Which Pan American Silver operations perform on‑site smelting vs. send concentrate to external smelters?

1. What the company discloses: smelting costs and a royalty that implies third‑party treatment

Pan American’s recent corporate guidance explicitly includes the impact of “smelting and refining costs” when forecasting Silver and Gold Segment AISC, signaling that smelter treatment is a material line item for the business as a whole, but the guidance discusses these costs in aggregate rather than tying them to individual mines ^{[1] [6]}. The 2024 Annual Report records contractual and royalty arrangements tied to smelting and refining — for example, a life‑of‑mine 1.5% gold net smelter return royalty related to La Arena II granted by Zijin — which implies that at least some metal from that operation is treated under third‑party smelting/refining arrangements that trigger the royalty ^[2].

2. The public operations pages: detailed mine profiles, but not treatment maps

Pan American’s operations pages present mine‑level facts such as production, reserves and segmentation between silver and gold operations and are the company’s primary public source for site information, yet they do not state which operations host on‑site smelting or which produce concentrates for off‑site treatment ^{[4] [5]}. Investor presentations and model workshop materials likewise outline production timing, leaching processes and export tax context but focus on metallurgy and costs in the aggregate rather than providing a per‑mine flowchart of concentrate→smelter destinations ^[3].

3. What cannot be concluded from the provided reporting

The assembled sources do not permit a definitive, sourced list assigning “on‑site smelter” or “external smelter” status to Pan American’s individual mines; no operation is explicitly described in these materials as operating an on‑site smelter or as routinely shipping concentrates off‑site for treatment ^{[1] [4] [2] [3] [5]}. Absent explicit statements or technical reports in the provided documents, it is not possible to reliably assert which operations perform final smelting on‑site and which send concentrate to third‑party smelters without relying on outside disclosures.

4. Why corporate disclosures often avoid per‑mine smelter detail (and what that implies)

Companies commonly report smelting and refining costs at the segment or corporate level rather than per mine because treatment arrangements can be commercial and confidential, vary over time, and involve third‑party processors under contract; the prominence of smelting/refining in Pan American’s AISC discussion confirms the economic importance of those arrangements without revealing their granular logistics ^{[1] [7]}. The La Arena II NSR cited in the Annual Report illustrates an instance where a third‑party treatment/royalty relationship is material enough to disclose, suggesting that some mines are subject to external treatment agreements while others may treat doré or concentrates differently — but the provided texts stop short of enumerating those cases ^[2].

5. How to resolve the gap: the documents and sources that would answer the question

A definitive, verifiable answer requires consulting per‑mine technical reports (NI 43‑101 style), the company’s MD&A or financial notes that break down smelting and refining fees by operation, or regulatory filings and local permitting documents that identify on‑site processing equipment; none of the supplied press releases, operations pages, presentations or annual report excerpts provide that level of mine‑by‑mine specificity ^{[4] [3] [2]}. Until those operation‑level disclosures are produced, the responsible conclusion is that Pan American treats smelting/refining as a material corporate cost and discloses related royalties in specific cases, but does not publish a simple, sourced ledger declaring which mines smelt on‑site versus which ship concentrate externally ^{[1] [2] [5]}.