Who does SSR Mining Inc. (SSRM) refining

1. What the corporate filings and company site actually say

SSR Mining’s corporate materials and investor‑facing pages describe the company as a producer of gold doré and concentrates from mines in the United States, Türkiye, Canada and Argentina and state that sales are made to global refiners and smelters; those documents frame pricing as spot‑linked with customary treatment and refining charges deducted, implying routine commercial relationships with third‑party processors rather than captive refining ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

2. What SSR produces that needs refining

The company’s portfolio includes open‑pit and underground operations that produce doré and flotation concentrates—Marigold (Nevada) and Seabee (Saskatchewan) primarily produce gold doré or dore‑eligible material, while Puna and other assets generate silver, lead and zinc concentrates—creating feedstock that is typically delivered to external smelters and refiners for treatment and final sale ^{[2] [3] [1] [4]}.

3. How SSR describes its commercial flow and refining costs

Public reporting and analyst summaries spell out that SSR’s concentrate and doré sales are priced against benchmark spot metals markets with customary treatment and refining charges (T+R) applied, and that those offsite refining costs are accounted for when determining net revenue—language that presumes third‑party refiners handle final metal conversion and marketing rather than SSR owning those refining steps ^{[5] [1]}.

4. What the sources say about counterparties—and what they don’t

Industry summaries and SSR commentary emphasize “global refiners and smelters” and note intact relationships with major processors, but neither SSR’s public company pages nor the provided SEC exhibits and analyst writeups supply a roster of named refineries, exclusive offtake contracts or long‑term tolling agreements in the materials given here ^{[1] [5] [2]}. Consequently, while the pattern of sales is clear—third‑party refinement—the identity of specific refineries, the terms of individual refining agreements, and any concentration of counterparty risk are not documented in the sources provided ^{[1] [5]}.

5. Alternative interpretations and implicit agendas in the reporting

Analyst and commercial summaries frame third‑party refining as a normal industry practice that preserves offtake flexibility and premium recovery, a positioning favorable to an investor audience by implying diversified counterparty exposure and predictable revenue realization ^[1]. That framing can understate counterparty concentration risks or local logistical dependencies that would matter to communities, regulators or ESG stakeholders; those angles are not explored in the supplied corporate and analyst snippets ^{[1] [6]}.

6. Why the missing detail matters and how to get it

The absence of named refiners in the provided files means stakeholders cannot independently assess counterparty concentration, jurisdictional risk at specific smelters, or the environmental and labor practices of the processors handling SSR’s metals—important factors for risk, compliance and ESG due diligence ^{[5] [1]}. To close that gap, one would need SSR’s full annual reports, material contracts filed with regulators, customs or trade disclosures, or targeted investor‑relations responses—documents not included in the reporting supplied here ^{[5] [7]}.

7. Bottom line

SSR Mining refines its production via sales to external global refiners and smelters—using the industry practice of selling doré and concentrates with treatment and refining charges deducted—yet the specific names and contractual terms of those refiners are not identified in the provided sources, leaving a concrete counterparty map absent from this record ^{[1] [2] [5]}.