Climate Change


Alamos acknowledges climate change as a critical international concern to which the carbon footprint of the mining industry contributes.

In 2023, Alamos published its inaugural Climate Change Report. Moving forward, the recommendations of the TCFD and other requests for climate-related disclosure will be addressed in this Climate Change section of our annual ESG Report.

TCFD Index

TCFD RequirementLocation
GovernanceDescribe the board’s oversight of climate-related risks and opportunitiesClimate Governance
Describe management’s role in assessing and managing climate-related risks and opportunitiesClimate Governance
StrategyDescribe the climate-related risks and opportunities the organization has identified over the short, medium, and long termClimate Risk Management > Table 5.1

Climate Risk Management > Table 5.2

Climate Strategy > Table 5.3
Describe the resilience of the organization’s strategy, taking into consideration different climate-related scenarios, including a 2°C or lower scenarioClimate Strategy > Figure 5.3
Describe the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on the organization’s businesses, strategy, and financial planningClimate Strategy > Table 5.4
Risk ManagementDescribe the organization’s process for identifying and assessing climate-related risksClimate Risk Management > Risk Assessment Methodology
Describe the organization’s processes for managing climate-related risksClimate Strategy
Describe how processes for identifying, assessing, and managing climate-related risks are integrated into the organization’s overall risk managementClimate Risk Management > Risk Assessment Methodology
Metrics and TargetsDisclose the metrics used by the organization to assess climate-related risks and opportunities in line with its strategy and risk management processClimate Metrics & Targets > Scope 1 and 2
Disclose Scope 1, Scope 2, and, if appropriate, Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the related risksClimate Metrics & Targets > Scope 1 and 2

Climate Metrics & Targets > Scope 3
Describe the targets used by the organization to manage climate-related risks and opportunities and performance against targets.Climate Strategy > Figure 5.3

Climate Governance

Alamos acknowledges climate change as a critical international concern to which the carbon footprint of the mining industry contributes. As is the case for most large companies, Alamos is subject to climate-related risk, including physical risks (i.e., resulting from changes to climate such as wildfires, floods, and storms) and transition risks (i.e., resulting from policy changes and other business-related volatilities). These risks are carefully considered at the highest level of our organization. Members of Alamos senior management have been assigned climate-related responsibilities, and Committees of the Board consider climate-related issues when reviewing and guiding strategy. Each year, the Company’s Executive Officers develop and recommend a strategic plan for approval by the Board. Our climate change-related strategy is incorporated within this strategic plan.

Figure 5.1

Board of Directors

Technical & Sustainability Committee

Audit Committee

Climate Change Steering Committee

Climate Change Working Group

Corporate Sustainability Group

Island Gold



Lynn Lake

In 2022, Alamos began planning the establishment of a Climate Change Working Group, tasked with ensuring the implementation of the Company’s Energy & Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Management Standard, the deployment of our emissions-reduction strategy, and the consistent measurement of energy use and GHG emissions at all Alamos operations to measure progress. Now formalised in 2023, the Working Group consists of corporate representatives (the Director of Environmental Sustainability and a member of the Finance team), mine site representatives (all General Managers and Energy or Environmental Managers from Young-Davidson, Island Gold, and Mulatos), and development project representatives (the Lynn Lake Project Director). 

During the same timeframe, Alamos established its Climate Change Steering Committee. Informed by the Climate Change Working Group, the Climate Change Steering Committee provides strategic guidance and builds consensus on the development of new climate-related guidelines. The Steering Committee is made up of the Vice President (VP) of Sustainability & External Affairs, the Chief Operating Officer (COO), the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the Senior VP (SVP) of Technical Services, and the Senior VP (SVP) of Projects. Associated duties include reviewing the progress of the Climate Change Working Group in achieving Company goals. The Steering Committee communicates progress against goals and targets to the Board via the Technical & Sustainability (T&S) Committee and Audit Committee three to four times per year. 

Climate Risk Management


Alamos faces two types of climate-related risks: physical risks and transition risks. Physical risks represent the potential impacts of a warming climate system on the Company, such as the increased likelihood and severity of extreme weather events, sea-level rise, water stress, ecosystem change, and biodiversity loss. They can be event-driven (acute) or associated with longer term shifts in climate patterns (chronic), and are specific to the unique geographic circumstances associated with each site. Transition risks are the financial and reputational risks associated with regulatory, economic, and societal changes related to climate change, such as carbon taxes, 
cap-and-trade systems, abatement costs, and shareholder activism.

In 2020 Alamos completed an independent risk assessment to identify transition and physical climate risks affecting our operations and development projects. Risks were determined by literature reviews, site interviews, peer reviews and professional experience, and were subsequently analyzed based on future climate risk – i.e., the projected changes to climate-related factors impacting the system. Geographical coverage included Canada, Mexico and Türkiye, and the planning horizon used was the twenty-year period from 2020 to 2040. This time horizon was selected as it: (1) aligns with the average lifespan of the assets selected for the assessment; (2) allows for the comparison of scenarios for transition and physical risks under a similar time horizon, and; (3) falls within Alamos’ strategic planning horizon and may be found to be more useful to decision making compared to a longer time horizon. Physical risks were assessed under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Representative Concentration Pathway for a “business as usual” scenario (RCP8.5, associated with roughly 4°C warming), and transition risks were assessed under the International Energy Agency’s Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS, associated with less than 2°C warming).

The physical and transition risks identified were validated with site leads and management, including assessments on likelihood, consequence, risk rating and 
the effectiveness of existing controls. Climate-related risks have been integrated 
into Alamos’ corporate risk registers, and as such are considered a component of enterprise risk management (ERM) and strategic planning. In 2022, both corporate 
and site teams reviewed the climate risk register as part of the annual review cycle.

Physical Risks Section Header


Physical climate factors assessed for each Alamos operation, project and closed site included: mean temperature; total precipitation; fluvial flood; very heavy precipitation days; water stress; consecutive drought days; cold spell duration index; warm spell duration index; wildfires; wind; and monthly precipitation. From the RCP8.5 scenario, Alamos identified over eighty climate-related physical risks to our operations and projects. These risks were all noted as having the potential to negatively impact employee safety, local communities, the local environment, and Company assets (through potential disruptions to permitting, mine operation, ore extraction, 
and closure).

Alamos Top Physical Climate Risks 2020

Table 5.1




Drought affecting water supply to operations Operations are disrupted, high cost of pre-use and post-use water treatment Mulatos, El Chanate
Significant rainfall events resulting in flooding Disruption to ore extraction, impact on leach pad operations, overflow of 
contact water in diversion channels and containment pools, and threats to 
worker safety Mulatos, El Chanate
Hotter and drier conditions increasing frequency of wildfires Workforce safety is compromised, mine operations are disrupted, impacts on future permitting Mulatos
Rising temperatures increasing energy demand to cool facilities Increase in mine operational costs Mulatos
Heavy precipitation affecting mine 
closure plans Impacts on mine closure and PAG rock leaching Mulatos
Heavy precipitation affecting tailings operations and slope stability of open-pit and/or leach pad Unplanned discharge of contaminated water, higher remediation costs, environmental liability, compromised workforce and community health and safety, reputational damage Mulatos, El Chanate, Island Gold, Young-Davidson, Lynn Lake 
Water scarcity and hotter temperatures affecting the ability to re-establish vegetative cover during rehabilitation Inability to meet mine closure commitments, changes required to remediation techniques Mulatos, El Chanate
Colder temperatures and cold spells damaging equipment Equipment could fail due to hydraulics not working and result in an uncontained spill Island Gold, Young-Davidson, Lynn Lake 
Warmer temperatures and warm spells elevating spring runoff Early snowmelt causing increased flooding, disruption to operations, non-compliance with discharge water quality Island Gold, Young-Davidson, Lynn Lake 
Extreme cold and freezing rain causing site access issues Unsafe driving conditions affecting roadway access, workplace safety, supply of materials Island Gold, Young-Davidson, Lynn Lake 
Heavy precipitation and strong winds disrupting groundworks and new equipment installation Mine and project construction schedules are disrupted Mulatos, Island Gold, Young-Davidson
Transition Risks Section Header


Key transition risk indicators assessed by Alamos included: GHG emission regulations (increasing to $170/tCO2e by 2030 in Canada, and $125/tCO2e by 2040 for developing economies); renewable electricity generation shares (increasing to 64% in Canada, 88% in Mexico, and 56% in Türkiye1 by 2040); the cost of renewable energy (increasing to $50/MWh for solar photovoltaics and $70/MWh for offshore wind by 2040); the cost of abatement (increasing to approximately $1000/tCO2e under SDS-relevant conditions by 2040); the cost of fuels (crude oil at $59/barrel and natural gas at $3.2MBtu by 2040); fossil fuel subsidies (fossil fuel subsidies phased out by 2025 in net-importing countries and by 2035 in net-exporting countries); and carbon reduction policies (policies promoting production and use of alternative fuels and technologies such as hydrogen, biogas, biomethane and Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage [CCUS] across sectors). From the SDS scenario, Alamos identified sixteen climate-related transition risks to our operations and projects, several of which could rise to enterprise level risks (i.e., significant or material risks).

Alamos Top Transition Climate Risks 2020

Table 5.2

Increasingly stringent emission trading systems and regulations increasing the cost of carbon Fuel price increases from technology and policy changes, compliance costs Mulatos, Island Gold, Young-Davidson, Lynn Lake 
Reputational impacts due to the public perception of mining Higher operating costs attributable to community water infrastructure and watershed restoration projects Mulatos
Difficulties integrating new technologies with existing systems, (e.g., electric mining equipment) Reduced productivity and higher operating costs due to the cost and unproven nature of new technology Island Gold, Young-Davidson, Lynn Lake 

Climate Strategy

In support of Canada’s commitment to the Paris Accord and per the recommendations of the TCFD, Alamos announced its Company-wide GHG emissions reduction target in June 2022. By 2030, Alamos aims to reduce its absolute GHG emissions by 30% from our 2020/2021 average baseline year (a calculated emissions baseline of 170,000 tCO2e). This averaged baseline was determined to be reflective of a standard year of Alamos’ existing operations, following an in-depth review of our mines’ operating conditions and associated emissions between 2018 and 2021 wherein circumstances such as project development and COVID-19 constraints were considered. This target is inclusive of Scope 1 and 2 emissions of all GHGs covered by the Kyoto Protocol2, and is considered a credible target3 per the Carbon Disclosure Project.

In developing a strategy to meet this target, Alamos reviewed and costed over 30 different GHG emission reduction opportunities across the organization. Working with an independent energy and carbon management expert, options for renewable energy and clean grid capacity, green fleets (hybrid or battery electric vehicles), the electrification of mining activities, and conversion to cleaner fuels were investigated. These potential projects were assessed using a Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC), which compares the Net Present Value (NPV) of each opportunity to their GHG abatement potential in kt CO2e (Figure 5.2). The MACC analysis allowed Alamos to identify six future projects to prioritise in addition to those previously existing emission reduction initiatives already underway (such as the construction of a powerline at Mulatos to facilitate connection to the Mexico national electricity grid and save 15,000 tCO2e per year).

By 2030, Alamos aims to reduce its absolute GHG emissions by 30% from our 2020/2021 average baseline year

MACC-Identified Emissions Reduction Projects

Table 5.3

 LikelihoodMagnitude of ImpactTime 
Ventilation on Demand System Reducing a mine’s underground ventilation load has one of the largest potentials for energy savings. Island Gold’s implementation of a Ventilation On Demand (VOD) system is ongoing and will result in four hours of energy savings on the ventilation system per day.

The estimated savings from reduced electricity consumption are approximately $650,000/year.
MediumShort-TermThe cost to implement VOD has already been realized, though additional person-hours are required to calibrate and optimize the VOD system on an ongoing basis throughout the life of mine.  
Hydraulic Mining Shovels As part of the updated 2023 feasibility study of the Lynn Lake Gold Project, Alamos investigated the application of electric hydraulic mining shovels instead of conventional diesel hydraulic shovels. Electric equipment has a higher upfront cost, but its operating costs and associated emissions (i.e., carbon tax costs) are much lower.

The implementation of electric hydraulic mining shovels at Lynn Lake will reduce annual emissions by 2,500 tCO₂e/
year and provide cost savings of $600,000/year.
LikelyMediumMedium-TermThe additional capex to purchase electric hydraulic mining shovels as compared to planned diesel shovels is estimated to be $1.4M.

The cost to realize this opportunity depends on additional load capacity requirements on the Manitoba Hydro electrical grid (i.e., potential new grid infrastructure requirements), as well as the incremental cost of electric equipment versus diesel equipment.
Electric Production Drills As part of the updated 2023 feasibility study of the Lynn Lake Gold Project, Alamos investigated the application of electric production drills instead of conventional diesel production drills. Electric equipment has a higher upfront cost, but its operating costs and associated emissions (i.e., carbon tax costs) are much lower.

The implementation of electric production drills at Lynn Lake will reduce annual emissions by 1,800 tCO₂e/year and provide annual cost savings of $424,000.
LikelyMedium-LowMedium-TermThe additional capex to purchase electric production drills compared to planned diesel drills is estimated to be $1.9M.

The cost to realize this opportunity depends on additional load capacity requirements on the electrical grid (i.e., potential new grid infrastructure requirements), as well the incremental cost of electric equipment versus diesel equipment.
Conversion from Propane to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) At the end of 2022 the Young-Davidson Mine began using CNG for mine heating as opposed to propane. This fuel switch is expected to reduce GHG emissions by 2,500 tCO₂e/year and provide cost savings of $1.5M/year. This option is also being investigated for implementation at the Island Gold mine.  Certain (Complete) MediumShort-TermThe full capex to switch from propane to CNG was $757,000. As the fuel-switching required additional investments in new technology and infrastructure, this was not considered an incremental cost. 
Air Heat Recovery Unit An air heat recovery unit (i.e., using exhaust air from the mine to heat fresh air going underground) at Island Gold could reduce emissions by 1,500 tCO₂e/year and provide cost savings of $361,000/year. UnlikelyMedium-LowMedium-TermThe full capex to implement a mine ventilation air heat recovery unit and associated infrastructure is $1.8M. As the unit would require additional investment for construction and infrastructure, this is not considered an incremental cost. 
Renewable Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) The Mulatos mine is a remote operation that currently generates its power from on-site diesel generators. Entering a Renewable PPA to replace this diesel-generated electricity would allow Mulatos to reduce emissions by 10,600 tCO₂e/year.   About as Likely as Not Medium-HighMedium-TermThe estimated cost of this project is $270,000 annually. It is unclear whether this opportunity results in a net gain in investment. Alamos intends to work with a third-party consultancy to investigate this opportunity. 

Alamos also expects to achieve a 55% reduction in GHG emission intensity per ounce of gold production through the successful application of our reduction strategy. The expected results are quantified and graphically represented in Figure 5.3. The orange line represents Alamos’ expected annual emissions following the application of our strategy, while the black bars indicate the expected quantity of emissions reductions in each calendar year. A linearized trajectory for standard year-on-year reductions that would satisfy our emissions reduction target is presented in red. Also represented for comparison are the expected results of the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario in yellow, and the linearized trajectory for emissions reductions which satisfy a 1.5°C target in blue.

Alamos 30% Reduction Pathway

Figure 5.3

GHG Reductions (tCO2e/year)

30% Reduction target GHG emissions (tCO2e)

Resulting Emissions (tCO2e)

1.5 Degree Target GHG Emissions (tCO2e)

BAU Emissions (tCO2e)

Text descriptions of each chart

Alamos’ strategy will continue to evolve in the coming years as we expand our focus to include:

  • The implementation of a Climate Change Roadmap
  • The development of dedicated site-based energy management teams and programs
  • The investigation of new opportunities and technologies to reduce GHG emissions
  • The improvement of our Scope 3 emissions estimation approach by moving away from spend-based methodologies towards supplier-provided data
  • The finalization of a Scope 3 emissions reduction target and strategy
  • The consideration of a potential net-zero target for 2050

Climate Change Influence on Strategy – Improving Our Resilience

Table 5.4

AreaInfluenceDescription of Influence
Products and Services Evaluation in Progress Climate-related risks and opportunities may impact our cost of and demand for products as we move to a lower GHG emission economy. Transition risks related to society’s shift to a low-carbon economy may act to reduce gold output as operating and regulatory costs rise due to higher fossil fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and increasingly stringent emission regulations. Higher operating costs can result in new gold projects becoming unfeasible if there is not a corresponding rise in gold price. 
Supply Chain and/or Value Chain YesPhysical climate risks were assessed at all Alamos operations and projects with respect 
to their impact on supply chains. They have been identified as a future risk out to 2040 under all climate scenarios assessed under the RCP 8.5 scenario. Across all Alamos sites, the risk of floods, heavy precipitation and/or forest fires could lead to costly delays for transport of supplies and input materials such as hydrochloric acid and cyanide, or consumables such as diesel, which could curtail production or limit its efficiency. 
This risk was considered low at most sites, but medium at Young-Davidson due to 
previous occurrences of bad road conditions to site during winter months (ice, snowstorms) that are projected to increase. 
Investment in Research and Development (R&D) Evaluation in Progress Investment in R&D is largely focused on fuel switching and electrification of mining equipment. At Alamos operating sites, this is considered as part of each mine’s Energy Management Plan, which were updated at all Alamos sites in 2021. For the Lynn Lake 
Gold Project, investment into R&D is taking place to evaluate lower carbon alternatives to diesel fueled equipment and vehicles. As part of the project’s feasibility study, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were assessed as alternatives to on-road diesel haul trucking; an application not yet realized in the mining sector. Research is also being undertaken to maximize the biodiesel portion of fuel blends, and potentially evaluate the future availability and use of renewable diesel. 
OperationsYesBoth physical and transitional risks are impacting and will continue to impact our existing and future operations. A small number of physical risks that were determined to have a potential material financial impact to Alamos (e.g., future drought conditions at Mulatos) are being proactively addressed by the Company as part of mine operations and/or development plans. To remain competitive in a carbon constrained economy, Alamos’ immediate focus is to prioritize energy and emission reduction opportunities at all our operations and development projects to minimise transitional climate-related risks and costs associated with our (future) carbon footprint. Baseline work conducted in 2021 and early 2022 at all Alamos operations has set the outlook for Alamos and positions the Company to be able to meet its greenhouse gas reduction and energy efficiency targets. 
Capital Expenditures YesFor Alamos’ Lynn Lake Gold Project, the future impact of the Canadian government’s carbon tax was assessed following its announcement to increase the carbon tax to $170/tCO2e by 2030. The Company conducted a life-of mine carbon analysis to assess the carbon footprint and future carbon costs associated with the Lynn Lake Gold Project, and used the analysis to assess and justify fuel switching from diesel-fueled shovels and drills to electric equipment. The Project is assessing broader fuel switching options to further reduce the Project’s future carbon footprint (e.g., biodiesel, renewable diesel, etc.).

Climate Metrics & Targets


100% of air emissions at Alamos mines fall under emissions-limiting regulations, as both Canada and Mexico have implemented regulations to monitor, report and/or reduce emissions. Petroleum diesel used in heavy duty vehicles (at all sites) and electricity generation (at Mulatos) form the majority of Alamos’ direct emissions footprint, followed by propane for the use of underground mine and building heating (at Island Gold and at Young-Davidson for the majority of 2022). Other direct emission sources include gasoline combustion in light vehicles (at all sites), heavy fuel oil combusted in explosives (at Island Gold), and small volumes of diesel used in explosives (at all sites). Indirect emissions are attributed to purchased electricity from national grids (at Young-Davidson and Island Gold). Alamos only reports direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions from its producing mines – the total Scope 1 and 2 emissions of our development projects, closed mines, and offices combined account for less than 1% of Alamos’ total emissions.

All gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol4 are regularly monitored and reported to local government authorities at each of our operating sites (consolidated by operational control). Alamos does not produce or export Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODSs), and, while a thorough assessment of purchased materials has not been conducted, no ODSs are knowingly imported. Our emissions monitoring programs include the sampling of emissions from stationary sources (such as power generators, boilers, and furnaces) and continuous air sampling in the areas surrounding our mines to manage and mitigate effects on surrounding communities.

Gross Scope 1 Emissions Breakdown5

Table 5.5

Kyoto Protocol Gas Total Emissions (tCO2e) 
Carbon dioxide (CO2163,601
Methane (CH4619
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 3,551
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 0
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 337
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF60

Scope 1 and 2 GHG Emissions by Site (tCO2e)

Table 5.6

Alamos Total
Young-DavidsonIsland GoldMulatos202220212020
Scope 1 (Direct) 24,61014,980 128,518 168,108178,506 147,459 
Scope 2 (Indirect)67,1142,400869,60010,70911,155

Combined Scope 1 and 2 GHG Emissions Annual Comparison by Site

Figure 5.4


6% decrease

Island Gold

9% increase


13% decrease

Text descriptions of each chart

In 2022, our company-wide total GHG emissions (combined scope 1 and 2) were 11,295 tCO2e (6%) less than the year prior, representing 18% progress towards our emissions reduction target. This progress was largely due to fewer emissions at the Mulatos mine complex following the construction of the La Yaqui Grande mine in June 2022. Emissions were also lower at Young-Davidson, most dominantly resulting from the increased application of biodiesel as opposed to petroleum diesel. Island Gold reported an expected increase of 1,443 tCO2e, accounting for the ramp-up of construction activities at the mine’s Phase 3+ expansion. When this expansion becomes operational, Island Gold is expected to significantly increase gold production (average 287,000 oz/year compared to the 2022 production of 133,700 oz) with a 35% reduction in life of mine emissions. On average, the mining industry produces 0.67 tCO2e/oz7. With a 2022 company-wide intensity of 0.39 tCO2e/oz, Alamos is an industry leader. We expect to remain in this position, as the achievement of our 30% absolute emissions reduction target will further decrease our emission intensity by 55%.

GHG Emission Intensity Ratios 

Table 5.7

Alamos Total
Young-DavidsonIsland GoldMulatos202220212020
GHG per tonne of ore mined 0.0110.041 0.022 0.0190.029 0.020 
GHG per tonne of ore treated  0.0110.038 0.016 0.0150.018 0.016 
GHG per ounce of
 gold production0.165 0.130 0.956 0.3860.414 0.372 

Emission Intensity Reduction Based On 2023 GHG Reduction Strategy

Figure 5.5

Text descriptions of each chart

An image of Alamos workers in a mine used as a header for the nex scope


Scope 3 emissions describe indirect GHG emissions resulting from activities in our value chain that are outside of our operational control. They include upstream emissions related to the extraction and production of the materials we purchase for use at our operations, downstream emissions from refining, and emissions from transportation on both ends of our value chain. For Scope 3 emission estimates, all Alamos locations are included. In 2023, Alamos will be working with a consultant to improve its Scope 3 estimates by moving away from spend-based methodologies towards supplier-provided data.

Alamos Estimated Scope 3 Emissions 2022 

Table 5.8

(tCO2e) Calculation Methodology 
1Purchased Goods and Services 265,004Spend-based method, except average-data method where mass or quantity and industry-average emission factor were available. Change in source for spend-based emission factor since 2021 reporting: 2022 reporting used EPA emission factors. 
2Capital Goods 135,781Spend-based method. Change in source for spend-based emission factor since 2021 reporting: 2022 reporting used EPA emission factors.
3Fuel-and Energy-Related Activities 55,188Category A: Average data method using industry average upstream emission factors for fuels.

Category B: Supplier-specific method based on publicly available data on fuel source breakdown for regional electric grids.

Category C: Average data method based on regional transmission losses from publicly available data.

Category D: Not applicable.
4Upstream Transportation and Distribution 2,932Shipped doré and used carbon: distance-based method.

Purchases: spend-based method.
5Waste Generated in Operations 2,265Waste-type specific method.
6Business Travel280Distance-based method.
7Employee Commuting 2,133Distance-based method.
8Upstream Lease Assets n/aEmissions associated with Alamos’s upstream leased assets are reported in Scopes 1 and 2 as Alamos exercises operational control over leased assets.
9Downstream Transportation and Distribution 81Distance-based method, based on estimated distribution routes of final products.
10Processing of Sold Products 3,232Average-data method.
11Use of Sold Products n/a Not material because the amount of gold in any final products that use energy is very small compared to the content of other materials.
12End-of-life treatment of sold products 1,208Average-data method.
13Downstream leased assets n/aNot applicable – Alamos does not operate any downstream leased assets.
14Franchisesn/aNot applicable – Alamos does not have any franchises.
15Investments2,138Investment-specific method. Emissions of investee companies estimated based on industry averages.
TotalScope 3 Emissions470,242
  1. Please refer to our Cautionary Statement with respect to the Company’s projects in Türkiye.
  2. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
  3. Target set between 5-15 years into the future covering at least 70% of emissions, or have been validated by SBTi (Science Based Targets initiative)
  4. Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
  5. GWP Reference used: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 – 100 year)
  6. Source of emission factors and GWP rates unknown (externally-provided information).