hydrogeological Conditions and Dewatering .................................. 222
16.4.5 Mining Methods .............................................................................. 222
16.4.6 Development .................................................................................. 223
16.4.7 Production Drilling and Blasting ...................................................... 223
16.4.8 Mucking and Haulage ..................................................................... 223
16.4.9 Backfill ............................................................................................ 223
16.4.10 Development and Production Scheduling ................................... 224
16.5 Mining Equipment ...................................................................................... 224
16.5.1 Open Pit ......................................................................................... 224
16.5.2 Underground .................................................................................. 225
17. RECOVERY METHODS........................................................................................ 227
17.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 227
17.2 Crushing .................................................................................................... 227
17.3 Grinding ..................................................................................................... 227
17.4 Flotation ..................................................................................................... 228
17.5 Flotation Concentrate Leaching ................................................................. 229
17.6 Flotation Tailings Leaching ........................................................................ 230
17.7 Carbon Desorption ..................................................................................... 230
17.8 Carbon Regeneration ................................................................................. 230
17.9 Merrill Crowe and Smelting ........................................................................ 230
17.10 Cyanide Detoxification ............................................................................... 232
18. PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................ 234
18.1
Palmarejo Underground Mine Infrastructure ............................................... 236
18.2
Palmarejo Open Pit and Underground Personnel....................................... 237
18.3
Guadalupe Underground Infrastructure ...................................................... 237
18.3.1 Ventilation System .......................................................................... 237
18.3.2 Other Underground Infrastructure ................................................... 237
18.4 Surface Infrastructure ................................................................................ 238
18.5 Independencia Infrastructure ..................................................................... 239
18.5.1 Mine Ventilation System ................................................................. 239
18.5.2 Surface Infrastructure ..................................................................... 239
18.5.3 Compressed Air System ................................................................. 240
18.5.4 Underground Dewatering Systems ................................................. 240
18.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 240
19. MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ................................................................ 242
19.1 Market Studies ........................................................................................... 242
19.2 Commodity Price Projections ..................................................................... 242
19.3 Contracts ................................................................................................... 242
20. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY
IMPACT.................................................................................................................. 244
21. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS..................................................................... 248
21.1 Capital Cost Estimates................................................................................ 248
ix
November 2, 2015
21.2 Unit Operating Cost Estimate – Palmarejo ................................................. 248

21.3 Unit Operating Cost Estimate – Guadalupe and Independencia ................. 249
21.4 Operating Cost Summary ........................................................................... 249
22. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 251
22.1 Palmarejo Complex Economic Analysis ..................................................... 251
22.2 Taxes ......................................................................................................... 255
22.3 Royalties .................................................................................................... 255
22.4 Mexican Mining Duties ............................................................................... 256
23. ADJACENT PROPERTIES .................................................................................... 257
24. OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION.................................................. 258
25. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 259
26. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 260
26.1 Geology ..................................................................................................... 260
26.2 Data Validation .......................................................................................... 260
26.3 Resource Modeling .................................................................................... 261
26.4 Processing ................................................................................................. 261
26.5 Mining ........................................................................................................ 262
27. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 263
28. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE ....................................................... 268
29. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 270
29.1 Land and Mineral Tenure- Mining Concessions ......................................... 270
x
November 2, 2015
TABLES
Table 1.1. Exploration Drill History at the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ........................................ 4
Table 1.2. Mineral Reserves – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ....................................................... 7
Table 1.3. Mineral Resources – Palmarejo Complex (Exclusive of Mineral Reserves) (Coeur, 2015) .. 8
Table 1.4. Life of Mine Economic Analysis (Coeur, 2015) ................................................................... 10
Table 1.5. Life of Mine Production and Open Pit Waste Summary – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur,
2015) ................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 1.6. Yearly Production and Cash Flows (Coeur, 2015) ............................................................. 11
Table 2.1. Qualified Person Responsibilities- Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ............................... 16
Table 6.1. Coeur Palmarejo Complex Historical Ore Production (Coeur, 2015) ................................. 41
Table 10.1. Exploration Drilling Completed in the Palmarejo Complex since 2003 (Coeur, 2015) ..... 71
Table 11.1. Sampling Metadata from the Guadalupe and Independencia Deposits (Coeur, 2015) .... 75
Table 11.2. Palmarejo Primary Assay Analytical Methods (Coeur, 2015) ............................................ 81
Table 11.3. Palmarejo Mine Laboratory Primary Assay Analytical Methods (Coeur, 2015) ................. 81
Table 11.4. Acme Check Assay Analytical Methods (Coeur, 2015) .................................................... 81
Table 12.1. 2014 Palmarejo Complex and Overall Totals for Standard and Blank Failure Rates
(Coeur, 2015) .................................................................................................................... 86
Table 13.1. Guadalupe Metallurgical Sample Characteristics (Coeur, 2015) ...................................... 91
Table 13.2. Mineral Species at Guadalupe and Palmarejo (Coeur, 2015) .......................................... 93
Table 13.3. Guadalupe Metallurgical Test Results (Coeur, 2015) ........................................................ 95
Table 13.4. Metallurgical Results Summary, Flotation Test No. 1 Guadalupe Underground Ore
Sample (Coeur, 2015) ...................................................................................................... 97
Sample (Coeur, 2015) ...................................................................................................... 97
Table 13.6. Metallurgical Results Summary, Agitated Leaching Test Guadalupe Underground Ore
Sample, Flotation Test No. 2 with Tailings Cyanidation (Coeur, 2015) ............................ 98
Table 13.7. Metallurgical Results Summary, Overall Recovery Guadalupe Underground Ore Samples,
Flotation Test No. 2+ Tails Leaching (Coeur, 2015) ......................................................... 98
Table 13.8. Metallurgical Test Results Summary – Agitated Leaching Test, ..................................... 100
Guadalupe North Vein – High Grade Composite (Coeur, 2015) ........................................................ 100
Table 13.9. Metallurgical Test Results Summary – Agitated Leaching Test, ..................................... 100
Guadalupe North Vein – Medium Grade Composite (Coeur, 2015) ................................................... 100
Table 13.10. Metallurgical Test Results Summary – Agitated Leaching Test, ................................... 101
Guadalupe North Vein – Low Grade Composite (Coeur, 2015) ......................................................... 101
Table 13.11. Metallurgical Test Results Summary Guadalupe North Vein Composites, ................... 102
Rougher Flotation +Agitated Leaching (Gold) (Coeur, 2015) ............................................................. 102
Table 13.12. Metallurgical Test Results Summary Guadalupe North Vein Composites, ................... 102
Rougher Flotation +Agitated Leaching (Silver) (Coeur, 2015) ............................................................ 102
Table 13.13. Independencia Oeste Master Composite Intervals (Coeur, 2015) ................................ 105
Table 13.14. Independencia Este Geometallurgical Domains (Coeur, 2015) .................................... 108
Table 13.15. Don Ese, Domains D1 – D6 Composite Head Assay (Coeur, 2015)............................. 109
Table 13.16. Independencia Este, Domains D1 – D6, ALS Flotation Test Results (Coeur, 2015) .... 110
Table 13.17. Independencia Este, Domains D1 – D6, ALS Bottle Roll Cyanidation Test Results
(Coeur, 2015) .................................................................................................................. 111
Table 14.1. Mineral Resource Reconciliation versus Mill Production (Coeur, 2015).......................... 115
Table 14.2. Mineral Resource Key Parameters and Assumptions (Coeur, 2015) .............................. 116
Table 14.3. Drilling and Sampling Databases used in the Resource Modeling (Coeur, 2014) .......... 117
xi
November 2, 2015
Table 14.4. Tabulation of the Number of Drill Holes and Total Lengths per Data Source Imported into
Datamine® from the Various Data Exports (Coeur, 2014) .............................................. 118
Table 14.5. Data Types, Number of Holes per Data Type, and Total Length for each Type (Coeur,
2014) ............................................................................................................................... 118
Table 14.6. Tabulation of the Density Values showing the Basic Statistics of the Input Data, Final
(Fixed) Data and Errors (Coeur, 2014) ........................................................................... 120
Table 14.7. Estimation/Statistical Domains (Coeur, 2014) ................................................................. 122
Table 14.8. Mineralization Domains in Increasing Order of Importance (Coeur, 2014) ..................... 123
Table 14.9. Statistics of the Length Weighted Raw Samples and the 3m Composite Data - Silver
(Coeur, 2014) .................................................................................................................. 124
Table 14.10. Statistics of the Length Weighted Raw Samples and the 3m Composite Data – Gold
(Coeur, 2014) .................................................................................................................. 124
Table 14.11. Tabulated Normalized Variogram Models (Note the C0=0.999 Place Holders for Inverse
Dist. to the Power of Two Est.) (Coeur, 2014) ................................................................ 127
Table 14.12. Tabulation of the Density Value – Basic Statistics by Minzone (Coeur, 2014) .............. 128
Table 14.13. Block Model Parameters (Coeur, 2014) ........................................................................ 130
Table 14.14. Tabulated Search Parameters per Estimation Domain and Metal (Coeur, 2014) ......... 133
Table 14.15. Drilling and Sampling Databases used for the Resource Modeling (Coeur, 2015) ....... 139
Table 14.16. Number of Drill Holes and Total Lengths per Data Source (Coeur, 2015) .................... 140
Table 14.17. Mineralized Domains in Increasing Order of Importance (Coeur, 2015) ....................... 141
Table 14.18. Volume Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Geologic Solids (Coeur, 2015) ........................ 142
Table 14.19. Statistics of the Length Weighted Raw Samples and the 2m Composite Capped Data -
Silver (Coeur, 2015) ........................................................................................................ 145
Table 14.20. Statistics of the Length Weighted Raw Samples and the 2m Composite Capped Data -
Gold (Coeur, 2015) ......................................................................................................... 145
Table 14.21. Uncapped and Capped High-grade Outliers by Domain - Silver (Coeur, 2015) ............ 147
Table 14.22. Uncapped and Capped High-grade Outliers by Domain - Gold (Coeur, 2015) ............. 147
Table 14.23. Normalized Variogram Model Parameters for each Domain (Coeur, 2015) .................. 151
Table 14.24 Search Parameters for each Domain (Coeur, 2015) ...................................................... 152
Table 14.25. Basic Statistics of Sample Density Data (Coeur, 2015)................................................. 154
Table 14.26. Guadalupe Point Variance with Varying Discretization (Coeur, 2015) .......................... 154
Table 14.27. Resource Classification Criteria (Coeur, 2015) ............................................................. 159
Table 14.28. Mineral Resources – Guadalupe Deposit (Exclusive of Mineral Reserves) (Coeur, 2015)160
Table 14.29. Independencia Bulk Specific Gravity Data (Coeur, 2014) ............................................ 162
Table 14.30. Approximate Grade Ranges of Silver and Gold Domains (MDA, 2014) ........................ 163
Table 14.31. Descriptive Statistics for Independencia Coded Silver and Gold Assays (MDA, 2014) 166
Table 14.32. Independencia Silver and Gold Assay Caps (MDA, 2014) ............................................ 167
Table 14.33. Descriptive Statistics for Independencia Silver and Gold Composites (MDA, 2014) .... 167
Table 14.34. Estimation Criteria (MDA, 2014) .................................................................................... 169
Table 14.35. Search Restrictions (MDA, 2014) .................................................................................. 169
Table 14.36. Ordinary Krige Parameters* (MDA, 2014) ..................................................................... 169
Table 14.37. Summary of Independencia Estimation Parameters (MDA, 2014) ................................ 170
Table 14.38. Independencia Classification Parameters (MDA, 2014) ................................................ 173
Table 14.39. Mineral Resources – Independencia Deposit (Exclusive of Mineral Reserves) (MDA,
2014) ............................................................................................................................... 174
Table 14.40. Mineral Resource Summary – Palmarejo Complex (Exclusive of Mineral Reserves)
(Coeur, 2015) .................................................................................................................. 176
Table 15.1. Mineral Reserve Key Parameters and Assumptions (Coeur, 2015) ................................ 178
xii
November 2, 2015
Table 15.2. Mineral Reserve – Palmarejo Open Pit Mine (Coeur, 2015) ........................................... 181
Table 15.3. Ore Dilution Factors – Palmarejo Underground Mine (Coeur, 2015) .............................. 184
Table 15.4. Mineral Reserve – Palmarejo Underground Mine (Coeur, 2015) .................................... 185
Table 15.5. Guadalupe Stope and Development Dilution Assumptions (Coeur, 2015)...................... 189
Table 15.6. Ore Loss Factors – Guadalupe Mine (Coeur, 2015)........................................................ 190
Table 15.7. Mineral Reserve – Guadalupe Underground Mine (Coeur, 2015) ................................... 191
Table 15.8. Independencia Stope and Development Dilution Assumptions (Coeur, 2015) .............. 194
Table 15.9. Ore Loss Factors – Independencia Mine (Coeur, 2015) ................................................. 195
Table 15.10. Mineral Reserve Estimate – Independencia Deposit (Coeur, 2015) ............................. 196
Table 15.11. Mineral Reserve Summary – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ................................. 197
Table 15.12. Mineral Reserve Sensitivity to Metal Prices (Coeur, 2015) ........................................... 198
Table 16.1. Palmarejo Open Pit Design and Operational Parameters (Coeur, 2015) ........................ 201
Table 16.2. 2015 Palmarejo Open Pit Mining Schedule (Coeur, 2015) .............................................. 201
Table 16.3. Key Mine Design Parameters (Coeur, 2015) ................................................................... 204
Table 16.4. Palmarejo Underground Mining Schedule (Coeur, 2015) ................................................ 206
Table 16.5. Guadalupe Rock Mass Ratings (Ingeroc, 2015) .............................................................. 209
Table 16.6. Key Mine Design Parameters (Coeur, 2015) ................................................................... 212
Table 16.7. Guadalupe Mining Schedule (Coeur, 2015) .................................................................... 217
Table 16.8. Independencia Mining Schedule (Coeur, 2015) .............................................................. 224
Table 16.9. Open Pit and Surface Mobile Equipment (Coeur, 2015) ................................................. 225
Table 16.10. Palmarejo Underground Mining Equipment (Coeur, 2015) ........................................... 226
Table 19.1. Commodity Price Projections (Coeur, 2015) ................................................................... 242
Table 21.1. Palmarejo, Guadalupe and Independencia Capital Costs (Coeur, 2015) ....................... 248
Table 21.2. Palmarejo Unit Operating Costs (Coeur, 2015) ............................................................... 249
Table 21.3. Guadalupe and Independencia Unit Operating Costs (Coeur, 2015) .............................. 249
Table 21.4. Operating Cost Summary (Coeur, 2015) ......................................................................... 250
Table 22.1. Life of Mine Economic Analysis (Coeur, 2015) ................................................................ 252
2015) ............................................................................................................................... 253
Table 22.3. Yearly Production and Cash Flows (Coeur, 2015) .......................................................... 254
xiii
November 2, 2015
FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Regional Map showing Location of the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ......................... 2
Figure 1.2. Localized Map of the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ..................................................... 3
Figure 1.3. Mineral Deposit Locations – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ......................................... 6
Figure 1.4. Sensitivity of Pre-tax Cash Flow (Coeur, 2015) .................................................................. 12
Figure 4.1. Regional Map showing Location of the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ....................... 21
Figure 4.2. Mineral Tenure Map of the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ......................................... 23
Figure 4.3. Surface Rights – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015) ......................................................... 26
Figure 5.1. Overview of the Palmarejo Area (Looking N-NW) (Coeur, 2010) ...................................... 34
Figure 5.2. Overview of the Guadalupe Area (Looking North – Field of View Approximately 4km)
(Coeur, 2014)* .................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 7.1. Mexican Metallogenic Provinces Highlighting the Location of the Palmarejo Complex -
Mexícan Geological Service (SGM, 2015) ....................................................................... 44
Figure 7.2. Geology of Chihuahua State showing the Location of the Principal Precious Metals Mines
in the SMO (SGM & Coeur, 2015) .................................................................................... 45
Figure 7.3. Regional Geology of the Palmarejo Complex showing location of the Deposits (Coeur,
2015) ................................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 7.4. Palmarejo Complex Stratigraphic Column (Coeur, 2015) .................................................. 48
Figure 7.5. Geologic Map of the Palmarejo Complex showing Drilling Completed to Date (Coeur,
2015) ................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 7.6. Cross-Section through the Palmarejo Deposit (Coeur, 2015) ........................................... 52
Figure 7.7. Geology of the Guadalupe Deposit showing Surface Vein Traces and Drilling Completed
to Date (Coeur, 2015)..................................................................................................... 54
Figure 7.8. Cross-Section through the Guadalupe Deposit (Section Line C-C‘ in Figure 7.7 shows the
Location) (Coeur, 2015).................................................................................................. 55
Figure 7.9. Poorly Mineralized Structure at Surface and Clay Alteration at Guadalupe North (Note
Hammer for Scale) (Coeur, 2014)................................................................................... 56
Figure 7.10. Geology of the Independencia Deposit, showing Surface Vein Traces and Drilling
Completed to Date (Coeur, 2015)................................................................................... 59
Figure 7.11. Cross-Section through the Independencia Deposit and nearby Los Bancos Prospect
(Section Line B-B‘ in Figure 7.10 shows the Location) (Coeur, 2015)............................. 60
Figure 7.12. Geology of the Guazapares District (showing Associated Deposits) (Coeur, 2015).......62
Figure 11.1. Palmarejo Complex Sample Preparation Flowchart from ALS Minerals PREP31
Methodology (ALS Minerals, 2015)................................................................................. 79
Figure 13.1. Location of Metallurgical Drill Holes for Testing (Coeur, 2014)....................................... 92
Figure 14.1. Oblique View of the Diamond Drilling Colored on Data Source (Coeur, 2014).............119
Figure 14.2. Plan View on 865 Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) showing the General Shape of the
Palmarejo Geological Model (Coeur, 2014)..................................................................121
Figure 14.3. Domain Polygons used to Split the La Blanca and La Prieta Veins into North and South
Domains, 950 AMSL (Coeur, 2014)................................................................................ 122
Figure 14.4. Example Silver Pairwise Experimental Variogram and Fitted Model for Estimation
Domain 101 - Minzone LB_HWSTK, North Domain (Coeur, 2014) ............................... 126
Figure 14.5. Graph with Mean Values and 95% Confidence Limits for the Density Values per
Minzonev (Coeur, 2014) ................................................................................................. 129
Figure 14.6. Simple Illustration showing the Simple Estimation (A) versus the Improvement in a
Dynamic Estimation (B) (Datamine ® Studio Help Documentation, 2014) ...................... 130
Figure 14.7. Plan View at 950 AMSL with Subcelled Model within the Geological Wireframes (Coeur, 2014)
............................................................................................................................... 131
xiv
November 2, 2015
Figure 14.8. Oblique View of the La Blanca Reblocking Solids around the Higher Density Drilling
within the LB_QVBX Minzone (Coeur, 2014) ................................................................. 132
Figure 14.9. Plan View at 950 AMSL showing the Silver Estimate and Outlines of the Mining Voids
(Coeur, 2014) .................................................................................................................. 134
Figure 14.10. Section through the Center of the above Plan View looking NNW at 315° showing the
Silver Estimate and Underground Void Outlines (Coeur, 2014) ..................................... 134
Figure 14.11. An Example Section showing the Comparison between the Model and the Drilling Data
(Coeur, 2014) .................................................................................................................. 135
Figure 14.12. Example Plot of the Gridded Window Mean Value Model vs. Drilling Data Validation:
Silver (g/t) within Minzone LB_QVBX (Coeur, 2014) ...................................................... 136
Figure 14.13. Oblique View of the Topography Based on the Pit Survey used to Deplete the Resource
Estimate (Coeur, 2014) ................................................................................................... 137
Figure 14.14. Oblique View of the Combined Set of Underground Mining Voids as of June 30, 2014
(Coeur, 2014) .................................................................................................................. 137
Figure 14.15. Oblique View of the Diamond Drilling Colored on Data Source (Coeur, 2015) ............ 140
Figure 14.16. Guadalupe 2015 Primary Veins, Stockworks and Structural Domains (Coeur, 2015) . 142
Figure 14.17. Guadalupe Sample Length Frequency (Coeur, 2015) ................................................. 143
Figure 14.18. Example of Log-Probability Plot of Ag Assay Composites in each Domain (Coeur, 2015)146
Figure 14.19. Example of Box Plot of Au Assay Composites in each Domain (Coeur, 2015) ........... 148
Figure 14.20. Example of Hard Contact Plot of M1QVBX and M2QVBX Domains (Coeur, 2015) .... 149
Figure 14.21. Example of Pairwise Relative Variogram of Au M1QVBX Domain (Coeur, 2015) ....... 150
Figure 14.22. Example of Pairwise Relative Variogram of Ag M1QVBX Domain (Coeur, 2015) ....... 150
Figure 14.23. Guadalupe Specific - Gravity Statistics by Domians Sampled (Coeur, 2015) .............. 153
Figure 14.24. Guadalupe Average Variogram and Discretization (Coeur, 2015) ............................... 155
Figure 14.25. Guadalupe Block Model Geometry (Coeur, 2015) ....................................................... 156
Figure 14.26. Comparison of Ag Block Model and Ag Drill Hole Composites in g/t (Coeur, 2015) .... 157
Figure 14.27. Example Plot of Au Block Model Grade and Au Drill Hole Composites in g/t (Coeur,
2015) ............................................................................................................................... 158
Figure 14.28. Oblique View of as-mined Material as of August 31, 2015 (Coeur, 2015) ................... 159
Figure 14.29. Independencia Cross-Section 1400NW showing Silver Mineral Domains (MDA, 2014)164
Figure 14.30. Independencia Cross-Section 1400NW showing Gold Mineral Domains (MDA, 2014)165
Figure 14.31. Independencia Cross-Section 1400NW showing Block Model Silver Grades (MDA,
2014) ............................................................................................................................... 171
Figure 14.32. Independencia Cross-Section 1400NW showing Block Model Gold Grades (MDA,
2014) ............................................................................................................................... 172
Figure 15.1. Palmarejo Open Pit Design in Plan View (Coeur, 2015) ................................................ 179
Figure 15.2. Cross-Section Illustrating Stope and Ore Development Designs (Coeur, 2015) ........... 188
Figure 15.3. 3D Model of Planned Stope and Development Excavations (Coeur, 2015) .................. 188
Figure 15.4. 3D Model of Planned Stope Excavations (Coeur, 2015) ................................................ 193
Figure 16.1. Longitudinal Section of the Palmarejo Mine (Coeur, 2014) ............................................ 202
Figure 16.2. Longitudinal Section of Lower Clavo 76 (Coeur, 2015) .................................................. 205
Figure 16.3. Longitudinal Section of Rosario Clavo (Coeur, 2015) .................................................... 205
Figure 16.4. Guadalupe Mine Surface Portal Pad (Coeur, 2015) ....................................................... 207
Figure 16.5. Guadalupe Mine as of August 31, 2015 (Coeur, 2015) .................................................. 208
Figure 16.6. Longitudinal Avoca Mining Method (after Wardrop, 2009) ............................................. 214
Figure 16.7. Development Design (Coeur, 2014) ............................................................................... 215
Figure 16.8. Independencia Mine, Plan View (Coeur, 2015) .............................................................. 218
Figure 16.9. Mine Design – Longitudinal Section (Looking NE) (Coeur, 2015) .................................. 219
xv
Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Figure 16.10. Geotechnical Model, Independencia Mine (Coeur, 2015)...........................................221

Figure 16.11. Independencia Development Design (Coeur, 2015)...................................................223
Figure 17.1. Palmarejo Flotation Circuit Flow (Coeur, 2012)............................................................229
Figure 17.2. Expanded Merrill Crowe Process Flow Sheet (Coeur, 2014)........................................232
Figure 17.3. Palmarejo Process Flow Sheet (Coeur, 2015)..............................................................233
Figure 18.1. Palmarejo Major Infrastructure (Coeur, 2015)...............................................................236
Figure 18.2. Ventilation Arrangement (Looking NE) (Coeur, 2015)...................................................239
Figure 18.3. Images of Final Tailings Dam Construction (Coeur, 2015)...........................................241
Figure 22.1. Sensitivity of Pre-tax Cash Flow (Coeur, 2015)............................................................254
xvi
November 2, 2015
1. SUMMARY
Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur) has prepared this technical report (the Report) on the
Palmarejo Complex (as defined below) located in the Sierra Madre Occidental (SMO)
mountain range in the western portion of the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. The data
presented in this Report are related to the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia
deposits and their Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates. The purpose of this
Report is to:
 Disclose Mineral Reserves for the Independencia deposit resulting from the
acquisition of the San Miguel Project from Paramount Gold and Silver Corp
(Paramount) on April 17, 2015;
 Update the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves for the Guadalupe deposit;
 Update the Mineral Reserves for the Palmarejo deposit;
 Update the capital and operating cost estimates for the Palmarejo Complex; and
 Update the financial estimate for the Palmarejo Complex.
The information in this Report is effective as of August 31, 2015. All currency is
expressed in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted.
1.1 Property Description and Location
The Palmarejo Complex is located approximately 420 kilometers (km) by road southwest
of the city of Chihuahua, in the state of Chihuahua in northern Mexico, on the western
edge of the SMO in the Temoris and Guazapares mining district (Figure 1.1). For
purposes of this Report, the Palmarejo Complex consists of: (1) the Palmarejo open pit
and underground mine and mill complex; (2) the Guadalupe deposit, located about 8km
southeast of the Palmarejo mine (Guadalupe mine); (3) the Independencia deposit,
located northeast of the Guadalupe deposit (Independencia mine) (Figure 1.2), and
other deposits and exploration targets, and consists of 54,685.4 hectares (ha) covered
by Mining Concessions (see Section 4).
On April 17, 2015, Coeur completed its acquisition of Paramount. The Don Ese deposit,
on the former Paramount-owned property (Paramount Property), is a continuation of the
Independencia deposit, located on the historical Coeur property (Coeur Property). The
Don Ese deposit has been renamed ―Independencia Este‖, while the historic
Independencia deposit owned by Coeur prior to the Paramount acquisition, is now
referred to as the ―Independencia Oeste‖ deposit. The entire deposit is referred to as
the Independencia deposit in this Report.
Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 1 of 289

November 2, 2015
Figure 1.1. Regional Map showing Location of the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
Figure 1.2. Localized Map of the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)
1.2 Exploration
During the 2015 exploration program (up to the effective date of this Report), Coeur
drilled 31,804m of surface and underground core in 122 drill holes, primarily at the
Guadalupe and Independencia deposits.
In addition to infill exploration drilling (Category 3), near-mine exploration drilling

(Category 2) has been taking place at the Palmarejo Complex to provide exploration of
new targets since the deposit was discovered. The exploration drill history is shown in
Table 1.1.

November 2, 2015
Table 1.1. Exploration Drill History at the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)
Coeur Paramount Coeur Total
Year Cat 1 & 2 Cat 1 & 2 Cat 3 (m)
(m) (m) (m)
2003 2,937 2,937
2004 32,069 32,069
2005 65,719 65,719
2006 76,406 7,554 83,959
2007 62,125 23,992 86,117
2008 19,872 21,972 5,401 47,245
2009 25,515 8,505 22,870 56,890
2010 24,840 29,374 56,703 110,917
2011 37,327 27,897 43,305 108,529
2012 58,624 32,389 57,681 148,694
2013 35,741 9,739 46,135 91,615
2014 24,229 20,282 31,189 75,700
2015 14,489 0 17,315 31,804
Total 479,892 181,703 280,600 942,194
1.3 Sample Preparation, Security, and Analyses
During the 2015 drilling and sample collection campaigns (through the effective date of
this Report), Coeur contracted Forage G4 Drilling to collect diamond drill core samples.
Internal security measures were in place for the transport of drill core from the field to the
respective companies‘ preparation facility, where geologic logging and sampling was
conducted. Transport of split and whole core to the commercial analytical facility was
conducted with industry-acceptable security measures.
In 2015 (through the effective date of this Report), all sample preparation for analytical
analyses was conducted at the ALS Minerals facility in Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico.
The prepared sample pulps were shipped from the Chihuahua facility to the ALS
Minerals facility in Vancouver, B.C., Canada, where analytical tests for silver, gold, and
other metals were performed. The ALS Minerals facilities are accredited laboratories
through the Standards Council of Canada for ISO/IEC 17025:2005.
1.4 Data Verification
In 2014 and 2015 (through the effective date of this Report), QA/QC procedures were in
place and practiced at all of the projects. Certified standards and blanks, and variably
staged duplicates were utilized across the projects and inserted into the primary sample
stream to assess the commercial laboratory‘s accuracy and precision regarding sample
preparation and analytical test procedures. Overall, silver control samples performed

November 2, 2015
very well, with low failure rates and no indication of bias. In 2014, gold control samples
showed significant failure rates and, in some standards, high bias compared to the
certified value of the sample. Data management concerns regarding the gold results
have been identified and documented, and in some cases, corrective action has been
completed. The recommendations of the QP will highlight these corrective actions (see
Section 12). In 2015, gold control samples performed well with acceptable failure rates.
Umpire check analyses were also completed at third party commercial laboratories for
both the Independencia Oeste and Independencia Este deposits. These results
indicated very good correlation between the ALS Minerals results and the umpire lab for
both gold and silver analyses. Umpire check analyses are in progress for 2014 and 2015
samples from Guadalupe.
It is the opinion of the QP that the analytical results from the 2014 and 2015 drilling and
sampling programs (through the effective date of this Report) are of sufficient quality for
use in resource evaluation, and meet the requirements for NI 43-101 compliance.
1.5 Status of Development and Mine Operations
The Palmarejo open pit and underground mine completed its first full year of commercial
operation in 2010. In 2014, 6.6 million ounces of silver and 87,000 ounces of gold were
recovered in doré. The tailings dam continues to be constructed in stages to an ultimate
design crest elevation of 825m above sea level.
Ore at the Palmarejo deposit is mined by both conventional open pit techniques and by
underground longhole stoping methods. Mining is planned to continue until the
Palmarejo open pit and underground Mineral Reserves are fully depleted, which is
expected in late 2016.
Underground development of the Guadalupe mine began in April 2012, with ore
production commencing in late 2014. The Palmarejo Complex infrastructure provides
processing, tailings and administrative support for the Guadalupe mine. Ore is mined by
way of underground longhole techniques and hauled to Palmarejo for processing at the
existing Palmarejo mill. The ore at Guadalupe has similar metallurgical characteristics as
the ore at the Palmarejo deposit.
Coeur recently completed a pre-feasibility study for the Independencia deposit. The
Independencia mine is currently under construction. Underground access development
commenced in March 2015, with two parallel declines advancing towards the deposit
from portal locations near the entrance to the Guadalupe mine.

November 2, 2015
1.6 Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
The silver and gold mineral deposits in the Palmarejo Complex are zoned epithermal
occurrences hosted in quartz veins and quartz-rich breccias within a package of volcanic
and volcano-sedimentary rocks known to host similar occurrences in the SMO of
northern Mexico. The style of mineralization is typical of other epithermal precious metal
deposits in the range as well as other parts of the world. Three deposits host the Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves cited in this Report: Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and
Independencia. The locations of mineralized structures are shown in blue in Figure 1.3.
In addition, there are other mineralized targets within the Palmarejo Complex. The
Palmarejo deposit includes a series of vein splays and parallel vein structures to the
northwest. The Guadalupe and Independencia structures are shown to the southeast of
the Palmarejo deposit.
Figure 1.3. Mineral Deposit Locations – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)
Current Mineral Reserves at the Palmarejo Complex include open pit and underground
deposits centered around clavos. ―Clavo‖ is the local term for an ore-shoot typically
formed at the intersection of a vein with another structure.
Mineral Reserve Estimates for the Palmarejo Complex are provided in Table 1.2 and
Mineral Resource Estimates are provided in Table 1.3. Please refer to Section 14.2 for
the key paramaters and assumptions used for the estimation of Mineral Resources, and
Section 15.1 for the key paramaters and assumptions used for the estimation of Mineral
Reserves.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
For the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits, the mine plan was evaluated using two
sets of prices:
 Short-term prices for 2015 to 2017 of $15.50/oz Ag and $1,150/oz Au; and
 Long-term prices for 2018 and beyond of $17.50/oz Ag and $1,250/oz Au.
The Palmarejo open pit and Palmarejo underground Mineral Reserves were estimated
using only short-term prices, since these deposits are expected to be mined out by the
end of 2016.
The Guadalupe and Independencia Mineral Reserves were estimated using the long-
term prices. However, both the Guadalupe and Independencia Mineral Reserves are
insensitive to the short-term prices.
The economic analysis summarized in Section 1.7 used both the long-term and short-
term prices.
The estimation of Mineral Reserves is detailed in Section 15. Each orebody has been
evaluated using the most appropriate mining method, with cut-off grades derived from
the input data provided in Table 15.1. All modifying factors (including ore dilution and ore
recovery) have been considered. Following the mine design process, a life of mine
schedule was developed and input into the economic analysis.
Table 1.2. Mineral Reserves – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

Category Tonnes Average Grade (g/t) Contained Oz
Ag Au Ag Au
Proven 728,000 216 2.65 5,048,000 62,100
Probable 7,839,000 164 2.56 41,214,000 645,100
Proven + Probable 8,567,000 168 2.57 46,262,000 707,200
Notes:
1. Mineral Reserves estimated by Paul Kerr, P.Eng. as of August 31, 2015.
2. Metal prices used were $1,250/oz Au and $17.50/oz Ag for Guadalupe and Independencia, and $1,150/oz Au
and $15.50/oz Ag for the Palmarejo open pit and underground mines.
3. Rounding of tonnes, average grades, and contained ounces may result in apparent discrepancies with total
rounded tonnes, average grades, and total contained ounces

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 1.3. Mineral Resources – Palmarejo Complex (Exclusive of Mineral Reserves) (Coeur, 2015)
Ag Au Ag Au
Measured 122,000 166 1.75 651,000 6,900
Indicated 5,590,000 153 2.19 27,418,000 393,000
Measured + Indicated 5,712,000 153 2.18 28,069,000 400,000
Inferred 1,505,000 165 2.97 7,998,000 143,500

Notes:
1. Mineral Resources as of August 31, 2015. Independencia Mineral Resources estimated by Micheal Gustin,
CPG. Guadalupe Mineral Resources estimated by David Hlorgbe, RM, SME.
2. There are no Mineral Resources exclusive of Mineral Reserves for the Palmarejo open pit and underground
mines.
3. Metal prices used were $1,275/oz Au and $19.00/oz Ag.
4. Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.
5. Mineral Resources have not demonstrated economic viability.
6. Inferred Mineral Resources have a lower level of confidence than Indicated Mineral Resources. It is expected
that some of the Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued
exploration.
rounded tonnes, average grades, and total contained ounces.
1.7 Economic Analysis
The economic analysis for the Palmarejo Complex is based on a cash flow model that
includes the following inputs:
 Mineral Reserves as of August 31, 2015;

 Silver and gold prices of:
o September 2015 to 2017: $15.50/oz Ag and $1,150/oz Au; and
o 2018 to 2022: $17.50/oz Ag and $1,250/oz Au.
 Metallurgical recovery for silver and gold, which are based on actual process
plant results obtained to date, metallurgical test work, and reasonable
assumptions for continuous process improvement over time;
 Smelting and refining costs based on recent actual data;
 Underground and open-pit mine production plans and schedules for Palmarejo,
Guadalupe, and Independencia;
 Operating costs for mining, ore processing, general and administration, and
refining estimated from previous actuals and life of mine (LOM) budgeted costs
for Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia;

November 2, 2015
 Capital cost estimates for the remaining construction, sustaining and

underground development for Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia; and
 Gold deliveries to Franco-Nevada Corporation affiliates pursuant to the gold
stream agreement expected to commence in 2016.
A summary of the economic analysis is shown in Table 1.4. Sections 21 and 22 of the
Report describe the cost estimate and economic analysis in more detail.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 1.4. Life of Mine Economic Analysis (Coeur, 2015)

Unit Palmarejo Guadalupe Indep. Indep.
Oeste Este
Mine Production
Open Pit Tonnes k-tonnes 154
Ore Au Grade g/t Au 0.97
Ore Ag Grade g/t Ag 123
Underground Tonnes k-tonnes 58 4,540 858 2,956
Ore Au Grade g/t Au 2.39 2.42 3.29 2.68
Ore Ag Grade g/t Ag 155 154 177 190
Mill Throughput
Total Ore Processed k-tonnes 8,567
Ore Grade Au g/t Au 2.57
Ore Grade Ag g/t Ag 168
Metallurgical Recovery Au % 87.0 (2015-2016) & 90.0 (2017-2022)
Metallurgical Recovery Ag % 85.0 (2015-2016) & 87.0 (2017-2022)
Revenue
Gold Price $/oz $1,150 (2015-2017) & $1,250 (2018-2022)
Silver Price $/oz $15.5 (2015-2017) & $17.5 (2018-2022)
Gross Revenue $M 1,454
Operating Costs
Open Pit Mining/Auxiliary Equipment $M 20
Underground Mining $M 399
Milling/Processing $M 250
Smelting and Refining $M 20
G&A $M 127
Corporate Management Fee $M 27
Franco-Nevada Gold Stream $M 75
Total Operating Cost $M 917
Cash Flow
Operating Cash Flow $M 537
0.5% Extraordinary Mining Duty $M 8
Capital Expenditures, Incl. Financing $M 198
Franco-Nevada Advance Royalty $M 34
Franco-Nevada Advanced Deposit $M 8
Total Pre-Tax Cash Flow (Net Cash Flow) $M 305
Project Pre-Tax NPV (10% Discount Rate) $M 191
30% Corporate Income Tax $M 72
7.5% Special Mining Duty $M 38
Tot. After-Tax Cash Flow (Net Cash Flow) $M 195
Project After-Tax NPV(10% Discount Rate) $M 125
As of August 31, 2015, the Palmarejo Complex is estimated to return an after-tax NPV of
$125,000,000 at a 10% discount rate over a mine life of approximately eight years
(Table 1.5).

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
2015)
Sep-Dec 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
2015
Palmarejo Open Pit
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 154 154
Ag Grade (g/t) 123 123
Au Grade (g/t) 0.97 0.97
Tonnes Waste (tx1000) 1,231 1,231
Palmarejo Underground
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 10 48 58
Ag Grade (g/t) 92 168 155
Au Grade (g/t) 2.77 2.31 2.39
Guadalupe Underground
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 178 732 809 662 812 815 531 4,540
Ag Grade (g/t) 142 144 131 145 166 172 170 154
Au Grade (g/t) 2.20 2.74 2.32 2.54 2.96 2.02 1.80 2.42
Independencia Oeste
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 44 112 146 141 160 79 176 858
Ag Grade (g/t) 200 196 208 194 166 152 140 177
Au Grade (g/t) 3.40 3.59 4.25 4.01 3.56 2.14 1.95 3.29
Independencia Este
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 122 423 541 544 513 576 239 2,956
Ag Grade (g/t) 180 177 184 229 200 187 124 190
Au Grade (g/t) 2.59 2.75 2.67 3.25 2.38 2.77 1.70 2.68
Table 1.6. Yearly Production and Cash Flows (Coeur, 2015)

Sep-Dec 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
2015
Ore Tonnes Milled 343 947 1,344 1,349 1,498 1,488 1,185 414 8,567
(x1000)
Recovered Oz Ag 1,234 3,957 5,680 6,327 8,016 7,546 5,861 1,517 40,137
(x1000)
Recovered Oz Au 16.0 72.6 99.6 108.6 137.0 99.5 78.7 21.7 633.7
(x1000)
Oper. Cash Flow 6 41 60 99 145 96 78 11 537
($M)
Pre-Tax Net Cash (14) (20) 15 51 123 68 72 10 305
Flow ($M)
After-Tax Net Cash (14) (20) 14 47 112 24 44 (11) 195
Flow ($M)
Sensitivity analyses for the base case pre-tax net cash flow are shown in Figure 1.4
Sensitivity analyses of the Mineral Reserves are discussed in Section 15.

November 2, 2015
Figure 1.4. Sensitivity of Pre-tax Cash Flow (Coeur, 2015)
1.8 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Palmarejo Complex is an operating mining venture that has demonstrated positive
cash flow. The financial analysis and associated assumptions conducted for this Report
support the conclusion that the Palmarejo Complex will continue to be profitable and
generate acceptable returns over the life of the mine.
It is recommended to further advance development and production at the Palmarejo,

Guadalupe, and Independencia mines by continuing to drill the resource in areas with
limited drilling; revise the resource models, as required; and, optimize the mine plans
with additional mine engineering work.
The Qualified Persons (QPs) have visited the project sites and have reviewed all data
pertinant to the information stated in this Report, and they believe that the data disclosed
is a complete, accurate and reasonable representation of the Palmarejo Complex.
In the opinion of the QPs, the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates are
based on valid data and are reasonably estimated using standard geological and
engineering practices. There are no known environmental, permitting, legal, title, socio-

November 2, 2015
economic, marketing, or political issues not discussed in this Report that could materially
affect the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, or Independencia Mineral Reserve or Mineral
Resource estimates.
The QPs recommend the following work programs be undertaken at the Palmarejo
Complex:
Geology
 For definition purposes, it is recommended that the exploration program be

continued at the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits. Cost estimate:
$4,000,000 per year for the next five years, subject to change as a result of new
discoveries or changes in the mine plan;
 For resource discovery to replace inferred resources, it is recommended that the
exploration progam at the Palmarejo Complex be continued. Cost estimate:
$5,000,000 per year for the next five years, subject to change as a result of new
discoveries or changes in the mine plan;
 To address reliable density associations with lithology and mineral-type units, it is
recommended to review the existing density determinations in the exploration
drill holes and perform additional measurements, where required. Since this is an
operating mine, these measurements can be obtained in the core shed by
weighing rock dry and submersed in water, and need not be performed in outside
laboratories. Each lithology and mineral type should be measured in each drill
hole. The projected large population of these measurements would allow
adequate differentiation of densities for individual lithology units and make
resource modeling more reliable. This work can be completed by Coeur
personnel at no additional cost; and
 Based on results of internal QC programs, with regard to the analysis of duplicate
sampling results, it is recommended that sampling and sample preparation
procedures be reviewed with regards to sample size, sample length, mineral
distribution, and grain size to evaluate sources of variance and how to best
minimize inconsistencies in the results. Cost estimate: $20,000.
Data Validation
 Review all check sample programs for appropriateness of analytical methods

compared and samples submitted for analysis. Cost estimate: $10,000;
 Complete and document the re-assay of failed sample batches per Coeur
Mining‘s QA/QC policies and procedures (no additional costs are associated with
this work); and

November 2, 2015
 Complete third party umpire assays annually and check all labs per Coeur
Mining‘s QA/QC policies and procedures. Cost estimate for the QA/QC reviews
and assaying: $100,000 per year.
Resource Modeling
 Update lithology models on an ongoing basis, when new drill holes are added to
the database. If derived from cross-sectional polygons, the lithology wireframes
should be reinterpreted in plan view to warrant a smooth and non-edgy
continuation of the veins. This work can be completed by Coeur personnel at no
additional cost;
 Continue to review reconciliation data to ensure the resource model is
adaquately predicting tonnage and metal grades. This work can be completed by
Coeur personnel at no additional cost; and
 Continue annual updates to geology models and resource models as new data
becomes available. This work can be completed by Coeur personnel at no
additional cost.
Processing
 Continue efforts towards improving metal accounting by evaluating sample

collection, handling, and preparation procedures. Cost estimate: $10,000; and
 Perform metallurgical test work for the Independencia mineral deposit, including:
o Phase 1 – Testing for communition and mineralogical examination of
materials. Cost estimate: $65,000;
o Phase 2 – Agitated cyanidation testing. Cost estimate: $65,000; and
o Phase 3 – Floation and flotation products leaching. Cost estimate:
$110,000.
Mining
 Carry out geotechnical site visits and mine design reviews. Cost estimate:
$35,000 per year;
 Update Mineral Reserve estimates following updates to Mineral Resource
estimates and/or material changes to cost and financial inputs. This work can be
completed by Coeur personnel at no additional cost; and
 Optimize mine designs and plans to maximize economic benefits. This work can
be completed by Coeur personnel at no additional cost.

November 2, 2015
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Terms of Reference
This Report on the Palmarejo Complex was prepared by, or under the supervision of, the
QPs for Coeur. The purpose of this Report is to:
 Disclose Mineral Reserves for the Independencia deposit resulting from the
acquisition of the San Miguel Project from Paramount Gold and Silver Corp
(Paramount) on April 17, 2015;
 Update the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves for the Guadalupe mine;
 Update the Mineral Reserves for the Palmarejo mine;
 Update the capital and operating cost estimates for the Palmarejo Complex; and
 Update the financial estimate for the Palmarejo Complex.
This Report was prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for
Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) and Form NI 43-101F1. Coeur holds 100% of the Palmarejo
Complex through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. (Coeur
Mexicana), Paramount Gold de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Paramount Mexico) and Minera
Gama S.A. de C.V. (Minera Gama).
2.2 Qualified Persons
This Report has been prepared by a team of Coeur employees and consultants. The
following individuals, by virtue of their education, experience, and professional
association, serve as the QPs for this Report, as defined in NI 43-101. Table 2.1 lists the
QPs and the sections each individual is responsible for in this Report.

November 2, 2015
Table 2.1. Qualified Person Responsibilities- Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

Qualified Registration Title/Company Sections of
Person Responsibility
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4,
Manager, Mine Engineering 5, 6, 14.1, 14.2,15,
Paul Kerr P.Eng. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21,
Coeur Mining, Inc.
22, 23, 24, 25, 26.5,
27, 28 and 29.
Michael Gustin CPG Mine Development Associates Section 14.5 and
7.2.3.
David Hlorgbe RM SME Senior Resource Geologist Section 14.4, and
Coeur Mining, Inc. 26.3.
Justin Glanvill PrSciNat AMC Consultants (UK) Ltd. Section 14.3.
Raul Mondragon RM SME Director, Metallurgy Sections 13, 17, and
Matthew Hoffer RM SME Manager, Geology Sections 11, 12, and
Miller O‘Prey EurGeol, P. Director, Exploration Sections 7, 8, 9, 10,
Geo. Coeur Mining, Inc. and 26.1.
2.3 Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
The QPs and contributors to this Report are either senior members of Coeur‘s corporate
and technical staff or consultants retained to assist in preparing certain portions of the
Report.
 Paul Kerr has worked for Coeur Mining, Inc. since September 2013 in the
position of Manager, Mine Engineering. Mr. Kerr‘s most recent site visit was
September 28 to October 2, 2015, where he inspected the underground and
open pit operations, and reviewed the current mine and development plans.
 Michael Gustin is a Senior Geologist at Mine Development Associates, a
consulting firm for the mining industry. His most recent site visit was from August
18 to August 21, 2011, where he reviewed the geology, mineralizing controls,
deposit geometry, drilling and logging, and inspected exploration drilling and
sampling procedures implemented at the project site.
 David Hlorgbe has worked for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the last 2.5 years in the
position of Senior Resource Geologist. Mr. Hlorgbe‘s most recent site visit was
August 1 to August 7, 2015, where he reviewed the geology, mineralizing
controls, reconciliation data, and drilling programs.

November 2, 2015
 Justin Glanvill is Principal Geologist at AMC Consultants (UK), an international

consulting firm for the mining industry. Justin has been a practicing geologist for
17 years. His most recent site visit was in August 2014, where he reviewed the
geological modelling processes with the site geology team.
 Raul Mondragon has worked for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the last three years in the
position of Director of Metallurgy. Mr. Mondragon has worked on a temporary
basis at the site during 2014 and 2015, and is familiar with key ore processing
parameters and metallurgical test work programs. His most recent site visit was
in October 2015.
 Matthew Hoffer has worked for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the last two years, where
he is employed as Manager, Geology. Mr. Hoffer last visited the Palmarejo site
from January 1 to January 9, 2015, where he reviewed and provided
recommendations in support of the development and best practices associated
with Palmarejo‘s QA/QC procedures and acQuire® database.
 Miller O‘Prey has worked for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the last year in the position of
Director Exploration, Mexico. Mr. O‘Prey‘s most recent site visit was from
October 7 to October 9, 2015, where he reviewed the ongoing exploration drilling
program and core logging/sampling procedures.
2.4 Effective Dates
The information in this Report is effective as of August 31, 2015.
2.5 Previous Technical Reports
Previous technical reports filed for the Palmarejo Complex include the following:
 Gustin, Michael M., "Technical Report, Palmarejo – Trogan Project, Chihuahua,

Mexico, 43-101 Technical Report", prepared for Bonita Capital Corporation
December 10, 2004 by Mine Development Associates, 2004.
 Gustin, Michael M., "Updated Technical Report, Palmarejo – Trogan Project,
Chihuahua, Mexico, 43-101 Technical Report", prepared for Palmarejo Gold
Corporation, October 20, 2005 by Mine Development Associates, 2005.
 Gustin, Michael M., "Updated Technical Report, Palmarejo – Trogan Project,
Chihuahua, Mexico, 43-101 Technical Report", prepared for Palmarejo Silver and
Gold Corporation May 1, 2006 by Mine Development Associates, 2006.
 Gustin, Michael M., and Neil B. Prenn. "Updated Technical Report Palmarejo-
Trogan Project, Chihuahua, Mexico", prepared for Palmarejo Silver and Gold
Corporation and Coeur d‘ Alene Mines Corporation September 17, 2007 by Mine
Development Associates, 2007.

November 2, 2015
 Blaylock, Gregory, and John L. Sims. ―Palmarejo Project SW Chihuahua State,

Mexico Technical Report‖, June 21, 2008 prepared for Coeur d‘Alene Mines,
internal report, 2008.
 Sims, John L., and Gregory Blaylock. ―Palmarejo Project SW Chihuahua State,
Mexico Technical Report‖, January 1, 2010 prepared for Coeur d‘Alene Mines,
 Thompson, Daniel, Michael Maslowski and Keith Blair. ―Palmarejo Project SW
Chihuahua State, Mexico Technical Report‖, January 1, 2011 prepared for Coeur
d‘Alene Mines, internal report, 2011.
 Birak, Donald J., and Keith Blair. ―Palmarejo Project SW Chihuahua State,
Mexico Technical Report‖, January 1, 2012 prepared for Coeur d‘Alene Mines,
 Birak, Donald J., Keith Blair and Klaus Triebel. ―Palmarejo Project SW
Chihuahua State, Mexico YE 2012 Technical Report‖, January 1, 2013 prepared
for Coeur d‘Alene Mines, internal report, 2013.
 Wilson, Scott E., Michael M. Gustin and William J. Pennstrom. ―Technical Report &
Preliminary Economic Assessment For The San Miguel Project Guazapares
Mining District Chihuahua, Mexico‖, prepared for Paramount Gold And Silver
Corporation August 22, 2014 by Metal Mining Consultants Inc, 2014.
 Hlorgbe, David, Michael Gustin, Justin Glanvill, Paul Kerr, Raul Mondragron and
W. David Tyler. ―Technical Report for the Palmarejo Project SW Chihuahua
State, Mexico NI43-101 Technical Report‖, February 18, 2015 prepared for
Coeur Mining, Inc., internal report, 2015.

November 2, 2015
3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

The QPs have not independently reviewed some of the data pertaining to the Palmarejo
Complex, and have relied on senior Coeur staff to provide information and guidance on
the following items:
 Applicable taxes, royalties, and other government levies or interests applicable to

revenue or income;
 Ownership of mining concessions, surface rights, and property agreements;
 Environmental, permitting, and social aspects; and
 Contracts currently in place.

November 2, 2015
4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
4.1 Project Description and Location
The Palmarejo Complex is located within the state of Chihuahua, approximately 420km
by road southwest of the city of Chihuahua, the state capital. The Palmarejo Complex
lies within the Temoris and Guazapares mining districts, which are part of the gold-silver
belt of the SMO. The Palmarejo open pit, underground mine, and processing facilities
are located 18km northwest of the town of Temoris.
The Palmarejo Complex can be found on the Instituto de Nacional de Estadística,

Geografía y Informática (INEGI) Ciudad Obregón geological sheet (G12-3) and the
INEGI Guadalupe Victoria (G12B28), Chinipas de Almada (G12B38), Temoris
(G12B39), Milpillas (G12B48), and the Cieneguita Lluvia de Oro topographic maps and
is centered on coordinates 108˚19‘40.30W Longitude and 27˚18‘2.34N Latitude
(734463.9194 mE, 3022565.7127 mN) in the Universal Transverse Mercator (WGS 84),
Zone 12R (Northern Hemisphere).
The Dirección General de Regulación Minera (DGRM) administers Mining Concessions

in Mexico. A legal survey (Trabajos Periciales) of each Mining Concession was
completed as part of the process of obtaining such Concessions. Figure 4.1 shows the
general project location.

November 2, 2015
Figure 4.1. Regional Map showing Location of the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
4.2 Coeur’s Interest
The Coeur Property, was originally owned by Bolnisi Gold NL (BSG) and Palmarejo
Silver and Gold Co. (PJO, formerly Palmarejo Gold Corp). On December 21, 2007,
Coeur acquired all of the outstanding stock of BSG, an Australian company listed on the
Australian Stock Exchange, and PJO, a Canadian company listed on the TSX Venture
Exchange. The principal asset of BSG was its ownership of 72.8% of the outstanding
common shares of PJO. PJO, through its operating company Planet Gold S.A.de C.V.
(Planet Gold), was engaged in exploring and developing silver and gold properties in
Mexico, including the Palmarejo mine and surrounding mineral concessions. Following
the acquisition, Planet Gold was renamed Coeur Mexicana S.A. de C.V. (Coeur
Mexicana). Coeur Mexicana has held the Mining Concessions for the Coeur Property,
which includes the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia Oeste deposits since that
time.
On April 17, 2015, Coeur completed its acquisition of Paramount in an all-stock

transaction valued at $146,000,000. Upon completion of the transaction, Paramount,
together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, Paramount México and Minera Gama, which
are holders of the Paramount Property, is now wholly-owned by Coeur. Together, the
Coeur Property and the Paramount Property constitute the Palmarejo Complex.
4.3 Mineral Tenure
The Palmarejo Complex comprises 81 wholly owned Mining Concessions, appropriating

54,685.4 ha of land, held by and apportioned as follows:
 Coeur Mexicana: 36 Mining Concessions, appropriating 12,282.2 ha;

 Paramount Mexico: 35 Mining Concessions, appropriating 5,917.3 ha; and
 Minera Gama: 10 Mining Concessions, appropriating 36,485.9 ha.
Appendix 29.1 contains detailed Mining Concession information.
A number of deposits have been discovered on the Mining Concessions, including:

Palmarejo, Guadalupe, Independencia, Los Bancos, La Patria, La Unión, La Veronica,
Montecristo, San Antonio, San Francisco, and San Miguel. These deposits are located
within the Palmarejo Complex. Figure 4.2 shows the Mining Concession locations. The
colors denote the owning entity.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Figure 4.2. Mineral Tenure Map of the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
4.3.1 Mining Concession Obligations
The Mexican Mining Law was amended in 2005, so there is no longer any distinction
between an Exploration Concession and an Exploitation Concession. Consequently,
all formerly designated Exploration and Exploitation Concessions have been
converted into Mining Concessions, which expire 50 years from the date they were
originally granted.
Mining duties, assessed against each Mining Concession, are calculated by

multiplying the correct variable rate set by the government, based on the age of the
respective Mining Concession, by the number of hectares the respective Mining
Concession comprises. Mining Duties are payable semiannually, in January and
July, to the Secretariat of Economy (Secretaría de Economía). A copy of the receipts
of payment must be filed with the DGRM, semiannually, each February, and August.
The variable rates are updated annually in accordance with the changes to the
Mexican Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Annually, in May, owners of Mining Concessions must file Work Assessment Reports
(Informes Para Comprobar La Ejecución de Las Obras y Trabajos) with the Dirección
de Revisión de Obligaciones, a sub-directorate of the DGRM. These Work
Assessment Reports disclose the investments made in, and works made to, each
Mining Concession or sanctioned Groups (Agrupamientos) of Mining Concessions, in
the immediately preceding calendar year. The Regulations of the Mining Law
establish tables containing variable rates, which are necessary to calculate the
required minimum investment amounts for each Mining Concession or Groups of
Mining Concessions. These variable rates are also updated annually in accordance
with the changes to the Mexican CPI.
Production Reports (Informes Estadístico Sobre La Producción, Beneficio y Destino

de Minerales o Sustancias Concesibles), detailing the production, processing, and
destination of concessionable minerals, must be submitted annually during the first
thirty (30) business days of the corresponding year. These Production Reports must
be submitted for each Mining Concession or Group, which bear production and all
Mining Concessions or Groups, over six years of age, whether in production or not.
4.4 Surface Rights
Coeur controls certain rights in and to the surface estate of 9,676.3 ha by way of
occupancy agreements made with the ejidos that control the surface estates to allow
access and permitted activities. These ejidos include: Agua Salada, Chinipas,
Guazapares, and Palmarejo. The agreements are through three entities that Coeur

November 2, 2015
controls in the Palmarejo Complex: Coeur Mexicana, Paramount Mexico, and Minera
Gama.
An ejido is an area of communal land used for agriculture, on which community

members individually possess and farm a specific parcel. Ejidos are registered with
Mexico's National Agrarian Registry (Registro Agrario Nacional).
The agreements include an annual rent component, a scholarship component, and in

some cases, a payment to a senior meal program or a fee paid per drill hole or
trench. These agreements are short-term, lasting between eight to 25 years. The
agreements and their specific obligations are summarized below and displayed in
Figure 4.3. The areas are color coded by owning entity.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Figure 4.3. Surface Rights – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
4.4.1 Coeur Mexicana
Coeur Mexicana controls certain rights in and to the surface estate of 2,695.4 ha through
and by the following instruments:
4.4.1.1 Ejido Agua Salada
 Allows for exploration, exploitation and beneficiation of concessionable minerals.

 Leased land is 443.4 ha, with an annual rent payable to the ejido of
MXN$765,000;
 Term of the agreement is 25 years, from November 20, 2013, with an option to
extend for an additional five years; and
 Additional consideration for the lease includes five scholarships to a maximum of
MXN$50,000 to children of members of the ejido.
4.4.1.2 Ejido Chínipas
 Allows for a water pumping station and associated infrastructure;

 Leased land is 7.8 ha, with an annual rent payable to the ejido of $24,000;
 Term of the agreement is 11 years, from October 15, 2012, and with an option to
extend for an additional 11 years; and
 Additional consideration for the lease includes five higher-education scholarships
to a maximum of MXN$50,000 to children of members of the ejido. It also
provides for a contribution of MXN$120,000 annually towards meal programs for
senior citizens of the ejido.
4.4.1.3 Ejido Guazapares
 Allows for exploration, exploitation and beneficiation of concessionable minerals;

 Leased land is 1,830.6 ha, with an annual rent payable to the ejido of
MXN$14,280,000;
 Term of the agreement is 25 years, from October 20, 2013, with an option to
to a maximum of MXN$50,000 to children of members of the ejido. It also
provides for a contribution of MXN$120,000 annually towards meal programs for
senior citizens of the ejido and an additional MXN$120,000 annually towards
school infrastructure.

November 2, 2015
4.4.1.4 Ejido Palmarejo
 Allows for exploration, exploitation and beneficiation of concessionable minerals;

 Leased land is 657.5 ha, with an annual rent payable to the ejido of
MXN$7,200,000, and provides that subsequent rent payments be adjusted
according to changes in the Mexican CPI;
 Term of the agreement is 17 years, from October 16, 2013, and with an option to
to a maximum of MXN$50,000 to children of members of the ejido.
4.4.2 Paramount Mexico
Paramount Mexico controls certain rights in and to the surface estate of 1,778.9 ha
through the following agreements.
 Allows for exploration and the installation of ventilation infrastructure;

 Leased land is 1,778.9 ha, with a one-time rent payable to the ejido of
MXN$595,000. Nominal payments are also made for any surface disturbance to
the ejido and any affected ejiditario on a unit cost basis per drill pad, trench and
meter of road construction. The agreement provides that those unit cost
payments be adjusted annually according to changes in the Mexican CPI; and
 Term of the agreement is 10 years, from March 29, 2015.
4.4.2.2 Ejido Batosegachi
 Allows for Exploration Works;

 Leased land is 517.9 ha, with a one-time rent payable to the ejido of
MXN$240,000.00. Nominal payments are also made for any surface disturbance
to the ejido and any affected ejiditario on a unit cost basis per drill pad, trench
and meter of road construction. The agreement provides that those unit cost
 Term of the agreement is five years, from July 13, 2011.
4.4.3 Minera Gama
Minera Gama controls certain rights in and to the surface estate of 5,203.0 ha through
the following agreement.

November 2, 2015
 Allows for exploration, and the installation of ventilation infrastructure;

 Leased land is 5,203.0 ha, with a one-time rent payable to the ejido of
MXN$595,000. Nominal payments are also made for any surface disturbance to
the ejido and any affected ejiditario on a unit cost basis per drill pad, trench and
meter of road construction. The agreement provides that those unit costs
 Term of the agreement is 10 years, from March 29, 2015.
4.5 Encumbrances, Liens and Royalties
4.5.1 Coeur Mexicana
The following instruments encumber Mining Concessions owned or controlled by Coeur

Mexicana.
4.5.1.1 Franco-Nevada
On October 2, 2014, a Gold Purchase and Sale Agreement (the Agreement) was
entered into by and amongst Coeur Mexicana, Franco-Nevada (Barbados) Corporation
(Franco- Nevada), Ocampo Resources Inc., and Ocampo Services Inc., whereby Coeur
Mexicana agreed to sell to Franco-Nevada 50% of the refined gold produced and sold
from a portion of the Palmarejo Complex (described below), after the minimum obligation
under the current Royalty Stream Agreement with Franco-Nevada Corporation has been
satisfied (as described below). Under the Agreement, Coeur Mexicana received a
$22,000,000 deposit in 2015 for development of the Guadalupe mine, pursuant to the
following disbursement schedule:
 $5,000,000 on January 15, 2015;
 $5,000,000 on April 15, 2015;
 $4,000,000 on July 15, 2015; and
 $8,000,000 on October 15, 2015.
The initial term of the Agreement is 40 years and thereafter shall be automatically be
extended for successive 10 year periods (each an ―Additional Term‖ and, together with
the Initial Term, the ―Term), unless there has been no active mining operations or any
exploration or development activities in relation to minerals (excluding artisanal mining
activities conducted by persons other than Coeur Mexicana or its affiliates) on the
subject lands during the last 20 years of the Initial Term or throughout such Additional
Terms, as applicable, in which case the Agreement shall terminate at the end of the

November 2, 2015
Initial Term or such Additional Term, as applicable. The Agreement may also be
terminated earlier pursuant to certain provisions. This Agreement encumbers all Mining
Concessions owned or controlled by Coeur Mexicana except for: El Rosario (T-185236),
La Curra (T-222319), La Currita (T-223292) and Sulema No. 2 (T-191332). There is
also, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, an Area of Interest (AOI), whereby any
Mining Concessions acquired within the exterior boundaries of the AOI shall, by
operation of the Agreement, be encumbered thereby. The AOI boundary generally
follows the exterior boundary of Agrupamiento Unificación Huruapa.
In conjunction with the Agreement, a Termination Agreement was executed with Franco-
Nevada Corporation, Coeur, Coeur Mexicana, Ocampo Resources, Inc., and Ocampo
Services Inc. This Termination Agreement sets forth the conditions by which the January
20, 2009 Purchase Agreement and corresponding Royalty Stream Agreement
(collectively, the Royalty Agreements) shall terminate.
In consideration of Franco-Nevada agreeing to terminate the Royalty Agreements,

Coeur Mexicana paid Franco-Nevada $2,000,000.
The Royalty Agreements will terminate effective as of the close of business on the date
on which Franco-Nevada shall have received under the Royalty Stream Agreement, in
aggregate, since January 20, 2009, 400,000 ounces of gold (as finally determined and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Royalty Stream Agreement).
4.5.1.2 Minera Azteca
On October 10, 2011, Coeur Mexicana purchased three concessions: (Unificación

Guerra al Tirano (T-170588), Reyna de Oro (T-198543), and Tres de Mayo (T-187906)
from Minera Azteca de Oro y Plata S.A. de C.V. (Minera Azteca). Minera Azteca
reserved a 2% net smelter returns royalty (NSR) on production, as defined in the
agreement, of all gold and silver mined and produced from these three Mining
Concessions. Coeur Mexicana may re-acquire, at any time, up to 75% of the NSR (i.e.,
1.5%), at a fixed price of $50,000 per one-tenth of every 1%. Therefore, the maximum
re-purchase price of this NSR is $750,000.
4.5.2 Paramount Mexico
The following instruments encumber Mining Concessions owned or controlled by

Paramount Mexico.
4.5.2.1 Hernández
Pursuant to a Convenio (Paramount Royalty Agreement) by and among Isidro

Hernández Pompa and wife, Victor Manuel Gomez Fregoso (the Royalty Holders), and

November 2, 2015
Paramount Mexico, dated December 8, 2009, a 1% NSR was granted unto Messrs.
Hernández and Gomez, encumbering the following Mining Concessions: Constituyentes
1917 (T-199402), Montecristo (T-213579), Montecristo Fraccion (T-213580), and
Montecristo II (T-226590). Paramount may purchase this NSR from the Royalty Holders
at any time, for $450,000 plus value-added tax (IVA). Pursuant to the terms of the
Paramount Royalty Agreement, Paramount Mexico has a $190,000 credit against future
NSR payments, if any, which may be realized by it withholding 50% of the quarterly NSR
payments the Royalty Holders would have otherwise received. Alternatively, Paramount
Mexico may apply the $190,000 credit to the $450,000 NSR royalty purchase price.
4.5.2.2 Rascón
Pursuant to a Contrato de Cesión de Derechos Mineros (Contract 1), by and between

Luis Alberto Rascón Herrera, et ux. (Rascón) and Corporación Amermin, S.A. de C.V.,
dated November 27, 2008, Rascón reserved a 3% NSR royalty, encumbering Mining
Concession Santa Cruz (T-186960). Pursuant to the terms of Contract 1, Paramount
Mexico, as successor in interest to Corporación Amermin, may purchase the NSR
royalty from Rascón at any time, upon the payment of $200,000 plus IVA.
4.5.2.3 Sunburst
Pursuant to a Contrato de Cesión de Contrato, as amended, by and among Minera Río

Tinto, S.A. de C.V. (MRT), Rafael Fernando Astorga Hernández (Astorga), and Sunburst
Mining de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Sunburst), dated August 18, 2005, MRT reserved a
0.5% NSR and Astorga reserved a 1.5% NSR, encumbering the following Mining
Concessions: San Antonio (T-222869), San Antonio (T-204385), Ampl. San Antonio (T-
196127). Paramount Mexico is the successor in interest to Sunburst.
4.5.2.4 Ayub
Pursuant to a Convenio de Cesión de Titularidad de Concesiones Mineras by and

among MRT, Mario Humberto Ayub Touché (Ayub), and Paramount, dated July 10,
2012, MRT and Ayub reserved unto themselves a 2% NSR, encumbering the following
Mining Concessions: Guazapares (T-209497), Guazapares 1 (T-212890), Guazapares 2
(T-226217), Guazapares 3 (T-211040), Guazapares 4 (T-223664), Guazapares 5 (T-
213572), Cantilito (T-220788), and Vinorama (T-226884).
4.5.2.5 Rachasa
Pursuant to a Convenio Minero by and among MRT, Minera Rachasa, S.A. de C.V.
(Rachasa), Sunburst Mining de México, S.A. de C.V., and Paramount, dated June 28,
2009, Rachasa reserved a 1.5% and MRT reserved a 0.5% NSR encumbering the
Mining Concession San Francisco (T-191486).

November 2, 2015
4.6 Environmental Liabilities and Permits
Please refer to Section 20 for a discussion of environmental and permitting factors

related to the Palmarejo Complex.
4.7 Significant Factors and Risks
The Palmarejo Complex is subject to certain risks, including delays in acquiring, or the
inability to acquire, necessary rights in surface and mineral estates, and requirement to
acquire additional land due to changes in the projects‘ mine plans that are typical of
other mining projects in Mexico.
There are no known issues with mineral or land tenure that that may affect access, title,
or the right or ability to perform work on the Palmarejo Complex. Surface rights
controlled by Coeur Mexicana, Paramount Mexico, and Minera Gama are sufficient to
support current and anticipated mining, ore processing and exploration activities in the
Palmarejo Complex.

November 2, 2015
5. ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES,

INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
5.1 Accessibility
Access to the Palmarejo Complex from the city of Chihuahua, in the state of Chihuahua,
Mexico, is via paved Highways 16 and 127 to the town of San Rafael. From San Rafael,
travel is by gravel road to Temoris, and then to the Palmarejo Complex. Access from
Temoris to the Palmarejo Complex is along 35km of company-maintained gravel road,
an extension of Highway 127 that continues on through to Chinipas. Total driving time
from Chihuahua is approximately seven hours.
The Chihuahua-Pacifico rail service operates between Chihuahua and Los Mochis
(Topolobampo seaport) on the northwest coast of Mexico. Two passenger trains and
one freight train operate daily between these cities. Estación Temoris rail station is
located 10km south of Temoris.
5.2 Climate
The climate is moderate, with average maximum and minimum temperatures at 34° C
and 5° C, respectively. Rainfall occurs mainly in the summer months (August through to
the end of October), with average annual precipitation of 620mm (McCullagh and Hall,
2014). The climate poses no significant impediments to current work in the area and all
anticipated exploration and operations activities can be conducted year round.
5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure
The area around the Palmarejo Complex has moderately well-developed infrastructure
and a local workforce familiar with mining operations. Four to five thousand inhabitants
reside within a one-hour drive, on all-weather compacted dirt roads (Skeet, 2004).
Chinipas and Temoris are the two nearest towns, with a combined population of
approximately 4,000 inhabitants (2010 Census data). The small village of Palmarejo lies
immediately northwest of the Palmarejo mine and has a population of 430 (2010 Census
data). Many of the employees live in these three communities.
Light aircraft airstrips are located within the Palmarejo Complex and in nearby Temoris
and Chinipas. Detailed information on the project infrastructure is included in Section 18.
5.4 Physiography and Vegetation
The Palmarejo Complex is located on the western flank of the SMO, a mountain range
that comprises the central spine of northern Mexico.

November 2, 2015
The surface elevation above the Palmarejo deposit is about 1,150m above sea level,
and the area is hilly to mountainous (Figure 5.1), with densely vegetated, steep-sided
slopes with local stands of cacti. Conifers occur at high elevations, while oak trees, cacti,
and thorny shrubs dominate the vegetation at low levels. Local ranchers and farmers
graze cattle and grow corn and other vegetables on small-scale plots.
Figure 5.1. Overview of the Palmarejo Area (Looking N-NW) (Coeur, 2010)
The surface elevation of the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits is about 1,300m
above sea level. The area is hilly to mountainous (Figure 5.2), with densely vegetated,
steep-sided slopes with local stands of cacti. Conifers occur at high elevations, while oak
trees, cacti, and thorny shrubs dominate the vegetation at low levels. Local ranchers and
farmers graze cattle and grow corn and other vegetables on small-scale plots.

November 2, 2015
Figure 5.2. Overview of the Guadalupe Area (Looking North – Field of View Approximately 4km)
(Coeur, 2014)*
* Note that Independencia is just beyond the ridge in this photo.
5.5 Conclusions
Adequate power, water and personnel of appropriate skill levels exist for all current and
planned activities. The Palmarejo Complex has sufficient access via rail and road to
allow the transport of materials and personnel.

November 2, 2015
6. HISTORY
6.1 Pre-2003
The Palmarejo Complex is located in the Temoris and Guazapares mining districts. The
Temoris district covers the western portion of the Palmarejo Complex on which the
Palmarejo, Guadalupe and Independencia Oeste deposits are situated. The Guazapares
district covers the eastern half on which the former Paramount-owned San Miguel
Project is located, including Independencia Este (formerly Don Ese).
Silver and gold production from these districts, though poorly documented, has a long,
intermittent history dating from at least Spanish colonial exploitation beginning in the
1620s. Although local miners claim that some mines have been worked for over 100
years, there are no known detailed records of their past production, and all are now
abandoned, with the exception of those currently being operated by Coeur. Many small
adits and superficial workings along the main mineralized structural trends attest to past
mining activity within these historic districts.
6.1.1 Palmarejo Area
Spaniards may have mined high-grade, near-surface ores at the Palmarejo deposit from
the 1620s, although written reports state that the deposit was discovered in 1818. Small-
scale production is reported intermittently through 1881, when a stamp mill was
constructed at the mine site. The mine was purchased by the British company Palmarejo
Mining Co. in 1886; the company was later renamed Palmarejo and Mexican GoldFields,
Ltd. (PMG). From 1890 to 1892, PMG constructed a mill located two miles east of
Chinipas, an aqueduct for power, and a railroad from the mine site to the mill. PMG
operated the Palmarejo mine until the Mexican Revolution brought a halt to activities in
1910, although there are no production records for this early period of mining.
Production at Palmarejo was resumed by Minas Huruapa, S.A. de C.V. (Huruapa) during
the period from 1979 to 1992. Huruapa mined ore previously developed by PMG.
Records provided by Jorge Cordoba, General Director of Operations for Huruapa at
Palmarejo, indicate that Huruapa mined 168,352 tonnes of ore grading 297 g/t Ag and
1.37 g/t Au.
6.1.2 Guadalupe Area
Historic reports of mining at Guadalupe suggest that approximately 3,700 tonnes of

material grading 458 g/t Ag were mined from that vein.
The La Currita Mine, located along the southeast extension of the Guadalupe area,
produced at a rate of about 100 tons per day from 1985 to 1998. The silver-gold ore from

November 2, 2015
the mine was processed at a 150-tons-per-day flotation mill that also received ore from
other mines in the area (Laurent, 2004); production ceased at La Currita due to low
metals prices. According to Laurent (2004), Kalahari Resources undertook exploration
drilling at La Currita in 1991, while Silver Standard Resources Inc. completed additional
drilling in 1998.
6.1.3 Guazapares District
The Guazapares district is located to the northeast of the Temoris district, the majority of
which is covered by Mining Concessions purchased from Paramount. The first recorded
mining activity in the Guazapares district was in 1677. It was not until 1958 that formal
mining commenced, when the Alaska-Juneau Mining Company (Alaska-Juneau),
evaluated the San Luis Mine (now part of the La Union deposit). This led to its
acquisition by Alaska-Juneau, and resultant operation from 1958 to 1968 via a 270 m
inclined shaft, with the gold-silver ore processed in a 150 tons-per-day flotation mill.
Alaska-Juneau also processed dumps from 1880s-era workings. No production records
have been located; however, Wood and Durgin (2009) reviewed a longitudinal section of
the principal San Luis vein, drawn by Alaska-Juneau, showing 71 face samples in
several stopes. They reported that the weighted average of these samples was 155.6 g/t
Ag and 144 g/t Au.
American Smelter and Refining Company (ASARCO) is reported to have drilled 15 core
holes in the 1950s at the San Luis and San Jose Mine areas, but data are fragmentary
and hole locations are uncertain.
Earth Resources Company (Earth Resources) and Industrias Peñoles (Peñoles)

investigated parts of the Paramount Property through a joint venture in 1975 to 1976.
They sampled most accessible workings, conducted grid-based geochemical sampling,
and drilled 944 m in 39 short air-track holes with poor sample recovery. Hazen Research
Inc. (Hazen) conducted preliminary metallurgical testing on a single sample, which
indicated that the mineralization was fairly amenable to recovery by cyanide leaching
and froth flotation (Litz, 1975). Simons Associates Inc. (Simons) did much of the
fieldwork for the joint venture and later continued to control the property, with activity
reported by them through 1978, although it is not known when they dropped the
property.
The Consejo de Recursos Minerales sampled parts of underground workings in the

district between 1985 and 1988, the vestiges of which are still visible in the workings.
Noranda Exploration Inc. briefly optioned concessions in the area in the early 1990s.
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. (Kennecott) acquired the Sangre de Cristo property in July
1994, and conducted surface and underground sampling, drilled 12 reverse circulation
(RC) holes (2,268 m), and dropped the property in July 2000. Geology and assays for

November 2, 2015
four of these drill holes are available, but little other data from this work is known to exist.
War Eagle Mining Company Inc. drilled 50 holes within the Guazapares 4 concession
(Agrupamiento San Francisco) and on ground adjacent to it between November 1991
and August 2002; these results are not available.
6.1.4 Other Prospects
High-grade gold-silver ore-shoots at other prospects were mined intermittently by local

miners until quite recently. These small underground mines did not use modern mining
practices, with little grade control or constant production rates (Laurent, 2004). Ore was
typically trucked to a mill near the town of Los Llanos for flotation, with the concentrate
sent for refining in Torreon, Coahuila.
6.2 2003-2007 Bolnisi Gold NL
In early 2003, Bolnisi conducted a reconnaissance study in the Palmarejo-Guadalupe

area, which led to the submission of the Trogan application (now concession) by its
wholly owned Mexican subsidiary, Planet Gold, and the initiation of negotiations on
internal claims. Detailed field investigations began immediately following the acquisition
of claims in the Palmarejo area in June 2003.
Reconnaissance surface mapping, trenching, and underground sampling and mapping

on known prospects within the project area led to the identification of significant precious
metal anomalies in the Palmarejo area (Beckton, 2004). A more focused trenching and
underground sampling effort was then undertaken at Palmarejo, and drill testing
commenced in November 2003 with a single reverse-circulation rig.
A total of 286 underground channel samples from the 6, 7, and 8 levels of the La Prieta
(Palmarejo) workings were collected through September 2004. Mapping of the
stratigraphy, structure, and alteration in these levels was also completed. Surveying of
the Palmarejo underground workings commenced in October 2004. Planet Gold
collected an additional 79 channel samples from underground workings in nine prospect
areas in other portions of its concessions through September 2004 (Laurent, 2004).
One hundred and eleven surface trenches, for a total of about 2,400m were excavated
and sampled across the Palmarejo Complex. These trenches varied in length from 1 to
116m. The trenches were completed with picks and shovels to a depth of up to 1m, with
samples typically chipped over 3m intervals. The trenches were mapped for lithology,
alteration, structural controls of mineralization, oxidation, and stratigraphy. Additional
rock chip, mine dump, and select geochemical samples from various parts of the project
area were also collected and assayed (Laurent, 2004).

November 2, 2015
Drilling by Planet Gold first tested the La Prieta vein, as the most extensive historic
mining was related to this structure. Drilling then progressed to test the La Blanca
structure, followed by focused drilling in the areas of the Rosario, Tucson, Chapotillo, 76
and 108 mineralized ore-shoots. Additional details of the Palmarejo drilling programs
completed by Planet Gold are discussed in Section 10.
Planet Gold collected almost 2,200 shortwave infrared (SWIR) spectral measurements
from drill samples from holes on a series of sections across the La Blanca and La Prieta
structures using an ASD Terraspec instrument. An additional 500 SWIR spectra were
measured as part of a regional alteration-mapping program. An exploration model using
structural and stratigraphic targets, high-level clay mineralogy, and silver-gold and
pathfinder-element geochemistry was developed from these data and was applied
throughout the following exploration programs.
One hundred and eighty-six Palmarejo drill samples and 282 trench-sample pulps were
analyzed for a 50-element suite by combination inductively-coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (ICP-MS) and inductively-coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry
(ICP-AES). An additional 440 drill samples from Guadalupe were similarly analyzed. The
goal of these geochemical analyses was to evaluate vertical and lateral zoning of major
and trace elements in the mineralized shoots at Palmarejo and Guadalupe.
In addition to the drilling completed at Palmarejo and Guadalupe, Planet Gold also
conducted drill programs at other targets within its concessions. By the time of its
acquisition by Coeur in December 2007, Planet Gold had completed 180 trenches (total
of 3,960m), and 1,135 drill holes (total of 246,830.9m), including 27 geotechnical holes
(494m) at Palmarejo. A total of 1,429 samples were collected from trenches, and 800 m
of underground channel sampling was also completed (365 samples).
6.3 2005-2015 Paramount
Following its first acquisition of concessions within the Guazapares mining district in
2005, Paramount began compiling historic data and initiated reconnaissance-level
inspection of the many mineralized areas within its land package. Exploration in and
around the Guazapares structure began in April 2006 with an integrated program of
surface geologic mapping and sampling, mapping and sampling of accessible
underground workings, and trenching. The results of this work were followed up by
diamond drilling that began in the same year and continued until 2012. Exploration of the
Batosegachi structural zone in the San Miguel area was initiated in 2007. In 2013 and
2014, Paramount conducted mapping at Independencia Este, La Union Sur, San Miguel,
and San Francisco, as well as drilling at Independencia Este and other targets.

November 2, 2015
Where excavated, trenches were dug as deep as the bedrock hardness would allow,
generally to a depth of 1.5 to 2.5m, rarely to 3.5m. The endpoints and inflection points of
all trenches were surveyed. All trenches were mapped for lithology, alteration, structural
controls of mineralization, and oxidation, and sampled in detail. Geologists usually
mapped the north wall as a standard procedure in order to optimize light conditions. In
rock that did not appear mineralized, the sample length was 2m. In mineralized rock, the
maximum sample length was 1m. Shorter sample lengths were often sampled in areas
with prominent veining, old workings, or structural zones. Areas to be sampled were
marked by the geologist before being cut with a pick as a continuous chip sample near
the base of the trench wall. For safety reasons, trenches were backfilled shortly after
mapping and sampling were completed.
Paramount completed 92 trenches for a total of 4,851m. Of these, 74 were excavated

along the Guazapares fault, with an additional 18 at other exploration targets.
Ground magnetic and induced polarization (IP) geophysical surveys were conducted by
Quantec Geoscience U.S.A. Inc. (Quantec) over portions of the Palmarejo Complex from
September 2007 to March 2008. The primary purpose of the IP survey was to map
chargeability and conductor signatures to depths of 150m or more with sufficient
resolution to assist in the definition of drill targets (Sharpe, 2008). Lines were
approximately east-west, with a line separation of 100 to 200m and station intervals of
50m. A total of 93.65 line-km of pole-dipole IP were surveyed on 69 lines using 50m
dipoles; 5.25 line-km of pole-dipole IP were surveyed on 10 lines using 25m dipoles; and
2.6 line-km of pole-dipole IP were surveyed on two lines using 100 m dipoles. Pole-
dipole data were collected using n = 1 through 10 for the 25m and 50m 'a' spacing
(dipole spacing) and n = 1 through 8 for the 100m 'a' spacing. The IP data were
presented as Geosoft™ formatted pseudo-section plots, plan plots, and as databases.
Ground magnetic data were collected on 72 lines using a 12.5m station separation. Total
coverage was approximately 255.5 line-km.
6.4 Previous Mineral Resource Estimates
For Mineral Resource estimates reported by BSG (as Palmarejo Silver and Gold) or
Coeur in previous NI 43-101 technical reports, refer to reports by MDA (Gustin, 2004),
(Gustin, 2005), (Gustin and Prenn, 2007), and Coeur (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 and
2015).
For Mineral Resource estimates reported by Paramount in previous NI 43-101 technical

reports, refer to reports by MMC (Wilson et al., 2013, 2014), MDA (Gustin, 2011, 2012),
Durgin (2007a, 2007b), A.C.A. Howe (Roy et al., 2008), and Wood and Durgin (2008
and 2009).

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
All reports are available on the SEDAR website under the respective corporate name.
6.5 Coeur Mexicana Production
Mining at the Palmarejo open pit mine began in 2008 and milling operations and metal
recovery commenced in 2009, ramping up to full capacity in 2010. In late 2014,
production commenced from the Guadalupe underground mine. Historical production
from open pit and underground sources is summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1. Coeur Palmarejo Complex Historical Ore Production (Coeur, 2015)
Jan-Aug
Production 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
2015
Ore Tonnes 1,072,988 1,936,939 2,107,103 1,962,958 1,563,156 1,665,082 966,629
Milled
Ore grade Ag 127.7 135.9 144.4 157.3 235.5 157.6 147.9
(g/t)
Ore grade Au 1.90 1.73 2.04 1.78 2.70 2.10 2.00
(g/t)
Recovery Ag 81.5 77.5 77,7 83.0 76.4 69.8 66.3
(%)
Recovery Au 78.8 80.5 84.2 94.4 92.2 91.1 88.2
(%)
Silver produced 3,585,976 6,558,091 7,603,144 8,236,013 9,041,488 5,887,576 3,047,843
(oz.)
Gold produced 51,479 86,673 116,536 106,038 125,071 102,440 54,740
(oz.)

November 2, 2015
7. GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
7.1 Regional Geology and Mineralization
The Palmarejo Complex covers most of the Temoris and Guazapares mining districts,
which are located in the western part of the SMO, a northwest-trending volcanic plateau
with an average elevation exceeding 2,000m that hosts gold-silver districts along its
entire length. The SMO covers an area about 1,200km long, extending from the U.S.
border at Arizona and New Mexico, south to central Mexico, and is 200 to 400km wide.
The SMO is characterized by large volumes of silicic ignimbrites that extend beyond the
limits of the plateau to cover the Mesa Central and part of eastern Chihuahua. These
ignimbrites are part of a larger sequence of volcanic and plutonic rocks that is believed
to reflect calc-alkaline, subduction-related, continental arc magmatism active from the
Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary to the end of the Oligocene. These igneous rocks cover a
heterogeneous basement of Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic rocks locally
exposed in deeply incised canyons of the SMO (Ferrari et al., 2007). The Late
Cretaceous to Quaternary plutonic and volcanic rocks of northwestern Mexico include
(Ferrari et al., 2007):
1) Plutonic and andesitic volcanic rocks of Late Cretaceous-Paleocene age;

2) Eocene andesitic and lesser dacitic to rhyolitic volcanic rocks;
3) Silicic ignimbrites emplaced as a result of two main pulses of caldera
eruptions in the Early Oligocene and Early Miocene;
4) Basaltic lavas erupted during the later stages of, and after, each ignimbritic
pulse; and
5) Repeated episodes of alkaline basaltic lavas and ignimbrites generally
emplaced along the periphery of the SMO in the Late Miocene, Pliocene,
and Quaternary.
Numbers 1) and 2) constitute the Lower Volcanic Complex (LVC), which consists of over
2,000m of predominantly andesitic volcanic rocks with a few interlayered ash flows and
related hypabyssal intrusions. Number 3) comprises the Upper Volcanic Supergroup
(UVS), with over 1,000m of rhyolitic ignimbrites and flows and subordinate andesite,
dacite, and basalt that unconformably overlie the LVC and were formed by a series of
caldera eruptions. Some altered acidic intrusive bodies, often associated with
mineralization, may be related to early phases of this upper sequence.
The LVC was affected by moderate compressional deformation during the Late
Cretaceous-Early Tertiary Laramide orogeny. During Paleocene and Early Eocene time,

November 2, 2015
east- to east—northeast-trending extensional structures formed within the LVC of the

western SMO. In contrast, the UVS is relatively flat-lying to gently east-dipping.
Since the Laramide orogeny, the SMO has been variably affected by different episodes
of dominantly extensional deformation. Extensional tectonics began as early as the
Oligocene along the entire eastern half of the SMO, forming grabens bounded by high-
angle normal faults. In the Early to Middle Miocene, extension migrated westward, and
by the Late Miocene, extension became focused in the westernmost part of the SMO,
adjacent to the Gulf of California. Extensional deformation has not affected the core of
the SMO, which lies between what has been defined as the "Mexican Basin and Range"
to the east and the "Gulf Extensional Province" to the west (Henry and Aranda Gomez,
2000). These two provinces merge at the northern and southern ends of the SMO, and
extension has affected the entire width of the SMO in those areas.
A gold-silver metallogenic province that hosts low-sulfidation, epithermal, polymetallic

gold-silver deposits lies along the western margin of the SMO. This province appears to
exhibit a regional zonation of silver-rich deposits (Au:Ag ratios of 1:150) to the west and
gold-rich deposits (Au:Ag of 1:40) to the east (Laurent, 2004). The Temoris and
Guazapares mining districts host typically silver-rich deposits and are located along the
western margin of this province (see Figure 7.1).

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.1. Mexican Metallogenic Provinces Highlighting the Location of the Palmarejo Complex -
Mexícan Geological Service (SGM, 2015)
Within the western part of the SMO, a 300km-long north-northwest-trending belt of

typically low- to intermediate- sulfidation, epithermal, polymetallic silver and gold
mineralization extends from the Moris deposit to Guadalupe y Calvo along the southwest
border of Chihuahua. This trend of mineral occurrences appears to be localized by a
series of north-northwest-oriented regional extensional structures (see Figure 7.2).

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.2. Geology of Chihuahua State showing the Location of the Principal Precious
Metals Mines in the SMO (SGM & Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
7.2 Property Geology and Mineralization
The Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves that are the focus of this Report are
located at the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia deposits. The mineralization
found in these areas is described first, followed by brief descriptions of mineralization
located elsewhere on the Palmarejo Complex.
Figure 7.3 shows the regional geology across the Palmarejo Complex, as mapped by
the Mexican Geological Survey (SGM). Weakly propylitically altered andesitic rocks with
lesser amounts of rhyodacitic volcanic tuffs and related hypabyssal intrusions of the LVC
cover the lower elevations of the Palmarejo Complex. In the Temoris mining district, the
lowest exposed unit of the LVC consists of rhyolitic flows, volcaniclastic units, including
siltstones and fine-grained sandstones, and related shallow intrusions. These are
overlain by andesitic flows and epiclastic rocks with related andesitic porphyry intrusions.
A stratigraphic column for the Palmarejo Complex is shown in Figure 7.4 and is based
on 1:1,000 field mapping conducted by Coeur and its predecessors. Local pillow lavas
and limestone within the andesitic sequence attest to their deposition in a subaqueous
environment (Corbett, 2004). Dacitic and rhyolitic intrusions, which in some areas are
altered and appear to be closely associated with mineralization, are interpreted to be
contemporaneous with the LVC. Cliff-forming rhyolitic ignimbrites of the UVS are well
exposed in the eastern and southern parts of the project area, and are found on the
higher ridge tops and are generally unmineralized. Miocene basaltic andesites and
basalts locally overlie the UVS immediately west of the formerly named San Miguel
Project. Nearly all of the known mineralization identified to date on the Palmarejo
Complex is developed in rocks that are believed to be part of the LVC.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Figure 7.3. Regional Geology of the Palmarejo Complex showing location of the Deposits (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.4. Palmarejo Complex Stratigraphic Column (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
Structural extension across the Palmarejo Complex area takes the form of what are
interpreted to be listric normal faults, typically parallel to the regional trend of the SMO,
striking north-south to north-northwest, with west-northwest-trending flexures, as well as
dilation of west-northwest-trending fractures, caused by strike-slip faulting (Corbett,
2004). Mineralization in the Palmarejo Complex is spatially associated with these faults,
as well as with structural offshoots. Although referred to as faults and often mapped as
single lines, these structures are actually a series of sub-parallel curved faults in zones
up to 300m wide. Several rhyodacitic dikes follow these fault zones and appear to be
associated with mineralization (Durgin, 2006, 2007a, 2007b).
Dilatational portions of fault zones, such as flexures, link veins in fault jogs, or stockwork
tension veins favor development of mineralized shoots. Throughout the Palmarejo
Complex, left-stepping (west-northwest) bends in the generally northwest-trending
structures are particularly favorable sites for mineral shoot development. Increased
normal fault displacement also appears to be important, and structures that have little
normal fault displacement tend not to be well mineralized (Corbett, 2007).
Host rocks also have an important influence on vein formation, especially competent
brittle rocks that allowed development of through-going fractures. Silicified laminated
sandstones are particularly favorable hosts. Examples at the Palmarejo Complex include
the 76, 108, Chapotillo, and parts of the Rosario mineralized shoots (Figure 7.5).

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.5. Geologic Map of the Palmarejo Complex showing Drilling Completed to Date (Coeur,
2015)

November 2, 2015
7.2.1 Palmarejo Deposit
Mineralization at Palmarejo is hosted in northwest-striking and west-dipping structures

that cut through a volcano-sedimentary sequence of reworked volcaniclastic, massive
and pyroclastic deposits. The volcaniclastic rocks include ash-rich mudstones and
sandstones. The massive rocks include microcrystalline massive basalt, fine grained
massive andesite and plagioclase crystal-rich massive andesite. The pyroclastic unit
includes tuffaceous sandstone, lapillistone tuff and breccias (Galvan, 2007).
Palmarejo mineralization can be divided into three domains: the La Prieta and La Blanca
vein domains, and the footwall and hangingwall stockwork domain developed along
each of the two vein domains. The La Prieta vein domain consists of the La Prieta
vein/breccia that dominated historic production from the area. The La Prieta footwall
domain encompasses quartz stockwork mineralization and silicification within epiclastic
rocks and andesitic tuffs. The La Prieta hangingwall domain consists of extensive
sheeted-quartz-stockwork mineralization that is well exposed in the underground
workings. The predominant geologic unit within this domain is an amygdaloidal andesite
that lies between the La Prieta and La Blanca vein domains. The La Blanca vein domain
consists of the La Blanca vein/breccia, which lies between porphyritic andesite on the
hangingwall and amygdaloidal andesite and andesitic tuffs on the footwall. The La
Blanca hangingwall domain includes quartz-stockwork mineralization within the
porphyritic andesite.
The La Prieta structure extends for at least 3.5km, has a variable strike that averages
about 115°, and dips to the southwest at 35° to 85°. The La Blanca structure strikes
about 160°, has an average dip of about 50° to the southwest, and is thought to be a
listric normal fault (Corbett, 2004) that parallels the trend of the regional faults in the
SMO. Masterman et al. (2005) estimated up to 300m of throw on the La Blanca fault
(see Figure 7.5 and Figure 7.6). Faults with similar orientations are the most commonly
mineralized structures in the district.

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.6. Cross-Section through the Palmarejo Deposit (Coeur, 2015)
A broad zone of mineralized quartz stockwork formed at the intersection of the La

Blanca and La Prieta structures. North-trending splays from other north-northwest-
striking structures at Palmarejo may offset both the La Blanca and La Prieta faults
(Beckton, 2004).
Gold-silver veins and vein/breccias occur within, and at the intersection of, the west-
northwest-striking La Prieta structure and the north-northwest-striking La Blanca
structure. Multiple stages of hydrothermal activity and mineralization filled these
structures with quartz veins and formed quartz stockwork mineralization within the
wedge of rock formed by the intersection of the structures. Both the La Prieta and La
Blanca veins have polymetallic silver-gold vein/breccias with an epithermal silver-gold
overprint that forms high-grade shoots in the steeper-dipping portions of the listric
normal faults (Corbett, 2004). Early mining focused on the La Prieta vein, where high-
grade silver mineralization was present as bands of fine grained acanthite and galena
within the vein.

November 2, 2015
Steeply plunging, high-grade ore-shoots, or clavos, have been identified in each of the
vein structures. The Rosario and 76 Clavo contain the bulk of the mineralization at
Palmarejo. The Rosario Clavo lies at the intersection of the La Blanca and La Prieta
veins and is up to 30m wide. The 76 Clavo is a subvertically plunging shoot located at an
inflection in the strike of the La Blanca structure. Clavo 76 terminates at depth as the
structure flattens. 108 Clavo, also located on the La Blanca structure at its contact with
silicified sandstone, is a gold-rich clavo. The Tucson and Chapotillo Clavos lie within the
La Prieta structure.
At Palmarejo, four tectonic-hydrothermal breccia types have been identified that make
up the main mineralized veins. The breccias include a jigsaw-fit monolithic breccia, a
massive cement-supported polylithic breccia, a massive cemented and rotated lithic and
vein fragment breccia and, and a matrix-supported chaotic polylithic breccia (Galvan,
2007).
7.2.2 Guadalupe Deposit
The Guadalupe deposit is approximately 7km southeast of Palmarejo and consists of

two principal mineralized structures known as Guadalupe North and Guadalupe (Figure
7.7 and Figure 7.8). The mineralized structures are located along a major northwest-
trending (330°) structure that can be traced for approximately 3km along strike and has
an average dip of approximately -55° to the northeast. Mapping by Stewart (2005)
indicates both normal and strike-slip offset across the fault, with vertical displacement
estimated to be at least a few hundred meters (Davies, 2007). Secondary west-
northwest- and north-northeast-trending structures have been identified by surface
mapping in the Guadalupe area (Laurent, 2004; Davies, 2007). Outcrop expressions of
the structure are dominantly characterized by essentially barren, moderately to
pervasively clay-altered wall rocks and laterally discontinuous quartz veins, with
thicknesses ranging from millimeters to a few meters. Beneath the clay-rich upper zone,
the breccia veins are spatially associated with quartz-carbonate-pyrite-sericite-clay-
epidote-chlorite alteration in the wall rock.

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.7. Geology of the Guadalupe Deposit showing Surface Vein Traces and Drilling
Completed to Date (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.8. Cross-Section through the Guadalupe Deposit (Section Line C-C’ in Figure 7.7 shows
the Location) (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.9. Poorly Mineralized Structure at Surface and Clay Alteration at Guadalupe North (Note
Hammer for Scale) (Coeur, 2014)
The Guadalupe mineralized structures are hosted in a volcanic-sedimentary package

that is intruded by shallow andesitic porphyries and a felsic dome complex (Figure 7.7).
The stratigraphic sequence of the volcanic-sedimentary package at Guadalupe is similar
to that at Palmarejo, with the exception of more abundant rhyolitic dikes, sills and
domes. The Guadalupe hangingwall block consists of predominantly flat-lying
volcaniclastic sandstones and conglomerates, as well as andesite tuff that is locally
underlain by amygdaloidal basaltic andesite. The footwall block comprises the lower,
thin-layered and fine grained volcaniclastic units and basaltic-andesitic lavas. The felsic-
dome complex intrudes both volcaniclastic blocks and the andesite porphyries and is
characterized by flow-banded and porphyritic rhyolite dikes and domes. Contact breccias
are locally developed along the margins of the dome. Talus deposits containing
fragments of flow-banded and porphyritic rhyolite partially overlies the structure in the
south-central portion of the deposit.
The silver-gold (± base metals) mineralization at Guadalupe occurs predominantly within

northwest-trending, quartz-carbonate, breccia veins enveloped by variably developed
quartz hydrothermal breccias and quartz-stockwork zones. These multiphase breccia
veins range in thickness from less than a meter to greater than 20m. Subparallel veins,
vein splays, and sigmodial loops of varying thicknesses are hosted in both the
hangingwall and footwall blocks. Quartz stockwork zones are typically developed in the

November 2, 2015
hangingwall blocks or between closely spaced subparallel quartz-carbonate-bearing

structures.
Precious and base-metal mineral assemblages are dominated by fine grained pyrite,
argentite (acanthite), sphalerite, galena, and electrum. Free gold was found in some
specimens that contain narrow semi-massive sulfide mineralization, hypogene hematite-
siderite, or have been altered by supergene processes (Corbett, 2007).
Hypogene mineralization typically occurs as bands and disseminations in veins and, to a

lesser extent, as 2 to 4cm wide semi-massive sulfide vein infill (Corbett, 2007). Results
from drilling indicate that shallower levels of the structure are characterized by silver
mineralization, while significant gold values are encountered at depths of about 200m
vertical or greater (generally below 1,300m elevation).
Corbett (2007) suggests multiphase silver-gold (± base metal) mineralization at

Guadalupe comprises three main temporal and spatial styles, including: early gold-rich
quartz-sulfide style mineralization typically developed at deeper levels; polymetallic
silver-rich mineralization at intermediate levels characterized by pyrite-argentite
(acanthite)-sphalerite-galena and minor chalcopyrite in the presence of several
carbonate species and hypogene hematite; and, polymetallic silver-rich mineralization at
shallow levels in the presence of abundant argentite (acanthite), and local electrum and
free gold in association with white sphalerite and pyrite. As such, the Guadalupe deposit
is considered to represent a fully preserved epithermal system.
7.2.3 Independencia Deposit
Silver and gold mineralization at Independencia is primarily controlled by a well-

developed, northwest-striking structural zone that generally dips -60° to -70° to the
northeast and straddles the concession boundary between Independencia Este
(previously Paramount‘s Don Ese Project) and Independencia Oeste.
The Mineral Resources for the deposit have been modeled over a strike length of
approximately 1.3km with widths of up to 22m (average 6m) and a vertical extent of
approximately 570m.
The Independencia deposit is not exposed at the surface, but was initially located by
fractured rocks along the surface fault trace, anomalous silver and gold geochemistry,
and distinctive clay mineralogy, which is similar to that noted previously with respect to
the Guadalupe deposit. Surface mapping identified felsic volcanic units overlying
andesitic volcanic rocks in the area, with rhyolitic intrusions controlled by north- and
northwest-trending faults (see Figure 7.10 and Figure 7.11).

November 2, 2015
Higher-grade mineralization occurs within quartz + carbonate veins, quartz-vein

breccias, and breccias of mixed hydrothermal and tectonic origins, while lower-grades
occur within stockwork-style quartz + carbonate veinlets that envelope the higher-grade
zones and often define the limits of the mineralized structural zone. Tectonic breccias
are common and are both pre- and post-mineral. Natural voids have been intersected in
holes drilled within the structural zones.
Quartz pseudomorphs of calcite occur within the vein zone, and iron and manganese
oxy-hydroxides are locally abundant. The dominant sulfide minerals in unoxidized
portions of the vein include silver sulfosalts, pyrite, sphalerite, and galena. Gangue
mineralogy includes quartz and various carbonate minerals containing calcium,
manganese, iron, and magnesium. The controlling structure is close to, and may be
genetically related to, a rhyodacite dome.

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.10. Geology of the Independencia Deposit, showing Surface Vein Traces and Drilling
Completed to Date (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.11. Cross-Section through the Independencia Deposit and nearby Los Bancos Prospect
(Section Line B-B’ in Figure 7.10 shows the Location) (Coeur, 2015)
7.3 Guazapares Area Deposits
Prior to its acquisition by Coeur, Paramount identified and outlined a number of deposits
within the Guazapares mining district. This district is defined by two principal north-
northwest-trending, district-scale fault zones, along and between which resources have
been historically estimated for six separate deposits.
Generally, the stratigraphy of the Guazapares district is similar to the stratigraphy in the
rest of the Palmarejo Complex and consists of the following units, from youngest to
oldest:
1) Upper felsic volcanic rocks and dacitic to rhyolitic intrusions, including domes that
are roughly synchronous with mineralization.
2) Porphyritic plagioclase andesite, which fractures well and serves as a host to
veins.

November 2, 2015
3) Amygdaloidal andesite, with silica and/or calcite filled amygdules. This andesite
also fractures well and serves as a host to veins.
4) Laminated volcaniclastic sandstone with subsidiary, thinly bedded shale.
5) Welded ignimbrite, which forms the lowermost unit but has no recognized base. It
hosts mineralization within fine fractures, as opposed to fissure veins.
The northwesterly striking and moderately to steeply northeast-dipping Guazapares fault

exerts a fundamental control on the mineralization within the district. This structure
hosts, from north to south, the Monte Cristo, La Veronica, San Antonio, and La Union
deposits (Figure 7.12). The Guazapares structure has a strike length of approximately
8km and is broken into segments by small- displacement, northeast-trending faults. A
subparallel structure, the Batosegachi fault, lies about 3km to the west of the
Guazapares structure and hosts the San Miguel deposit (Figure 7.12). The San
Francisco deposit lies between these two structures, with mineralization and possibly
intrusive activity being controlled by intersections of northwest- and east-northeast-
trending faults.

November 2, 2015
Figure 7.12. Geology of the Guazapares District (showing Associated Deposits) (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
A rhyolitic to rhyodacitic flow-dome complex occurs within the San Francisco deposit,
and the Monte Cristo deposit lies at the eastern edge of this complex. The mineralization
in this structurally complex area occurs in a series of east-northeast, northwest, and
northeast-trending structures near the margins of the domes. A strong northeast
structural fabric may represent a deep-seated structure controlling the localization of the
dome complex as a whole.
Major structures that host mineralized veins, stockworks, and breccias generally occur in
propylitically altered andesites and in lesser amounts of rhyodacitic volcanic tuffs and
related hypabyssal intrusions of the LVC, at or near the contact between andesitic and
felsic sequences, or within the more competent and brittle felsic sequences that allowed
for development of through-going fractures. Interpreted dilational portions of the fault
zones, such as flexures, link veins in fault jogs, and stockwork tension veins, appear at
least locally to preferentially accommodate the development of higher-grade mineralized
ore-shoots.
Silver and gold mineralization, with variable but typically low amounts of lead and zinc,
occurs within structural zones that may be oriented en-echelon and are characterized by
multi-phase quartz veining, quartz + carbonate + pyrite veinlet stockworks, silicified
hydrothermal breccias, and quartz-filled expansion breccias. The amount of combined
lead and zinc that accompanies the gold and silver mineralization has been estimated to
be less than 0.4% (Roy et al., 2008). Small amounts of amethystine quartz are common.
Three distinct styles of mineralization have been identified within the Guazapares
district: high-grade vein systems, sheeted vein/stockwork/fracture complexes, and
volcanic dome complexes. Most of the historic mining in the district came from high-
grade quartz + carbonate vein systems that trend north-northwest to northwest. These
vein systems are typically silver-rich, with a Ag:Au ratio of 100:1. Principal sulfide
minerals within the veins include sphalerite and argentite, with pyrite being less
abundant. As noted at Guadalpe and Independencia, mineralization in the Guazapares
district also tends to change from more silver-rich at shallower levels to more gold-rich at
depth, associated with an increase in pyrite and chalcopyrite as the principal sulfide
minerals. Examples of high-grade vein systems include the San Miguel deposit and the
historical San Luis mine (La Union deposit).
Sheeted vein/stockwork/fracture complexes occur as wide zones that may have the
potential for bulk mining. These broad zones encompass series of thin quartz veins,
quartz-veinlet stockworks, gouge/fault breccias, and fractures that trend northwesterly.
Silver and associated low-levels of base metals tend to occur in the quartz veins at
shallow depths, with potential for higher-grade gold mineralization at depth. The
historical San Antonio deposit is a silver-rich example of this type of mineralization, while
gold-rich mineralization occurs at San Francisco.

November 2, 2015
Volcanic dome complexes appear to be controlled by the intersection of north-northwest-

and east- northeast trending structures. Intrusive dacitic to andesitic bodies are common
and may be related to the volcanic dome complexes. Mineralization occurs in broad
zones along the margin of the domes, typically as disseminated, low-grade (~1 g/t) gold,
with alteration, zoning, and mineralization suggestive of a separate and later
mineralizing event. These volcanic dome-related zones appear to be genetically distinct
from the low-sulfidation, high-grade vein systems that were historically exploited in the
district. Hypogene hematite alteration is present. The mineralization is characterized by
Ag:Au ratios of about 20:1. The Monte Cristo deposit and portions of the San Francisco
deposit are considered to be examples of volcanic dome complexes.
A geochemical study by McCandless (2009) revealed significant variations in average

elemental distributions along the strike of the Guazapares fault, as well as in the area
between this fault and the Batosegachi structure. The data suggest that the Batosegachi
fault system may have experienced a different magmatic alteration and/or mineralization
history than the Guazapares fault system. Downhole variations in gold and silver at San
Miguel and La Union suggest that Ag:Au ratios may decrease with depth on the scale of
individual drill holes. Cadmium, and to a lesser degree zinc, appear to correlate with,
and be in proximity to, gold mineralization at La Union, San Luis, and La Veronica.
However, at Monte Cristo and San Miguel, arsenic correlates with gold rather than
cadmium.
Segura (2008) indicated that most observable gold is very fine grained, ranging in size
from 0.01mm to 0.04mm, with only rare coarse grains of electrum.
Alteration associated with mineralization ranges from regional propylitization to argillic

alteration to proximal silicification, often with adularia development, particularly along
north-northwest trending structures.
Paramount published Mineral Resources estimations for many of these deposits;

however, Coeur is not treating those estimates as current. Coeur intends to review and
update the geologic and resource models.
7.4 Other Areas of Mineralization
Coeur continues to explore the Palmarejo Complex in search of new deposits. Two
advanced targets are discussed below. The Los Bancos structure, in particular, will be
the focus of future exploration (drilling) efforts.

November 2, 2015
7.4.1 La Patria
La Patria is located approximately 7km south-southeast of Palmarejo and includes the

La Patria, La Virginia, and Maclovia prospects. It is located within the northwest-trending
La Patria-Todos Santos structure that can be traced for over 4km along strike. The
average width of the quartz vein breccia is 4m.
Prospects at La Patria have a combined strike length of 1.8km and are spatially
associated with sub-parallel faults that strike predominantly northwest (335°) and dip
approximately 45° to the northeast. Mapping suggests dominant displacement along the
structure includes both normal and strike-slip movement (Davies, 2006).
Mineralization at La Patria comprises gold- and silver-bearing quartz-carbonate veins

hosted in a volcanic-sedimentary package that is intruded by felsic dikes. The
hangingwall block consists of interlayered flat-lying amygdaloidal basalt, andesite
porphyry, sandstones, mudstones, and conglomerates. The footwall block comprises
porphyritic granodiorite, welded rhyolite ignimbrite, conglomerates, and an interlayered
volcanic-sedimentary package. Felsic dikes, with flow-banded and porphyritic textures,
intrude both the footwall and hangingwall blocks.
The mineralization is hosted in a quartz-vein breccia unit with an enriched proximal

dense stockwork. Well-formed pyrite, chalcopyrite, galena and sphalerite is found within
the darker grey (high temperature) quartz veining. Visible gold has been observed as
native gold and electrum. Oxidation is prevalent with goethite/limonite developed in pyrite
pseudomorphs.
7.4.2 Los Bancos
Although not associated with significant historic workings, the Los Bancos prospect was
first identified due to the presence of a surficial argillic alteration or ―clay bloom‖ similar
to that found above Guadalupe North and the 76 Clavo in Palmarejo. It is located 1km
north of Guadalupe North, and more importantly, 500 m west of Independencia, and is
intersected by the underground access to Independencia. The prospect was first drilled
in 2009, and drilling is currently ongoing, although no resource has been estimated to
date. Field evidence suggests the structure is continuous to the south of the
Independencia development and that the Dana structure, drilled in 2014 by Paramount,
may be the southern extension of Los Bancos. While following the regional north-
northwest strike direction, Los Bancos dips steeply to the west.

November 2, 2015
8. DEPOSIT TYPES
Mineralization on the Palmarejo Complex consists of epithermal, low- to intermediate
sulfidation, silver-gold vein and vein-breccia deposits that exhibit vertical and lateral
zoning. The deposits occur within north-northwest-striking and west-northwest-striking
structures (Sillitoe, 2010).
Early epithermal quartz-carbonate veins are locally overprinted by high-level, high-grade,

silver-gold quartz veins. This deposit type is common within the gold-silver metallogenic
province of the SMO and accounts for much of the historical silver and gold production
from the province.
Silver and gold deposits in the Palmarejo Complex are characterized by pervasive
silicification, quartz-fill expansion breccias, and sheeted veins. Multiple stages of
mineralization produced several phases of silica, ranging from chalcedony to comb
quartz, and two periods of silver-gold mineralization (Corbett, 2007). This strongly-zoned
mineralization is characterized by pyrite, sphalerite, galena, and argentite (acanthite)
deposited within the quartz vein/breccias at lower elevations and higher-grade precious-
metals mineralization with fine grained, black, silver-rich sulfide bands or breccia-infill in
the upper portions of the structures. There is a general sense across the Palmarejo
Complex that higher gold values occur deeper in the original mineral system, while richer
silver values were deposited in the upper levels of these systems.
Much of the silver and gold mineralization is succeeded by the bulk of the quartz-vein
material, which is weakly mineralized and tends to lie in the interior portion of the veins
in the ore-shoots. Silicic, argillic, chloritic, and hematitic alteration were noted during
underground and surface mapping throughout the Palmarejo Complex (Laurent, 2004).
Propylitic alteration is commonly present as wide haloes around faults and veins. Gold is
present as native gold and electrum, while silver occurs as acanthite, electrum/argentian
gold, and native silver (Skeet, 2004; Townend and Associates, 2004). Additional
petrographic work by Panterra Geoservices Inc. in 2009 identified abundant copper-
silver sulfides such as mckinstryite, jalpaite, stromeyerite, and pearcite (Ross, 2009).
The concept of an epithermal origin for the silver and gold mineralization identified to
date on the Palmarejo Complex, the associated zonation of metals and trace elements
and related hydrothermal alteration effects, as well as the structural geology controls
evident in surface and mine exposures, has helped to frame past exploration programs.
Coeur continues to refine this model, with the aim of supporting additional Mineral
Resource estimates and/or making new discoveries.
While there are many similarities between the deposits of the Temoris and Guazapares
mining districts, the latter also exhibits features that are unique, such as the bulk-

November 2, 2015
tonnage-style, generally gold-poor, silver mineralization at San Antonio, possible similar

style but gold-rich mineralization at San Francisco, and the high-level mineralization
present at Monte Cristo-Sangre de Cristo.
The only mineralization identified, to date, as not being of low- to intermediate-sulfidation

origin, is the Espinazo del Diablo sector, immediately west of the Palmarejo deposit. It is
defined as a series of high-sulfidation, advanced argillic ledges, constituting a lithocap
and an important intrusive occurrence on the Palmarejo Complex (Sillitoe, 2010).

November 2, 2015
9. EXPLORATION
Additional information on historical exploration programs is provided in Section 6.
Since January 2008, Coeur Mexicana has continued to conduct exploration across the
concessions under its control. Exploration has included geological mapping and
sampling of known surface fault and vein occurrences, prospecting for new fault and
vein occurrences, as well as zones of visible argillic alteration or ―clay-blooms‖, due to
their importance, as discussed previously. These features can be subtle in appearance
but are more readily evident in road-cut exposures (refer to Figure 7.9) and spatially
related to silver and gold mineralization. Surface exploration work precedes drilling,
which has formed the largest component of Coeur‘s annual exploration budget in the
district since its December 2007 acquisition of BSG (see Section 10).
The acquisition of Paramount is now complete, and Coeur commenced exploration on

the Paramount Property in 2015 with the aim of advancing known deposits and looking
for new deposits on the larger property area.
9.1 Geophysical Surveys
In 2012, Coeur completed a helicopter-borne magnetic survey over the Coeur Property.
The survey was flown by MPX Geophysics Ltd. Lines were flown east-west at 75m
spacing, with tie lines every 750m. A total of 2,571.5 line-km were flown. In 2014, SRK
reviewed the data collected (SRK, 2014), as part as a larger study, and concluded that
the survey identified the location and along-strike continuity of faults. As known fault
intersections in favorable stratigraphic position are key controls of mineralization, the
knowledge of fault positions provides an excellent exploration tool for the next stages of
the regional exploration targeting.
Four distinct fault sets were identified based on orientation and crosscutting
relationships. These fault sets are comparable to those identified during field mapping.
From oldest to youngest these fault generations are: northwest-trending, northeast-
trending, west-northwest-trending and north-northwest-trending. The latter two mutually
crosscut each other, and thus, appear contemporaneous.
The interpreted lithology distribution was also completed based on the best available
data sets, including observations during mapping, magnetic intensity, and satellite
imagery.
The Palmarejo Complex is dominated by sequences of massive volcanic and both

primary and secondary volcaniclastic rocks. Areas of high magnetic intensities are
coincident with mapped andesitic to basaltic volcanic rocks and are interlayered with

November 2, 2015
lower magnetic intensity volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks of the underlying Ktal and the
overlying pyroclastic rocks of the Ktat unit. Higher proportion of these volcaniclastic units
are interpreted to be coincident with broader lower magnetic intensity areas in the
northwest and northeast corners of the Palmarejo Complex.
The stronger magnetic intensity in much of the western part of the Palmarejo Complex
suggests it is composed mainly of Ktap and some Ktam units, with Ktal occurrences in
topographic low-lying areas.
The central part of the Palmarejo Complex is dominated by an even magnetic low, which
is interpreted as an older Cretaceous limestone unit extrapolated from regional mapping
by the SGM (2004). Cretaceous granodiorites occur as approximately circular intrusions
within these sedimentary rocks.
North of the Palmarejo open pit mine and camp, the high elevations coincide with the
stratigraphically higher units of Ktat and UVS. These units are also interpreted to be
exposed northeast of the Palmarejo open pit mine. These generally have low magnetic
intensities, but where relatively thin units of these rocks overlie units of Ktam and Ktap
rocks, a higher magnetic intensity is evident.
Rhyolite (Topr) intrusions occur throughout the Palmarejo Complex, and have a
moderate to low magnetic character. These intrusions often do not show a strong
magnetic contrast with surrounding units but are very distinctive on the satellite imagery.
They generally are round to slightly elongate in plan view but are more elongate along a
northwest trend in the south part of the area.
In 2015, MPX completed a similar survey over the ground acquired from Paramount. A
total of 6,823.5 line-km were flown with lines flown east-west at 200m spacing, with tie-
lines every 2km. The results were integrated with the data collected from the previous
survey to produce a single coverage for the entire Palmarejo Complex. This survey
highlighted the continuation of northwest trending structures across much of the ground
acquired by Paramount, as well as the importance of long-lived northeast structures.
These structures appear to act both as a focus for mineralization, when they intersect
northwest structures, but also appear to offset mineralization.
In 2014, Coeur also completed a helicopter-borne Z-axis Tipper electromagnetic (ZTEM)

and magnetic survey over the Coeur Property. The survey was flown by Geotech Ltd.
Lines were flown east-west at 200m spacing with tie lines every 2km. A total of 1,130
line-km were flown. The ZTEM data provides useful information on geology using
resistivity contrasts, while magnetometer data provides additional information on geology
and structure using magnetic susceptibility contrasts.

November 2, 2015
The raw data were provided to Condor Consulting for further processing and
interpretation. They concluded that the geophysical surveys have been able to map the
main structural trends and general geological units throughout the Coeur Property. The
EM data also helps provide an overall structural setting and shows the mineralized
zones along the margin of a resistive corridor. These zones are situated in areas with
low analytic signals and low magnetic intensities, or domains interpreted as LVC. Both
EM and magnetic interpretations show the dominant structural trend as NW-SE, with a
second trend that cross-cuts in a normal direction. Some N-S structural lineaments are
also observed in both geophysical datasets. A total of six target zones have been
delineated based on these geophysical characteristics and comparisons to known
mineralization, located across the Coeur Property from the southwest of the Palmarejo
deposit to the west of Independencia to the south of Guadalupe.
Drilling is likely the most definitive approach to exploring this area. A ground IP/resistivity
survey over areas with higher magnetic susceptibilities along the margins of the resistive
corridor may provide added detail such as determining areas of stockwork mineralization
and alteration. A Controlled Source Audio-MagnetoTelluric (CSAMT) may be helpful for
determining locations of faults and structures at depth and vein structures.
9.2 Field Mapping
In 2014, Coeur commenced a detailed 1:1,000 scale field mapping campaign focused on
the areas around the Independencia and Guadalupe deposits, with the aim of better
understanding the geological environment and also identifying new structures to drill test
at depth. Given that the surface elevations throughout much of this area are significantly
above the typical mineralized horizon in this part of the Palmarejo Complex, structures
that show little surface indication of mineralization are considered drill targets if they are
associated with a significant fault system and alteration at surface. The presence of
rhyolite dikes also appears to be important. The mapping program is ongoing and will
continue through the remainder of 2015, into 2016 and beyond, as field mapping
extends into new areas to look for and define new drill targets.
Given the lack of obvious superficial geochemical response to what are economically
important mineral deposits at depth, a combination of airborne geophysics and
hyperspectral studies to define target areas, followed by detailed field geological
mapping, is considered to be the best exploration approach to defining new
mineralization in the district.

November 2, 2015
10. DRILLING
Drilling by Coeur, or its predecessors, commenced on the Palmarejo Complex in late

2003, initially by Planet Gold at the Palmarejo deposit. The Guadalupe deposit was first
drilled in 2005, by the same company. The Independencia Este deposit was first drilled
by Paramount in 2010; Independencia Oeste was initially drilled by Coeur in 2011.
Minimal drilling was completed on the Paramount Property prior to this time and has
been summarized in Wilson et al., 2014.
The table below summarizes the drilling completed as of August 31, 2015 on the
Palmarejo Complex by Coeur, Paramount, and their predecessors. Figure 7.5, Figure
7.7, and Figure 7.10 in Section 7 show the drill hole locations at the three principal
deposits. Examples of drill cross-sections have also been included in Section 7.
Table 10.1. Exploration Drilling Completed in the Palmarejo Complex since 2003 (Coeur, 2015)
RC DDH RC-DDH
YEAR (m) (m) (m)
2003 2,936.7 0
2004 21,389.4 3,005.1 7,674.1
2005 33,929.6 15,345.0 16,444.4
2006 43,899.8 37,766.4 2,293.1
2007 27,218.3 58,898.6
2008 742.2 46,502.4
2009 0 56,890.0
2010 15,063.9 95,853.0
2011 0 108,529.2
2012 0 148,694.3
2013 0 91,614.9
2014 0 75,699.7
2015 0 31,804
TOTAL 145,179.9 770,602.9 26,411.6
10.1 Core Drilling and Logging
Drill holes are designed to intersect the mineralization as perpendicular as possible;

reported mineralized intercepts are typically longer than the true thickness of the
mineralization.
Diamond core drilling on the Palmarejo Complex has been conducted by a number of
different contract drilling companies since 2004.

November 2, 2015
Since 2011, G4 Forage Drilling, headquartered in Val-d‘Or, Quebec, Canada, has been
the sole drill contractor for Coeur at its Palmarejo Complex and exploration properties.
Coeur reviews its drilling requirements and awards contracts annually for its exploration
and resource definition drilling. All drilling completed on the concessions previously
owned by Paramount has been conducted by Layne de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
Core holes that were collared at the surface recovered HQ or PQ core, unless the
intersection of voids or downhole drilling problems were encountered, in which case the
drillers reduced to NQ or HQ, respectively. Core tails, which were drilled when RC holes
were terminated prematurely due to encountering groundwater and/or downhole
problems, recovered NQ or HQ core (Gustin and Prenn, 2007).
At the core shed, an open-air covered facility, the core is laid on wooden tables and first
pieced together by a geologist or technician, with the orientation mark facing up, if
applicable.
Diamond-core holes are then logged for geotechnical data and geology, including rock
type, alteration, mineralization assemblages, vein-quartz percentage, and oxidation.
Graphic logs are also created for stratigraphy, vein orientation, and visual identification
of mineralized zones. Cut lines are traced along the core axis of the core and at sample
intervals. Digital photographs of wetted core are taken and archived before the core is
cut and the samples taken.
A descriptive system of logging volcanic lithologies and breccia textures and

mineralization from CODES (Centre of Excellence in Ore Deposits, Tasmania) and
MDRU (Mineral Deposit Research Unit, British Columbia) has been adopted to allow for
more consistent logging of geology and is entered into an acQuire ® database for
documentation. The data are also exported into three-dimensional modeling software for
further understanding of the geology and mineral controls.
During 2008, all core from Guadalupe, Independencia Oeste, and other exploration
targets was moved to the new Guadalupe exploration facility located to the east of
Guadalupe near Las Animas. This facility currently houses exploration samples related
to the resource delineation (or Category 2) program.
A separate core logging and geologic office facility was built near the Palmarejo process
plant to house the resource upgrade (or Category 3) program. This facility consists of
fully enclosed logging, cutting and sampling areas, and geologic offices.
Following the acquisition of Paramount, all information associated with the previous
drilling campaigns is in the process of being reviewed, with adaptations made to the
geology to be consistent with Coeur methodology before being uploaded to the same

November 2, 2015
acQuire® database as currently maintained by Coeur. The transition is expected to be

completed on a deposit-by-deposit priority basis by the end of 2015. Drill core from
programs completed by Paramount is currently stored in five secure facilities within the
Palmarejo Complex area. Coeur plans to centralize all drill core at a new facility in the
near future.
10.2 Reverse Circulation Drilling and Logging
Reverse circulation (RC) drilling was a major part of the initial drilling campaigns by
Planet Gold at the Coeur Property; however, since 2008, no RC drilling has been
completed by Coeur for exploration purposes. A limited amount of RC drilling was also
completed by Paramount, most notably at the La Veronica and San Francisco deposits
in 2010.
RC drilling is conducted as part of the open pit ore control program and condemnation
drilling.
10.3 Downhole Surveying
Drill holes are surveyed with either a Reflex non-magnetic one-shot system or similar
system. A shot is taken at 21m and then approximately every 50m to the bottom of the
hole. Results from the downhole surveying show a minor increase in the hole dip due to
the droop from the weight of the rods, especially in holes drilled to depths of 200m or
greater. Historically, the greatest change in dip and bearing has been found in holes that
have drilled through workings, which often re-enter the footwall at a greater dip and
slight change of bearing in a counter-clockwise direction.
10.4 Drill Hole Collar Locations
Collar surveys are taken by a Total Station GPS. Collars are usually not preserved
because monuments are not built and the marks are typically washed away by rain or
covered when building access roads.
10.4.1 Collar Coordinate Verification
Collar elevations for the Guadalupe and Independencia Oeste deposits were checked
against the topographic surface and a significant number of collars were found to be
outside of reasonable ranges (i.e., sticking out of the topo surface for more than 15m or
laying considerably below it).

November 2, 2015
Coeur used a more detailed topographic map and most of the holes compared better to
that topography. Slight adjustments were made to those surface locations that needed
additional modifications before it was used for resource estimation.
At Independencia, audits conducted by external, certified topographers have not found

any errors in the collar coordiantes detected by Coeur‘s internal topographer.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
11. SAMPLE PREPARATION, SECURITY, AND ANALYSES

11.1 Sample Preparation
11.1.1 Diamond Drill
Sampling in the Palmarejo Complex has been conducted almost entirely by diamond
core drilling by various companies under contract to BSG, PJO; and since 2008, Coeur
Mexicana, and then by Paramount (beginning in 2010). Table 11.1 lists historical drilling
metadata related to the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits.
Table 11.1. Sampling Metadata from the Guadalupe and Independencia Deposits (Coeur, 2015)
Year Company Project Drilling Company Drill Type Drill Size Meters
2005 PJO TG Dateline Drilling RC 5" 1,560.3
2005 PJO TG Jorder Lyons DDH HW 11.3
2005 PJO TG Jorder Lyons DDH HQ 126.5
2005 PJO TG Major Drilling RC 5 1/4" 770.9
2005 PJO TG Major Drilling DDH NQ 976.8
2005 PJO TG Major Drilling DDH HQ 4,367.5
2005 PJO TG Major Drilling DDH HW 413.1
2005 PJO TG Unknown DDH HQ 191.7
2006 PJO TG Dateline Drilling RC 5" 1,941.6
2006 PJO TG Major Drilling RC 5" 1,697.9
2006 PJO TG Major Drilling RC 5 1/8" 2,782.9
2006 PJO TG Major Drilling RC 5 3.8" 675.1
2006 PJO TG Major Drilling DDH NQ 1,368.9
2006 PJO TG Major Drilling DDH PQ 1,840.7
2006 PJO TG Major Drilling DDH HW 30.2
2007 PJO TG Layne de Mexico RC 5 1/2" 198.1
2007 PJO TG Major Drilling RC 5" 83.8
2007 PJO TG Major Drilling DDH NQ 344.9
2007 PJO TG Major Drilling DDH PQ 10,406.7
2007 PJO TG Major Drilling DDH Unknown 180.5
2008 PJO TG Marjor Drilling DDH HQ 1,658.9
2008 COEUR TG Forage G4 Drilling DDH HQ 10,665.2
2008 COEUR TG Landdrill DDH HQ 3,892.6
2009 COEUR TG Landdrill DDH HQ 314
2010 Paramount TG Layne DDH HQ 3,677.05

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Year Company Project Drilling Company Drill Type Drill Size Meters
Water for the Guadalupe and Independencia drilling is supplied by water truck from the
retired mill at Arroyo Blanco, and from a creek at Los Llanos.
Surface diamond core holes recovered PQ or HQ core samples. Sample runs are a
maximum of 3m in length and are occasionally 1.5m in length to ensure minimum
deviation of the hole. Underground diamond core holes recovered NQ core.
Core is removed from the core barrel and placed into boxes for PQ, HQ or NQ core. All
artificial breaks of the core are marked by the driller. On selected core holes, the driller
marked an orientation at the top of the core run prior to retrieving the core barrel with a
spear-system driven by wireline.
11.1.2 Diamond Core Sampling
Core from the Palmarejo Complex is sampled only on intervals suspected to contain
precious metal mineralization. Sample intervals are marked on the core and the intervals
are assigned sample numbers. The sample lengths for wall rock averaged 1.5m.
Suspected mineralized zones were sampled at intervals averaging 0.5m, prior to the
acquisition of BSG, and 0.4m to 1.5m following the acquisition. Sample length is variably
adjusted to avoid sampling across geologic contacts and structures.
Digital photographs of wetted core are taken and the core was then sawn into halves
along the cut lines. The half of the core to the right of the orientation line is selected for
assaying and placed in a numbered bag along with a sample tag. A duplicate tag is kept
in a sample tag book and archived at the field office. The left side of the core is retained
in core boxes on site. All remaining core is organized in metallic racks inside a covered
warehouse. In 2014 and 2015 (through the effective date of this Report), core drilled for
Guadalupe infill definition drilling program (Category 3) was sampled as whole core,
while core for Independencia Oeste and Este resource definition program (Category 2)
was split.

November 2, 2015
11.1.3 Reverse Circulation (RC)
11.1.3.1 Reverse Circulation Sampling
RC drilling was a major part of the intial drilling campaigns on the Coeur Property prior to
the acquisition of Bolnisi. Since 2008, a limited amount of RC drilling has been done for
exploration purposes. RC holes provided for use in the Palmarejo Mineral Resource
models were sampled every 1.52m (5ft.) down the hole. Holes drilled in greenfields
areas were sampled along the entire length of the hole, while infill or closed spaced
drilling was sampled every 5ft., through zones of suspected mineralization. Standard
procedure was to only sample during dry drilling. Once water was encountered, the RC
hole was terminated and continued with a core tail. Depth to groundwater was recorded
by the supervising geologist.
RC chips were recovered through the center of the double-wall pipe and the sample was
discharged at the surface. The entire sample was collected into a cyclone and then
released into a hopper and then into a Gilson, riffle-type splitter. The sample was initially
split so that half of the material was discarded. The remaining half was split in half again,
and each of these quarter splits were poured directly from the splitter pans into buckets
lined with sample bags. The sample numbers were recorded as the drilling progressed
by a geologist that supervised the drill rig. One of the one quarter splits was used as the
sample for assaying and the other one quarter split was stored as an archive duplicate.
Once bagged, the samples were placed in consecutive order on the ground near the
drill. All samples to be submitted for analyses were placed at a collection point on the
drill pad for weekly pickup by a sample truck sent by the assay laboratory.
11.2 Sample Storage and Security
Coeur technicians transport core from the drill rigs on a daily basis to the core logging
facility. All historical core at Palmarejo was moved to the Guadalupe facility in 2008. All
sawn core is organized in metallic racks inside the covered storage.
Sawn exploration samples are transported to the ALS Minerals sample preparation
facility in Chihuahua, either by an independent locally-based transport company, or by
Coeur personnel. Samples pulps are then shipped by ALS Minerals to their laboratory in
Vancouver, B.C., for analysis.
Sawn ore-control core for the Guadalupe drilling is transported to the Palmarejo mine
laboratory for analysis.
ALS stores pulps and course rejects for up to ninety days before returning them to
Coeur‘s warehouse facility in Chihuahua. All samples that returned greater than

November 2, 2015
detection limit gold or silver values are stored in this facility, with the exception of
samples from the Palmarejo deposit, due to cessation of mining operations in 2016. The
Palmarejo coarse rejects have been disposed of and the remaining pulps will be used in
the preparation of internal standards.
All drill core from mineralized intervals from all deposits, with the exception of Palmarejo,
are stored in secure warehouses at the Palmarejo Complex.
11.3 Analyses
11.3.1 Laboratory Sample Preparation
Recent and current exploration sample preparation is completed by ALS Minerals at ALS
Chihuahua. Figure 11.1 is a flowchart of the ALS sample preparation procedure, code
PREP31, which includes the stages of drying, crushing, splitting, and pulverizing. ALS
Minerals Chihuahua is an accredited laboratory through the Standards Council of
Canada for ISO/IEC 17025:2005.
Sample preparation of core for ore control purposes at Guadalupe was completed at the
Palmarejo mine laboratory in 2014 and 2015. The Palmarejo mine laboratory crushes
and sieves to the same specifications as ALS Minerals Chihuahua. The mine laboratory
also produces an equivalent 250g pulp. While not accredited, the mine laboratory follows
QA/QC processes and procedures to confirm the quality of the sample preparation.

November 2, 2015
Figure 11.1. Palmarejo Complex Sample Preparation Flowchart from ALS Minerals PREP31
Methodology (ALS Minerals, 2015)
11.3.2 Laboratory Analytical Methods
Recent and current primary exploration analytical analyses for both Coeur and
Paramount were completed by ALS Minerals in Vancouver, B.C. Table 11.2 includes the
metadata for the analytical methods used. Gold analyses were completed with a fire
assay fusion with an ICP-AES finish. Overlimits (samples with initial assay values
greater than a predetermined grade) were completed using a fire fusion with a
gravimetric finish. Silver analyses were completed by acid digestion with an ICP-AES
finision. Overlimits (samples with initial assay values greater than a predetermined
grade) were completed using a fire assay fusion with a gravimetric finish. Overlimit
triggers for gravimetric analyses and multi-element ICP digestion degrees vary by drill
campaign.

November 2, 2015
The current commercial analytical laboratory for the Guadalupe and Independencia
exploration sampling is also ALS Minerals, with sample preparation in Chihuahua. A split
of the prepared pulp is sent to Vancouver, B.C., for fire assay for both gold and silver.
Gold is initially analyzed with an ICP finish with a trigger for a gravimetric finish. Silver is
analyzed with a gravimetric finish. ALS Minerals complies with the international
standards ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 17025:2005.
Recent core drilling assaying in support of underground ore control was done at the
Palmarejo mine laboratory. Samples were analyzed using a fire assay with atomic
absorption finish for gold and a 2-acid digestion with an atomic absorption finish for
silver. Table 11.3 includes metadata for the analytical methods used.
Recent and current umpire analyses for the Independecia Oeste deposit were completed
by Acme Labs in Vancouver, B.C.
Error! Reference source not found.Table 11.4 includes the metadata for the analytical
methods used. Gold analyses were completed by fire assay fusion with ICP-AES finish.
Overlimits were completed by fire assay fusion with a gravimetric finish. Silver analyses were
completed by a fire assay fusion with a gravimetric finish. Acme Labs is an accredited
laboratory through the Standards Council of Canada for ISO/IEC 17025:2005.
Recent umpire analyses for the Independencia Este deposit were completed by SGS de
Mexico, S.A. DE C.V. Durango, Mexico. SGS is an accredited laboratory through the
Standards Council of Canada for ISO/IEC 17025:2005.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 11.2. Palmarejo Primary Assay Analytical Methods (Coeur, 2015)

Method Sample Lower Upper Overlimit Overlimit
Year Project Element Units Digestion Finish Weight Limit Limit Trigger
Code Method
(g) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
2014 TG Au-ICP21 Au ppm Fire Assay ICP-AES 30 0.001 10 Au-GRA21 2
2014 TG ME-ICP41 Ag ppm 2-Acid ICP-AES 0.50 0.2 100 Ag-GRA21 100
2015 TG Au-ICP21 Au ppm Fire Assay ICP-AES 30 0.001 10 Au-GRA21 8
2015 TG ME-ICP61 Ag ppm 4-Acid ICP-AES 0.25 0.5 100 Ag-GRA21 80
Table 11.3. Palmarejo Mine Laboratory Primary Assay Analytical Methods (Coeur, 2015)
Sample Lower Upper Overlimit Overlimit

Year Project Method Code Element Units Digestion Finish Weight Limit Limit Trigger
Method
2014 TG Au_AUFAA_gt Au ppm Fire Assay Atomic absorption 30 0.01 10 AUAGGV 1
2014 TG Ag_AA2AC_gt Ag ppm 2-Acid Atomic absorption 2 0.3 300 AUAGGV 10
2015 TG Au_AUFAA_gt Au ppm Fire Assay Atomic absorption 30 0.01 10 AUAGGV 1
2015 TG Ag_AA2AC_gt Ag ppm 2-Acid Atomic absorption 2 0.3 300 AUAGGV 10
Table 11.4. Acme Check Assay Analytical Methods (Coeur, 2015)
Method Sample Lower Upper Overlimit Overlimit

Year Project Element Units Digestion Finish Weight Limit Limit Trigger
Code Method
2014 TG FA-330-Au Au ppm Fire Assay ICP-AES 30 0.002 10 FA530 2
2014 TG FA-530-Ag Ag ppm Fire Assay Gravimetric 30 5 100
2015 TG FA-330-Au Au ppm Fire Assay ICP-AES 30 0.002 10 FA530 8
2015 TG FA-530-Ag Ag ppm Fire Assay Gravimetric 30 5 100

November 2, 2015
11.3.3 Control Samples
Information on historic QA/QC programs is included in Section 12.
11.3.3.1 Standards and Blanks
Ten standards and four blanks were used in 2014. The blank used in Independencia
Este drilling was unmineralized rhyolitic tuff from the local area. A percentage of the
material collected was sent to ALS to verify its below detection limit levels of both gold
and silver before the material was used as a blank. Seven standards and three blanks
were used in 2015 (through the effective date of this Report). A discussion of the
performance of these control samples is included in Section 12.
11.3.4 Bulk Density Analyses
The method used for obtaining density values for the Palmarejo Complex is the standard
wax immersion method for determining the bulk density of fractured materials. This
method was selected due to the porous and absorbent nature of some of the Palmarejo
Complex rocks and mineralized breccias. The method used is ASTM C914-09,
published by the American Society for Testing and Materials and obtained under license
by Coeur.
Bulk density data have been collected by Coeur personnel over several years of
exploration activity in the Palmarejo Complex. Samples of all mineralized zones,
structures, and lithologies are tested. The ASTM C914-09 test method covers the basic
procedure for determining the bulk density and volume of fractured material. This test is
applicable to all rock types, independent of the composition or method of formation. It is
particularly suitable to determine the apparent density and volume of irregular shapes. A
summary of bulk density analyses and their adequacy is provided in Section 14.

November 2, 2015
12. DATA VERIFICATION
12.1 Historic QA/QC and Third Party Reviews
Results from all pre-Coeur Mexicana QA/QC programs on drilling conducted by BSG
and PJO have been reviewed by independent third parties.
Applied Geoscience LLC, studied the results of the QA/QC program implemented by
Planet Gold for the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and La Patria drilling (Blair, 2005; Blair, 2006;
Blair, 2008), and the QA/QC program for the Guadalupe drilling for data collected from
July 2005 to March 2008. Data reviewed by Applied Geoscience LLC includes reference
sample results, duplicate sample, duplicate assay results, and second-laboratory check
assays. The main goal of the study was to assess and comment on the quality of the
assay data.
AMEC Mining and Metals also conducted a review of the drill data during 2008.
Results from the 2005 review by Blair concluded that:
 No significant problems or biases were present in the 2005 drill hole assay
database, with the caveat that the assays could be understated;
 The frequency of reference-sample insertion and third-party check assaying
should be increased; and
 Further third-party check assaying of the existing database is warranted.
Results from the 2006 review by Blair concluded that:
 Reference sample statistics and control charts show acceptable results for the
gold fire assays;
 Silver assays for the standards show scatter outside the tolerance limits for those
standards with expected values of less than approximately 30 g/t Ag;
 Duplicate-sample analyses show acceptable reproducibility for both metals; and
 The assay database is of acceptable quality for resource modeling.
The variance in the silver results was likely due to analytical method variance and lower
resolution at the low-grade levels.

November 2, 2015
In 2008, the review by Blair and AMEC concluded that:
 Gold check assays agreed well with the original assay results and show slightly
higher grades;
 The silver check assays were systematically higher than the original by 5% to
10% between 50 g/t Au and 1500 g/t Au, below 50 g/t Ag there was more scatter,
and above 1500 g/t Ag, the assays agreed well;
 Duplicate analysis showed the sampling and analytical precisions are
acceptable;
 Collar elevations were checked against elevations and XY;
 The accuracy of the certified reference material was acceptable for both Ag and
Au, but the results showed a large number of outlier values; and
 Overall, Ag and Au assay data are sufficiently accurate for resource estimation
and classification purposes.
More detailed data on the aforementioned third party party reviews can be found in
Gustin, 2005; Gustin, 2006; Blaylock, 2008; and, Sims, 2010.
12.2 Coeur QA/QC Programs
The Palmarejo Complex QA/QC program for gold and silver assays has changed since
Coeur implemented the program in 2003. Initially, the reference samples were inserted
into the sample stream at a 1:200 ratio, whereby one reference sample was inserted for
every 200 drill samples. Starting mid-2005, the proportion was increased to
approximately 1:25, to ensure that every fire-assay furnace lot contained reference
samples. In late 2007, the following protocols were implemented for exploration and
development drilling: one reference standard is inserted for every 20 field samples; one
blank sample is inserted for every 20 field samples; and, one field duplicate is collected
for every 20 field samples. Additionally, 5% of the sample pulps are sent to a different
laboratory for check analysis. In 2012, a new protocol for exploration and development
was initiated: one standard and one blank for every 20 field samples, but one duplicate
is collected for every 40 field samples.
Coeur utilizes the acQuire® data management system to store and analyze QA/QC
results as they are made available. Results are not released until QC has been
completed on each assay certificate.
QA/QC results are examined for each batch of assays received from the laboratory.
Failures are defined for standards by the certified values provided by the certifying
laboratory. A standard fails when the value exceeds or falls short of ± three standard

November 2, 2015
deviations of the certified value. A blank fails when the value exceeds five times the
lower detection limit of the assay method. Failure of standard or blank samples requires
re-submitting all of the pulps on either side of the failure, back to or up to the next
passing standard or blank. The original results associated with the failure are entered
into the acQuire® database as rejected results. If the results from the re-analysis pass
QA/QC, they are entered in the acQuire ® database as approved. All sample re-runs are
given precedence over the original results when used in resource estimation; unless
repeated analyses of the batch results in failures of the same magnitude. At this point,
the geologist may choose to accept the original results. Results are also reviewed
quarterly and elements of the QC program are adjusted as necessary.
12.3 2014 and 2015 QA/QC Summary
12.3.1 QA/QC Summary Table
QA/QC measures were completed at the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits. The
2014 programs combined for a total of 116 drill holes for 32,678.7 m. The QC program
included 963 total samples, representing a 14.7% check rate. Check rates vary by check
sample type, and across the projects. The apparent low check rate for the Guadalupe
deposit is due to ore control related drilling in Guadalupe North. A total of 48 drill holes in
this area were prepped and analyzed at the Palmarejo site laboratory and only include
blank controls and no standards or duplicates. Information from these drill holes is used
in the geologic model interpretation. The 2015 program (through the effective date of this
Report) contains 25 drill holes for 11,657.3m that is included in the Guadalupe resource.
The QC program included 253 samples, representing a 13.4% check rate. Additional
items related to insertion rates are addressed in Section 12.
In general, the failure rates for gold standards and blanks were high, as shown in Table
12.1. Refer to Section 12.3.1.2 for a discussion and recommendations regarding these
results.

November 2, 2015
Table 12.1. 2014 Palmarejo Complex and Overall Totals for Standard and Blank Failure Rates
(Coeur, 2015)
Au Ag
Guadalupe (2014) Standard 8% 3.7%
Blank 5.4% 3.4%
Guadalupe (2015) Standard 5.0% 4.0%
Blank 3.8% 2.2%
Independencia Oeste (2014) Standard 1.5% 1.5%
Blank 44% 0%
Independencia Este (2014) Standard 22% 5%
Blank 4.2% 0%
Palmarejo Complex Total (2014) Standard 8.5% 2.4%
Blank 24% 1.6%
Palmarejo Complex Total (August Standard 5.0% 4.0%
2015, Guadalupe only) Blank 3.8% 2.2%
12.3.1.1 Guadalupe QA/QC Results and Discussion (2014 and 2015)
In 2014, a total of 2,870 primary samples were analyzed at two laboratories for gold and
silver using multiple methods. Overall, the insertion rate for control samples was low for
standards and sufficient for both blanks and duplicates. Low standard insertion rates are
attributed to the 52% of samples analyzed at the Palmarejo mine laboratory. These
samples were drilled for ore control purposes and only included blank control samples.
The standard insertion rate for samples analyzed at ALS is sufficient and acceptable.
The performance of standards and blanks, when analyzed for gold, illustrates
questionably high failure rates and indicates a high bias for gold for both standards and
both analytical methods. Currently, all control samples are validated using limits defined
by the certifying laboratory.
Failure rates for standards analyzed for silver are low and do not indicate any significant
bias.
QA/QC results from drilling completed in 2014 identified four failed standards and four
failed blanks. These eight control samples and a selection of primary samples prior to,
and after them, in the sample stream were re-assayed at ALS Chemex in Vancouver,
BC, per Coeur QA/QC policies and procedures. All eight control samples passed QA/QC
following the re-assay. The corrected assay data will be stored in the acQuire® database
as approved results, and will take precedence over the original data for use in resource
calculations.

November 2, 2015
To date, no umpire analyses have been completed on the 2014 Guadalupe samples.
In 2015 (through the effective date of this Report), a total of 1,885 primary samples were
analyzed at ALS Laboratory for gold and silver using multiple methods. Overall, the
insertion rate for control samples was sufficient for standards, blanks and duplicates.
The performance of standards and blanks indicates acceptable failure rates for both gold
and silver.
QA/QC results from drilling completed in 2015 (through the effective date of this Report)
identified seven failed standards and six failed blanks. Technical oversight resulted in
the values of the primary samples associated with these failed standards and blanks to
be included within the resource model dataset. Re-assay of the standards and blanks
and a selection of primary samples prior to, and after them, is currently in progress at the
time of this publication.
To date, no umpire analyses have been completed on the 2015 Guadalupe samples.
12.3.1.2 Independencia Oeste QA/QC Results and Discussion
In 2014, a total of 2,764 primary samples were analyzed at ALS Minerals for gold and
silver by multiple methods. The insertion rate for control samples exceeded Coeur‘s
company requirements and was sufficient for standards, blanks, and duplicates.
The performance of standards is acceptable and indicates low failure rates and no bias
in either laboratory procedures or the certified material.
The performance of gold blanks is poor. The majority of the failed blanks were inserted
into the sample stream immediately following the high grade standard SQ70. The
laboratory was notified of the contamination and ALS Minerals provided documentation
explaining the nature of the contamination, which was related to rinsing of the ICP
instrument with compressed air between samples. The laboratory determined that
additional rinse time on the instrument would not reduce the contamination carryover in
this scenario. The failed blanks were analyzed again and passed QA/QC checks. This
situation has been documented by Coeur and the use of standard SQ70 has been
discontinued. The QP recommends that more regular checks of control sample results
be conducted to more effectively identify these scenarios. The QP is aware of carryover
issues resulting from this procedure, and is confident that it is does not have a significant
impact on the quality of the QA/QC results.

November 2, 2015
Re-analysis of failed control samples and the associated primary samples has been
completed, as per Coeur policy. In 2014, four sample batches were re-assayed due to
standard failure, and 33 batches due to blanks failure.
Pulp duplicates analyzed for gold and silver at ALS Minerals show a 34% and 20%
failure rate, respectively, at a 15% differential limit for error between samples. The
duplicates that fail do not exhibit any extreme outliers and duplicate sample correlation
coefficients greater than 95% were obtained.
Umpire check analyses were completed at Acme Labs. The results indicate a very good
correlation for gold and silver, respectively, between ALS Minerals and Acme Labs.
12.3.1.3 Independencia Este Discussion
In 2014, a total of 938 primary samples were collected and analyzed at ALS Minerals for
gold and silver by multiple methods. The insertion rate for control samples met or
exceeded Coeur‘s requirements for gold.
The overall performance of standards and blanks is acceptable. Most control samples
display low to zero failure rates. Standard OxC102 shows an 82% failure rate; however,
when the data are plotted, an apparent low bias from the laboratory is detected. This low
bias is reproduced consistently across the dataset.
Pulp duplicates analyzed for gold and silver at ALS Minerals show a 20% and 34%
failure rate, respectively, at a 20% differential limit for error between samples. The
duplicates that fail do not exhibit any extreme outliers and correlation greater than 94%
was obtained. The plots contain a combination of both ¼ core duplicates and analytical
pulp duplicates. The 20% failure threshold was used due to the inherent geological
variability that is associated with ¼ core sample duplicates.
Umpire check analyses were completed at SGS de Mexico for the 2014 drill campaign.
The results indicate a very good correlation for gold and silver, respectively, between
SGS de Mexico and ALS Minerals.
In 2015, a comprehensive review of all Independencia Oeste QA/QC data was

completed. The insertion rate for control samples met Coeur‘s requirement for blanks,
standards, and duplicates. Blanks performed very well, with a 2.8% failure rate.
Standards performed poorly and exhibit a 34% failure rate for gold. All failed control
samples and the associated primary samples are considered rejected in the acQuire ®
database, and are not included within the resource evaluation. Sample batches of
economic interest have been submitted for re-analysis per Coeur Mining QA/QC policies

November 2, 2015
and procedures. Results of the re-analysis are pending at the time of publication of this
Report.
12.3.2 Conclusions
It is the opinion of the QP that the analytical results from the 2014/2015 (through the
effective date of this Report) drilling and prior sampling programs, are of sufficient quality
for use in resource evaluation, and meet the requirements for NI 43-101.
Recommendations for data management and data verification are included in Section
26.

November 2, 2015
13. MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

Three ore sources comprise the majority of the material to be processed through the
Palmarejo plant. One of the current sources, the Palmarejo deposit, will be depleted in
2016. The future ore will come from the Guadalupe and the Independencia deposits.
There have been several metallurgical test programs conducted on the three deposits,
the latest of which tested material from Independencia in 2014.
Independencia Este (formerly Don Ese) is an extension of Independencia and is

targeted to become Palmarejo feedstock to the processing facilities. Paramount provided
representative samples to Coeur, and the 2014 metallurgical test work conducted on
Independencia Este has been incorporated into this section.
13.1 Palmarejo Historic Metallurgical Test Summary
Beginning in 2003 and continuing through 2009, numerous metallurgical tests were
conducted on the Palmarejo deposit. The focus of the historical test work was to obtain
representative metallurgical samples, conduct mineralogy examinations, determine the
most favorable processing routes, collect sufficient design information to select
equipment that fit the preferred processing flow sheet, and provide guidance for
operating performance. To that end, several test programs were set up and conducted to
define the comminution characteristics of potential mill feed, determine the flotation
response of gold and silver, quantify the cyanidation performance, collect design
information for a proposed Merrill-Crowe circuit, confirm the selection of a novel
electrowinning method, investigate slurry rheology, measure settling and filtration
characteristics, determine oxygen uptake, characterize tailings, and ensure the reliability
of cyanide destruction. As part of the work, metallurgical response and operating
parameters were established, including metal recoveries, reagent consumptions, power
requirements, and associated operating parameters.
A total of 13 drill holes were selected and tested along with three bulk samples. The drill
hole samples consisted of seven RC drill holes and six diamond drill holes. The bulk
samples consisted of two underground samples taken from the existing workings from
the ‗La Prieta‘ structure and one surface outcrop sample from the Chapotillo Clavo. In
total, almost 2.5 tonnes of samples were tested to allow the design of the plant to
proceed.
A detailed comminution test work program was carried out. Comminution testing
included BWi (Bond work index) test work, Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)
testing, Advanced Media Compentency (AMC) testing, JK Drop weight (DWi) and Steve
Morrell Pty Ltd (SMC) testing used for modeling. These tests indicated that some of the
rock types (e.g., amygdaloidal andesite) were hard and competent, while other rock

November 2, 2015
types were less hard and competent (e.g., the quartz vein breccia and footwall
sediments). Evaluation of the comminution data indicated the ore was amenable to
crushing through jaw crushers and grinding using semi-autogenous grind (SAG) milling
followed by ball milling.
Flotation test work was carried out at batch scale on Palmarejo ores, followed by locked
cycle testing, and finally, pilot plant scale tests to produce intermediate products for
cyanidation of flotation concentrates and solutions for Merrill-Crow and electrowinning.
All of the flotation data demonstrated the ore was amenable to rougher flotation. The
tests indicated approximately 80% of the silver and gold could be collected into a
concentrate mass of approximately 5% of the feed tonnage. This low mass pull allowed
high cyanide concentration leaching of the flotation concentrate to produce a high tenor
solution for precious metal recovery.
Leaching test work was carried out to optimize reagent additions and define the plant
extractions. Overall, cyanidation reagent consumptions were moderate, averaging 1.3kg
NaCN/t, and lime usage was low, averaging 1.2kg lime/t as CaO.
13.2 Guadalupe Metallurgical Test Summary 2007 - 2010
Between 2007 and 2010, three metallurgical test programs were undertaken by SGS
Laboratories, Durango, Mexico, to confirm the Palmarejo plant could accept Guadalupe
ore and gauge the metallurgical performance, using the plant operating conditions.
13.2.1 Sample Selection
Representative samples of the predominate mineralization types were selected from

different areas. Two drill holes, TGDH-129 and TGDH 184, were used for metallurgical
testing in 2007. Four more samples: TGDH-054, TGDH-214, TGDH-225, and TGDH-
238, were tested in 2008. Additional metallurgical samples, TGDH-341 and TGDH- 355,
were tested in 2010.
Table 13.1 summarizes the main lithology and alteration characteristics of the
metallurgical samples.
Table 13.1. Guadalupe Metallurgical Sample Characteristics (Coeur, 2015)

Sample
Sample Type Ore Type Composition
TGDH-129 Core Sulfides Quartz Cemented Breccia
TGDH-184 RC Oxides Quartz Cemented Breccia
TGDH-054 Core Sulfides Quartz Vein Cemented Breccia
TDGH-214 Core Sulfides Carbonate Cemented Breccia

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Sample
Sample Type Ore Type Composition
TGDH-225 Core Sulfides Quartz Carbonate Cemented Breccia
Mixed Quartz Carbonate Cemented Breccia
TGDH-238 Core Sulf/Oxide and Stockwork
Mixed Quartz Vein Cemented Breccia
TDGH-341 Core Sulf/Oxide
TGDH-355 Core Oxides Quartz Carbonate Cemented Breccia
Figure 13.1 shows the location of the drill holes within the Guadalupe deposit.
N
GUADALUPE LONG SECTION
100m
Figure 13.1. Location of Metallurgical Drill Holes for Testing (Coeur, 2014)
13.2.2 Sample Mineralogy
In addition to the eight metallurgical samples, 18 samples from different parts of the
Guadalupe deposit were submitted to Petrolabs for mineralogical studies. Mineralogy
was conducted on samples from drill holes shown in Figure 13.1.
The mineralogical work shows that the mineralogy of the Palmarejo deposit and the
Guadalupe deposit are similar (Table 13.2).

November 2, 2015
Table 13.2. Mineral Species at Guadalupe and Palmarejo (Coeur, 2015)

Guadalupe Mineral Species Palmarejo Mineral Species
Ross, 2009; Reyes, 2009a & b; Petro Lab,
Petro Lab, 2010
2006
Electrum Electrum
Native Gold Native Gold
Acanthite-argentite Acanthite
Native silver Native silver
Jalpaite Jalpaite
Aguilarite Aguilarite
Pyrite Pyrite
Sphalerite Sphalerite
Galena Galena
Chalcopyrite Chalcopyrite
Chalcosite Altaite
Enargite Billingsleyite
Bornite Cervellite
Tennantite-tetrahedrite Tennantite-tetrahedrite
Freibergite Proustite
Pearceite-polybasite Pearceite-polybasite
Covellite-digenite Covellite-digenite
Unspecified Iron Oxides Mckinstrite
Unspecified Manganese Oxides Stromeyerite
Note: Mineral species were identified by optical microscopy and scanning electron
microprobe work EDAX technique
13.2.3 Metallurgical Testing
The SGS programs tested whole ore bottle roll cyanidation, rougher flotation followed by
tailing cyanidation, and gravity separation.
The bottle roll leach tests followed industry standard test procedures of 96 hour leach,
pH between 10.5 to 11, three grind sizes of P 80 106 µm, 75 µm, and 53 µm and four
cyanide concentrations of 500 mg NaCN/l, 1000 mg/l, 2000 mg/l, and 3000 mg NaCN/l.
The flotation tests were standard flotation tests conducted at two grind sizes of P 80 106
µm and 75 µm. The flotation concentrate was then assayed for metal content. The
flotation tails were cyanide-leached.
The gravity tests were conducted on coarser grinding sizes of P 80 212 µm and 150 µm.
The samples were gravity concentrated using a Knelson concentrator. The gravity
concentrates were then submitted to cyanide leaching.

November 2, 2015
13.2.4 Metallurgical Results
The best Guadalupe metallurgical results were achieved by flotation followed by tailing
leaching. The table below summarizes the results of these tests. Whole ore
cyanidation was less suitable. The poorest overall recovery was found with the gravity
concentrate method.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 13.3. Guadalupe Metallurgical Test Results (Coeur, 2015)

RECOVERIES+
Cyanide Leach of Cyanide Leach of
Composite Head Grade Cyanide Bottle Roll Test Bulk Flotation Flotation Tails* Gravity Concentration Gravity Concentrate
Drill Hole Au g/t Ag g/t Au % Ag % Au % Ag % Au % Ag % Au % Ag % Au % Ag %
TGDH-129 2.68 270 93 84.0 86.3 85.6 96.6 96.6 46.3 33.6 85.3 84.5
TGDH-184 0.40 631 80 92.0 76.3 94.0 96.4 99.0 23.2 36.9 76.8 90.7
TGDH-054 1.19 159 91 89.3 80.6 81.4 96.6 94.3 33.4 32.2 86.5 87.5
TGDH-214 5.43 209 95.4 89.8 89.8 93.5 98.7 98.3 58.1 45.9 84.8 67.9
TGDH-225 1.71 196 89.2 86.3 84.1 84.9 95.8 94.1 35 31.8 84 85.2
TGDH-238 1.90 119 95.6 66.2 80.0 63.5 96.9 75.4 42.1 25.1 84.8 83.0
TGDH-341 1.84 135 N/A N/A 70.4 81.2 97.2 97.9 N/A N/A 69.7 80.4
TGDH-355 3.94 211 N/A N/A 71.5 86.0 96.8 97.9 N/A N/A 70.8 85.1
+ Bottle Roll Values are laboratory extraction values and require adjustment to reflect plant solution losses.
* Listed recovery of "Cyanide Leach of Floatation Tails" is the final total recovery from both bulk flotation and leaching of tails.

November 2, 2015
13.3 Guadalupe Metallurgical Tests 2013
In 2013, additional test work was carried out on a single Guadalupe sample of ore
proposed to be mined by underground mining techniques.
During Guadalupe underground development work, Coeur geology staff collected a

single ore sample from the working areas, mostly representing exposed vein
mineralization, with the main objective of running metallurgical test work.
The single Guadalupe sample was collected from small trenches across the vein
material; the obtained cuttings were small rocks ranging from one-half to 2 inches in
size, with an approximate weight of 25kg.
13.3.2 Metallurgical Tests
The on-site Palmarejo metallurgical laboratory conducted flotation test work, followed by
leaching on the single Guadalupe sample. Two 1kg flotation tests were conducted
following Palmarejo‘s flotation test protocol.
Each 1kg split was ground at 60% solids to approximately P80 = 75μm (-200 mesh) in a
bench scale ball mill, Cytec Aero 412 promoter (AERO), and PAX were added during
grinding. Rougher flotation tests were conducted, using an Essa flotation machine in a
2.6 L. flotation cell. Each test consisted of an initial two-minutes of conditioning time at
400 rpm; MIBC was added during conditioning, test percent solids were targeted at 30%,
then a period of seven minutes was allowed to obtain a rougher concentrate at 1000
rpm, using sufficient aspirated air to form a constant froth bed; then the rougher
concentrate was placed in a 1.3 L. flotation cell for three minutes of froth removal at
1000 rpm, with a second PAX and MIBC addition to obtain a cleaner concentrate.
Dosages of reagents were about 30 g/t Aero 412, 50 g/t PAX, and 25 g/t MIBC.
Cleaner concentrate and middlings were collected separately, then dried, weighed, and
assayed for gold and silver. Rougher flotation tail was also collected separately, then
dried, weighed, and sampled for assay. Flotation tail was assayed for gold and silver.
The flotation tailings from the second flotation test were re-combined with water to
achieve 40 wt% solids to conduct a standard agitated cyanidation test. Lime was added
to adjust the pH of the pulp to 11.0 prior to adding the cyanide. Sodium cyanide,
equivalent to 1.0 g/L, was added to the alkaline pulp.

November 2, 2015
Leaching was then conducted by rolling the pulp in a bottle on the laboratory rolls for 24
hours. After 24 hours, the pulp was filtered; pregnant solution sample was taken for gold
and silver analysis by atomic absorption (AA) methods. The leached residue was
washed, dried, weighed, and fire assayed to determine residual gold and silver content.
Table 13.4 and Table 13.5 summarize the additional Guadalupe metallurgical results
from the two flotation tests. Table 13.6 summarizes the metallurgical results from the
cyanide leaching test carried out on flotation tails. Table 13.7 summarizes overall metal
recovery from flotation test with tails leaching.
Sample (Coeur, 2015)
Overall Flotation
Grade Contents Recovery
Product Weight Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag
grams % g/t g/t mg mg % %
Final Conc. 26.2 2.58 95.3 4326.0 2.454 111.4 81.4 78.7
Middlings 107.9 10.61 2.1 121.0 0.222 12.8 7.4 9.1
Final Tail 883.3 86.82 0.39 20.0 0.337 17.4 11.2 12.3
Calc'd Head 1017.4 100.00 2.96 139.2 3.013 141.6 100.0 100.0
Assayed Head 2.71 126.0
Sample (Coeur, 2015)
Overall Flotation
grams % g/t g/t mg mg % %
Final Conc. 26.6 2.66 92.98 4350.0 2.473 115.7 79.3 77.9
Middlings 178.6 17.86 1.31 77.0 0.234 13.8 7.5 9.3
Final Tail 794.8 79.48 0.52 24.0 0.412 19.1 13.2 12.8
Calc'd Head 1000.0 100.00 3.12 148.5 3.119 148.5 100.0 100.0

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 13.6. Metallurgical Results Summary, Agitated Leaching Test Guadalupe

Underground Ore Sample, Flotation Test No. 2 with Tailings Cyanidation (Coeur, 2015)
Leaching Results
grams lt g/t g/t mg mg % %
Preg Solution 1.09 0.20 11.7 0.218 12.8 57.8 65.9
- 24 Hrs
Final Tail 794.8 0.20 8.3 0.159 6.6 42.2 34.1
Calc'd Head 794.8 1.09 0.47 24.3 0.377 19.3 100.0 100.0
Table 13.7. Metallurgical Results Summary, Overall Recovery Guadalupe Underground Ore
Samples, Flotation Test No. 2+ Tails Leaching (Coeur, 2015)
Overall Recovery
Cumm
Grade Contents Recovery Recovery
Weight Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag
Product grams lt g/t g/t mg mg % % % %
Final Conc. 26.6 92.98 4350.0 2.473 115.710 80.2 77.8 80.2 77.8
Middlings 178.6 1.31 77.0 0.234 13.752 7.6 9.2 87.8 87.0
Preg Solution - 24 H. 1.09 0.20 11.7 0.218 12.753 7.1 8.6 94.8 95.6
Final Tail 794.8 0.20 8.3 0.159 6.597 5.2 4.4 100.0 100.0
Calc'd Head 1000.0 1.09 3.08 148.8 3.084 148.812 100.0 100.0
The 2013 flotation test results indicate that the Guadalupe ore sample achieved an
average gold and silver recovery of 80.4% and 78.3%. Flotation, followed by flotation
tails leaching results, indicates that gold and silver recoveries could be improved. The
achieved overall recoveries were 94.8% and 95.6%, respectively. These metallurgical
results agree reasonably well with the previous metallurgical test work conducted on
Guadalupe drill core samples.
13.4 Guadalupe North Metallurgical Tests 2014
In 2014, additional metallurgical test work was carried out on drill core composites
representing Guadalupe North geological domain (North Structure – Vein), as part of
ongoing metallurgical testing program. Three initial composites were conformed to carry
out whole cyanidation and rougher-cleaner flotation followed by whole cyanidation of the
flotation tailings.

November 2, 2015
The geological database was consulted to select samples based on geological domain,
lithology, and silver grade. The final set of selected samples represented vein material
and was categorized by silver grade. The samples were then organized and grouped to
represent three different silver grade ranges. The silver grades were identified as a Low
Grade (< 75 g/t), Medium Grade (76 – 150 g/t), and High Grade (> 250 g/t). A total of 85
samples were selected and used to make up the three composites.
13.4.2 Metallurgical Tests
Both whole ore cyanidation bottle roll tests and flotation tests were conducted at the
onsite Palmarejo metallurgical laboratory on the three Guadalupe North Zone master
composites.
Whole ore cyanidation tests were run at a single feed size of P 80 75 µm. Leaching was
conducted in bottles for 72 hours, using cyanide concentrations of 1,000, 2,000, and
3,000 mg NaCN/L. Rolling was suspended briefly after 4, 8, 24, and 48 hours to allow
the pulps to settle, so samples of pregnant solution could be taken for gold and silver
analyses by A.A. methods. After 72 hours, final leached residues were washed, dried,
weighed, and fire assayed in triplicate to determine residual precious metal content.
Metallurgical results from the agitated leach tests on the Guadalupe North Vein
Composites are provided in Table 13.8 through Table 13.12.
Flotation tests, followed by tailings whole cyanidation tests, were conducted on each of
the Guadalupe North master composites. The flotation tests were conducted following
Palmarejo‘s flotation test protocol, as described above.
Table 13.8 through Table 13.10 record the test results for the Guadalupe North vein
results at high, medium, and low grade composites.

November 2, 2015
Table 13.8. Metallurgical Test Results Summary – Agitated Leaching Test,

Guadalupe North Vein – High Grade Composite (Coeur, 2015)
Cyanide in Solution (ppm)

Metallurgical Results 1000 2000 3000
Extraction: pct. of total Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag
in 4 hours 62.4 14.5 68.0 23.7 75.1 30.2
in 8 hours 80.0 24.0 86.8 36.7 88.5 47.6
in 24 hours 82.1 38.8 88.9 51.7 90.7 64.0
in 48 hours 84.3 57.9 93.0 63.6 92.9 88.7
in 72 hours 86.4 68.0 97.0 77.2 97.2 88.7
Tail Assay, g/t 0.8 120.0 0.2 93.7 0.2 46.1
Calc'd. Head, g/t ore 6.2 374.5 6.5 411.1 6.1 407.0
Assayed Head, g/t ore 6.1 428.0 6.1 428.0 6.1 428.0
Cyanide Consumed (kg/t) 0.73 3.91 2.57
Guadalupe North Vein – Medium Grade Composite (Coeur, 2015)

Extraction: pct of total Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag
in 4 hours 81.1 27.9 88.9 41.3 88.9 50.6
in 8 hours 87.7 31.4 88.9 49.4 95.7 57.5
in 24 hours 94.3 42.1 88.9 61.6 95.7 71.8
in 48 hours 94.3 67.3 88.9 88.0 95.7 94.8
in 72 hours 94.3 72.3 95.4 88.0 95.7 94.8
Tail Assay, g/t 0.1 46.2 0.1 19.7 0.1 9.3
Calc'd. Head, g/t ore 2.0 166.5 2.0 164.6 2.0 165.4
Cyanide Consumed (kg/mt) 1.47 3.02 1.82

November 2, 2015

Guadalupe North Vein – Low Grade Composite (Coeur, 2015)
Extraction: pct. of total Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag
in 4 hours 73.9 35.3 77.4 47.8 81.7 56.8
in 8 hours 92.1 40.3 77.4 54.4 97.8 63.3
in 24 hours 92.1 54.4 77.4 64.0 97.8 66.7
in 48 hours 92.1 69.4 92.2 87.5 97.8 92.3
in 72 hours 92.1 86.2 92.2 92.3 97.8 94.0
Tail Assay, g/t 0.1 10.4 0.1 5.8 0.0 4.6
Calc'd. Head, g/t ore 0.7 75.1 0.9 75.3 0.8 76.3
Cyanide Consumed (kg/t) 1.04 2.24 2.87
Overall metallurgical results from the rougher - cleaner flotation, followed by tails
leaching testing on the Guadalupe North Vein Composites are provided in Table 13.11
and Table 13.12.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 13.11. Metallurgical Test Results Summary Guadalupe North Vein Composites,
Rougher Flotation +Agitated Leaching (Gold) (Coeur, 2015)
gAu/mt ore
Au Recovery, % of total Extracted Leached Head Grade
Composite Flot. Ro. Conc. CN Combined Leached Tail Flot. Ro. Conc. CN Leach Combined Tail Calculated Assayed
(High Grade) Composite (Initial) 81.8 15.7 97.5 2.5 4.16 0.80 4.96 0.12 5.09 6.13
(High Grade) Composite (Duplicate) 87.0 11.1 98.1 1.9 5.49 0.70 6.19 0.12 6.31 6.13
Medium Grade) Composite (Initial) 77.6 16.6 94.2 5.8 1.40 0.30 1.70 0.11 1.81 1.80
(Medium Grade) Composite (Duplicate) 76.9 17.6 94.5 5.5 1.31 0.30 1.61 0.09 1.71 1.80
(Low Grade) Composite 69.8 24.5 94.3 5.7 0.57 0.20 0.77 0.05 0.82 0.60
Table 13.12. Metallurgical Test Results Summary Guadalupe North Vein Composites,
Rougher Flotation +Agitated Leaching (Silver) (Coeur, 2015)
gAg/mt ore
Ag Recovery, % of total Extracted Leached Head Grade
Composite Flot. Ro. Conc. CN Combined Leached Tail Flot. Ro. Conc. CN Leach Combined Tail Calculated Assayed
(High Grade) Composite (Initial) 87.1 9.6 96.8 3.2 303.3 33.5 336.8 11.3 348.0 428.0
(High Grade) Composite (Duplicate) 88.5 8.7 97.2 2.8 378.0 37.2 415.2 11.8 427.0 428.0
Medium Grade) Composite (Initial) 83.1 12.1 95.2 4.8 125.9 18.3 144.2 7.3 151.5 157.0
(Medium Grade) Composite (Duplicate) 79.5 14.7 94.2 5.8 108.3 20.0 128.3 7.9 136.2 157.0
(Low Grade) Composite 76.0 17.5 93.6 6.4 48.1 11.1 59.2 4.1 63.3 68.0

November 2, 2015
13.4.4 Whole Ore Cyanidation Metallurgical Results Highlights
Metallurgical results show that Guadalupe North Composites were amenable to direct
agitated cyanidation treatment at P80 =75 µm feed size. Gold recovery rates were fairly
rapid and substantially complete within the first 8 hours of leaching. Gold recoveries
ranged from 86.4% to 97.8%. The average for all tests was 94.2%.
Silver leach rates were typical for silver-bearing ore and were not substantially complete
at 48 hours unless the cyanide concentration in solution was 3000 mg/L. Silver
recoveries ranged from 68.0% to 94.8%. The average for all tests was 84.6%.
The composites were sensitive to solution cyanide concentration with respect to silver
recovery. Increasing cyanide concentration from 1,000 to 3,000 ppm increased silver
average recovery by 17.0%. Cyanide consumption was moderate to high, ranged from
0.73 to 3.91kg/t of ore. The average for all tests was 2.18kg/t of ore. Lime consumption
was low, ranging from 0.9 to 1.0kg/t of ore
13.4.5 Rougher – Cleaner Flotation + Tailings Whole Cyanidation Test Results

Highlights
The Guadalupe North composites responded well to rougher-cleaner flotation treatment

for recovery of gold and silver. Flotation gold and silver recoveries for the the P80 75
µm. feeds averaged 78.6% and 82.8% respectively. Both gold and silver recoveries
tended to increase with increasing grade.
Gold and silver recoveries were improved significantly after flotation tailings were
subjected to whole cyanidation. Gold combined laboratory recoveries for flotation/tailings
cyanidation unadjusted for plant solution losses ranged from 94.2% to 98.1% and
averaged 95.7%
Silver combined laboratory recoveries for flotation/tailings cyanidation unadjusted for

plant solution losses ranged from 93.6% to 97.2% and averaged 97.2%.
Flotation/tailings cyanidation was demonstrated to be effective as processing options for

Guadalupe North Composites.
Flotation followed by tailing cyanidation showed a significant decrease in cyanide

consumption when compared to whole ore cyanidation. Cyanide consumption for the
flotation tailings leaching was low to moderate and averaged 0.83kg/t of ore.

November 2, 2015
13.5 Independencia Oeste 2014
In mid-2014, a drilling campaign was executed at Independencia Oeste.
Fourteen drill holes from an ongoing drill program were made available for testing at
ALS, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada. The external program was managed by
Golden Metallurgical Group, Denver, Colorado.
Coarse assay rejects from ½-NQ core were available for metallurgical tests. The
mineralization was anticipated to be mined using underground techniques; thus, GMG
reviewed the drill data file searching for continuous intervals approximately 4m or more
in length, with weighted geologic silver plus gold assays above 90g AgEq//t, (gold
content converted to silver equivalent using gold/silver price ratio of 60:1), which was the
Coeur-specified width and cut-off grade for an underground mining scenario. From there,
16 intervals from nine drill holes were selected from the available suite of 14 drill holes.
The total coarse reject weight from the nominated intervals was 258kg, and these
intervals were shipped to ALS. ALS was instructed to composite the intervals into a 60
kg master composite to be used for the investigation. Remnants of each sample interval
were retained separately so further variability test work could be conducted at a later
date on each interval. Samples were selected to span the grade range from very high
grade (VHG), high grade (HG), average grade (AVG), and low-grade cut-off (LG CU).

November 2, 2015
Table 13.13. Independencia Oeste Master Composite Intervals (Coeur, 2015)
13.5.2 Independencia Oeste Mineralogy
A portion of the master composite was split out and submitted for mineralogy. A
QEMSCAN Trace Mineral Search (TMS) was conducted and located 232 particles
containing silver-bearing minerals from a search population of 4.22 x 106 particles
scanned from two pucks. From a total of 232 silver-bearing particles, the first 50 were
arbitrarily selected and subjected to further study. The mean silver-bearing particle size
was 6.1 µm, using a backscattered electron beam with a 2 µm resolution lower limit. The
split measured a silver assay of 189g Ag/t, which compared favorably with the expected
175g Ag/t head assay computed from weigh-averaging the individual interval assays
used to make up the master composite. The measured master composite silver head
assay averaging 180g Ag/t for triplicate assays.

November 2, 2015
The entire population indicated complex silver sulfide mineralization. Of the 50 particles
studied, one particle of native silver with silver-copper-sulfide contributed 41% of the
silver-bearing mineralization due to its coarse size; 18 particles of silver-copper sulfide
added 32% of the silver-bearing mineralization; 20 particles of acanthite/argentite made
up 10% of the silver-bearing mineralization; and, the remaining 11 particles of various
silver associations contributed the remaining 17% of silver-bearing mineralization. The
relative proportions of identified mineral associations are highly influenced by the single
native silver-silver copper sulfide particle.
The reported distribution of silver-bearing mineralization was: 68% silver-copper sulfide,

19% acanthite/argentite, 6% native silver/electrum, 5% silver-copper-arsenic sulfide, and
the remaining 2% comprised various sulfides/other. The laboratory noted the
acanthite/argentite labeled portion was outside the defined chemical ranges associated
with the elemental mole compositions.
13.5.3 Metallurgical Test Work
13.5.3.1 Head Assays
ALS determined the characteristics of interest for the master composite. Silver assayed
189 g/t, gold assayed 2.09 g/t, sulfur assayed 0.495%, and Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
assayed 0.03%. The silver and gold assays were averages of triplicate assays. A portion
of the head sample was split and sent to ALS Vancouver for confirmatory preg-robbing
tests using spiked samples.
13.5.3.2 Bond Ball Mill Work Index
One Bond Ball Mill work index test was conducted on the master composite with a feed
F80 2032 μm and the P80 78 μm on a 150 μm (100 mesh) closing screen.
13.5.3.3 Bulk Rougher Flotation
The bulk rougher flotation protocol used was the Palmarejo flotation protocol. Two
kilograms of the master composite was ground to approximately P80 75 μm in a mild
steel rod mill using mild steel rods and Kamloops potable water. Flotation tests by
various laboratory technicians were conducted in a Denver D2A lab flotation machine at
1100 rpm, using sufficient aspirated air to form a froth column. The test percent solids
target was set at 35%, although this varied slightly to ensure the froth column height in
each test was adequate for froth removal. Cytec Aero 404 promoter, PAX, and MIBC
were used for the tests. Dosages of reagents were about 18-20 g/t Aero 404, 50 g/t
PAX, and 15 g/t MIBC. The test consisted of a series of four periods, each period
consisting of one-minute conditioning time followed by two minutes of flotation froth

November 2, 2015
removal. Each concentrate product was collected separately and assayed for silver,
gold, and sulfur. The final tail was also assayed.
13.5.3.4 Whole-Ore Cyanidation
Duplicate bottle roll tests were conducted using 96 hour duration, 2000 mg/L NaCN
strength, pH 11, 40% solids, 300 g/t Pb(NO3)2, and sparged oxygen.
The low TOC contained in the head samples suggested preg-robbing potential was low.
These results were confirmed by a spiked-sample preg-robbing test that also indicated
low to no preg-robbing potential. The absence of preg-robbing permitted direct bottle roll
cyanidation without the use of carbon in the tests.
The Bond ball mill work index (BWi) was measured to be 16.4 kWh/t. This value is
considered to be moderately hard for ball milling and within the operating capabilities of
the Palmarejo comminution circuit.
The master composite flotation test recovered 90% of the silver and 89% of the gold into
a bulk concentrate that pulled 21% of the initial mass. The mass pull was higher than
Palmarejo practice, which will require some adaptation of current plant operating
conditions to improve gangue rejection in the rougher flotation circuit.
The duplicate bottle roll cyanidation leach tests averaged 81% silver extraction and 86%
gold extraction. ALS noted a small variance between the two calculated heads for the
two tests, but without further work, no cause could be established.
The master composite was remarkable in the form of mineralization. The main minerals
were silver-copper sulfides; however, this conclusion is biased by a single particle that
accounted for 41% of the total silver. Acanthite was the second most abundant mineral,
which is more typical of the local mineralogy.
Silver and gold extractions for whole-ore cyanidation at the targeted P 80 75μm showed
silver extraction was 81% and gold extraction was 86%. As is common for cyanidation,
silver leached slower than gold.
Bulk rougher flotation results were acceptable with silver recovery to the bulk rougher
concentrate at 90% and gold recovery 89% on the 0.49% sulfur master composite. The
mass pull was high at 21%, which would lead to investigation of cleaning stages.

November 2, 2015
13.6 Independencia Este Metallurgy
In late 2014, Coeur initiated a confirmation metallurgical test work program on

Paramount drill hole samples based on Coeur-identified geological domains, which
would provide better data interpretation and would associate each domain‘s
metallurgical response to future resources definition and quantities.
13.6.1 Geometallurgical Domains
Coeur‘s geology staff reviewed drill logs and deposit information and proposed six
potential geometallurgical domains. Core photos of the mineralized intervals were
obtained and reviewed, and several of the initially proposed interval selections were
modified to ensure each interval contained only a single domain. Domain descriptions
are provided in Table 13.14.
Table 13.14. Independencia Este Geometallurgical Domains (Coeur, 2015)
Domain Brief Description

Domain 1 Hematitic Andesite and Quartz Breccia in red clay
Domain 2 Densely silicified, weakly oxidized, re-healed Quartz Breccia and Quartz Vein
Domain 3 Brown, weak to moderate oxidation, moderately quartz-veined Andesite
Domain 4 Weak to moderately silicified/oxidized, variable quartz-veined Volcanoclastic Sediments
Domain 5 Grey, fractured, weakly oxidized quartz-veined Andesite
Domain 6 Red/white, moderately oxidized, re-healed Quartz Breccia
A total of 194 intervals from 11 drill holes piercing the deep portion of the deposit were
selected to conduct confirmatory flotation and cyanidation tests. Geology personnel
located and delivered 184 of the 194 intervals, all from the geographically northwestern
and middle portions of the deposit. The samples originated from archived assay rejects
from prior coring drilling programs.
The coarse assay rejects were previously crushed to approximately -3.35mm and
individually bagged. All the information regarding each drill hole, including hole number,
assay information, assay certificate number, requested intervals from each hole,
resultant weighted average grade for each drill hole domain interval composite
calculated based on weight, and weight/length values to determine if core losses were
apparent, was included in a Excel spreadsheet for further composite preparation.

November 2, 2015
13.6.3 Metallurgical Test Work
ALS Minerals (ALS), Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, conducted flotation and
cyanidation tests on the geological domain composites.
13.6.3.1 Sample Compositing
Thirteen wooden crates weighing 590kg total were shipped to ALS Metallurgy. ALS
received the crates, inventoried the contents, and compiled thirty-one interval
composites. For each of the six domains, individual one-meter intervals were collected
into interval composites. These interval composites were then composited into a domain
master composite for each domain.
All domain interval composites and domain master composites were built based on
weights of interval samples rather than on lengths. After mixing and splitting out the
required weight of material from each bag, the excess material was returned to the
original bag and properly storage.
13.6.3.2 Domain D1 – D6 Master Composite Head Assays
Each as-received domain master composite was divided using a rotary splitter, and head
assay samples were withdrawn and sent in for silver, gold, sulfur, and organic carbon
assays. Splits were also taken from each of the composites and sent to ALS Minerals,
Vancouver, for ICP analysis. Based on ALS initial reported head assays of silver, gold,
and sulfur for each domain master composite, two additional composites were requested
to separate a high silver/high gold interval and a high sulfide sulfur interval from Domain
D2. Table 13.15 summarizes the ALS head assays for the eight composites.
Table 13.15. Don Ese, Domains D1 – D6 Composite Head Assay (Coeur, 2015)
13.6.3.3 Flotation Tests
Processing conditions for the Palmarejo plant flotation circuit were modified to bench-
scale conditions. Once each domain master composite was made and assayed, the first

November 2, 2015
tests conducted were bench flotation tests on the three predominant domains D1, D2,
and D3.
Two kilograms of each of the three tested domains were ground to approximately P 80
75μm in a mild-steel rod mill, using mild-steel rods and Kamloops potable water.
Flotation tests were conducted in a Denver D2A lab flotation machine at 1100 rpm, using
sufficient aspirated air to form a froth column. The test percent solids target was set at
35%; Cytec Aero 404 (promoter), PAX (collector), and MIBC (frother) were used for the
tests. Dosages of reagents were about 18-20 g/t Aero 404, 50 g/t PAX, and 15 g/t MIBC.
Each test consisted of a series of four periods, each period consisting of one-minute
conditioning time, followed by two minutes of flotation froth removal. Each concentrate
product was collected separately and assayed for silver, gold, and sulfur. The final tail
was assayed as well. Table 13.16 summarizes the flotation performance for each
domain.
Table 13.16. Independencia Este, Domains D1 – D6, ALS Flotation Test Results (Coeur, 2015)
Flotation test results showed the mass pulls were generally 15% to 23%; silver
recoveries, determined by combining the four period concentrates into a single rougher
concentrate, were variable by domain with Domain D1 and D2 recoveries between 71%
and 81%, Domain D3 recovery the poorest at 43%, and the high grade Domain D2
recovery being nearly 95%. Gold response ranged between 68% and 89% for Domain
D1, D2, and D3; while the high grade Domain D2 recovery was 93%. As would be
expected for ore with acanthite (Ag2S) and other forms of silver sulfides, domains with
low sulfur head grades showed lower sulfur recovery into concentrates. Only D2 showed
silver upgrading with respect to sulfur.
13.6.3.4 Cyanidation Tests
ALS conducted 96-hour duration bottle roll tests using 2000 mg NaCN/l strength, pH 11,
40% w/w solids, 300 g/t Pb(NO3)2, and sparged oxygen. The test results are provided in
Table 13.17.

November 2, 2015
Table 13.17. Independencia Este, Domains D1 – D6, ALS Bottle Roll Cyanidation Test Results
(Coeur, 2015)
Cyanidation test results showed the first D3 test only attained 46% silver extraction. A
second test on Domain 3 master composite achieved slightly lower extraction than the
first D3 test. The cyanide consumption and lime usage were 1kg NaCN/t and 1.7kg lime
as CaO/t, respectively.
The kinetic extraction curves demonstrated typical rapid gold extraction and slower silver
extraction. The silver extraction curves flattened before the 96-hour testing period was
completed, which suggested 72-hours or less could be an economic extraction design
parameter.
Domain composite cyanidation test results suggested silver extraction is independent of

silver head grade across all six domains, and gold extraction was uniformly high, which
might indicate that gold is not included. Silver extraction may have some correlation to
sulfur content in the head regardless of the domain, because lower sulfur head appears
to relate to lower silver extraction and as sulfur head assay increases, silver extraction
appears to increase. Gold and silver deportment appear to be independent of one
another.
13.6.4 Independencia Este Metallurgical Results
Flotation response for the three tested Independencia Domains D1, D2, and D3
demonstrated that flotation could separate silver and gold into a rougher concentrate
with low concentration ratios. Mass pulls were high and losses to rough tails were higher
than desired. The mechanism to achieve higher metals removal would entail possible
rougher tails regrind followed by leaching the rougher tails. Rougher concentrate would
potentially benefit from a regrind step before cleaner flotation to upgrade the final

November 2, 2015
concentrate. Improved recoveries would be unlikely due to inefficiencies of each flotation

step.
Compared to the bottle roll cyanidation tests, silver rougher flotation recoveries were
universally lower by 2% to 7% than silver cyanidation extractions for the same domain
samples. Gold flotation recoveries were significantly worse than gold cyanidation
extraction by 4% to 25%.
Cyanidation extraction values appeared to be better than the flotation results. This
observation is in agreement with similar test results using both flotation and cyanidation
for Independencia master composite. This is unlikely to be anything more than indicative
at this juncture that both Independencia Oeste and Este had a similar metallurgical
response.
13.7 Recovery Estimates
The processing facility has been in operation since 2009. The flowsheet is complex,
consisting of a standard comminution - grinding circuit (Jaw crusher - SAG mill – ball
mill) followed by rougher – cleaner flotation, flotation concentrate intensive cyanidation
leach, flotation tailings agitated cyanidation and Merrill Crowe for gold and silver
recovery.
In 2014 and 2015 (through the effective date of this Report), the processing facility ran in
a stable operating condition; the operation parameters were optimized to maintain an
increased designed throughput, along with some significant processing modifications to
maintain gold and silver recoveries within expectation, even for lower feed grade ore
types. To date, gold and silver recoveries are reasonably close to those predicted in the
bench-scale metallurgical studies.
13.8 Metallurgical Variability
The anticipated gold and silver recoveries could be affected mostly due to ore types, in
some cases, related to highly oxidized material, which is not responsive to rougher –
cleaner flotation process, and also to ores containing clays; these types of minerals
increase slurry viscosity, with detrimental effects on precious metals recovery.
In 2016, underground ore will become the only source of mill feed, and is expected to
contain cyanide-soluble copper associated with the silver mineralization. The presence
of cyanide-soluble copper could reduce gold and silver extractions during the
cyanidation process, also increasing cyanide consumptions and requiring more attention
during cyanide destruction, although Guadalupe mineralization appears to be more

November 2, 2015
suitable for the rougher – cleaner flotation process, which represents a positive impact
for the future gold and silver recoveries.
An additional positive impact on gold and silver recoveries is also expected after a series
of process upgrades are completed. These upgrades include additional capacity for the
Merrill Crowe circuit, which is expected to result in a considerable reduction of soluble
losses. The upgrades are expected to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2016.

November 2, 2015
14. MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

This section describes the Mineral Resource estimation methods and results for the
Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia deposits.
The Palmarejo open pit and underground Mineral Resources were estimated on
December 31, 2014, and previously reported in the Technical Report dated February 18,
2015. There are no Mineral Resources at the Palmarejo open pit and underground
mines, exclusive of Mineral Reserves, as of August 31, 2015, as all economic Mineral
Resources have been converted to Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves.
The Guadalupe Mineral Resource estimate is an update incorporating additional drilling,

as well as a revised geological interpretation. Mineral Resources at Guadalupe,
exclusive of Mineral Reserves, are reported as of August 31, 2015.
The Independencia Mineral Resource was estimated on April 23, 2014. Mineral
Resources at Independencia, exclusive of Mineral Reserves, are reported as of August
31, 2015.
14.1 Mineral Resource Reconciliation
The Mineral Resource models of December 31, 2014 were compared against mill
production for the time period between December 31, 2014 and August 31, 2015. The
purpose of the comparison was to determine the variances between the resource model
tonnage and grade estimates and the actual reported mill production, and to reduce and
address the variances. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 14.1.
Given the short life remaining of the Palmerejo open pit and underground mines, no
changes have been made to the Mineral Resource models for these deposits.
After considering the reconciliation variance, Coeur has refined the Mineral Resource
model, which has resulted in lower estimated Mineral Reserve grades for the Guadalupe
mine.
For the Guadalupe 2015 Mineral Resource model, the following changes have been
made:
 Grade capping of selected drill composites was done to reduce the effect of
outlying high-grade composites that were overestimating grades in the resource
model;

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
 Variography used in the grade estimates was reviewed and revised, using new
drill hole data obtained since the December 31, 2014 Mineral Resource estimate;
and
 The geological interpretations for the deposit were reviewed and revised, based
on additional data (drill data, and underground geology mapping).
The changes to the Guadalupe Mineral Resource model are described in more detail in
Section 14.4. The QP believes the above changes will result in a more accurate estimate
of the Guadalupe Mineral Resource.
Resource Model reconciliations against actual production will continue for deposits at the
Palmarejo Complex, as this is an important tool to inform the resource geologists and
mine engineers if changes are required to the Mineral Resource models and Mineral
Reserves.
Table 14.1. Mineral Resource Reconciliation versus Mill Production (Coeur, 2015)
Dec 31, 2014 to Aug 31, 2015 Ore Source Tonnes Ag Au
(1000's) (Koz) (Koz)
Mill Reconciled Production Guadalupe Underground 220 923 17.0
2014 Resource Model Estimation Guadalupe Underground 240 1,101 21.7
Variance Guadalupe Underground -21 -177 -4.7
Percent Variance Guadalupe Underground -10% -19% -28%
Mill Reconciled Palmarejo Open Pit 630 2,496 23.7

2014 Resource Model Palmarejo Open Pit 626 1,699 15.0
Variance Palmarejo Open Pit 4 797 8.8
Percent Variance Palmarejo Open Pit 1% 32% 37%
Mill Reconciled Production Palmarejo Underground 180 903 23.8

2014 Resource Model Estimation Palmarejo Underground 172 872 16.1
Variance Palmarejo Underground 8 31 7.7
Percent Variance Palmarejo Underground 5% 3% 32%
Mill Reconciled Production Palmarejo Complex (Total) 1,030 4,323 64.6

2014 Resource Model Estimation Palmarejo Complex (Total) 1,039 3,672 52.7
Variance Palmarejo Complex (Total) -9 651 11.8
Percent Variance Palmarejo Complex (Total) -1% 15% 18%

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
14.2 Key Parameters Used for Resource Estimation
14.2.1 Mineral Resource Cut-off Estimation
Gold equivanent (AuEq) cut-off grades were calculated for the deposits and Mineral
Resources reported above this cut-off. The AuEq cut-off was calculated as follows:
AuEq Cut-off = (Mining + Processing + G&A $/tonne)
(Gold Price-Refining Cost-Royalties $/gm) x % Recovery x % Payable)
The payability refers to the amount of metal deemed payable by the metal refiners. The
gold to silver exchange ratio is used to convert silver grades to gold equivalent grades
and is calculated by the following formula:
AuEq Ratio = (Au Price $/gm – Refining Cost $/gm) x Au %Recovery x Au %Payable
(Ag Price $/gm – Refining Cost $/gm) Ag %Recovery Ag %Payable
Table 14.2 shows the input parameters used in the cut-off grade calculations for the
Mineral Resource estimates.
Table 14.2. Mineral Resource Key Parameters and Assumptions (Coeur, 2015)
Guadalupe Guadalupe Independencia Independencia
Parameter Unit Oeste Este
Open Pit Underground
Underground Underground
Gold Price $/oz 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275
Silver Price $/oz 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00
Mining Duty-Au (0.5%) $/oz Au 6.38 6.38 6.38 6.38
Mining Duty-Ag (0.5%) $/oz Ag 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Gold Stream Royalty $/oz Au 238 238 238 -
Gold Recovery % 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0%
Silver Recovery % 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0%
Gold Payable % 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9%
Silver Payable % 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9%
Au:Ag Value Ratio Au:Ag 57.38 57.37 57.37 70.50
Gold Refining $/oz 0.488 0.488 0.488 0.488
Silver Refining $/oz 0.488 0.488 0.488 0.488
Mine Cost $/t 2.50 43.00 43.00 43.00
Haulage to ROM $/t 5.00 3.70 3.70 3.70
Process $/t 29.12 29.12 29.12 29.12
G&A $/t 14.83 14.83 14.83 14.83
Incremental Tailings $/t 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Reclamation $/t 0.20 - - -
AuEq Cut-Off Grade gpt 1.75 3.18 3.18 2.59

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
14.3 Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology - Palmarejo Deposit
14.3.1 Introduction
The Mineral Resource estimation for the Palmarejo deposit was completed by Justin
Glanvill, PrSciNat, Principal Geologist with AMC Consultants (UK) Limited, on December
31, 2014.
The Palmarejo Mineral Resource estimate incorporated additional drilling as well as a

revised geological interpretation, which resulted in a significant reduction in the total in
situ modeled volume.
The Palmarejo geology department provided three snapshot exports of the geological
(including grade control) drilling and channel sampling data. The data sources and cut-
off dates are tabulated below.
Justin Glanvill has not verified the QA/QC of the drill hole, sample and survey data used
as the basis of this Mineral Resource estimate. Matthew Hoffer, QP and Manager,
Geology at Coeur Mining, Inc., has verified the QA/QC for the data set.
Table 14.3. Drilling and Sampling Databases used in the Resource Modeling (Coeur, 2014)
Database Date Comments
Historical August 9, 2013 Drilling completed prior to Coeur acquiring the Palmarejo
Complex in 2007. Includes RC and diamond drilling.
acQuire® July 21, 2014 All Coeur drilling, including underground channel samples, open
pit RC grade control, infill and underground diamond drilling.
Density October 14, 2014 1377 density samples gathered by Coeur since 2010.
For the purposes of this resource estimation, all diamond drilling was combined and
treated as a single data source, while the RC and underground channel samples were
kept as separate data sets. Underground channel samples were only used to inform the
estimation volume.
The data were imported into Datamine® Studio V3.22.84, and desurveyed to produce the
3D drill and channel sample traces to be used for the resource estimation process. Basic
validation was carried out during the import and desurvey of the data to check for
overlaps, duplicates, and obvious errors in the collar and downhole surveys. Any errors
were referred back to the site geologists and the data excluded from the modeling
process. Table 14.4 lists the various data sources and the total length and number of
holes per data type that were imported into Datamine ®. Differences are due to
exclusions of erroneous holes and partial logging or sampling of various holes.

November 2, 2015
Table 14.4. Tabulation of the Number of Drill Holes and Total Lengths per Data Source Imported
into Datamine® from the Various Data Exports (Coeur, 2014)
Collars Geology Data Assays
SOURCE No. of Total No. of Total No. of Total Description
Length Length Length
Holes Holes Holes
(m) (m) (m)
CHAN 1,467 15,767 1,478 15,778 1,480 15,835 UG grade control
channel samples
DDH0 676 48,075 672 47,377 663 31,823 UG grade control
diamond drilling
DDH3 899 197,081 894 195,643 851 63,084 Infill diamond drilling
HIST 915 139,432 748 135,720 851 104,423 Historical data (mixed)
RC 9,668 193,602 8,115 173,059 9,698 193,180 Open pit RC grade

control drilling
The data were consolidated into four main types, as indicated in Table 14.5. Trench
samples were excluded from further work due to the limited data set and incompatibility
with the other data sets.
Table 14.5. Data Types, Number of Holes per Data Type, and Total Length for each Type (Coeur,
2014)
Desurveyed Data
KEY Number of Holes Total Length
(m)
CHAN 1,558 16,465
DDH 2,304 380,587
RC 9,666 193,492
TRENCH 92 2,449
Figure 14.1 shows an oblique view of the diamond drilling colored on the data source.
The drilling is extended over the entire modeled area of the Palmarejo deposit, with data
clusters around the two main clavos (Clavo 76 and 108).

November 2, 2015
Figure 14.1. Oblique View of the Diamond Drilling Colored on Data Source (Coeur, 2014)
Density data was provided in an Excel sheet in a raw form – there had been no
validation or cleaning of the data done prior to being made available for modeling
purposes. Typically, density measurements are made on site by coating the samples in
wax and weighing them in air and in water and calculating the density values from the
results.
Review of the data resulted in 1,293 values being selected out of a possible total of
1,376 values (Table 14.6). The 83 errors were the result of density values outside of a
relatively arbitrary set of minimum and maximum limits (>0.999 and < 3.999 t/m 3) and
samples with reported lengths <5cm and >1m long.

November 2, 2015
Table 14.6. Tabulation of the Density Values showing the Basic Statistics of the Input Data, Final
(Fixed) Data and Errors (Coeur, 2014)
Density Raw Fixed Errors
Count 1376 1293 83 6%

Minimum -214.87 1.11 -214.87
Maximum 31.96 3.95 31.96
Average 2.34 2.58 -1.38
Mode 2.54 2.54 2.5
P50 2.59 2.58 4.29
14.3.2 Geological Models
The geological interpretation files were provided as is by the Palmarejo Geology

department. Geological solids were exported from GEMS as DXF format triangulation
files and then imported into Datamine® Studio. The wireframes were accepted as is, and
the only changes were to rationalize embedded data and file names to match with work
flows and previous resource estimates.
Due to changes in the manner in which the geological solids were interpreted, there was
a 76% reduction in the total modeled volume from the 2013 to 2014 interpretation.
The dominant changes are within the low grade as well as a significant reduction in the
total volume of the main La Blanca QVBX unit.
The decrease in the modeled volumes in 2014 is due to the reduction in perceived
down-dip continuity and thickness of the main mineralized domains within Clavo 76 and
Clavo 108. The previous 2013 models, based on available information and
understanding of the orebody prior to 2014, had extrapolated relatively wide veins down-
dip and between data intersections.
A review of the geological modeling process and the inclusion of new underground data
to the modeling process has shown the QVBX zones pinching out and thinning at depth
as well as resulting in a narrowing of the stockwork zones.
Decreasing the volume of the resource domains results in a decrease in the down-dip
resource based on this new data.
The silver and gold mineralization at Palmarejo is hosted in two main northwest-
southwest trending structures that steeply dip variably to the south (Figure 14.2). The
main mineralization is hosted within quartz vein and breccias and is surrounded by lower
grade stockwork mineralization.

November 2, 2015
The La Blanca structure hosts the Clavo 76 and Clavo 108 underground mining areas
while the northern portion of La Blanca and the La Prieta structure are mined from
surface.
There are a number of modeled splays and secondary structures that have been
included in the geological model.
Figure 14.2. Plan View on 865 Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) showing the General Shape of the
Palmarejo Geological Model (Coeur, 2014)
14.3.3 Exploratory Data Analysis
14.3.3.1 Data Domain
As with the 2013 resource, the Palmarejo orebody was split into northern and southern
domains based on dominant geologic orientation (Figure 14.3). Each geological unit
within these domains was assigned a unique numerical code. This code was applied to
the drilling data in the following section and used to control the data during statistics,
variography and estimation. The domains, tabulated in Table 14.7, were used for
variography and estimation.

November 2, 2015
Figure 14.3. Domain Polygons used to Split the La Blanca and La Prieta Veins into North and
South Domains, 950 AMSL (Coeur, 2014)
Table 14.7. Estimation/Statistical Domains (Coeur, 2014)

DOMAIN MINZONE ESTDOM DOMAIN MINZONE ESTDOM
LB_FSTK 100 LB LB_NSQVB 300
LB_N LB_HSTK 101 LB_SQVB 400
LB_QVBX 102 LP_FSTK1 500
LB_FSTK 110 LP LP_QVBX1 600
LB_S LB_HSTK 111 LP_QVBX2 700
LB_QVBX 112 LP_QVBX3 800
LP_FSTK 200 VT VT_QVBX 900
LP_N LP_HSTK 201 HOST HOST 999
LP_QVBX 202
LP_FSTK 210
LP_S LP_HSTK 211
LP_QVBX 212

November 2, 2015
14.3.3.2 Compositing and Sample Coding
The diamond drilling samples were coded with the appropriate geological unit (Table
14.8). The samples were composited at 3m intervals, using the median sample length of
1.5m as a basis for the compositing. Compositing was within the geological codes to
prevent smearing grade between the geological units.
The compositing was not strict and allowed the composite length to be adjusted by
between 1.5m and 4.5m to ensure that the entire sample length was included in the
composites.
The Order code controls the flagging and modeling order.
Table 14.8. Mineralization Domains in Increasing Order of Importance (Coeur, 2014)

Order MINZONE Structure Unit
13 LB_FSTK La Blanca (LB) Footwall Stockwork

12 LB_HSTK Hangingwall Stockwork
11 LP_FSTK La Prieta (LP) Footwall Stockwork
10 LP_HSTK Hangingwall Stockwork
9 LB_NSQVB La Blanca (LB) Northern Splay Qtz Vein Breccia
8 LB_SQVB Southern Splay Qtz Vein Breccia
7 LP_FSTK1 Fw stockwork occurrences
6 LP_QVBX1 La Prieta (LP) Splay 1 – Qtz Vein Breccia
5 LP_QVBX2 Splay 2 – Qtz Vein Breccia
4 LP_QVBX3 Splay 3 – Qtz Vein Breccia
3 VT_QVBX La Victoria (VT) La Victoria – Qtz Vein Breccia
2 LP_QVBX La Prieta (LP) Main Vein – Qtz Vein Breccia
1 LB_QVBX La Blanca (LB) Main Vein – Qtz Vein Breccia
Some of the sample intervals with no assays, and several of the holes with errors that
could not be resolved, were excluded during the compositing process.
Table 14.9 and Table 14.10 show the statistics of the raw (uncomposited but
desurveyed) and the composited samples per geological unit. As expected, the
stockworks show markedly lower grades when compared to the main LB_QVBX and
LP_QVBX units, while the splays show even higher values for silver. Gold values are
only elevated in the La Blanca (LB) splays. A review of the grade control data versus the
resource data found that the resource drilling tended to understate the high grade
locally. As a result, no capping was employed.
The Coefficent of Variation (CV) is significantly reduced by composting the drilling data,
especially in the high grade units.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 14.9. Statistics of the Length Weighted Raw Samples and the 3m Composite Data - Silver (Coeur, 2014)
Source Raw Samples 3m Composites
Minzone Variable Num Min Max Mean Std Dev. CV Num Min Max Mean Std Dev. CV
LB_FSTK 16926 0.015 18661.00 42.76 260.14 6.08 7899 0.015 8322.28 34.07 160.08 4.70
LB_HSTK 12872 0.015 36892.00 91.27 504.14 5.52 5508 0.015 9016.89 74.68 285.07 3.82
LB_QVBX 8903 0.015 27302.00 180.27 665.01 3.69 3272 0.015 7236.62 162.79 447.64 2.75
LB_NSQVB 687 0.015 8686.00 207.40 679.36 3.28 313 0.015 5506.27 136.39 402.22 2.95
LB_SQVB 814 0.5 17951.00 116.67 670.38 5.75 355 0.015 6273.21 111.36 439.75 3.95
LP_FSTK 3789 0.001 11883.00 21.77 164.43 7.55 1687 0.015 2126.25 17.72 76.63 4.32
LP_HSTK Silver (g/t) 7104 0.001 6840.00 39.85 212.35 5.33 3195 0.015 5256.86 31.42 149.51 4.76
LP_QVBX 2713 0.015 8480.00 97.39 259.67 2.67 1094 0.015 2947.82 84.44 168.90 2.00
LP_QVBX1 551 0.5 8280.00 72.27 291.67 4.04 214 0.015 1633.19 65.23 143.53 2.20
LP_QVBX2 39 2.5 14133.00 478.19 2096.40 4.38 28 0.015 3000.37 262.92 700.62 2.66
LP_QVBX3 115 1 689.00 31.87 102.42 3.21 59 0.015 662.72 26.25 91.66 3.49
LP_FSTK1 218 1.5 2396.00 113.87 243.00 2.13 87 0.015 830.00 103.35 171.26 1.66
VT_QVBX 473 2.5 3114.00 86.56 253.88 2.93 230 0.015 1074.93 67.36 158.64 2.36
Table 14.10. Statistics of the Length Weighted Raw Samples and the 3m Composite Data – Gold (Coeur, 2014)
Source Raw Samples 3m Composites
Minzone Variable Num Min Max Mean Std Dev CV Num Min Max Mean Std Dev CV
LB_FSTK 16926 0.0005 811.59 1.08 9.22 8.57 7899 0.0005 365.59 0.86 5.52 6.44
LB_HSTK 12872 0.0005 291.95 1.10 6.27 5.73 5508 0.0005 77.10 0.90 3.69 4.11
LB_QVBX 8903 0.0005 491.00 2.68 13.44 5.01 3272 0.001 146.11 2.42 8.23 3.39
LB_NSQVB 687 0.01 443.85 3.09 22.33 7.23 313 0.001 280.51 2.03 14.03 6.91
LB_SQVB 814 0.002 352.99 3.19 14.50 4.55 355 0.001 123.36 3.02 9.70 3.21
LP_FSTK 3789 0.005 219.00 0.08 5.29 63.12 1687 0.001 38.71 0.23 1.18 5.08
LP_HSTK Gold (g/t) 7104 0.005 123.00 0.12 6.13 49.38 3195 0.0005 72.56 0.34 1.81 5.34
LP_QVBX 2713 0.0005 564.00 0.94 6.98 7.40 1094 0.001 110.64 0.82 3.71 4.53
LP_QVBX1 551 0.0025 48.80 0.56 2.05 3.67 214 0.001 9.85 0.51 1.10 2.17
LP_QVBX2 39 0.002 30.10 1.47 4.24 2.88 28 0.001 6.71 0.81 1.82 2.24
LP_QVBX3 115 0.003 12.30 0.31 1.39 4.52 59 0.001 11.16 0.25 1.25 4.93
LP_FSTK1 218 0.001 146.50 1.97 11.63 5.91 87 0.001 146.50 1.85 11.59 6.27
VT_QVBX 473 0.005 24.40 0.85 2.54 3.00 230 0.001 14.65 0.65 1.69 2.59

November 2, 2015
14.3.4 Variography
ISATIS® geostatistical software was used to calculate and fit the variograms for gold and
silver values in each of the domains.
Variogram searches were orientated into the dominant plane of the domain, with the
primary axis down dip, the secondary on strike, and the minor axis across the width of
the domain. Of the 36 variograms, 10 were directional, and the rest were omnidirectional
variograms. This is due to the inherently low continuity of the mineralization as well as
the irregularity of the geological solid modeling, which limits continuity, and therefore, the
ability to calculate or fit usable variograms.
Two and three structure pairwise relative variogram models were fitted to the
experimental variograms. An example is shown in Figure 14.4. In many cases, there was
a degree of zonal anisotropy, which was modeled by extending the 3rd structure range
out to flatten the structure to fit. All variograms were fitted to a local sill and normalized to
a sill of 1, prior to use in modeling.
A full listing of the variogram models is provided in Table 14.11.
It was not possible to calculate or fit workable variograms (omnidirectional or otherwise)

to some of the La Prieta splays (ESTDOMS 500, 700 and 800). These domains were
estimated using variograms with a nugget of 1 (100% Variance).

November 2, 2015
Figure 14.4. Example Silver Pairwise Experimental Variogram and Fitted Model for
Estimation Domain 101 - Minzone LB_HWSTK, North Domain (Coeur, 2014)

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 14.11. Tabulated Normalized Variogram Models (Note the C0=0.999 Place Holders for Inverse Dist. to the Power of Two Est.) (Coeur, 2014)
MODNUM ESTDOM Domains FIELD Rotation NUGGET 1st Structure 2nd Structure 3rd Structure SILL
Z - Axis X - Axis C0 X Y Z C1 X Y Z C2 X Y Z C3
1 100 FSTK Ag 0.342 18 18 18 0.492 72 72 72 0.166 1
2 101 HSTK Ag 240 50 0.298 15 10 22 0.320 72 72 22.1 0.277 140 2500 22.2 0.105 1
3 102 QVBX LB_N Ag 240 50 0.649 25 25 12.5 0.101 50 115 15 0.038 100 220 20 0.212 1
4 100 FSTK Au 0.157 19 19 19 0.639 70 70 70 0.204 1
5 101 HSTK Au 240 50 0.264 25 25 20 0.388 100 102 20 0.241 300 1200 20 0.107 1
6 102 QVBX Au 240 50 0.499 25 35 7 0.257 110 225 20 0.245 1
7 110 FSTK Ag 220 50 0.097 7.5 7.5 20 0.444 200 50 20 0.241 2255 280 20 0.218 1
8 111 HSTK Ag 220 50 0.201 8 8 30 0.264 60 30 30 0.280 350 160 30 0.255 1
9 112 QVBX LB_S Ag 220 50 0.369 20 10 45 0.218 45 35 46 0.175 500 230 47 0.238 1
10 110 FSTK Au 220 50 0.207 15 15 15 0.456 168 75 17 0.079 420 250 27 0.257 1
11 111 HSTK Au 220 50 0.228 8 25 20 0.448 160 90 27 0.143 500 300 40 0.181 1
12 112 QVBX Au 220 50 0.444 27 20 25 0.188 35 30 35 0.120 325 200 35 0.248 1
13 200 FSTK Ag 0.369 19 19 19 0.315 60 60 60 0.141 500 500 500 0.175 1
14 201 HSTK Ag 0.185 19 19 19 0.631 65 65 65 0.087 500 500 500 0.096 1
15 202 QVBX LP_N Ag 0.327 25 25 25 0.575 350 350 350 0.097 1
16 200 FSTK Au 0.405 27 27 27 0.225 75 75 75 0.121 500 500 500 0.248 1
17 201 HSTK Au 0.188 19 19 19 0.625 75 75 75 0.083 300 300 300 0.103 1
18 202 QVBX Au 0.255 20 20 20 0.500 350 350 350 0.245 1
19 210 FSTK Ag 0.357 9.6 9.6 9.6 0.270 25 25 25 0.266 350 350 350 0.106 1
20 211 HSTK Ag 0.481 25 25 25 0.418 120 120 120 0.100 1
21 212 QVBX LP_S Ag 0.467 17 17 17 0.242 265 265 265 0.291 1
22 210 FSTK Au 0.336 9 9 9 0.254 20 20 20 0.250 200 200 200 0.160 1
23 211 HSTK Au 0.533 28 28 28 0.338 125 125 125 0.129 1
24 212 QVBX Au 0.525 10 10 10 0.219 228 228 228 0.256 1
25 300 LB_NSQVB Ag 0.514 20 20 20 0.161 130 130 130 0.325 1
26 300 Au 0.478 21 21 21 0.146 121 121 121 0.376 1
27 400 LB_SQVB Ag 0.474 14 14 14 0.230 278 278 278 0.295 1
28 400 Au 0.419 11 11 11 0.265 240 240 240 0.316 1
29 500 LP_FSTK1 Ag 0.999 500 500 500 0.001 1
30 500 Au 0.999 500 500 500 0.001 1
31 600 LP_QVBX1 Ag 0.333 61 61 61 0.667 1
32 600 Au 0.486 52 52 52 0.514 1
33 700 LP_QVBX2 Ag 0.999 500 500 500 0.001 1
34 700 Au 0.999 500 500 500 0.001 1
35 800 LP_QVBX3 Ag 0.999 500 500 500 0.001 1
36 800 Au 0.999 500 500 500 0.001 1
37 900 VT_QVBX Ag 0.516 50 50 50 0.172 160 160 160 0.311 1
38 900 Au 0.498 40 40 40 0.141 200 200 200 0.361 1

November 2, 2015
14.3.5 Density
There is a total of 1,293 density samples (1,309 after desurveying – some samples are
split at assay or survey interval boundaries). When domained out using the geological
solids, there are reduced populations in the high grade domains.
The mean density is around 2.56 for the total data set, with the various domains varying
between 2.49 and 2.71 t/m3. There is no clear explanation for the extreme values (Table
14.12 and Figure 14.5).
Table 14.12. Tabulation of the Density Value – Basic Statistics by Minzone (Coeur, 2014)
MINZONE Num Minimum Maximum Range Average Std. Dev CoV
(t/m3) (t/m3) (t/m3) (t/m3)
Unknown 56 1.11 3.88 2.77 2.54 0.302 0.119
HOST 280 1.2 3.86 2.66 2.49 0.387 0.155
LB_FSTK 286 1.16 3.8 2.64 2.59 0.388 0.150
LB_HSTK 81 1.78 3.29 1.51 2.55 0.233 0.091
LB_NSQVB 8 2.52 2.69 0.17 2.59 0.049 0.019
LB_QVBX 265 1.11 3.88 2.77 2.58 0.300 0.116
LB_SQVB 72 1.47 3.38 1.91 2.59 0.277 0.107
LP_FSTK 28 1.31 3.65 2.34 2.58 0.330 0.128
LP_FSTK1 23 1.5 2.78 1.28 2.55 0.238 0.093
LP_HSTK 45 2.1 3.36 1.26 2.58 0.209 0.081
LP_QVBX 133 1.25 3.95 2.7 2.56 0.257 0.100
LP_QVBX1 22 2.33 2.95 0.62 2.56 0.132 0.051
LP_QVBX2 1 2.69 2.69 2.69
LP_QVBX3 3 2.51 2.61 0.1 2.57 0.045 0.017
VT_QVBX 6 2.48 2.85 0.37 2.71 0.142 0.052

November 2, 2015
Average Density Values with 95% Confidence

limits
2.85 300
2.80
250
2.75
2.70 200
2.65 Num
150 Average
2.60 Cl -ve
2.55 100 Cl +ve
2.50 Pop Ave
50
2.45
2.40 0
Figure 14.5. Graph with Mean Values and 95% Confidence Limits for the Density Values per
Minzonev (Coeur, 2014)
14.3.6 Estimation
The Palmarejo orebody was estimated using Ordinary Kriging (OK), with hard
boundaries between geological units and soft boundaries between the north and south
domains. In three of the splays (Estdoms 500, 700 and 800), a psedo variogram with a
nugget of one was used to estimate the domains. This results in a locally varying mean
value being estimated into the domains.
The search orientations were adjusted locally using dynamic anisotropy, which allows for
the estimation of a local dip and strike derived from a 3D dip and strike model. This local
dip and strike is used to adjust the search on a block-by-block basis, allowing the search
to pick-up samples with the local plane of the orebody. This improves the quality of the
estimate by, among other effects, reducing the bridging of unrelated samples across
boundaries due to strike or dip changes (Figure 14.6).

November 2, 2015
Figure 14.6. Simple Illustration showing the Simple Estimation (A) versus the Improvement in
a Dynamic Estimation (B) (Datamine® Studio Help Documentation, 2014)
The geological wireframes were filled using a rotated model (315°/135° strike
orientation) with a parent block size of 2.5m x 20m x 2m (X, Y, Z). The parent block size
was based on half the planned drill spacing of 40m between infill holes. To provide a
good volumetric fit when filling the wireframes, the block model was sub-celled to a
minimum of 2.5m x 2.5m X 2.5m.
The model origin and cell sizes were also selected to allow for backwards compatibility
with previous block models. Table 14.13 summarizes the model prototype parameters.
Table 14.13. Block Model Parameters (Coeur, 2014)

X Y Z
Rotation (degrees) 0 0 -45
Origin (m) 756,659 3,030,830 552
Parent Cell Dimensions (m) 2.5 20 20
Number of Cells 508 80 40
Extents (m) 1270 1600 800
Minimum Subcell (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5
Number of Cells 508 640 320

November 2, 2015
Figure 14.7. Plan View at 950 AMSL with Subcelled Model within the Geological Wireframes
(Coeur, 2014)
Within the Clavo 76 and 108 mining areas, the data density is higher (approximately
20m). In these physically defined re-blocking domains areas, the model cells were re-
blocked to parent cells of 2.5m x 5m x 5m for estimation (Figure 14.8). This allowed for a
degree of conditional bias to occur in order to minimize the historical under-reporting of
grade by previous models which also employed OK of the diamond drilling. The impact
of this conditional bias will be limited on the final reserve estimate, as these areas are
largely depleted, and what remains cannot be mined.
Estimation took place into the parent cells (including the re-blocked cells); therefore,
sub-cells with the same parent cell have the same grade. The estimation used a
discretization grid of 1m x 5m x 5m, which is based on the sample dimensions in the X
direction (~3m) and the rule of thumb that a discretization of greater than five was
programmatically inefficient and did not improve the estimate of the within-block
variance.
The search parameters used for the estimation are summarized in Table 14.14 and were
arrived at by iteratively adjusting basic rules-of-thumb for search ranges, minimum and
maximum numbers of samples and discretization grid sizes to achieve reasonable

November 2, 2015
estimates. Octants were used to minimize the number of negative kriging weights.
Constant search volumes and numbers of samples were used for each domain. Figure
14.9 and Figure 14.10 illustrate a plan and section of the silver estimate within the main
portion of Clavo 76 (950 above mean sea level [AMSL]). Note the high grades and the
degree of depletion indicated by the underground voids. Voids are indicated by the black
outlines.
Figure 14.8. Oblique View of the La Blanca Reblocking Solids around the Higher Density Drilling
within the LB_QVBX Minzone (Coeur, 2014)
In the Palmarejo deposit, OK of Au and Ag was done using composites from

development core hole drilling (step out and infill) and RC grade control drilling. Dynamic
compositing was conducted using a maximum of 3m composite lengths inside domains
with a minimum allowable composite length of 1.5m. Hard boundaries were applied to all
domains, restricting the influence of composites to only those estimated blocks within a
domain. Search ellipse orientation was controlled by dynamic anisotrophy instead of
fixed anistrophy. In areas of good data density (those areas with an average composite
spacing of 20m), grades were estimated into 2.5m x 5m x 5m blocks. Areas with widely
spaced composites were estimated into 2.5m x 20m x 20m blocks.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 14.14. Tabulated Search Parameters per Estimation Domain and Metal (Coeur, 2014)
ESTDOM FIELD Ranges Rotation Minimum Min Samples Max Samps 1st Search 2nd Search Volume 3rd Search Volume
X Y Z Z X Y No. Octants Per Oct Per Octant Min Num. Max Num. Multiple Min Num. Max Num. Multiple Min Num. Max Num.
100 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
101 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
102 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
100 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
101 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
102 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
110 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
111 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
112 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
110 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
111 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
112 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
200 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
201 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
202 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
200 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
201 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
202 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
210 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
211 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
212 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
210 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
211 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
212 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
300 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
300 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
400 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
400 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 6 12 10 6 12
500 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 3 12 10 3 12
500 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 3 12 10 3 12
600 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 3 12 10 3 12
600 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 3 12 10 3 12
700 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 3 12 10 3 12
700 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 3 12 10 3 12
800 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 3 12 10 3 12
800 Au 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 3 12 10 3 12
900 Ag 50 50 10 240 50 0 3 1 6 6 12 2 3 12 10 3 12

November 2, 2015
Figure 14.9. Plan View at 950 AMSL showing the Silver Estimate and Outlines of the
Mining Voids (Coeur, 2014)
Figure 14.10. Section through the Center of the above Plan View looking NNW at 315° showing the
Silver Estimate and Underground Void Outlines (Coeur, 2014)

November 2, 2015
14.3.7 Estimation Validation
The grade estimates were validated visually by stepping through plans and sections and
comparing the drilling data with the local estimates (Figure 14.11).
Figure 14.11. An Example Section showing the Comparison between the Model and the Drilling
Data (Coeur, 2014)
Additional validation was through the use of a fixed window average calculation,
analogous to a swath plot. The process calculates the average grade of the model and
the drilling data within a regularly sized grid (or window) over the extents of the model.
These averages for the model and the drilling data are then plotted against each other to
provide a measure of the correlation between the two. Figure 14.12 is such a plot for the
silver grades within the LB_QVBX Minzone or geological domain.
As expected, the model is smoother than the drilling data, and other than a weak
regression effect on the low grade samples (low grades are slightly over estimated),
there are no biases or grade dislocations within the silver or gold estimates in any of the
modeled geological domains.

November 2, 2015
Figure 14.12. Example Plot of the Gridded Window Mean Value Model vs. Drilling Data Validation:
Silver (g/t) within Minzone LB_QVBX (Coeur, 2014)
14.3.8 Depletion
The estimated model was depleted by flagged cells as mined or unmined, using the
latest open pit survey (dated June 30, 2014), as well as all of the historical underground
mining to present (2008 through June 30, 2014). The solids used are shown in Figure
14.13 and Figure 14.14.
The underground depletion is not ideal, as it is not able to account for variations or
offsets between the mined solids and the geological model that arise from errors in the
survey (geology or mining) or changes in the interpretation. Care needs to be taken
when planning to mine areas immediately adjacent to depleted areas, as these remnant
areas may not exist.

November 2, 2015
Figure 14.13. Oblique View of the Topography Based on the Pit Survey used to Deplete the
Resource Estimate (Coeur, 2014)
Figure 14.14. Oblique View of the Combined Set of Underground Mining Voids as of June 30, 2014
(Coeur, 2014)

November 2, 2015
14.3.9 Classification
The classification is based primarily on the data spacing and is in line with the historical
methods, but is a slight deviation from the 2013 classification methodology, which
produced a slightly ‗spotted dog‘ classification (dislocated blocks). In summary:
 Class 1 (Measured):
o Minimum distance <=15 m
o If (Class=2 and Minimum distance<35)
 Class 2 (Indicated):
o Minimum Distance >15 m and
o Minimum Distance <=50 m
 Class 3 (Inferred):
o Remaining estimated material. Please note that estimation is otherwise
limited to the volumetric domains.
There was a manual refinement of various splays and geological units to take lack of
volumetric control and estimation methodology and data density into account. These
splays are summarized as follows:
 Domains downgraded if classification algorithm classed it as Class 1. This was

accomplished by digitizing shells around the areas of low confidence and
adjusting the cells within these volumes.
o VT_QVBX = Class 2
o LP_QVBX1 = Class 2
 Complete downgrade due to very poor level of modeled continuity and lack of
control on the volumetrics of the geological unit.
o LP_FWSTK1 = Class 3
14.3.10 Mineral Resources – Palmarejo
Most of the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources have been converted into
Mineral Reserves, and are planned to be mined during 2016. The remaining Mineral
Resources are not expected to be mined, and have not been reported.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
14.4 Mineral Resource Estimates – Guadalupe Deposit
14.4.1 Introduction
The Mineral Resource estimate for the Guadalupe deposit was completed by David
Hlorgbe, RM SME, of Coeur Mining, Inc.
The Guadalupe Mineral Resource estimate is an update of the December 31, 2014
resource model. It incorporates additional drilling and a revised geological interpretation.
Guadalupe has a minor addition in the total in situ modeled volume due to additional
drilling. Mineral Resources at Guadalupe are reported as of August 31, 2015.
The Guadalupe model uses a mine grid coordinate system, with all units in metric. Both
previous and current resource estimates used OK interpolation. The update made to the
current resource estimate employed capping due to review from reconciliation.
Table 14.15 summarizes the Guadalupe drill hole database used for the 2015 resource
modeling and estimation. Following Coeur‘s QA/QC protocols, the database was
thoroughly validated and all potential problems were resolved prior to the final model
being estimated (see Section 12).
Table 14.15. Drilling and Sampling Databases used for the Resource Modeling (Coeur, 2015)
Database Date Comments
Historical August 9, 2013 Drilling completed prior to Coeur acquiring the Palmarejo
Complex in 2007.
acQuire® June 21, 2015 Infill and underground diamond drilling.
Density June 27, 2015 1,605 density samples gathered by Coeur since 2011.
For the purposes of this resource estimation, all diamond drilling was combined and
treated as a single data source. This included collar, downhole azimuth, dip, length of
each drill hole, lithology codes of logged intervals, and assay data analyzed for fire
assay for both Au and Ag. Au is initially analyzed with an ICP finish with a trigger for a
gravimetric finish, and Ag is analyzed with a gravimetric finish. Drill spacing is generally
30m along strike, 15m perpendicular to the general strike of the mineralization.
Data were imported into GEOVIA GEMSTM and desurveyed to produce a 3D drill and for
use in resource estimation. Basic data validation was done during import and desurvey
of the data to check for overlaps, duplicates and obvious errors in collar and downhole
surveys. Table 14.16 lists the various data sources and the total length and number of
holes per data type. An oblique view of the diamond drilling is illustrated in Figure 14.15.

November 2, 2015
Table 14.16. Number of Drill Holes and Total Lengths per Data Source (Coeur, 2015)
Collars Geology Data Assays
Source No. of Total No. of Total No. of Total Description
Length Length Length
Holes Holes Holes
(m) (m) (m)
CUDH 17 5,250 17 5,250 17 1,825 Exploration Diamond
Drilling
TGDH 621 192,966 618 192,309 618 51,197 Exploration Diamond
Drilling
DC3 61 24,672 61 24,663 57 6,824 Infill Diamond Drilling
100 m
Figure 14.15. Oblique View of the Diamond Drilling Colored on Data Source (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
14.4.2 Geological Models
14.4.2.1 Domaining
The geological interpretation provided by the Palmarejo geology department was

imported into GEOVIA GEMSTM as 3D wireframes. The wireframes were reviewed and
feedback referred back to the site. The wireframes were reviewed and accepted as is;
the only change included rationalizing embedded data and file names to match with work
flows and previous resource estimates.
Modeling of mineralized domains includes the subdivision of the mineralization by vein

breccias (QVBX) and surrounding stockwork (STKWK). Parallel veins and stockwork are
denoted by prefixes. Table 14.17 explains the prefixes and zone codes for the geologic
domains, as well as the order of priority. The priority code controls the flagging and
modeling order. The criteria used in determining the order of priority are based on
logged geology (vein or quartz vein breccia with consistent geologic continuity), and
poorly mineralized zones (stockwork and veinlet) with less continuity of mineralization.
Table 14.17. Mineralized Domains in Increasing Order of Importance (Coeur, 2015)

Domain Order Code Definition
M1QVBX 1 100 Main vein in Structural South, Central, and North Central
Domains
M2QVBX 2 101 Secondary Vein in Structural Central, North Central, and North
Domains
MHQVBX 3 102 Hangingwall Vein in Structural North Central Domain
LAQVBX 4 103 Las Animas Vein in Structural South Domain
LASTKWK 5 201 Las Animas Stockwork in Structural South Domain
MSTKWK 6 200 Main Stockwork
The mineralized domain model was further divided into four structural domains based on
the orientation, along strike, of the main Guadalupe structure. In the geology modeling
process three structural domains were identified. The Guadalupe primary veins and
stockwork are shown subdivided into structural domains in Figure 14.16.

November 2, 2015
MHQVBX
N
M2QVBX_C
NORTH-WEST
STRUCTURAL M1HQVBX
DOMAIN
MSTKWK_C
CENTRAL
STRUCTURAL
LAQVBX
DOMAIN
LASTKWK
SOUTH-EAST
STRUCTURAL
DOMAIN
250 m
Figure 14.16. Guadalupe 2015 Primary Veins, Stockworks and Structural Domains (Coeur, 2015)
Table 14.18 shows the volume comparison between 2014 and 2015 interpreted geologic
solids. There is a 1% increase in the total modeled volume from the 2014 to 2015
interpretation. The changes were primarily a result of the 40 drill holes added to the
existing Guadalupe database. The main vein (M2QVBX) domain, which is currently
being mined, decreased in volume by 6%, but there was a 57% increase in volume of
the narrow hangingwall vein (MHQVBX) domain as a result of geologic continuity from
the additional drilling.
Table 14.18. Volume Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Geologic Solids (Coeur, 2015)
2014 2015 Volume Difference % Difference
Domain Volume Domain Volume 2015-2014 ([2014-2015/2014]*-1)
(m3) (m3) (m3)
M1QVBX_C 5,089,303 M1QVBX 5,099,978 10,675 0%
M2QVBX 1,528,899 M2QVBX 1,435,195 -93,704 -6%
MHQVBX 39,011 MHQVBX 61,439 22,428 57%
LAQVBX 61,254 LAQVBX 61,254 0 0%
LASTKWK 121,720 LASTKWK 121,719 -1 0%
MSTKWK_C 27,335,604 MSTKWK 27,731,396 395,792 1%
Total 34,175,790 Total 34,510,981 335,191 1%

November 2, 2015
14.4.3 Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA)
14.4.3.1 Drill Hole Sample Length and Composite Length
Core sampling was done at irregular lengths to reflect geology, with average sampled
length of 1.14m, as shown in Figure 14.17. Assays below detection limit were set to one-
half of the detection limit and the resulting database was used for the resource
estimation.
Figure 14.17. Guadalupe Sample Length Frequency (Coeur, 2015)
Compositing was conducted to determine composite length where outliers will not bias
other samples, thereby resulting in overestimating grade into the final model. Varying
composite length was compared with respective tail samples to obtain a representative
distribution and minimize grade smearing. An analysis of sample lengths, coupled with
visual examination of narrow vein intercepts on cross-sections, resulted in selecting a
2m composite length for resource estimation.
A review of grade control data versus resource estimates found that the resource drilling
tends to locally overestimate high-grade. To address overestimation of high-grade
samples, grade capping was employed on composites.

November 2, 2015
Table 14.19 and Table 14.20 show statistics for the raw (uncomposited but desurveyed)
and composited capped samples by geological unit. The CV is significantly reduced by
composting and capping the raw assay data, especially in the high-grade units.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 14.19. Statistics of the Length Weighted Raw Samples and the 2m Composite Capped Data - Silver (Coeur, 2015)
Source Raw Samples 2m Composites Capped
Domain Variable Num Min Max Mean Std Dev. CV Num Min Max Mean Std Dev. CV
M1QVBX 5,263 0.00 5050 121.76 241.95 1.99 2,397 0.00 1,200 115.87 163.97 1.42
M2QVBX 1,615 2.50 7270 159.18 357.54 2.25 859 2.50 1,000 139.97 168.48 1.20
MHQVBX Silver 106 1.40 958 192.20 234.65 1.22 68 2.50 928 178.17 208.19 1.17
LAQVBX (g/t) 100 2.50 747 108.53 157.59 1.45 45 2.50 554 94.67 122.77 1.30
MSTKWK 16,744 0.00 3,800 34.77 104.18 3.00 9,543 0.00 800 30.42 64.94 2.13
LASTKWK 96 2.50 171 16.71 31.28 1.87 62 2.50 114 14.93 24.85 1.66
Table 14.20. Statistics of the Length Weighted Raw Samples and the 2m Composite Capped Data - Gold (Coeur, 2015)
Source Raw Samples 2m Composites Capped
Domain Variable Num Min Max Mean Std Dev. CV Num Min Max Mean Std Dev. CV
M1QVBX 5,263 0.00 315 1.66 8.90 5.36 2,397 0.00 35.0 1.33 2.99 2.24
M2QVBX 1,615 0.01 118 3.05 7.31 2.40 859 0.02 25.0 2.69 3.77 1.40
MHQVBX Gold 106 0.00 315 2.72 3.96 1.46 68 0.03 14.4 2.55 3.48 1.36
LAQVBX (g/t) 100 0.03 32.4 1.62 4.10 2.53 45 0.03 11.7 1.18 2.32 1.96
MSTKWK 16,744 0.00 168 0.45 2.11 4.64 9,543 0.00 12.0 0.39 0.94 2.38
LASTKWK 96 0.01 7.70 0.24 0.88 3.71 62 0.02 3.12 0.21 0.55 2.70

November 2, 2015
14.4.4 Capping
Log-probability plots of Au and Ag assay composites were constructed for each domain.
Figure 14.18 is an example of log-probability plot of Ag. From the plots, the curves in
each estimation domain display deviations from a straight-line fit, which imply multiple
grade populations. These plots helped to address the impact of high-grade outliers and
where to cap. Table 14.21 and Table 14.22 show uncapped and capped silver and gold
high-grade outliers. They were statistically examined and their impacts during grade
estimation were considered.
@ 1200 g/t @ 1000 g/t
@ 800 g/t
Figure 14.18. Example of Log-Probability Plot of Ag Assay Composites in each Domain (Coeur,
2015)

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 14.21. Uncapped and Capped High-grade Outliers by Domain - Silver (Coeur, 2015)
Source uncapped capped / trimmed Total no. Capped Percentage
No. of Min Max Mean No. of Min Max Mean of grade of
Domain Variable Samples

Samples (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) Samples (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) Samples (g/t)
Capped
M1QVBX 17 1209 3550 1806.94 17 1200 1200 1200 2412 1200 0.7%
M2QVBX 12 1003 4346 1992.54 12 1000 1000 1000 860 1000 1.4%
MHQVBX Silver n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LAQVBX (g/t) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
MSTKWK 14 823 2,184 1319.53 14 800 800 800 10117 800 0.1%
LASTKWK n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Table 14.22. Uncapped and Capped High-grade Outliers by Domain - Gold (Coeur, 2015)
Source uncapped capped / trimmed Total no. Capped Percentage
No. of Min Max Mean No. of Min Max Mean of grade of
Domain Variable Samples

Samples (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) Samples (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) Samples (g/t)
Capped
M1QVBX 7 39 283 114.24 7 35 35 35 2412 35 0.3%
M2QVBX 11 28 70 47.18 11 25 25 25 860 25 1.3%
MHQVBX Gold n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LAQVBX (g/t) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
MSTKWK 18 12 109 25.25 18 12 12 12 10117 12 0.2%
LASTKWK n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

November 2, 2015
14.4.5 Contact Plots
Box plots were used to evaluate characteristics of mineralized domains and helped to
identify grouping of domains. There were no groupings that needed to be refined, as
demonstrated in Figure 14.19.
Contact plots across domain boundaries were constructed to determine if domain

contacts are hard, or if grades on either side of the contact are different, soft, or smooth
where the grade transitions from one domain to the next. Figure 14.20 is a hard plot of
Ag grade profiles across boundaries between estimation domains. All mineralized
domains are considered hard boundaries for estimation purposes to prevent high-grade
from the vein crossing the contact into low-grade and vice versa.
Figure 14.19. Example of Box Plot of Au Assay Composites in each Domain (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
Figure 14.20. Example of Hard Contact Plot of M1QVBX and M2QVBX Domains (Coeur, 2015)
14.4.6 Variography
GSLIB© software was used to generate variogram maps using composite data to visually
determine the directions of maximum anisotropy of mineralization. The direction of
higher continuity is in the northwest-southeast direction.
GEMS™ software was used to calculate and fit pairwise relative variograms for Au and
Ag values in each domain. Figure 14.21 and Figure 14.22 are examples of variograms
for M1QVBX and M2QVBX domains for Au and Ag in the South-East and North-West
structural domains. Results of the variogram models are shown in Table 14.23.
A downhole variogram was used to define the nugget effect and short scale continuity of
the pairwise relative models.
Three rotation angles were used to define directions of anisotropy. The angle of
tolerance was chosen to allow adequate samples falling outside the specified angles to
be captured during variogram calculations. This was done to get the optimal value, since
sampling was not done on regular grid.

November 2, 2015
Lag spacing was selected by considering the sample spacing and lag tolerance to
capture more samples as a result of preferential sampling and irregular sampling grid.
Search dimensions and directions were based on variogram models for each domain.
Search parameters used for the estimation are provided in Table 14.24.
Figure 14.21. Example of Pairwise Relative Variogram of Au M1QVBX Domain (Coeur, 2015)
Figure 14.22. Example of Pairwise Relative Variogram of Ag M1QVBX Domain (Coeur, 2015)

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 14.23. Normalized Variogram Model Parameters for each Domain (Coeur, 2015)
Domains Code FIELD Dip Direction Dip Spread Angle Spread Limit NUGGET 1st Structure 2nd Structure 3rd Structure 4th Structure
C0 Range C1 Range C2 Range C2 Range C2

M1QVBXNW 110 Ag 320 -59 45 60 0.242 16.0 0.254 28.3 0.323 193.7 0.014
110 Au 320 -59 45 60 0.389 12.2 0.319 26.9 0.237 196.9 0.007
M1QVBXCE 120 Ag 310 -58 45 60 0.284 5.19 0.181 27.6 0.127 81.3 0.0009 200 0.054
120 Au 310 -58 45 60 0.303 5.19 0.168 21.4 0.181 85.4 0 192.8 0.053
M1QVBXSE 130 Ag 320 -59 45 60 0.350 17.35 0.092 30.5 0.082 102.2 0.17 194.4 0.008
130 Au 320 -59 45 60 0.380 8.70 0.100 25.2 0.102 56.8 0.228 196.9 0.006
M2QVBXNW 111 Ag 310 -58 45 60 0.339 16.39 0.068 32.7 0.028 82.5 0.130 196.06 0.032
111 Au 310 -58 45 60 0.347 16.68 0.065 48.9 0.041 103.3 0.104 194.3 0.034
M2QVBXCE 121 Ag 330 -58 45 60 0.325 28.17 0.140 65.8 0.234 194.8 0.000
121 Au 330 -60 45 60 0.369 19.38 0.078 30.3 0.090 69.2 0.094 197.0 0.009
MHQVBX 102 Ag 320 -59 45 60 0.382 13.30 0.128 43.7 0.254 194.7 0.023
102 Au 320 -59 45 60 0.368 7.21 0.068 38.7 0.172 62.5 0.127 193.9 0.012
LAQVBX 103 Ag 320 -60 45 60 0.343 42.86 0.290 82.8 0.153 197.0 0.025
103 Au 320 -60 45 60 0.373 10.92 0.275 31.4 0.337 59.2 0.083 187.8 0.000
MSTKWKNW 210 Ag 310 -58 45 60 0.331 7.89 0.174 23.5 0.233 66.8 0.081 191.4 0.028
210 Au 310 -58 45 60 0.381 10.05 0.132 28.1 0.227 62.3 0.098 198.5 0.024
MSTKWKCE 220 Ag 320 -59 45 60 0.380 9.38 0.241 23.0 0.241 105.1 0.066 198.5 0.012
220 Au 320 -59 45 60 0.383 6.13 0.195 21.9 0.158 82.3 0.114 199.4 0.015
MSTKWKSE 230 Ag 310 -64 45 60 0.379 11.81 0.118 35.7 0.206 69.9 0.116 194.6 0.075
230 Au 310 -64 45 60 0.389 5.86 0.243 24.9 0.163 56.8 0.141 197.1 0.014
LASTKWK 201 Ag 310 -60 45 60 0.321 7.76 0.260 23.5 0.249 193.3 0.026
201 Au 310 -60 45 60 0.419 9.78 0.272 31.1 0.204 199.0 0.004

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 14.24 Search Parameters for each Domain (Coeur, 2015)

Min Max
Domains Code FIELD Samps Samps Principal Principal Intermediate Anisotropy Anisotropy Anisotropy
Per Per Azimuth Dip Azimuth X Y Z
ellipse ellipse
M1QVBXNW 110 Ag 6 18 358 -53 305 120 80 40
110 Au 6 18 358 -52 305 120 80 40
M1QVBXCE 120 Ag 6 18 358 -52 309 120 80 40
120 Au 6 18 349 -55 312 120 80 40
M1QVBXSE 130 Ag 6 18 359 -52 301 120 80 40
130 Au 6 18 330 -57 308 120 80 40
M2QVBXNW 111 Ag 6 18 341 -57 302 120 80 40
111 Au 6 18 340 -57 305 120 80 40
M2QVBXCE 121 Ag 6 18 339 -55 307 120 80 40
121 Au 6 18 352 -52 316 120 80 40
MHQVBX 102 Ag 6 18 341 -57 304 120 80 40
102 Au 6 18 340 -57 303 120 80 40
LAQVBX 103 Ag 6 18 358 -52 297 120 80 40
103 Au 6 18 340 -57 299 120 80 40
MSTKWKNW 210 Ag 6 18 359 -55 320 320 160 30
210 Au 6 18 348 -52 296 240 140 80
MSTKWKCE 220 Ag 6 18 358 -52 310 320 160 30
220 Au 6 18 358 -52 305 240 140 80
MSTKWKSE 230 Ag 6 18 348 -52 299 300 160 30
230 Au 6 18 348 -52 299 240 140 80
LASTKWK 201 Ag 6 18 348 -52 298 120 80 40
201 Au 6 18 348 -52 295 120 80 40

November 2, 2015
14.4.7 Density
Density values for the Guadalupe deposit were obtained by both Planet Gold and Coeur
from November 2011 to June 2015, using a water-immersion method on dried and
waxed whole-core samples of mineralized and unmineralized lithologies.
Figure 14.23 shows average density values by domains sampled and the corresponding
measurements. Even though different domains are listed for the main mineralized
vein/breccia zones, which host the gold and silver mineralization, not enough data have
been collected for some domains to allow assigning different densities to respective
domains.
To date, density information shows the stockwork zone to be similar to the vein/breccia
zones. These zones are modeled separately but have the same density. The density
assigned to the year-end 2015 Guadalupe model was 2.54 g/cm3.
Figure 14.23. Guadalupe Specific - Gravity Statistics by Domians Sampled (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
Density data in the Guadalupe database was reviewed and 939 values were selected
out of a possible total of 1,177 values. The 238 errors were the result of density values
that lay outside the range of minimum and maximum limits (>0.999 and <3.999 g/cm 3),
and samples with lengths <5cm or more than 1m long (Table 14.25).
Table 14.25. Basic Statistics of Sample Density Data (Coeur, 2015)

Specific Gravity (SG) Density Density Data
Data Validated
Count (# of Samples) 1,177 939
Average (g/cm3) 2.50 2.51
Mode (g/cm3) 2.6 2.6
P50 (g/cm3) 2.52 2.54
14.4.8 Estimation
14.4.8.1 Block Discretization
Block discretization was done to determine the appropriate discretization grid to use for
the deposit. Table 14.26 and Figure 14.24 demonstrate that it is ideal to use a
discretization cell size of 2m x 5m x 5m to approximate the block dispersion variance (as
highlighted in the table and figure), since that is where discretization is stable for
numerical integration.
Table 14.26. Guadalupe Point Variance with Varying Discretization (Coeur, 2015) Point Variance
Point Size Discretization Average
(m) (m) Variogram
2 x 10 x 10 1x2x2 0.2159
2 x 10 x 10 2x3x3 0.2186
2 x 10 x 10 2x4x4 0.2192
2 x 10 x 10 2x5x5 0.2195
2 x 10 x 10 2x6x6 0.2196
2 x 10 x 10 2x7x7 0.2197

November 2, 2015
0.220
0.219
0.218
0.217
0.216
0.215
0.214
1x2x2 2x3x3 2x4x4 2x5x5 2x6x6 2x7x7
Discretization
Figure 14.24. Guadalupe Average Variogram and Discretization (Coeur, 2015)
14.4.8.2 Block Model Geometry
A block model framework was created to cover the modeled area and encapsulate all
geologic domains used in the year-end 2015 interpolation. Like the composite coding
process, blocks were coded by the domain solids on a percent basis and consolidated,
using priority code and modeling order. The block model was rotated 45º counter-
clockwise to orient the blocks relative to the strike of the domains. Figure 14.25 shows
the rotated block model geometry and parameters. Based upon change of support or
volume variance correction, which is useful in predicting recoverable resource and
assessing internal dilution, two block sizes were used: 2m x 10m x 10m for open-pit and
2m x 2m x 2m for underground.

November 2, 2015
250m
Figure 14.25. Guadalupe Block Model Geometry (Coeur, 2015)
14.4.8.3 Block Model Grade Estimation
Gold and silver metal grades were interpolated into the block model using Ordinary
Kriging (OK) estimation technique. OK was selected to be the ideal estimated block
model for the Guadalupe deposit because the grade and tonnage curve mimics that of
theoretical Discrete Guassian (DG), which is more robust in volume variance correction.
The estimates were completed for each metal independently within each domain. A
minimum of six and maximum of 18 composites were used for an estimate with not more
than three composites from any one drill hole.

November 2, 2015
14.4.8.4 Block Model Validation
Grade estimates were visually validated by reviewing the block model in plan view and
cross-section to determine how well blocks match drill hole composites, as shown in
Figure 14.26.
Additional validation checks were conducted on the block model by using fixed window
average grade calculation, which is similar to a swath plot. This validation method
calculates the average grade of the model and the drill hole composites on a regularized
grid or window. Figure 14.27 is an example plot of the average block model gold grade
versus drill hole composites within the M1QVBX domain. All domains were subjected to
this validation method. From the validation checks, there was no omission of blocks in
each domain. Estimated grade in the block model matches the surrounding composites.
Block Model Legend – Ag
25m
Figure 14.26. Comparison of Ag Block Model and Ag Drill Hole Composites in g/t (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
Block Model Mean Drillhole Composite
1000
900
800
700
600
Au
(g/t) 500
400
300
200
100
176
136
141
146
151
156
161
166
171
181
186
191
196
201
206
211
216
221
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
Blocks ranked on increasing Model Grade
Figure 14.27. Example Plot of Au Block Model Grade and Au Drill Hole Composites in g/t (Coeur,
2015)
14.4.9 Depletion
An analysis of a 3D model of historic mine workings at the Guadalupe deposit, based on

historic plan maps, was evaluated to determine if the amount of material that was
previously mined would have a significant impact by reducing the resource estimate.
Historic reports suggest that approximately 3,700 tonnes of material grading 458 g/t Ag
were mined at the Guadalupe deposit. This analysis shows that the amount of material
removed by historical mining, when compared to the entire resource, is insignificant (less
than 0.5% tonnes). For current mining operations, underground mined solids (valid at the
end of August 2015) were used to account for depletion. The mined solids used for
depletion are shown in Figure 14.28.

November 2, 2015
100m
Figure 14.28. Oblique View of as-mined Material as of August 31, 2015 (Coeur, 2015)
14.4.10 Resource Classification
Resource classification is based on the number of composites used to interpolate the

block grade, number of drill holes, distance to the closest composite, and the average
distance of all composites (Table 14.27). To minimize isolated blocks and smooth out
the resource classification, polygons were generated based on the resource
classification scheme, and blocks within the polygons were coded with the dominant
resource classification.
Table 14.27. Resource Classification Criteria (Coeur, 2015)

Maximum Maximum
Minimum No. Minimum No. Distance of Average
Closest Distance of
of Drill holes of Composites
Composite Composites
(m) (m)
Measured 9 25 35 30
Indicated 7 20 35 60
Inferred Remaining estimated blocks
14.4.11 Mineral Resources- Guadalupe Deposit
Open pit resources are based on mineralized material outside of the Mineral Reserve,
inside an optimized pit shell, and above the open pit resource cut-off grade of 1.75 g/t
AuEq. The parameters used to generate the optimized pit shell and cut-off grade are
listed in Table 14.2.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Underground resources are based on mineralized material outside of the Mineral

Reserve, and above the underground resource cut-off grade of 3.18 g/t AuEq. The key
parameters used to calculate this cut-off grade are shown in Table 14.2.
Table 14.28 presents the Mineral Resource estimate for Guadalupe, exclusive of Mineral
Reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated
economic viability.
Table 14.28. Mineral Resources – Guadalupe Deposit (Exclusive of Mineral

Reserves) (Coeur, 2015)
Average Grade
Remaining Contained Oz
Resource Category Tonnes (g/t)
Ag Au Ag Au
Measured - - - - -
Open Pit Indicated 250,000 143 0.51 1,148,000 4,100
Measured & Indicated 250,000 143 0.51 1,148,000 4,100
Inferred 29,000 127 0.73 119,000 700
Measured - - - - -
Underground Indicated 4,823,000 154 2.30 23,804,000 356,200
Measured & Indicated 4,823,000 154 2.30 23,804,000 356,200
Inferred 406,000 174 3.75 2,262,000 48,900
Measured - - - - -
Guadalupe Total Indicated 5,073,000 153 2.21 24,952,000 360,300
Measured & Indicated 5,073,000 153 2.21 24,952,000 360,300
Inferred 435,000 170 3.54 2,381,000 49,500
Notes:
1. Mineral Resources were estimated by David Hlorgbe, RM, SME as of August 31, 2015.
3. Mineral Resources that 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 Mineral
Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that some of the
Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.
5. Cut-off grade for open pit resource: 1.75 g/t AuEq.
6. Cut-off grade for underground resource: 3.18 g/t AuEq.
7. Rounding of tonnes, average grades, and contained ounces may result in apparent discrepancies with
total rounded tonnes, average grades, and total contained ounces.

November 2, 2015
14.5 Mineral Resource Estimate Methodology - Independencia Deposit
14.5.1 Data
The Independencia Mineral Resource model and Mineral Resource estimate was
completed on April 23, 2014 and previously reported in the Technical Report dated
February 18, 2015.
The Mineral Resource model remains unchanged. The Independencia Mineral

Resources in this Report are reported as of August 31, 2015 based on updated cut-off
grade calculations.
The Mineral Resource estimate for the Independencia deposit, described in this section,
was completed by Michael Gustin, CPG of Mine Development Associates.
A model was created for estimating the Independencia Mineral Resources using drill
data generated by Coeur through mid-November 2014, as well as Paramount data
derived from the drilling programs completed at Don Ese through mid-November 2014.
Independencia Oeste and Independencia Este are portions of the same mineralized
structural zone and are referred to, jointly, as Independencia. A single digital database
was created from the two datasets. The database is in UTM Zone 12 coordinates using
the WGS84 datum, in meters. All modeling of the Independencia resources described
herein was performed using GEOVIA Surpac™ mining software.
14.5.2 Oxidation Modeling
Supergene oxidation within the structural zone that hosts the deposit can extend to the
deepest levels of mineralization, although the degree of oxidation at any particular area
is characteristically highly variable. Zones of complete or partial oxidation can be
complexly intermixed with unoxidized rocks within the mineralized structural zones.
Oxidation has not been modeled to-date due to this complexity.
14.5.3 Density
Coeur completed dry bulk specific-gravity (SG) determinations on 149 half-core

samples. Descriptive statistics of the specific-gravity data by modeled mineral domain
and surrounding host rocks are shown in Table 14.29.

November 2, 2015
Table 14.29. Independencia Bulk Specific Gravity Data (Coeur, 2014)

Deposit Type Mean Median Count Model SG
Independencia Modeled mineralized 2.48 2.49 199 2.45
Unmineralized 2.46 2.50 687 2.45
The mineralization is hosted within a brittle structural zone, and the lithologic units that
host the structural zone are characterized by brittle fracturing. In situ open spaces within
these fractures lead to some overstatement in the specific-gravity determinations, as
these fractures cannot be representatively captured in the core samples tested, and
therefore, are not reflected in the bulk specific-gravity measurements. The bulk specific-
gravity values assigned to the block models (Model SG in Table 14.29) have been
slightly lowered in recognition of these overstatements in the measurements.
14.5.4 Silver and Gold Modeling
The silver and gold mineral resources at Independencia were modeled and estimated
by:
 Evaluating the drill data statistically;
 Interpreting silver and gold mineral domains1 independently on cross-sections

spaced at 50m intervals, with these mineral domains used to code the drill hole
assays;
 Rectifying the cross-sectional mineral-domain interpretations on level plans
spaced at 5m intervals, with the level-plan mineral domains used to code the
block model;
 Analyzing the modeled mineralization geostatistically to aid in the establishment
of estimation and classification parameters; and
 Interpolating silver and gold grades into a three-dimensional digital block model,
using the coded mineral domains to control the estimations.
MDA modeled the Independencia silver and gold mineralization by interpreting mineral-
domain polygons on a set of vertical, northwest-looking (Az. 320°) cross-sections that
span the extent of the deposit. In order to define the mineral domains, the natural silver
and gold populations were first identified on population-distribution graphs that plot all of
the drill hole silver and gold assays. This analysis led to the identification of low-, mid-,
and high-grade populations for silver and low- and higher-grade populations for gold.
Ideally, each of these populations can be correlated with specific geologic characteristics
that are captured in the project data, which then can be used in conjunction with the
1 Mineral Domains - A mineral domain encompasses a volume of ground that ideally is characterized by a single, natural, grade
population of a metal that occurs within a specific geologic environment.

November 2, 2015
grade populations to interpret the bounds of each of the silver and gold mineral domains.
After considering both the grade-distribution plots and the geologic and grade
characteristics of the project mineralization, approximated grade ranges of the low-
(domain 100), medium- (domain 200), and high- (domain 300) grade domains for both
gold and silver were selected (Table 14.30).
Table 14.30. Approximate Grade Ranges of Silver and Gold Domains (MDA, 2014)
Domain Silver Gold
(g/t Ag) (g/t Au)
100 ~10 to ~35 ~0.14 to ~2
200 ~35 to ~150 >~2
300 > ~150 n/a
The silver and gold mineral domains were modeled on 22 vertical northwest-looking
cross-sections spaced at 50m intervals. The drill hole traces and topographic profile
were plotted on the sections, with silver and gold assays (colored by the grade-domain
population ranges defined above) and pertinent geologic codes plotted along the drill
hole traces. These data, in addition to the extensive use of core photographs, formed the
base for MDA's mineral-domain interpretations. The mineral-domain polygons were
interpreted on the sections to define continuous volumes of rock that are characterized
by assays, more-or-less corresponding to each of the defined grade populations and the
associated unique geologic characteristics associated with the respective domains. See
Section 7.2.3 for a description of the Independencia geology.
Representative cross-sections showing silver and gold mineral-domain interpretations

are shown in Figure 14.29 and Figure 14.30, respectively.

November 2, 2015
Drill Hole Assays

g Ag/tonne: Color: Mineral Domains
0 - 10 = gray high-grade domain

10 - 40 = blue medium-grade domain
40 - 150 = green low-grade domain
>150 = red looking 320°
MINE DEVELOPMENT
Reno ASSOCIATES Nevada
meters Coeur Mining, Inc.
0 50 100 Independencia
Ag Domains Section 1400NW
DATE 22 Jan 2015
SCALE as shown
Figure 14.29. Independencia Cross-Section 1400NW showing Silver Mineral Domains (MDA, 2014)
Note: Apparent deflections in dip of mineralized zones are primarily due to projection

November 2, 2015
Drill Hole Assays

g Au/tonne: Color: Mineral Domains
0.00 - 0.15= gray higher-grade domain
0.15 - 2.00= blue low-grade domain
2.00 - 6.00= green
> 6.00 = red looking 320°
MINE DEVELOPMENT
Coeur Mining, Inc.
meters
Independencia
0 50 100
Au Domains Section 1400NW
DATE 22 Jan 2015
SCALE as shown
Figure 14.30. Independencia Cross-Section 1400NW showing Gold Mineral Domains (MDA, 2014)

November 2, 2015
In addition to the mineral domains, mineralized-structure ‗horizons‘ were modeled on

the cross-sections as polylines. These lines were used to define the higher-grade zones
that often lie near the top and bottom of the vein zones, as well as several minor
mineralized structures that splay off of, or lie parallel to, the principal mineralized zone.
The final cross-sectional mineral-domain envelopes were digitized, pressed 3-

dimensionally to reflect drill hole projections off of the section centers, and then sliced
horizontally at 5m intervals at each mid-bench elevation in the model. These slices,
along with slices of 3D triangulated surfaces created from the mineralized-structure
polylines discussed above, were used to guide the definition of final silver and gold
mineral-domain polygons modeled on the mid-bench level plans.
14.5.5 Assay Coding, Capping, and Compositing
Drill hole silver and gold assays were coded to the mineral domains using the cross-
sectional envelopes. Descriptive statistics of the coded silver and gold assays are
provided in Table 14.31.
Table 14.31. Descriptive Statistics for Independencia Coded Silver and Gold Assays (MDA, 2014)
Domain Assays Count Mean Median Std. Dev. CV Min. Max.
(g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t)
100 Ag 1018 21.9 18.0 25.2 1.15 1.1 972.0
Ag Cap 1018 21.2 18.0 15.2 0.71 1.1 100.0
200 Ag 438 76.2 64.0 52.4 0.69 5.0 522.0
Ag Cap 438 74.8 64.0 45.5 0.61 5.0 250.0
300 Ag 352 413.3 259.0 520.5 1.26 7.9 5270.0
Ag Cap 352 402.1 259.0 438.1 1.09 7.9 2800.0
All Ag 1808 107.2 30.5 269.4 2.51 1.1 5270.0
Ag Cap 1808 104.4 30.5 237.7 2.28 1.1 2800.0
100 Au 889 0.439 0.304 0.505 1.150 0.005 9.200

Au Cap 889 0.427 0.304 0.398 0.930 0.005 2.000
200 Au 401 5.026 2.997 7.076 1.410 0.033 59.700
Au Cap 401 4.818 2.997 5.826 1.210 0.033 35.000
All Au 1290 1.821 0.498 4.437 2.440 0.005 59.700
Au Cap 1290 1.750 0.498 3.794 2.170 0.005 35.000

November 2, 2015
The coded assay data were examined statistically on a domain-by-domain basis to

identify potential high-grade outliers, some or all of which were capped after evaluating
their spatial relationships with surrounding drill samples and their potential impacts
during grade estimation (Table 14.32).
Table 14.32. Independencia Silver and Gold Assay Caps (MDA, 2014)
Domain Cap Number Capped Cap Number Capped
(g/t Ag) (% of samples) (g/t Au) (% of samples)
100 100 12(<1%) 2 9 (<1%)
200 250 7 (2%) 35 7 (2%)
300 2800 2 (<1%) N/A N/A
The capped assays were composited downhole by domain at 2m intervals. Descriptive

statistics for the silver and gold composites are shown in Table 14.33.
Table 14.33. Descriptive Statistics for Independencia Silver and Gold Composites (MDA, 2014)
Domain Assays Count Mean Median Std. Dev. CV Min. Max.
(g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t)
100 Ag 681 21.2 18.6 11.5 0.54 1.5 100.0
200 Ag 309 74.8 66.3 36.6 0.49 10.4 247.0
300 Ag 229 402.1 272.0 369.3 0.92 71.2 2666.6
All Ag 1219 104.4 31.4 214.5 2.05 1.5 2666.6
100 Au 596 0.427 0.332 0.325 0.760 0.031 2.000

200 Au 266 4.818 3.206 4.450 0.920 0.403 35.000
All Au 862 1.750 0.524 3.178 1.820 0.031 35.000
In addition to the assay caps, restrictions on the search distances of higher-grade

portions of some of the domains were applied during grade interpolations (discussed
further below).
14.5.6 Block Model Coding
A model comprised of 2.5m (width) x 2.5m (length) x 5m (height) blocks was created,
rotated to a bearing of 320°, so as to be consistent with the northwest-looking cross-
sections. The elevations of the block centroids are identical to the 5m-spaced level-plan
elevations. The level-plan polygons were used to code the model to the mineral
domains, with the percentage volume of each mineral domain within each block stored
(the partial percentages). The model is coded to specific gravity using the values listed in

November 2, 2015
Table 14.29, and the percentage of each block that lies below the topographic surface, is
also stored.
14.5.7 Grade Interpolation
A variographic study was undertaken using the silver and gold composites from each
mineral domain, collectively and separately, at various azimuths, dips, and lags.
Reasonable structures were modeled using all composites of silver and all of gold, while
attempts at modeling using only composites from single domains from either metal, were
less successful. Variogram ranges of up to 170m were obtained using all gold
composites, with ranges of up to 90m indicated for gold composites from the domain
200. Maximum ranges were obtained in the dip direction in both cases, with strike
ranges essentially equal to the dip range using all gold composites and 60% of the range
using the domain 200 composites only. A maximum range of about 80m results from
using all silver composites, again in the dip direction, with a range of 25m modeled along
strike.
Results from variographic studies were used in combination with the drill hole spacing
and known geologic controls to determine the first-pass search distance, as well as to
aid in the establishment of resource classification criteria. The second pass was
designed to estimate grade into all blocks coded to the mineral domains that were not
estimated in the first pass.
The estimation passes were performed independently for each metal and for each
mineral domain (Table 14.34). For example, only composites coded to a particular silver
domain were used to estimate grade into blocks coded to that domain. The estimated
grades were coupled with the partial percentages of the mineral domains to enable the
calculation of weight-averaged gold and silver grades for each block. The portions of
each block that lie outside of the gold and silver domains were assigned a grade of 0 in
the weight-average calculations of the block-diluted gold and silver grades, respectively.
The tonnes of each block were calculated using the specific-gravity values presented in
Table 14.29.
Statistical analyses of coded assays and composites, including coefficients of variation

and population-distribution plots, indicate that multiple populations were captured in the
high-grade silver (domain 300) and gold (domain 200) domains. The presence of
multiple populations, in addition to the results of initial grade-estimation runs, led to the
incorporation of search restrictions into the estimation parameters applied to these high-
grade domains (Table 14.35). These restrictions place limits on the maximum distances
allowed for including a composite in grade interpolation from the highest-grade
populations of the domains. The final search-restriction parameters were derived from
the results of multiple interpolation iterations.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
The presence of multiple mineralized orientations necessitated the use of multiple

search ellipses for the purposes of silver and gold grade interpolation. Five estimation
areas, each consisting of a unique strike and dip orientation, were coded into the block
model and used to define five search ellipses used in grade interpolation.
Grades were estimated into the model blocks using inverse-distance weighting and OK
methods (Table 14.36). The mineral resources reported herein were estimated by
inverse-distance interpolation, as these results were judged to be more appropriate than
those obtained by OK. Nearest-neighbor interpolations were also completed as checks
on the inverse-distance results.
The mid- and high-grade silver and gold domains were interpolated using inverse
distance to the third power. Fourth-power inverse-distance methods were used to
interpolate the low-grade domains for each metal, in order to help restrict the influence of
higher-grade outlier composites that occur sporadically throughout the stockwork
mineralization characteristic of these domains. The maximum number of samples
allowed to interpolate grades into the lower-grade domains was lowered for the same
reason. All estimations were completed using length-weighted composites.
The estimation parameters used in the silver and gold grade interpolations are
summarized in Table 14.34 through Table 14.37. All modeling of the Independencia
resources was performed using GEOVIA Surpac™ mining software.
Table 14.34. Estimation Criteria (MDA, 2014)

Estimation Domains Search Ranges (m) Composite Constraints
Pass Major S-Major Minor Min. Max. Max/hole
1 Ag-Au 200,300 100 100 25 2 8 3
Ag-Au 100 2 6 3
2 Ag-Au 200,300 250 250 250 1 8 3
Ag-Au 100 1 6 3
Table 14.35. Search Restrictions (MDA, 2014)

Domain Grade Threshold Search Restriction Estimation Pass
Ag 300 >400 g/t 50m 1&2
Au 200 >4 g/t 70m 1&2
Table 14.36. Ordinary Krige Parameters* (MDA, 2014)
Model Nugget First Structure Second Structure

C0 C1 Ranges (m) C2 Ranges (m)
SPH-Normal 0.2190 0.2390 20 20 7 0.1838 55 55 25
* Krige interpolation used as a check against the reported inverse-distance interpolation

November 2, 2015
Table 14.37. Summary of Independencia Estimation Parameters (MDA, 2014)

Search Ellipse Orientations
Estimation Domain Major Bearing Plunge Tilt
Primary Orientation 325° 0° -65°
Dip change from Primary Orientation 325° 0° -70°
Strike change from Primary Orientation 330° 0° -65°
Strike change from Primary Orientation 345° 0° -65°
Strike and dip change from Primary Orientation 295° 0° -70°
Figure 14.31 and Figure 14.32 show cross-sections of the block model that correspond
to the mineral-domain cross-sections presented above for silver and gold, respectively.

November 2, 2015
Drill Hole Assays

& Model Blocks Mineral Domains
g Ag/tonne: Color:
0 - 10 = gray high-grade domain
10 - 40 = blue medium-grade domain
40 - 150 = green low-grade domain
>150 = red looking 320°
MINE DEVELOPMENT
meters Coeur Mining, Inc.
0 50 100
Independencia
Ag Block Model Section 1400
DATE 22 Jan 2015
SCALE as shown
Figure 14.31. Independencia Cross-Section 1400NW showing Block Model Silver Grades (MDA,
2014)

November 2, 2015
Drill Hole Assays

& Model Blocks Mineral Domains
g Au/tonne: Color:
0.00 - 0.15 = gray higher-grade domain
0.15 - 2.00 = blue low-grade domain
2.00 - 6.00 = green
> 6.00 = red looking 320°
MINE DEVELOPMENT
Coeur Mining, Inc.
meters
0 50 100
Independencia
Au Block Model Section 1400NW
DATE 22 Jan 2015
SCALE as shown
Figure 14.32. Independencia Cross-Section 1400NW showing Block Model Gold Grades (MDA,
2014)

November 2, 2015
14.5.8 Classification
The Independencia resources are classified on the basis of the number and distance of
composites used in the interpolation of a block, as well as the number of drill holes that
contributed composites (Table 14.38).
Table 14.38. Independencia Classification Parameters (MDA, 2014)

Minimum No.
Class of Additional Constraints
Composites
Measured 3 Minimum of two holes that lie within an average distance of 25m or less
from the block.
Indicated 3 Minimum of two holes that lie within an average distance of 50m or less
from the block.
Inferred 1 All estimated blocks not classified as Measured or Indicated.
14.5.9 Mineral Resources – Independencia Deposit
Independencia is suitable for underground mining methods only. Underground Mineral

Resources are based on mineralized material exclusive of the Mineral Reserve, and
above the underground resource cut-off grade of 3.18 g/t AuEq and 2.59 g/t AuEq for
Independencia Oeste and Este, respectively. The key parameters used to calculate the
cut-off grades are shown in Table 14.2.
Table 14.39 presents the Mineral Resource estimate for Independencia, exclusive of
Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 14.39. Mineral Resources – Independencia Deposit (Exclusive of Mineral Reserves) (MDA,
2014)
Location Classification Tonnes Ag Au Ag Au
(g/t) (g/t) (oz) (oz)
Measured 50,000 183 1.55 294,000 2,500
Independencia Este Indicated 332,000 162 1.87 1,732,000 20,000
Measured + Indicated 382,000 165 1.83 2,025,000 22,500
Inferred 917,000 169 2.79 4,993,000 82,200
Measured 72,000 154 1.89 357,000 4,400
Independencia Oeste Indicated 185,000 123 2.16 734,000 12,900
Inferred 153,000 127 2.39 624,000 11,700
Measured 122,000 166 1.75 651,000 6,900
Independencia Total Indicated 518,000 148 1.97 2,466,000 32,800
Inferred 1,070,000 163 2.73 5,617,000 93,900
Notes:
1. Mineral Resources estimated by Michael Gustin, AIPG (CPG) of Mine Development Associates as of August
31, 2015.
3. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
4. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral
Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve.
5. It is reasonably expected that some Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral
Resources with continued exploration.
6. Metals prices used were $1,275/oz Au and $19.00/oz Ag.
7. Cut-off grade for underground resource: 3.18 g/t AuEq (Independencia Oeste) and 2.59 g/t AuEq
(Independencia Este).
14.5.10 Comments on the Resource Modeling
The degree of oxidation of the resources is variable within the deposit, and relationships
between completely oxidized, partially oxidized, and unoxidized materials are complex.
A single cut-off is used to define the resources, under the assumption that metallurgical
responses are similar, irrespective of the oxidation state.
No historic underground workings are known to exist at Independencia, although voids

were intersected in five drill holes. These voids are thought to be natural, as opposed to
mining voids, based on evidence in the drill core (no wood or definitive mining gob
recovered; the voids are bordered by strong evidence of brittle structures), as well as the
lack of evidence of significant mining in the deposit area.

November 2, 2015
14.6 Factors that may affect the Mineral Resource Estimates
Factors that may affect the Mineral Resource estimates are listed below and refer to all
of Section 14.
1) Metals price assumptions.

2) Changes to design parameter assumptions that pertain to stope and open pit
designs.
3) Changes to geotechnical, mining, and metallurgical recovery assumptions.
4) Changes to the assumptions used to generate the resource cut-off.
5) Changes in interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of
mineralization zones.
6) Conversion of resources to reserves is dependent on the success of additional
infill and stepout drilling to confirm the continuity of geology and mineralization.
7) Changes to the assumptions related to mineral tenure rights, royalty
assumptions, and taxation.
14.7 Mineral Resource Estimates – Summary of Palmarejo Complex
A summary of the Mineral Resource estimates for the Palmarejo Complex are provided
in Table 14.40. Please refer to Section 14.2 for the key paramaters and assumptions
used for the estimation of Mineral Resources.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 14.40. Mineral Resource Summary – Palmarejo Complex (Exclusive of Mineral Reserves)
(Coeur, 2015)
Ag Au Ag Au
Measured 122,000 166 1.75 651,000 6,900
Indicated 5,590,000 153 2.19 27,418,000 393,000
Measured + Indicated 5,712,000 153 2.18 28,069,000 400,000
Inferred 1,505,000 165 2.97 7,998,000 143,500
Notes:
1. Mineral Resources as of August 31, 2015. Independencia Mineral Resources estimated by Micheal Gustin,
CPG. Guadalupe Mineral Resources estimated by David Hlorgbe, RM, SME.
2. There are no Mineral Resources exclusive of Mineral Reserves for the Palmarejo open pit and underground
mines.
5. Mineral Resources have not demonstrated economic viability.
6. Inferred Mineral Resources have a lower level of confidence than Indicated Mineral Resources. It is expected
that some of the Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued
exploration.

November 2, 2015
15. MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

Mineral Reserves for the Palmarejo Complex include the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and
Independencia deposits. The Mineral Reserves were estimated as of August 31, 2015
by Paul Kerr, P.Eng., an employee of Coeur Mining, Inc.
Mining, geotechnical, and hydrological factors have been considered in the estimation of
the Mineral Reserves, including the application of dilution and ore recovery factors,
where appropriate. The QP notes that other modifying factors (such as metallurgical,
environmental, social, political, legal, marketing, and economic factors) have also been
considered to the required standard, and that they each demonstrate the viability of
Mineral Reserves in their own regard.
15.1 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Estimation
Gold equivalent (AuEq) cut-off grades were calculated for the deposits, with Mineral
Reserves estimated and reported above this cut-off. The AuEq cut-off was calculated as
follows:
AuEq Cut-off g/t = (Mining + Processing + G&A $/tonne)

(Gold Price - Refining Cost - Royalties $/gm) x % Recovery x % Payable)
The payability refers to the amount of metal deemed payable by the metal refiners.
The Gold:Silver Value Ratio is used to convert silver grades to gold equivalent grades
and is calculated using the following formula:
Au:Ag Value Ratio = (Au Price $/gm – Refining Cost $/gm) x Au %Recovery x Au %Payable
(Ag Price $/gm – Refining Cost $/gm) Ag %Recovery Ag %Payable
Gold equivalent grades are calculated using the following formula:
AuEq = Au + Ag / Au:Ag Ratio, where AuEq, Au and Ag are the gold equivalent grade, gold
grade and silver grade respectively, in g/t.
Table 15.1 shows the input parameters used in the cut-off grade calculations for the
Mineral Reserve estimates.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 15.1. Mineral Reserve Key Parameters and Assumptions (Coeur, 2015)
Palmarejo Palmarejo Palmarejo Guadalupe Independencia Independencia
Parameter Rosario Lower 76
Open Pit UG Oeste UG Este UG
UG Underground
Gold Price $/oz 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,250 1,250 1,250
Silver Price $/oz 15.50 15.50 15.50 17.50 17.50 17.50
Mining Duty-Au $/oz 5.75 5.75 5.75 6.25 6.25 6.25
(0.5%) Au
Mining Duty- Ag $/oz 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09
(0.5%) Ag
Gold Stream $/oz - - - 225 225 -
Royalty Au
Gold Recovery % 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0%
Silver Recovery % 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0%
Gold Payable % 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9%
Silver Payable % 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9%
Au:Ag Value Au:Ag 78.42 78.42 78.42 61.67 61.67 75.21
Ratio
Gold Refining $/oz 0.488 0.488 0.488 0.488 0.488 0.488
Silver Refining $/oz 0.488 0.488 0.488 0.488 0.488 0.488
Mine Cost $/t 5.25 62.10 69.90 43.00 43.00 43.00
Surface Ore $/t - - - 3.70 3.70 3.70
Haulage
Processing $/t 27.00 27.00 27.00 29.12 29.12 29.12
G&A $/t 14.83 - - 14.83 14.83 14.83
Other $/t - - - 1.50 1.50 1.50
AuEq Cut-Off g/t 1.30 2.77 3.02 3.22 3.22 2.64
Marginal AuEq g/t - 1.74 2.21 1.72 1.72 1.41
Cut-Off Grade

November 2, 2015
15.2 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Palmarejo Open Pit
15.2.1 Mineral Reserve Estimate Methodology
Open pit Mineral Reserves are contained within the current pit design. Ore and waste
was determined by the application of the cut-off grade.
The open pit design is shown in Figure 15.1. The open pit has an estimated mine life of
approximately four months, and is planned to be mined out by the end of 2015.
Figure 15.1. Palmarejo Open Pit Design in Plan View (Coeur, 2015)
15.2.2 Resource Block Model and SMU Sizing
The Palmarejo Mineral Resource block model was used for the open pit design. The
model was re-blocked to 5m x 5m x 7.5m. Ore control practices at Palmarejo allow for
reasonable selectivity with respect to this SMU.
15.2.3 Geotechnical Considerations
Geotechnical studies were completed by Golder Associates, with a follow up study

completed by geotechnical consultant Cristian Caceres in 2012. Final pit designs use a
slope angle of 49º.

November 2, 2015
15.2.4 Hydrogeological Considerations
No hydrogeological studies have been conducted in the open pit areas. No adverse
conditions have been encountered in the Palmarejo pit.
15.2.5 Dilution and Mining Loss
The Mineral Resource block model was re-blocked to a SMU of 5m x 5m x 7.5m. This
process results in dilution along the edges of the mineralized structures. Ore control
practices at Palmarejo allow for reasonable selectivity in relation to the block size. The
dilution created by re-blocking the block model is appropriate for the estimation of
Mineral Reserves without the application of additional dilution factors.
15.2.6 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Analysis – Palmarejo Open Pit
Operating costs and metal prices have been estimated based on mining the open pit
Mineral Reserve in 2015.
Cost and financial inputs were estimated to calculate a cut-off grade to determine ore
and waste. Table 15.1 lists the input parameters and calculation of the cut-off grade for
the Mineral Reserve determination. The calculation takes into account all relevant
financial parameters and operating costs; however, it excludes the gold production
royalty payable to Franco-Nevada Corporation. This was done as payments under the
gold stream are treated for accounting purposes as a financing arrangement, due to
minimum obligations for gold delivery set out in the agreement. Given the short term
nature of the open pit project, this approach will maximize the net revenue of the overall
Palmarejo Complex.
15.2.7 Ore/Waste Determinations
For Measured and Indicated Resources contained within the open pit design, ore is
defined as material above a cut-off grade of 1.30 AuEq g/t. Material at or above this cut-
off will generate a positive cash flow, since revenue from sales is greater than total
operating costs at the pit rim.
Material below this cut-off is waste, and will be disposed of in surface waste dumps.
Approximately 1.23Mt of waste will be mined in the open pit. The stripping ratio is 8:1
(waste to ore).
15.2.8 Mine Engineering Design
Access roads, open pit, and waste dump designs were completed in 2014.

November 2, 2015
15.2.9 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Palmarejo Open Pit Mine
The Mineral Reserve estimate for the Palmarejo open pit mine is shown in Table 15.2.
These Mineral Reserves are contained within the Measured and Indicated Mineral
Resources estimated for the project.
Mining, geotechnical, and hydrological factors have been considered in the estimation of
the Mineral Reserves, including the application of dilution factors. The QP notes that
other modifying factors (such as metallurgical, environmental, social, political, legal,
marketing, and economic factors) have also been considered to the required standard,
and that they each demonstrate the viability of the Mineral Reserves in their own regard.
Table 15.2. Mineral Reserve – Palmarejo Open Pit Mine (Coeur, 2015)
Ag Au Ag Au
Proven
Probable 154,000 123 0.98 609,000 4,800
Proven + Probable 154,000 123 0.98 609,000 4,800
Notes:
1. Estimated by Paul Kerr, P.Eng. as of August 31, 2015.
2. Metal prices used in the estimate: $1,150/oz Au and $15.50/oz Ag.
3. Cut-off grade for Mineral Reserve: 1.30 g/t AuEq.
4. Rounding of tonnes, average grades, and contained ounces may result in apparent discrepancies
with total rounded tonnes, average grades, and total contained ounces.
15.2.10 Mineral Reserve Sensitivity
Mineral Reserve sensitivity to metal prices has not been completed for the Palmarejo
open pit due to the short term nature of the open pit project.
15.3 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Palmarejo Underground Mine
The estimation of the Mineral Reserve is based on the following inputs and
considerations:
 Mineral Resource block model estimating tonnage, gold and silver grades;
 Cut-off grade calculations;
 Stope and development designs;
 Geotechnical conditions and established geotechnical mine design;
 Estimates for mining recovery and dilution;

November 2, 2015
 Depletion from previous mining; and

 Consideration of other modifying factors.
The Mineral Reserve estimate used the Vulcan mine planning software for the mine
design and 3D modeling. Grade and volume estimates for the 3D model were estimated
using GEOVIA™ software.
15.3.2 Mineral Resource Block Model
The Mineral Reserves for the Palmarejo underground mine are based on the Mineral
Resource block model for Palmarejo created in 2014.
The assessment of Mineral Reserves considered only portions of the Indicated and
Measured Mineral Resources; no Inferred Mineral Resources or unclassified blocks
were considered.
Block grades within the model were estimated based on diamond drill hole assay
composites and the location of the block relative to the mineralized vein and/or
mineralized stockwork interpretations. Blocks outside of the vein or stockwork were
assigned a grade of zero.
The Mineral Reserve focuses on significant high grade veins with reasonable geological
and grade continuity. A limited amount of Mineral Resources exist outside the Mineral
Reserve, which have potential for extraction by underground methods. Further
assessments of these areas are planned as additional grade control drilling is carried out
from underground access levels.
15.3.3 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Determination – Palmarejo Underground
The underground mine has a mine life of approximately 12 months. Operating costs and
metal prices have been estimated based on mining within this time period.
Cut-off grades were calculated to define economic volumes of the orebody for mining.
Mining excavations (stopes and ore development) were designed to include mineralized
material above the cut-off grades. Different cut-off grades apply to the Rosario and
Lower 76 mining areas, since mining costs vary between these two zones. G&A costs
have not been used to estimate the total operating cost; these costs are considered
incremental for the Palmarejo underground mine.
Table 15.1 lists the input parameters and calculation of the cut-off grade for the
underground Mineral Reserve determination. The calculation takes into account all
relevant financial parameters and operating costs; however, it excludes the gold

November 2, 2015
production royalty payable to Franco-Nevada Corporation. This was done as payments

under the gold stream are treated for accounting purposes as a financing arrangement,
due to the minimum obligations for gold delivery set out in the agreement. Given the
short term nature of the underground project, this approach will maximize the net
revenue of the overall Palmarejo Complex.
No capital or sustaining capital costs have been included in the cut-off grade calculation.
A financial evaluation was carried out to ensure the project was financially viable, which
included capital costs.
In addition to the mining cut-off grades, incremental cut-off grades (excluding the mining
cost) were calculated to classify mineralized material mined as a result of essential
development to access higher grade mining areas. Mineralized material above these
cut-off grades will add value, and is therefore included as process plant feed.
Mineralized material below the incremental cut-off values will be disposed of on surface
in waste dumps, or will be used underground as backfill.
15.3.4 Stope Design
Development and stope designs were generated for the planned mining methods using
the cut-off grade to target material for inclusion. Practical stope and ore development
shapes were digitized as polygons on 8m cross-sections around the Measured and
Indicated portions of the Mineral Resource block model. These polygons were used to
create a 3D wireframe model of the planned mining inventory.
In some cases, Mineral Resources with grades below cut-off were included in the design
as ―planned dilution‖ to facilitate mining the higher portions of the orebody. Any Inferred
or Unclassified Mineral Resources were assigned gold and silver grades of zero.
15.3.5 Ore Dilution
Unplanned ore dilution occurs during mining when adjacent rock or backfill outside of the
designed stope boundaries enters the stope and mixes with the broken ore. It was
assumed that it will not be practical to separate waste rock dilution from the ore material,
and that the diluted ore will be processed in the processing plant. For Palmarejo, the
following sources of dilution have been identified:
 Overbreak into the hangingwall or footwall rocks following drilling and blasting
operations;
 Rock failures (slough) from rock walls adjacent to the stope boundaries as a
result of weak rock mass characteristics; and

November 2, 2015
 Unconsolidated rockfill (backfill) from overmucking into the stope floor

(applicable to secondary stopes being mined on top of unconsolidated rockfill).
Operational experience at the Palmarejo underground mine suggests that dilution from
the CRF backfill material will be negligible, and this has not been considered as a
dilution source.
Ore dilution was estimated as a percentage of the stope volume, and depends on the
location of the mining block within the mine. The Lower 76 Clavo mine area consists of
narrow longitudinal stopes, and has been assigned a higher dilution than the wider
Rosario mine area. Dilution has been assigned a grade of zero. The dilution factors are
summarized in Table 15.3.
Table 15.3. Ore Dilution Factors – Palmarejo Underground Mine (Coeur, 2015)
External Ore Dilution Factors
Stope Type Dilution Au Grade Ag Grade
% (g/t) (g/t)
Primary 4% 0.23 57.5
Secondary 11% 0.16 34.4
Longitudinal 14% 0.68 63.0
The dilution factors in Table 15.3 were applied to the designed stope excavations in
Excel, following interrogation of the design solids against the Measured and Indicated
portions of the Mineral Resource block model, to determine volume, tonnage, and grade
information.
15.3.6 Ore Loss
The Palmarejo mine uses cemented rockfill (CRF) and unconsolidated rockfill (RF) to
backfill mined out stopes in order to enhance ore recovery, provide mine stability, and
eliminate the need for permanent ore pillars to be left. However, ore losses can occur
during mining due to the following situations:
 Stope under-break and unrecoverable bridging;

 Unrecovered ore stocks due to flat dipping footwalls and stope draw point
geometry;
 Misclassification of material resulting in ore hauled inadvertently to waste dumps;
and
 Abandoned ore stocks due to excessive dilution from stope wall failures of
backfill or waste.

November 2, 2015
To account for ore losses, a 1% ore loss factor was applied to the diluted mining
inventory.
15.3.7 Open Pit/Underground Interface
Planned open pit mining has been taken into account for the underground Mineral
Reserve estimate. An open pit/underground crown pillar exists in the Rosario Zone,
which is planned to be extracted via underground methods. The crown pillar is
approximately 32m in height.
15.3.8 Reserve Economics
All designed excavations in the Mineral Reserve meet or exceed the cut-off grade.
However it is recognized that other costs not included in the cut-off grade calculation, will
be incurred, such as capital costs and sustaining capital costs. These costs have been
included in the financial model to test the economic viability of the Mineral Reserve.
15.3.9 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Palmarejo Underground Mine
The Mineral Reserve estimate for the Palmarejo underground mine is shown in Table
15.4. These Mineral Reserves are contained within the Measured Mineral Resources
estimated for the project.
Table 15.4. Mineral Reserve – Palmarejo Underground Mine (Coeur, 2015)

Ag Au Ag Au
Proven
Probable 58,000 155 2.39 289,000 4,500
Proven + Probable 58,000 155 2.39 289,000 4,500
Notes:
1. Estimated by Paul Kerr, P.Eng as of August 31, 2015.
3. Cut-off grade for Mineral Reserve: 2.77 g/t AuEq for Rosario, and 3.02 g/t AuEq for Lower Clavo 76.
4. Rounding of tonnes, average grades, and contained ounces may result in apparent discrepancies with
total rounded tonnes, average grades, and total contained ounces.
15.3.10 Mineral Reserve Sensitivity
Mineral Reserve sensitivity to metal prices has not been completed for the Palmarejo
underground due to the short term nature of the project.

November 2, 2015
15.4 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Guadalupe Underground Mine
The estimation of the Mineral Reserve for the Guadalupe underground mine is based on
the following inputs and considerations:
 Geotechnical and hydrogeological information;
 Estimates for mining recovery and dilution;
 Depletion from previous mining; and
The Mineral Reserve estimate used the Deswik ® mine planning software for the mine
design, 3D modeling and interrogation of the 3D mining model against the block model.
The Mineral Reserves for the Guadalupe underground are based on the updated 2015
Guadalupe Mineral Resource block model.
No Measured Mineral Resources exist in the block model. The assessment of Mineral
Reserve considered only portions of the Indicated Mineral Resources; no Inferred
Mineral Resources or unclassified blocks were considered.
composites and the location of the block relative to the mineralized vein and/or
mineralized stockwork interpretations. Blocks outside of the vein or stockwork were
assigned a grade of zero. No significant abnormalities in the block grade estimates were
noted while working with the block model during the development of the Mineral
Reserve.
The Mineral Reserve focuses on significant high-grade veins with reasonable geological
and grade continuity. However, it should be noted that Mineral Resources exist outside
the Mineral Reserve, which have potential for extraction by underground methods.
Future assessments of these areas are planned as additional surface drilling data and/or
underground access becomes available.

November 2, 2015
15.4.3 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Determination - Guadalupe
A cut-off grade was calculated to define economic volumes of the orebody for mining.
material above the cut-off grade. These excavations were then assessed for economic
viability. Table 15.1 lists the input parameters and calculation of the cut-off grade for the
underground Mineral Reserve determination. The calculation takes into account all
relevant financial parameters and operating costs. No capital/sustaining capital costs
have been included in the calculation.
In addition to the mining cut-off grade, an incremental cut-off grade (excluding the mining
cost) was calculated to classify mineralized material mined as a result of essential
development to access higher grade mining areas. Mineralized material above this cut-
off grade will add value and is therefore included as process plant feed. Mineralized
material below the incremental cut-off will be disposed of on surface in waste dumps, or
will be used underground as backfill.
15.4.4 Stope and Ore Development Design
Stope designs were generated for the planned mining methods (see Section 16) using
the cut-off grade to target material for inclusion. Stope designs were competed using the
Deswik® Stope Optimizer software. Center lines representing ore development drives
were digitized to represent ore development, and were used to create a 3D solid model.
The stope solids were cut using the ore development solids using Boolian routines in the
planning software. The resulting 3D model formed the basis of the Mineral Reserve
estimate.
A typical cross-section showing the stope and development design is shown in Figure
15.2. The 3D model of the planned mining excavations is shown in Figure 15.3.

November 2, 2015
Figure 15.2. Cross-Section Illustrating Stope and Ore Development Designs (Coeur, 2015)
Figure 15.3. 3D Model of Planned Stope and Development Excavations (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
15.4.5 Ore Dilution
designed stope boundaries enters the stope and mixes with the broken ore. It has been
and that the diluted ore will be processed in the processing plant. For Guadalupe, the
following sources of dilution have been identified:
operations;
 Unconsolidated rockfill (backfill) from overmucking into the stope floor (applicable
to secondary and longitudinal stopes being mined on top of unconsolidated
rockfill).
Operational experience at the Palmarejo underground mine suggests that dilution from
the CRF material will be negligible, and this has not been considered as a dilution
source.
Ore dilution factors to account for overbreak and wall slough (waste rock dilution) have
been estimated and applied based on stope mining width, and are summarized in Table
15.5. The dilution is assumed to contain zero gold and silver grades. This approach is
considered to be conservative, since dilution from the HW and FW typically occurs in the
lower-grade stockwork mineralization, which contains gold and silver.
A dilution allowance of 1.6% was applied to secondary and longitudinal stopes to

account for potential backfill dilution. No gold or silver grades were assigned to the
rockfill dilution.
Table 15.5. Guadalupe Stope and Development Dilution Assumptions (Coeur, 2015)
Excavation Type Percent Dilution Material
Dilution
Stope <= 3.5m width 15% Wall overbreak, wall slough
Stope > 3.5m width 10% Wall overbreak, wall slough
Secondary and Longitudinal Stopes 1.6% Rock fill
Ore Develpment 0% None

November 2, 2015
15.4.6 Ore Loss
The Guadalupe mine will use CRF and rockfill to backfill mined-out stopes in order to
enhance ore recovery, provide mine stability and eliminate the need for permanent ore
pillars to be left. However, ore losses can occur during mining as a result of the following
situations:

geometry;
and
backfill or waste.
Based on experience at the Palmarejo underground mine, primary stopes and
development tend to have higher ore recovery compared with secondary and
longitudinal stopes. To account for ore losses, the factors in Table 15.6 were applied.
Table 15.6. Ore Loss Factors – Guadalupe Mine (Coeur, 2015)

Excavation Type Weight % of Diluted
tonnage in Excavation
Primary Stope 2%
Secondary Stope 5%
Longitudinal Stope 5%
Development 0%
15.4.7 Depletion
The surveyed ―as-built‖ mining excavations were depleted from the designed solids.
However other costs, not included in the cut-off grade calculation, will be incurred; for
example, costs related to capital development, underground infrastructure installations
and sustaining capital.
The resulting design was further analyzed in a financial model as described in Section
22 and ensure overall economic viability.

November 2, 2015
15.4.9 Mineral Reserve Estimate – Guadalupe Underground Mine
The Mineral Reserve estimate for the Guadalupe underground mine is shown in Table
15.7. These Mineral Reserves are contained within the Indicated Mineral Resources
estimated for the deposit.
Table 15.7. Mineral Reserve – Guadalupe Underground Mine (Coeur, 2015)

Ag Au Ag Au
Proven
Probable 4,540,000 154 2.42 22,456,000 352,700
Proven + Probable 4,540,000 154 2.42 22,456,000 352,700
Notes:
1. Estimated by Paul Kerr, P.Eng. as of August 31, 2015.
3. Cut-off grade for Mineral Reserve: 3.22 g/t AuEq.
4. Rounding of tonnes, average grades, and contained ounces may result in apparent
discrepancies with total rounded tonnes, average grades, and total contained ounces.
15.5 Mineral Reserve Estimate – Independencia Underground Mine
The Mineral Reserve estimated for the Independencia underground mine is based on
the following inputs and considerations:
 Geotechnical and hydrogeological information;
 Estimates for mining recovery and dilution; and
The Mineral Reserve estimate used the Deswik ® mine planning software and the
Deswik® Stope Optimizer for the mine design, 3D modeling and interrogation of the 3D
mining model against the block model.
The Mineral Reserves for the Independencia underground mine are based on the
Mineral Resource block model created in 2014.

November 2, 2015
The assessment of Mineral Reserve took into account portions of the Measured and
Indicated Mineral Resources; no Inferred Mineral Resources or unclassified blocks were
considered.
composites and the location of the block relative to the grade shells created for the
grade estimate. Blocks outside of the grade shells were assigned a grade of zero. No
significant abnormalities in the block grade estimates were noted while working with the
block model during the development of the Mineral Reserve.
The Mineral Reserve focuses on significant high-grade areas with reasonable geological
and grade continuity. However, it should be noted that Mineral Resources exist outside
the Mineral Reserve, which have potential for extraction by underground methods.
Future assessments of these areas are planned as additional surface drilling data and/or
underground access becomes available.
15.5.3 Mineral Reserve Cut-off Grade Determination - Independencia
Cut-off grades were calculated to define economic volumes of the orebody for mining.
material above the cut-off grade. These excavations were then assessed for economic
viability.
Table 15.1 lists the input parameters and calculation of the cut-off grade for the Mineral
Reserve determination. The calculation takes into account all relevant financial
parameters and operating costs; however, no capital or sustaining capital costs were
included in the calculation.
Part of the deposit (Independencia Este) is not subject to the gold production royalty
payable to Franco-Nevada Corporation or the gold stream payable commencing 2016.
As a result, the cut-off grade is lower for this portion of the deposit.
15.5.4 Stope Design
Development and stope designs were generated for the planned mining methods using
the cut-off grades to target material for inclusion. The Deswik ® Stope Optimizer was
used to generate the mining stopes.
The completed 3D model of the planned mining excavations is shown in Figure 15.4.

November 2, 2015
Figure 15.4. 3D Model of Planned Stope Excavations (Coeur, 2015)
15.5.5 Ore Dilution
designed stope boundaries enters the stope and mixes with the broken ore. It has been
and that the diluted ore will be processed in the processing plant. For Independencia,
the following sources of dilution have been identified:
operations;
 Unconsolidated rockfill (backfill) from overmucking into the stope floor
(applicable to secondary and longitudinal stopes being mined on top of
unconsolidated rockfill).
Operational experience at Palmarejo suggests that dilution from the CRF material will be
negligible, and this has not been considered as a dilution source.
Ore dilution factors to account for overbreak and wall slough (waste rock dilution) have
been estimated based on identified geotechnical domains within the deposit. The dilution
is assumed to contain zero gold and silver grades. This approach is considered to be

November 2, 2015
conservative, since dilution from the HW and FW typically occurs in the lower-grade
stockwork mineralization which contains gold and silver.
A dilution allowance of 1.6% was applied to secondary and longitudinal stopes to

account for potential backfill dilution. No gold or silver grades were assigned to the
rockfill dilution.
Estimated dilution factors are shown in Table 15.8. These factors were applied to the
tonnage and grades obtained by the interrogation of the designed stope and
development solids aginst the Indicated portion of the resource model.
Table 15.8. Independencia Stope and Development Dilution Assumptions (Coeur, 2015)
Excavation Type Percent Dilution Material
Dilution
Stopes (1100m Level and above) 15% Wall overbreak, wall slough
Stopes (below 1100m Level) 10% Wall overbreak, wall slough
Secondary and Longitudinal Stopes 1.6% Rock fill
Ore Develpment 0% None
Note: Dilution tonnes = excavation design tonnes x % Dilution.
15.5.6 Ore Loss
The Independencia mine will use CRF and RF to backfill mined-out stopes in order to
enhance ore recovery, provide mine stability and eliminate the need for permanent ore
pillars to be left. However, ore losses can occur during mining as a result of the following
situations:

geometry;
and
backfill or waste.
Based on experience at the Palmarejo underground mine, primary stopes and
development tend to have higher ore recovery compared with secondary and
longitudinal stopes. To account for ore losses, the factors in Table 15.9 were applied.

November 2, 2015
Table 15.9. Ore Loss Factors – Independencia Mine (Coeur, 2015)

Area Weight % of Diluted
tonnage in Excavation
Primary Stope 2%
Secondary Stope 5%
Longitudinal Stope 5%
Development 0%
15.5.7 Depletion
No known mining has been carried out at the Independencia deposit.
However, other costs not included in the cut-off grade calculation, will be incurred; for
example, costs related to capital development, underground infrastructure installations,
and sustaining capital.
The resulting design was further analyzed in a financial model, as described in Section
22 and ensure overall economic viability.
15.5.9 Mineral Reserve Estimate - Independencia Underground Mine
The Mineral Reserve estimate for the Independencia underground mine is shown in
Table 15.10. These Mineral Reserves are contained within the Measured and Indicated
Mineral Resources estimated for the Independencia deposit.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 15.10. Mineral Reserve Estimate – Independencia Deposit (Coeur, 2015)

Average Grade Contained Oz
Mine Area Category Tonnes (g/t)
Ag Au Ag Au
Independencia Proven 558,000 218 2.54 3,922,000 45,600
Probable 2,398,000 183 2.71 14,104,000 208,800
Este
Proven + Probable 2,956,000 190 2.68 18,026,000 254,400
Probable 689,000 170 3.35 3,756,000 74,200
Oeste
Proven + Probable 858,000 177 3.29 4,882,000 90,800
Probable 3,087,000 180 2.85 17,860,000 283,000
Total
Proven + Probable 3,815,000 187 2.81 22,909,000 345,100
Notes:
1. Mineral Reserve estimated by Paul Kerr, P.Eng. as of August 31, 2015.
2. Metal prices used in the estimate were $1,250/oz Au and $17.50/oz Ag.
3. Cut-off grades for Mineral Reserves: 3.18 g/t AuEq (Oeste) and 2.64 g/t AuEq (Este)
15.6 Summary of Mineral Reserves Estimate – Palmarejo Complex
The Mineral Reserves for the Palmarejo Complex are listed in Table 15.11 and include
estimates for the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia deposits. The Mineral
Reserves were estimated as of August 31, 2015 by Paul Kerr, P.Eng., an employee of
Coeur Mining, Inc.
Mining, geotechnical and hydrological factors have been considered in the estimation of
the Mineral Reserves, including the application of ore dilution and ore recovery factors.
Other modifying factors (such as metallurgical, environmental, social, political, legal,
marketing, and economic factors) have also been considered to the required standard,
and they each demonstrate the viability of the Mineral Reserves in their own regard.
For the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits, the mine plan was evaluated using two
sets of prices:
 Short-term prices for 2015 to 2017 of $15.50/oz Ag and $1,150/oz Au; and
 Long-term prices for 2018 and beyond of $17.50/oz Ag and $1,250/oz Au.
The Palmarejo open pit and Palmarejo underground Mineral Reserves were estimated
using only short-term prices, since these deposits are expected to be mined out by the
end of 2016.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
The Guadalupe and Independencia Mineral Reserves were estimated using the long-
term prices. However, both the Guadalupe and Independencia Mineral Reserves are
insensitive to the short term prices.
The economic analysis described in Section 22 uses both short-term and long-term
prices.
Table 15.11. Mineral Reserve Summary – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

Ag Au Ag Au
Proven 728,000 216 2.65 5,048,000 62,100
Probable 7,839,000 164 2.56 41,214,000 645,100
Proven + Probable 8,567,000 168 2.57 46,262,000 707,200
Notes:
1. Mineral Reserves estimated by Paul Kerr, P.Eng. as of August 31, 2015.
2. Metal prices used were $1,250/oz Au and $17.50/oz Ag for Guadalupe and Independencia, and $1,150/oz
Au and $15.50/oz Ag for the Palmarejo open pit and underground mines.
15.7 Mineral Reserve Sensitivity
15.7.1 Sensitivity of Mineral Reserve to the Mineral Resource Estimates
A key input for the sensitivity of the Mineral Reserve estimates are the Mineral Resource
estimates, since the Mineral Reserve is contained within the Mineral Resources
estimated for the Palmarejo Complex.
The Mineral Resource estimates are updated annually for key deposits based on
additional data obtained throughout the year, such as mining information and additional
drilling information. This data is used to revise the geological interpretation of the
deposit, revise the grade estimation methodology used in the Mineral Resource
estimate, and in some cases, revise the resource classification in some areas of the
orebody. New data could result in either positive or negative changes to the Mineral
Reserves. The magnitude of these potential changes is difficult to quantify until this data
is collected and analyzed.
In general, the current level of data and knowledge is higher for the Guadalupe and
Palmarejo deposits due to active mining in these deposits and data obtained from
numerous drill holes. By comparison, less data and knowledge exists in the
Independencia deposit since the data currently consists only of diamond drill core.

November 2, 2015
15.7.2 Sensitivity to Cut-off Grade Inputs
One of the key variables in the cut-off grade estimate used for the Mineral Reserve is
metal prices. A sensitivity analysis to metal prices was completed for the Palmarejo
Complex. Table 15.12 shows the estimated sensitivity of the Mineral Reserve to +/- 10%
variances in metal prices.
Of all the cut-off grade inputs, the QP considers the Mineral Reserve to be most
sensitive to metal prices. The company‘s current strategy is to sell most of the metal
production at spot prices, and is exposed to both positive and negative changes in the
market, which are outside of the company‘s control.
Long term changes in metallurgical recovery could also have an impact on the Mineral
Reserve. For example, a 10% change in metallurgical recovery has approximately the
same impact as a 10% change in metal prices. However, the metallurgy is well
understood, and as a result, the Mineral Reserve is considered to be less sensitive to
long term factors affecting metallurgical recovery, compared to the sensitivity to metal
prices, which tend to have greater variances.
The impact of higher or lower operating costs could also affect the Mineral Reserve.
While the trend over 2014 and 2015 has shown operating cost reductions at the
Palmarejo Complex, this trend could reverse and costs could increase over the life of the
project, due to factors outside of the company‘s control. However, of the factors
discussed in this section, the QP considers the Mineral Reserve to be least sensitive to
changes in operating costs.
Table 15.12. Mineral Reserve Sensitivity to Metal Prices (Coeur, 2015)

Ag$/oz Au$/oz Reserve Class Kt Ag (g/t) Au (g/t) Ag Au
(Koz) (Koz)
15.75 1,125 Proven 902 200 2.41 5,790 70
Probable 7,386 166 2.64 39,485 627
Estimated Sensitivity Proven + Probable 8,288 170 2.62 45,274 697
17.50 1,250 Proven 728 216 2.65 5,048 62
Palmarejo Complex Probable 7,839 164 2.56 41,214 645
Mineral Reserve Proven + Probable 8,567 168 2.57 46,262 707
19.25 1,375 Proven 976 194 2.32 6,085 73
Probable 7,954 162 2.55 41,533 651
Estimated Sensitivity Proven + Probable 8,930 166 2.52 47,614 724
Notes:
1. Rounding of tonnes, average grades, and contained ounces may result in apparent
discrepancies with total rounded tonnes, average grades, and total contained ounces.

November 2, 2015
15.7.3 Sensitivity to Dilution
Additional dilution has the effect of increasing the overall volume of material mined,
hauled and processed; however, metal content will slightly increase as dilution material
from the stope walls generally occurs in the stockwork material hosting the vein, and
contains some (albeit low) silver and gold values. Dilution will have an impact on
operating costs, and could result in Mineral Reserve losses in extreme cases where
broken stocks are diluted to the point where it is uneconomic to muck, haul and process
the material, and the broken stocks are abandoned.
The Palmarejo Complex has developed a number of methods to control dilution,

including the installation of stope support, a flexible mine plan with the ability to limit
stope wall spans, and good development practices that avoid undercutting the stope
hangingwall. To assist in these efforts, site geotechnical reviews are carried out
regularly, and a geotechnical engineer was hired in 2015.
In the opinion of the QP, the risk of material changes to the Mineral Reserve from
dilution above the amounts used in the Mineral Reserve estimate is low, relative to the
other factors discussed in Sections 15.7.1 and 15.7.2.

November 2, 2015
16. MINING METHODS
16.1 Palmarejo Open Pit
16.1.1 Introduction
The Palmarejo open pit is a mature operation, with an expected remaining mine life
planned to the end of 2015.
16.1.2 Mining Method and Equipment
Open pit mining will be carried out using conventional hard rock open pit mining
methods. Equipment consists of:
 Cat 992G and 988H loaders;

 Cat 777F and 740B haul trucks;
 Atlas Copco DML/HP rotary drills;
 Cat D9T and D10T bull dozers; and
 Cat motor graders and ancillary equipment.
No additional equipment purchases are planned for Palmarejo.
16.1.3 Pit Design
Design criteria for the open pit are listed in Table 16.1.

November 2, 2015
Table 16.1. Palmarejo Open Pit Design and Operational Parameters (Coeur, 2015)
Item Unit
Pit Design
Bench Height 7.5m
Footwall Pit Slopes 43.8 º
Footwall Bench Face Angle 60 º
Footwall Catch Bench 7m
Hangingwall Pit Slopes 51.3º
Hangingwall Bench Face Angle 75º
Hangingwall Catch Bench 8m
Minimum Mining Width 30m
Haul Road Design Width 23m
Haul Road Gradient 10%
Ore Production Rate 3400 tonnes/day
Working Time
Shift Schedule 1x-12 hour shift/day, 7
days/wk.
Operating standby time 1.75 hours/shift
Available Production Equipment
CAT 992G Front-End Loader 2
CAT 988H Front-End Loader 2
CAT 777G Haul Trucks 11
CAT 740B Haul Trucks 4
Blasthole Drills 5
16.1.4 Mining Schedule
The mining schedule for the open pit is provided in Table 16.2.
Table 16.2. 2015 Palmarejo Open Pit Mining Schedule (Coeur, 2015)
Palmarejo Open Pit 2015
Tonnes Ore 154,200
Au Grade (g/t) 0.98
Ag Grade (g/t) 122.8
Tonnes Waste 1,231,000

November 2, 2015
16.2 Palmarejo Underground Mine
16.2.1 Introduction
The Palmarejo underground mine is a mature operation with a remaining mine life of
approximately one year.
Access to the mine is via the Portal Norte and Portal ROM, which are 250m apart and
adjacent to Palmarejo process plant. The main orebody (Clavo 76) is approximately
860m from surface via the decline.
16.2.2 History
Coeur commenced underground development at Palmarejo in March 2008. Ore

production began in January 2009. During peak production, the mine produced ore at a
rate of approximately 2500 tpd.
The deposit consists of three main mining areas, designated as clavos (Spanish for
―nail‖), which are areas along the vein structures containing significant mineralization:
Clavo 76, Clavo 108, and Rosario.
A longitudinal section of the Palmarejo mine is shown in Figure 16.1. Remaining Mineral
Reserves exist in the lower portion of Clavo 76 and Rosario.
Figure 16.1. Longitudinal Section of the Palmarejo Mine (Coeur, 2014)

November 2, 2015
16.2.3 Geotechnical Conditions and Ground Support
Rock units at Palmarejo consist of:
 Ore and ore stockwork - quartz-carbonate breccia veins; and

 Host rocks (HW and FW) - igneous (porphyritic or andesitic) units (lithography
codes KTat, KTapp and KTam) and sedimentary (conglomerate, sandstone or
shale) units (lithography code KTal).
The rockmass quality at Palmarejo is highly variable. Most areas of the mine have been
developed in a ―Good‖ to ―Fair‖ rockmass quality (RMR76 values in the range of 40 to
> 60); however, in some areas, very weak HW conditions have been encountered
(RMR76 15-25). The sedimentary shale KTal rock unit is typically of poor quality, and
while usually encountered in the HW, the rock unit is present in the footwall in some
limited areas.
The remaining Mineral Reserves are hosted in relatively competent ground.
Ground support is expected to consist of rock bolts and mesh, using the same ground
support standards as those described for the Guadalupe mine in Section 16.3.
16.2.4 Hydrogeological Conditions
Palmarejo is a relatively dry mine, with little water inflow. A number of small sumps
located throughout the mine are used for dewatering.
16.2.5 Underground Design Philosophy
The remaining Mineral Reserves at Palmarejo were planned for extraction using the
following key principles:
 Attention to high quality ground support installations;

 Executing the planned stope mining sequence; and
 Maintaining and utilizing the existing equipment and mine infrastructure.
Table 16.3 summarizes the key mine design parameters for the Palmarejo underground
mine.

November 2, 2015
Table 16.3. Key Mine Design Parameters (Coeur, 2015)

Item Unit
Longitudinal Longhole Stope Mining
Max – Min Vein Width 2.5 – 10m
Vertical Distance between Levels 20m
Stope Length 10m
Minimum Hangingwall Dip 450
Minimum Footwall Dip 500
Transverse Longhole Stope Mining
Vein Width > 10m
Primary and Secondary Stope Width 8m
Maximum Stope Length 40m
Mine Development
Drift Dimensions (width x height) 5.0m x 5.5m
Maximum Gradient +/- 15%
16.2.6 Mining Methods
Palmarejo is mined using longhole stoping methods with backfill. Stoping is carried out
using transverse and longitudinal methods.
Longitudinal bench mining is the method used for the remaining Mineral Reserves in the
lower Clavo 76 mining block. All development has been completed in this area. The
remaining stopes are shown in Figure 16.2.
Transverse longhole mining is planned for the remaining Mineral Reserves in the
Rosario Clavo. This area will be mining from underground, and will break through into
the mined out open pit. Backfill (rockfill) will be placed into the mined void from the open
pit. Approximately 280m of lateral development is required to mine this area. The
Rosario Clavo is shown in Figure 16.3.
16.2.7 Development and Production Mining Operations
Mining operations at Palmarejo are similar to those used at Guadalupe, and use the
same equipment and personnel. Refer to Section 16.3 for a description of these
activities.

November 2, 2015
Figure 16.2. Longitudinal Section of Lower Clavo 76 (Coeur, 2015)
Figure 16.3. Longitudinal Section of Rosario Clavo (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
16.2.8 Backfill
All stopes and ore development are backfilled.
Most of the longitudinal stopes are filled with CRF. The CRF is manufactured in an
underground mixing plant at the location shown in Figure 16.4. Portland cement is used
at a 4.5% (by weight) ratio to produce the CRF. If mining is planned underneath
backfilled stopes, or if development is planned in the future though the backfill, a 10%
cement mixture is used.
The CRF is loaded onto trucks at the CRF plant and dumped into the stope using trucks
fitted with telescopic ejector dump systems.
16.2.9 Development and Production Rates
Most of the development at Palmarejo has been completed. A small amount of capital
and operating development is required in the Rosario Clavo.
The development and production schedule for the Palmarejo underground mine is
shown in Table 16.4.
Table 16.4. Palmarejo Underground Mining Schedule (Coeur, 2015)

2015 2016 Total
Tonnes Ore 20,000 38,000 58,000
Au Grade (g/t) 2.39 2.39 2.39
Ag Grade (g/t) 155 155 155
Lateral Development (m) 140 140 280
16.3 Guadalupe Underground Mine
16.3.1 Introduction
The Guadalupe mine is located south of the Palmarejo processing facilities via an 8km
gravel road.
Access to the Guadalupe mine is from surface via two ramps: the Poniente Decline and
Oriente Incline, located 700m north of the deposit in the hangingwall. The decline serves
as the primary access and exhaust airway, while the incline provides access for
secondary egress, fresh air, and mine services. Both mine access drifts have been
advanced through the ore structure and into the footwall. A ramp system has been
developed in the footwall connecting the two primary access tunnels.

November 2, 2015
The Guadalupe portals and portal pad area are illustrated in Figure 16.4.
Figure 16.4. Guadalupe Mine Surface Portal Pad (Coeur, 2015)
16.3.2 History
The underground development of Guadalupe commenced in April 2012. By August 31,

2015, approximately 9,420m of lateral development had been completed, and an
estimated 251,700 tonnes of ore had been mined and processed, at grades of 2.27 g/t
Au and 132 g/t Ag.
The completed development and stope mining as of August 31, 2015, is shown in Figure
16.5.

November 2, 2015
Figure 16.5. Guadalupe Mine as of August 31, 2015 (Coeur, 2015)
16.3.3 Geotechnical Assessment
16.3.3.1 Rock Mass Classification and Geotechnical Mine Design
The ore and ore stockwork consists of quartz-carbonate breccia veins with healed
facture planes and localized areas with small scale vugs. The deposit is hosted in
igneous (porphyritic or andesitic) units (lithography codes KTat, KTapp and KTam) and
sedimentary (conglomerate, sandstone or shale) units (lithography code KTal).
Development in the sedimentary shale rock unit (KTal) requires additional support
(usually in the form of shotcrete).
In August 2011, Golder Associates completed a geotechnical review of Guadalupe,

based on core logging information from the exploration database. Golder used the
following data to calculate rock mass rating (RMR76) values:
 Rock strength;
 Rock Quality Designation (RQD);
 Discontinuity spacing;
 Discontinuity condition; and
 Groundwater.

November 2, 2015
Most of the rock types show similar RMR76 values (with the bulk of the values in the
range of 40-60, or a ―Fair‖ rock quality).
Golder noted that overall, the Guadalupe rockmass appears to be of better quality than
the Palmarejo rockmass, and that the poor quality shale KTal unit has similar RQD
values. These conclusions have been validated by observations in the field.
In March 2015, Coeur commissioned geotechnical consultant Ingeroc of Santiago, Chile,

to carry out additional geotechnical characterizations of the Guadalupe rockmass,
including underground geotechnical mapping, measurements of structural geology
features, and a review of the drill core photographs. Ingeroc updated the rockmass
classification for the active areas in the mine, which are shown in Table 16.5, where:
 GSI is the Geological Strength Index;

 RMR(B) is the Rock Mass Rating that uses the Bieniawski (1989) classification
system;
 Q is the Rock Mass Rating that uses the Barton (2000) classification system; and
 RMR(L) is the Rock Mass Rating that uses the Laubscher (1990) classification
system.
Table 16.5. Guadalupe Rock Mass Ratings (Ingeroc, 2015)

UG GSI RMR(B) Q RMR(L)
KTAM 68 72 23.17 58
KTAP 56 64 8.73 47
STOCKWORK 51 56 3.82 40
VETA 53 58 4.95 43
KTAL 75 74 31.18 59
KTAL (techo) 57 62 7.19 46
As with the Golder review, the rock mass ratings estimated by Ingeroc suggest little
variability between the lithological units is encountered in the mine.
In April 2015, Coeur commissioned Pakalnis & Associates (Pakalnis) from Vancouver,
Canada, to visit the site, review the ground control management plans, assess the data
compiled by Ingeroc, and review mining method alternatives.

November 2, 2015
Following the site visit and data review, Pakalnis noted the following:
 No major concerns were observed during the mine visit. The mine personnel
were operating at an international standard;
 Ongoing training should continue, with data measurement and field observations
applied to optimize future designs for a safe and cost effective operation;
 Areas visited showed RMR values of >50% in the ore, which indicates an ore
development span of up to 10m with cable bolts and split sets would be stable;
 With a hangingwall RMR in excess of 35%, primary stopes with a 10m HW span
and secondary stopes with a 14m HW span is a workable option. For areas with
RMR values below 35%, cable bolts should be installed in the HW for this span;
 The Avoca bench mining method is a viable option, with the stability of the
exposed HW a function of the RMR; and
 The RMR and structural geology of all areas should be assessed in terms of HW,
ore and FW, with support systems designed for the conditons encountered.
In mid 2015, Coeur hired a full time geotechnical engineer to assist with the mine design
processes.
16.3.3.2 Ground Support
Standard ground support consists of pattern rock bolting using 2.4m and 1.8m length
39mm diameter split set friction bolts, which are also used to pin 4 x 4 inch welded wire
mesh to the back and ribs. The mesh is installed within 1.7m of the drift floor. A 1.4m x
1.4m bolting pattern is used, which is modified to a tighter pattern when poor ground
conditions are encountered.
The Poniente Decline and most of the footwall development completed to date has been
supported using this system.
In very poor ground, shotcrete is applied over the mesh prior to advancing the
development, or the heading is shotcreted immediately after scaling, with rockbolts
installed through the shotcrete. Shotcrete thickness is typically 4 inches, although 2 or
up to 6 inch thicknesses are used in some cases.
In poor ground or at intersections, 6m length cable bolts or 2.4m resin grouted rebar are
typically installed.
When required, the stope hangingwall and ore development drifts are supported with 6m
length fully grouted cable bolts with metal plates installed against the back.

November 2, 2015
16.3.4 Hydrogeological Conditions and Dewatering
In the past, both access ramps encountered significant water inflows from structural
features encountered during development. Over time, these inflows have diminished as
the rockmass has drained, but have been replaced by new inflows as mining has
progressed along strike.
To manage these inflows and water generated by dust contol, a settling sump and
pumping station was developed and installed on the 1,140m Level. The dewatering rate
handled by the pumping system is currently estimated at 16 L/s.
The Guadalupe underground mine was designed on the basis of the following key
principles:
 Mechanized trackless operation with decline access;

 A material handling system using truck haulage of ore and waste to the surface
portal pad;
 Underground development and operation concurrent with the Palmarejo open pit
and underground mines, and the Independencia mine development and
production; and
 Early access to and production of higher grade mill feed.
Table 16.6 summarizes the key mine design parameters for the Guadalupe mine.

November 2, 2015
Table 16.6. Key Mine Design Parameters (Coeur, 2015)

Item Unit
Longitudinal Longhole Stope Mining
Max – Min Vein Width 2.5 – 10m
Stope Length along Strike 15 – 20m
Transverse Longhole Stope Mining
Vein Width > 10m
Primary Stope Width 10m
Secondary Stope Width 14m
Maximum Stope Length 40m
Lateral Development
Drift Dimensions (width x height) 5.0m x 5.5m
Maximum Gradient +/- 15%
Guadalupe will continue to be mined using longhole stoping methods with backfill. The
continuous nature of the orebodies, significant orebody thicknesses, favorable deposit
geometry and generally good rockmass conditions have resulted in productive longhole
stoping at reasonable mining costs.
Underground mining will employ two general categories of open stoping methods:
transverse and longitudinal. In most cases, thinner areas of the orebody (less than 10
meters from hangingwall to footwall) are mined using the longitudinal retreat method,
while thicker areas are mined using the transverse method with a primary/secondary
stoping sequence.
16.3.6.1 Transverse Stoping
Access for transverse stoping areas is via footwall sublevels spaced 20m apart (floor to
floor), which are developed parallel to the orebody strike, approximately 17m from the
footwall contact. Drawpoints are developed perpendicular to the footwall sublevels to
access the stopes.
A Primary/Secondary stope sequence is used. Primary stope dimensions are 10m wide
(along strike) and are the width of the orebody (in length) from footwall to hangingwall –
typically 12m to 20m. Secondary stopes are 14m along strike.
Primaries are mined first in the sequence, using the following the stope cycle:

November 2, 2015
 Waste level access development is completed on the top and bottom levels;
 The top and bottom level waste drawpoints and ore sills through the stope are
developed with the jumbo drill from the footwall to the hangingwall;
 Cable bolt and/or shotcrete support is installed in the stope hangingwall, if
required;
 A slot raise is drilled with the longhole drill and blasted to create a sub-vertical
excavation through the stope;
 Downholes are drilled through the stope from the top ore sill to break through
into the bottom ore sill. These holes are loaded with explosives and blasted into
the slot;
 The broken ore is removed from the bottom drawpoint with conventional and
remote mucking using a load-haul-dump (LHD)-style front-end loader and
loaded into a truck for haulage out of the mine; and
 CRF is placed into the mined out stope using a truck, which dumps the backfill
into the stope from the top drawpoint.
Subsequent primary stopes in the sequence are mined in a similar manner, in a bottom
up direction, with the upper stopes in the sequence using the backfill as a working floor
for the LHD to remove the broken ore.
Once the primary stope sequence is established over several levels, the secondary
stope sequence can commence. Secondary stopes are mined using the same cycle as
described above, however the stopes are filled with unconsolidated rock fill. In some
cases, shotcrete support is used against exposed CRF faces, and on stope back.
16.3.6.2 Longitudinal Avoca Stoping
In thinner areas of the orebody, longitudinal stoping will be carried out using the Avoca
mining method. This method reduces the requirements for waste development and
cemented backfill, which reduces overall mining costs. Stopes are sequenced in a
retreat manner, from the end of the mining block towards the level access, in a bottom
up mining direction. Accesses are required on both ends of the stoping block to allow
backfill (rockfill) to be placed as the ore is mined. The method is illustrated in Figure
16.6.
Longitudinal stope dimensions are 20m in vertical height, approximately 20m along
strike (depending on ground conditions) and are mined over the width of the ore (from
footwall to hangingwall). In some cases, the stope hangingwall will be supported with
cable bolts. Stope widths vary between 2.5m and 10m from hangingwall to footwall.

November 2, 2015
Figure 16.6. Longitudinal Avoca Mining Method (after Wardrop, 2009)
16.3.7 Development
Lateral development is completed using conventional mechanized drilling and blasting

methods. Drift rounds 3.5m in length are drilled using twin boom, electric/hydraulic drill
jumbos. The holes are loaded with AN/FO explosives and primed with non-electric
detonators. Following blasting, the round is mucked out with an LHD and loaded onto
trucks for haulage to surface. Ground support is installed using a mechanical bolting
machine and (when required) shotcrete is applied with a shotcrete machine. Mine
services (air, water, compressed air, electrical and communication cables) are installed
on the drift back from a scissor lift truck.
In poor ground conditions, additional holes are added on the perimeter for better wall
and back control. These holes are left unloaded.
16.3.7.1 Capital Development
The mine design includes capital development for stope access, ventilation, secondary
egress and haulage. Also included, is development for underground infrastructure
required for dewatering and electrical installations. The development design is illustrated
in Figure 16.7.

November 2, 2015
Development profiles for lateral development are 5m wide x 5.5m high. Ventilation raises
developed by longhole drill and blast methods are 2.5m x 3m. Bored raises for
secondary egress manways and ventilation are 1.8m to 2.1m in diameter. Larger bored
raises for ventilation are 3.0m to 3.5m in diameter.
Figure 16.7. Development Design (Coeur, 2014)
16.3.7.2 Expensed Development
Expensed (or ―operating) development is defined as drifts required specifically for

stope mining and include waste drawpoints and lateral ore development excavated at a
profile size of 5m x 5.5m. Vertical development (slot raises) are also included as
expensed development, and are developed to a 2m x 2m profile.
16.3.8 Production Drilling and Blasting
Longhole drilling for slot raises and stope production holes is completed using
electric/hydraulic drill rigs. Production drilling is mainly done as parallel holes, in a
downhole configuration, with the holes drilled at the same angle as the dip of the
orebody. Hole diameter is 76 to 89mm, and a typical design is drilled on a 2.3m x 1.5m
pattern.

November 2, 2015
Holes are loaded with AN/FO, or where water is present, with emulsion explosives. The
holes are primed with nonel detonators, and initiated via a central blasting system at the
end of the shift.
16.3.9 Mucking and Haulage
Broken ore and development waste is mucked using a LHD loader. Some of the LHD
units are fitted with remote controls, which are used for stope mucking where the
machine and operator are exposed to unsupported ground.
The LHD loads trucks with ore or waste from either a muckbay stockpile, or directly from
the stope or development face. The trucks have a rated capacity of 45-tonnes and some
of the units are fitted with telescopic dump systems.
The trucks haul waste to surface, where it is disposed of outside of the portal in a waste
dump or stockpiled for use as backfill. The ore material is dumped on the portal pad in a
designated area, and then loaded onto surface trucks where it is hauled to the crusher
ROM pad at the process plant area.
16.3.10 Backfill
All stopes and ore development are backfilled.
Primary stopes are filled with CRF. The CRF is manufactured on surface in a plant
adjacent to the Guadalupe portal. The modular plant was purchased from Team Mixing
Technologies Inc. It has a production capacity of 550 tph, and uses -2.5‖ crushed waste
rock, cement and water to produce the backfill mixture.
Portland cement is used at a 4.5% (by weight) ratio to produce the CRF. If mining is
planned underneath backfilled stopes, or if development is planned in the future though
the backfill, a 10% cement mixture is used.
The CRF is loaded onto trucks at the plant and hauled underground to the stope
requiring the fill. The trucks back up to a muck berm build on the edge of the stope, and
dump the backfill into the stope using a telescopic ejector dump system.
Secondary and longitudinal Avoca stopes are filled with unconsolidated rockfill (RF). In
most cases, the RF is loaded onto the trucks with LHDs from a waste stockpile located
on the portal pad and hauled underground to the stope requiring the fill. However, if
development waste is available within the mine, the waste is hauled with a truck or LHD
from the development face or waste stockpile and dumped into the stope.

November 2, 2015
16.3.11 Development and Production Scheduling
16.3.11.1 Development
Development at Guadalupe is currently underway on multiple levels at a rate of

approximately 650m per month. This rate will continue to increase to a peak
development rate of 900m per month in 2016 and 2017, and gradually reduce later in the
mine life.
16.3.11.2 Production
Ore is currently being produced at approximately 1450 tpd. As additional mining areas
are developed, production is expected to continue to increase to an average sustained
rate of approximately 2,000 tpd in 2016. As production blocks become mined out, the
production rate decreases late in the mine life. The mining schedule for Guadalupe from
2015 to 2021 is provided in Table 16.7.
Table 16.7. Guadalupe Mining Schedule (Coeur, 2015)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Tonnes Ore (1000‘s) 178 732 809 662 812 815 531 4,540
Ag Grade (g/t) 142 144 131 145 166 173 170 154
Au Grade (g/t) 2.20 2.74 2.32 2.54 2.96 2.02 1.80 2.42
Lateral Development (m) 2,942 10,539 10,888 5,227 1,066 693 58 31,414
Vertical Development (m) 30 318 137 354 258 - - 1,098
16.4 Independencia Underground Mine
16.4.1 Introduction
The Independencia deposit is located approximately 1,400m NE of the Guadalupe

deposit. The entrance to the mine is via two portals located approximately 270m north of
the Guadalupe mine portals.
In 2015, Coeur completed a pre-feasibility study, followed by a more detailed mine plan
for the Independencia deposit. Based on the results of these studies, a decision was
made to proceed with the project. The Independencia mine is currently under
construction, with two access declines (collared on surface) advancing towards the
deposit.
The two declines will provide access to the deposit and primary ventilation for the mine.
The access ramps are designed at 5.5m high by 5.0m wide and are being driven at a

November 2, 2015
negative gradient of -15%. Company personnel and equipment are being used for this
project.
Figure 16.8 shows a plan view of the Independencia mine design, and illustrates the
development advance and the layout of the twin decline access.
Figure 16.8. Independencia Mine, Plan View (Coeur, 2015)
The Independencia deposit will be mined with similar equipment, personnel and mining
methods as the adjacent Guadalupe mine. The two operations will also share some of
the surface infrastructure, which has been constructed (or is planned) for the operations.
The Independencia mine design is shown in Figure 16.9.

November 2, 2015
Figure 16.9. Mine Design – Longitudinal Section (Looking NE) (Coeur, 2015)
16.4.2 Geotechnical Assessment
16.4.2.1 Rock Mass Classification and Geotechnical Mine Design
The ore and ore stockwork consist of quartz-carbonate breccia veins with healed facture
planes and localized areas with small scale vugs. The deposit is hosted in igneous
(porphyritic or andesitic) rocks (lithography codes KTat, KTapp and KTam) and
sedimentary (conglomerate, sandstone or shale) units (lithography code KTal).
In November 2014, Coeur commissioned Pakalnis to provide a geotechnical assessment

of the Independencia deposit. Pakalnis reviewed drill core data and assessed the
geometry of the orebody. These inputs were used to construct a preliminary
geotechnical model of the FW, ore and HW of the deposit. The model was then used to
determine mining methods, preliminary stope designs, support requirements and areas
of concern.
Pakalnis provided preliminary geotechnical mine design guidelines and made

comparisons with the Palmarejo underground mine (based on previous site visits to
Palmarejo). Pakalnis noted the following:

November 2, 2015
 RMR values are similar to those observed at Palmarejo; however, the

Independencia orebody has a steeper dip to the East, where Palmarejo is
dipping more shallowly to the West;
 The depth at Independencia is approximately 670m below surface, compared
with the Palmarejo deposit, which is approximately 400m from surface;
 In most cases, stope stability will be a function of the HW span. For RMR >60%,
the HW should be limited to 15m along strike. For RMR of 30%, the HW should
be limited to 10m along strike (assuming a 20m sublevel spacing);
 Areas in the mine at approximately 1,100m RL and below have better rockmass
characteristics (typically RMR >60%), while some areas above 1,100m RL have
RMR values between 20% and 40%; and
 An ore splay between northern and southern parts of the orebody is associated
with weaker rockmass conditons; this need to be better defined and will require
attention to mining practices, support and stope spans in these areas.
A longitudinal view of the Independencia stope designs showing the domains in the
geotechnical model is illustrated in Figure 16.10.

November 2, 2015
Figure 16.10. Geotechnical Model, Independencia Mine (Coeur, 2015)
In April 2015, Coeur commissioned a followup review by Pakalnis to conduct a site visit
and complete a geotechnical review for Guadalupe and Independencia. At this time, the
Independencia portals had been established, and decline development was underway.
For Independencia, the scope of work included reviews and assessments of:
 North and South portal conditions and support;

 Geotechncial core along planned decline routes;
 Decline development support;
 Core logging procedures; and
 Confirmation of previous geotechnical assessement via visual observations and
re-logging of some of the drill core.

November 2, 2015
The preliminary geotechnical model created in 2014 remains valid, as do the

recommendation and observations made at that time. Mining methods and geotechnical
mine design guidelines used at the Palmarejo and Guadalupe mines are applicable for
use at Independencia.
16.4.2.2 Ground Support
Similar support methods to those used at the Guadalupe mine are planned at
Independencia. These methods are described in 16.3.3.2.
16.4.3 Hydrogeological Conditions and Dewatering
No hydrogeological studies have been carried out for Independencia.
Conditions in the the current decline development is dry. Small sumps with submersible
pumps are used to dewater the mine.
Water inflows are expected when the development intercepts structural geological
features, such as faults and shear zones. These geological features are expected to be
encountered near the orebody. To manage these inflows and water generated by dust
contol, settling sump and a pumping station is planned to be developed and installed on
the 1,080m Level.
The design philosophy and key mine design parameters for the Independencia mine is
similar to that described for the Guadalupe mine. Refer to Section 16.3.5 for the
description and design inputs.
Independencia will use the same mining methods as those described for the Guadalupe
mine. Refer to 16.3.6 for a description of the mining methods.
Based on the geotechnical model developed for Independencia, transverse stoping

areas above 1,100m RL have been designed using 8m primary and 8m secondary stope
widths (along strike). On and below 1,100m RL (where rockmass conditions are more
favorable) 10m primary stopes and 14m secondary stope widths have been designed.
As with all underground mines at the Palmarejo Complex, a sublevel spacing of 20m
(drift floor to drift floor) was used.

November 2, 2015
16.4.6 Development
Development is carried out in the same manner as that described for Guadalupe in
Section 16.3.7. The development design for Independencia is illustrated in Figure 16.11.
Figure 16.11. Independencia Development Design (Coeur, 2015)
16.4.7 Production Drilling and Blasting
Longhole drilling, blasting and slot raise operations will be carried out in a similar manner
as the Guadalupe mine. Refer to Section 16.3.8 for a description of these activities.
16.4.8 Mucking and Haulage
Materials handling operations are planned to be carried out in a similar manner as the
Guadalupe mine. Refer to Section 16.3.9 for a description of these activities.
16.4.9 Backfill
All stopes and ore development will be backfilled. Backfill operations will be carried out
in a similar manner as the Guadalupe mine. Section 16.3.10 contains a description of
these activities.

November 2, 2015
16.4.10 Development and Production Scheduling
16.4.10.1 Development
Development at Independencia is currently underway, with two drifts advancing toward

the orebody at a rate of approximately 350m per month. This rate will continue to
increase to an average development rate of 630m per month by late 2016 through to
early 2020, and gradually reduce later in the mine life.
16.4.10.2 Production
Ore production is expected to commence in early 2016, and gradually build up to a

sustained production rate of approximately 2000 tpd in 2017. The mining schedule for
Independencia is provided in Table 16.8.
Table 16.8. Independencia Mining Schedule (Coeur, 2015)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 Total
Tonnes Ore (1000‘s) 166 535 687 685 672 654 414 3,815
Ag Grade (g/t) 185.5 181.1 189.4 221.5 192.0 182.6 130.8 186.8
Au Grade (g/t) 2.81 2.93 3.01 3.41 2.66 2.69 1.81 2.81
Lateral Development (m) 1,718 5,446 7,306 7,307 7,271 5,778 3,044 129 38,000
Vertical Development (m) 61 117 97 117 217 40 647
16.5 Mining Equipment
16.5.1 Open Pit
The major units of the open pit mining fleet are shown in Table 16.9. When mining from
the Palmarejo open pit mine is completed in 2015, some of this equipment will be
decommissioned and removed from site. However, some of the loading and haulage
fleet will be re-assigned to haul ore (on surface) from the Guadalupe and Independencia
mines to the Palmarejo process plant, and for tailings dam construction.

November 2, 2015
Table 16.9. Open Pit and Surface Mobile Equipment (Coeur, 2015)
Item Manufacturer Model Number
Shovel Terex RH 120 2
Excavator Caterpillar 315D 1
Excavator Caterpillar 330D 1
Excavator Caterpillar 365C 1
Loader Caterpillar 992G 2
Loader Caterpillar 988H 2
Haulage Trucks Caterpillar 777F 11
Water Truck Caterpillar 770F 1
Haulage Trucks Caterpillar 740B 4
Dozer Caterpillar D10T/N 2
Dozer Caterpillar D9T 6
Dozer Caterpillar D4G 1
Wheel Dozer Caterpillar 824H 1
Drill Atlas Copco CM780 1
Drill Atlas Copco DML 45 1
Drill Atlas Copco DML / HP 2
Drill Atlas Copco ROC L8 1
Grader Caterpillar 140H 1
Lube Truck Caterpillar 725E 1
Telehandler Caterpillar 1255 3
16.5.2 Underground
The underground mining equipment fleet at the Palmarejo Complex is shown in Table
16.10. The equipment fleet is shared between the Palmarejo, Guadalupe and
Independencia underground mines.
An equipment replacement schedule has been included, with sustaining capital allocated
for this replacement in the financial model.

November 2, 2015
Table 16.10. Palmarejo Underground Mining Equipment (Coeur, 2015)

Item Manufacturer Model Number
LHD Caterpillar R1700G 6
LHD Sanvik Toro 1400 2
LHD Atlas Copco ST 1030 2
Truck Caterpillar AD45B 7
Truck Caterpillar AD30 5
Jumbo Atlas Copco Boomer J282 4
Jumbo Atlas Copco Boomer S1D 1
Jumbo Atlas Copco Boomer C281 1
Production Drill Atlas Copco Simba H1254 1
Production Drill Atlas Copco Simba M4CITH 3
Production Drill Boart Stope Mate 1
Diamond Drill Ingetrol Explorer 60E 1
Diamond Drill Coeurproducts P32 Termite 1
Rock Bolter Atlas Copco Boltec 235 6
Rock Bolter RDH Boltmaster 200EH 1
Cable Bolter Atlas Copco Cabletec LC 2
Scissor Lift Marcotte M40 5
Shotcrete Mixer RDH Cretemaster 600R 4
Shotcrete Sprayer Kubota 4700H 2
Shotcrete Sprayer Kubota 4800 1
Concrete Mixer Jarvis Clark EJC 415 2
Explosive Truck RDH Anfomaster 150 2
Explosive Truck Getman A64 Anfo Loader 1
Grader Caterpillar 120K 1
Utility Vehicle RDH Servicemaster 600R 1

November 2, 2015
17. RECOVERY METHODS
17.1 Introduction
The processing plant is located immediately south and overlooking the village of
Palmarejo at an elevation of approximately 880m. The plant is designed to operate 365
days per year at 91.3% availability. The plant design mill throughput is 6,000 tonnes per
day of combined underground and open pit ore.
Palmarejo‘s processing flowsheet consists of a standard crushing and grinding circuit

(Jaw crusher - SAG mill – ball mill), followed by flotation, where the flotation concentrate
is subjected to an intensive cyanide leach and flotation tailing is treated in agitated
cyanidation. Finally, a Merrill Crowe circuit is used to recover gold and silver from the
leachates.
The plant is designed to achieve an overall recovery of approximately 94.0% of the gold
and 91.0% of the silver as a doré.
17.2 Crushing
Ore is delivered from the underground and open pit mining activities either to a Run of
Mine (ROM) stockpile located adjacent to the primary crusher area or directly to the
primary crusher dump hopper. The dump hopper has a fixed grizzly on top with an
approximate opening of 20 inches and an apron feeder at the discharge. The ROM is fed
with a front end loader and oversize is broken with a backhoe fitted with a hammer. The
installed jaw crusher is a Nordberg C-140 with an opening of approximately 1.1m by
1.4m capable of handling 350 tonne/hr at a 5‖ CSS (Close Side Setting).
Crushed ore is discharged from the jaw crusher onto a conveyor and delivered to a
1,250 tonnes capacity stockpile. Two variable vibrating feeders reclaim the crushed ore
onto a belt conveyor to delivery to the Semi-Autogenous Grind (SAG) mill for further
comminution.
17.3 Grinding
Crushed ore is directly fed to the grinding circuit from the crushed ore stockpile. The
grinding circuit consists of a SAG mill and a Ball mill operating in a closed circuit with a
battery of cyclones for classification. The cyclone battery consists of nine 80-inch Krebs
cyclones with an apex opening of 4.25 inches and vortex opening of 6 inches. Cyclone
operational pressure is maintained in a range from 14 to 16 psi. The cyclone battery
underflow reports to the ball mill to maintain a recirculating load to have a better control
on the flotation feed size, while the cyclone overflow reports to flotation.

November 2, 2015
Both mills are 6.7m in diameter and 7.5m. long. Grinding circuit feed and product is 80%
passing sizes of 120,000 µm and 75 µm, respectively.
17.4 Flotation
The ball mill cyclone overflows at a nominal 80% minus 75 µm in size with a pulp density
of 30% solids flows by gravity to the rougher conditioner tank, where the slurry is
conditioned with Aero 404 and potassium amyl xanthate (PAX). The conditioner tank
overflows to feed a bank of six 100m3 capacity tank cells. Rougher flotation occurs at the
first bank of two tank cells, and scavenger flotation occurs sequentially down the bank.
Frother and PAX are added to rougher feed and during the scavenging flotation.
In 2012, the flotation circuit was slightly modified to add flexibility and improve
performance. Now the rougher flotation concentrate reports either to the cleaner
concentrate tank, where it is combined with the cleaner concentrate, or to the scavenger
concentrate tank, where it is combined with the scavenger concentrate. Scavenger
concentrate reports to a bank of two 17m3 capacity cells where the first cleaner stage is
provided. Then the first cleaner concentrate reports to a conditioning tank for additional
reagents adjustment, and then flows to a bank of three 17m 3 capacity cells, where the
final cleaner flotation is obtained. The final cleaner concentrate is pumped to the
concentrate thickener for dewatering. The concentrate thickener overflow reports to the
grinding circuit as recycled water. Thickener underflow, at approximately 65% solids, is
pumped to the concentrate leach circuit for intense cyanide leaching to dissolve the
contained gold and silver. The cleaner concentrate weight recovery is designed at
nominal 5%.
Cleaner flotation tailings are recycled to the rougher flotation conditioner tank or
alternatively to the 3rd or 5th rougher cell for additional treatment.
Flotation tailings are transferred to the tailings thickener for dewatering, and tailings
thickener overflow reports to the grinding circuit as recycled water. Thickener underflow,
at approximately 60% solids, is transferred to the Float Tails agitated leach circuit for
cyanide leaching and dissolution of residual gold and silver values. Figure 17.1 shows a
simplified flotation circuit flow sheet.

November 2, 2015
Figure 17.1. Palmarejo Flotation Circuit Flow (Coeur, 2012)
17.5 Flotation Concentrate Leaching
The concentrate leaching circuit is located in the Leaching/Recovery Area of the mill
facilities and is comprised of four agitated leach tanks, each with a nominal capacity of
200m3 , providing a total leaching time of 48 hours.
Thickened flotation concentrate is pumped to the concentrate leach circuit. The slurry is
then diluted to approximately 50% solids, and sodium cyanide solution is added to
maintain a concentration of 10 g/L NaCN. Oxygen is injected to the concentrate leach
tanks to enhance the silver dissolution process, and also enables cyanide solution
strength reduction from 50 g/L to 10 g/L NaCN, resulting in a substantial reduction of
cyanide consumption.
Leached slurry from the concentrate leach circuit is then pumped to a triple stage
countercurrent decantation (CCD) circuit to recover the dissolved gold and silver values.
Each stage consists of a high rate, 9.0m diameter thickener and an inter-stage mixing
tank to enhance washing efficiency. Pregnant solution containing metal bearing
overflows from the first CCD thickener is pumped to the pregnant solution tank for
subsequent delivery to the Merrill Crowe circuit, located at the refinery building for further
treatment. Thickened underflow from the final CCD thickener is pumped to an agitated
leach circuit for additional leaching and potential recovery of residual metal values.

November 2, 2015
17.6 Flotation Tailings Leaching
The flotation tailings leaching circuit is also located in the Leaching/Recovery Area of the
mill facilities.
In the second quarter of 2014, a modification of the originally designed Carbon in Leach
(CIL) circuit was initiated, following positive bench-scale test work results, which
demonstrate that Palmarejo‘s mineralization does not present preg-robbing
characteristics. Test work data provided justification to stop using CIL.
Carbon withdrawal from the CIL tanks was carried out from May to August, followed by
some required repairs and upgrades on each of the leach tanks. The leach tanks
upgrade will continue during 2015.
The modified leach circuit comprises a total of eight leach tanks; each tank has different
capacity ranging from 2,000m3 to 1,162m3 for tanks No. 1 and No. 8, respectively,
providing an overall retention time of 24 hours.
Thickened flotation tails are pumped to the tailings leach circuit. The slurry is combined
with the concentrate leached residue, the slurry is diluted to approximately 42% solids,
and sodium cyanide solution and lime slurry are added along injected oxygen through
the agitator shafts in Tank No. 1 and compressed air for tanks No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5
and No. 7. The leaching circuit tailings slurry is transferred to the cyanide detoxification
circuit.
17.7 Carbon Desorption
In the second quarter of 2014, this circuit was discontinued once all carbon was
withdrawn from the CIL tanks.
17.8 Carbon Regeneration
In the second quarter of 2014, this operation was discontinued once all carbon was
withdrawn from the CIL tanks.
17.9 Merrill Crowe and Smelting
Pregnant solution from the flotation concentrate leach CCD first thickener overflow is
pumped to one of three batch solution tanks, and then pumped to a Merrill Crowe
system, at a flow rate ranging from 55 to 60m3/hr.

November 2, 2015
In the second quarter of 2014, a secondary Merrill Crowe unit was commissioned to
handle low grade pregnant solution. Final Tailings Thickener overflow is the source of
this low grade pregnant solution, which is pumped throughout the secondary Merrill
Crowe at a flow rate ranging from 130–135m 3/hr. The secondary Merrill Crowe system
was also designed to handle higher grade pregnant solution from the flotation
concentrate leach CCD circuit. Figure 17.2 shows an expanded Merrill Crowe process
flow sheet.
In the Merrill Crowe process, total suspended solids (TSS) are first removed from the
pregnant solution using a series of clarification filters.
The clarified pregnant solution is routed to a deaeration tower to impact a bed of high-
surface area plastic tower packing. As the solution travels down the packing, dissolved
oxygen (DO) is removed from the solution and routed through the vacuum system piping
to the vacuum pump, and then to the atmosphere. The DO is removed to a
concentration less than approximately 1 ppm, and preferably less than 0.7 ppm. Once
the pregnant solution has been clarified and deaerated, it is ready for precious metal
precipitation by zinc cementation. The precipitated gold and silver resulting from the zinc
cementation reactions are routed to the precipitate filters. The spent solution is pumped
back to different points of the flotation tailings leaching circuit and/or the concentrate
leach circuit for slurry washing and dilution.
The precipitate produced by Merrill Crowe is dried in two electrical dryer ovens before
being smelted in a 600kg/hr capacity electric induction furnace and poured into 30kg
dore ingots.
Dore ingots are shipped by armored truck to a refinery.

November 2, 2015
By-Pass to Reclaim Water Tank To: Reclaim Water Tank
CIL Circuit Tails to Detox From : CCD Thickener No 3 O'Flow
CIL Tails Thickener O'Flow
To: Merrill Crowe System
CIL Tails Thickener

THK -40-01
CIL Tails Tickener U'Flow

To: CCD Thickener No. 1 50PMP06/07
To: Lamella Clarifier - Disc Filter

40 -SUMP -01
Preg Sol'n Tank

TK - 50 -04
To Detox
Clarified Solution
Distributor Tank.
To: CCD Thickener No. 1

Existing Deareation Tower
Flowmeter
Flowmeter Process Solution Pump TK - 50 -07 TK - 50 -08 TK - 50 -09
51P101A/B Preg Sol'n Tanks After Clarification
Process Solution Pump To: Existing Merrill Crowe 50PMP21/22

51P201/202 52PMP07/08
Vacuum Pumo
51PV301/302
TK - 50 -12 New Deareation Tower

Barren Solution Pump Barren Sol'n
50PMP23/24
Barren Solution Pump
52PMP13/14
Process Solution Pump
52PMP09/10
To: New Merrill Crowe

Flowmeter
Vacuum Pumo
51PV11/12
Figure 17.2. Expanded Merrill Crowe Process Flow Sheet (Coeur, 2014)
17.10 Cyanide Detoxification
Flotation tailings leaching slurry at approximately 48% solids is transferred to a tailings

thickener for water and cyanide recovery purposes, prior to delivery to the Cyanide
Detoxification circuit. Thickener overflow is pumped to the secondary Merrill Crowe
circuit or recycled back to the leaching circuit, while the thickened underflow is pumped
to two 534m3 capacity agitated tanks in series.
The final tailings detoxification circuit is based on the use of SO 2 /Air for the destruction
of cyanide. SO2 is supplied by the addition of sodium metabisulphite (Na2S2O5). In July
2012, a new source of SO2 was used to replace sodium metabisulfite. This new reagent,
known commercially as ―Neutralite‖, provides similar cyanide destruction capabilities as
the sodium metabisulfite. It achieves an average of 96.8% total CN- destruction.
Blower air is injected into the agitated tanks along with the tailings slurry, dilution
process water, neutralite and copper sulphate, if required to destroy the cyanide in the
tailings prior to discharge to the final tailings impoundment.
The current (2014) process flow sheet for Palmarejo is shown in Figure 17.3.

November 2, 2015
CYCLONE CLUSTER
GRINDING CIRCUIT
5 LEGEND
8
6 BALL MILL SLURRY
JAW CRUSHER 4
FLOTATION
7 CONCENTRATE
RECYCLE WATER
9
STOCK PILE PROCESS WATER
3
1 2 PREGNANT
RECYCLE WATER SOLUTION
SAG MILL BARREN SOLUTION
1310 CARBON
FLOTATION CIRCUIT
11 FLOTATION CONCENTRATE
14
15
12 CCD CIRCUIT
17 LEACH CONCENTRATE
CONCENTRATE TICKENER
29
FLOTATION TAILING 16 26 30 40
18 20 23
21 27
22
FLOTATION TAILING TICKENER
19 31
32 24 28
CIL CIRCUIT
25
41
ADR CIRCUIT
40
33
MERRILL CROWE
35
42
36
MERRILL CROWE
TAILINGS TICKENER 37
36
38
39
Agua para Proceso
CYANIDE DESTRUCCION
RECOVERED WATER
FINAL TAILING DAM
Figure 17.3. Palmarejo Process Flow Sheet (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
18. PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE

The area surrounding the Palmarejo Complex has a moderately well developed
infrastructure and a local workforce familiar with mining operations.
The main substation for the Palmarejo Complex has a transformer sized at 115 kV/13.8
kV, with capacity of 20/25 MVA. The system includes a 66km overhead 115 kV
distribution line ceded to the CFE (government power company) that was built in 2009.
The Palmarejo open pit and underground mines, process plant, and all other electrical
loads are connected to this grid.
In 2015, Coeur Mexicana completed the construction of a 5.9km power line from the
main substation to the Guadalupe and Independencia mines, with capacity for 115 kV,
although it is currently operating on 13.8 kV. This infrastructure will allow for possible
capacity expansion in the future. A substation has been constructed at the Guadalupe
mine, and a new substation is currently under construction to serve the Independencia
mine power requirements. The estimated capacity for Guadalupe and Independencia (at
full production) is approximately 4.0 to 5.0 MW.
The generator emergency power house located near the process plant has 12 diesel
generators. The generator models are Caterpillar 3516B that operate at 13.8 kV. The
total capacity, for emergency purposes, is 21.9 MW.
Currently, Coeur Mexicana has a contracted demand of 18,000 kW, with supporting the
installed load 21,666 kW. Coeur Mexicana also has permission to self-supply electricity.
The state road between San Rafael and Palmarejo was upgraded in late 2007 for the
mobilization of equipment and construction materials. This is an on-going activity and
Coeur has permanent maintenance crews working on the road.
Road construction to improve the haul road between the Guadalupe portal and the
Palmarejo process plant was completed in 2015. This road is now used for ore haulage,
using CAT 777F haul trucks.
Water for the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia mines is obtained from a
variety of sources. Since 2010, tailings from the plant have been deposited in the final
tailing dam (FTD). Residual water from the wet tailing is recycled back to the plant from
the FTD. Underflow from the FTD is also recycled as make-up water back to the plant.
When needed, additional make-up water can be pumped from the Chinipas River
infiltration gallery that is piped to a booster pump station located at the NW corner of the
FTD via a 17km pipeline. Domestic use water is purchased from local municipalities or is

November 2, 2015
trucked to site from various stations that hold water sent to site from the Chinipas River
pipeline.
Groundwater from the Guadalupe and Independencía mines is collected in sumps

constructed in the underground mines, and clarified in a surface sump for recycling in
the underground system.
The latest phase of the FTD was completed in April, 2015 to 818m elevation (see photos
below). The crest of the final phase of the FTD construction is scheduled to be
completed in 2018. This will bring the dam to the final elevation of 825m and complete
the final phase of all dam construction at Palmarejo. At this time, it is not anticipated that
any of the dams will be expanded beyond the currently permitted sizes and elevations.
The mine camp facilities and kitchen support the requirements of the workforce.
Contractors and employees live at the camp while working on site.
Maintenance facilities consist of a large covered Truck Shop near the Palmarejo process
plant, which repairs both open pit and underground equipment. A smaller maintenance
facility has been constructed at the Guadalupe mine, but for major repairs, the
equipment is transported to the Truck Shop using a truck fitted with a trailer.
The infrastructure for the Palmarejo Complex is complete and the mine is operating and
processing ore 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The Guadalupe and
Independencia mines will utilize much of the existing infrastructure at the Palmarejo
Complex, including ore processing at existing milling facilities. Major elements of the
infrastructure are shown in Figure 18.1.

November 2, 2015
Figure 18.1. Palmarejo Major Infrastructure (Coeur, 2015)
18.1 Palmarejo Underground Mine Infrastructure
The following lists the main infrastructure in the Palmarejo underground mine:
 Primary ventilation fans;

 Ventilation bulkheads, airlock doors and booster fans;
 CRF backfill plant;
 Settling sumps and pump stations;
 Explosives and detonator magazines;
 Electrical substations and switch gear;
 High voltage and low voltage electrical cabling;

November 2, 2015
 Mine communications system (leaky feeder);

 Central blasting system;
 Lunchrooms and portable refuge stations;
 Secondary egress raises with ladders; and
 Mine services (piping for dewatering, process water and compressed air).
When mining ceases at the Palmarejo underground mine, some of this infrastructure will
be used at the Guadalupe and Independencia mines.
18.2 Palmarejo Open Pit and Underground Personnel
Currently, personnel are being trained and transferred to the Guadalupe and
Independencia mine crews as the Palmarejo deposits are mined out. The process will
continue for the remainder of 2015 and 2016.
18.3 Guadalupe Underground Infrastructure
Much of the required infrastructure for the Guadalupe mine is in place. Some changes
required for the future are described below.
18.3.1 Ventilation System
The planned ventilation system has been designed using simulation modeling carried
out to develop a life of mine ventilation plan.
The primary ventilation fans consist of two 300 hp fresh air fans installed in a parallel
configuration in a ventilation bypass drift developed parallel to the Oriente Access.
Additional booster fans have been installed underground to direct the air to the active
mining blocks.
Additional ventilation and access development is planned from the south – east extent of
the deposit. This will involve establishing a mine portal and decline access, which will
connect with the development and mine expansion advancing from the north. When this
connection is made in the Main Zone, the system will be reconfigured such that both
Oriente and Poniente will serve as fresh air intakes, while the southern ramp and a
planned exhaust borehole in the Main Zone will be used for return air.
18.3.2 Other Underground Infrastructure
The following lists the main infrastructure (existing and planned) in the Guadalupe mine:
 Primary ventilation fans (Oriente incline and Southern ramp);

November 2, 2015
 Ventilation bulkheads, airlock doors and booster fans;

 Settling sump and pump station (1,140m Level);
 Explosives and detonator magazines (1,140m Level);
 Electrical substations and switch gear;
 High voltage and low voltage electrical cabling;
 Mine communications system (leaky feeder);
 Cabling for central blasting system;
 Lunchrooms and portable refuge stations;
 Secondary egress raises with ladders; and
 Mine services (piping for dewatering, process water and compressed air).
18.4 Surface Infrastructure
The following surface infrastructure projects have been completed at the Guadalupe
portal pad area, and are illustrated in Figure 16.4.

 Shotcrete mixing plant;
 ROM pads for low grade and high grade ore;
 Waste dumps;
 Lunchrooms and offices;
 Maintenance facilities;
 Materials storage areas and laydown facilities;
 An overhead high voltage power line from the main substation near the
Palmarejo process plant to the Guadalupe substation;
 An electrical substation and switch gear;
 A storm water drainage culvert system under the waste dump;
 Raw water storage tanks;
 Fuel storage tanks;
 Settling sumps; and
 An upgraded access road between the Palmarejo process plant and Guadalupe.

November 2, 2015
18.5 Independencia Infrastructure
Mine services and support infrastructure planned for the Independencia mine includes
mine ventilation, fixed facilities, a compressed air system, and a dewatering system.
18.5.1 Mine Ventilation System
An airflow of 190m3/s (400,000 cfm) will be required to ventilate the mine at full
production. The mine will be ventilated by means of two decline connections to surface,
with one decline supplying fresh air to the mine, which the other decline will provide an
exhaust exit from the mine. No other ventilation connections to the surface are
envisioned. Drop raises between levels will be used for distribution of the air in the
system. An isometric view of the ventilation system is shown in Figure 18.2.
Figure 18.2. Ventilation Arrangement (Looking NE) (Coeur, 2015)
18.5.2 Surface Infrastructure
Some of the fixed facilities that have been constructed at the Guadalupe mine will be
used to support operations at the Independencia mine. These facilities include:
 The surface mobile equipment maintenance shop;

 Waste rock stockpile;

November 2, 2015
 Ore ROM pads;

 Offices and lunch rooms;
 Service water supply; and
 Mine water settling sump.
18.5.3 Compressed Air System
The mine compressed air plant is planned to be located on surface with compressed air
distribution down the main decline to support development and production operations.
The two compressors specified for Independencia are both 1,800 cfm at 125 psig, and
are powered by 390 hp motors.
18.5.4 Underground Dewatering Systems
The mine dewatering system will collect the water throughout the active and inactive
underground mine workings, settle out the sediments, and discharge the water out of the
mine to the surface settling sump for water clarification. The system has been designed
to process a groundwater inflow of 50 L/s (800 gpm).
Currently, a temporary system using submersible pumps is used to dewater the mine for
for the decline development. No significant inflows of groundwater are currently entering
the decline drifts.
At this time, the permanent system design consists of a sump reservoir, where the water
will be retained to allow any suspended solids to settle, and a main underground water
sump equipped with two vertical turbine pumps capable of managing the 800 gpm
potential inflows with a peak capacity of 1,600 gpm. Each vertical turbine is equipped
with a 3,500 hp pump, and a secondary sump, which will be used when the main sump
is in maintenance, or in case of an excess water event. The secondary sump will be
cleaned by a mud pump.
18.6 Conclusions
The majority of the infrastructure for the Palmarejo Complex is complete and mining and
ore processing is currently carried out 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The
existing infrastructure at the Palmarejo Complex can support the current mining activities
at Guadalupe and Independencia. Additional infrastructure has, and will be, constructed
at Guadalupe and Independencia, as production from these mines increases.

November 2, 2015
Figure 18.3. Images of Final Tailings Dam Construction (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
19. MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
19.1 Market Studies
A market study was not undertaken for this Report.
Gold and silver are the principal commodities produced at the Palmarejo Complex.
These commodities are freely traded, at prices that are widely known, and the prospects
for the sale of any production are virtually assured. Prices for these commodities are
usually quoted in U.S. dollars per troy ounce.
19.2 Commodity Price Projections
The prices for the commodities were set based a review of historical metal prices and
industry and analyst price consensus (Table 19.1). The prices selected reflect Coeur‘s
view of prices, and the QP considers these to be reasonable projections.
Table 19.1. Commodity Price Projections (Coeur, 2015)

Purpose Commodity Price $/oz
Mineral Reserve Estimate * Silver 17.50
Mineral Reserve Estimate * Gold 1250
Mineral Resource Estimate Silver 19.00
Mineral Resource Estimate Gold 1275
Financial Model 2015-2017 Silver 15.50
Financial Model 2015-2017 Gold 1150
Financial Model 2018-2022 Silver 17.50
Financial Model 2018-2022 Gold 1250
* Except for Palmarejo open pit and underground Mineral Reserves, which used
a silver price of $15.50/oz and a gold price of $1,150/oz due to the short term life
of these mines.
19.3 Contracts
The Palmarejo Complex produces silver and gold doré, which is transported from the
mine site to the refinery by a secure transportation provider. The transportation cost,
which consists of a fixed charge plus a liability charge based on the declared value of
the shipment, equates to approximately $0.065/oz of material shipped.
Coeur Mexicana has contracts with two U.S. based refiners who refine the Palmarejo
mine‘s doré bars into silver and gold bullion that meet certain benchmark standards set
by the London Bullion Market Association, which regulates the acceptable requirements
for bullion traded in the London precious metals markets. The terms of these contracts

November 2, 2015
include: (i) a treatment charge based on the weight of the doré bars received at the
refinery; (ii) a metal return percentage applied to recoverable gold; (iii) a metal return
percentage applied to recoverable silver; and, (iv) penalties charged for deleterious
elements contained in the doré bars. The total of these charges can range from $0.30 to
$0.40/oz of doré bar based on the silver and gold grades of the doré bars as well as the
contained amount of deleterious elements.
In addition to the contracted terms detailed above, there are other uncontracted losses
experienced through the refinement of Palmarejo‘s doré bars, namely the loss of
precious metal during the doré melting process as well as differences in assays between
Coeur Mexicana and the refiner. For our analysis, we have assumed that uncontracted
losses average 1.5%.
Coeur sells its payable silver and gold production on behalf of its subsidiaries on a spot
or forward basis, primarily to multi-national banks and bullion trading houses. The
markets for both silver and gold bullion are highly liquid, and the loss of a single trading
counterparty would not impact Coeur‘s ability to sell its bullion. Coeur‘s strategy on
hedging silver and gold is focused on providing downside protection. To accomplish that,
we may enter into derivative contracts to protect the selling price for a certain portion of
our production if terms are attractive.
There are numerous contracts in place at the project to support mine development or
processing that augment Coeur‘s efforts. Currently, there are contracts in place at the
Palmarejo Complex to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and
processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, raise
boring, ground support suppliers and drilling contractors.
The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms. These contracts are
periodically put up for bid or negotiated to ensure the rates remain favorable to Coeur.

November 2, 2015
20. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL

OR COMMUNITY IMPACT
The environmental permitting process in Mexico requires the presentation of at least two
different documents at the Federal level: the Environmental Impact Statement and the
Soil Use Change. Both documents are authorized by Mexico‘s environmental ministry,
the Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, or SEMARNAT (Secretariat of
Environment and Natural Resources). Authorizations from the Comisión Nacional del
Agua or CONAGUA (National Water Commission) are also needed for water use,
effluent discharge, and to construct facilities in watersheds.
The first critical step in the environmental permitting process is completing and
presenting the Environmental Impact Statement or Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental
(MIA) to SEMARNAT. Since 2006, Coeur Mexicana has submitted several MIAs for
different proposed actions, including one for the Palmarejo mine (668.34 ha), the
Guadalupe mine (43.93 ha), the hauling road between Palmarejo and Guadalupe (4.38
ha), and for the power line and electric substation for Guadalupe (6.47 ha). Following the
acceptance of the different MIAs, the next step is to obtain a specific permit for forestry
vegetation disturbance or change in soil use (Cambio de Uso de Suelo en Terrenos
Forestales, or CUSTF). The original CUSTF was approved in 2006 for a period of 10
years, and expires in 2016. The Palmarejo MIA has a term of 13 years, and will expire in
2019, with a possible extension of 6.5 years. To date, the project has CUSTF approval
for mining activities for a total of 723 ha, including 43 ha for Guadalupe, 668 ha for
Palmarejo, and 12 ha for other related facilities. Additionally, it has CUSTF approval for
3.8 ha for exploration activities at La Patria.
Coeur Mexicana received an initial environmental authorization for Palmarejo from

SEMARNAT in 2006 for a period of 13 years, including 11 years of operation and two for
closure and reclamation. This authorization covers the denominated Palmarejo Phase 1
project that includes all production facilities (process plant, tailings area, most waste
deposits, pits and underground facilities), for a total of 378 ha. Under the current permit,
Coeur is authorized to operate Palmarejo‘s facilities until May 2017, followed by two
years of reclamation activities until May 2019. Palmarejo Phase 1 has a CUSTF
approved for 327.3 ha for land disturbance. Subsequent to the Phase I permitting
processes, Coeur Mexicana filed for, and received, approval of a new environmental
authorization (Phase II) for an additional 290.34 ha, which was issued in 2010 for 10
years, ending in 2020. Concurrently, a CUSTF approval for 290.34 ha was granted for
the same period.
Both mining authorizations can be extended by SEMARNAT through a relatively simple

notification procedure for additional time equivalent to one half of the initial authorized
period. In the case of Palmarejo Phase 1, this represents 6.5 years of additional

November 2, 2015
environmental authorization. If additional land disturbance for mining activities is

required within the two phases, it can be added through a new CUSTF request. Payment
to the Forestry Fund, in accordance with the additional disturbance, would be required.
Coeur Mexicana has been granted full authorization for open pit and underground gold
and silver mining within the area depicted in the MIA, as amended. This includes permits
for exploration, construction, and operations of the open pit and underground gold and
silver mines. It also includes the cyanide leaching process, refining and cyanide
detoxification of the tailings prior to discharge into the tailings impoundment (INCO
detoxification process). In 2012, the SEMARNAT clarified a specific limit for cyanide
concentrations in the tailing disposed in the FTD; this limit is consistent with other Coeur
facility operations at 50 ppm weakly acid dissociable (WAD) cyanide. Coeur continues
efforts in the management of the tailing facility to meet standards recommended in the
international cyanide management code. Currently, the mine has conducted a GAP
analysis in observance of the code.
The Guadalupe area is permitted for land disturbance related to an underground and
open pit mine and related facilities (small waste deposits, access roads and electrical
line distribution). This project received its environmental authorization in 2010, and its
initial authorization for change of land use in November of 2010. The mine is currently
producing and development of the underground structures continues. Ore mined at
Guadalupe is being processed at the Palmarejo mill and plant facility via a fully-approved
roadway. In addition, an MIA and CUSTF were provided to SEMARNAT on September 9
and 10, 2015, for the southern Guadalupe extension, including a new hauling road and
the access to the Las Animas Pit. These permits are expected to be granted on or about
December 10, 2015.
On February 27, 2011, a right-of-way agreement for the construction of the Guadalupe-
Palmarejo haul corridor was signed with the Guazapares ejido. Environmental and
change of land use authorizations for the construction of a haul road were awarded by
SEMARNAT on May 30, 2011 and July 11, 2011, respectively. The permitted haul road
design was revised and upgraded to allow larger hauling trucks from the Guadalupe
mine. The new design increased construction‘s cut and fill over diverse topography. This
new construction required an MIA modification and a CUSTF for 4.69 additional
hectares, submitted in August of 2013 to SEMARNAT. The MIA and CUSTF requests
were granted on September 10, 2013 and on May 8, 2014, respectively. A renewed land
agreement with the ejido of Guazaparez was signed on October 20, 2013 and is in effect
for 25 years.
Critical to the appropriate management of the Palmarejo Complex is the evaluation of

the acid rock drainage (ARD) potential for waste rock and tailing in the extraction

November 2, 2015
process. The initial ARD testing by the Australian consulting firm Environmental
Geochemistry International Pty Ltd. (2005), indicate that the majority of the rock mined
through 2014 will not generate acidity from the waste rock or at the tailing facility. This
study included a statistically valid set of samples analyzed for the acid generating
potential. The acid base accounting results indicate that disposal of the waste rock and
tailing will not become acid-forming. However, further testing is required as the mine
progresses and as Coeur mines ores from Guadalupe and Independencia, so that the
company can fully develop the database for assessment of the potential for acid rock
generation as mining proceeds into less oxidized zones. The focus of future testing will
provide information on the classification of individual rock types and specific acid base
accounting tests to ultimately construct waste rock dumps that provide a physically and
chemically stable land form.
In 2012, a long term humidity cell test was conducted on composite tailings samples to
assess the potential for the generation of acid. Results from testing conclusively indicate
that pre-2012 tailings deposited in the FTD will not present problems with acid
generation. Additional tests will be conducted in 2015 and each subsequent year to
determine leaching potential and the potential for acid generation. While the initial data
indicate that the potential for acid generation of the tailings in the FTD is low, the tailings
are essentially anoxic and incapable of oxidizing while inundated with water.
Expansion of the FTD has been planned throughout the build-out of the mine. The initial
stage created a crest elevation of 790 m in 2009; Stage 2 was completed in 2011 to an
elevation of 800m; construction of Stage 3 was completed in 2012 to an elevation of
810m; and, construction of Stage 4 was conducted in 2015 to an elevation of 818m. The
design includes a final crest elevation of 825m. Construction plans for this stage are
underway and construction is anticipated for 2019.
In September 2013, Coeur Mexicana obtained the prestigious Industria Limpia

Certificate. This certificate, valid for two years, is awarded by PROFEPA (Procuraduria
Federal de Proteccion Ambiental), the federal environmental protection enforcement
branch of SEMARNAT, and recognizes companies that have gone above and beyond
the environmental requirements. Some of the benefits of this certificate include helping
to minimize potential inspections resulting from community environmental complaints,
expediting the environmental permitting process and providing positive recognition to the
companies that receive it. On September 9, 2015, Coeur Mexicana obtained a second
certification that is valid until September 2017.
For the seventh consecutive year, on May 7th 2015, Coeur Mexicana received the
distinctive Social Responsibility Award from the Mexican Center of Philanthropy-
CEMEFI. This award is given to companies that have demonstrated a commitment to

November 2, 2015
promoting social responsibility within the company as well as in the communities where
they operate.
The SEMARNAT Environmental and Forestry Authorizations for the project and NOM-
141-SEMARNAT-2003 requires a restoration program for mining areas that will recover
the soil for landscape restitution and restore ecosystem conditions that provide for
previous land use objectives. Coeur conducts an annual review of its potential
reclamation responsibilities company-wide. The year end 2015 closure assessment for
the LOM disturbance for final reclamation at the Palmarejo mine is estimated to be
$21,200,000, which includes Guadalupe.
Coeur is very active in engaging with the local community with a series of cultural social
and economic programs divided into three main categories:
 Cooperative programs, which provide sustainable employment for the local ejido
members as subcontractors in programs such as providing tortillas, chickens,
eggs, and water for the mine;
 Education scholarship programs to support higher education of the local
community youth; and
 Training programs to the community on issues of disease prevention and
environmental protection.
Coeur Mexicana has three effluent discharge permits granted by CONAGUA at the initial
stages of the operation. Coeur has authorization to discharge water from the
Environmental Control Dam (ECD) and from the two operating domestic waste water
treatment plants. On May 27 and 28, 2015, CONAGUA officials conducted a field audit
of the three discharge permits. The results of the investigation have not yet been
finalized, however, any violations found as part of the investigation may result in a fine
payable by Coeur Mexicana.
There are no known environmental issues that could materially impact Coeur‘s ability to
extract the mineral resources or mineral reserves. The community is generally
supportive of the Palmarejo Complex and the employment and benefits that it brings.

November 2, 2015
21. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
21.1 Capital Cost Estimates
The capital cost estimate for the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia mines are
based on combined open pit and underground mine operations with supporting plant and
infrastructure that maximizes extraction of the ore resource. Capital expenditures for the
LOM for Palmarejo, Guadalupe, and Independencia are estimated at an additional
$195,400,000 from August 31, 2015 through the end of the mine life. Table 21.1 shows a
summary of the expected capital expenditure.
Table 21.1. Palmarejo, Guadalupe and Independencia Capital Costs (Coeur, 2015)
Sep- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Dec’15
($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M)
($M)
Guadalupe
Mine Development 3.7 14.5 14.8 10.1 1.0 44.1
South Portal 4.0 4.0
Initial Infrastructure 0.1 2.2 2.2
Mine Equipment 0.5 9.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 17.1
Sustaining Capital 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 8.0
Total Guadalupe 4.3 26.3 21.8 14.1 5.0 3.0 1.0 75.5
Independencia
Mine Development 3.4 7.0 8.0 7.7 8.7 8.6 1.4 44.7
Infrastructure 3.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 12.6
Mine/Fixed Equipment 5.1 9.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 23.7
Total Independencia 8.5 20.2 12.0 11.7 12.7 12.6 3.4 81,0
Other 1.1 2.9 4.0
Process 1.4 3.1 0.9 1,5 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0
Tailing Dam Expansion 2.0 13.0 10.0 25.0
Total Capital 15.2 52.6 36.7 40.2 18.7 26.6 5.4 195.4
21.2 Unit Operating Cost Estimate – Palmarejo
Unit operating costs are summarized in Table 21.2. These operating costs are based on
recent actuals, as well as budgeted costs. Open pit mining costs are shown for waste
and ore mining. Underground mining costs are shown for sustaining development and
ore mining. The G&A category includes all other costs incurred to sustain the operation.

November 2, 2015
Salvage value, escalation and capital spent through August 31, 2015 were not
considered for this economic analysis; it is expected that the salvage value will cover the
reclamation cost.
Table 21.2. Palmarejo Unit Operating Costs (Coeur, 2015)

Item Unit Value
Open Pit Mining $/tonne mined 4.0
Underground Mining $/tonne mined 66.0
Ore Processing $/tonne ore 29.1
G&A - Open Pit and Underground $/tonne ore 14.8
Smelting and Refining $/ounce metal 0.49
Corporate Management Fee % Mine & Proc. Cost 4.0
21.3 Unit Operating Cost Estimate – Guadalupe and Independencia
Unit operating costs are summarized in Table 21.3. Underground mining cost includes
sustaining development and ore mining costs. The G&A category includes all other costs
incurred to sustain the operation. All cost estimates are based on Palmarejo current
budgeted and expected LOM costs. Those costs were also used in the calculation of the
cut-off grade estimations.
Table 21.3. Guadalupe and Independencia Unit Operating Costs (Coeur, 2015)
Item Unit Value
Underground Mining $/tonne mined 43.0
Ore Processing $/tonne ore 29.1
Ore Transport – Guadalupe to Independencia $/tonne ore 3.7
G&A $/tonne ore 14.8
Smelting and Refining $/ounce metal 0.49
Corporate Management Fee % Mine & Proc. Cost 4.0
21.4 Operating Cost Summary
The estimated operating costs over the life of the Palmarejo Complex are shown in
Table 21.4.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 21.4. Operating Cost Summary (Coeur, 2015)

Sep- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
Dec’15
$M $M $M $M $M $M $M $M
Operating Cost Type $M
Palmarejo Underground 0.7 3,2 3.8
Palmarejo Open Pit 5.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.2 1.0 20.0
Guadalupe Underground 8.8 34.2 37.8 30.9 37.9 38.1 24.8 212.5
Independencia Underground 12.2 25.0 32.1 32.0 31.4 30.6 19.4 182.6
Subtotal Mining 15.0 52.1 65.2 65.5 72.4 71.9 56.6 20.4 419.0
Milling/Processing 10.0 27.6 39.1 39.3 43.6 43.3 34.5 12.1 249.5
G&A 5.1 14.0 19.9 20.0 22.2 22.1 17.6 6.1 127.0
Smelting and Refining 0.6 2.0 2.8 3.1 4.0 3.7 2.9 0.8 19.9
Corp. Management Fee 1.0 3.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.6 3.6 1.3 26.7
Franco-Nevada Gold Stream 5.2 11.5 15.0 19.3 14.5 7.3 2.2 75.1
Total Operating Costs 31.7 104.0 142.8 147.1 166.1 160.1 122.5 42.9 917.3

November 2, 2015
22. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
22.1 Palmarejo Complex Economic Analysis
Table 21.1 demonstrates that the business plan developed for the Palmarejo Complex is
economically viable based on Coeur‘s financial model, which was updated with LOM
reserve production schedules, metal recoveries, costs, and capital expenditures.
As of August 31, 2015, the Palmarejo Complex is estimated to generate an after-tax

NPV of $125,000,000 at a 10% discount rate over a mine life of approximately eight
years (Table 22.1).
Table 22.2 and Table 22.3 depict the annual ore production schedule and projected cash
flows based on stated Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources do not have economic
viability until they are converted to Mineral Reserves.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 22.1. Life of Mine Economic Analysis (Coeur, 2015)

Unit Palmarejo Guadalupe Indep. Indep.
Oeste Este
Mine Production
Open Pit Tonnes k-tonnes 154
Ore Au Grade g/t Au 0.97
Ore Ag Grade g/t Ag 123
Underground Tonnes k-tonnes 58 4,540 858 2,956
Ore Au Grade g/t Au 2.39 2.42 3.29 2.68
Ore Ag Grade g/t Ag 155 154 177 190
Mill Throughput
Total Ore Processed k-tonnes 8,567
Ore Grade Au g/t Au 2.57
Ore Grade Ag g/t Ag 168
Metallurgical Recovery Au % 87.0 (2015-2016) & 90.0 (2017-2022)
Metallurgical Recovery Ag % 85.0 (2015-2016) & 87.0 (2017-2022)
Revenue
Gold Price $/oz $1,150 (2015-2017) & $1,250 (2018-2022)
Silver Price $/oz $15.5 (2015-2017) & $17.5 (2018-2022)
Gross Revenue $M 1,454
Operating Costs
Open Pit Mining/Auxiliary Equipment $M 20
Underground Mining $M 399
Milling/Processing $M 250
Smelting and Refining $M 20
G&A $M 127
Corporate Management Fee $M 27
Franco-Nevada Gold Stream $M 75
Total Operating Cost $M 917
Cash Flow
Operating Cash Flow $M 537
0.5% Extraordinary Mining Duty $M 8
Capital Expenditures, Incl. Financing $M 198
Franco-Nevada Advance Royalty $M 34
Franco-Nevada Advanced Deposit $M 8
Total Pre-Tax Cash Flow (Net Cash Flow) $M 305
Project Pre-Tax NPV (10% Discount Rate) $M 191
30% Corporate Income Tax $M 72
7.5% Special Mining Duty $M 38
Tot. After-Tax Cash Flow (Net Cash Flow) $M 195
Project After-Tax NPV(10% Discount Rate) $M 125
The financial model considers higher metallurgical recoveries than those used for the
cut-off grade calculations incorporated into the Mineral Reserve estimates in this Report.
This was due to planned process improvements that were recently incorporated into the
financial model for the Palmarejo Complex. These improvements are expected to be
completed by the end of 2016.

November 2, 2015
2015)
Sep-Dec
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
Palmarejo Open Pit
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 154 154
Ag Grade (g/t) 123 123
Au Grade (g/t) 0.97 0.97
Tonnes Waste (tx1000) 1,231 1,231
Palmarejo Underground
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 10 48 58
Ag Grade (g/t) 92 168 155
Au Grade (g/t) 2.77 2.31 2.39
Guadalupe Underground
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 178 732 809 662 812 815 531 4,540
Ag Grade (g/t) 142 144 131 145 166 172 170 154
Au Grade (g/t) 2.20 2.74 2.32 2.54 2.96 2.02 1.80 2.42
Independencia Oeste
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 44 112 146 141 160 79 176 858
Ag Grade (g/t) 200 196 208 194 166 152 140 177
Au Grade (g/t) 3.40 3.59 4.25 4.01 3.56 2.14 1.95 3.29
Independencia Este
Tonnes Ore (x1000) 122 423 541 544 513 576 239 2,956
Ag Grade (g/t) 180 177 184 229 200 187 124 190
Au Grade (g/t) 2.59 2.75 2.67 3.25 2.38 2.77 1.70 2.68

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Table 22.3. Yearly Production and Cash Flows (Coeur, 2015)

Sep-Dec 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
2015
Ore Tonnes Milled 343 947 1,344 1,349 1,498 1,488 1,185 414 8,567
(x1000)
Recovered Oz Ag 1,234 3,957 5,680 6,327 8,016 7,546 5,861 1,517 40,137
(x1000)
Recovered Oz Au 16.0 72.6 99.6 108.6 137.0 99.5 78.7 21.7 633.7
(x1000)
Oper. Cash Flow 6 41 60 99 145 96 78 11 537
($M)
Pre-Tax Net Cash (14) (20) 15 51 123 68 72 10 305
Flow ($M)
After-Tax Net Cash (14) (20) 14 47 112 24 44 (11) 195
Flow ($M)
Figure 22.1 illustrates the financial sensitivity of the project to standalone changes in
metal prices and a number of operating parameters. The base case used to estimate
mineral reserves for this Report is shown as the heavy black line on the chart. The net
pre-tax cash flow is most sensitive to metal prices and grade/recovery.
Figure 22.1. Sensitivity of Pre-tax Cash Flow (Coeur, 2015)

November 2, 2015
22.2 Taxes
The authority to tax in Mexico rests primarily with the federal government. The
Constitution grants exclusive rights to the Congress to levy taxes on domestic and
foreign trade; as well as all commercial and industrial activities. The states also have
taxing powers; however, they are prohibited by the Constitution from levying taxes in
areas exclusively reserved for the federal government. Generally, the states have the
right to tax real property, and in most states impose local taxes on salaries.
Companies doing business in Mexico are primarily subject to corporate income tax, tax
on real property, value added tax, customs/excise duties, and employer social security
contributions. Companies are also subject to various withholding tax requirements on
payments to non-residents.
The corporate income tax rate of 30%, in effect in Mexico for 2015, was included in the
economic model.
22.3 Royalties
On January 21, 2009, Coeur Mexicana, entered into a gold production royalty
transaction with Franco-Nevada under which Franco-Nevada purchased a royalty
covering 50% of the life of mine gold to be produced from a portion of the Palmarejo
Complex. Coeur Mexicana received total consideration of $78,000,000, consisting of
$75,000,000 in cash, plus a warrant to acquire Franco-Nevada Common Shares (the
―Franco-Nevada warrant‖), which was valued at $3,000,000 at closing of the Franco-
Nevada transaction. On September 19, 2010, the warrant was exercised and the related
shares were sold for $10,000,000.
The royalty agreement provides for a minimum obligation to be paid in monthly

payments on a total of 400,000 ounces of gold, or 4,167 ounces per month over an initial
eight year period. Each monthly payment is an amount equal to the greater of the
minimum of 4,167 ounces of gold or 50% of actual gold production per month multiplied
by the excess of the monthly average market price of gold above $400 per ounce ($400
floor is subject to a 1% annual inflation compounding adjustment beginning on January
21, 2013).
A total of 45,996 ounces of gold remain outstanding as of August 31, 2015 under the
minimum royalty obligation. In October 2014, Coeur terminated the gold production
royalty effective upon completion of the minimum ounce delivery requirement, and
subsequently entered into a gold stream agreement with a subsidiary of Franco-Nevada
Corporation, whereby Coeur Mexicana will sell 50% of a portion of Palmarejo Complex

November 2, 2015
gold production upon completion of the gold production royalty minimum ounce delivery
requirement to Franco-Nevada for the lesser of $800, or spot price per ounce.
22.4 Mexican Mining Duties
Mexican mining duties include the following:

1) Special Mining Duty of 7.5% (Derecho Especial Sobre Mineria) applied to income
from mining activities. The tax is calculated on a basis of earnings before
interest, income taxes, depreciation, and amortization (i.e., EBITDA).
2) Extraordinary Mining Duty of 0.5% (Derecho Extraordinario Sobre Mineria)
applied to all revenue from the gold and silver produced.
Both of these duties are assumed to be deductible against income before the calculation
of corporate income tax.

November 2, 2015
23. ADJACENT PROPERTIES
There are no adjacent properties that are relevant to this Report.

November 2, 2015
24. OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

All relevant data and information has been covered in other sections of this Report.

November 2, 2015
25. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
Palmarejo is an operating mining venture that has demonstrated positive cash flow. The
financial analysis and associated assumptions conducted for this Report support the
conclusion that the Palmarejo Complex will continue to be profitable and generate
acceptable returns over the life of the mine. It is generally assumed, however, that the
economic viability of any mining venture, including Palmarejo, is subject to many risks
and is not guaranteed.
The Palmarejo open pit and underground mines will be mined out in late 2015 and 2016,
respectively. These ore sources will be replaced by production from the Guadalupe and
Independencia underground mines. The Mineral Reserve estimates and subsequent
economic analysis completed for the Palmarejo Complex demonstrate that it is profitable
to continue to advance production at these mines.
Further work on both Guadalupe and Independencia will focus on optimization of mine
designs and production rates to maximize the economics of the Palmarejo Complex.
Additonal exploration is planned for other targets adjacent to the structures hosting the
Guadalupe and Independencia deposits.
The QPs have visited the project sites and have reviewed all data pertinant to the
information stated in this Report, and they believe that the data disclosed is a complete,
accurate and reasonable representation of the Palmarejo Complex.
In the opinion of the QPs, the Mineral Resource and Reserve estimates are based on
valid data and are reasonably estimated using standard geological and engineering
practices. There are no known environmental, permitting, legal, title, socio-economic,
marketing, or political issues that could materially affect the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, or
Independencia Mineral Reserve or Resource estimates.

November 2, 2015
26. RECOMMENDATIONS
26.1 Geology
For definition purposes, it is recommended that the exploration program be continued at

the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits. This is expected to cost $4,000,000 per
year for the next five years, subject to change as a result of new discoveries or changes
in the mine plan.
For resource discovery to replace inferred resources, it is recommended that the

exploration progam at the Palmarejo Complex be continued. The cost estimate for this
work is $5,000,000 per year for the next five years, subject to change as a result of new
discoveries or changes in the mine plan.
To address reliable density associations with lithology and mineral-type units, it is

recommended to review the existing density determinations in the exploration drill holes
and perform additional measurements where required. Since this is an operating mine,
these measurements can be obtained in the core shed by weighing rock dry and
submersed in water and need not be performed in outside laboratories. Each lithology
and mineral type should be measured in each drill hole. The projected large population
of these measurements would allow adequate differentiation of densities for individual
lithology units and make resource modeling more reliable. This work can be completed
by Coeur personnel at no additional cost.
Based on results of internal QC programs with regard to the analysis of duplicate

sampling results, it is recommended that sampling and sample preparation procedures
be reviewed with regards to sample size, sample length, mineral distribution and grain
size to evaluate sources of variance and how to best minimize inconsistencies in the
results. The cost estimate for this work is estimated at $20,000.
26.2 Data Validation
Check sample programs for all properties should be reviewed for appropriateness of
analytical methods compared and samples submitted for analysis. The majority of
samples reviewed are in the lower grade ranges. Alternatively, the appropriateness of
the standards should be reviewed in light of the grades expected in the deposit and if
necessary, more appropriate standards chosen. The cost estimate of this work is
estimated to be $10,000.
It is recommended that failed duplicate analyses undergo a re-assay of the parent and
duplicate samples on a quarterly basis, at minimum.

November 2, 2015
It is recommended that all projects adhere to Coeur QA/QC policy and submit 5% of
samples for umpire analysis at a third party laboratory.
This can be completed on an annual basis but must be completed prior to the re-issue of
an additional technical report. The cost estimate for the QA/QC reviews and assaying is
estimated at $100,000 per year.
26.3 Resource Modeling
It is recommended that the lithology models be updated on an ongoing basis when new
drill holes are added to the database. If derived from cross-sectional polygons, the
lithology wireframes should be reinterpreted in plan view to warrant a smooth and non-
edgy continuation of the veins. This work can be completed by Coeur personnel at no
additional cost.
Reconciliation data should be reviewed as additional data is available, to ensure the

resource model is adaquately predicting tonnage and metal grades. This work can be
completed by Coeur personnel at no additional cost.
Geology models and resource models should be updated anually, as new data becomes
available. This work can be completed by Coeur personnel at no additional cost.
26.4 Processing
Continuing efforts towards improving metal accounting are recommended. This involves
evaluating current sampling points and the possibility of the addition additional ones.
Sample collection, handling and preparation procedures should be evaluated to
establish an optimization program that will allow to obtain more reliable data and to
improve metal accounting and process control. Cost estimate: $10,000.
Metallurgical test work is recommended to be continued for Independencia mineral

deposit. A series of representative composites should be created using remaining drill
core samples corresponding to different lithology and geological domains then be
evaluated by rougher–cleaner flotation techniques followed by flotation product leaching
to emulate Palmarejo‘s current flowsheet. The recommended test work for
Independencia will include a series of agitated cyanidation tests. These tests include two
different feed sizes and cyanide solution strengths to define the ore amenability to be
treated by agitated leaching conditions, which will also include rougher kinetic and
rougher-cleaner followed by leaching test series.
Costs for the suggested ore testing are estimated as follows:

November 2, 2015
 Perform metallurgical test work for the Independencia mineral deposit, including:
o Phase 1 – Testing for communition and mineralogical examination of
materials. Cost estimate: $65,000;
o Phase 2 – Agitated cyanidation testing. Cost estimate: $65,000; and
o Phase 3 – Floation and flotation products leaching. Cost estimate:
$110,000.
26.5 Mining
For the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits, a geotechnical review should be

completed annually to confirm the mine design parameters, and to audit the installation
of ground support in the active working areas of the mines. This work would be
conducted by a geotechnical consultant at an estimated cost of $35,000 per year.
Mineral Reserve re-estimation is recommended following updates to Mineral Resource

estimates and/or material changes to cost and financial inputs. This work would be
For the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits, production rates should be reviewed
and additional life of mine schedule optimization be carried out. This work would be

November 2, 2015
27. REFERENCES
Ammtec Ltd., "Comminution Testwork Conducted Upon Samples of Ore from the Palmarejo
Gold and Silver Deposit", a private report for Bolnisi Gold NL, Report Number A9848,
September, 2005.
AMEC International (Chile) S.A., ―Palmarejo Resource Modeling, Chihuahua, Mexico,‖ a

private report for Coeur d‘Alene Mines Corporation, February 2008.
Ammtec Ltd., a report prepared for Planet Gold, January 2004.
Anderson, T. H., and Silver, L.T., ―The role of the Mojave-Sonora Megashear in the Tectonic
Evolution of Northern Sonora‖, in Anderson, T.H., and Roldan-Quintana, J., eds.,
Geology of Northern Sonora: Geological Society of America, Field Trip Guidebook,
1979.
Avery, Don, ―Palmarejo Project Database Audit‖, a private report prepared by Mine
Development Associates for Coeur d‘Alene Mines Corporation, December 13, 2010.
Beckton, J.M., ―Resource Report - Palmarejo, June 2004‖, internal report of Planet Gold S.A.
de C.V., 2004.
Blair, Keith, "A Review of Assay Quality Assurance and Quality Control Information from the
Palmarejo Project, Chihuahua, Mexico", private report prepared by Applied Geoscience
LLC for Palmarejo Silver and Gold Corporation, 2005.
Blair, K. R., "A Review of Assay Quality Assurance and Quality Control Information from the
Palmarejo Project and Guadalupe Projects, Chihuahua, Mexico", private report prepared
by Applied Geoscience LLC for Palmarejo Silver and Gold Corporation, 2006.
Blair, Keith, Guadalupe and La Patria Projects - Assay Quality Control Review, private report
prepared by Applied Geoscience LLC for Palmarejo Silver and Gold Corporation, 2007
Blair, Keith, "Guadalupe and La Patria Projects – Assay Quality Control Review", private report
prepared by Applied Geoscience LLC for Palmarejo Silver and Gold Corporation, July,
2008.
Caceres, Cristian A., "Tucson Pit Geotechnical Study", private report prepared by Cristian
Caceres and Sheila Ballantyne for Palmarejo Silver and Gold Corporation, November,
2012.
Coeur d‘Alene Mines Corporation, ―Palmarejo Fourth Quarter/Annual QAQC Summary Report
2011‖, an internal report, December, 2011.
Coeur, Coeur Expl_QAQC Procedures and Protocols Version 01_31_2012_Final_Spanish,

2012

November 2, 2015
Corbett, G., "Comments on Palmarejo, and Nearby Exploration Projects, Northern Mexico",
private report for Bolnisi Gold NL, 2005.
Corbett, G., "Comments on Palmarejo, El Realito and Yecora Exploration Projects, Northern
Mexico", private report for Bolnisi Gold NL, 2004.
Corbett, G., "Comments on the geology of Guadalupe and nearby Projects at Palmarejo,
Mexico", private report for Bolnisi Gold NL, 2007.
Cytec Mining Chemicals, ―Update on Reagent Test Work on Palmarejo Ore‖, 22 December,
2005.
Davies, R.C., "La Patria Project Structural Study", internal memorandum of Bolnisi Gold NL,
2006.
Davies, R.C., "Guadalupe Project Structural Study", internal memorandum of Bolnisi Gold NL,
2007.
Earthscope Voyager website, viewed February 23, 2012,

http://www.dpc.ucar.edu/earthscopeVoyager/JVV_Jr/didyouknow/b-rIntro.html.
Electrometals Technologies Ltd., "Summary Report: Electrowinning a Synthetic Palmarejo

Electrolyte", a private report for Bolnisi Gold NL, January, 2006.
Electrometals Technologies Ltd., "Summary Report: Silver Electrowinning from a Cyanide

Electrolyte using EMEW®", a private report for Bolnisi Gold NL, November, 2005.
Galvan, Victor H., "Palmarejo Epithermal Ag-Au Deposit, Chihuahua, Mexico: Report on First
PhD Field Season, January-February 2007", University of Tasmania, Hobart Australia,
2007.
Golder Associates, ―Guadalupe Geotechnical Review‖, August 2011.
Gustin, Michael M., "Technical Report, Palmarejo – Trogan Project, Chihuahua, Mexico, 43-101
Technical Report", (Mine Development Associates, 2004).
Gustin, Michael M., "Updated Technical Report, Palmarejo – Trogan Project, Chihuahua,
Mexico, 43-101 Technical Report", (Mine Development Associates, 2005).
Gustin, Michael M., "Updated Technical Report, Palmarejo – Trogan Project, Chihuahua,
Mexico, 43-101 Technical Report", (Mine Development Associates, 2006).
Gustin, Michael M. and Neil B. Prenn. "Updated Technical Report Palmarejo-Trogan Project,
Chihuahua, Mexico", prepared for Palmarejo Silver and Gold Corporation and Coeur d‘
Alene Mines Corporation September 17, 2007 by Mine Development Associates, 2007.

November 2, 2015
Ingeroc Ingenieria de Rocas, ―Caracterizacion Geotecnica Proyecto Mina Guadalupe‖, March

2015.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia (INEGI), census data and location, viewed
January, 2011, http://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/mexicocifras.
Jorge Cordoba, General Director of Operations at Palmarejo for Minas Huruapa, S.A. de C.V;
[Personal Communication], 2007.
Laurent, I., ―Palmarejo/Trogan Project: Annual Technical Report, 1st July 2003 – 30th June
2004‖, internal report of Planet Gold, S.A. de C.V., 2004.
Masterman, G., "Guadalupe Precious Metal Zonation Patterns", internal memorandum of Bolnisi
Gold NL, 2006.
Masterman, G., Phillips, K., Stewart, H., Laurent, I., Beckton, J., Cordery, J., and Skeet, J.,
"Palmarejo Silver – Gold Project, Chihuahua, Mexico: Discovery of a Ag-Au Deposit in
the Mexican Sierra", unpublished report, 2005.
McCarthy, E.T., untitled letter to the chairman and directors of Palmarejo and Mexican
Goldfields, Ltd. and attached schedules, 1909.
McCullagh, U. and Hall, C, ―Palmarejo Mine - 2014 TWMF Water Balance Update‖, prepared
for Coeur Mining, Inc., May, 2014
NCL Ingeniería y Construcción Ltda., ―Guadalupe and La Patria Database Review‖, prepared
for Coeur d‘Alene Mines Corporation, September, 2011.
Orway Mineral Consultants Pty. Ltd., "Analysis and Comminution Circuit Modeling", a draft
report prepared for Planet Gold.
Outokumpu Pty Ltd., "Supaflo® Thickener Test Data Report S559TA", private report for Intermet
Engineering Technologies for the Palmarejo Project, July, 2005.
Outokumpu Technologies Pty Ltd., "Summary of Palmarejo Testwork – Leached Products",

December, 2005.
Pakalnis & Associates, ―Independencia/Guadalupe Mine Operations – Site Visit/Technical

Reivew‖, April 2015.
Rhyes, D., Panterra Geoservices Inc., ―Evaluation of Structural and Geological Controls on
Vein-Hosted Gold Mineralization at the Palmarejo Deposit, Chihuahua State, Mexico‖,
2009a.
Rhyes,D., Panterra Geoservices Inc., ―Guadalupe Project Area-Observations on its

Lithostructural Setting and Potential Controls‖, 2009b.

November 2, 2015
Ross, K, Panterra Geoservices Inc., ―Petrographic Study of the Palmarejo Deposit,

Chihuahua, Mexico‖, September 2009.
Petrolab Laboratorio de inveStigaciones geologicas, ―Mineralogy of Guadalupe Au-Ag Vein

Deposit‖, Melchor, A., January, 2010.
Pincock Allen & Holt PAH Consultants, ―Mine Planning Exercise at the Coeur Palmarejo Mine,
Mexico‖ PAH Project No. DE-00179, May, 2011
Salas, G.P., 'Sierra Madre Occidental Metallogenic Province', in Salas, G.P., ed., "Economic
Geology, Mexico" (Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, The Geology of
North America, v. P-3, p197-198.,1991 [Palmarejo geology], 1991
Sedlock, R.L., Ortega-Gutierrez, F., and Speed, R.C., "Tectonostratigraphic Terranes and
Tectonic Evolution of Mexico", Geological Society of America Special Paper 278, 142 p.,
1993.
Segura, E.P., ―Estudios mineragraficos de 32 muestras de mineraly roca enviadas para su

estudio por el Ing. A, Valtierra‖ [also in English translation]: Report prepared for
Paramount Gold de Mexico S.A. de C.V., 38 p., 2008.
SGS Lakefield Oretest Campaign, "Report no. 9745"; prepared for Planet Gold, December
2005.
SGS Lakefield Oretest Campaign, "Report no. 9772"; prepared for Planet Gold, December
2005.
SGS, "Batch and Pilot Flotation on a Sample of Palmarejo Silver/Gold Ore, Lakefield Oretest
Job Number 9632"; a private report for Bolnisi Gold NL, May, 2005.
SGS, "Comminution and Flotation Testwork on Palmarejo Drill Core Samples, Lakefield Oretest
Job Number 9609"; a private report for Bolnisi Gold NL, December, 2004.
SGS, ―Pruebas Metalúrgicas Para Determinar la Susceptibilidad de Dos Muestras de Mineral

a los Procesos de Lixiviación, Flotación y Concentración Gravimétrica‖, Report No.
SGS-49-08; a private report for Planet Gold, S.A. de C.V., November 11, 2008.
SGS, ―Pruebas Metalúrgicas Para Determinar la Susceptibilidad de Cuatro Compositos de

Mineral a los Procesos de Lixiviación, Flotación y Concentración Gravimétrica‖, Report
No. SGS-04-09; a prívate report for Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V., March 06, 2009.
Silver, L. T., and Anderson, T. H., "Possible Left-Lateral Early to Middle Mesozoic Disruption of
the Southwestern North American Craton Margin", Geological Society of America
Abstracts with Programs, v.6, 1974.

November 2, 2015
Silver, L. T., and Anderson, T.H., "Further Evidence and Analysis of the Role of the Mojave-
Sonora Megashear(s) in Mesozoic Cordilleran Tectonics", Geological Society of America
Abstracts with Programs, v. 15., 1983.
Skeet, J., "Palmarejo Gold-Silver Preliminary Project Summary", internal report of Bolnisi Gold
NL, 2004.
Stewart, H. H., "Progress report for the Guadalupe/Las Animas Target May 3, 2005", internal
memorandum of Bolnisi Gold NL, 2005.
Sillitoe, Richard H., ―Comments on Geology and Exploration of the Palmarejo Epithermal
Silver-Gold Deposit and Environs, Chihuahua, Mexico‖; prepared for Coeur d‘Alene
Mines Corporation, August 2010.
Townend, R., and Associates, "Private Report on Mineralogy", private report for Bolnisi Gold
NL, 2004.

November 2, 2015
28. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

This Report titled ―Technical Report for the Palmarejo Complex, SW Chihuahua State,
Mexico: NI 43-101 Technical Report‖, prepared by Coeur Mining, Inc., with an effective
date of August 31, 2015, and a filing date of November 2, 2015, was prepared and
signed by the following authors:
1. Dated November 2, 2015(Signed and Sealed) ―Mr. Paul Kerr‖

Mr. Paul Kerr, P.Eng.
Manager, Mine Engineering
Coeur Mining, Inc.
2. Dated November 2, 2015(Signed and Sealed) ―Mr. Michael Gustin‖

Mr. Michael Gustin, CPG
Senior Geologist
Mine Development Associates
3. Dated November 2, 2015(Signed and Sealed) ―Mr. David Hlorgbe‖

Mr. David Hlorgbe, RM SME
Senior Resource Geologist
Coeur Mining, Inc.

November 2, 2015
4. Dated November 2, 2015(Signed and Sealed) ―Mr. Justin Glanvill‖
Mr. Justin Glanvill, PrSciNat

Principal Geologist
AMC Consultants (UK) Limited
5. Dated November 2, 2015(Signed and Sealed) ―Mr. Raul Mondragon‖

Mr. Raul Mondragon, RM, SME
Director, Metallurgy
Coeur Mining, Inc.
6. Dated November 2, 2015(Signed and Sealed) ―Mr. Matthew Hoffer‖

Mr. Matthew Hoffer, RM SME
Manager, Geology
Coeur Mining, Inc.
7. Dated November 2, 2015(Signed and Sealed) ―Mr. Miller O‘Prey‖

Mr. Miller O‘Prey, EURGeol, P.Geo
Director Exploration- Mexico
Coeur Mining, Inc.

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
29. APPENDICES
29.1 Land and Mineral Tenure- Mining Concessions
Coeur Mexicana S.A. de C.V.

No Concession Name Title N o Record N o Valid Area Concessionaire
Through (hectares)
1 AMPL. TROGAN OESTE 225223 016/33206 2055-08-04 1,700.0 Coeur Mexicana
2 AMPLIACIÓN TROGAN 224118 016/32644 2055-04-07 703.2 Coeur Mexicana
3 CABALLERO AZTECA 209975 1/1.3/935 2049-08-30 5.1 Coeur Mexicana

4 CARMELITA 209976 1/1.3/934 2049-08-30 5.3 Coeur Mexicana
5 EL RISCO 210163 099/00836 2049-09-09 24.0 Coeur Mexicana
6 LA AURELIA 209541 1/1.3/835 2049-08-02 10.0 Coeur Mexicana
7 LA BUENA FE 188820 321.1/1-364 2040-11-28 60.0 Coeur Mexicana
8 LA BUENA FE NORTE 226201 016/32865 2055-11-28 98.1 Coeur Mexicana
9 LA ESTRELLA 189692 321.1/1-411 2040-12-04 59.6 Coeur Mexicana
10 LA MEXICANA 212281 1/1.3/00713 2050-09-28 142.1 Coeur Mexicana
11 LA MODERNA 225574 1/1/01439 2055-09-22 75.9 Coeur Mexicana
12 LEZCURA 210479 1/1.3/933 2049-10-07 14.5 Coeur Mexicana
13 LOS TAJOS 186009 321.1/1-301 2039-12-13 2.7 Coeur Mexicana
14 MACLOVIA 167282 099/00082 2030-10-29 6.0 Coeur Mexicana
15 NUEVA PATRIA 167281 099/00099 2030-10-29 11.0 Coeur Mexicana
16 PALMAREJO 164465 099/00139 2029-05-08 52.1 Coeur Mexicana
17 PATRIA VIEJA 167323 099/00209 2030-11-02 4.0 Coeur Mexicana
18 REYNA DE ORO 198543 321.1/1-141 2043-11-29 27.2 Coeur Mexicana
19 SAN CARLOS 188817 321.1/9-286 2040-11-28 160.0 Coeur Mexicana
20 SAN JUAN DE DIOS 167322 099/00436 2030-11-02 23.0 Coeur Mexicana

21 SANTO DOMINGO 194678 1/1.3/478 2042-05-06 15.4 Coeur Mexicana
22 TRES DE MAYO 187906 321.1/1-12 2040-11-21 39.9 Coeur Mexicana
23 TROGAN 221490 016/32026 2054-02-18 3,844.5 Coeur Mexicana

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015
Coeur Mexicana S.A. de C.V.

Through (hectares)
24 TROGAN FRACCIÓN 221491 016/32026 2054-02-18 8.0 Coeur Mexicana
25 TROGAN NORTE 1 225278 082/29276 2055-08-11 1,024.0 Coeur Mexicana
26 TROGAN NORTE 2 225279 082/29278 2055-08-11 1,019.2 Coeur Mexicana
27 TROGAN OESTE 225308 016/32663 2055-08-15 2,699.1 Coeur Mexicana
UNIFICACIÓN GUERRA
28 AL TIRANO 170588 321.42/792 2032-06-01 27.4 Coeur Mexicana
29 UNIFICACIÓN HURUAPA 195487 1/1.121/513 2039-09-13 213.8 Coeur Mexicana
30 VICTORIA 210320 099/00922 2049-09-23 76.1 Coeur Mexicana
31 VIRGINIA 214101 016/29659 2051-08-09 12.1 Coeur Mexicana
AMPLIACIÓN LA BUENA
32 FE 209648 099/02534 2049-08-02 40.9 Coeur Mexicana
33 EL ROSARIO 185236 321.1/1-198 2039-12-13 11.0 Coeur Mexicana
34 LA CURRA 222319 1/1.3/00711 2054-06-24 37.7 Coeur Mexicana
35 LA CURRITA 223292 1/1/01411 2054-11-24 13.7 Coeur Mexicana
36 SULEMA NO. 2 191332 321.1/1-263 2041-12-18 15.8 Coeur Mexicana
Paramount Gold de México, S.A. de C.V.

Through (hectares)
37 EL CARMEN 166426 099/01073 2030-06-03 59.1 Paramount Gold
38 EL ROSARIO 166430 099/01432 2030-06-03 14.0 Paramount Gold
39 EMPALME 166423 2/322.2/168 2030-06-03 6.0 Paramount Gold
40 LAS TRES B.B.B. 166427 099/01079 2030-06-03 23.0 Paramount Gold
41 LAS TRES S.S.S. 166429 099/01121 2030-06-03 19.2 Paramount Gold
42 SAN JUAN 166402 2/322.2/169 2030-06-03 3.0 Paramount Gold
43 SAN LUIS 166422 2/322.2/165 2030-06-03 4.0 Paramount Gold

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015

Through (hectares)
44 SAN MIGUEL 166401 2/322.2/170 2030-06-03 12.9 Paramount Gold
45 SANGRE DE CRISTO 166424 099/01127 2030-06-03 41.0 Paramount Gold
46 SANTA CLARA 166425 099/01072 2030-06-03 15.0 Paramount Gold
47 SWANWICK 166428 099/01130 2030-06-03 70.1 Paramount Gold
48 CONSTITUYENTES 1917 199402 099/02162 2044-04-18 66.2 Paramount Gold
49 MONTECRISTO 213579 016/28795 2051-05-17 38.1 Paramount Gold
MONTECRISTO
50 FRACCION 213580 016/28795 2051-05-17 0. 3 Paramount Gold
51 MONTECRISTO II 226590 016/32936 2056-02-01 27.1 Paramount Gold
52 SANTA CRUZ 186960 321.1/1-307 2040-05-16 10.0 Paramount Gold
53 ELYCA 179842 321.1/1-109 2036-12-16 10.1 Paramount Gold
54 ANDREA FRACC.1 243967 1/2/00154 2058-01-15 1,948.0 Paramount Gold
55 GISSEL 228244 016/34660 2056-10-16 880.0 Paramount Gold
56 ISABEL 228724 016/34731 2057-01-16 348.3 Paramount Gold
MARIA ISABEL
57 FRACCION 2 236293 016/38769 2060-06-10 24.7 Paramount Gold
MARIA ISABEL
58 FRACCION 3 236294 016/38769 2060-06-10 108.8 Paramount Gold
MARIA ISABEL
59 FRACCION 4 236295 016/38769 2060-06-10 208. 3 Paramount Gold
60 AMPL. SAN ANTONIO 196127 099/2177 2042-09-22 20.9 Paramount Gold
61 CANTILITO 220788 1/1.3/01204 2053-10-06 37.0 Paramount Gold
62 GUAZAPARES 209497 099/02597 2049-08-02 30.9 Paramount Gold
63 GUAZAPARES 1 212890 099/02552 2051-02-12 452.0 Paramount Gold
64 GUAZAPARES 2 226217 1/1/01399 2055-12-01 404.0 Paramount Gold

Palmarejo Complex
November 2, 2015

Through (hectares)
66 GUAZAPARES 4 223664 1/1/1395 2055-02-01 64.0 Paramount Gold
68 SAN ANTONIO 204385 1/2.4/557 2047-02-12 14.9 Paramount Gold
69 SAN ANTONIO 222869 1/1.3/01062 2054-09-13 105.1 Paramount Gold
70 SAN FRANCISCO 191486 321.1/1-306 2041-12-18 38.2 Paramount Gold
71 VINORAMA 226884 082/29275 2056-03-16 474.2 Paramount Gold
Minera Gama, S.A. de C.V.

Through (hectares)
72 GUAZAPARES 232082 1/3/00050 2057-05-17 6,265.2 Minera Gama
TEMORIS CENTRO
73 FRACC. 1 243762 1/003-00153 2057-05-17 4,940.2 Minera Gama
TEMORIS CENTRO
TEMORIS CENTRO
TEMORIS CENTRO
TEMORIS CENTRO
TEMORIS CENTRO
79 TEMORIS FRACCION 2 229551 016/33239 2057-05-17 7,328.1 Minera Gama
80 TEMORIS FRACCION 3 229552 016/33239 2057-05-17 14.0 Minera Gama
81 TEMORIS FRACCION 4 229553 016/33239 2057-05-17 18.7 Minera Gama
Grand Total: 54,685.4

Technical Report Template 28

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report Template 28

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report Template 28

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE

Effective Date: August 31, 2015

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT ON FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

CAUTIONARY NOTE TO U.S. READERS CONCERNING ESTIMATES OF

6.4 Previous Mineral Resource Estimates .......................................................... 40

13.2.4 Metallurgical Results ........................................................................ 94

14.4.8 Estimation ...................................................................................... 154

15.4.5 Ore Dilution .................................................................................... 189

16.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 217

21.2 Unit Operating Cost Estimate – Palmarejo ................................................. 248

Figure 16.10. Geotechnical Model, Independencia Mine (Coeur, 2015)...........................................221

1.1 Property Description and Location

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 1 of 289

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 2 of 289

Figure 1.2. Localized Map of the Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

In addition to infill exploration drilling (Category 3), near-mine exploration drilling

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 3 of 289

1.3 Sample Preparation, Security, and Analyses

1.4 Data Verification

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 4 of 289

1.5 Status of Development and Mine Operations

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 5 of 289

1.6 Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

Figure 1.3. Mineral Deposit Locations – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 6 of 289

Table 1.2. Mineral Reserves – Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 7 of 289

Inferred 1,505,000 165 2.97 7,998,000 143,500

1.7 Economic Analysis

 Mineral Reserves as of August 31, 2015;

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 8 of 289

 Capital cost estimates for the remaining construction, sustaining and

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 9 of 289

Table 1.4. Life of Mine Economic Analysis (Coeur, 2015)

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 10 of 289

Table 1.6. Yearly Production and Cash Flows (Coeur, 2015)

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 11 of 289

Figure 1.4. Sensitivity of Pre-tax Cash Flow (Coeur, 2015)

1.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

It is recommended to further advance development and production at the Palmarejo,

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 12 of 289

 For definition purposes, it is recommended that the exploration program be

 Review all check sample programs for appropriateness of analytical methods

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 13 of 289

 Continue efforts towards improving metal accounting by evaluating sample

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 14 of 289

2.1 Terms of Reference

2.2 Qualified Persons

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 15 of 289

Table 2.1. Qualified Person Responsibilities- Palmarejo Complex (Coeur, 2015)

2.3 Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 16 of 289

 Justin Glanvill is Principal Geologist at AMC Consultants (UK), an international

2.4 Effective Dates

The information in this Report is effective as of August 31, 2015.

2.5 Previous Technical Reports

 Gustin, Michael M., "Technical Report, Palmarejo – Trogan Project, Chihuahua,

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 17 of 289

 Blaylock, Gregory, and John L. Sims. ―Palmarejo Project SW Chihuahua State,

Palmarejo Complex NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 18 of 289