0001543418false2021FYUnlimitedUnlimitedA1NYSEAMERP3Y0001543418us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusUnitsMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusStockbasedCompensationMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusMember2021-11-300001543418us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusUnitsMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusStockbasedCompensationMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusMember2020-11-300001543418us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2019-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusUnitsMember2019-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusStockbasedCompensationMember2019-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusMember2019-11-300001543418us-gaap:WarrantMember2018-11-300001543418us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2018-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusUnitsMember2018-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusStockbasedCompensationMember2018-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusMember2018-11-3000015434182003-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:CommonStockMember2018-11-300001543418us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:NonvestedOptionsMember2021-11-300001543418us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:EmployeeMemberus-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMemberus-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2021-12-092021-12-090001543418srt:DirectorMemberus-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMemberus-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2021-12-092021-12-090001543418tmq:EmployeesConsultantsAndDirectorsMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:EmployeesConsultantsAndDirectorsMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418tmq:EmployeesConsultantsAndDirectorsMember2018-12-012019-11-300001543418us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:RangeTwoMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:RangeThreeMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:RangeOneMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:RangeFourMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:RangeFiveMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:EmployeeMemberus-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMemberus-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2021-12-090001543418tmq:NumberOfDsusMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:EmployeeMemberus-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMemberus-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2021-12-092021-12-090001543418srt:DirectorMembertmq:DeferredStockUnitsDsusMemberus-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2021-12-092021-12-090001543418us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:NumberOfDsusMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418tmq:NumberOfDsusMember2018-12-012019-11-300001543418srt:MinimumMembertmq:EmployeesConsultantsAndDirectorsMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418srt:MaximumMembertmq:EmployeesConsultantsAndDirectorsMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418srt:MaximumMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:StockOptionMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:StockCompensationPlanMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusUnitsMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusStockbasedCompensationMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:StockOptionMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418us-gaap:StockCompensationPlanMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusUnitsMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusStockbasedCompensationMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418us-gaap:StockOptionMember2018-12-012019-11-300001543418us-gaap:StockCompensationPlanMember2018-12-012019-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusStockbasedCompensationMember2018-12-012019-11-300001543418tmq:EquitySettledAwardsMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:ArcticProjectMember2010-01-112020-11-300001543418tmq:ArcticProjectMember2020-02-112020-11-300001543418tmq:ArcticProjectMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418us-gaap:ServiceAgreementsMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:ServiceAgreementsMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418tmq:AmblerMetalsLlcMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418srt:RestatementAdjustmentMembercountry:CAus-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201602Memberus-gaap:LeaseholdImprovementsMember2020-11-300001543418srt:RestatementAdjustmentMemberus-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201602Member2020-11-300001543418srt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418srt:MaximumMemberus-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:VehiclesMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:FurnitureAndFixturesMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:ComputerEquipmentMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418srt:RestatementAdjustmentMembertmq:AkMemberus-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201602Memberus-gaap:VehiclesMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418srt:RestatementAdjustmentMembertmq:AkMemberus-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201602Memberus-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418srt:RestatementAdjustmentMemberus-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201602Member2019-12-012020-11-300001543418tmq:BornitePropertyMember2011-10-192011-10-190001543418tmq:LossesInCanadaSubjectToLimitationsMember2015-06-190001543418srt:CumulativeEffectPeriodOfAdoptionAdjustedBalanceMember2020-11-300001543418srt:CumulativeEffectPeriodOfAdoptionAdjustedBalanceMember2019-11-300001543418us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2018-12-012019-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:WestKobukPropertyMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:EastAmblerPropertyMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:BornitePropertyMember2019-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:AmblerPropertyMember2019-11-300001543418tmq:AkMember2019-11-300001543418tmq:AmblerMetalsLlcMember2020-02-112020-11-300001543418tmq:CanadianLimitDueToCurrencyRiskMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:AmblerMetalsLlcMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:AmblerMetalsLlcMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:South32LimitedMembertmq:AmblerMetalsLlcMember2020-02-110001543418tmq:South32LimitedMembertmq:AmblerMetalsLlcMembertmq:UpperKobukMineralProjectsMember2020-02-110001543418country:CAus-gaap:OfficeEquipmentMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418country:CA2020-12-012021-11-300001543418country:CAus-gaap:OfficeEquipmentMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418country:CAus-gaap:LeaseholdImprovementsMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418country:CA2019-12-012020-11-300001543418us-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201517Membertmq:UsLossesSubjectToLimitationsMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:TwoZeroTwoTwoMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:TwoZeroTwoFourMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:TwoZeroTwoFiveMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:TwoThousandAndTwentyThreeMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:ThereafterMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:CAMembertmq:ThereafterMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:CAMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMember2003-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:OptionAgreementToFormJointVentureMemberus-gaap:ScenarioPlanMembertmq:South32LimitedMember2017-04-102017-04-100001543418us-gaap:LeaseAgreementsMember2021-11-300001543418us-gaap:AccountsPayableAndAccruedLiabilitiesMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:NumberOfDsusMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:NovaGoldArrangementMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:NovaGoldArrangementMember2012-04-302012-04-3000015434182018-11-300001543418us-gaap:CommonStockMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:WestKobukPropertyMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:EastAmblerPropertyMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:AkMemberus-gaap:VehiclesMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418tmq:AkMemberus-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418country:CAus-gaap:LeaseholdImprovementsMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418country:CAus-gaap:OfficeEquipmentMember2021-11-300001543418country:CAus-gaap:LeaseholdImprovementsMember2021-11-300001543418country:CA2021-11-300001543418country:CAus-gaap:OfficeEquipmentMember2020-11-300001543418country:CAus-gaap:LeaseholdImprovementsMember2020-11-300001543418country:CA2020-11-300001543418tmq:AkMemberus-gaap:VehiclesMember2019-11-300001543418tmq:AkMemberus-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2019-11-300001543418country:CAus-gaap:OfficeEquipmentMember2019-11-300001543418country:CAus-gaap:LeaseholdImprovementsMember2019-11-300001543418country:CA2019-11-3000015434182019-11-300001543418us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentNonconsolidatedInvesteeOrGroupOfInvesteesMember2021-11-300001543418us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentNonconsolidatedInvesteeOrGroupOfInvesteesMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:RangeTwoMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:RangeThreeMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:RangeOneMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:RangeFourMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:RangeFiveMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:NumberOfDsusMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:OptionAgreementToFormJointVentureMembertmq:South32LimitedMember2017-04-102017-04-100001543418srt:MinimumMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:AmblerMetalsLlcMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:BornitePropertyMember2011-10-190001543418srt:MinimumMembertmq:BornitePropertyMember2011-10-190001543418srt:MaximumMembertmq:BornitePropertyMember2011-10-190001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:AmblerPropertyMember2010-01-110001543418us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentNonconsolidatedInvesteeOrGroupOfInvesteesMember2020-12-012021-11-300001543418us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentNonconsolidatedInvesteeOrGroupOfInvesteesMember2020-02-112020-11-300001543418srt:RestatementAdjustmentMember2020-02-112020-11-300001543418tmq:OptionAgreementToFormJointVentureMembertmq:South32LimitedMember2017-04-100001543418tmq:OptionAgreementToFormJointVentureMemberus-gaap:ScenarioPlanMembertmq:South32LimitedMember2017-04-100001543418us-gaap:CommonStockMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418us-gaap:WarrantMember2018-12-012019-11-3000015434182018-12-012019-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:BornitePropertyMember2011-10-1900015434182019-12-012020-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:BornitePropertyMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:AkMembertmq:AmblerPropertyMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:AkMember2020-11-300001543418tmq:OptionAgreementToFormJointVentureMembertmq:UpperKobukMineralProjectsMember2020-02-110001543418tmq:OptionAgreementToFormJointVentureMembertmq:South32LimitedMember2020-02-110001543418us-gaap:CommonStockMember2018-12-012019-11-300001543418tmq:ContributedSurplusUnitsMember2018-12-012019-11-3000015434182021-11-3000015434182020-11-300001543418tmq:AkMember2019-12-012020-11-300001543418tmq:AkMember2018-12-012019-11-300001543418us-gaap:StockOptionMember2021-11-300001543418tmq:CanadianLimitDueToCurrencyRiskMember2021-11-300001543418us-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201517Member2020-12-012021-11-300001543418tmq:AmblerMetalsLlcMember2020-02-110001543418us-gaap:CommonStockMember2021-11-300001543418us-gaap:CommonStockMember2020-11-300001543418us-gaap:CommonStockMember2019-11-3000015434182021-05-3100015434182022-02-1100015434182020-12-012021-11-30xbrli:sharesiso4217:USDxbrli:puretmq:Owneriso4217:CADiso4217:USDxbrli:sharesiso4217:CADxbrli:shares

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

1

For the Fiscal Year Ended November 30, 2021

OR

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Transition Period from       to

Commission File Number: 1-35447

A close-up of a logo

Description automatically generated with low confidence

TRILOGY METALS INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

British Columbia

98-1006991

(State or Other Jurisdiction of

(I.R.S. Employer

Incorporation or Organization)

Identification No.)

Suite 1150, 609 Granville Street

Vancouver, British Columbia

Canada

V7Y 1G5

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(Zip Code)

(604) 638-8088

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Title of Each Class

    

Trading Symbol

    

Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered

Common Shares, no par value

TMQ

NYSE AMERICAN

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes   No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes   No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large Accelerated Filer

Accelerated Filer

Non-accelerated Filer

Smaller reporting company

Emerging growth company

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management's assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.  

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes No

As at May 31, 2021, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Shares held by non-affiliates was approximately $173 million. As of February 11, 2022, the registrant had 145,464,286 Common Shares, no par value, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain portions of the registrant's definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than March 30, 2022, in connection with the registrant’s 2022 annual meeting of shareholders, are incorporated herein by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

TRILOGY METALS INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CURRENCY

3

 

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

3

 

CAUTIONARY NOTE TO UNITED STATES INVESTORS

6

 

GLOSSARY

7

PART I

10

  

 

Item 1.

BUSINESS

10

Item 1A.

RISK FACTORS

17

Item 1B.

UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

31

Item 2.

PROPERTIES

31

Item 3.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

78

Item 4.

MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

78

 

PART II

79

 

Item 5.

MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

79

Item 6.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

88

Item 7.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

88

Item 8.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

103

Item 9.

CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

128

Item 9A.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

128

Item 9B.

OTHER INFORMATION

128

 

PART III

129

 

Item 10.

DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

129

Item 11.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

129

Item 12.

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

129

Item 13.

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

129

Item 14.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

130

 

PART IV

130

 

Item 15.

EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

130

Item 16.

FORM 10-K SUMMARY

147

2

Table of Contents

Unless the context otherwise requires, the words “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Company” and “Trilogy” refer to Trilogy Metals Inc., formerly NovaCopper Inc. (“Trilogy” or “Trilogy Metals”), a British Columbia corporation, either alone or together with its subsidiaries as the context requires, as of November 30, 2021.

CURRENCY

All dollar amounts are in United States currency unless otherwise stated. References to C$ or CDN$ refer to Canadian currency, and $ or US$ to United States currency.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The information discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K includes “forward-looking information” and “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and applicable Canadian securities laws. These forward-looking statements may include statements regarding perceived merit of properties, exploration results and budgets, mineral reserves and resource estimates, work programs, capital expenditures, operating costs, cash flow estimates, production estimates and similar statements relating to the economic viability of a project, timelines, strategic plans, statements relating anticipated activity with respect to the Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Project (“AMDIAP”), the Company’s plans and expectations relating to the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects (as defined herein), completion of transactions, market prices for precious and base metals, the results of the Arctic FS (as defined herein) or other statements that are not statements of fact. These statements relate to analyses and other information that are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and assumptions of management.

Statements concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to constitute “forward-looking statements” to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that will be encountered if the property is developed. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, identified by words or phrases such as “expects”, “is expected”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “plans”, “projects”, “estimates”, “assumes”, “intends”, “strategy”, “goals”, “objectives”, “potential”, “possible” or variations thereof or stating that certain actions, events, conditions or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “should”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ from those reflected in the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation:

risks related to the COVID-19 pandemic;
risks related to inability to define proven and probable reserves;
risks related to our ability to finance the development of our mineral properties through external financing, strategic alliances, the sale of property interests or otherwise;
uncertainty as to whether there will ever be production at the Company’s mineral exploration and development properties;
risks related to our ability to commence production and generate material revenues or obtain adequate financing for our planned exploration and development activities;
risks related to lack of infrastructure including but not limited to the risk whether or not the AMDIAP will receive the requisite permits and, if it does, whether the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (“AIDEA”) will build the AMDIAP;

3

Table of Contents

risks related to inclement weather which may delay or hinder exploration activities at our mineral properties;
risks related to our dependence on a third party for the development of our projects;
none of the Company’s mineral properties are in production or are under development;
commodity price fluctuations;
uncertainty related to title to our mineral properties;
our history of losses and expectation of future losses;
risks related to increases in demand for equipment, skilled labor and services needed for exploration and development of mineral properties and related cost increases;
uncertainties relating to the assumptions underlying our resource estimates, such as metal pricing, metallurgy, mineability, marketability and operating and capital costs;
uncertainty related to inferred, indicated and measured mineral resources;
mining and development risks, including risks related to infrastructure, accidents, equipment breakdowns, labor disputes or other unanticipated difficulties with or interruptions in development, construction or production;
uncertainty related to successfully acquiring commercially mineable mineral rights;
risks and uncertainties relating to the interpretation of drill results, the geology, grade and continuity of our mineral deposits;
risks related to governmental regulation and permits, including environmental regulation, including the risk that more stringent requirements or standards may be adopted or applied due to circumstances unrelated to the Company and outside of our control;
the risk that permits and governmental approvals necessary to develop and operate mines at our mineral properties will not be available on a timely basis or at all;
risks related to the need for reclamation activities on our properties and uncertainty of cost estimates related thereto;
risks related to the acquisition and integration of operations or projects;
risks related to industry competition in the acquisition of exploration properties and the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel;
our need to attract and retain qualified management and technical personnel;
risks related to conflicts of interests of some of our directors and officers;
risks related to potential future litigation;
risks related to market events and general economic conditions;
risks related to future sales or issuances of equity securities decreasing the value of existing Trilogy common shares (“Common Shares”), diluting voting power and reducing future earnings per share;

4

Table of Contents

risks related to the voting power of our major shareholders and the impact that a sale by such shareholders may have on our share price;
uncertainty as to the volatility in the price of the Company’s Common Shares;
the Company’s expectation of not paying cash dividends;
adverse federal income tax consequences for U.S. shareholders should the Company be a passive foreign investment company;
risks related to global climate change;
risks related to adverse publicity from non-governmental organizations;
uncertainty as to our ability to maintain the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting as per the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”); and
increased regulatory compliance costs, associated with rules and regulations promulgated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Canadian Securities Administrators, the NYSE American, the Toronto Stock Exchange (“TSX”), and the Financial Accounting Standards Boards, and more specifically, our efforts to comply with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”).

This list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect any of our forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements about the future and are inherently uncertain, and our actual achievements or other future events or conditions may differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors, including, without limitation, those referred to in this report under the heading “Risk Factors” and elsewhere.

Our forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, expectations and opinions of management on the date the statements are made. In connection with the forward-looking statements contained herein, we have made certain assumptions about our business, including about:

our ability to achieve production at our Arctic and Bornite Projects (as defined herein);
the accuracy of our mineral resource estimates;
the results, costs and timing of future exploration drilling and engineering;
timing and receipt of approvals, consents and permits under applicable legislation;
the adequacy of our financial resources;
the receipt of third party contractual, regulatory and governmental approvals for the exploration, development, construction and production of our properties;
our expected ability to develop adequate infrastructure and that the cost of doing so will be reasonable;
continued good relationships with South32 (as defined below), local communities and other stakeholders;
there being no significant disruptions affecting operations, whether relating to labor, supply, power, damage to equipment or other matters;
expected trends and specific assumptions regarding metal prices and currency exchange rates; and

5

Table of Contents

prices for and availability of fuel, electricity, parts and equipment and other key supplies remaining consistent with current levels.

We have also assumed that no significant events will occur outside of our normal course of business. Although we have attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. We believe that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date hereof. However, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and, accordingly, undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein. We do not assume any obligation to update forward-looking statements if circumstances or management’s beliefs, expectations or opinions should change, except as required by law. For the reasons set forth above, investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements contained herein are qualified by these cautionary statements.

CAUTIONARY NOTE TO UNITED STATES INVESTORS

Unless otherwise indicated, all resource estimates, and any reserve estimates, included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been, and will be, prepared in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (“CIM Definition Standards”). NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the Canadian Securities Administrators which establishes standards for all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning mineral projects. NI 43-101 permits the disclosure of an historical estimate made prior to the adoption of NI 43-101 that does not comply with NI 43-101 to be disclosed using the historical terminology if the disclosure: (a) identifies the source and date of the historical estimate; (b) comments on the relevance and reliability of the historical estimate; (c) to the extent known, provides the key assumptions, parameters and methods used to prepare the historical estimate; (d) states whether the historical estimate uses categories other than those prescribed by NI 43-101; and (e) includes any more recent estimates or data available.

6

Table of Contents

Canadian standards, including NI 43-101, differ significantly from the requirements of the SEC, and reserve and resource information contained or incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K may not be comparable to similar information disclosed by U.S. companies. In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the term “resource” does not equate to the term “reserves”. Under SEC Industry Guide 7, 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 determination is made. SEC Industry Guide 7 does not define and the SEC’s disclosure standards normally do not permit the inclusion of information concerning “measured mineral resources”, “indicated mineral resources” or “inferred mineral resources” or other descriptions of the amount of mineralization in mineral deposits that do not constitute “reserves” by U.S. standards in documents filed with the SEC. U.S. investors should also understand that “inferred mineral resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. Under Canadian rules, subject to certain exceptions, estimated “inferred mineral resources” may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an “inferred mineral resource” exists or is economically or legally mineable. Disclosure of “contained ounces” in a resource is permitted disclosure under Canadian regulations; however, the SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute “reserves” by SEC standards as in-place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures. The requirements of NI 43-101 for identification of “reserves” are also not the same as those of the SEC, and any reserves reported by us in compliance with NI 43-101 may not qualify as “reserves” under SEC standards. We have no known reserves as defined in SEC Industry Guide 7. Accordingly, information concerning mineral deposits set forth herein may not be comparable to similar information made public by United States companies subject to reporting and disclosure requirements under United States federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

The SEC adopted new mining property disclosure rules ("SK 1300") that will replace SEC Industry Guide 7. SK 1300 will apply to companies beginning with a company's first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2021, which for us would be the fiscal year beginning December 1, 2021. While allowed to comply with SK 1300 early, we have not chosen to do so.

GLOSSARY

We estimate and report our resources and reserves according to the definitions set forth in NI 43-101. We will modify and reconcile the reserves as appropriate to conform to SEC Industry Guide 7 for reporting in the U.S. The definitions for each reporting standard are presented below with supplementary explanation and descriptions of the parallels and differences.

For a glossary of certain technical terms used throughout this Form 10-K, see Item 2 Properties, Glossary of Technical Terms.

7

Table of Contents

CIM Definition Standards, adopted by CIM Council on May 10, 2014:

feasibility study” means a comprehensive technical and economic study of the selected development option for a mineral project that includes appropriately detailed assessments of applicable modifying factors together with any other relevant operational factors and detailed financial analysis that are necessary to demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that the extraction is reasonably justified (economically mineable). The results of the study may reasonably serve as the basis for a final decision by a proponent or financial institution to proceed with, or finance, the development of the project. The confidence level of the study will be higher than that of a pre-feasibility study.

indicated mineral resource” means that part of a mineral resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation. An indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a measured mineral resource and may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve.

inferred mineral resource” means that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity. An inferred mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than that applied 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.

measured mineral resource” means that part of a mineral resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the application of modifying factors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to confirm geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation. A measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than that applying to either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource. It may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve.

mineral reserve” means the economically mineable part of a measured and/or indicated mineral resource. It includes diluting materials and allowances for losses, which may occur when the material is mined or extracted and is defined by studies at pre-feasibility or feasibility level as appropriate that include application of modifying factors. Such studies demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction could reasonably be justified. The reference point at which mineral reserves are defined, usually the point where the ore is delivered to the processing plant, must be stated. It is important that, in all situations where the reference point is different, such as for a saleable product, a clarifying statement is included to ensure that the reader is fully informed as to what is being reported. The public disclosure of a mineral reserve must be demonstrated by a pre-feasibility or feasibility study.

mineral resource” means a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade or quality, continuity and other geologic characteristics of a mineral resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling.

modifying factors” means the considerations used to convert mineral resources to mineral reserves. These include, but are not restricted to, mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors.

8

Table of Contents

pre-feasibility study (preliminary feasibility study)” means a comprehensive study or a range of options for the technical and economic viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where a preferred mining method, in the case of underground mining, or the pit configuration, in the case of an open pit, is established and an effective method of mineral processing is determined. It includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions on the modifying factors and the evaluation of any other relevant factors which are sufficient for a Qualified Person, acting reasonably, to determine if all or part of the mineral resource many be converted to a mineral reserve at the time of reporting. A pre-feasibility study is at a lower confidence level than a feasibility study.

probable mineral reserve” means the economically mineable part of an indicated, and in some circumstances, a measured mineral resource. The confidence in the modifying factors applying to a probable mineral reserve is lower than that applying to a proven mineral reserve.

proven mineral reserve” means the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource. A proven mineral reserve implies a high degree of confidence in the modifying factors.

SEC Industry Guide 7 Definitions:

exploration stage” deposit is one which is not in either the development or production stage.

development stage” project is one which is undergoing preparation of an established commercially mineable deposit for its extraction but which is not yet in production. This stage occurs after completion of a feasibility study.

mineralized material” refers to material that is not included in the reserve as it does not meet all of the criteria for adequate demonstration for economic or legal extraction.

probable reserve” refers to reserves for which quantity and grade and/or quality are computed from information similar to that used for proven (measured) reserves, but the sites for inspection, sampling, and measurement are farther apart or are otherwise less adequately spaced. The degree of assurance, although lower than that for proven reserves, is high enough to assume continuity between points of observation.

production stage” project is actively engaged in the process of extraction and beneficiation of mineral reserves to produce a marketable metal or mineral product.

proven reserve” refers to reserves for which (a) quantity is computed from dimensions revealed in outcrops, trenches, workings or drill holes; grade and/or quality are computed from the results of detailed sampling and (b) the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are spaced so closely and the geologic character is so well defined that size, shape, depth and mineral content of reserves are well-established.

reserve” refers to that part of a mineral deposit which could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the time of the reserve determination. Reserves must be supported by a feasibility study done to bankable standards that demonstrates the economic extraction. (“Bankable standards” implies that the confidence attached to the costs and achievements developed in the study is sufficient for the project to be eligible for external debt financing.) A reserve includes adjustments to the in-situ tonnes and grade to include diluting materials and allowances for losses that might occur when the material is mined.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Richard Gosse, a Qualified Person under NI 43-101 and an employee and Vice President Exploration of the Company has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

9

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1.     BUSINESS

Our principal business is the exploration and development of the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects (“Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects” or  “UKMP” or “UKMP Projects”) located in the Ambler mining district in Northwest Alaska, United States. The Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects are held by Ambler Metals LLC (“Ambler Metals”), a limited liability company owned equally by Trilogy and South32 Limited (“South32”) (as defined below), and is comprised of the (i) Arctic Project, which contains a high-grade polymetallic volcanogenic massive sulfide (“VMS”) deposit (“Arctic Project”); and (ii) Bornite Project, which contains a carbonate-hosted copper - cobalt deposit (“Bornite Project”). Our goals include expanding mineral resources and advancing the UKMP Projects through technical, engineering and feasibility studies so that production decisions can be made on those projects. Our interest in Ambler Metals is held by a wholly-owned subsidiary, NovaCopper US Inc. (dba Trilogy Metals US) (“Trilogy Metals US”), registered to do business in the State of Alaska. We also conduct early-stage exploration through a wholly owned subsidiary, 995 Exploration Inc.

Name, Address and Incorporation

Trilogy Metals Inc. was incorporated on April 27, 2011 under the name NovaCopper Inc. pursuant to the terms of the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia). NovaCopper Inc. changed its name to Trilogy Metals Inc. on September 1, 2016 to better reflect its diversified metals resource base. Our registered office is located at Suite 2600, Three Bentall Centre, 595 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and our executive office is located at Suite 1150, 609 Granville Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

10

Table of Contents

Corporate Organization Chart

The following chart depicts our corporate structure together with the jurisdiction of incorporation of our subsidiaries at November 30, 2021. All ownership is 100% unless otherwise stated.

Graphic

On February 11, 2020, the Company’s Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects were transferred to Ambler Metals, a newly incorporated limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Each of Trilogy and South32 hold a 50% interest in Ambler Metals. All mineral resources and mineral reserve estimates with respect to the Arctic Project and Bornite Project that are disclosed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are reported on a 100% basis. See “Significant Developments in 2020”.

Business Cycle

Our business, at its current exploration phase, is cyclical. Exploration activities are conducted primarily during snow-free months in Alaska. The optimum field season at the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects is from late May to late September. The length of the snow-free season at the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects varies from about May through November at lower elevations and from July through September at higher elevations.

Trilogy’s Strategy

Our business strategy is focused on creating value for stakeholders through our ownership and advancement of the Arctic Project and exploration and advancement of the Bornite Project with our joint venture partner, South32, and through the pursuit of similarly attractive mining projects. We plan to:

advance the Arctic Project towards development with key activities including increased definition of the NI 43-101 mineral resources and reserves contained in the Arctic FS (as defined below), additional metallurgical and geotechnical studies and the advancement of baseline environmental studies;

11

Table of Contents

advance exploration in the Ambler mining district and, in particular, at the Bornite Project, pursuant to the NANA Agreement (as more particularly described under “History of Trilogy – Agreement with NANA Regional Corporation”) through resource development and initial technical studies; and
pursue project level or corporate transactions that are value accretive.

Significant Developments in 2021

On January 6, 2021, the United States Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), the National Park Service (“NPS”) and the AIDEA signed Right-of-Way agreements giving AIDEA the ability to cross federally owned and managed lands along the route for the Ambler Road Project approved in the Joint Record of Decision. The agreements grant a 50-year right-of-way on federally owned and managed land by the federal agencies for the future development of the Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Road. The authorizing documents with the two agencies are the final federal permits required for the Ambler Road Project.
In a press release dated February 11, 2021, the Company announced its approval for Ambler Metals to enter into an Ambler Access Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) with AIDEA. The Development Agreement defines how AIDEA and Ambler Metals will work cooperatively together on the pre-development work for the Ambler Access Project to address funding and oversight of the project’s feasibility and permitting activities until the parties reach a decision on the construction of the project. The cost of the pre-development work and activities will be paid 50% by AIDEA and 50% by Ambler Metals based on an annually agreed program and budget. Under the Development Agreement, Ambler Metals and AIDEA agree to contribute up to $35 million each for pre-development costs of the Ambler Access Project through December 31, 2024.
In a press release dated April 19, 2021, the Company announced that the AIDEA had formally approved the proposed plan and budget for the 2021 summer field season activities and services of up to $13 million for the Ambler Access Project (“AAP”). The cost was to be shared 50/50 by AIDEA and Ambler Metals. The Board of AIDEA authorized up to $6.5 million for field season activities. These funds were to be matched by up to another $6.5 million from Ambler Metals under the terms of the Ambler Access Development Agreement that was approved by the AIDEA Board on February 10, 2021 and subsequently executed by both parties, resulting in a total budget for 2021 of up to $13 million. The AAP is a proposed 211-mile, east-west running controlled industrial access road that would provide industrial access to the Ambler Mining District in northwestern Alaska.
In a press release dated May 17, 2021, the Company announced that Ambler Metals had finalized the details of the 2021 exploration field program at the UKMP for the previously approved $27 million exploration budget. The exploration program was aligned with a strategy developed by the Company and South32 which prioritizes the exploration budget within the UKMP. The strategy defines a program that advances the highest priority projects and exploration targets, both VMS and Carbonate-Hosted Copper (“CHC”), ranging from early-stage geophysical anomalies that were identified during the 2019 airborne Versatile Time Domain Electromagnetic (“VTEM”) survey to advanced VMS and CHC prospects with historical resources. The site camp opened on June 1, 2021.

Significant Developments in 2020

On April 10, 2017, we entered into an option agreement, as amended (the “South32 Option Agreement”) with South32 Group Operations Pty Ltd (“South32 Operations”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of South32 Limited, which agreement was later assigned by South32 Operations to its affiliate, South32 USA Exploration Inc. (together with South32 Operations, “South32”). The South32 Option Agreement granted to South32 a three-year option to form a 50/50 joint venture with respect to Trilogy’s Alaskan assets which includes the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects. South32 was required to contribute a minimum of $10 million each year, for a maximum of three years, to keep the option in good standing (the “Initial Funding”). If South32 elected to exercise the

12

Table of Contents

option, the subscription price less certain deductions for Initial Funding was to be paid in one tranche within 45 business days. Had South32 not made its annual minimum payment or elected to withdraw, the option would lapse and South32 would have no claim to ownership or to the funds it had already spent. In order to exercise its option to form the Joint Venture, South32 was required to contribute a minimum of $150 million, plus (i) any amounts Trilogy spent on matched parallel funding to a maximum of $16 million over the three year period and (ii) $10 million, less the amount of the Initial Funding contributed by South32. On December 19, 2019, we announced in a press release that South32 had exercised its option to acquire a 50% interest in a joint venture company to be named “Ambler Metals LLC” which now owns the UKMP Projects.
On February 11, 2020, we announced that the formation of Ambler Metals had completed, with the Company contributing its assets associated with the UKMP Projects, and South32 contributing a subscription price payment of US$145 million, to the joint venture.
In a press release dated February 26, 2020, the Company announced that Ambler Metals had approved a 2020 program budget of $22.8 million for the advancement of the UKMP Projects. The budget was to be 100% funded by Ambler Metals. The 2020 program budget included 10,000 meters of drilling at the Arctic Project, 2,500 meters of drilling within the Ambler VMS belt and geological mapping and geochemical soil sampling at the Bornite Project.
Subsequent to the approval of the 2020 program budget, the Company and its joint venture partner, South32, decided not to proceed with the 2020 exploration program after assessing the coronavirus (COVID-19) environment. Ambler Metals gave due consideration to the merits of carrying out an abridged work program at the UKMP Projects. However, given the continued uncertainty resulting from COVID-19, ongoing safety concerns (despite added safety protocols including physical distancing, protective equipment and testing) and the fact that, due to COVID-19, the planned field season had already been delayed to the point at which any field season would provide limited critical path benefits, the decision was made not to proceed with a 2020 field season.
On April 20, 2020, we issued a press release announcing the appointment of Tony Giardini as President and Chief Executive Officer effective June 1, 2020. Mr. Giardini has been a director of the Company since 2012 when the Company was formed and will continue to be an executive director. James (Jim) Gowans, the Interim President and Chief Executive Officer, remained in his role as a director of the Company.
In a press release dated July 23, 2020, the Company, along with our joint venture partner, South32, announced the signing of the Record of Decision by BLM for the Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Project. The Record of Decision approves the development of the northern route, which is to be a 211-mile private gravel access road in the southern Brooks Range foothills to provide industrial access to the Ambler Mining District.
In a press release dated August 20, 2020, the Company announced the positive results of its feasibility study for the Arctic Project (the “Arctic FS”). The Arctic FS was prepared on a 100% ownership basis, of which Trilogy’s share is 50%. The Arctic FS describes the technical and economic viability of establishing a conventional open-pit copper-zinc-lead-silver-gold mine and mill complex for a 10,000 tonne per day operation for a minimum 12-year mine life. See the 2020 Arctic Report (as defined below) and “Properties” for additional information.
On August 25, 2020, we issued a press release to announce that the board of Ambler Metals had appointed Ramzi Fawaz as President and Chief Executive Officer of Ambler Metals effective as of September 1, 2020. Mr Fawaz joined Ambler Metals from Newmont Corporation where he was Senior Vice President Projects from February 2011 to October 2019, with responsibility for the development and execution of Newmont’s major gold and copper projects globally.
On September 3, 2020, we issued a press release announcing that the Company had hired Richard Gosse as Vice President Exploration of the Company with immediate effect.

13

Table of Contents

On October 2, 2020, we filed the technical report for the Company’s Arctic Project entitled “Arctic Feasibility Study Alaska, USA NI 43-101 Technical Report" with an effective date of August 20, 2020, prepared by Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc., Wood Canada Limited and SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (the “2020 Arctic Report”). The technical report describes the Arctic FS on the Arctic Project as discussed above. The 2020 Arctic Report supersedes the Company’s 2018 Arctic Report (as defined below).
On November 19, 2020, we issued a press release announcing that Ambler Metals had approved the 2021 program and budget of approximately $27 million for the advancement of the UKMP Projects. The budget will be 100% funded by Ambler Metals.

Significant Developments in 2019

On March 5, 2019, we issued a press release to announce additional copper and cobalt metallurgical results for the Bornite Project. Nine metallurgical composite samples were prepared from materials obtained from drilling at the Bornite Project during 2017 and 2018.  Each of these test samples were approximately 60 to 120 kilograms in mass and represented approximately 30 to 100 meters of drill core. Mineralogical analysis of each of the nine composites was completed, indicating that a majority of the copper mineralization occurred as chalcopyrite, with minor amounts of bornite and variable pyrite levels within the test samples.
On June 28, 2019, we issued a press release to announce that all the Company’s outstanding warrants had been exercised in advance of the expiry date. Three of the Company’s largest shareholders exercised 6,521,740 in outstanding warrants. As a result of this warrant exercise, we issued a total of 6,521,740 common shares of the Company and received cash proceeds of approximately $9.9 million.
On August 26, 2019, we issued a press release reporting the public release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) Statement by the BLM for the AMDIAP and the Environmental and Economic Analysis by the NPS for that portion of AMDIAP that traverses the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. The public comment period of 45 days had commenced with comments on the Draft EIS being accepted through October 15, 2019. On March 27, 2020, we issued a press release announcing that the Final EIS had been publicly released.
On September 5, 2019, we issued a press release announcing the resignation of Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse as CEO, President and director of Trilogy Metals. James Gowans was appointed CEO and President on an interim basis. Mr. Van Nieuwenhuyse remained a consultant to the Company until February 29, 2020 to assist with transitional matters and with advancing our interests in Alaska.
On October 31, 2019, we filed a final short form base shelf prospectus with the securities commissions in each of the provinces of Canada, other than Québec, and a corresponding registration statement on Form S-3 with the SEC allowing for the future issuance, from time to time, of up to $100,000,000 in common shares, warrants to purchase common shares, share purchase contracts of the Company, subscription receipts, units or a combination of those securities. The intention of the base shelf prospectus and shelf registration statement is to allow the Company to more quickly access capital when the capital is needed and as market opportunities permit.

History of Trilogy

Spin-Out

We were formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of NovaGold Resources Inc. (“NovaGold”). In April 2012, Trilogy Common Shares were distributed to NovaGold shareholders pursuant to a Plan of Arrangement under the Companies Act (Nova Scotia) and were listed and posted for trading on the TSX and on the NYSE American.

14

Table of Contents

Name Change

We changed our corporate name to Trilogy Metals Inc. from NovaCopper Inc. in 2016 to better reflect the diversity of minerals at our UKMP Projects. On September 8, 2016, upon the opening of the markets our shares began trading on the TSX and the NYSE American under the symbol “TMQ”.

Agreement with NANA Regional Corporation

On October 19, 2011, NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. (“NANA”), an Alaska Native Corporation headquartered in Kotzebue, Alaska, and Trilogy Metals US entered an Exploration Agreement and Option Agreement (as amended, the “NANA Agreement”) for the cooperative development of NANA’s respective resource interests in the Ambler mining district of Northwest Alaska. Upon the formation of Ambler Metals, the Company assigned its rights and obligations under the NANA Agreement to Ambler Metals.  The NANA Agreement consolidates Ambler Metals’ and NANA’s land holdings into an approximately 142,831-hectare land package and provides a framework for the exploration and any future development of this high-grade and prospective poly-metallic belt.

The NANA Agreement grants Ambler Metals the nonexclusive right to enter on, and the exclusive right to explore, the Bornite lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (“ANCSA”) lands (each as defined in the NANA Agreement) and in connection therewith, to construct and utilize temporary access roads, camps, airstrips and other incidental works.  In consideration for this right, Trilogy Metals US previously paid to NANA $4 million in cash.  Ambler Metals is also required to make payments to NANA for scholarship purposes in accordance with the terms of the NANA Agreement.  Ambler Metals has further agreed to use reasonable commercial efforts to train and employ NANA shareholders to perform work for Ambler Metals in connection with its operations on the Bornite lands, ANCSA lands and Ambler lands (as defined in the NANA Agreement) (collectively, the “Lands”). The NANA Agreement has a term of 20 years, with an option in favour of Ambler Metals to extend the term for an additional 10 years. The NANA Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties or by NANA if Ambler Metals does not meet certain expenditure requirements on the Bornite lands and ANCSA lands.

If, following receipt of a feasibility study and the release for public comment of a related draft environmental impact statement, Ambler Metals decides to proceed with construction of a mine on the Lands, Ambler Metals will notify NANA in writing and NANA will have 120 days to elect to either (a) exercise a non-transferrable back-in-right to acquire an undivided ownership interest between 16% and 25% (as specified by NANA) of that specific project; or (b) not exercise its back-in-right, and instead receive a net proceeds royalty equal to 15% of the net proceeds realized by Ambler Metals from such project (following the recoupment by Ambler Metals of all costs incurred, including operating, capital and carrying costs). The cost to exercise such back-in-right is equal to the percentage interest in the project multiplied by the difference between (i) all costs incurred by Ambler Metals or its affiliates on the project, including historical costs incurred prior to the date of the NANA Agreement together with interest on the costs; and (ii) $40 million (subject to exceptions). This amount will be payable by NANA to Ambler Metals in cash at the time the parties enter into a joint venture agreement and in no event will the amount be less than zero.

In the event that NANA elects to exercise its back-in-right, the parties will as soon as reasonably practicable form a joint venture, with NANA’s interest being between 16% to 25% and Ambler Metals owning the balance of the interest in the joint venture. Upon formation of the joint venture, the joint venture will assume all of the obligations of Ambler Metals and be entitled to all the benefits of Ambler Metals under the NANA Agreement in connection with the mine to be developed and the related Lands. A party’s failure to pay its proportionate share of costs in connection with the joint venture will result in dilution of its interest. Each party will have a right of first refusal over any proposed transfer of the other party’s interest in the joint venture other than to an affiliate or for the purposes of granting security.  A transfer by either party of any net proceeds royalty interest in a project other than for financing purposes will also be subject to a first right of refusal. A transfer of NANA’s net smelter return on the Lands is subject to a first right of refusal by Ambler Metals.

15

Table of Contents

In connection with possible development of a mine on the Bornite lands or ANCSA lands, Ambler Metals and NANA will execute a mining lease to allow Ambler Metals or the joint venture to construct and operate a mine on the Bornite lands or ANCSA lands. These leases will provide NANA a 2% net smelter royalty as to production from the Bornite lands and a 2.5% net smelter royalty as to production from the ANCSA lands. If Ambler Metals decides to proceed with construction of a mine on the Ambler lands, NANA will enter into a surface use agreement with Ambler Metals which will afford Ambler Metals access to the Ambler lands along routes approved by NANA on the Bornite lands or ANCSA lands. In consideration for the grant of such surface use rights, Ambler Metals will grant NANA a 1% net smelter royalty on production and an annual payment of $755 per acre (as adjusted for inflation each year beginning with the second anniversary of the effective date of the NANA Agreement and for each of the first 400 acres (and $100 for each additional acre) of the lands owned by NANA and used for access which are disturbed and not reclaimed.

Ambler Metals has formed an oversight committee with NANA, which consists of four representatives from each of Ambler Metals and NANA (the “Oversight Committee”). The Oversight Committee is responsible for certain planning and oversight matters carried out by us under the NANA Agreement.  The planning and oversight matters that are the subject of the NANA Agreement will be determined by majority vote.  The representatives of each of Ambler Metals and NANA attending a meeting will have one vote in the aggregate and in the event of a tie, the Ambler Metals representatives jointly shall have a deciding vote on all matters other than Subsistence Matters, as that term is defined in the NANA Agreement.  There shall be no deciding vote on Subsistence Matters and Ambler Metals may not proceed with such matters unless approved by majority vote of the Oversight Committee or with the consent of NANA, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

Principal Markets

We do not currently have a principal market. Our principal objective is to become a producer of copper.

Specialized Skill and Knowledge

All aspects of our business require specialized skills and knowledge. Such skills and knowledge include the areas of geology, mining and accounting. See “Executive Officers of Trilogy” for details as to the specific skills and knowledge of our directors and management.

Environmental Protection

Mining is an extractive industry that impacts the environment.  Along with our joint venture partner, South32, our goal is to evaluate ways to minimize that impact and to develop safe, responsible and profitable operations by developing natural resources for the benefit of our employees, shareholders and communities and maintain high standards for environmental performance at the UKMP Projects.  We strive to meet or exceed environmental standards at the UKMP Projects.  One way Ambler Metals does this is through collaborations with local communities in Alaska, including Native Alaskan groups.  Ambler Metals’ environmental performance will be overseen at the Ambler-board and Trilogy-board level and environmental performance is the responsibility of the project manager. All new activities and operations will be managed for compliance with applicable laws and regulations.  In the absence of regulation, best management practices will be applied to manage environmental risk. Furthermore, we will strive to limit releases to the air, land or water and appropriately treat and dispose of waste.

For a more detailed discussion of the various government laws and regulations applicable to our operations and potential negative effects of these laws and regulations, see Item 1A. Risk Factors, and Item 2 Properties, Environmental, Permitting, Social and Closure Considerations below.

Employees

As of November 30, 2021, we had 7 full-time employees, all of whom were employed at our executive office in Vancouver, BC.  We have entered into executive employment agreements with the CEO and CFO (each as defined herein).  

16

Table of Contents

In the past, the number of individuals we employed fluctuated throughout the year depending on the season; however, during 2020, we contributed the UKMP Projects to Ambler Metals and no longer directly employ any seasonal staff.

Information About Our Executive Officers

As of November 30, 2021, we had two executive officers, namely Tony Giardini and Elaine Sanders.  The following information is presented as of November 30, 2021.

Name and Residence

    

Age

    

Held Office Since

    

Business Experience During Past Five Years

Tony Giardini
British Columbia, Canada
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer

62 

June 1, 2020(1)

Chief Executive Officer of Trilogy (2020 – present); President of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (May 2019 – March 2020); Chief Financial Officer of Kinross Gold Corporation (December 2012 - April 2019)

Elaine Sanders
British Columbia, Canada
VP, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary

52 

January 30, 2012(2)

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Trilogy (2012 – present); Corporate Secretary of Trilogy (2011 – present)

(1)Mr. Giardini was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer on June 1, 2020.
(2)Ms. Sanders was appointed Chief Financial Officer on January 30, 2012. She became a full-time employee of the Company on November 13, 2012.

Competitive Conditions

The mineral exploration and development industry is competitive in all phases of exploration, development and production. There is a high degree of competition faced by us in Alaska and elsewhere for skilled management employees, suitable contractors for drilling operations, technical and engineering resources, and necessary exploration and mining equipment, and many of these competitor companies have greater financial resources, operational expertise, and/or more advanced properties than us. Additionally, our operations are in a remote location where skilled resources and support services are limited. We have in place experienced management personnel and continue to evaluate the required expertise and skills to carry out our operations. As a result of this competition, we may be unable to achieve our exploration and development in the future on terms we consider acceptable or at all. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Available Information

We make available, free of charge, on or through our website, at www.trilogymetals.com our Annual Report on Form 10-K, which includes our audited financial statements, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and our Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information at www.sec.gov. Our website and the information contained therein or connected thereto are not intended to be, and are not incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 1A.  RISK FACTORS

Investing in our securities is speculative and involves a high degree of risk due to the nature of our business and the present stage of exploration of our mineral properties. The following risk factors, as well as risks currently unknown to us, could materially adversely affect our future business, operations and financial condition and could cause them to

17

Table of Contents

differ materially from the estimates described in forward-looking information relating to Trilogy, or our business, property or financial results, each of which could cause purchasers of securities to lose all or part of their investments.

Risks Related to the COVID Pandemic

The outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) may affect our operations.

The Company faces risks related to health epidemics and other outbreaks of communicable diseases, which could significantly disrupt its operations and may materially and adversely affect its business and financial conditions.

The Company’s business could be adversely impacted by the effects of the coronavirus or other epidemics. In December 2019, a novel strain of the coronavirus (COVID-19) emerged in China and the virus has now spread around the world, including Canada and the U.S. The extent to which COVID-19 impacts the Company’s business, including exploration and development activities at Ambler Metals and the market for its securities, will depend on future developments, which are uncertain and cannot be predicted at this time, and include the duration, severity and scope of the outbreak and the actions taken to contain or treat the coronavirus outbreak. In particular, the continued spread of the coronavirus and travel and other restrictions established to curb the spread of the COVID-19, has and could continue to materially and adversely impact the Company’s business including without limitation, the planned exploration programs at Ambler Metals (see “Significant Developments in 2020” above), employee health, workforce productivity, increased insurance premiums, limitations on travel, the availability of industry experts and personnel, the timing to process drill and other metallurgical testing, interruption of supplies from third parties upon which the Company relies  and other factors that will depend on future developments beyond the Company’s control, which may have a material and adverse effect on the its business, financial condition and results of operations.

There can be no assurance that the Company's personnel will not be impacted by these pandemic diseases and ultimately see its workforce productivity reduced or incur increased medical costs or insurance premiums as a result of these health risks.

Risks Related to the Company’s Mineral Properties

None of our mineral properties are in production or under development.

We have no history of commercially producing precious or base metals and all of our properties are in the exploration stage. There are no proven or probable reserves on the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects, as defined in SEC Industry Guide 7. Mineral exploration involves significant risk, since few properties that are explored contain bodies of ore that would be commercially economic to develop into producing mines. We cannot assure you that we will establish the presence of any measured resources or proven or probable reserves at the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects, or any other of our properties. The failure to establish proven or probable reserves would severely restrict our ability to implement our strategies for long-term growth. See “Cautionary Note to United States Investors”.

We may not have sufficient funds to develop our mineral projects or to complete further exploration programs.

We have limited financial resources. We currently generate no mining operating revenue and must primarily finance exploration activity and the development of mineral projects by other means. Although South32 funded Ambler Metals in the amount of US$145 million upon formation of the joint venture as discussed above, in the future, once our share of such amount has been expended or we wish to acquire any other properties outside of Ambler Metals, our ability to continue exploration, development and production activities, if any, will depend on our ability to obtain additional external financing. Any unexpected costs, problems or delays could severely impact our ability to continue exploration and development activities. The failure to meet ongoing obligations on a timely basis could result in a loss or a substantial dilution of our interests in projects.

The sources of external financing that we may use for these purposes include project or bank financing or public or private offerings of equity and debt. In addition, we may enter into one or more strategic alliances or joint ventures, in

18

Table of Contents

addition to our joint venture with South32, sell marketable securities held by the Company, decide to sell certain property interests, or utilize one or a combination of all of these alternatives. The financing alternative we choose may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If additional financing is not available, we may have to postpone further exploration or development of, or sell our interest in, one or more of our principal properties.

Even if one of our mineral projects is determined to be economically viable to develop into a mine, such development may not be successful.

If the development of one of our projects is found to be economically feasible and approved by our Board and in the case of the UKMP Projects, by our joint venture partner, South32, such development will require obtaining permits and financing, the construction and operation of mines, processing plants and related infrastructure, including road access. As a result, we are and will continue to be subject to all of the risks associated with establishing new mining operations, including:

the timing and cost, which can be considerable, of the construction of mining and processing facilities and related infrastructure;
the availability and cost of skilled labor and mining equipment;
the availability and cost of appropriate smelting and refining arrangements;
the need to obtain necessary environmental and other governmental approvals and permits and the timing of the receipt of those approvals and permits;
the availability of funds to finance construction and development activities;
potential opposition from non-governmental organizations, environmental groups or local groups which may delay or prevent development activities; and
potential increases in construction and operating costs due to changes in the cost of fuel, power, materials and supplies.

The costs, timing and complexities of developing our projects may be greater than anticipated because our property interests are not located in developed areas, and, as a result, our property interests are not currently served by appropriate road access, water and power supply and other support infrastructure. Cost estimates may increase significantly as more detailed engineering work is completed on a project. It is common in new mining operations to experience unexpected costs, problems and delays during construction, development and mine start-up. In addition, delays in the early stages of mineral production often occur. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that we will ever achieve, or that our activities will result in, profitable mining operations at the UKMP Projects or any other property that we may acquire.

In addition, there can be no assurance that our mineral exploration activities will result in any discoveries of new mineralization. If further mineralization is discovered there is also no assurance that the mineralization would be economical for commercial production. Discovery of mineral deposits is dependent upon a number of factors and significantly influenced by the technical skill of the exploration personnel involved. The commercial viability of a mineral deposit is also dependent upon a number of factors which are beyond our control, including the attributes of the deposit, commodity prices, government policies and regulation and environmental protection.

19

Table of Contents

The Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects are located in a remote area of Alaska, and access to them is limited. Exploration and any future development or production activities may be limited and delayed by infrastructure challenges, inclement weather and a shortened exploration season.

We cannot provide assurances that the proposed AMDIAP that would provide access to the Ambler mining district will be built, that it will be built in a timely manner, that the cost of accessing the proposed road will be reasonable, that it will be built in the manner contemplated, or that it will sufficiently satisfy the requirements of the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects. The proposed AMDIAP requires significant permitting and approvals, and the JROD issued in 2020 is currently subject to lawsuits which could delay or prevent the project. Further, changes in the U.S. federal administration may result in changes in interpretations or priorties which may further delay or prevent the proposed AMDIAP.

In addition, successful development of the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects will require the development of the necessary infrastructure. If adequate infrastructure is not available in a timely manner, there can be no assurance that:

the development of the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects will be commenced or completed on a timely basis, if at all;
the resulting operations will achieve the anticipated production volume; or
the construction costs and operating costs associated with the development of the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects will not be higher than anticipated.

As the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects are located in a remote area, exploration, development and production activities may be limited and delayed by inclement weather and a shortened exploration season. The exploration of the UKMP Projects has also been impacted by COVID-19. See “Risks Related to COVID-19” above.

We are dependent on a third party that participates in exploration and development of our Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects.

In December 2019, South32 exercised its option to acquire a 50% interest in Ambler Metals. The formation of Ambler Metals was completed in February 2020 and Ambler Metals now owns the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects. Our success with respect to the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects depends on the efforts and expertise of South32 with whom we have contracted; we hold a 50% interest and the remaining 50% interest is held by South32, who is not under our control or direction. We are dependent on them for the progress and development of the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects. South32 may also have different priorities which could impact the timing and cost of development of the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects.  The third party may also be in default of its agreement with us, without our knowledge, which may put the mineral property and related assets at risk. The existence or occurrence of one or more of the following circumstances and events could have a material adverse impact on our ability to achieve our business plan, profitability, or the viability of our interests held with the third party, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, future cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial condition: (i) disagreement with our business partner on how to develop and operate the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects efficiently; (ii) inability to exert influence over certain strategic decisions made in respect of the jointly-held Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects; (iii) inability of our business partner to meet its obligations to the joint business or third parties; and (iv) litigation with our business partner regarding joint business matters.

We have no history of production and no revenue from mining operations.

We have a very limited history of operations and to date have generated no revenue from mining operations. As such, we are subject to many risks common to such enterprises, including under-capitalization, cash shortages, limitations with respect to personnel, financial and other resources and lack of significant revenues. There is no assurance that the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects, or any other future projects will be commercially mineable, and we may never generate revenues from our mining operations.

20

Table of Contents

Changes in the market price of copper, zinc and other metals, which in the past have fluctuated widely, will affect our ability to finance continued exploration and development of our projects and affect our operations and financial condition.

Our long-term viability will depend, in large part, on the market price of copper, zinc and other metals. The market prices for these metals are volatile and are affected by numerous factors beyond our control, including:

global or regional consumption patterns;
the supply of, and demand for, these metals;
speculative activities;
the availability and costs of metal substitutes;
expectations for inflation; and
political and economic conditions, including interest rates and currency values.

We cannot predict the effect of these factors on metal prices. A decrease in the market price of copper, zinc and other metals could affect our ability to raise funds to finance the exploration and development of any of our mineral projects, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. The market price of copper, zinc and other metals may not remain at current levels. In particular, an increase in worldwide supply, and consequent downward pressure on prices, may result over the longer term from increased copper production from mines developed or expanded as a result of current metal price levels. There is no assurance that a profitable market may exist or continue to exist.

Title and other rights to our properties may be subject to challenge.

We cannot provide assurance that title to our properties will not be challenged. We (through our interest in Ambler Metals) indirectly own mineral claims which constitute our property holdings. We may not have, or may not be able to obtain, all necessary surface rights to develop a property. Title insurance is generally not available for mineral properties and our ability to ensure that we have obtained a secure claim to individual mining properties may be severely constrained. Our mineral properties may be subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims, and title may be affected by, among other things, undetected defects. We have not conducted surveys of all of the claims in which we hold direct or indirect interests. A successful claim contesting our title to a property will cause us to lose our rights to explore and, if warranted, develop that property or undertake or continue production thereon. This could result in our not being compensated for our prior expenditures relating to the property. In addition, our ability to continue to explore and develop the property may be subject to agreements with other third parties including agreements with native corporations and first nations groups, for instance, the lands at the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects are subject to the NANA Agreement (as more particularly described under "History of Trilogy - Agreement with NANA Regional Corporation").

We will incur losses for the foreseeable future.

We expect to incur losses unless and until such time as our mineral projects generate sufficient revenues to fund continuing operations. The exploration and development of our mineral properties will require the commitment of substantial financial resources that may not be available.

The amount and timing of expenditures will depend on a number of factors, including the progress of ongoing exploration and development, the results of consultants’ analyses and recommendations, the rate at which operating losses are incurred, the execution of any joint venture agreements with strategic partners and the acquisition of additional property interests, some of which are beyond our control. We cannot provide assurance that we will ever achieve profitability.

21

Table of Contents

High metal prices in past years have encouraged increased mining exploration, development and construction activity, which has increased demand for, and cost of, exploration, development and construction services and equipment.

The relative strength of metal prices in past years has encouraged increases in mining exploration, development and construction activities around the world, which has resulted in increased demand for, and cost of, exploration, development and construction services and equipment. Increased demand for and cost of services and equipment could result in delays if services or equipment cannot be obtained in a timely manner due to inadequate availability and may cause scheduling difficulties due to the need to coordinate the availability of services or equipment, any of which could materially increase project exploration, development and/or construction costs.

Risks Relating to the Mining Industry and Mineral Reserves

Mineral resource and reserve calculations are only estimates.

Any figures presented for mineral resources or reserves in this Form 10-K and in our other filings with securities regulatory authorities and those which may be presented in the future are and will only be estimates. There is a degree of uncertainty attributable to the calculation of mineral reserves and mineral resources. Until mineral reserves or mineral resources are actually mined and processed, the quantity of metal and grades must be considered as estimates only and no assurances can be given that the indicated levels of metals will be produced. In making determinations about whether to advance any of our projects to development, we must rely upon estimated calculations as to the mineral resources or reserves and grades of mineralization on our properties.

The estimating of mineral reserves and mineral resources is a subjective process that relies on the judgment of the persons preparing the estimates. The process relies on the quantity and quality of available data and is based on knowledge, mining experience, analysis of drilling results and industry practices. Valid estimates made at a given time may significantly change when new information becomes available. While we believe that the mineral resource estimates included in this Form 10-K for the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects are well-established and reflect management’s best estimates, by their nature mineral resource estimates are imprecise and depend, to a certain extent, upon analysis of drilling results and statistical inferences that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate. There can be no assurances that actual results will meet the estimates contained in feasibility studies or pre-feasibility studies. As well, further studies are required.

Estimated mineral reserves or mineral resources may have to be recalculated based on changes in metal prices, further exploration or development activity or actual production experience. This could materially and adversely affect estimates of the volume or grade of mineralization, estimated recovery rates or other important factors that influence mineral reserve or mineral resource estimates. The extent to which mineral resources may ultimately be reclassified as mineral reserves is dependent upon the demonstration of their profitable recovery. Any material changes in mineral resource estimates and grades of mineralization will affect the economic viability of placing a property into production and a property’s return on capital. We cannot provide assurance that mineralization can be mined or processed profitably.

Our mineral resource estimates have been determined and valued based on assumed future metal prices, cut-off grades and operating costs that may prove to be inaccurate. Extended declines in market prices for copper, zinc, lead, gold and silver may render portions of our mineralization uneconomic and result in reduced reported mineral resources, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. We cannot provide assurance that mineral recovery rates achieved in small scale tests will be duplicated in large scale tests under on-site conditions or in production scale.

A reduction in any mineral reserves that may be estimated by us could have an adverse impact on our future cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial condition. No assurances can be given that any mineral resource estimates for the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects will ultimately be reclassified as mineral reserves. See “Cautionary Note to United States Investors.”

22

Table of Contents

Significant uncertainty exists related to inferred mineral resources.

There is a risk that inferred mineral resources referred to in this Form 10-K cannot be converted into measured or indicated mineral resources as there may be limited ability to assess geological continuity. It is reasonably expected that the majority of inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with continued exploration. See “Cautionary Note to United States Investors.”

Mining is inherently risky and subject to conditions or events beyond our control.

The development and operation of a mine is inherently dangerous and involves many risks that even a combination of experience, knowledge and careful evaluation may not be able to overcome, including:

unusual or unexpected geological formations;
metallurgical and other processing problems;
metal losses;
environmental hazards;
power outages;
labor disruptions;
industrial accidents;
periodic interruptions due to inclement or hazardous weather conditions;
flooding, explosions, fire, rockbursts, cave-ins and landslides;
mechanical equipment and facility performance problems; and
the availability of materials and equipment.

These risks could result in damage to, or destruction of, mineral properties, production facilities or other properties, personal injury or death, including to our employees, environmental damage, delays in mining, increased production costs, asset write downs, monetary losses and possible legal liability. We may not be able to obtain insurance to cover these risks at economically feasible premiums, or at all. The Company's insurance premiums have increased in recent years and in other circumstances the scope of insurance coverage has been reduced. The Company also expects insurance premiums to increase due to the impacts of COVID-19. Insurance against certain environmental risks, including potential liability for pollution and other hazards associated with mineral exploration and production, is not generally available to companies within the mining industry. We may suffer a material adverse effect on our business if we incur losses related to any significant events that are not covered by our insurance policies.

We cannot provide assurance that we will successfully acquire commercially mineable mineral rights.

Exploration for and development of copper properties involves significant financial risks which even a combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not eliminate. While the discovery of an ore body may result in substantial rewards, few properties which are explored are ultimately developed into producing mines. Major expenses may be required to establish reserves by drilling, constructing mining and processing facilities at a site, developing metallurgical processes and extracting metals from ore. We cannot ensure that our current exploration and development programs will result in profitable commercial mining operations.

23

Table of Contents

The economic feasibility of development projects is based upon many factors, including the accuracy of mineral resource estimates; metallurgical recoveries; capital and operating costs; government regulations relating to prices, taxes, royalties, land tenure, land use, importing and exporting and environmental protection; and metal prices, which are highly volatile. Development projects are also subject to the successful completion of feasibility studies, issuance of necessary governmental permits and availability of adequate financing.

Most exploration projects do not result in the discovery of commercially mineable ore deposits, and no assurance can be given that any anticipated level of recovery of ore reserves, if any, will be realized or that any identified mineral deposit will ever qualify as a commercially mineable (or viable) ore body which can be legally and economically exploited. Estimates of mineral reserves, mineral resources, mineral deposits and production costs can also be affected by such factors as environmental permitting regulations and requirements, weather, environmental factors, unforeseen technical difficulties, the metallurgy of the mineralization forming the mineral deposit, unusual or unexpected geological formations and work interruptions. If current exploration programs do not result in the discovery of commercial ore, we may need to write-off part or all of our investment in our existing exploration stage properties and may need to acquire additional properties.

Material changes in mineral reserves, if any, grades, stripping ratios or recovery rates may affect the economic viability of any project. Our future growth and productivity will depend, in part, on our ability to develop commercially mineable mineral rights at our existing properties or identify and acquire other commercially mineable mineral rights, and on the costs and results of continued exploration and potential development programs. Mineral exploration is highly speculative in nature and is frequently non-productive. Substantial expenditures are required to:

establish mineral  resources and reserves through drilling and metallurgical and other testing techniques;
determine metal content and metallurgical recovery processes to extract metal from the ore; and
construct, renovate or expand mining and processing facilities.

In addition, if we discover ore, it would take several years from the initial phases of exploration until production is possible. During this time, the economic feasibility of production may change. As a result of these uncertainties, there can be no assurance that we will successfully acquire commercially mineable (or viable) mineral rights.

Risks Relating to Government Regulation

We are subject to significant governmental regulations.

Our exploration activities are subject to extensive federal, state, provincial and local laws and regulations governing various matters, including:

environmental protection;
the management and use of toxic substances and explosives;
the management of natural resources;
the exploration and development of mineral properties, including reclamation;
exports;
price controls;
taxation and mining royalties;
management of tailing and other waste generated by operations;

24

Table of Contents

labor standards and occupational health and safety, including mine safety;
historic and cultural preservation; and
transportation.

Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in civil or criminal fines or penalties or enforcement actions, including orders issued by regulatory or judicial authorities enjoining, curtailing or closing operations or requiring corrective measures, installation of additional equipment or remedial actions, any of which could result in significant expenditures. We may also be required to compensate private parties suffering loss or damage by reason of a breach of such laws, regulations or permitting requirements. It is also possible that future laws and regulations, or more stringent enforcement of current laws and regulations by governmental authorities, could cause us to incur additional expense or capital expenditure restrictions, suspensions or closing of our activities and delays in the exploration and development of our properties.

We require further permits in order to conduct current and anticipated future operations, and delays in obtaining or failure to obtain such permits, or a failure to comply with the terms of any such permits that we have obtained, would adversely affect our business.

Our current and anticipated future operations, including further exploration, development and commencement of production on our mineral properties, require permits from various governmental authorities. Obtaining or renewing governmental permits is a complex and time-consuming process. The duration and success of efforts to obtain and renew permits are contingent upon many variables not within our control. Due to the preliminary stages of the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects, it is difficult to assess what specific permitting requirements will ultimately apply.

Shortage of qualified and experienced personnel in the U.S. federal and Alaskan State agencies to coordinate a federally led joint environmental impact statement process could result in delays or inefficiencies. Backlog within the permitting agencies could affect the permitting timeline or potential of the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects, as may negative public perception of mining projects in general due to circumstances unrelated to the Company and outside of its control. Other factors that could affect the permitting timeline include (i) the number of other large-scale projects currently in a more advanced stage of development which could slow down the review process for the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects and (ii) significant public response regarding the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects.

We cannot provide assurance that all permits that we require for our operations, including any for construction of mining facilities or conduct of mining, will be obtainable or renewable on reasonable terms, or at all. Delays or a failure to obtain such required permits, or the expiry, revocation or failure to comply with the terms of any such permits that we have obtained, would adversely affect our business.

Our activities are subject to environmental laws and regulations that may increase our costs and restrict our operations.

All of our exploration, potential development and production activities are subject to regulation by governmental agencies under various environmental laws. These laws address emissions into the air, discharges into water, management of waste, management of hazardous substances, protection of natural resources, antiquities and endangered species and reclamation of lands disturbed by mining operations. Environmental legislation is evolving, and the general trend has been towards stricter standards and enforcement, increased fines and penalties for noncompliance, more stringent environmental assessments of proposed projects and increasing responsibility for companies and their officers, directors and employees. Compliance with environmental laws and regulations may require significant capital outlays on our behalf and may cause material changes or delays in our intended activities.

Several regulatory initiatives are currently ongoing within the State of Alaska that have the potential to influence the permitting process for the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects. These include revisions to Alaska's Water Quality Standards regarding mixing zones regulations, which are currently under Environmental Protection Agency review, and which revisions may be required in order to authorize a mixing zone for discharge in Subarctic Creek. Future changes in these

25

Table of Contents

laws or regulations could have a significant adverse impact on some portion of our business, requiring us to re-evaluate those activities at that time.

Environmental hazards may exist on our properties that are unknown to us at the present time and that have been caused by previous owners or operators or that may have occurred naturally. We may be liable for remediating such damage.

Failure to comply with applicable environmental laws, regulations and permitting requirements may result in enforcement actions thereunder, including orders issued by regulatory or judicial authorities, causing operations to cease or to be curtailed, and may include corrective measures requiring capital expenditures, installation of additional equipment or remedial actions.

Land reclamation requirements for our exploration properties may be burdensome.

Land reclamation requirements are generally imposed on mineral exploration companies (as well as companies with mining operations) in order to minimize long term effects of land disturbance. Reclamation may include requirements to:

treat ground and surface water to applicable water quality standards;
control dispersion of potentially deleterious effluents; and
reasonably re-establish pre-disturbance landforms and vegetation.

In order to carry out reclamation obligations imposed on us in connection with exploration, potential development and production activities, we must allocate financial resources that might otherwise be spent on further exploration and development programs. In addition, regulatory changes could increase our obligations to perform reclamation and mine closing activities. If we are required to carry out unanticipated reclamation work, our financial position could be adversely affected.

Risks Related to the Acquisition of New Projects

Risks inherent in acquisitions of new properties.

We may actively pursue the acquisition of exploration, development and production assets consistent with our acquisition and growth strategy. From time to time, we may also acquire securities of or other interests in companies with respect to which we may enter into acquisitions or other transactions. Acquisition transactions involve inherent risks, including but not limited to:

accurately assessing the value, strengths, weaknesses, contingent and other liabilities and potential profitability of acquisition candidates;
ability to achieve identified and anticipated operating and financial synergies;
unanticipated costs;
diversion of management attention from existing business;
potential loss of our key employees or key employees of any business acquired;
unanticipated changes in business, industry or general economic conditions that affect the assumptions underlying the acquisition;
decline in the value of acquired properties, companies or securities;

26

Table of Contents

assimilating the operations of an acquired business or property in a timely and efficient manner;
maintaining our financial and strategic focus while integrating the acquired business or property;
implementing uniform standards, controls, procedures and policies at the acquired business, as appropriate; and
to the extent that we make an acquisition outside of markets in which it has previously operated, conducting and managing operations in a new operating environment.

Acquiring additional businesses or properties could place increased pressure on our cash flow if such acquisitions involve a cash consideration. The integration of our existing operations with any acquired business will require significant expenditures of time, attention and funds. Achievement of the benefits expected from consolidation would require us to incur significant costs in connection with, among other things, implementing financial and planning systems. We may not be able to integrate the operations of a recently acquired business or restructure our previously existing business operations without encountering difficulties and delays. In addition, this integration may require significant attention from our management team, which may detract attention from our day-to-day operations. Over the short-term, difficulties associated with integration could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and the price of our Common Shares. In addition, the acquisition of mineral properties may subject us to unforeseen liabilities, including environmental liabilities, which could have a material adverse effect on us. There can be no assurance that any future acquisitions will be successfully integrated into our existing operations.

Any one or more of these factors or other risks could cause us not to realize the anticipated benefits of an acquisition of properties or companies and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

We face industry competition in the acquisition of exploration properties and the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel.

We compete with other exploration and producing companies, many of which are better capitalized, have greater financial resources, operational experience and technical capabilities or are further advanced in their development or are significantly larger and have access to greater mineral reserves, for the acquisition of mineral claims, leases and other mineral interests as well as for the recruitment and retention of qualified employees and other personnel. If we require and are unsuccessful in acquiring additional mineral properties or in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, we will not be able to grow at the rate we desire, or at all.

Risks Related to the Company’s Executive Officers and Board of Directors

We may experience difficulty attracting and retaining qualified management and technical personnel to grow our business.

We are dependent on the services of key executives and other highly skilled and experienced personnel to advance our corporate objectives as well as the identification of new opportunities for growth and funding. Mr. Giardini and Ms. Sanders are currently our only executive officers. It will be necessary for us to recruit additional skilled and experienced executives. Our inability to do so, or the loss of any of these persons or our inability to attract and retain suitable replacements for them, or additional highly skilled employees required for our activities, would have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Some of our directors and officers have conflicts of interest as a result of their involvement with other natural resource companies.

Certain of our directors and officers also serve as directors or officers, in other companies involved in natural resource exploration and development or mining-related activities, including, in particular, NovaGold. To the extent that such other companies may participate in ventures in which we may participate in, or in ventures which we may seek to

27

Table of Contents

participate in, our directors and officers may have a conflict of interest in negotiating and concluding terms respecting the extent of such participation. In all cases where our directors and officers have an interest in other companies, such other companies may also compete with us for the acquisition of mineral property investments. Any decision made by any of these directors and officers involving Trilogy will be made in accordance with their duties and obligations to deal fairly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of Trilogy and its shareholders. In addition, each of the directors is required to declare and refrain from voting on any matter in which these directors may have a conflict of interest in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) and other applicable laws. In appropriate cases, the Company will establish a special committee of independent directors to review a matter in which several directors, or management, may have a conflict. Nonetheless, as a result of these conflicts of interest, the Company may not have an opportunity to participate in certain transactions, which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operation and prospects.

In the future, we may be subject to legal proceedings.

Due to the nature of our business, we may be subject to numerous regulatory investigations, claims, lawsuits and other proceedings in the ordinary course of our business. The results of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty due to the uncertainty inherent in litigation, including the effects of discovery of new evidence or advancement of new legal theories, the difficulty of predicting decisions of judges and juries and the possibility that decisions may be reversed on appeal. There can be no assurances that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business.

General Risk Factors

General economic conditions may adversely affect our growth, future profitability and ability to finance.

The unprecedented events in global financial markets in the past several years and the current impact of COVID-19 have had a profound impact on the global economy. Many industries, including the copper mining industry, are impacted by these market conditions. Some of the key impacts of the current financial market turmoil include contraction in credit markets resulting in a widening of credit risk, devaluations, high volatility in global equity, commodity, foreign exchange and precious metal markets and a lack of market liquidity. A worsening or slowdown in the financial markets or other economic conditions, including but not limited to, consumer spending, employment rates, business conditions, inflation, fuel and energy costs, consumer debt levels, lack of available credit, the state of the financial markets, interest rates and tax rates, may adversely affect our growth and ability to finance. Specifically:

the volatility of copper, zinc, lead and other metal prices would impact our estimates of mineral resources, revenues, profits, losses and cash flow, and the feasibility of our projects;
negative economic pressures could adversely impact demand for our future production, if any;
construction related costs could increase and adversely affect the economics of any project;
volatile energy, commodity and consumables prices and currency exchange rates could impact our estimated production costs; and
the devaluation and volatility of global stock markets would impact the valuation of our equity and other securities.

Future sales or issuances of equity securities could decrease the value of any existing Common Shares, dilute investors’ voting power and reduce our earnings per share.

We may sell additional equity securities (including through the sale of securities convertible into Common Shares) and may issue additional equity securities to finance our operations, exploration, development, acquisitions or other projects. We are authorized to issue an unlimited number of Common Shares. We cannot predict the size of future sales

28

Table of Contents

and issuances of equity securities or the effect, if any, that future sales and issuances of equity securities will have on the market price of the Common Shares. Sales or issuances of a substantial number of equity securities, or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices for the Common Shares. With any additional sale or issuance of equity securities, investors will suffer dilution of their voting power and may experience dilution in our earnings per share.

Our largest shareholder has significant influence on us and may also affect the market price and liquidity of the securities.

Electrum Strategic Opportunities Fund L.P. (“Electrum”) is our single largest shareholder, controlling approximately 20% of the outstanding voting securities. Accordingly, Electrum will have significant influence in determining the outcome of any corporate transaction or other matter submitted to the shareholders for approval, including mergers, consolidations and the sale of all or substantially all of our assets and other significant corporate actions. Unless significant participation of other shareholders takes place in such shareholder meetings, Electrum may be able to approve such matters itself. The concentration of ownership of the shares by Electrum may: (i) delay or deter a change of control of the Company; (ii) deprive shareholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their shares as part of a sale of the Company; and (iii) affect the market price and liquidity of the shares. Without the consent of Electrum, we could be prevented from entering into transactions that are otherwise beneficial to us. The interests of Electrum may differ from or be adverse to the interests of our other shareholders. The effect of these rights and Electrum’s influence may impact the price that investors are willing to pay for securities. If Electrum sells a substantial number of shares in the public market, the market price of the shares could fall. The perception among the public that these sales will occur could also contribute to a decline in the market price of the shares.

Our Common Shares are subject to various factors that have historically made share prices volatile.

The market price of our Common Shares may be subject to large fluctuations, which may result in losses to investors. The market price of the Common Shares may increase or decrease in response to a number of events and factors, including: our operating performance and the performance of competitors and other similar companies; volatility in metal prices; the arrival or departure of key personnel; the number of Common Shares to be publicly traded after an offering; the public’s reaction to our press releases, material change reports, other public announcements and our filings with the various securities regulatory authorities; changes in earnings estimates or recommendations by research analysts who track the Common Shares or the shares of other companies in the resource sector; changes in general economic and/or political conditions; acquisitions, strategic alliances or joint ventures involving us or our competitors; and the factors listed under the heading “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information.

The market price of the Common Shares may be affected by many other variables which are not directly related to our success and are, therefore, not within our control, including other developments that affect the market for all resource sector securities, the breadth of the public market for the Common Shares and the attractiveness of alternative investments.

We do not intend to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have not declared or paid any dividends on our Common Shares.  Our current business plan requires that for the foreseeable future, any future earnings be reinvested to finance the growth and development of our business.  We do not intend to pay cash dividends on the Common Shares in the foreseeable future. We will not declare or pay any dividends until such time as our cash flow exceeds our capital requirements and will depend upon, among other things, conditions then existing including earnings, financial condition, restrictions in financing arrangements, business opportunities and conditions and other factors, or our Board determines that our shareholders could make better use of the cash.

29

Table of Contents

We may be a “passive foreign investment company” in future periods, which may have adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences for U.S. shareholders.

U.S. investors in the Company should be aware that we believe we were not a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) for the years ending November 30, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020 and 2021 but we believe we were a PFIC for the years ending November 30, 2018 and 2019 and may be a PFIC in future tax years. If we are a PFIC for any year during a U.S. Holder’s (as defined below under Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations – U.S. Holders”) holding period, then such U.S. Holder generally will be required to treat any gain realized upon a disposition of Common Shares and any so-called “excess distribution” received on its Common Shares as ordinary income, and to pay an interest charge on a portion of such gain or distributions, unless the shareholder makes a timely and effective “QEF Election” or a “Mark-to-Market Election” (each as defined below under “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations – Default PFIC Rules under Section 1291 of the Code”).  A U.S. Holder who makes a QEF Election generally must report on a current basis its share of our net capital gain and ordinary earnings for any year in which we are a PFIC, whether or not we distribute any amounts to our shareholders.  A U.S. Holder who makes the Mark-to-Market Election generally must include as ordinary income each year the excess of the fair market value of the Common Shares over the U.S. Holder’s tax basis therein.  This paragraph is qualified in its entirety by the discussion below the heading “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations.” Each U.S. shareholder should consult its own tax advisor regarding the PFIC rules and the U.S. federal income tax consequences of the acquisition, ownership, and disposition of Common Shares.

Global climate change is an international concern and could impact our ability to conduct future operations.

Global climate change is an international issue and receives an enormous amount of publicity. We would expect that the imposition of international treaties or U.S. or Canadian federal, state, provincial or local laws or regulations pertaining to mandatory reductions in energy consumption or emissions of greenhouse gasses could affect the feasibility of our mining projects and increase our operating costs.

Adverse publicity from non-governmental organizations could have a material adverse effect on us.

There is an increasing level of public concern relating to the effect of mining production on our surroundings, communities and environment. Non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), some of which oppose resource development, are often vocal critics of the mining industry. While we seek to operate in a socially responsible manner, adverse publicity generated by such NGOs related to extractive industries, or our operations specifically, could have an adverse effect on our reputation and financial condition or our relationship with the communities in which we operate.

We may fail to achieve and maintain the adequacy of our internal control over financial reporting as per the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

We are required to document and test our internal control procedures in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of SOX. It requires an annual assessment by management of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. We may in the future fail to achieve and maintain the adequacy of our internal control over financial reporting, as such standards are modified, supplemented or amended from time to time, and we may not be able to ensure that we can conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of SOX. Our failure to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of SOX on an ongoing, timely basis could result in the loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which in turn could harm our business and negatively impact the trading price of our Common Shares. In addition, any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. Future acquisitions of companies may provide us with challenges in implementing the required processes, procedures and controls in our acquired operations. Acquired companies may not have disclosure control and procedures or internal control over financial reporting that are as thorough or effective as those required by securities laws currently applicable to us.

30

Table of Contents

Our business is subject to evolving corporate governance and public disclosure regulations that have increased both our compliance costs and the risk of noncompliance, which could have an adverse effect on our stock price.

We are subject to changing rules and regulations promulgated by a number of United States and Canadian governmental and self-regulated organizations, including the SEC, the Canadian Securities Administrators, the NYSE American, the TSX, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. These rules and regulations continue to evolve in scope and complexity and many new requirements have been created in response to laws enacted by the United States Congress, making compliance more difficult and uncertain. Our efforts to comply with new rules and regulations, including those promulgated under Dodd-Frank, have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities.

Item 1B.  UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

Item 2.     PROPERTIES

The following descriptions summarize selected information about the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects, which are located in the Ambler mining district of Alaska and include the Arctic Project and the Bornite Project. The Arctic Project and the Bornite Project are held by Ambler Metals, of which Trilogy holds a 50% interest. All mineral resources and mineral reserve estimates with respect to the Arctic Project and Bornite Project that are disclosed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are reported on a 100% basis. All of the UKMP Projects are without known reserves, as defined under SEC Industry Guide 7, and all proposed programs for the properties are exploratory in nature. Please also see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis—Project Activities” for more information on the development and nature of our interest in the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects.

Arctic Project

Except as otherwise stated, the scientific and technical information relating to the Arctic Project contained in this Form 10-K is derived from the 2020 Arctic Report titled “Arctic Feasibility Study Alaska, USA NI 43-101 Technical Report” with an effective date of August 20, 2020, prepared for Trilogy by Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc., Wood Canada Limited and SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. The information regarding the Arctic Project is based on assumptions, qualifications and procedures which are not fully described herein. Reference should be made to the full text of the 2020 Arctic Report which has been filed with certain Canadian securities regulatory authorities pursuant to NI 43-101 and is available for review on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

Arctic Project Description, Location and Access

Project Description

NovaGold acquired the Arctic Project from Kennecott Exploration Company and Kennecott Arctic Company (collectively, “Kennecott”) in 2004. In 2011, NovaGold transferred all copper projects to NovaCopper Inc. and spun-out NovaCopper to its then existing shareholders in 2012. NovaCopper Inc. subsequently underwent a name change to Trilogy Metals Inc. in 2016. Under the Kennecott Purchase and Termination Agreement, Kennecott retained a 1% net smelter return (NSR) royalty that was subsequently sold by Kennecott. The 1% NSR runs with the lands and is purchasable at any time from the royalty holder for a one-time payment of $10 million.

The Arctic Project is directly held by Ambler Metals, a 50/50 joint venture formed between South32 and Trilogy in February 2020. Upon the formation of the joint venture, Trilogy contributed all of its Alaskan assets, including the Arctic

31

Table of Contents

Project and the NANA Agreement, to Ambler Metals in exchange for a 50% membership interest and at the same time, South32 contributed $145 million in cash for a 50% membership interest.

The Arctic Project land tenure consists of 1,988 contiguous State mining claims, including 905 40-acre claims, 1,083 160-acre claims, and 18 Federal patented claims comprising 271.9 acres (110 ha) held in the name of Ambler Metals.

Surface use of the private land held as Federal patented claims is limited only by reservations in the patents and by generally-applicable environmental laws. Surface use of State claims allows the owner of the mining claim to make such use of the surface as is “necessary for prospecting for, extraction of, or basic processing of minerals.”

NANA controls lands granted under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to the south of the Arctic Project boundary. Ambler Metals and NANA are parties to the NANA Agreement that consolidates the parties’ land holdings into an approximately 172,675 ha land package and provides a framework for the exploration and development of the area. The NANA Agreement has a term of 20 years, with an option in favour of Ambler Metals to extend the term for an additional 10 years. If, following receipt of a feasibility study and the release for public comment of a related draft environmental impact statement, a decision is made to proceed with construction of a mine on the lands subject to the NANA Agreement, NANA will have 120 days to elect to either (a) exercise a non-transferrable back-in-right to acquire between 16% and 25% (as specified by NANA) of that specific project; or (b) not exercise its back-in-right, and instead receive a net proceeds royalty equal to 15% of the net proceeds realized from such project. In the event that NANA elects to exercise its back-in-right, the parties will, as soon as reasonably practicable, form a joint venture with NANA electing to participate between 16% to 25%, and Ambler Metals owning the balance of the interest in the joint venture. If Ambler Metals decides to proceed with construction of a mine on its own lands subject to the NANA Agreement, NANA will enter into a surface use agreement which will afford Ambler Metals access to the Arctic Project along routes approved by NANA. In consideration for the grant of such surface use rights, NANA will receive a 1% net smelter royalty on production and provide an annual payment on a per acre basis.

Location and Access

The Arctic Project is located in the Ambler mining district of the southern Brooks Range, in the Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) of Alaska.  The Property is geographically isolated with no current road access or nearby power infrastructure.  The Arctic Project is located 270 km east of the town of Kotzebue, 37 km north of the village of Kobuk, and 260 km west of the Dalton Highway, an all-weather state-maintained highway.

Primary access to the Arctic Project is by air, using both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. There are four well-maintained, approximately 1,500 m-long gravel airstrips located near the Arctic Project, capable of accommodating charter fixed wing aircraft. These airstrips are located 64 km west at Ambler, 46 km southwest at Shungnak, 37 km southwest at Kobuk, and 34 km southwest at Dahl Creek. There is daily commercial air service from Kotzebue to the village of Kobuk, the closest community to the Arctic Project. During the summer months, the Dahl Creek Camp airstrip is suitable for larger aircraft, such as a C-130 and DC-6.

In addition to the four 1,500 m airstrips, there is a 700 m airstrip located at the Bornite Camp. The airstrip at Bornite is suited to smaller aircraft, which support the Bornite Camp with personnel and supplies. There is also a 450 m airstrip (Arctic airstrip) located at the base of Arctic Ridge that can support smaller aircraft.

A winter trail and a one-lane dirt track suitable for high-clearance vehicles or construction equipment links the Arctic Project’s main camp located at Bornite to the Dahl Creek airstrip southwest of the Arctic deposit. An unimproved gravel track connects the Arctic airstrip with the Arctic deposit.

History

Prospectors first arrived in the Ambler Mining District around 1900, shortly after the discovery of the Nome and Fairbanks gold districts. Several years later, small gold placer deposits were located in the southern Cosmos Hills south of the Arctic deposit and worked intermittently over ensuing decades for gold and nephrite. During this time copper mineralization

32

Table of Contents

was observed at Ruby Creek in the northern Cosmos Hills; however, no exploration was undertaken until 1947 when local prospector Rhinehart “Rhiny” Berg located outcropping copper mineralization along Ruby Creek. Berg subsequently staked claims over the Ruby Creek showings and constructed an airstrip for access (alaskamininghalloffame.org 2012).

Bear Creek Mining Company (“BCMC”), an exploration subsidiary of Kennecott, optioned the property from Berg in 1957. The prospect became known as Bornite and Kennecott conducted extensive exploration over the next decade, culminating in the discovery of the high-grade No. 1 zone and the sinking of an exploration shaft to conduct underground drilling.

In conjunction with the discovery of the Bornite deposit, BCMC greatly expanded their regional reconnaissance exploration in the Cosmos Hills and the southern Brooks Range. Stream silt sampling in 1965 revealed a significant copper anomaly in Subarctic Creek roughly 27 km northeast of Bornite. The area was subsequently staked and, in 1967, eight core holes were drilled at the Arctic deposit yielding massive sulphide intercepts over an almost 500-m strike length.

BCMC conducted intensive exploration on the property until 1977 and then intermittently through 1998. No drilling or additional exploration was conducted on the Arctic Project between 1999 and 2003.

In addition to drilling and exploration at the Arctic deposit, BCMC also conducted exploration at numerous other prospects in the Ambler Mining District (most notably Dead Creek, Sunshine, Cliff, and Horse). The abundance of VMS prospects in the district resulted in a series of competing companies in the area, including Sunshine Mining Company, Anaconda Company, Noranda Exploration Company, GCO Minerals Company, Cominco American Resource Inc. (Cominco), Teck Cominco, Resource Associates of Alaska, Watts, Griffis and McOuat Ltd., and Houston Oil and Minerals Company, culminating into a claim staking war in the district in 1973. Falconbridge and Union Carbide also conducted work later in the district.

District exploration by Sunshine Mining Company and Anaconda resulted in two additional significant discoveries in the district; the Sun deposit located 60 km east of the Arctic deposit, and the Smucker deposit located 36 km west of the Arctic deposit. These two deposits are outside the current Arctic Project area.

District exploration continued until the early 1980s on the four larger deposits in the district (Arctic, Bornite, Smucker and Sun) when the district fell into a hiatus due to depressed metal prices.

In 1987, Cominco acquired the claims covering the Sun and Smucker deposits from Anaconda. Teck Resources Limited, as Cominco’s successor company, continues to hold the Smucker deposit. In 2007, Andover Mining Corporation purchased a 100% interest in the Sun deposit for US$13 million and explored the property through 2013. The Sun deposit and adjacent lands were acquired by Valhalla Metals Inc., a private company, which staked over the Sun deposit in 2017 after the creditors for the bankrupt Andover Mining Corporation failed to pay the annual rent of the state claims and submit the Annual Labour Statement.

In 1981 and 1983, Kennecott received three US Mineral Survey patents (MS2245 totaling 240 acres over the Arctic deposit – later amended to include another 32 acres; and MS2233 and MS2234 for 25 claims totaling 516.5 acres at Bornite). The Bornite patented claims and surface development were subsequently sold to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. in 1986.

No production has occurred at the Arctic deposit or at any of the other deposits within the Ambler Mining District.

Prior Ownership and Ownership Changes – Arctic Deposit and the Ambler Lands

BCMC initially staked federal mining claims covering the Arctic deposit area beginning in 1966. The success of the 1960’s drill programs defined a significant high-grade polymetallic resource at the Arctic deposit and, in the early 1970s, Kennecott began the patent process to obtain complete legal title to the Arctic deposit. In 1981, Kennecott received US Mineral Survey patent M2245 covering 16 mining claims totaling 240.018 acres. In 1983, US Mineral Survey patent M2245 was amended to include two additional claims totaling 31.91 acres.

33

Table of Contents

With the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, which expedited native land claims outlined in the ANSCA and State lands claims under the Alaska Statehood Act, both the State of Alaska and NANA selected significant areas of land within the Ambler Mining District. State selections covered much of the Ambler schist belt, host to the volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits including the Arctic deposit, while NANA selected significant portions of the Ambler Lowlands to the immediate south of the Arctic deposit as well as much of the Cosmos Hills including the area immediately around Bornite.

In 1995, Kennecott renewed exploration in the Ambler schist belt containing the Arctic deposit patented claims by staking an additional 48 state claims at Nora and 15 state claims at Sunshine Creek. In the fall of 1997, Kennecott staked 2,035 state claims in the belt consolidating their entire land position and acquiring the majority of the remaining prospective terrain in the VMS belt. Five more claims were subsequently added in 1998. After a short period of exploration which focused on geophysics and geochemistry combined with limited drilling, exploration work on the Arctic Project again entered a hiatus.

On March 22, 2004, Alaska Gold Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NovaGold completed an Exploration and Option Agreement with Kennecott to earn an interest in the Ambler land holdings.

Previous Exploration and Development Results – Arctic Deposit

Kennecott’s ownership of the Arctic Project saw two periods of intensive work from 1965 to 1985 and from 1993 to 1998, before optioning the property to NovaGold in 2004.

Though reports, memos, and files exist in Kennecott’s Salt Lake City office, only limited digital compilation of the data exists for the earliest generation of exploration at the Arctic deposit and within the VMS belt. Beginning in 1993, Kennecott initiated a re-evaluation of the Arctic deposit and assembled a computer database of previous work at the Arctic deposit and in the district. A computer-generated block model was constructed in 1995 and an updated resource estimate was performed using the block model. Subsequently, Kennecott staked a total of 2,035 State of Alaska claims in 1997 and, in 1998 undertook the first field program since 1985.

Due to the number of companies and the patchwork exploration that occurred as a result of the 1973 staking war, much of the earliest exploration work on what now constitutes the Ambler Schist belt was lost during the post-1980 hiatus in district exploration. The following subsections outline the best documented data at the Arctic deposit as summarized in the 1998 Kennecott exploration report, including the assembled computer database; however, this outline is not considered to be either exhaustive or in-depth.

In 1982, geologists with Kennecott, Anaconda and the State of Alaska published the definitive geologic map of the Ambler schist belt (Hitzman et al. 1982).

Table 6-1 of the 2020 Arctic Report lists known exploration mapping, geochemical, and geophysical programs conducted for VMS targets in the Ambler Mining District.

Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit Types

Regional Geology – Southern Brooks Range

The Ambler Mining District occurs along the southern margin of the Brooks Range within an east-west trending zone of Devonian to Jurassic age submarine volcanic and sedimentary rocks (Hitzman et al., 1986). The district covers both: 1) VMS-like deposits and prospects hosted in the Devonian age Ambler Sequence (or Ambler Schist belt), a group of metamorphosed bimodal volcanic rocks with interbedded tuffaceous, graphitic and calcareous volcaniclastic metasediments; and 2) epigenetic carbonate-hosted copper deposits occurring in Silurian to Devonian age carbonate and phyllitic rocks of the Bornite Carbonate Sequence. The Ambler Sequence occurs in the upper part of the Anirak Schist, the thickest member of the Schist belt or Coldfoot subterrane (Moore et al., 1994). VMS-like stratabound mineralization can be found along the entire 110 km strike length of the district. Immediately south of the Schist belt, in

34

Table of Contents

the Cosmos Hills, a time equivalent section of the Anirak Schist that includes the approximately 1 km thick Bornite Carbonate Sequence. Mineralization of both the VMS-like deposits of the Schist belt and the carbonate-hosted deposits of the Cosmos Hills has been dated at 375 to 387 Ma (Selby et al., 2009; McClelland et al., 2006).

In addition, the Ambler Mining District is characterized by increasing metamorphic grade north perpendicular to the strike of the east-west trending units. The district shows isoclinal folding in the northern portion and thrust faulting to south (Schmidt, 1983). The Devonian to Late Jurassic age Angayucham basalt and the Triassic to Jurassic age mafic volcanic rocks are in low-angle over thrust contact with various units of the Ambler Schist belt and Bornite Carbonate Sequence along the northern edge of the Ambler Lowlands.

Ambler Sequence Geology

Rocks that form the Ambler Sequence consist of a lithologically diverse sequence of lower Devonian age carbonate and siliciclastic strata with interlayered mafic lava flows and sills. The clastic strata, derived from terrigenous continental and volcanic sources, were deposited primarily by mass-gravity flow into the sub-wavebase environment of an extending marginal basin.

The Ambler Sequence underwent two periods of intense, penetrative deformation. Sustained upper greenschist-facies metamorphism with coincident formation of a penetrative schistosity and isoclinal transposition of bedding marks the first deformation period. Pervasive similar-style folds on all scales deform the transposed bedding and schistosity, defining the subsequent event. At least two later non-penetrative compressional events deform these earlier fabrics. Observations of the structural and metamorphic history of the Ambler Mining District are consistent with current tectonic evolution models for the Schist belt, based on the work of others elsewhere in the southern Brooks Range (Gottschalk and Oldow, 1988; Till et al., 1988; Vogl et al., 2002).

Arctic Deposit Geology

Previous workers at the Arctic deposit (Russell 1995 and Schmidt 1983) describe three mineralized horizons: the Main Sulphide Horizon, the Upper South Horizon and the Warm Springs Horizon. The Main Sulphide Horizon was further subdivided into three zones: the southeast zone, the central zone and the northwest zone. Previous deposit modelling was grade-based resulting in numerous individual mineralized zones representing relatively thin sulphide horizons.

Recent work by Trilogy defines the Arctic deposit as two or more discrete horizons of sulphide mineralization contained in a complexly deformed isoclinal fold with an upright upper limb and an overturned lower limb hosting the main mineralization. Nearby drilling suggests that a third upright lower limb, likely occurs beneath the currently explored stratigraphy.

Mineralization

Mineralization occurs as stratiform semi-massive sulphide (“SMS”) to massive sulphide (“MS”) beds within primarily graphitic schists and fine-grained quartz mica schists. The sulphide beds average 4 m in thickness but vary from less than 1 m up to as much as 18 m in thickness. The sulphide mineralization occurs within eight modelled zones lying along the upper and lower limbs of the Arctic isoclinal anticline. The zones are all within an area of roughly 1 km2 with mineralization extending to a depth of approximately 250 m below the surface. There are five zones of MS and SMS that occur at specific pseudo-stratigraphic levels which make up the bulk of the Mineral Resource estimate. The other three zones also occur at specific pseudo-stratigraphic levels, but are too discontinuous.

Unlike more typical VMS deposits, mineralization is not characterized by steep metal zonation or massive pyritic zones. Mineralization dominantly consists of sheet-like zones of base metal sulphides with variable pyrite and only minor zonation, usually on a small scale.

Mineralization is predominately coarse-grained sulphides comprising chalcopyrite, sphalerite, galena, tetrahedrite-tennantite, pyrite, arsenopyrite, and pyrrhotite. Sulphides occur as disseminated (<30%), semi-massive (30 to 50%

35

Table of Contents

sulphide) to massive (greater than 50% sulphide) layers. Trace amounts of electrum are also present. Gangue minerals associated with the mineralized horizons include quartz, barite, white mica, chlorite, stilpnomelane, talc, calcite, dolomite and cymrite.

Deposit Types

The mineralization at the Arctic deposit and at several other known occurrences within the Ambler Sequence stratigraphy of the Ambler Mining District consists of Devonian age, polymetallic (zinc-copper-lead-silver-gold) VMS-like occurrences.

VMS deposits are formed by and associated with sub-marine volcanic-related hydrothermal events. These events are related to spreading centres such as fore arc, back arc or mid-ocean ridges. VMS deposits are often stratiform accumulations of sulphide minerals that precipitate from hydrothermal fluids on or below the seafloor. These deposits are found in association with volcanic, volcaniclastic and/or siliciclastic rocks. They are classified by their depositional environment and associated proportions of mafic and/or felsic igneous rocks to sedimentary rocks. There are five general classifications (Franklin et al., 2005) based on rock type and depositional environment:

Mafic rock dominated often with ophiolite sequences, often called Cyprus type.
Bimodal-mafic type with up to 25% felsic volcanic rocks.
Mafic-siliciclastic type with approximately equal parts mafic and siliciclastic rocks, which can have minor felsic rocks and are often called Besshi type.
Felsic-siliciclastic type with abundant felsic rocks, less than 10% mafic rocks and shale rich.
Bimodal-felsic type where felsic rocks are more abundant than mafic rocks with minor sedimentary rocks also referred to as Kuroko type.

Prior to any subsequent deformation and/or metamorphism, these deposits are often bowl or mound-shaped with stockworks and stringers of sulphide minerals found near vent zones. These types of deposit exhibit an idealized zoning pattern as follows:

Pyrite and chalcopyrite near vents.
A halo around the vents consisting of chalcopyrite, sphalerite and pyrite.
A more distal zone of sphalerite and galena and metals such as manganese.
Increasing manganese with oxides such as hematite and chert more distal to the vent.

Alteration halos associated with VMS deposits often contain sericite, ankerite, chlorite, hematite and magnetite close to the VMS with weak sericite, carbonate, zeolite, prehnite and chert more distal. These alteration assemblages and relationships are dependent on the degree of post deposition deformation and metamorphism. A modern analogue of this type of deposit is found around fumaroles or black smokers in association with rift zones.

In the Ambler Mining District, VMS-like mineralization occurs in the Ambler Sequence schists over a strike length of approximately 110 km. These deposits are hosted in volcaniclastic, siliciclastic and calcareous metasedimentary rocks interlayered with mafic and felsic metavolcanic rocks. Sulphide mineralization occurs above the mafic metavolcanic rocks but below the Button schist, a distinctive district wide felsic unit characterized by large K-feldspar porphyroblasts after relic phenocrysts. The presence of the mafic and felsic metavolcanic units is used as evidence to suggest formation in a rift-related environment, possibly proximal to a continental margin. Based on these characteristics, the Arctic deposit is similar to Kuroko-type VMS deposits.

36

Table of Contents

Historic interpretation of the genesis of the Ambler Schist belt deposits has called for a syngenetic VMS origin with steep thermal gradients in and around seafloor hydrothermal vents resulting in metal deposition due to the rapid cooling of chloride-complexed base metals. A variety of VMS types have been well documented in the literature (Franklin et al., 2005) with the Ambler Schist belt deposits most similar to deposits associated with bimodal felsic dominant volcanism related to incipient rifting.

The majority of field observations broadly support such a scenario at the Arctic deposit and include: 1) the tectonic setting with Devonian volcanism in an evolving continental rift; 2) the geologic setting with bimodal volcanic rocks including pillow basalts and felsic volcanic tuffs; 3) an alteration assemblage with well-defined magnesium-rich footwall alteration and sodium-rich hanging wall alteration; and 4) typical polymetallic base-metal mineralization with massive and semi-massive sulphides.

A preserved sulphide-smoker occurrence has been tentatively identified near Dead Creek, northwest of the Arctic deposit and suggests local hydrothermal venting during deposition. However, the lack of stockworks and stringer-type mineralization at the Arctic deposit suggest that the deposit may not be a proximal vent-type VMS. Although the deposit is stratiform in nature, it exhibits characteristics and textures common to replacement-style mineralization. At least some of the mineralization may have formed as a diagenetic replacement.

A VMS model is considered applicable for use in exploration targeting in the Arctic Project area.

Exploration

Table 1 summarizes the exploration work conducted by NovaGold and Trilogy from 2004 to the present. Field exploration was largely conducted during the period between 2004 to 2007 with associated engineering and characterization studies between 2008 and 2019.

37

Table of Contents

Table 1 - Summary of Overall Exploration Activities Targeting VMS Style Mineralization in the Ambler Sequence Stratigraphy and the Arctic Deposit

Work Completed

    

Year

    

Details

    

Focus

 

Geological Mapping

 

  

 

  

 

  

-

 

2004

 

-

 

Arctic deposit surface geology

-

 

2005

 

-

 

Ambler Sequence west of the Arctic deposit

-

 

2006

 

-

 

COU, Dead Creek, Sunshine, Red

-

 

2015, 2016

 

SRK

 

Geotechnical Structural Mapping

-

 

2016

 

-

 

Arctic deposit surface geology

Geophysical Surveys

 

  

 

  

 

  

SWIR Spectrometry

 

2004

 

2004 drill holes

 

Alteration characterization

TDEM

 

2005

 

2 loops

 

Follow-up of Kennecott DIGHEM EM survey

 

2006

 

13 loops

 

District targets

 

2007

 

6 loops

 

Arctic extensions

Downhole EM

 

2007

 

4 drill holes

 

Arctic deposit

VTEM Plus (Versatile Time Domain Electromagnetic) airborne helicopter geophysical

 

2019

 

400m line spacing with 200m infill with tie lines 4000m spacing

 

Ambler Mining District and Cosmos Hills with infill over Arctic, Sunshine and Horse-Cliff

ZTEM (Z-Axis Tipper Electromagnetic) airborne helicopter geophysical

 

2019

 

400m line spacing with tie lines 4000m spacing

 

Ambler Mining District and Cosmos Hills with infill over Arctic, Sunshine and Horse-Cliff

Geochemistry

 

  

 

  

 

  

-

 

2005

 

-

 

Stream silts – core area prospects

-

 

2006

 

-

 

Soils – core area prospects

-

 

 

-

 

Stream silts – core area prospects

-

 

2007

 

-

 

Soils – Arctic deposit area

Survey

 

  

 

  

 

  

Collar

 

2004 to 2011, 2018, 2019

 

DGPS

 

All 2004 to 2019 NovaCopper drill holes

 

2004, 2008

 

Resurveys

 

Historical Kennecott drill holes

Photography/Topography

 

2010

 

-

 

Photography/topography

LiDAR Survey

 

2015, 2016

 

-

 

LiDAR over Arctic Deposit

Technical Studies

 

  

 

  

 

  

Geotechnical

 

2010

 

BGC

 

Preliminary geotechnical and hazards

ML/ARD

 

2011

 

SRK

 

Preliminary ML and ARD

Metallurgy

 

2012

 

SGS

 

Preliminary mineralogy and metallurgy

Geotechnical and Hydrology

 

2012

 

BGC

 

Preliminary rock mechanics and hydrology

38

Table of Contents

Note: SWIR = short wave infrared; LiDAR = light detection and ranging; ML = metal leaching; BGC = BGC Engineering Inc.; SGS = SGS Canada; ALS = ALS Metallurgy

Drilling

Drilling at the Arctic deposit and within the Ambler Mining District has been ongoing since its initial discovery in 1967. Approximately 60,857 m of drilling was completed within the Ambler Mining District, including 42,571 m of drilling in 207 drill holes at the Arctic deposit or on potential extensions in 29 campaigns spanning 52 years. Drill programs were completed by Kennecott and its subsidiaries, Anaconda, and Trilogy and its predecessor companies.

Core recoveries are acceptable. Geological and geotechnical logging is in line with industry generally-accepted practices. Drill collar and downhole survey data were collected using industry-recognized instrumentation and methods at the time the data were collected.

Between 2004 and 2005, NovaGold conducted a systematic drill core re-logging and re-sampling campaign of Kennecott and BCMC era drill holes. NovaGold either took 1 m to 2 m samples every 10 m, or sampled entire lengths of previously un-sampled core within a minimum of 1 m and a maximum of 3 m intervals. During the Trilogy campaigns, sample intervals were determined by the geological relationships observed in the core and limited to a 2.5 m to 3 m maximum length and 0.3 m minimum length. An attempt was made to terminate sample intervals at lithological and mineralization boundaries. Sampling was generally continuous from the top to the bottom of the drill hole. When the hole was in un-mineralized rock, the sample length was generally 3 m, whereas in mineralized units, the sample length was shortened to 1 m to 2 m with a maximum of 2.5 m.

Gold assays were conducted using fire assay fusion followed by an atomic absorption spectroscopy finish. An additional 49-element suite was assayed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) methodology, following a four acid (hydrochloric, nitric, hydrofluoric, and perchloric) digestion. The copper, zinc, lead, and silver analyses were completed by AA, following a triple acid digest, in 2004 and 2005, and by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy following a triple acid digestion from 2006 to 2019, when overlimits occurred with the ICP-MS methodology.

Standard reference materials, blanks, duplicates, and check samples have been regularly submitted at a combined level of 20% of sampling submissions for all NovaGold/NovaCopper/Trilogy era campaigns. BD Resource Consulting, Inc. reviewed the QA/QC dataset and reports and found the sample insertion rate and the timeliness of results received and reviewed meets or exceeds industry best practices.

SG measurements were conducted on 4,708 samples in the database and range from a minimum of 1.49 to a maximum of 5.35 and average 3.04. The distribution of SG data is considered sufficient to support estimation in the resource model.

Current Mineral Resource estimates and geologic models use topography completed in 2010 by PhotoSat Inc. The resolution of the satellite imagery used was at 0.5 m, and a 1 m contour map and digital elevation model were generated. An aerial LiDAR survey was completed to support feasibility level resource estimation, engineering design, environmental studies, and infrastructure layout evaluations. Agreement between surveyed drill hole collar elevations and a LiDAR topographic surface verifies the correctness of the digital topography for use in estimation.

It was concluded that the drill database and topographic surface for the Arctic deposit is reliable and sufficient to support the current estimate of mineral resources.

39

Table of Contents

Sampling, Analysis and Data Verification

Sampling and Analysis

The data for the Arctic deposit were generated over three primary drilling campaigns: 1966 to 1986 when BCMC, a subsidiary of Kennecott was the primary operator, 1998 when Kennecott resumed work after a long hiatus, and 2004 to present under NovaGold, NovaCopper, and Trilogy.

Between 2004 and 2005, NovaGold conducted a systematic drill core re-logging and re-sampling campaign of Kennecott and BCMC era drill holes AR-09 to AR-74. NovaGold either took 1 to 2 m samples every 10 m, or sampled entire lengths of previously unsampled core within a minimum of 1 m and a maximum or 3 m intervals. The objective of the sampling was to generate a full ICP geochemistry dataset for the Arctic deposit and ensure continuous sampling throughout the deposit.

During NovaGold, NovaCopper, and Trilogy eras, samples were selected based on lithologic contacts, significant mineralization and alteration. Drill core was sampled at no less than 30 cm and no more than 2.5 m when in un-mineralized material, and 2 m maximum intervals when in mineralized material. All samples processed at the logging facility at the Bornite Camp were sawn in half with one half being sent to ALS Minerals in Vancouver, BC for analysis and the other half stored on site at the Bornite Camp. Shipment of core samples from the site occurred on a drill hole by drill hole basis. Rice bags, containing two to four poly-bagged core samples each, were marked and labelled with the ALS Minerals address, project and hole number, bag number, and sample numbers enclosed. Rice bags were secured with a pre-numbered plastic security tie and a twist wire tie and then assembled into standard fish totes for transport by chartered flights on a commercial airline to Fairbanks, where they were met by a contracted expeditor for delivery directly to the ALS Minerals preparation facility in Fairbanks. In addition to the core, control samples are inserted into the shipments at the approximate rate of one standard, one blank and one duplicate per 17 core samples.

Samples were logged into a tracking system on arrival at ALS Minerals, and weighed. Samples were then crushed, dried, and a 250 g split pulverized to greater than 85% passing 75 μm.

Gold assays were determined using fire assay fusion followed by an atomic absorption spectroscopy finish. The lower detection limit was 0.005 ppm gold; the upper limit was 1,000 ppm gold. An additional 49-element suite was assayed by ICP-MS, following a 4-acid digestion. The copper, zinc, lead, and silver analyses were completed by AA, following a triple acid digest, when over limit results occurred using the ICP-MS assay method.

Data Verification

Drill hole collars, topography, core logging, and database verification were completed by third party independent contractors. Quality assurance and quality control measures have been in place on an annual basis since 2011 with full data audits of the NovaGold era assay database including retaining independent consultant Caroline Vallat, P.Geo. of GeoSpark Consulting Inc. (“GeoSpark”) to: 1) re-load 100% of the historical assay certificates, 2) conduct a QA/QC review of paired historical assays and NovaGold era re-assays; 3) monitor an independent check assay program for the 2004 to 2008 and 2011-2019 drill campaigns; and 4) generate QA/QC reports for the NovaGold era 2004 to 2008 and NovaCopper/Trilogy era 2011, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 drill campaigns.

BDRC reviewed the QA/QC dataset and reports and found the sample insertion rate and the timeliness of results analysis met or exceeded industry best practices. The QA/QC results indicate that the assay results collected by Trilogy, and previously by NovaGold and NovaCopper, are reliable and suitable for use in the Arctic FS.

Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

Since 1970, metallurgical testwork has been conducted to evaluate the ability of the Arctic deposit to produce copper, lead and zinc concentrates. In-general, the samples tested produced similar metallurgical performances and the Arctic Project has seen the development of a robust metal recovery process to support the current operational plans. Work

40

Table of Contents

conducted included mineralogy and flotation testing, locked cycle tests, comminution tests, copper/lead separation testwork, talc optimization testwork, and thickening and filtration testing.

Testwork can be broken into three key time periods:

1.Historical testwork completed prior to 2012, primarily by Kennecott Research Center in Utah, and Lakefield Research Ltd., Lakefield, Ontario;
2.Preliminary Trilogy test work conducted at SGS Mineral Services, Vancouver (“SGS Vancouver”), in 2012 to 2015; and
3.Detailed Trilogy test work conducted at ALS Metallurgy in Kamloops, BC (“ALS Metallurgy”) in 2015 to 2019.

In 2012, SGS Vancouver conducted a metallurgical test program to further study metallurgical responses of the samples produced from Zones 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Arctic deposit. The flotation test procedures used talc pre-flotation, conventional copper-lead bulk flotation and zinc flotation, followed by copper and lead separation. In general, the 2012-2015 test results indicated that the samples responded well to the flowsheet tested. The average results of the locked cycle tests (without copper and lead separation) were as follows:

The copper recoveries to the bulk copper-lead concentrates ranged from 89 to 93% excluding the Zone 1 & 2 composite which produced a copper recovery of approximately 84%; the copper grades of the bulk concentrates were 24 to 28%.
Approximately 92 to 94% of the lead was recovered to the bulk copper-lead concentrates containing 9 to 13% lead.
The zinc recovery was 84.2% from Composite Zone 1 & 2, 93.0% from Composite Zone 3 and 90.5% from Composite Zone 5. On average, the zinc grades of the concentrates produced were higher than 55%, excluding the concentrate generated from Composite Zone 1 & 2, which contained only 44.5% zinc.
Gold and silver were predominantly recovered into the bulk copper-lead concentrates. Gold recoveries to this concentrate ranged from 65 to 80%, and silver recoveries ranged from 80 to 86%.

Using an open circuit procedure, the copper and lead separation tests on the bulk copper–lead concentrate produced from the locked cycle tests generated reasonable copper and lead separation. The copper concentrates produced contained approximately 28 to 31% copper, while the grades of the lead concentrates were in the range of 41% to 67% lead. In this testwork program, it appeared that most of the gold reported to the copper concentrate and on average the silver was equally recovered into the copper and lead concentrates. Subsequent testwork to better define the copper and lead separation process was conducted in 2017, including a more detailed evaluation of the precious metal deportment in the copper and lead separation process.

Grindability testing was completed during both the SGS Vancouver and ALS Metallurgy testwork programs to support the design and economics of efficient grinding of the Arctic materials. SAG mill test results included a single JKTech drop-weight test and 19 SAG media competency tests using variability samples. Test results show the material is amenable to SAG milling and is relatively soft, with a reported breakage (axb) average value of 189.7. Bond ball mill work index (BWi) tests were completed on 44 samples and values ranged from 5.4 to 13.1 kWhr/t with an average BWi of 8.82 kWhr/t. Abrasion index (Ai) tests were completed on five samples and values fluctuated from 0.017 to 0.072 g for the measured samples. The data indicate that the samples are neither resistant nor abrasive to ball mill grinding. The materials are considered to be soft or very soft in terms of grinding requirements. The grinding testwork was used to support detailed grinding circuit design.

In 2017, ALS Metallurgy conducted detailed copper and lead separation flotation testwork using a bulk sample of copper–lead concentrate produced from the operation of a pilot plant. This testwork confirmed high lead recoveries in locked

41

Table of Contents

cycle testing of the copper–lead separation process and confirmed precious metal recoveries into the representative copper and lead concentrates. This testwork indicated a clear tendency of the gold values to follow the lead concentrate, giving it a significant gold grade and value. Detailed mineralogical analysis showed that a majority of gold values were occurring as liberated fine-grained gold particles.

The conclusions of testwork conducted both in 2012 and 2017 indicate that the Arctic materials are well-suited to the production of high-quality copper and zinc concentrates using flotation techniques which are industry standard. Copper and zinc recovery data were reported in the range of 88 to 92%, which reflected the high-grade nature of the deposit as well as the coarse-grained nature of these minerals. Grade variations within the deposit will be observed as indicated by the grade variations observed in variability samples, however mill feed variability is expected to be limited and readily manageable with good plant operational practices. Lead concentrates have the potential to be of good quality and can also be impacted by zones of very high talc. Considerable care will be required to ensure maximum talc recovery to remove talc, which has the potential to dilute lead concentrate grades. The lead concentrate is also shown to be rich in precious metals, which has some advantages in terms of marketability of this material.

An overall metallurgical balance for the Arctic Project is summarized in Table 2. The projected metallurgical recoveries are based on an expected average recovery over the life-of-mine (LOM), and results of metallurgical testwork conducted in 2012 and 2017–2019.

Table 2 - Summary of Overall Metal Recovery – Arctic Project

    

Concentrate Grade

    

Metal Recoveries

 

Mass

Cu

Pb

Zn

Au

Ag

Cu

Pb

Zn

Au

Ag

 

Process stream

 g/t

 g/t

 

Process Feed

 

100.0

 

2.24

 

0.54

 

3.12

 

0.47

 

34.69

 

 

 

 

 

Copper Conc

 

6.65

 

30.3

 

0.66

 

1.6

 

0.76

 

138

 

89.9

 

8.1

 

3.4

 

10.9

 

26.4

Lead Conc

 

0.78

 

6.9

 

55.0

 

1.8

 

37.3

 

2,806

 

2.4

 

79.0

 

0.4

 

62.1

 

63.1

Zinc Conc

 

4.78

 

1.3

 

0.25

 

59.2

 

0.53

 

24.5

 

2.7

 

2.2

 

90.6

 

5.4

 

3.4

Process Tailings

 

87.8

 

0.13

 

0.07

 

0.20

 

0.12

 

2.81

 

4.95

 

10.7

 

5.56

 

21.6

 

7.11

Ancillary testwork was completed by third party consultants on representative concentrate samples, to provide thickening and filtration data for the various concentrates. Settling and filtration rates were observed to be typical for sulphide concentrates and moisture contents in final filter cakes were observed to be lower than expected.

Metallurgical testwork was completed to provide representative tailings samples for use in detailed solids settling and compaction testwork to provide data for tailings design studies.

A detailed study of water treatment chemistry was undertaken to evaluate and confirm the option of destroying cyanide contained in solutions from the proposed copper–lead separation process. The use of an SO2/air process in a small-scale pilot plant demonstrated removal of 99% of the contained cyanide and supported the concept of maintaining low cyanide concentrations within the proposed tailings pond solutions.

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

Mineral Resource Estimate

Mineral resource estimates are estimated from a 3D block model based on geostatistical applications using commercial mine planning software (MineSight v11.60-2). The block model has a nominal block size measuring 10 x 10 x 5 m and uses data derived from 152 drill holes in the vicinity of the Arctic deposit. The resource estimate was generated using drill hole sample assay results and the interpretation of a geological model which relates to the spatial distribution of copper, lead, zinc, gold and silver. Interpolation characteristics were defined based on the geology, drill hole spacing, and geostatistical analysis of the data. The effects of potentially anomalous high-grade sample data, composited to two meter intervals, are controlled by limiting the distance of influence during block grade interpolation. The grade models

42

Table of Contents

have been validated using a combination of visual and statistical methods. The resources were classified according to their proximity to the sample data locations and are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards. Model blocks estimated by three or more drill holes spaced at a maximum distance of 100 m are included in the Indicated category. Inferred blocks are within a maximum distance of 150 m from a drill hole.

The estimate of Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources is constrained within a conceptual pit shell derived using the projected technical and economic parameters in Table 3.

Table 3 - Parameters Used to Generate a Resource-Limiting Pit Shell

Optimization Parameters

Open Pit Mining Cost

US$3/t

Milling + General and Administrative (G&A) Costs

 

US$35/t

Pit Slope

 

43 degrees

Copper Price

 

US$3.00/lb

Lead Price

 

US$0.90/lb

Zinc Price

 

US$1.00/lb

Gold Price

 

US$1,300/oz

Silver Price

 

US$18/oz

Metallurgical Recovery: Copper

 

92%

Lead

 

77%

Zinc

 

88%

Gold

 

63%

Silver

 

56%

Note: no adjustments for mining recovery or dilution.

The pit shell was generated about copper equivalent (CuEq) grades that incorporate contributions of the five different metals present in the deposit. The formula used to calculate copper equivalent grades is:

CuEq%= (Cu% x 0.92) + (Zn% x 0.290) + (Pb% x 0.231) + (Au g/t x 0.398) + (Ag g/t x 0.005)

The Mineral Resource estimate is listed in Table 4. Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of those Mineral Resources that were converted to Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

Table 4 - Mineral Resource Estimate for the Arctic Deposit

Average Grade:

Contained metal:

 

Class

  

  

M tonnes

  

  

Cu %

  

  

Pb%

  

  

Zn%

  

  

Au g/t

  

  

Ag g/t

  

  

Cu Mlbs

  

  

Pb Mlbs

  

  

Zn Mlbs

  

  

Au koz

  

  

Ag Moz

 

Indicated

36.0

3.07

0.73

4.23

0.63

47.6

2,441

581

3,356

728

55

 

Inferred

 

3.5

 

1.71

 

0.60

 

2.72

 

0.36

 

28.7

 

131

 

47

 

210

 

40

 

3

Notes:

(1)The Qualified Persons for the estimate are employees of SIM and BDRC. The estimate is reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards. The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is April 25, 2017. The results of the 2019 drilling supports the current estimate of mineral resources and the inclusion of these nine new drill holes would have no material impact on the estimate of mineral resources for the Arctic Project.
(2)Mineral Resources stated are contained within a conceptual pit shell developed using metal prices of US$3.00/lb Cu, US$0.90/lb Pb, US$1.00/lb Zn, US$1,300/oz Au and US$18/oz Ag and metallurgical recoveries of 92% Cu,

43

Table of Contents

77% Pb, 88% Zn, 63% Au and 56% Ag and operating costs of US$3/t mining and US$35/t process and general and administrative costs. The assumed average pit slope angle is 43º.
(3)The base case cut-off grade is 0.5% copper equivalent: CuEq = (Cu% x 0.92) + (Zn% x 0.290) + (Pb% x 0.231) + (Au g/t x 0.398) + (Ag g/t x 0.005).
(4)The Mineral Resource estimate is reported on a 100% basis without adjustments for metallurgical recoveries. Trilogy holds 50% of Ambler Metals.
(5)The Mineral Resource estimate is reported inclusive of those Mineral Resources that were converted to Mineral Reserves. 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 applied to an indicated mineral resource and must not be converted to a mineral reserve.

Mineral Resources have been rounded.

Factors that may affect the Mineral Resource estimates include:

Metal price and exchange rate assumptions.
Changes to the assumptions used to generate the CuEq cut-off grade.
Changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones.
Changes to geological and mineralization shapes, and geological and grade continuity assumptions.
Density and domain assignments.
Changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions.
Change to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the conceptual pit constraining the estimates.
Assumptions as to concentrate marketability, payability and penalty terms.
Assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and obtain surface rights titles, obtain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
Assumptions as to future site access.

There are no known factors related to environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, or political issues which could materially affect the Mineral Resource estimate that are not discussed in the 2020 Arctic Report.

Mineral Reserve Estimates

Mineral Reserves were classified in accordance with the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (May 10, 2014). Only Mineral Resources that were classified as Measured and Indicated were given economic attributes in the mine design and when demonstrating economic viability. Mineral Reserves for the Arctic deposit incorporate appropriate mining dilution and mining recovery estimations for the open pit mining method.

44

Table of Contents

Table 5 – Optimization Inputs

Parameter

    

Unit

    

Value

 

Metal Prices

 

  

 

  

Copper

$/lb

 

3.00

Lead

$/lb

 

1.00

Zinc

$/lb

 

1.10

Gold

$/oz

 

1,300.00

Silver

$/oz

 

18.00

Discount Rate

%

8

Slope Angles

  

 

  

Sector 1 (2L-E)

degrees

 

26

Sector 2 (2L-W)

degrees

 

40

Sector 3 (2U)

degrees

 

42

Sector 4 (3)

degrees

 

30

Sector 5 (4L)

degrees

 

38

Sector 6 (4U)

degrees

 

43

Dilution

%

Estimated in a block-by-block basis

Mine Losses

%

Taken into account by block

Mining Cost

  

 

  

Base Elevation

m

 

730

Base Cost

$/t

 

2.78

Incremental Mining Cost

  

 

  

Uphill

$/t/5m

 

0.020

Downhill

$/t/5m

 

0.015

Process Costs

  

 

  

Operating Cost

$/t milled

 

15.09

G&A

$/t milled

 

6.55

Process Sustaining Capital

$/t milled

 

1.53

Road Toll Cost

$/t milled

 

4.70

Closure

$/t milled

 

1.52

Processing Rate

Kt/d

 

10

Process Recovery

  

 

  

Copper

%

91.2

Lead

%

80.0

Zinc

%

91.0

Gold

%

58.9

Silver

%

34.9

Treatment & Refining Cost

 

Variable by concentrate type/ metal

Royalties

  

 

  

NANA Surface Use

%NSR

 

1.00

NANA1

%NP

 

0.00

Note:

(1)

NANA may elect to either (a) exercise a non-transferrable back-in-right to acquire between 16% and 25% (as specified by NANA) of the Arctic Project; or (b) not exercise its back-in-right, and instead receive a net proceeds royalty equal to 15% of the net proceeds realized by Ambler Metals. Upon the direction of Trilogy, the Arctic FS

45

Table of Contents

was evaluated on a 100% basis, of which Trilogy’s share is 50%, and does not include the impact on Ambler Metals of the NANA options, either purchasing an interest in the Arctic Project or receiving a royalty payment.

Dilution was applied to the resource model in two steps: planned dilution and contact dilution.

As the mining cost varies with depth individual blocks captured within the final pit design were tagged as either ore or waste by applying the parameters shown in Table 5. Using the partial block percentages within the final pit design the ore tonnage and average grades were calculated.

The Mineral Reserve estimates are shown in Table 6. Only Probable Mineral Reserves have been classified.

Table 6 – Mineral Reserve Statement

Tonnage

Grades

 

Class

  

  

t x 1000

  

  

Cu (%)

  

  

Zn (%)

  

  

Pb (%)

  

  

Au (g/t)

  

  

Ag (g/t)

 

Proven Mineral Reserves

 

 

 

 

 

 

Probable Mineral Reserves

 

43,443

 

2.24

 

3.12

 

0.54

 

0.47

 

34.7

Proven & Probable Mineral Reserves

 

43,443

 

2.24

 

3.12

 

0.54

 

0.47

 

34.7

Notes:

(1)The Qualified Person for the Mineral Reserves estimates is an employee of Wood. Mineral Reserves have an effective date of January 31, 2020. Mineral Reserves are reported on a 100% basis. Trilogy has a 50% interest in Ambler Metals.
(2)Mineral Reserves estimated assuming open pit mining methods and include a combination of planned and contact dilution. Total dilution is expected to be between 30% and 35%. Pit slopes vary by sector and range from 26° to 43°. Cut-off grade is variable and ranges from US$32.83/t NSR to US$33.96/t NSR. Commodity prices used were US$3.00/lb Cu, US$1.00/lb Pb, US$1.10/lb Zn, US$1,300/oz Au and US$18/oz Ag. Fixed process recoveries were assumed to be 91.2% Cu, 80.0% Pb, 91.0% Zn, 58.9% Au and 80.0% Ag. Mining costs were estimated at US$2.78/t incremented at US$0.02/t/5 m and US$0.015/t/5 m below and above 730 m elevation respectively. Processing costs were estimated at US$29.39/t, which includes a process operating cost of US$15.09/t, general and administrative cost of US$6.55/t, sustaining capital cost of US$1.53/t. Closure cost of US$1.52/t, and a road toll cost of US$4.70/t. Treatment costs include US$80/t Cu concentrate, US$180/t Pb concentrate and US$200/t Zn concentrate. Refining costs were estimated at US$0.08/lb Cu, US$10/oz Au, US$0.80/oz Ag. Transport costs were included as US$270.38/t concentrate. There is a fixed royalty percentage of 1%.

Risks that may affect the Mineral Reserve estimates include: commodity price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the NSR cut-off grades that constrains the estimate; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shapes, and geological and grade continuity assumptions; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical and hydrological assumptions, changes to mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the conceptual pit constraining the estimates; assumptions as to concentrate marketability, payability and penalty terms; assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and obtain surface rights titles, obtain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.

There is a risk to the estimate if the Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Project road is not constructed as envisaged, or in the time frame envisaged, or that the toll charges assumed in the 2020 Arctic Report are not the final charges levied. Other risks include: proper management of groundwater will be important to maintaining pit slope stability; the east wall is highly sensitive to several geotechnical parameters, and talc horizons that may not have been included in the geological model might also affect its stability; the presence of talc layers in the rock could affect recoveries in the process plant and therefore could be a risk to the Mineral Reserves.

46

Table of Contents

Mining Operations

The Arctic Project is designed as a conventional truck–shovel operation assuming 144 t trucks, and 15 m3 shovels. The pit design includes three nested phases to balance stripping requirements while satisfying the concentrator requirements.

The design parameters include a ramp width of 28.5 m, maximum road grades of 10%, bench height of 5 m, targeted mining width of between 70 and 100 m, berm interval variable by sector, variable slope angles by sector and a minimum mining width of 30 m.

The smoothed final pit design contains approximately 43.4 Mt of ore and 298.3 Mt of waste for a resulting stripping ratio of 6.9:1. Within the 43.4 Mt of ore, the average grades are forecast to be 2.24% Cu, 3.12% Zn, 0.54% Pb, 0.47 g/t Au and 34.7 g/t Ag.

The scheduling constraints set the maximum mining capacity at 36 Mt/a and the maximum process capacity at 10 kt/d. The production schedule results in a LOM of 12 years. The mine will require three years of pre-production before the start of operations in the processing plant.

Processing and Recovery Operations

The 10,000 t/d process plant design is conventional for the industry and will operate two 12-hour shifts per day, 365 d/a with an overall plant availability of 92%. The process plant will produce three concentrates: 1) copper concentrate, 2) zinc concentrate, and 3) lead concentrate. Gold and silver are expected to be payable at a smelter; silver is expected to be payable in the copper and lead concentrates, with gold expected to be payable in the lead concentrate only.

There are several deleterious elements reporting to the concentrates at levels which would incur penalties; however, there are no special processing provisions required to make a readily saleable concentrate.

The mill feed will be hauled from the open pit to a primary crushing facility where the material will be crushed by a jaw crusher to a particle size of 80% passing 80 mm.

The crushed material will be ground by two stages of grinding, consisting of one SAG mill and one ball mill in closed circuit with hydrocyclones (SAB circuit). The hydrocyclone overflow with a grind size of approximately 80% passing 70 μm will first undergo talc pre-flotation, and then be processed by conventional bulk flotation (to recover copper, lead, and associated gold and silver), followed by zinc flotation. The bulk rougher concentrate will be cleaned and followed by copper and lead separation to produce a lead concentrate and a copper concentrate. The final tailings from the zinc flotation circuit will be pumped to a TMF. Copper, lead, and zinc concentrates will be thickened and pressure-filtered before being transported by truck to a port and shipped to smelters.

Based on the mine plan developed for the Arctic FS and metallurgical testwork results, the LOM average metal recoveries and concentrate grades will be:

Copper concentrate:
Recovery:              89.9% copper; 10.9% gold; 26.4% silver
Copper grade:       30.3%
Lead concentrate:
Recovery:              79.0% lead; 62.1% gold; 63.1% silver
Lead grade:           55.0%

47

Table of Contents

Zinc concentrate:
Recovery:              90.6% zinc
Zinc grade:           59.2%

The average annual dry concentrate production is estimated as:

Copper concentrate:    241,024 t/a
Lead concentrate:        28,234 t/a
Zinc concentrate         173,093 t/a

The recovery plan includes provision for reagents, and water and power requirements

Infrastructure, Permitting and Compliance Activities

Infrastructure

The Arctic Project site is a remote, greenfields site that is remote from existing infrastructure. Infrastructure that will be required for the mining and processing operations will include:

Open pit mine
Stockpiles and WRF
Truck workshop, truck wash, mine offices, mine dry facility and warehouse
Administration building
Mill dry facility
Plant workshop and warehouse
Primary crushing building
Fine ore stockpile building
Process plant and laboratory
Concentrate loadout building
Reagent storage and handling building
Raw water supply building
Tailings management facility
Surface water diversion and collection channels, culverts, and containment structures
WRCP
WTPs.

48

Table of Contents

Access

The Arctic Project site will be accessed through a combination of State of Alaska-owned highways (existing), an Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority-owned private road (proposed) and Trilogy-owned access roads (proposed). The AMDIAP road is proposed by AIDEA to connect the Ambler mining district to the Dalton Highway. The AMDIAP road expected to be permitted as a private road with restricted access for industrial use. To connect the Arctic Project site and the existing exploration camp to the proposed AMDIAP road, a 30.7 km access road (the Arctic access road) will need to be built.

The State of Alaska-owned, public Dahl Creek airport will require upgrades to support the planned regular transportation of crews to and from Fairbanks. The cost of these upgrades has been included in the capital cost estimate.

Power

Power generation will be by five diesel generators, producing a supply voltage of 13.8 kV. The total connected load will be 27.1 MW with a normal running load of 16.0 MW. Diesel will be supplied via existing fuel supply networks in the region and shipped along the AMDIAP road.

Accommodation

The Arctic Project will require three different self-contained camps, equipped with their own power and heat generation capabilities, water treatment plant, sewage treatment plant, and garbage incinerator. The existing 90-person exploration camp will be used to start the construction of the Arctic access road. A 185-person construction camp will be constructed at the intersection of the AMDIAP road and Arctic access road and will be decommissioned once construction is complete. The permanent camp will be constructed along the Arctic access road, closer to the planned processing facility. The 400-person permanent camp will be constructed ahead of operations to support the peak accommodation requirements during construction.

Waste Rock Facility

A large WRF will be developed north of the Arctic pit in the upper part of the Subarctic Creek valley. The WRF is be designed to store waste rock as well as provide a buttress for the tailings containment in the adjacent footprint. The total volume of waste rock is expected to be 146 Mm3 (298 Mt); however, there is potential for expanded volume in the waste if placement density is <2.0 t/m3. The WRF will have a final height of 280 m to an elevation of 930 masl and is planned to be constructed in lifts of either 5, 10 or 20 m height with catch benches every 20 m to achieve an overall slope angle of 2.7H:1V.

Most of the waste rock is anticipated to be potentially acid-generating and there will be no separation of waste based on acid generation potential. Rather, seepage from the WRF will be collected and treated.

Overburden Stockpiles

There will also be two small overburden stockpiles to store the stripped topsoil and overburden from the TMF footprint. The topsoil stockpile will be placed between the haul roads with capacity to store up to 325,000 m3 of material while the overburden stockpile will be located below the lower haul road between the pit and the mill site with capacity to store up to 2,200,000 m3.

Tailings Management Facility

The TMF will be located at the headwaters of Subarctic Creek, in the upper-most portion of the creek valley. The 58.6 ha footprint of the TMF will be fully lined with an impermeable liner. Tailings containment will be provided by the natural topography on the valley sides and an engineered cross valley dam that will be buttressed by the WRF constructed immediately downstream of the TMF. A starter dam will be constructed to elevation 830 m. Three subsequent raises will

49

Table of Contents

bring the final dam crest elevation to 890 m, which is 40 m lower than the final elevation of the WRF. The TMF is designed to store approximately 34.5 Mm3 (37.8 Mt) of tailings plus 4.5 Mm3 of water produced over the 12-year mine life and still provide capacity for the probable maximum flood with 2.5 m of freeboard.

Water Management

The proposed mine development is located in the valley of Subarctic Creek, a tributary to the Shungnak River. A surface water management system will be constructed to segregate contact and non-contact water. Non-contact water will be diverted around mine infrastructure to Subarctic Creek. A groundwater seepage monitoring and collection system will be located down gradient of the WRF and seepage collection pond. Contact water will be conveyed to treatment facilities prior to discharge to the receiving environment.

A collection pond (WRCP) will be located directly below the toe of the WRF and will be used to collect seepage from the WRF, runoff from the WRF and haul road corridor area, and water pumped from the open pit.

The Arctic Project water and load balance indicates that during operations excess water from the WRCP will need to be treated prior to discharge to the receiving environment. In the last year of operations and during closure, water from the dewatering of the TMF will also need to be treated prior to discharge to the receiving environment.

Water Treatment Plants

A HDS lime-based neutralization and precipitation process will be used to treat effluent from the WRCP. The HDS WTP will operate during the open water season from May through October, during operations through to post-closure. Treated effluent will be discharged via a 12 km pipeline to the Shungnak River. Long-term water treatment at the HDS WTP will be required in perpetuity.

A Selenium water treatment plant (SeWTP) will treat excess water in the TMF that is predicted to have elevated selenium concentrations. The SeWTP is anticipated to commence treatment during operation in mine year 12. A portion of the treated effluent from the HDS WTP will be combined with excess water from the TMF, and treated for selenium such that the selenium water quality standard is met after a mixing zone in the Shungnak River. The SeWTP will cease once the TMF is dewatered (by approximately year 15 of closure). Studies are being conducted to evaluate alternative water management strategies and treatment methods that will not require a mixing zone in the Shugnak River.

Market Studies

Metal pricing was based on combination of two year trailing actual metal prices, market research and bank analyst forward price projections, prepared in July 2020 by Jim Vice of StoneHouse Consulting Inc., who was retained by Trilogy.

The long-term consensus metal price assumptions selected for the Arctic FS were:

Copper: $3.00/lb
Zinc: $1.10/lb
Lead: $1.00/lb
Gold: $1,300/oz
Silver: $18.00/oz

Smelter terms were applied for the delivery of copper, zinc and lead concentrate. It was assumed that delivery of all concentrates would be to an East Asian smelter at currently available freight rates. Total transport costs for the concentrate are estimated at $270.98/dmt.

50

Table of Contents

Environmental, Permitting, Social and Closure Considerations

Environmental Considerations

The Arctic Project area includes the Ambler lowlands and Subarctic Creek within the Shungnak River drainage. A moderate amount of baseline environmental data collection has occurred in the area including surface and groundwater quality sampling, surface hydrology monitoring, wetlands mapping, aquatic life surveys, avian and mammal habitat surveys, cultural resource surveys, hydrogeology studies, meteorological monitoring, and ML/ARD studies.

Permitting Considerations

Trilogy undertakes its current mineral exploration activities at the Arctic deposit under State of Alaska and Northwest Arctic Borough (“NWAB”) permits. Trilogy is presently operating under a State of Alaska Miscellaneous Land Use Permit that expires at the end of 2022, and a NWAB Permit that expires also expires at the end of 2022. Both permits are renewable.

Mine development permitting will be largely driven by the underlying land ownership; regulatory authorities vary depending on land ownership. The Arctic Project area includes patented mining claims (private land under separate ownership by Trilogy), State of Alaska land, and NANA land (private land).

Because the Arctic Project is situated to a large extent on State land, it will be necessary to obtain a Plan of Operation Approval (which includes the Reclamation Plan and Closure Cost Estimate) from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (“ADNR”). The Arctic Project will also require certificates to construct and then operate a dam(s) (tailings and water storage) from the ADNR (Dam Safety Unit) as well as water use and discharge authorizations, an upland mining lease and a mill site lease, as well as several minor permits including those that authorize access to construction material sites from ADNR.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (“ADEC”) would authorize waste management under an integrated waste management permit, air emissions during construction and then operations under an air permit, and an Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for any wastewater discharges to surface waters, and a Multi-Sector General Permit for stormwater discharges. The ADEC would also be required to review the US Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) Section 404 permit to certify that it complies with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”).

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game would have to authorize any culverts or bridges that are required to cross fish-bearing streams or other impacts to fish-bearing streams that result in the altering or affecting fish habitat.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) would require a CWA Section 404 permit for dredging and filling activities in Waters of the United States including jurisdictional wetlands. The USACE Section 404 permitting action would require the USACE to comply with the Natural Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and, for a project of this magnitude, the development of an Environmental Impact Statement is anticipated. The USACE would likely be the lead federal agency for the NEPA process. As part of the Section 404 permitting process, the Arctic Project will have to meet USACE wetlands guidelines to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to waters of the US including wetlands.

The Arctic Project will also have to obtain approval for a Master Plan from the NWAB. In addition, actions will have to be taken to change the borough zoning for the Arctic Project area from Subsistence Conservation and General Conservation to Resource Development and transportation.

The overall timeline required for permitting would be largely driven by the time required for the NEPA process, which is triggered by the submission of the Section 404 permit application to the USACE. The timeline includes the development and publication of a draft and final EIS and ends with a Record of Decision, and Section 404-permit issuance. In Alaska, the EIS and other State and Federal permitting processes are generally coordinated so that permitting and environmental review occurs in parallel. The NEPA process could require between two to three years to complete, and could potentially take longer.

51

Table of Contents

Social and Community

The Arctic Project is located approximately 40 km northeast of the villages of Shungnak and Kobuk, and 64 km east-northeast of the native village of Ambler. The population in these villages range from 151 in Kobuk (2010 Census) to 262 in Shungnak (2010 Census). Residents live a largely subsistence lifestyle with incomes supplemented by trapping, guiding, local development projects, government aid and other work in, and outside of, the villages.

The Arctic Project has the potential to significantly improve work opportunities for village residents. Trilogy is working directly with the villages to employ residents in the ongoing exploration program as mechanics, geotechnicians, core cutters, administrative staff, camp-services staff, heavy equipment operators, drill helpers, and environmental technicians. Trilogy and NANA have established a Workforce Development Committee to assist with developing a local workforce. In addition, Trilogy has existing contracts with native-affiliated companies (such as NANA Management Services and KUNA Engineering Inc.) that are providing camp catering and environmental services for the Arctic Project, respectively.

Local community concerns will also be formally recognized during the development of the Arctic Project EIS. Early in the EIS process, the lead federal permitting agency will hold scoping meetings in rural villages to hear and record the concerns of the local communities so that the more significant of these concerns can be addressed during the development of the EIS. In addition, the lead federal agency would have government-to-government consultations with the Tribal Councils in each of the villages, as part of the EIS process, to discuss the Arctic Project and hear Council concerns.

Closure Planning

Mine reclamation and closure are largely driven by State regulations that specify that a mine must be reclaimed concurrent with mining operations to the greatest extent possible and then closed in a way that leaves the site stable in terms of erosion and manages degradation of water quality from acid rock drainage or metal leaching on the site. A detailed Reclamation Plan and Closure Cost Estimate will be submitted to the State agencies for review and approval in the future, during the formal mine permitting process.

Owing to the fact that the Arctic Project is likely to have facilities on a combination of private (patented mining claims and native land) and State land, it is likely that the Reclamation Plan will be submitted and approved as part of the plan of operations, which is approved by the ADNR. However, since the reclamation plan must meet regulations of both ADNR and the ADEC, both agencies will review and approve the Reclamation Plan and Closure Cost Estimate. In addition, private land owners must formally concur with the portion of the Reclamation Plan for their lands so that it is compatible with their intended post-mining land use.

The estimate cost of closure is based on unit rates used by SRK on other closure projects in cold environments. The indirect costs were included as percentages of the estimated direct costs based on guidelines for Alaska (DOWL 2015). Long-term water treatment and maintenance of certain water management facilities were calculated separately, and a NPV is provided for the first 100 years, at a discount rate of 4.3%.

Reclamation and closure costs were estimated to be $158.2 million, in discounted 2020 US dollars. Annual (undiscounted) costs associated with long-term closure activities and operation of the HDS WTP are estimated to be $5.1 million.

52

Table of Contents

Capital and Operating Costs

Capital Costs

The capital cost estimate has an estimated accuracy of ±15% and uses quarter 4, 2019 US dollars as the base currency. The total estimated initial capital cost for the design, construction, installation, and commissioning of the Arctic Project is estimated to be $905.6 million. A summary of the estimated capital cost is shown in Table 7.

Table 7 – Initial Capital Costs

Cost Type

  

  

Description

  

  

US$M

 

Direct

 

Mine

 

280.1

 

Crushing

 

28.3

 

Process

 

116.6

 

Tailings

 

70.0

 

On-Site Infrastructure

 

109.3

 

Off-Site Infrastructure

 

53.7

 

Direct Subtotal

 

658.0

Indirect

 

Indirects

 

130.7

 

Contingency

 

94.6

 

Owners Costs

 

23.4

 

Indirect Total

 

248.7

Project Total

 

 

906.7

The total sustaining capital cost estimate is $113.8 million for the 12-year LOM which includes equipment, tailings and other items. Closure costs were estimated to be $205.4 million. These costs are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8 – Sustaining Capital and Closure Costs

Cost Type

  

Description

  

US$M

 

Direct

Mine

 

15.1

Process

 

1.3

Tailings

 

25.1

On-Site Infrastructure

50.4

Indirect

Indirects

 

13.8

Contingency

 

8.0

Total Sustaining Capital

113.8

Closure Costs

 

205.4

Operating Costs

The operating cost estimates use US dollars as the base currency and have an accuracy of ±15%. An average operating cost was estimated for the Arctic Project based on the proposed mining schedule. These costs included mining, processing, G&A, surface services, and road toll costs. The average LOM operating cost for the Arctic Project is estimated to be $50.65/ t milled. The breakdown of costs in Table 9 is estimated based on the LOM average mill feed rate.

All pre-production costs have been included in capital costs.

53

Table of Contents

Table 9 – Operating Costs

LOM Average Unit

 

Operating Cost

Percentage of Total

Description

  

  

($/ t milled)

  

  

Annual Operating Costs

Mining*

18.48

36%

Processing

18.31

36%

G&A

 

5.15

 

10%

Surface Operations

 

0.68

 

1%

Road Toll

 

8.04

 

16%

Total Operating Cost

 

50.65

 

100%

*    Excludes pre-production costs

Economic Analysis

The results of this economic analysis represent forward looking information. The results depend on the inputs that are subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented in this section. Information that is forward looking includes mineral reserve estimates, commodity prices, the proposed mine production plan, construction schedule, projected recovery rates, proposed capital and operating cost estimates, closure cost estimates, toll road cost estimates, and assumptions on geotechnical, environmental, permitting, royalties, and hydrogeological information.

An economic analysis was undertaken on a 100% basis to determine the IRR, net present value and payback on initial investment of the Arctic Project. Trilogy holds 50% of Ambler Metals. The Arctic Project consists of a three-year pre-production construction period, followed by 12 years of production.

Ausenco developed a pre-tax cash flow model for the Arctic Project and the NPV and IRR were calculated at the beginning of the construction period in Year -3.

The pre-tax financial model incorporated the production schedule and smelter term assumptions to produce annual recovered payable metal, or gross revenue, in each concentrate stream by year. Off-site costs, including the applicable refining and treatment costs, penalties, concentrate transportation charges, marketing and representation fees, and royalties were then deducted from gross revenue to determine the NSR. The operating cash flow was then produced by deducting annual mining, processing, G&A, surface services, and road toll charges from the NSR. Initial and sustaining capital was deducted from the operating cash flow in the years they occur, to determine the net cash flow before taxes. Initial capital cost includes all estimated expenditures in the construction period, from Year -3 to Year -1 inclusive. First production occurs at the beginning of Year 1. Sustaining capital expenditure includes all capital expenditures purchased after first production, including mine closure and rehabilitation. The model includes an allocation of a 1% NSR attributable to NANA.

The pre-tax financial results are:

30.8% IRR
$1,550.9 million NPV at an 8% discount rate
2.4 year payback period, on the initial capital costs of $905.6 million
Undiscounted pre-tax cashflow of $3,768.0 million over LOM

54

Table of Contents

The following tax regimes were incorporated in the post-tax analysis: US Federal Income Tax, Alaska State Income Tax, and Alaska Mining License Tax. Taxes are calculated based on currently enacted United States and State of Alaska tax laws and regulations, including the US Federal enactment of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act on December 22, 2017. At the base case metal prices used for this study, the total estimated taxes payable on the Arctic Project profits are $924.7 million over the 12-year mine life.

The post-tax financial results are:

27.1% IRR
$1,134.7 million NPV at an 8% discount rate
2.6 year payback period, on the initial capital costs of $905.6 million
Undiscounted post-tax cashflow of $ 2,843.4 million over LOM

Sensitivity Analysis

Ausenco investigated the sensitivity of the Arctic Project’s pre-tax NPV, and IRR to several project variables, including metal prices (copper, zinc, lead, gold, silver), capital costs, and operating costs (onsite and offsite). The metal grade is not presented in these sensitivity graphs because the impacts of changes in the metal grade mirror the impact of changes in metal price.

The Arctic Project’s pre-tax NPV at an 8% discount rate is most sensitive to changes in copper price, followed by zinc price, off-site operating costs, on-site operating costs, capital costs, silver price, gold price, and lead price.

The Arctic Project’s pre-tax IRR is most sensitive to changes in copper price and capital cost, followed by zinc price and off-site operating costs, and in then decreasing order, on-site operating costs, silver price, gold price, and lead price

Exploration, Development, and Production

Constraints and Interfaces

The Arctic Project will be an integrated development with several consultants contributing to the overall design process. Specialist contractors will most likely be engaged for specific packages, such as the Arctic access road, and the construction camps, generally on a “design and construct” basis.

It is essential that these parties work together to ensure data being used is both current and meaningful. Data transfer between parties shall be strictly controlled and in accordance with Document Control protocols.

The early design interfaces for the Arctic Project will include at least:

Mine development
Waste Rock placement and Tails Dam
Project water management and treatment
Arctic Access Road design and construction, in particular the pioneer road necessary to allow earliest possible access to the Mine pre-assembly construction site
Pioneer, Construction and Permanent Camps.

55

Table of Contents

The Interface Management procedures will be developed to ensure services at the battery limits are clearly defined and understood by all parties affected.

Key Project Milestones

Key project milestones will be developed once the project is committed to construction and the required permits are in hand.

The Mine requires nominally two years of pre-strip operations, tailings pond starter dam development and water accumulation before actual production mining operations can commence.

For that pre-strip work to start, the Arctic access road from the AMDIAP intersection to the mine site will have to be constructed to at least a pioneer road condition that will allow the mine fleet and the support facilities to be delivered, built and made operational.

Tailings pond construction must be to a height to allow natural collection of water in quantities that will allow plant operations to commence.

Proven Technology

The Arctic Project will utilize proven technology and equipment that can be built, operated and maintained under adverse weather conditions

The Design Criteria, Technical Specifications and Data sheets shall reflect the location, the environmental and initial logistics constraints that may affect the procurement and construction effort.

Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management Approach

Two engineering, procurement and construction management (“EPCM”) strategies have been identified that are structured to account for the abnormally long pre-strip mining operation. The first option is the basis for the capital and operating cost estimate.

Early Engineering Only with 2-Stage Procurement

There is a need to establish the mine facilities and assemble the Mine Fleet in time to allow the pre-strip operation to start some two years before the Process Plant receives its first ore. This means that there will be a significant amount of detailed engineering requiring completion well in advance of the time required for conventional engineering, procurement and construction of just the process plant and supporting infrastructure. This has been assessed as requiring detailed engineering to start some four years before the process plant starts production.

In particular, the pioneer access road design and contracts and civil design for the Mine Support facilities will be required early in the schedule. By default, the rest of the civil design would need to attach to that early works for simple plant layout and construction coordination purposes. For that to occur the plant layout will be required to be frozen a lot earlier than normal. That in turn is dependent on sizing and selection of the major process equipment items and the receipt of certified vendor data.

Effectively, the detailed design phase will need to follow the conventional approach and run its course but started at a time that meets the early works schedule requirements. Everything other than the mine support facilities will be designed some two years in advance of when it is needed.

With the early equipment order placement, the supply phase could become inordinately long, extending over three years in most cases, when in fact the equipment is not likely to be needed until the last eighteen months prior to plant start-up.

56

Table of Contents

An unorthodox but proven option to this extended design, supply and construction schedule is to have the EPCM Contractor buy the major equipment in two steps:

Step 1: Buy only the vendor certified engineering data to allow detailed engineering to continue to completion but hold the manufacturing functions until later in the overall schedule, effectively a delay of around twelve to fifteen months.
Step 2: Based on agreed vendor manufacturing durations, apply a “late” release of the equipment for manufacture with deliveries effectively becoming a “Just-in Time” logistics operation.

This strategy provides the following advantages:

Engineering can start and continue to completion using critical certified vendor data without the need for an extended “standby” involvement.
Procurement functions can work in parallel with the engineering group with no disconnect between the two disciplines.
The Procurement team can generally disband early in the schedule with just key personnel retained to provide continuity of support.
The expediting team can mobilize later in the schedule to drive manufacture and delivery in a concerted campaign.
Equipment deliveries can be orchestrated to suit the conditions at the time with everything consolidated into a transit compound for coordinated shipping to site.
Reduced cashflow demands.

The disadvantages with this approach are:

The vendors need to be clearly briefed as to what the system means to their manufacturing schedule.
A payments formula needs to be in place to account for a delayed delivery strategy.
Some vendors have difficulty in determining just what their actual engineering costs are.

Early EPCM Leading to Plant Care and Maintenance

Under this approach, the EPCM would work to conventional design and construction schedule, starting to suit the mine access requirements but following on to completion without interruption. That would bring the total process plant and supporting infrastructure to a mechanical completion condition nominally twelve to fifteen months before it is able to start work.

The plant could not be commissioned through lack of ore and would have to be placed into care and maintenance mode until ore became available. This has an inherent advantage in that if the pre-strip operation was completed earlier than scheduled, and sufficient water is accumulated, the plant operations would be able to take advantage of the fact the plant was already mechanically complete. The care and maintenance requirements in that environment for that duration will require close assessment.

Interpretations and Conclusions

The Arctic deposit will be mined at an annual rate of 36 Mt/a, with an overall stripping ratio of 6.9:1. Ore will be processed by conventional methods to annually produce 241,024 tonnes of copper, 28,234 tonnes of lead, and 173,093 tonnes of

57

Table of Contents

zinc, all in concentrates for provision to third party refiners. Waste and tailings materials will be stored in surface facilities, which will be closed and reclaimed at the end of the mine; contact water will be treated and discharged to the environment throughout the life of mine. Precious metals attendant with the concentrates will be largely payable. While there are expected to be several deleterious elements in the concentrates at levels that may incur penalties, there are no special processing requirements.

Under the assumptions presented in the 2020 Arctic Report, the Arctic Project shows positive economics.

The financial analysis excludes consideration of the NANA Agreement, whereby NANA has the right, following a construction decision, to elect to purchase a 16% to 25% direct interest in the Arctic Project or, alternatively, to receive a 15% Net Proceeds Royalty.

The financial analysis excludes consideration of the new joint venture formed between South32 and Trilogy.

The cost assumptions for the AMDIAP road are estimates provided by Trilogy. There is a risk to the capital and operating cost estimates, the financial analysis, and the Mineral Reserves if the toll road is not built in the time frame required for the Arctic Project, or if the toll charges are significantly different from what was assumed.

In terms of project execution, the mine requires nominally two years of pre-strip operations, tailings pond starter dam development and water accumulation before actual production mining operations can commence.

For that pre-strip work to start, the Arctic access road from the AMDIAP intersection to the mine site will have to be constructed to at least a pioneer road condition that will allow the mine fleet and the support facilities to be delivered, built and made operational.

Recommendations

A single-phase work program is recommended, which will include: additional drilling program to upgrade a portion of the indicated resource to measured resource; drill and blast study; geotechnical investigations and studies; further geohazards assessment; site specific seismic hazard assessment; updating of hydrogeological models and groundwater management plans; optimization of the plant and related service facilities and evaluation of the power supply; examination of water management, water treatment, WRF and TMF designs; baseline studies and environmental permitting activities; and additional metallurgical testwork.  The budget for this work is estimated at about $7.0 million.

Bornite Project, Ambler District, Alaska

Bornite Project

Except as otherwise stated, the scientific and technical information relating to the Bornite Project contained in this Form 10-K is derived from the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Bornite Project, Northwest Alaska, USA” dated February 11, 2022, with an effective date of December 31, 2021, prepared by SIM Geological Inc., Bruce M. Davis and International Metallurgical & Environmental Inc. (the “2021 Bornite Report”). The information regarding the Bornite Project is based on assumptions, qualifications and procedures which are not fully described herein. Reference should be made to the full text of the 2021 Bornite Report which has been filed with certain Canadian securities regulatory authorities pursuant to NI 43-101 and is available for review on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

Bornite Project - Property Description and Location

The property is located in the Ambler Mining District of the southern Brooks Range in the Northwest Artic Borough (“NWAB”) of Alaska. The property is located in Ambler River A-2 quadrangle, Kateel River Meridian T 19N, R 9E, sections 4, 5, 8 and 9. The Bornite Project is located 248 km east of the town of Kotzebue, 19 km north of the village of Kobuk, 275 km west of the Dalton Highway (an all-weather state maintained public road) at geographic coordinates N67.07°

58

Table of Contents

latitude and W156.94° longitude (Universal Transverse Mercator North American Datum 83, Zone 4W coordinates 7440449N, 589811E).

At the time of the formation of Ambler Metals, Trilogy transferred its Alaskan assets, including the Bornite Project, to the newly formed joint venture. The mineral resource estimates with respect to the Bornite Project are reported on a 100% basis, of which Trilogy’s share is 50%.

Bornite Project - Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography

Primary access to the Bornite Project is by air, using both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. There are four well maintained, approximately 1,500 m-long gravel airstrips located near the property, capable of accommodating charter fixed wing aircraft. These airstrips are located 40 km west at Ambler, 23 km southwest at Shungnak, 19 km south at Kobuk, and 15 km south at Dahl Creek. There is daily commercial air service from Kotzebue to the village of Kobuk, the closest community to the property. During the summer months, the Dahl Creek airstrip is suitable for larger aircraft, such as C-130 and DC-6. There is also a 700 m airstrip located at the Bornite Camp. The airstrip at Bornite is suited to smaller aircraft, which support the Bornite Camp with personnel and supplies.

There is no direct water access to the property. During spring runoff, river access is possible by barge from Kotzebue Sound to Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk via the Kobuk River.

A two-lane, two-wheel drive gravel road links the Bornite Project’s main camp to the 1,525 m Dahl Creek airstrip and village of Kobuk.

The climate in the region is typical of a sub-arctic environment. Exploration is generally conducted from late May until late September. Weather conditions on the Bornite Project can vary significantly from year to year and can change suddenly. During the summer exploration season, average maximum temperatures range from 10°C to 20°C, while average lows range from -2°C to 7°C. By early October, unpredictable weather limits safe helicopter travel to the property. During winter months, the property can be accessed by snow machine, track vehicle, or fixed-wing aircraft. Winter temperatures are routinely below -25°C and can exceed -50°C. Annual precipitation in the region averages 395 mm with the most rainfall occurring from June through September, and the most snowfall occurring from November through January.

Drilling and mapping programs are seasonal and have been supported out of the main Bornite Camp. The main Bornite Camp facilities are located on Ruby Creek on the northern edge of the Cosmos Hills. The camp provides office space and accommodations for the geologists, drillers, pilots, and support staff. There were four two-person cabins installed by NANA prior to our tenure. The 85-person capacity Bornite Camp consists of 35 structures most of which are metal-framed, insulated tents that house multi-occupancy sleeping accommodations, kitchen facilities, dining facilities, medical services, showers, washrooms, laundry, administrative offices, and a recreation tent. Early 1960s-era legacy structures constructed by Kennecott to support Bornite Shaft sinking are used for equipment maintenance, storage, and sleeping cabins. Core is logged in two, metal-clad buildings: one from the early 1970s and one 30 m x 9 m structure that was built in 2011. Electricity is generated at site by one 275 kW primary and one 300 kW backup diesel-powered generator.

Potable water is sourced from a permitted well. Solid waste disposal is accomplished by a combination of diesel-fired incineration and permitted landfill placement. The primary camp’s domestic wastewater is treated in a packaged bioreactor-style treatment plant before it is discharged. Wastewater from a small portion of the camp is treated in a conventional septic system.

The Bornite Project is located on Ruby Creek on the northern edge of the Cosmos Hills. The Cosmos Hills are part of the southern flank of the Brooks Range in Northwest Alaska. Topography in the area is moderately rugged. Maximum relief in the Cosmos Hills is approximately 1,000 masl with an average of 600 masl. Talus covers the upper portions of the hills; glacial and fluvial sediments occupy valleys. The Kobuk Valley is located at the transition between boreal forest and Arctic tundra. Spruce, birch, and poplar are found in portions of the valley, with a ground cover of lichens (reindeer moss). Willow and alder thickets and isolated cottonwoods follow drainages, and alpine tundra is found at higher elevations.

59

Table of Contents

Tussock tundra and low, heath-type vegetation covers most of the valley floor. Patches of permafrost exist on the property. Wildlife in the property area is typical of Arctic and Subarctic fauna. Larger animals include caribou, moose, Dall sheep, bears (grizzly and black), wolves, wolverines, coyotes, and foxes. Fish species include salmon, sheefish, arctic char, and arctic grayling. The Kobuk River, which briefly enters the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects on its southwest corner, is a significant salmon spawning river. The caribou on the property belong to the Western Arctic herd that migrates twice a year – south in August, from their summer range north of the Brooks Range, and north in March from their winter range along the Buckland River.

Bornite Project - History

Kennecott and Bear Creek Mining Tenure

Regional exploration began in the early 1900s when gold prospectors noted copper occurrences in the hills north of Kobuk, Alaska. In 1947, local prospector Rhinehart “Rhiny” Berg along with various partners traversing in the area located outcropping mineralization along Ruby Creek (Bornite) on the north side of the Cosmos Hills. They subsequently staked claims over the Ruby Creek showings and constructed an airstrip for access. In 1957, Bear Creek Mining Company (“BCMC”), Kennecott's exploration subsidiary, optioned the property from Berg. Exploration drilling in 1961 and 1962 culminated in the discovery of the “No.1 Ore Body” where drill hole RC-34 cut 20 m of 24% Cu (the “No.1 Ore Body” is a historical term used by BCMC that does not connote economic viability in the present context; it is convenient to continue to use the term to describe exploration work and historical mineral resource estimation in a specific area that was previously referred to as the Ruby Creek zone and is now referred to simply as the Ruby Zone). The discovery of the “No.1 Ore Body” led to the development of an exploration shaft in 1965 through 1966. The shaft, which reached a depth of 328 m, encountered a significant watercourse and was flooded near completion depth. The shaft was subsequently dewatered and an exploration drift was developed to provide access for sampling and mapping, and to accommodate underground drilling to further delineate mineralization. A total of 59 underground holes were drilled before the shaft was allowed to re-flood. The discovery of the Arctic Project in 1965 prompted a hiatus in exploration at Bornite, and only limited drilling occurred up until 1976.

In the late 1990s, Kennecott resumed its evaluation of the Bornite deposit and the mineralization in the Cosmos Hills with an intensive soil, stream, and rock chip geochemical sampling program using a 32-element ICP analyses. Grid soil sampling yielded 765 samples.  Ridge and spur sampling resulted in an additional 850 soil samples in the following year. Skeletonized core samples (85 samples) from key historical drill holes were also analyzed using 32 element ICP analytical methods. Geochemical sampling identified multiple areas of elevated copper and zinc in the Bornite region.

Kennecott completed numerous geophysical surveys as an integral part of exploration throughout its tenure on the property.  Various reports, notes, figures, and data files stored in Kennecott’s Salt Lake City exploration office indicated that geophysical work included, but was not limited to, the following:

Airborne magnetic and EM surveys (fixed-wing INPUT) (1950s)
Gravity, single point (“SP”), audio-frequency magnetotelluric (“AMT”), EM, borehole and surface IP/resistivity surveys (1960s)
Gravity, airborne magnetic, and controlled-source audio-frequency (“CSAMT”) surveys (1990s)

We have minimal information or documentation associated with these geophysical surveys conducted prior to the 1990s. Where data are available in these earlier surveys, the lack of details in data acquisition, coordinate systems, and data reduction procedures limit their usefulness. The only complete geophysical report that is available concerns down-hole IP/resistivity results. Most notable is the 1996 Bouguer gravity survey from the Bornite deposit into the Ambler Lowlands. The Bornite deposit itself is seen as a significant 3 milligal anomaly.  Numerous 2 milligal to > 6 milligal anomalies occur under cover in the Ambler Lowlands and near the Aurora Mountain and Pardner Hill occurrences. In addition to the

60

Table of Contents

geophysical surveys conducted by Kennecott, the ADNR completed an aeromagnetic survey of portions of the Ambler mining district in 1974-1975.

Several studies have been undertaken reviewing the geology and geochemistry of the Bornite deposit. Most notable is Murray Hitzman’s PhD dissertation at Stanford University and Don Runnel’s PhD dissertation at Harvard University. Bernstein and Cox reported on mineralization of the “No. 1 Ore Body” in a 1986 paper in Economic Geology. In addition to the historical work, Ty Connor at the Colorado School of Mines recently completed a Master’s thesis which reported on the timing of alteration and mineralization at the Bornite deposit.

Kennecott conducted two technical reviews of the groundwater conditions and a summary of the findings related to the flooding of the exploration shaft. In 1961, Kennecott collected 32 coarse reject samples from five drill holes to support preliminary metallurgical test work at Bornite. Samples targeted high-grade (> 10%) copper mineralization from the Upper Reef at the Ruby Zone.

Bornite Project - Geological Setting and Mineralization

The Bornite Project is located within the Arctic Alaska Terrane, a sequence of mostly Paleozoic continental margin rocks that make up the Brooks Range and North Slope of Alaska. It is within the Phyllite Belt geologic subdivision, which together with the higher-metamorphic grade Schist Belt, stretches almost the entire length of the southern Brooks Range and is considered to represent the hinterland of the Jura-Cretaceous Brookian orogeny. The southern margin of the Phyllite Belt is marked by mélange and low-angle faults associated with the Kobuk River fault zone, while the northern boundary is thought to be gradational with the higher-grade metamorphic rocks of the Schist Belt.

The geology of the Bornite resource area is composed of alternating inervals of carbonate rocks (limestone and dolostone) and calcareous phyllite. Limestone transitions laterally into dolostone near zones of mineralization and is considered to be hydrothermally altered. Spatial relationships and petrographic work suggest that dolomitization is genetically related to early stages of the copper mineralizing system; however, recent re-logging has questioned this view.

In 2015, Trilogy made an effort to improve the understanding of the distribution and nature of the various lithologic units and their context within a sedimentary depositional model. A new interpreation, based on lithogeochemical signatures of the various units along with their historical visual logging, concluded that stacked debris flows composed of basal non-argillaceous channelized breccias were overlain by upward fining upward sequence of increasingly argillaceous-rich breccias capped by high calcium (Ca) phyllites, confined laterally in channels between either massive or thin-bedded platform carbonates.

Two mineralized stacked debrite sequences were named the Lower and Upper Reefs. The Upper Reef grades upward into argillaceous limestones instead of discrete high Ca phyllites indicating a waning of debris supply. Based on this interpretation, a series of individual debrites were identified and modeled. In contrast to the locally derived high-Ca phyllites of the debrite- dominated Bornite carbonate sequence, low calcium (Ca) phyllites are abundant in the allochthonous Anirak schist (quartz phyllite) and the The Beaver Creek phyllite that underlie and overlie the Bornite carbonate sequence, respectively.  In addition to depositional lithostratigraphy, a crosscutting mineralized breccia called the “P-Breccia” has been identified in and around the South Reef deposit. Though poorly defined due to lack of drilling in the area, the P-Breccia zone—which contains excellent copper grade—lies at the apex of the Iron Mountain discontinuity. Although clearly post-deformational, it remains unclear whether the P-Breccia is a post-depositional structural, hydrothermal or solution-collapse breccia.

A short lithostratigraphic project carried out during the 2021 field season updated the depositional environment of the Bornite succession; this resulted in significant differences when compared to the previously summarized interpretations. The Bornite succession is now understood to be a carbonate slope deposit characterized by (a) lime mudstone, exported to the slope from a contemporaneous shallow-marine carbonate factory, variably mixed with and interlayered with (b) “background” argillaceous sediment that is locally carbonaceous. Superimposed on these calcite-dominated “normal”

61

Table of Contents

slope strata are locally impressive thicknesses of dolomudstone-clast conglomerate (formerly “breccia”). Slope limestone and siltstone-mudstone were originally centimetrically to decimetrically bedded, but are commonly ductilely deformed, producing the variably limey ‘phyllites’ that exhibit sub-mm scale foliation. In contrast, the dolostone-clast conglomerates and individual dolomudstone clasts responded brittlely to Brookian stress and show no significant shearing or plastic deformation. Instead, plastic deformation is largely restricted to the various phyllitic layers around the peripheries of the dolostone bodies.

Structural fabrics observed on the property include rare bedding and two distinct metamorphic foliations. Bedding (S0) can be measured only rarely where phyllite and carbonate are interbedded and it is unclear to what extent it is transposed. The pervasive foliation (S1) is often mylonitic and exhibits both an imprinted stretching lineation and preferred “top” direction. It is easily measured in phyllites and is commonly reflected by colour banding and/or stylolamination (flaggy habit in outcrop) of the carbonates. Core logging shows that S1 is folded gently on the 10 m scale and locally tightly folded at the decimetre scale. S2 axial planar cleavage is locally developed in decimetre scale folds of S1. Both S1 and S2 foliations are considered to be Jurassic in age. Some limestone outcrops, in particular the “TBLS” on Aurora Mountain and the marbles at the base of Coral Hill, also exhibit a stretching lineation. Core-logging shows that S1 is folded gently on a 10 m scale and locally tightly folded at the decimetre scale forming a common S2 axial planar cleavage. S2 is folded gently on a 10 m scale forming an upright mesoscale S3 foliation. S1 and S3 foliations are thought to be Jura-Cretaceous in age.

Structural mapping in 2021 recognized a well-developed stretching lineation (i.e., L-tectonite) in the carbonate-phyllite rocks, typically oriented shallowly towards the NNE or SSW.  “Top” direction indicate movement to the S or SSW along the vector of the stretching lineation.  Moreover, new mapping indicates that stiff Bornite rocks, in particular metric to hectametric dolostone bodies, have been boudinaged into 3-D ellipsoids.  Slip is accommodated by phyllites., Additional mapping is required to determine whether such a tectonic style plays a role in the distribution of copper mineralization.

Owing to their greater rigidity, dolostone bodies of secondary dolostone manifest strain differently: tan hydrothermal dolostone tends to be broken into centimetre- to decimetre-scale blocks, whereas grey (diagenetic?) dolostone may exhibit unusual, contorted forms, some resembling human fingers or swan necks, as evident in outcrop. Dolostone is rarely cut by plastically deformed zones and instead forms metric to hectametric lenses (“augens”) encased in plastically deformed calc-mylonite and calc-phyllite. This deformation, presumably a product of the Jura-Cretaceous Brookian orogeny, complicates sedimentological interpretations.

Mineralization at Bornite forms tabular mineralized zones that coalesce into crudely stratabound bodies hosted in dolostone conglomerate/breccia. Two significant dolomitic horizons that host mineralization have been identified by drilling and include: 1) the Lower Reef, a substantial 100 m to 300 m thick dolomitized zone lying immediately above the basal quartz phyllite unit of the Anirak schist and 2) the Upper Reef, a 100 m to 150 m thick dolomite horizon that sits roughly 300 m higher in the section. The Lower Reef is separated from the Upper Reef by a zone of ductilely sheared phyllites up to 60 m thick.

The Lower Reef dolostone outcrops along the southern margin of the Ruby Zone and is spatially extensive throughout the deposit area. It hosts a significant portion of the shallow mineral resources in the Ruby Zone as well as higher grade mineral resources down-dip and to the northeast in the South Reef area. The Upper Reef hosts relatively high-grade mineral resources to the north in the Ruby Zone. The Upper Reef appears to lie at an important NE-trending facies transition to the NW of the main drilled area and appears to be at least partially thrust over the Lower Reef stratigraphy to the southeast.

Drill results from 2013 show dolomitization and copper mineralization in the Upper and Lower Reefs coalescing into a single unit along the northern limits of current exploration. The NE- trending Ruby Zone and South Reef areas also coalesce into a roughly 1,000 m wide zone of >200 m thick dolomite containing significant copper mineralization dipping north at roughly 5-10 degrees. The 2017 drill results show that the mineralized dolomite interval continues for at least another 700m down-dip to the northeast from mineralization in the Upper and Lower Reefs.

62

Table of Contents

Bornite Project – Mineralization

Copper mineralization at Bornite comprises chalcopyrite, bornite, and chalcocite distributed in stacked, roughly stratiform zones exploiting favourable lithologies (conglomerate/berccia) within the Bornite sequence. Mineralization occurs, in order of increasing grade, as disseminations, irregular and discontinuous stringer-style veining, breccia matrix replacement, and stratabound massive sulphides. The distribution of copper minerals is zoned around the bottom-centre of each zone of mineralization, with bornite-chalcocite-chalcopyrite at the core progressing outward to a fringe of chalcopyrite-pyrite. Additional volumetrically minor copper minerals include carrollite, digenite, tennantite-tetrahedrite, and covellite. Stringer pyrite and locally significant sphalerite occur above and around the copper zones and locally massive pyrite and sparse pyrrhotite are associated with siderite alteration below copper mineralization in the Lower Reef.

Significant cobalt mineralization is found accompanying bornite-chalcocite mineralization. Cobalt often occurs with high-grade copper as carrollite (Co2CuS4) and as cobaltiferous rims on recrystallized pyrite grains. Preliminary geometallurgical work by Trilogy showed that cobalt occurs primarily as cobaltiferious pyrite (approximately 80% of he contained cobalt) and within other cobalt minerals such as carrollite, and cobaltite (CoAsS).

Some appreciable silver values are also found at Bornite, particularly in association with bornite-rich mineralization in the South Reef area and Ruby Zones.

Bornite Project – Exploration

Exploration in and around the Bornite Project by Kennecott from 1957 to 1998 is summarized above. In addition to the extensive drilling completed during the more than 40-year tenure of Kennecott in the district, Kennecott completed widespread surface geochemical sampling, regional and property scale mapping, and numerous geophysical surveys employing a wide variety of techniques. The majority of this data has been acquired by us and forms the basis for renewed exploration that targets Bornite-style mineralization in the Bornite carbonate sequence.

NovaGold as the precursor company to us began to actively pursue an agreement to explore the Bornite Project with NANA in 2005 resulting in an initial airborne geophysical survey in 2006. Negotiations on the consolidation and exploration of the entire Ambler district continued for the next several years culminating in the NANA Agreement in October 2011.

With the NANA Agreement approaching completion, NovaGold initiated work in 2010 to begin to characterize the exploration potential and depositional controls by re-logging and re-analyzing select drill holes with a Niton portable x-ray fluorescence (“XRF”) to determine geochemical variability. In 2011, NovaGold began an initial drill program to verify the historical database and exploration potential and conducted additional geophysical surveys to provide better targeting tools for continued exploration in the district. In 2012, we expanded the IP geophysical coverage completing a major district-wide survey that targeted the prospective Bornite Carbonate sequence. Subsequent resource drilling between 2011 and 2013 based on the exploration targeting is discussed in the “Bornite Project - Mineral Resource Estimates” section below.

2006 NovaGold

In 2006, NovaGold contracted Fugro Airborne Surveys to complete a detailed helicopter DIGHEM (frequency-domain EM), magnetic and radiometric survey of the Cosmos Hills. The survey covered a rectangular block approximately 18 km by 49 km which totaled 2,852-line km. The survey was flown at 300 m line spacing with a line direction of N20E. The DIGHEM helicopter survey system produced detailed profile data of magnetics, EM responses and radiometrics (total count, uranium, thorium, and potassium) and was processed into maps of magnetics, discrete EM anomalies, EM apparent resistivity, and radiometric responses.

63

Table of Contents

2010 NovaGold

In 2010, in anticipation of completing the NANA Agreement, NANA granted NovaGold permission to begin low level exploration at Bornite; this consisted of re-logging and re-analyzing select drill holes using a Niton portable XRF. In addition to the 2010 re-logging effort, NovaGold contracted a consulting geophysicist, Lou O'Connor, to compile a unified airborne magnetic map for the Ambler mining district from Kennecott, Alaska DNR, and NovaGold airborne geophysical surveys.

2011 NovaGold

In 2011, NovaGold contracted Zonge International Inc. (“Zonge”) to conduct both dipole-dipole complex resistivity induced polarization (“CRIP”) and natural source audio-magnetotelluric (“NSAMT”) surveys over the northern end of Bornite to develop tools for additional exploration targeting under cover to the north.

NSAMT data were acquired along two lines totaling 5.15 line-km; one line is oriented generally north-south through the centre of the survey area and the other being the southernmost east-west line in the survey area. CRIP data were acquired on five lines: four east-west lines and one north-south line, for a total coverage of 14.1 line-km and 79 collected CRIP stations. The initial objective of the survey was to investigate geological structures and the distribution of sulphides possibly associated with copper mineralization.

Results from the paired surveys show that wide-spaced dipole-dipole resistivity is the most effective technique to directly target the mineralization package. Broad, low-resistivity anomalies reflecting pyrite haloes and mineralization appear to define the limits of the fluid package. Well-defined and often very strong chargeability anomalies are also present, but appear in part to be masked by phyllitic units which also have strong chargeability signatures. NSAMT shows similar resistivity features as the IP, but these are less well resolved.

2012 NovaCopper

In light of the success of the 2011 geophysical program, we contracted Zonge to conduct a major district-wide dipole/dipole IP survey, a down-hole IP radial array survey in the South Reef area, and an extensive physical property characterization study of the various lithologies to better interpret the existing historical geophysical data.

Zonge completed 48 line km of 200 m dipole/dipole IP during 2012, infilling and expanding on the 2011 survey, and stretching across the most prospective part of the outcropping permissive Bornite carbonate sequence. The results show a well-defined low resistivity area associated with mineralization and variable IP signatures attributed both to mineralization and the overlying Beaver Creek phyllite. Numerous target areas occur in the immediate Bornite area with lesser targets occurring in the Aurora Mountain and Pardner Hill areas and in the far east of the survey area.

During the 2012 drill program at South Reef, a single drill hole was targeted on a low resistivity area approximately 500 m to 600 m southeast of the South Reef mineralization trend. Although the drill hole intersected some dolomite alteration in the appropriate stratigraphy, no significant sulphides were encountered.

In addition to the extensive ground IP survey, Zonge also completed 9 km of down-hole radial IP using an electrode placed in drill hole RC12-0197 to further delineate the trend and potential in and around the South Reef. Extensive physical property data including resistivity, chargeability, specific gravity, and magnetic susceptibility were captured for use in modelling the existing ground IP and gravity surveys, and the airborne EM and magnetic surveys.

In addition to geophysical focused exploration, a district wide geologic map was compiled integrating Kennecott’s 1970’s mapping of the Cosmos Hills with selective Trilogy mapping in 2012.

64

Table of Contents

2013 NovaCopper

The emphasis of the 2013 program was to further validate and refine the 2012 geologic map of the Cosmos Hills. A deep penetrating soil and vegetation geochemical orientation survey was completed over the South Reef deposit, using various partial leaches and pH methods. The initial, approximately 1 km, test lines suggest a good response for several of the partial leaches of the soils but little response in the vegetative samples. Follow-up is warranted to the north of the deposit into the Ambler Lowlands.

2014 NovaCopper

During 2014, exploration work was limited to a re-logging and re-sampling program of historical Kennecott drill core.

2015 NovaCopper

As a follow-up to the 2013 field program, a deep penetrating soil and vegetation geochemical survey was extended north of the deposit into the Ambler Lowlands. Trilogy geologists completed a lithogeochemical desktop study and a comprehensive update to the 3D lithology model.

2017 Trilogy

The 2017 field program extended the 2013 and 2015 deep penetrating geochemical (“DPG”) soil survey another 500m to the northeast.  The 2013 soil line was extended 1,500m to the east to test over the covered projection of the Two Grey Hills carbonate section.  The 3D lithology model was updated to incorporate the 2017 drill program results, which are described in Section 10,

Trilogy also completed a close spaced ground gravity survey over a 2 km by 4km grid with 100 m station spacing over the resource area and extending northeast over the 2017 drill target area.  The complete Bouguer anomaly residual plot (removes a strong decreasing to the northeast regional gradient) shows good correlation with the Lower Reef mineralization that outcrops on surface with the gravity high gradually decreasing down-dip to the northeast.

As part of the overall gravity program, Mira Geosciences created a petrophysical model for the Bornite deposit that synthesized the expected gravity response on surface (forward model) for the 2017 gravity stations.   This forward model matches very closely with the actual survey data over the deposit area, but diverges on the south end where the expected response of gravity low is actually a strong gravity high that may reflect shallow mineralization up-dip along the South Reef trend.  Mira also completed a geologically constrained 3D inversion using the 2017 gravity data.  Two areas of anomalously high densities (>2.9 g/cc) were identified.  The first area extends up to 750m to the east-northeast of RC17-0239, which was one of the more successful holes in 2017 and is coincident with the Iron Mountain structure.  The second anomaly is located just above the Anirak contact (Lower Reef) to the west of the 2017 target area and 700m to the north of the closest drill hole (RC-53), which is weakly mineralized along that horizon.  This area falls along the northwest-southeast high grade thickness trend.

2018 Trilogy

During the 2018 field season, Trilogy Metals carried out additional DPG and a 2D seismic survey at Bornite. In addition, geophysical and geochemical data from Bornite were studied using existing datasets. Soil sampling was completed on the westerly extension of the DPG lines on the northwestern portion of the Bornite deposit. DPG was used to assist with outlining the edges of the deposit as well as to corroborate gravity anomalies defined during the 2017 field season.

A 2D seismic survey was completed by HiSeis (3D seismic imaging) in June 2018. This 2D acquisition program was designed to test whether seismic reflection was suitable for the Bornite deposit and to understand the logistics of any future 3D seismic survey over the project area. Two 6 km 2D seismic lines, a dip line and a strike line, were acquired with a total of 792 unique source locations to attempt to image hanging wall and footwall shears; other faults and shears; folding of stratigraphy; internal (within Bornite sequence) phyllite units; facies changes within the dolostones; and direct

65

Table of Contents

detection of massive sulphide mineralization; and any alteration associated with mineralization. Acquisition of this 2D dataset used 500 g seismic charges as a means of producing seismic energy. All seismic vibrations were measured on a “fully active” line of 1,189 geophone receivers which provided up to 6 km of offset on either side of the source using the Aries I seismic acquisition system. Supporting rock property data were acquired from drill core stored in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Mira Geosciences completed a 3D inversion model of the 100 m spaced ground gravity data that were collected over the Bornite deposit during the 2017 exploration season. Using geology to constrain the model, three areas of anomalously higher gravity were defined. Unfortunately, none of these intervals were properly tested in 2017 with two holes, those at Anomaly “B” and “C”, ending above the gravity anomalies. Two of the three identified anomalies from the 2017 inversion modelling changed in size and relative orientation with the updated geologic model. Anomaly B, which stretches to the northwest from hole RC17-0238 decreased in extent, likely the result of a thicker-than-previously-modelled Upper Reef carbonate section in RC17-0238. Anomaly C is much broader and less defined, indicating that it may be the result of underestimating the SG in the lithology model (incorrect interpretation). This anomaly remains untested with the failures of drill holes RC17-0242 and RC18-0245 and should be redrilled in the future. Anomaly A is relatively unchanged and remains coincident with the Iron Mountain structure. Holes RC18-0246, RC18-0249, and RC18-0250 tested the southwest edge of the anomaly where it joins the South Reef trend. Hole RC18-0250 suggests that mineralization wanes to the east, though this hole may have just missed mineralization controlled by the Iron Mountain structure. The northeast extent of this anomaly is still considered a viable exploration target.

South32 completed a QA/QC review, lithogeochemical-alteration assessment, and a vectoring/targeting exercise on downhole geochemical data on the Bornite deposit. The purpose of this exercise was to use downhole analyses to assess the geology, alteration, and mineralogy of the deposit to vector towards mineralization. The Bornite sequence can be classified into three geochemical groups including: 1) very low immobiles; 2) low immobiles; and 3) higher immobiles. The latter was then subdivided into five groups based on Al, Cr, and V concentrations. The “very low” and “low immobile” groups are predominately limestones and dolomites (including breccias), whereas increasing Al in “higher immobiles” represent the increasingly argillaceous/micaceous units (phyllites). High Al samples in the lower Bornite sequence can be discriminated from those in the upper sequence based on high Ni:Cu ratios. In the South Reef area, lithogeochemistry supported Trilogy Metals’ geologic model, identified the lower, central and upper Bornite sequence units and distinguished many of the logged phyllites from breccias. The results support Trilogy Metals’ interpretation that the Ruby Zone in the Lower Reef is hosted in units corresponding to the South Reef central sequence.

2019 Trilogy

In 2019, Trilogy Metals contracted Geotech Ltd. (Geotech) of Aurora, Ontario to complete VTEM Plus (versatile time domain electromagnetic) and ZTEM (z-axis tipper electromagnetic) airborne helicopter geophysical surveys over the Cosmos Hills and the Ambler VMS belt. Magnetics were measured using a cesium vapour sensor, while radiometrics was not collected due to snow cover.

The VTEM survey was flown along 200 m spaced lines oriented northwest-southeast over the entire Bornite carbonate sequence north of the Cosmos Arch (which hosts the Bornite deposit), with additional lines at 100 m spacing directly above the Bornite resource. A second set of perpendicular lines (southwest-northeast) were flown at 200 m spacing over just the general Bornite area. Tie lines at ~4,000 m spacing were flown perpendicular to the EM flight lines to provide control for the magnetic survey.

The VTEM results from the Bornite sequence are complex and appear to be mostly reflecting bedrock lithologies (the graphitic phyllites). The conductive plates that were modelled are generally coincident with the interpreted phyllite units, as are the apparent anomalies tested by holes RC19-0263 and RC19-0266.

66

Table of Contents

2020 Ambler Metals