Skip to main content

ESG Report 2023
Chart Accessible Descriptions

About Page

In the following Figures, data for both impacts are graded out of 12 with 12 being the highest and 0 being the lowest.

Figure 2.1

Rights and Wellbeing at Work

CategoryValue-Chain ImpactOperational Impact
Safe and Healthy Working Conditions610
Respectful and Inclusive Workplace Culture76
Respect for Group Rights and Protections76
Healthy and Inclusive Workplace Design66
Good Health and Wellbeing86
Human Dignity and Integrity68
Decent Work/Income and Work-Life Balance56
Right to Organize36
Family Support86
Figure 2.2

Rights and Resilience
 in Communities

CategoryValue-Chain ImpactOperational Impact
Public Safety and Emergency Services88
Respectful and Inclusive Community75
Healthy and Natural Spaces85
Healthy and Inclusive Workplace Design63
Food85
Good Health and Wellbeing78
Local Economic Resilience 
and Decent Local Work75
Social and Cultural Connections 
and Civil Engagement83
Education, Knowledge, and Skills63
Water, Sanitation, and Waste Management84
Housing and Land107
Energy33
Inclusive Banking, Credit, and Insurance43
Information, Innovation, 
and Telecommunication Services43
Transportation and Mobility87
Figure 2.3

Governance and Ethics

CategoryValue-Chain ImpactOperational Impact
Respect for Rule of Law88
Respecting Traditional and 
Community Knowledge88
Empowerment67
Business Practices, Ethics, 
and Consumer Rights57
Fair Tax and Benefit Sharing96
Accessible and Transparent Grievance Mechanisms86
Fair and Equitable Dispute Resolution66
Accountability, Transparency, and Disclosure66
Anti-Corruption and Anti-Bribery76
Cybersecurity and Data Protection66
Wealth Disparity and Excess Compensation66
Figure 2.4

Materials and Waste

CategoryValue-Chain ImpactOperational Impact
Material and Resource Stewardship64
Process Residuals and other Wastes95
Product Stewardship33
Packaging Waste33
Figure 2.5

Ecosystems

CategoryValue-Chain ImpactOperational Impact
Biodiversity83
Natural Resource Management64
Invasive Species64
Land Use and Relinquishment Rehabilitation53
Rehabilitation83
Protected Spaces53
Figure 2.6

Water (Marine and Fresh)

CategoryValue-Chain ImpactOperational Impact
Water Quantity93
Water Quality103
Water Governance53
Figure 2.7

Pollutants

CategoryValue-Chain ImpactOperational Impact
Nitrogen and Phosphorous75
Hazardous Chemicals87
Particulates67
Gaseous Air Quality Pollutants43
Metals84
Radiation33
Noise Pollution56
Light Pollution53
Figure 2.8

Climate

CategoryValue-Chain ImpactOperational Impact
Climate Scenario Informed Decision-making84
Climate Mitigation86
Climate Adaptation and Risk Preparedness76
Renewable Energy Development44

Our People Page

Figures 3.1 to 3.7

Subject: Gender identity
Data: Man 75%, Woman 20%, Prefer not to say 4%, Transgender 0%.

Subject: Sexual orientation
Data: Heterosexual 84%, Prefer not to say 14%, Gay / Lesbian / Bisexual / Queer / Pansexual / Asexual / Two‑spirit / Other 3%.

Subject: Indigeneity
Data: Non‑Indigenous 79%, Indigenous 14%, Prefer not to say 7%.

Subject: Race
Data: White 78%, Prefer not to say 8%, Racial identity not listed 3%, Mixed Race 3%, Black 2%, East Asian 2%, Latin American/Hispanic 1%, South Asian 1%, West Asian 1%, Southeast Asian 1%.

Subject: First language
Data: English 64%, French 26%, Another Language 7%, Prefer not to say 3%.

Subject: Primary language
Data: English 74%, French 17%, Another Language 6%, Prefer not to say 3%.

Subject: Persons with Disabilities
Data: Currently living without a disability 87%, Currently living with a disability 7%, Prefer not to say 7%.

End of charts on the About Page.

Environment Page

Figure 5.1

Energy Consumption (all number values in Gigajoules) (three doughnut charts)

This chart details the 3 mine’s energy source distribution and details what percentage an individual source comprises all energy consumption at the site.

Young-Davidson:

  • Purchased Electricity – 71.70% (960,748)
  • Compressed Natural Gas – 16.54% (221,612)
  • Petroleum Diesel (Transport) – 10.46% (140,100)
  • Naphtha – 0.47% (6,344) Biodiesel 0.63% (8,488)
  • Gasoline – 0.16% (2,124)
  • Petroleum Diesel (Generated Electricity) – 0.04% (475)
  • Propane Gas – 0% (0)

Island Gold

  • Purchased Electricity – 51.98% (334,179)
  • Petroleum Diesel (Transport) – 32.88% (211,308)
  • Propane Gas – 11.20% (72,011)
  • Gasoline – 2.24% (14,406)
  • Biodiesel – 1.59% (10,201)
  • Petroleum Diesel (Generated Electricity) – 0.11% (717)
  • Naphtha – 0% (0)
  • Compressed Natural Gas – 0% (0)

Mulatos

  • Petroleum Diesel (Transport) – 82.30% (1,371,583)
  • Petroleum Diesel (Generated Electricity) – 11.55% (192,593)
  • Propane Gas – 4.54% (75,643)
  • Gasoline – 1.56% (26,053)
  • Purchased Electricity – 0.05% (791)
  • Biodiesel – 0% (0)
  • Naphtha – 0% (0)
  • Compressed Natural Gas – 0% (0)
Figure 5.2

Company-Wide Water Interactions

Category202120222023
Withdrawn4,870.666,495.906,177.40
Discharged1,797.883,050.643,282.20
Treated1,414.171,707.702,670.60
Consumed3,072.683,445.302,895.20
Recycled/Reused3,572.692,040.553,682.90
Used6,645.375,485.806,578.10
Figure 5.3

Water Consumed per Tonne of Ore Treated

Site202120222023
Young-Davidson0.250.100.62
Island Gold0.82-0.99-1.10
Mulatos0.280.300.19
Figure 5.4

Company-Wide Waste Generation vs Waste Recycling/Reuse (tonnes)

YearTotal Waste GeneratedTotal Waste Recycled/Reused
202134,519,825440,937
202235,513,4351,689,826
202327,536,7982,405,362

Tailings Page

Figure 6.4

This chart outlines the hierarchy of the information presented above it.

See the relevant section for more information.

Climate Change Page

Figure 7.1

This chart outlines the hierarchy of the information presented before and after it.

See the relevant section for more information.

Figure 7.2

Figure 7.2 — Incremental NPV vs. Abatement Potential

This chart presents a stacked bar comparison of greenhouse-gas abatement projects across four mine sites, organized from the lowest to the highest incremental Net Present Value (NPV) per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e) reduced.

  • Title: Incremental NPV
  • Y-Axis: NPV Per Abatement Potential (USD/tCO₂e)
  • X-Axis: Abatement Potential (kt CO₂e)
  • Legend:
    • Dark Teal = Young-Davidson
    • Orange = Island Gold
    • Light Blue = Lynn Lake
    • Yellow = Mulatos

Project Analysis by NPV

Negative NPV Projects (Costly Abatement)
Projects on the left side of the chart have a negative NPV, meaning the cost of implementation outweighs the value of the carbon reduction achieved.

ProjectSite(s)Approx. NPV (USD/tCO₂e)
Ventilation on Demand (VOD)Young-Davidson-479
Propane replaced with CNGYoung-Davidson-241
Electric Hydraulic Mining ShovelsYoung-Davidson-114
EV Production DrillsIsland Gold-83
Mine ventilation air heat recovery unitYoung-Davidson-74
Biodiesel (B50 all year)Lynn Lake-68
BiodieselLynn Lake-39
Electric Induction FurnaceYoung-Davidson-4

Break-even and Positive NPV Projects (Cost-Effective Abatement)
Projects on the right side of the chart break even or have a positive NPV, indicating a financial return alongside carbon reduction.

ProjectSite(s)Approx. NPV (USD/tCO₂e)
Renewable Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) (0)Multiple sites0
Renewable Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) (1–23)Multiple sites+1 to +23
Pipe B20 Biodiesel during winterYoung-Davidson+18
Figure 7.3

Alamos 30% Reduction Pathway

YearGHG Reductions (tCO₂e/year)30% Target (tCO₂e)Resulting Emissions (tCO₂e)1.5°C Target (tCO₂e)BAU Emissions (tCO₂e)
20210169,749184,279169,749184,279
20220164,091183,229162,620183,229
202314,041158,432157,396155,490171,436
202414,041152,774134,180148,361148,221
202519,857147,116145,723141,231165,580
202619,857141,458131,912134,102151,768
202719,857135,799122,135126,972141,991
20289,249130,141117,497119,843126,746
20299,249124,483119,687112,713128,936
20309,249118,824115,165105,584124,414
Figure 7.4

Combined Scope 1 and 2 GHG Emissions Annual Comparison by Site

Site2022 (tCO₂e)2023 (tCO₂e)% Change
Young-Davidson31,72429,6407% decrease
Island Gold18,09422,89627% increase
Mulatos128,604110,51514% decrease
Figure 7.5

Emission Intensity Reduction Based On 2023 GHG Reduction Strategy

Year/LabelEmissions (tCO₂e)
Baseline (2020/2021 Avg.)170,000
2022178,633
2023163,051
Target (2030)119,000
Figure 7.6

Emission Intensity Reduction Based On 2023 GHG Reduction Strategy

CategoryEmission Intensity (tCO₂e/oz Au)
Open Pit Average (adjusted)0.73
Underground Average (adjusted)0.49
Overall Average0.83
Alamos Base Year0.38
Alamos – 2030 with 30% Target0.17
Figure 7.7

Scope 3 GHG Emissions by Site

Site% of TotalEmissions (tCO₂e)
Young-Davidson26%98,564
Island Gold19%72,766
Mulatos52%196,419
Lynn Lake2%8,636
Toronto Head Office1%2,575
El Chanate0%0

End of charts on the Climate Change Page.