I would now like to turn the conference over to Siren Fisekci, VP, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Ms. Fisekci.
Thank you for joining us today for Pan American Silver's webcast and conference call to discuss the revised Preliminary Economic Assessment for our La Colorada Skarn project. Please note this call includes forward-looking statements and information, and you are advised to see the cautionary statements to the slides that accompany this call, and in our news release issued on March 24, 2026, announcing the results of the revised PEA. A copy of an updated technical report on Pan American's La Colorada property, including the revised PEA on the La Colorada Skarn project, will be filed with Canadian securities regulators.
The report will be available under the company's profile on SEDAR+ and on our website within 45 days of today. I'll now turn the call over to Michael Steinmann, President and CEO of Pan American Silver.
Thanks, Siren, and thanks to everyone for joining us today. We are very pleased to share the results of our revised Preliminary Economic Assessment or PEA for the La Colorada Skarn project. Since issuing the original PEA in early 2024, we have continued to advance an active exploration program across the La Colorada property. Over the past two years, we have reported a series of high-grade drill results, most recently in our March 5, 2026, news release.
Those results include exceptional intercepts and have led to the discovery of multiple new high-grade silver zones, alo ng with replacement -style mineralization to the east and southeast of the current defined mineral resource at La Colorada. In September 2025, we also announced the addition of 52.7 million ounces of silver to inferred mineral resources located in veins northeast of the current operation. With the benefit of those exploration results, we have taken a fresh look at the development plan for La Colorada.
Yesterday, we shared that updated vision to our revised PEA. The revised PEA outlines a new development plan for the La Colorada property. While we continue production from the existing La Colorada mine using current facilities and infrastructure, we plan to begin developing the higher -grade portion of the skarn deposit simultaneously with the newly identified high-grade silver veins. The first step in that plan is the construction of a decline from the 588 level of the existing mine to access the skarn deposit. We expect preliminary work on that to begin in 2026.
Also in 2026, we plan to start engineering work for two shafts, a production shaft and a ventilation shaft, both of which will be conventionally sunk from surface. These shafts are expected to be completed by 2030 and would provide access, hoisting capacity, and ventilation for both the skarn and the newly discovered vein zones. As this initial infrastructure is built and underground mine development advances, the revised PEA contemplates the construction of a new 15,000 tons per day processing plant.
The timing of that plant is intended to align with the start of initial production from the skarn deposit in 2032. The new plant is expected to process all production from La Colorada, including mineral reserves and mineral resources from the vein system, as well as the high-grade portion of the skarn mineralization. Total capital investment for that project is estimated at $1.9 billion. We expect that spending to occur over approximately six years, with the heaviest spending in the final three years as the plant is constructed.
Importantly, we currently expect to fund this capital through cash flow generated by Pan American's operating mines. We do not require additional permitting for the 588 level ramp decline that will provide initial access to the skarn deposit. Permit applications would, however, need to be submitted for other components of the proposed expansion project, including the mine shafts, the new processing plant, and tailings facility expansion.
Taken together, this overall development plan, which we are referring to as the expanded La Colorada mine, has the potential to position La Colorada as one of the largest and lowest- cost silver mines in the world. During the peak five years following construction and ramp- up, silver production from the expanded La Colorada mine is expected to average 19.1 million ounces annually. Silver production will then average 11 million ounces per year for another 10 years after this peak period, before declining for the remainder of the 37-year life.
There is substantial exploration upside at La Colorada, highlighted by the discovery of four new high-grade veins to the southeast of the current mine. Additional mineralized material from those and other new structures could further extend the peak silver production levels. We expect to use conventional long-hole open stoping with paste backfill, a mining method we already apply across our underground operations, which would lower the technical risk for this large project. By contrast, the original PEA contemplated developing only the skarn deposits using a sub-level caving method.
Cave mining would only be considered as part of an additional potential expansion in the distant future. Let me now turn to the economics of the revised PEA, which are specific to the development of the vein mineral resource and skarn mineral resource. While the existing La Colorada mine is expected to continue operating during construction, commissioning, and well into the future operation of the La Colorada Skarn project, the mineral reserves associated with the current operation that are scheduled to be mined over its life are excluded from the revised PEA mine plan and economics.
As a result, they do not contribute to the economics of the La Colorada Skarn project presented here as required by NI 43-101 reporting standards. On a standalone basis, the La Colorada Skarn project offers attractive returns. The revised PA estimates an incremental after-tax net present value discounted at 5% of approximately $2.6 billion, with an after-tax internal rate of return of 17%. These estimates are based on our long-term base case metal prices of $45 per ounce of silver, $2,800 per ton of zinc and $2,000 per ton of lead.
At higher metal prices, specifically $75 per ounce of silver, $3,400 per ton of zinc, and $2,000 per ton of lead, the incremental after-tax NPV, discounted at 5%, increases to approximately $5.2 billion, and the after-tax IRR rises to 25%. Additional sensitivities for NPV and IRR across the range of silver and zinc prices are included in the news release we issued yesterday. Based on our base case metal price assumptions, the payback period of the initial $1.9 billion investment is estimated at four years.
Under the higher metal price scenario, that payback period improves to approximately three years. The La Colorada skarn project is expected to generate strong free cash flow, averaging $653 million annually over the initial five years following construction and plant ramp up at the base case metal prices. Under the upside price scenario, annual free cash flow increases to $988 million. Again, this is incremental to the free cash flow generated by the La Colorada mine reserve during those periods. Those strong free cash flow expectations are supported by strong operating margins.
Silver all-in sustaining costs are expected to average negative $22.67 per ounce over the initial five-year period, reflecting significant zinc and lead by-product credits. At the base case prices, the initial five-year period's revenue contributions is approximately 42% silver, 39% zinc and 19% lead. While at the upside price scenario, the silver revenue increases to 51%. We are very pleased to present this development concept, which could meaningfully expand low-cost silver production at La Colorada while also de-risking the project through lower capital intensity and the use of a conventional mining method.
As mentioned, we are anticipating beginning some preliminary work on the development of the ramp from the 588 level in the coming month. We will also continue exploration and definition diamond drilling in both the skarn and the eastern portion of the vein mine, as we believe there is significant potential for further mineral resource growth. Also, in 2026, we plan to begin detailed engineering work for the production and ventilation shafts. Finally, we are preparing the scope and schedule required to advance towards a pre-feasibility study.
We are excited to be advancing this large-scale silver project, which we believe offers investors exceptional long-term exposure to silver, a metal that will remain increasingly critical in the future. The expanded La Colorada mine has the potential to become one of the largest and lowest-cost silver-producing mines in the world. With that, together with the rest of our management team, I'd be happy to take your questions.
The first question comes from Fahad Tariq with Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Just on the change in the development approach, how much of that was driven by maybe technical factors or even financial factors versus not being able to find a suitable partner for the larger bulk caving operation?
Fahad, no, not the reason about partners. There was plenty of interest to look at this project. When you look at this time at, you know, the risk to develop a 50,000-ton underground block or sub-level cave mine compared to the higher grade part in the first step, as we indicated in the call, there is still a possibility in the future to go to a way bigger mine if, you know, if we would decide to do so. That was really the reason, I mean, a higher grade, lower capital, way lower risk way forward here that actually produces quite a bit of more silver for us than we had anticipated in the original PA.
As a combination, obviously, a way more attractive project for us, and as I said, with the higher silver production, you know, a project that is way more in line with Pan American's goals here.
Okay. Just maybe a housekeeping item, but on the plant CapEx specifically, I think it's $277 million in the revised PEA. Do you know what it was in the 2023 PEA? Just so we can compare, 'cause the plant size is quite a bit smaller now, obviously.
Yeah, we'll have to get back to you on that, Fahad. I don't have that at my fingertips.
Okay, no problem. Thank you very much.
The next question comes from Ovais Habib with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.
Hi, Michael and team, and congrats on releasing the really robust PEA. Just a couple of questions from me. Number one question that I've been getting since last night when you released the PEA has been on the potential partner. Based on the CapEx as well as the size of the project now, certainly feels like you don't need a partner. Are you still looking to bring in a partner? If so, is there a stage that you would consider bringing in a partner?
Thanks, Ovais. Look, this is a great outcome right now. We'll continue to work and bring this project forward. As you pointed out, we can easily do this project on our own. So, at the moment, you know, there's still some discussions going on, maybe a smaller piece of it. We're looking at, you know, potential to deal with the zinc offtake and things like that. You know, this is a project well in our reach to build from the capital side, from the size, from the technical requirement from the team that we have in place, both here in Vancouver and in Mexico.
You know, this is now moving forward as it is and we'll see how it advances in the future, but at the moment, I'm very comfortable doing it alone.
Yeah, sounds good. Just, you know, moving on to the exploration upside and I believe about 90,000 m of drilling has been completed, but not included in the PEA. Could these additional zones that have been discovered improve the front end of the mine plan, or are you looking to maintain the production profile kind of around that peak levels that will be reached around that 2036 level?
Yeah, you're absolutely right. There's a lot of drilling not included. Just to refer again to the press release, I think we put it out about two and a half or three weeks ago, where we discovered another at least four major structures at La Colorada, really high-grade silver. So that you're right. We'll probably come in and extend at the front or after the peak years, can extend those peak years under silver production. Making that period of way higher silver production longer. Just to remind everyone, this is like any deposits in the silver belt of Mexico, when you go deeper, you have a zonation.
You go deeper down in the deposit; you go from high-grade silver and some gold in higher levels down to more lead and then more zinc. If you will continue deeper down, you will get into higher grades of copper. That's just the normal geology on this kind of structure. When we discover new veins higher up, closer to surface, we find this incredible high bonanza grade silver and gold grades that we published, as I said, two and a half weeks ago. Looking for more of those, we already drilling a lot on those.
We're finding more, and there's more and more success. Yes, that will by all means extend that peak production, silver production period by more years.
Thanks for that. Just one last question. Again, you know, just on that, you know, on the exploration side, you know, the PEA seems to be kind of a base case, based on the exploration upside. Are there any other optimization work we can keep an eye on to further improve the production or cost profile?
This is Steve. That gets back to your earlier question, as Michael alluded to. As we expand those vein resources, that does offer some interesting opportunities for us to look at, you know, taking even more advantage of the infrastructure we need for the skarn. It's quite large infrastructure necessary for the skarn. It might allow us to look at increasing production on those veins. That's one of the areas we want to target as we move into PFS, pretty clearly. Of course, the longer term is that, the optionality of the cave mine.
There is still a very attractive low-grade component to the deep skarn mineralization. That cave mine does offer additional upside opportunities, albeit, you know, more favorable to the zinc production than the silver per se. Those are two key ones that I think will be interesting to watch as this develops.
Sounds good. Thanks, Steve, on that. Michael, that's it for me, and thanks for taking my questions.
Thanks, Ovais.
The next question comes from John Tumazos with John Tumazos Very Independent Research. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Congratulations on a plan to build two mines, the high-grade gold, silver and the skarn for $1.9 billion, down from $2.8 billion. I'm pinching myself, it's so good. Trying to understand the lower CapEx in the lower grade, deeper zones that you're bypassing or delaying or deferring, are those the higher rock temperature areas? That require more ventilation. Is that part of the contribution to a lower CapEx?
Hey, John, I have Martin out, I think. He's traveling on the call. Martin, can you take the ventilation question, please?
Yeah, absolutely. Hey, John. I think the biggest component in the lower capital is the smaller plant size. There was a question before about what the capital was for the 50,000 ton a day plant that was there before, which was around a $1 billion mark. I can't remember exactly, but it was around that. That plant cost has come down a lot. Now it's about $270-something million, and on top of that, you have to add 25% indirect, and then you add another 25% contingency on top of that. I think the biggest component on the capital is just the size.
Now, in terms of the ventilation, we're still going to be faced with you know, some hot areas in the mine. There's a fairly high geothermal gradient, so as we get deeper, it certainly gets hotter. We've done a lot of work on that, and the capital includes a lot of ventilation. Actually, it's 905 cubic meters per second of ventilation that we need, and we need an additional 21 MW of refrigeration power. So, we've done a lot of calculation and simulation to make sure we're going keep working temperatures in a good range for our people there. The lower production rate does reduce it a bit, for sure.
In the old plan, there were zones with 104 degrees Fahrenheit rock temperature. What are the typical rock temperatures that you expect to encounter in this PEA?
The actual rock temperatures, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, John. You know, our key is that we control the working environment to keep it below 30 degrees Celsius wet bulb temperature. I think 28.5 degrees Celsius wet bulb temperature is our control. We're pretty happy with having people working full shifts underground. We'll also make sure that the equipment that we buy has air conditioning and those types of things to make it as comfortable as we can for the people there.
We're also doing a lot of work looking at remote operation to take people away from the actual working environment and have them operating machinery from surface. That's another thing we're doing, although not totally needed because of the ventilation we're providing.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
The next question comes from Cosmos Chiu with CIBC. Please go ahead.
Hi. Thanks, Michael and team, thanks for a very good presentation here. Maybe my first question is on the mining cost. As you mentioned, with the new PEA, you're changing the mining method from, you know, what was previously more bulk mining, sub-level caving to now longhole stoping. So, what's the difference in terms of, you know, cost per ton in terms of mining? And how does that compare to the current mining cost for the vein mine?
Yeah, Cosmos. This is Steve.
Hi, Steve.
We did report a combined skarn and, you know, additional mineral resources of the vein of $54.50 per ton mining cost, direct mining cost. That compares to closer to $160-$180 a ton today. Now, again, because the skarn is such larger stopes, we're getting a big benefit, you know, from that bulkiness of those stopes. If you looked only at the veins, you'd be close to the vein cost, and then it's diluted down with the lower cost from the skarn for an overall $54.50.
Yeah. That was my next question, Steve. I guess with the new resources that you're now mining for the vein deposit, you're not changing the mining method, compared to what?
Today we're not, no.
Okay. Is there an opportunity?
That's correct.
To do so or no?
Well, it gets back to Ovais's question. You know, if we could somehow expand the production of those high-grade silver veins. That could lead to some benefits on the cost side, depending on what that infrastructure may or may not look like. We're excited to look at that opportunity as we move into the trade-off studies for the PFS. As of today, we're kind of keeping it all steady-state, similar mining to what we're doing on the veins today.
Yeah. I guess my next question is, as you mentioned, the $2.6 billion is incremental NAV, which includes your, you know, additional vein and additional and the skarn deposit. I guess my question is, when we get the full study, will we be able to kind of separate out how much of that is related to the vein deposit, additional vein deposit versus the skarn, or does that really not matter? I guess my question is, would those additional vein ounces be mined even without the, you know, 15,000 ton per day mill that's being built?
Yeah, if I could answer that, Cosmos. We do rely heavily on the infrastructure we'll be putting in for the skarn to mine those veins. We're a fair distance away from those veins with our current operation, those newly discovered veins. That's why we rolled that into this overall project, is because we're sharing that infrastructure. Without those investments, you know, it just doesn't. We don't see it as robust an opportunity, and that's why we roll it together.
That makes sense.
Yeah. The technical report, I think you'll be able to dissect what portion of production's coming from the veins and what portion's coming from the skarn. Dissecting that economically is a lot more difficult because of that shared infrastructure.
Understood. Maybe switching gears a little bit in terms of the timeline. You know, as you mentioned, the revised PEA was reported, summary of it was reported yesterday night. There is, it seems like a pre-feasibility study that's underway. So, when would we expect sort of that pre-feasibility study? And when could we potentially expect a formal go-ahead decision on this project here? Also, maybe permitting, as you mentioned, the 588 level decline doesn't need any permits, but you need to file permits for, you know, the shaft, the new mill, the tailings expansion.
Maybe you can walk us through, you know, the additional permitting that's needed. Would you need to like, you know, apply for some kind of amended MIA, or is this not that, you know, in-depth in terms of needing, you know kind of revised permit given how brownfield it is? Timeline, also permitting.
Yeah. I think the important thing is, as we move into PFS, and we're working today on defining in detail what the scope of the PFS is and what the schedule of that PFS is. We don't know exactly when, you know, we're not targeting a date to produce that yet. It likely will come in or after 2027, depending on exactly what we need. Because of the long lead time to do these access developments, we want to get those started sooner. This 588 decline extension provides that opportunity. We can get started right away to get down and access into the skarn as we start to develop some of the shafts and things like that.
Relative to the permitting, we need to provide kind of the detailed designs as we move into PFS, kind of the basic engineering designs. We're in discussion with the regulators now. We haven't really formulated exactly, you know, whether we need to update an EIA or not. That's not been decided yet. We anticipate all these permits we can probably get done on a timely basis according to the schedule that we need for the overall project. But that's a discussion that we're having with the authorities at this moment and don't have a timeline on those.
Great. Thanks, Steve and Michael, for the very detailed answers, and congrats again. That's all I have. Thank you.
Thanks, Cosmos.
Thanks, Cosmos.
The next question comes from Lawson Winder with Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead.
Thanks very much, operator. Thank you, gentlemen, for the presentation today. If I could just ask a few questions on the CapEx. The release notes that the existing plant will be decommissioned. I'm just curious, is the decommissioning cost included in the $1.9 billion? And how much is that decommissioning cost? Yeah, so leave it there, and then a couple more questions on CapEx.
Yeah. Lawson, this is Steve. The actual decommissioning of that plant is really negligible cost. It doesn't cost as much to shut it down. The real question is, what do we do with the equipment and the facility? We think there's opportunities to sell that. That's typically what we do when we shut down one of our plants, is we'll select the best equipment to use at our other plants, and we'll look to sell some of the other equipment. Then we typically bring in a scrap dealer, if you will, to tear the rest down and basically do that for nothing. Overall, that's a very negligible cost.
Okay, fantastic. With the CapEx, you included a contingency. How did you arrive at that contingency, and what are kind of the key items that are creating that uncertainty? There's a note about an additional contingency contained within the underground access and development. What is that number within the $622 million?
Yeah. Maybe I can address the first part of that, and then I'll let Martin talk specifically on the contingency for the underground access. The contingency, you know, that's a debate that's gone on with all the engineers involved. We've got a third-party engineering firm that's helped put this PEA together, Worley. So we go through that debate, and it's appropriate for a PEA level estimate, which is what this is. So that's where we come up with that kind of overall 20% contingency. Specifically, to those underground developments, which are less contingency, I'll let Martin address them.
Yeah, we've got some different contingencies on the underground. There's some additional allowance in the number of meters that we've sort of included in the design because we have to allow for some things that aren't foreseen as well as all the typical things that we don't exactly design in right away. These include safety bays and refuge stations and bypasses, electrical substations, all that kind of thing. That's all sort of lumped in. I think there's about $25 million of that that's included in there.
Then there's different amounts of contingency on the shafts because they were done by a different consulting group. We did quite a bit more work on that, and we've got a lot of experience, recent experience of how much it costs to sink shafts there. We just completed the Guadalupe shaft, so we pretty much know how we think that's going to go. There's a contingency as well on the dewatering, which is more difficult to predict what that overall cost of dewatering is going to be.
Overall, I think if you take the whole project that in that sort of $323 million and some of it that's in the mine, it's just over 20%, the total contingency percentage.
Okay. If we are thinking of the underground contingency, it would just be 20% of the $622 million. Is that correct?
Yeah. Roughly speaking. I think that's a fair assumption. Because some of it is actually included in the $323. It's possibly a bit misspoken. Then some of its included in the $622. Because we had different people do the mining infrastructure. Auroy was involved in the mine infrastructure, so that was included in their contingency.
Okay. Understood. Maybe just two more for me. Just the recoveries for the skarn slash high-grade vein area are slightly different than the current and historical recoveries for the reserve in the vein deposit. Would you expect any material difference in the payabilities with the skarn going forward?
Yeah, Lawson, this is Steve. We've done quite some extensive metallurgical work in the laboratory looking at commingling of the veins with the skarn, and we don't see any detriment to either of those sources to commingle it. Both of them are producing high quality zinc and lead concentrates. You know, in general, you're seeing a little bit different recovery because it's a weighted average, basically recovery of the two sources. There is a grade relationship to recovery that's applied in the models.
So that's where you get a little bit of difference. But generally speaking, the concentrate qualities and pay abilities look very favorable and similar to what we're seeing today.
Okay, fantastic. Just finally, could you confirm that there are in fact no third party non-governmental royalties or streams attached to the skarn or the new resource-based vein deposits?
There's no royalties, third party royalties on the skarn or the veins. There are some of the veins that cross over into an adjacent concession that we do have an agreement to mine and share the profits that come off of that mining of those veins. That forms part of these mineral resources as veins. There are no additional royalties.
Okay, do you have a sense of the proportion? Like, if you look at the total skarn plus vein resource, do you have a sense of what proportion would be applicable to that profit sharing?
Yeah. It's not a large source when you look at the overall economics of the project. It doesn't have that big of impact to the project economics. It's really a matter of accessibility. It gives us a lot cleaner access to our concessions to move through this third- party concession.
Lawson, if I may add. This has a bigger impact right now, this year, next year, while we're mining through those structures. It's a more shorter term than a long- term effect.
Okay. Yep. Very clear. Well, look, congratulations on this, and thank you for taking my questions.
Thanks, Lawson.
Thanks, Lawson.
Once again, if you have a question, please press star then one. The next question comes from Don DeMarco with National Bank. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator. Good morning, Michael and team. First question just has to do with the mine plan. I see that in 2036, silver production just touches above 20 million ounces a year. That's just silver. Does the exploration upside as you see it, as you understand it now, show potential for this mine, La Colorada, that's both the existing mill plus the 15,000 skarn addition, to be a consistent 20 million ounce a year mine?
Well, right now we showed the plan with what we have available to us from, you know, that combination of high-grade skarn and high-grade veins. As you know, we have a lot of drilling going on there. We have constantly a lot of drill meters that are not public yet, and we indicated that in the press release. Of course, from time to time, we'll put out press release with updated results from both continuous and extended skarn drilling and high-grade vein drilling closer to surface. Absolutely, there's a lot of potential there.
There's a lot to continue here and to come in over the coming years. As I mentioned, that will continue, that will expand that high production profile. Until we have all these results out and finish the drilling there, I can't give you obviously exact number of years that we could extend potentially that really large silver production, but there's definitely a huge amount of geology potential that we are tapping into right as we speak.
As I said, when you look at the press release, we put that two and a half weeks ago at our very impressive results, that we hit on those new structures, brand new structures further to the south and southeast that we just discovered. Now we'll continue to drill on those as well.
Okay, thanks. Just shifting over to the funding of Skarn. You know, with the Skarn considered as internally funded, how does this impact your capital allocation priorities across the company versus other growth buckets, growth projects or competing buckets over the development period?
Well, really not a lot of competing issues here, if you want to call it, at this kind of prices, as you can imagine. Just for everybody to remember, we generated $553 million free cash flow in Q4 alone, and that was at substantial lower metal prices than what we see as an average for Q3 or what we see today. Over the number of years that we produce, you know, hopefully similar cash flows if metal prices stay. Obviously, you know, a lot of cash flow coming in into the company. While we finish the year with about $1.4 billion in cash, we increased the dividend three times in three quarters.
Three increases over the last three quarters. You know, there will be continued focus on returning capital to shareholders as well. There is obviously enough cash flow available for us to continue looking at our, you know, optimization at Jacobina, to continue looking at whatever other, you know, potential expansion or addition to mine life we have in our other operation to continue all our really big exploration program. I think we spent about $130 million in exploration, lots of it in brownfield this year, and still build internally this project or finance it with internal cash flow. I don't see really any competing issues here. There's enough cash flow generation to do all of it together.
Okay, thanks. Just last question. I see the base case IRR is estimated at 17%. This is an improvement over the prior PEA in 2023, which is 10%. Of course, that was with different metal prices. Does this new estimate, 17%, does that comfortably clear your hurdle rate thresholds?
Oh, yeah, absolutely. Don't just focus only on the IRR. Of course, it's a very long- life project here. We showed, like a 37-year life. I do not doubt that this will be longer than that at the end, I explained when we look at the exploration potential. So that's obviously when you look at the capital and, you know, you look at the calculation of those numbers, those later years don't have a big impact anymore to the numbers. You know, I'm very comfortable with the 17% at those lower metal prices. Just to remind, don't just look only at the IRR, look at the de-risked project.
There's way less technical risk. It's a smaller project to build, at least in the first very long-term stage here. Smaller tonnage, different mining method, way less technical risk. Obviously, don't forget that, you know, the original PEA. We are already two and a half years later, so there has been, of course, inflation to that capital estimate there as well. A remarkable improvement for sure on many fronts on this project now.
Okay. Thanks again. That's all for me. Good luck with the next steps.
Thanks.
This concludes the question- and- answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Michael Steinmann for closing remarks. Please go ahead.
Thanks, operator, and thanks, everybody for calling in. This is a great step forward on our La Colorada project or mine, really, you know, showing the way forward here to develop one of the largest and lowest cost silver producer or silver mine in the world. It's just right down our alley. It's a great fit for Pan American to establish us as the two- gold silver company in the world here, adding a lot of really low- cost production. Keep in mind just what I mentioned before, way less capital intensity, way less technical risk, more silver production and a long life. Just a great solid project that we continue to work on here over the coming years.
I mentioned the huge exploration potential, and for sure, Chris and his team will share his results on a regular basis with you so you can keep kind of track how we advance those exploration projects. The last point, really looking forward to share with you way more details on our Investor Day that will happen on June first. We'll have way more time and also more three-sixty models and technical opportunity here to show you exactly what our idea is for this great project and how we're gonna intend to move forward. Thanks everybody for calling in and looking forward to get you an update soon.
This brings to a close today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.