pampalo east july 2008 resource estimate · pdf file• a standard surpac block model was...

RUNGE L IMITED abn 17 010 672 321

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE PAMPALO EAST DEPOSIT

FINLAND

Endomines Oy

July, 2008

Mineral Resource Estimate Pampalo East Gold Deposit

Finland

Runge Limited (Perth), Level 3,

251 Adelaide Terrace, Perth WA 6000

Contact: Paul Payne [email protected]

www.runge.com.au

June 2008

Compiled by: Peer Review by:

Jeremy Clark Paul Payne

Senior Consulting Geologist Manager Mining Consulting WA

Authors:

Jeremy Clark

Runge Limited Endomines Oy Pampalo East Resource Report

Page ii

Executive Summary

A Mineral Resource estimate for the Pampalo East Gold Deposit was completed during July 2008 by Runge Limited (Runge) for Endomines Oy (EO). This estimate incorporates all recently drilled diamond holes. The deposit is located 50km north east of the town of Ilomantsi in Eastern Finland, approximately 500km by road northeast of Helsinki.

Exploration at the project was carried out in stages from 1985-1987 by the Finland Geological Survey (GTK) and 2000-2007 by EO. Work has included several drilling campaigns along with geological mapping and trenching, geochemical and geophysical exploration.

The Pampalo East deposit is located directly east of the Pampalo Mine which is also owned by EO. No mining has been completed at Pampalo East.

The Pampalo East deposit is located within the Ilomantsi Archaean Greenstone belt, a sequence of predominantly mica schist and greywackes that have been extensively altered to sericite and sericite-chlorite schists. Gold mineralisation is associated with narrow felsic intrusives with disseminated pyrrhotite, pyrite, scheelite and arsenopyrite in quartz tourmaline veins. The mineralisation is fresh from surface.

Drilling extends from the surface (-50mRL) to approximately 120m vertical depth and the mineralisation was modelled and estimated from -140mRL to -50mRL. The estimate is based on surface diamond core drilling data drilled at 25-50m spaced centres.

The Mineral Resource estimate complies with recommendations in the Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (2004) by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC). Therefore it is suitable for public reporting. The Runge Mineral Resource estimate is summarised in Table A.

Pampalo East Deposit July 2008 Resource Estimate 1g/t Cut-off

Indicated Inferred Total Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Au T g/t T g/t T g/t Oz

Total 359,000 1.6 21,000 1.5 380,000 1.6 19,500

The deposit was estimated by Runge using Ordinary Kriging (OK), constrained by resource outlines based on mineralisation envelopes prepared using the felsic intrusive geological units and a nominal 1g/t Au cut-off grade.

A standard Surpac block model was generated with block dimensions of 1.25m EW by 10m NS by 10m vertical with sub-cells of 0.625m by 2.5m by 1.25m. No high grade cut was applied to the Au data.

The resource was classified as Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource. The majority of the resource was classified as Indicated Mineral Resource as the drill spacing was generally


Page iii

20m by 20m which demonstrated consistent lode and grade continuity with a reasonable level of confidence. The remainder of the resource was classified as Inferred Mineral Resource due to decreased drill density resulting in decreased confidence levels of the grade continuity.

The Pampalo East Deposit comprises a series of sub parallel discrete lode structures of variable grade, thickness and strike length. The resource estimated by Runge represents a substantial zone of mineralisation with reasonable potential for economic extraction via small scale open cut mining.

The deposit is open at depth below 80m in several areas. Several lodes have potential to extend up dip towards surface, as well as down dip. Further drilling should target these zones to enable further near surface resources to be defined.

The resource model is undiluted, so appropriate dilution needs to be incorporated in any evaluation of the deposit.

Jeremy Clark Consultant Geologist


Page iv

Resource Statement and Parameters

Pampalo East Deposit July 2008 Resource Estimate 1g/t Cut-off

Indicated Inferred Total Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Au T g/t T g/t T g/t Oz

Total 359,000 1.6 21,000 1.5 380,000 1.6 19,500 The resource estimates were completed using the following parameters:

• The Pampalo East resource area extends over a strike length of 220m (from 5,050mN – 5,270mN) and includes the 90m vertical interval from -50mRL to -140mRL.

• Drill holes used in the resource estimate included 31 surface diamond holes for a total of 2,378m of drilling. Holes were drilled at 20m spacings on 20m east-west fences.

• A site visit was conducted by Jeremy Clark of Runge in July 2008 to review the Ilomantsi Project area, which is also owned by EO. The location of the Pampalo East deposit and drill core was reviewed during this visit. General site procedures have also being reviewed and were considered to be of a high standard appropriate to the style of mineralisation.

• Diamond core was WL-66 (50.5mm) size and sampling was based on geological intervals at variable lengths during the EO drilling.

• Core logging and sampling methods have been reviewed by Runge and are considered to be of a very high standard.

• All sample preparation was completed by Okun Autolahetti Oy in Outokumpu using a 3 stage crushing and grinding process. All samples collected before 2007 were sent to ALS laboratories in Australia for analysis by Fire Assay. Since 2007 samples have been analysed by GTK/Labtium in Kuopio or Rovaniemi.

• QA/QC data was collected for all drilling, with standards, blanks and duplicates routinely submitted as part of the sampling program. The QA/QC results were reviewed with no bias identified.

• Full database verification was not carried out by Runge, although the database has been reviewed for obvious errors in general data entry and found to be satisfactory.

• All drill hole collar coordinates in the resource have been accurately surveyed by qualified surveyors using a DGPS.

• Downhole surveys were undertaken on all holes drilled by Eo. Surveys were generally taken at 3m intervals downhole. Holes were surveyed downhole by a Reflex Maxibor ll instrument. The GTK drilling was downhole surveyed for dip only at 10m intervals using an electronic clinometer.

• Wireframes were constructed using cross sectional interpretations based on a 0.5g/t Au cut-off grade. No minimum mining width was applied. Zones of low-grade material were included on occasions to maintain continuity of mineralisation.


Page v

• Samples within the wireframes were composited to even 2.0m intervals based on analysis of the sample lengths in the database. No high grade cut was applied to the data.

• A standard Surpac block model was used for the estimate with a block size of 1.25m EW by 10m NS by 5m vertical with sub-cells of 0.625m by 2.5m by 1.25m.

• Ordinary Kriging (OK) interpolation with an oriented ‘ellipsoid’ search was used for the Au estimate. A first pass long axis radius of 30m, equal to the variogram range in the major direction of continuity was used for all zones, combined with a minimum number of informing samples of 10. It was increased to 60m for the second pass. Greater than 90% of the blocks were filled in the first two passes. A third pass search of 60m with a reduced minimum number of informing samples of 2 was used to fill any unestimated blocks.

• A bulk density value of 2.7t/m³ was applied to all mineralisation and waste respectively below the glacial till as all mineralisation was in fresh rock. The density value was based on regular density measurements collected by EO from diamond core samples from nearby Pampalo deposit. The measurements were carried out at the laboratory of K. Räsänen at Outokumpu on the 2006 drilling and used the standard Water Immersion method of ½ core weighed both in air and water.

• The resource was classified as Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource. The majority of the resource was classified as Indicated Mineral Resource as the drill spacing was generally 20m by 20m which demonstrated consistent lode and grade continuity with a reasonable level of confidence. The remainder of the resource was classified as Inferred Mineral Resource due to decreased drill density resulting in decreased confidence levels of the grade continuity.


Page vi

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT Confidentiality This document and all information contained herein are confidential and intended for Endomines Oy (EO) use only. Limited purpose and context of Information

The opinions expressed in this document are addressed only to EO for its benefit with respect to this project. Runge accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage (including consequential or economic loss or damage) arising as a result of reliance on the information presented herein for any party other than EO.

Responsibility

Runge has exercised reasonable care in accordance with standards normally exercised within our profession in the completion of this document.

Runge has relied on information provided by EO. Although Runge has exercised reasonable care in reviewing this data, Runge makes no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or veracity of the data that it has relied upon.

Currency of Information This document has been prepared as at the date stated on the cover page. Given the nature of this document and the opinions expressed within, developments after the date of this document are likely. This document takes no account of such potential future developments. Therefore Runge recommends that EO seek advice from Runge in the future to ascertain whether any such events have occurred or updated information has become available and should be considered.


Page vii

Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ii Resource Statement and Parameters..................................................................................................................iv 1 Introduction and Project Summary ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 General..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Competent Persons and Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 2

2 Geology and Mineralisation........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Regional Geology (Ward, 1993)............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Project Geology and Mineralisation........................................................................................................ 5

3 Mining Status.................................................................................................................................................. 6 4 Previous Estimates ........................................................................................................................................ 7 5 Drilling Data.................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Drill Data................................................................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Drill Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 5.3 Drill Hole Collar Location......................................................................................................................... 7 5.4 Down Hole surveys ................................................................................................................................. 7 5.5 Drill Hole Logging .................................................................................................................................... 7 5.6 Sampling Methodology............................................................................................................................ 8 5.7 Sample Preparation................................................................................................................................. 8 5.8 Data Excluded From Estimate................................................................................................................ 8

6 Assay Data..................................................................................................................................................... 9 6.1 Assay Methodology................................................................................................................................. 9 6.2 Quality Control ......................................................................................................................................... 9

7 Density Data................................................................................................................................................... 9 8 Metallurgical Test Work................................................................................................................................. 9 9 Data Verification............................................................................................................................................. 9 10 Interpretation and Deposit Statistics..................................................................................................... 10

10.1 Geology and Resource Interpretation ............................................................................................. 10 10.2 Preparation of Wireframes ............................................................................................................... 10 10.3 Sample Statistics .............................................................................................................................. 11

10.3.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 11 10.4 Deposit Statistics............................................................................................................................... 11

10.4.1 Composite Statistics................................................................................................................ 11 10.4.2 High Grade Cuts...................................................................................................................... 12

10.5 Geostatistical Analysis...................................................................................................................... 14 10.5.1 Variography ............................................................................................................................. 14

11 Resource Estimate ................................................................................................................................ 15 11.1 Block Model....................................................................................................................................... 15 11.2 Grade Interpolation ........................................................................................................................... 15 11.3 Resource Classification.................................................................................................................... 16 11.4 Results............................................................................................................................................... 17 11.5 Model Validation ............................................................................................................................... 19

12 Reconciliation......................................................................................................................................... 21 12.1 Mining ................................................................................................................................................ 21

13 Risk and Opportunities.......................................................................................................................... 21 14 Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 22 15 References............................................................................................................................................. 23 16 Compliance Certificate .......................................................................................................................... 24


Page viii

Table of Figures Figure 1.1. Pampalo East Deposit – Regional Location ....................................................................................................... 1 Figure 1.2. Pampalo East Deposit - All Diamond Drilling and Resource Wireframes....................................................... 2 Figure 2.1: Regional Geology of the Hattu Schist Belt (From Ward 1993) ......................................................................... 3 Figure 2.2: Generalised Geology of the Ilomantsi Greenstone Belt (from Ward 1993)...................................................... 5 Figure 2.3. Felsic intrusive (right) With Ultramafic Host Rock (left) .................................................................................. 6 Figure 10.1. Oblique View of Pampalo East Resource Wireframe.....................................................................................10 Figure 10.2. Sample Length Histogram within the Resource Wireframe ...........................................................................11 Figure 10.3. Log Probability Plot of All Pampalo East Composites ..................................................................................13 Figure 10.4. Histogram Plot of All Pampalo East Composites...........................................................................................13 Figure 10.5. Downhole Variogram using 2m Composites for Object 2 .............................................................................14 Figure 11.1. Resource Classification Indicated (green) Inferred (red)...............................................................................17 Figure 11.2. Pampalo East Deposit Mineral Resource (10m Bench Breakdown)............................................................18 Figure 11.3. Pampalo East Deposit Grade-Tonnage Curve ..............................................................................................18 Figure 11.4. Pampalo East Deposit Long Section: Resource Coloured by Gold Grade..................................................19 Figure 11.5. Pampalo East Resource Validation Plot by Northing ....................................................................................20 Figure 11.6. Pampalo East Resource Validation Plot by Elevation ..................................................................................20

Index of tables Table 5.1. Summary of Drilling .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 10.1. Descriptive Statistics for Au for Pampalo East Objects ..................................................................................12 Table 10.2. Kriging Parameters for Object 2 .......................................................................................................................14 Table 11.1. Pampalo East Block Model Parameters ...........................................................................................................15 Table 11.2. Interpolation parameters OK............................................................................................................................16 Table 11.3. Pampalo East Deposit July 2008 Mineral Resource Estimate (1g/t Au Cut Off) ...........................................17 Table 11.4. Pampalo East Deposit Composite and Global Resource Grade Comparison ...............................................21

List of Appendices Appendix 1: Pampalo East July 2008 Resource Tables Appendix 2: Pampalo East July 2008 Resource Validation Tables Appendix 3: Pampalo East Statistic sand Histograms Appendix 4: Pampalo East Search Ellipses Appendix 5: Surpac String File Descriptions


Page 1 July 2008

1 Introduction and Project Summary

1.1 General

A Mineral Resource estimate for the Pampalo East Gold Deposit was completed during July 2008 by Runge Limited (Runge) for Endomines Oy (EO). The deposit is located near the village of Hattuvaara in Eastern Finland and approximately 550km by road northeast of Helsinki (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. Pampalo East Deposit – Regional Location

Data provided to Runge by EO included drilling data in the form of an Access database and geological reports of the surrounding deposits and geology. The resource area and drilling at the deposit is shown in Figure 1.2.

Muurinsuo


Page 2 July 2008

Figure 1.2. Pampalo East Deposit - All Diamond Drilling and Resource Wireframes

The current resource estimate was carried out in the Runge Perth office and on-site during July 2008. The Runge work included a review of drillhole data, re-interpretation of the mineralised outlines based on a 0.5g/t Au cut-off grade, statistical and geostatistical analysis of the assay data and creation of wireframes within which the resource was estimated. Surpac Mining software was used for all modelling and estimation procedures.

1.2 Competent Persons and Responsibilities

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Paul Payne who is a full time employee of Runge Limited and a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Paul Payne has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he has undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 Edition of the Australasian Code For the Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. A compliance statement for Paul Payne is included in Section 16 of this report.

The Mineral Resource estimate complies with recommendations in the Australian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (2004) by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC). Therefore it is suitable for public reporting.

The team of people involved in the preparation of this report are listed as follows:

Pampalo East Wireframes


Page 3 July 2008

Mr Paul Payne (Runge Manager WA Mining Consulting) responsible for Project Management and Competent Person sign off.

Mr Jeremy Clark (Senior Runge Consultant) responsible for mineralisation interpretation and wireframing revision, statistical analysis, Mineral Resource estimation and classification.

Mr Phil Baudry (Runge Consultant) responsible for auditing the Pampalo East Mineral Resource estimate.

2 Geology and Mineralisation 2.1 Regional Geology (Ward, 1993)

The Pampalo East Au deposit is located within the Hattu Schist Belt which is a thin belt of predominantly metasedimentary rocks within the late Archaean Ilomantsi Greenstone Belt that forms part of the Karelian Shield in Eastern Finland (Figure 2.1). (Ward et al 1993)

Figure 2.1: Regional Geology of the Hattu Schist Belt (From Ward 1993)


Page 4 July 2008

The Hattu Schist Belt forms the easternmost part of the late Archaean Ilomantsi Greenstone Belt and consists of several north and north easterly trending zones of metasediments that anastomose between numerous syntectonic granitoid plutons (Figure 2.2).

At its narrowest, the Schist Belt is less than 2km wide. The northern part of the belt is characterized by abundant, commonly coarse grained felsic volcaniclastic rocks with inter volcanic flows ranging in composition from andesites to basalts to ultramafic lavas.

South of the village of Hattuvaara there is less lithological diversity and mica schists and greywackes predominate (Sorjonen-Ward, 1993). A series of lensoidal tonalite stocks and associated porphyry dykes intrude roughly synchronously with the main folding phase and is a distinctive feature of the Schist Belt. Rapid crustal evolution of the belt is apparent by the minor age difference between early volcanic rocks (2754±6Ma) and the tonalites (2745 Ma).

Au mineralisation within the Schist Belt has been subdivided into four zones based on till geochemistry, known prospects and bedrock structural features. From south to north these are the Kuittila, Hattuvaara, Pampalo and Pampalo East zones. These zones are shown in Figure 2.2.


Page 5 July 2008

Figure 2.2: Generalised Geology of the Ilomantsi Greenstone Belt (from Ward 1993)

2.2 Project Geology and Mineralisation

The Pampalo East Au deposit is located within a greenstone sequence of predominantly mica schists and greywackes that have been extensively altered to sericite and sericite-chlorite schists.


Page 6 July 2008

Gold mineralisation at Pampalo East is associated with felsic intrusives and form in narrow zones containing thin quartz tourmaline veins with disseminated pyrrhotite, pyrite, scheelite and arsenopyrite. The felsic intrusives have intruded into a series of ultramafic units with contact skarns forming on the margins with the intrusives.

Figure 2.3. Felsic intrusive (right) With Ultramafic Host Rock (left) 3 Mining Status

No previous mining has occurred at the deposit.

Contact of Ultramafic (left) and Felsic intrusives (right)


Page 7 July 2008

4 Previous Estimates

Runge is not aware of any previous estimates for the Pampalo East deposit.

5 Drilling Data 5.1 Drill Data

An Access database (Pameast.mdb) was provided by EO to Runge for the Pampalo East deposit. The database contains drillhole information for the deposit in local grid.

In general, drilling was carried out within the higher grade parts of the resource with 20m spaced holes on 20m section intervals. Away from this area the section interval increases to 40m. The drill holes are predominantly orientated -60o towards 090o (east).

5.2 Drill Methods

The database contains records for 62 diamond drill holes for a total of 6,918m of drilling and 6 channels for 90m of sampling. A total of 31 holes were included in the resource estimate for a total of 498m within the mineralised envelopes.

A summary of the drilling data within the resource area is shown in Table 5.1.

In Resource Project Drill Holes Intersection

Hole Type Number Metres Number Metres Metres Channel 6 90

Diamond (EO) 62 6,918 31 2,378 498 Total 68 7,008 31 2,378 498

Table 5.1. Summary of Drilling

5.3 Drill Hole Collar Location

All recent drilling has been located using DGPS technology.

5.4 Down Hole surveys

All recent drilling by EO has been downhole surveyed at 3m intervals downhole using a Reflex Maxibor ll instrument.

5.5 Drill Hole Logging

All holes were logged for a combination of geological and geotechnical attributes by EO employees. The vast majority of core drilled has also been photographed and measured for RQD and core recovery. Overall core recoveries within the mineralised sections have been excellent, and this was confirmed during the site visit.


Page 8 July 2008

All logging is hand written on paper before the critical items are typed into an Excel spreadsheet and imported into an Access database for Surpac processing.

5.6 Sampling Methodology

Diamond Drilling used WL-66 (50.5mm diameter) core from surface. Half core sampling was undertaken at intervals ranging from 0.25m to 2.25m based on geological boundaries, as determined by the supervising geologist.

5.7 Sample Preparation

Okun Autolähetti Oy in Outokumpu has been responsible for sample preparation of all samples for all drilling programs. Drill core samples were firstly crushed by a jaw crusher followed by a plate crusher. If the sample was too large (>3-4kg), it was split by a box splitter before plate crushing. After this phase, the finely crushed material (~90% passing 1mm) was split by a bottle splitter once or twice depending on the sample size. Finally, two opposite bottles (weighing 150-180g in total) were selected for pulverising by Swingmill. This sample was then sent for analysis to ALS in Australia. Full details of the sampling procedure can be found in the detailed report by Esa Sandberg 2003 (Laboratory Preparation Procedures).

Since 2007, all samples have been sent to GTK/Labtium (Geological Survey of Finland) Laboratories in Korpio or Rovaniemi.

5.8 Data Excluded From Estimate

All channel samples have been excluded from the estimate; however no drill holes have been excluded.


Page 9 July 2008

6 Assay Data 6.1 Assay Methodology

Prior to 2007, all samples were shipped to ALS Chemex (Perth, Australia) for Fire Assay determination (50g sub-sample) with AAS finish.

Since 2007, analysis for Au was undertaken by GTK/Labtium (Geological Survey of Finland) in the Rovaniemi and/or Kuopio laboratory (50g sub-sample/Pb Fire-Assay/FAAS determination).

6.2 Quality Control

No quality control was reviewed by Runge.

7 Density Data

No data density was supplied from within the estimated area. The density values of the nearly Pampalo deposit (2.7t/m3) was applied to the deposit.

8 Metallurgical Test Work

No test work results were provided.

9 Data Verification

No data validation was completed by Runge apart from a standard check for incorrect collar and survey information and overlapping samples. No errors were identified.


Page 10 July 2008

10 Interpretation and Deposit Statistics 10.1 Geology and Resource Interpretation

Runge constructed mineralisation outlines using the logging of the felsic intrusives as a control on the mineralisation and using a nominal 0.5g/t Au cut-off where mineralisation occurred outside the felsic intrusive units. These outlines were used to provide overall geometry to mineralised zones. A minimum downhole length of 1m was used and no edge dilution was applied.

Resource outlines were generally extrapolated to a distance of 20m along strike from drillhole intersections and 20m down dip unless supported by adjacent drill holes.

Profiles for the base of glacial cover were digitised from geological logging and formed to make a digital surface.

10.2 Preparation of Wireframes

The interpreted sectional outlines were manually triangulated to form the wireframes shown in Figure 10.1 for the Pampalo East deposit.

Figure 10.1. Oblique View of Pampalo East Resource Wireframe

To form ends to the wireframe, the end section strings were copied to a position midway to the next section or 20m and adjusted to match the dip, strike and plunge of the zone. The

Object 5

Object 5

Object 6

Object 7

Object 3

Object 8

Object 9

Object 2

Object 1 Object 4


Page 11 July 2008

vertical extent was extrapolated to the deepest drill hole in the deposit for all sections. The wireframed objects were validated using Surpac software and set as solids.

10.3 Sample Statistics 10.3.1 General

The wireframes of the mineralised zones were used to code the database to allow identification of the resource intersections. A comparison of the sample lengths was used to determine the optimal composite length for estimation. Although the most common sample interval was 1m, a large number of samples had lengths of up to 2m, so it was necessary to use 2m for the composite lengths.

Histogram of Sample Length Within the Resource Wireframe

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 0.25 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 5 More

Sample Length

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 10.2. Sample Length Histogram within the Resource Wireframe

Surpac software was used to extract 2.0m down-hole composites within the intervals coded as resource intersections. The “Composite Length by Best Fit” function was used to allow for the remaining sample lengths to be averaged back out into each composite. The minimum composite length was set to 40% or 80cm composite width. This ensures that all assay information across the resource zones is included in the estimate. The actual mean composite lengths calculated by Surpac for each objects are listed in Table 10.1.

The composites were checked for spatial correlation within the objects, the location of the rejected composites, and zero composite values.

10.4 Deposit Statistics

10.4.1 Composite Statistics

To assist with interpretation and estimation of the deposit, descriptive and graphical statistics were analysed for all mineralised zones. The descriptive statistics (Table 10.1) indicates a low number of composites are found within the individual mineral envelopes. All have similar distributions, means, medians and variances as shown by the statistics, histograms and log probability plots in Appendix 3. Analysis of these results indicated that no significant


Page 12 July 2008

variation in distribution occurs between the individual lodes and hence all were combined for geostatistical analysis.

Object Descriptive Statistic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 All Number 41 61 25 10 47 42 9 22 9 262

Minimum 0.41 0.41 0.52 0.88 0.12 0.29 0.50 0.37 0.52 0.12 Maximum 7.96 4.21 2.78 2.85 5.20 12.07 9.80 5.31 3.50 12.07

Mean 1.71 1.51 1.19 1.73 1.90 2.16 2.45 1.36 1.32 1.71 Median 1.26 1.30 0.94 1.45 1.55 1.35 1.03 0.80 0.69 1.27 Std Dev 1.53 0.82 0.72 0.70 1.18 2.46 3.25 1.37 1.01 1.54 Variance 2.35 0.68 0.52 0.49 1.40 6.04 10.54 1.87 1.02 2.37 Std Error 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.36 0.06 0.11 0.01 Coeff Var 0.90 0.55 0.61 0.40 0.62 1.14 1.32 1.01 0.76 0.90

Percentiles 10 0.52 0.57 0.54 0.88 0.75 0.63 0.50 0.52 0.52 0.57 20 0.65 0.70 0.58 1.15 0.85 0.82 0.52 0.56 0.56 0.72 30 0.85 0.93 0.64 1.21 1.07 0.98 0.67 0.60 0.61 0.86 40 0.96 1.21 0.75 1.30 1.35 1.18 0.82 0.70 0.64 1.12 50 1.26 1.30 0.94 1.45 1.55 1.35 1.03 0.80 0.69 1.27 60 1.52 1.54 1.14 1.60 1.73 1.45 1.19 0.84 0.98 1.48 70 1.84 1.82 1.22 1.65 2.36 1.80 1.21 1.08 1.50 1.83 80 2.16 2.18 1.58 2.47 3.01 2.49 2.19 1.34 1.92 2.34 90 2.84 2.46 2.45 2.71 3.28 4.12 6.39 3.29 2.24 3.14 95 3.82 2.70 2.71 2.78 4.31 6.67 8.10 4.49 2.87 4.23

97.5 6.54 3.47 2.74 2.81 4.67 10.47 8.95 4.92 3.18 5.63 99 7.41 3.87 2.77 2.84 4.95 11.48 9.46 5.15 3.37 8.66

Table 10.1. Descriptive Statistics for Au for Pampalo East Objects

10.4.2 High Grade Cuts

Analysis of the statistics in Table 10.1 indicates that the Au data from the mineralised zone is positively skewed with a variable coefficient of variation ranging from 0.4 to 1.32. Analysis of the data was warranted to determine whether high grade cuts were required prior to using the data for any linear grade interpolation.

To assist in the analysis, the composite data was imported into GeoAccess software and a log-probability plot and histogram was generated. The deposit showed a highly positively skewed distribution and an approximately lognormal distribution, as shown in Appendix 3.

The log probability plot and histogram (Figure 10.3 and Figure 10.4 ) indicate no significant break in the distribution is evident and no outliers, suggesting no high grade cut is necessary.


Page 13 July 2008

Figure 10.3. Log Probability Plot of All Pampalo East Composites

Figure 10.4. Histogram Plot of All Pampalo East Composites


Page 14 July 2008

10.5 Geostatistical Analysis

10.5.1 Variography

Object 2 contains the most complete data set of all the domains within the Pampalo East Resource so it was decided to run the spatial variability analysis only within this object.

To determine the nugget variance of the data an omnidirectional variogram with a 2m lag was used, reflecting the composite spacing. This resulted in a poorly structured variogram, with a nugget variance of 53%. The down-hole variogram was fitted to a two structure spherical model shown in Figure 10.5.

Figure 10.5. Downhole Variogram using 2m Composites for Object 2

No robust variography could be determined from directional variograms due to the low number of samples within the object. Spatial analysis of the data using visual grade variability suggests that using the omni direction variogram with a slightly longer range would be give a reasonable representation of the available data.

A summary of the variogram parameters for Object 2 is shown in Table 10.2.

Structure 1 Structure 2 Element Major

Direction Co C1 A1 Maj/

Semi Maj/

Minor C2 A2 Maj/ Semi

Maj/ Minor

Cu -0>0 53% 22% 20 1.00 4 25% 30 1.00 3

Table 10.2. Kriging Parameters for Object 2

The parameter for Object 2 were utilised in the estimation for all objects.


Page 15 July 2008

11 Resource Estimate 11.1 Block Model

A block model for the Pampalo East deposit were created using Surpac software to encompass the full extent of deposit. Block model parameters are listed in Table 11.1.

The block model used a primary block size of 10m NS by 1.25m EW by 5m vertical with standard sub-blocking of 2.5m by 0.625m by 1.25m. The relatively narrow EW sub block size was required to accurately report volumes given the narrow nature of the mineralisation.

Model Name Pampalo East20080403.mdl Y X Z

Origin (minimum y,x,z) 4,855 10,150 -160 Extent y,x,z 600 300 125

Block Size (Sub-blocks) 10 (2.5) 1.25 (0.625) 5 (1.25) Rotation 0°

Attributes: au Au uncut grade estimate (Reportable – OK estimate)

ave_dis Average distance to samples class ind, inf

class_code ind=2, inf=3. krig_var_au Kriging Variance

min_dis Distance to nearest sample mined Y, N

num_sam Number of samples used for ok block grade interpolation pass estimation pass number >0.5g/t Wireframe pod Wireframe object number sg Bulk density

weathering air, Cover, Fresh

Table 11.1. Pampalo East Block Model Parameters

11.2 Grade Interpolation

The >0.5g/t Au wireframe was used as a hard boundary for the interpolation which was used to estimate grade values for the deposits. Ordinary Kriging (OK) was used for all Objects using the parameters determined from the variography for Object 2. OK was selected for as it allowed the measured spatial continuity to be incorporated into the estimate and will have resulted in a degree of smoothing which is appropriate for the nature of the mineralisation.

The Kriging parameters for Object 2 and lode geometry were used to define the orientated search ellipse for the objects as they are consistent with the interpreted geology of the deposit and the underlying drill spacing.

Due to the changing orientation of the lodes along strike, variations were made to the strike of the search ellipses to best fit the geometry of the lodes.

Three interpolation passes were used for the interpolation of the deposit with slightly different maximum search radii and parameters as shown in Table 11.2. The majority of the model was estimated in the first two passes.


Page 16 July 2008

Interpolation Run OK Parameter Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3

Search Type Ellipsoid Ellipsoid Ellipsoid Bearing

Dip Plunge

See Appendix 4

Major-Semi Major Ratio 1 1 1 Major-Minor Ratio 3 3 3

Max Search Radius 30 60 60 Max Vertical Search 999 999 999 Minimum Samples 10 10 2 Maximum Samples 40 40 40 Block Discretisation 2 X by 4 Y by 3 Z 2 X by 4 Y by 3 Z 2 X by 4 Y by3 Z

Percentage Blocks Filled 55% 36% 9%

Table 11.2. Interpolation parameters OK

11.3 Resource Classification

The majority of the deposit was classified as Indicated Mineral Resource with the remainder classified as Inferred Mineral Resource. The Indicated portion of the Mineral Resource was defined where the drill spacing was generally 20m by 20m or less and lode and grade continuity was interpreted with a reasonable level of confidence. The Indicated portion was extended to 20m below the deepest drill intercept.

The resource block model has an attribute “class” for all blocks within the resource wireframes coded as either “inf” for Inferred Mineral Resource, or “ind” for Indicated Mineral Resource, with “class_code” of 3 and 2 respectively ( Figure 11.1).


Page 17 July 2008

Figure 11.1. Resource Classification Indicated (green) Inferred (red)

11.4 Results

The detailed results for the Mineral Resource estimates are tabulated in Appendix 1 of this report. A summary of the estimate is shown in Table 11.3.

Indicated Inferred Total Type Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Au

T g/t T g/t T g/t Oz Fresh 359,000 1.6 21,000 1.5 380,000 1.6 19,500 Total 359,000 1.6 21,000 1.5 380,000 1.6 19,500

Table 11.3. Pampalo East Deposit July 2008 Mineral Resource Estimate (1g/t Au Cut Off)

To show the tonnage and grade distribution throughout the deposit a bench breakdown plot has been prepared and is shown graphically in Figure 11.2. The grade-tonnage curve for the resource is shown in Figure 11.3. An oblique view of the model coloured by Au grade is also shown in Figure 11.4.


Page 18 July 2008

Pampolo East Deposit: Tonnes and Grade Per 10m Bench

0

15,000

30,000

45,000

60,000

75,000

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

Bench Top RL

Tonn

es

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

g/t A

u

Tonnes Per 10m Bench Uncut g/t

Figure 11.2. Pampalo East Deposit Mineral Resource (10m Bench Breakdown)

Pampolo East Deposit Grade-Tonnage Curve

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Cutoff Grade g/t

Tonn

es

0.00

0.80

1.60

2.40

3.20

4.00

Gra

de g

/t

Tonnes Uncut g/t

Figure 11.3. Pampalo East Deposit Grade-Tonnage Curve


Page 19 July 2008

Figure 11.4. Pampalo East Deposit Long Section: Resource Coloured by Gold Grade

11.5 Model Validation

To check that the interpolation of the block model correctly honoured the drilling data, validation was carried out by comparing the interpolated block grades to the composited sample grades. Validation results for the deposits by northing and elevation are shown in Figure 11.5 and Figure 11.6 respectively for all domains. Full details of the validation are included in Appendix 2.


Page 20 July 2008

Comparison of Model and Composite Grades by Northing - All Zones

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,00050

80

5100

5120

5140

5160

5180

5200

5220

5240

5260

Section (N)

Volu

me

(BCM

) Co

mps

*600

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Gra

de (A

u g/

t)

Model BCM Comps*600 Model Uncut Comps Uncut

Figure 11.5. Pampalo East Resource Validation Plot by Northing

Comparison of Model and Composite Grades by Elevation - All Zones

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120 50

Bench Top (RL)

Vol (

BCM

) & C

omps

(*60

0)

0.00

0.60

1.20

1.80

2.40

Gra

de (A

u g/

t)

Model Volume Comps*600 Model Uncut Comps Uncut

Figure 11.6. Pampalo East Resource Validation Plot by Elevation

The validation plots show a reasonable correlation between the composite grades and the block model grades for the comparison by northing and elevation. The validation plots highlight the smoothing effect of the OK interpolations especially in areas with low data density. In general, the trends shown by the composited data are honoured by the block model.

Volume validation of the model was completed by comparing the volume of the wireframe against the volume of the model. Excellent correlation was achieved with less than 2%


Page 21 July 2008

variation. Global averages for the composites and model grade by objects are shown in Table 11.4 and show good correlation. A visual comparison of the block estimates on section and graphically in 3D also indicates that the model is honouring the drillhole grades.

Pampalo East Deposit Validation by Pod Wireframe Block Model Composites

Pod Pod Resource Au Number of Au Number Volume Volume uncut g/t Comps uncut g/t

1 22,017 21,891 1.56 36 1.55 2 45,458 45,480 1.55 55 1.53 3 22,113 22,094 1.22 28 1.12 4 2,452 2,455 1.63 5 1.60 5 26,017 25,957 1.65 50 1.69 6 10,475 10,348 2.05 40 2.13 7 3,469 3,541 1.75 11 1.74 8 16,478 16,418 1.47 21 1.33 9 5,985 6,506 1.25 9 1.27

Total 154,464 154,690 1.54 255 1.60 Table 11.4. Pampalo East Deposit Composite and Global Resource Grade Comparison

12 Reconciliation 12.1 Mining

No previous mining has occurred.

13 Risk and Opportunities

• The discontinuous nature of the felsic intrusives and associated mineralisation the 20m by 20m drill density does not allow a high level of confidence in the interpretation. This presents a risk to the current estimation and Runge recommends further close spaced drilling in the upper portion of the deposit be carried out to confirm the current interpretation.

• The depth extensions of the majority of lodes still remain open at depth with little to no drilling below 80m vertical depth. This area represents a significant target with good potential for increasing the Mineral Resource.

• Several lodes are open up dip towards surface. It is recommended further drilling be undertaken to define the potential resource in these areas to enhance the near surface Mineral Resource.

• Density determinations have not been supplied for the deposit. It is recommended a comprehensive density program be undertaken to accurately define the tonnages of both the mineralised felsic units and the hosting ultramafic units.


Page 22 July 2008

14 Conclusion and Recommendations

The resource estimate prepared by Runge suggests that the Pampalo East deposit has the potential to be developed as part of a moderate grade, low tonnage mining operation. It is recommended that open pit optimisation studies be carried out to test this potential.

The deposit remains open at depth and in some areas along strike. Additional drilling is warranted to test for extensions to the high grade mineralisation below the main mineralised zone, where sparse drilling currently exists.

A complete review of available QAQC information is recommended to be completed.

The resource models are undiluted, so appropriate dilution needs to be incorporated in any evaluation of the deposit.

Jeremy Clark

Consultant Geologist


Page 23 July 2008

15 References Wilkins A., 2007: Pampalo Resource Report. Wardell Armstrong International Limited.

Sandberg E., 2003: Laboratory Preparation Procedures. Internal report for Polar Mining Oy.

Pekka A. Nurmi & Peter Sorjonen Ward 1993: Geological Development, Gold Mineralisation and Exploration Methods in the Late Archaean Hattu Schist Belt, Ilomantsi, Eastern Finland.

AusIMM., 2001. Field Geologist Manual Fourth Edition 2001 Page 295.


Page 24 July 2008

16 Compliance Certificate Certificate – Paul Payne B App Sc., MAusIMM, Grad Dip Min Ec, Grad Cert Geostatistics I, Paul Payne, as co-author of this report entitled; “Mineral Resource Estimate, Pampalo East Deposit Finland, July 2008” for Endomines Oy, do here certify that;

1. I am employed by Runge Limited as a geological consultant and I have been practicing in the mining industry since 1985.

2. As an employee of Runge, I have been contracted by Endomines Oy to complete this resource estimate and report.

3. I hold a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Geology from the Curtin University, Perth

awarded 1985 and have been practicing as a professional since graduation.

4. I am in good standing as a registered member (number 105622) of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy since 1988.

5. I am co-author of this Mineral Resource report.

6. By reason of experience and education, I fulfil the requirements of a Competent Person

as set out in the 2004 Edition of the JORC Code and as Qualified Person as set out in National Instrument 43-101, to act as a professional geologist for this review.

7. I have read the AusIMM JORC Code and the Canadian National Instrument 43-101 and

Form 43-101F1. This report is prepared in accordance with generally accepted Australian and Canadian mining industry practice and complies with JORC and National Instrument 43-101.

8. As of the date of this certificate, I am not aware of any changes in fact or circumstances

as regards to subject matter of this report which may materially affect the content of the report or the conclusion reached. I have completed the work in the capacity of an independent consultant and Runge employees have visited the property on two occasions.

Dated at Perth, 20th day of July, 2008

Paul Payne Principal Geologist Runge Limited Level 3, 251 Adelaide Terrace Perth 6000 Western Australia Ph (+618) 9482 0700 [email protected]


Page 25 July 2008

Appendix 1

Pampalo East Deposit

July 2008 Resource Tables

Runge Ltd Endomines Oy Muurinsuo Resource Report

Page i July 2008

IndicatedBench

Top Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut UncutRL T Au g/t T g/t T Au g/t T Au g/t Au Ounces-40 132 1.67 132 1.67 7-50 35,490 1.63 35,490 1.63 1,863-60 62,933 1.60 62,933 1.60 3,232-70 58,867 1.79 58,867 1.79 3,388-80 56,241 1.69 56,241 1.69 3,047-90 58,667 1.56 58,667 1.56 2,945-100 46,918 1.49 46,918 1.49 2,247-110 28,614 1.38 28,614 1.38 1,268-120 9,023 1.31 9,023 1.31 379-130 1,666 1.35 1,666 1.35 73Total 358,551 1.60 358,551 1.60 18,449

InferredBench

Top Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut UncutRL T Au g/t T g/t T Au g/t T Au g/t Au Ounces-40 1,566 1.66 1,566 1.66 84-50 11,391 1.54 11,391 1.54 563-60 1,825 1.33 1,825 1.33 78-70 1,972 1.57 1,972 1.57 99-80 1,371 1.75 1,371 1.75 77-90 396 1.57 396 1.57 20-100 960 1.27 960 1.27 39-110 1,487 1.23 1,487 1.23 59-120 237 1.30 237 1.30 10Total 21,205 1.51 21,205 1.51 1,029

BenchTop Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut UncutRL T Au g/t T g/t T Au g/t T Au g/t Au Ounces-40 1,698 1.66 1,698 1.66 91-50 46,881 1.61 46,881 1.61 2,426-60 64,758 1.59 64,758 1.59 3,310-70 60,839 1.78 60,839 1.78 3,487-80 57,612 1.69 57,612 1.69 3,125-90 59,063 1.56 59,063 1.56 2,966-100 47,878 1.49 47,878 1.49 2,286-110 30,101 1.37 30,101 1.37 1,327-120 9,260 1.31 9,260 1.31 389-130 1,666 1.35 1,666 1.35 73Total 379,756 1.60 379,756 1.60 19,478

BenchTop Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut Tonnes Uncut UncutRL T Au g/t T g/t T Au g/t T Au g/t Au Ounces-40-50 775 0.88 775 0.88 22-60 1,139 0.88 1,139 0.88 32-70 1,898 0.67 1,898 0.67 41-80 6,460 0.77 6,460 0.77 159-90 8,902 0.82 8,902 0.82 235-100 8,179 0.89 8,179 0.89 233-110 2,415 0.91 2,415 0.91 71-120 1,466 0.98 1,466 0.98 46-130 21 0.98 21 0.98 1Total 31,255 0.84 31,255 0.84 840

Oxide Transition Fresh Total

Total

Oxide Transition Fresh TotalTotal Pampolo East Resource - Indicated and Inferred >1g/t

Pampalo East Low Grade (0-1g/t Au)

Pampalo East DepositJuly 2008 Resource Estimate 1g/t Cut-off

Oxide Transition Fresh Total

Oxide Transition Fresh


Page ii July 2008

BenchTop Tonnes Uncut UncutRL T g/t Ounces Tonnes Uncut Oz-40 1,698 1.7 91 170 9-50 46,881 1.6 2,426 4,688 243-60 64,758 1.6 3,310 6,476 331-70 60,839 1.8 3,487 6,084 349-80 57,612 1.7 3,125 5,761 312-90 59,063 1.6 2,966 5,906 297-100 47,878 1.5 2,286 4,788 229-110 30,101 1.4 1,327 3,010 133-120 9,260 1.3 389 926 39-130 1,666 1.4 73 167 7Total 379,756 1.6 19,478

Indicated and Inferred Resources1g/t CutoffPampolo EastJuly 2008 Resource Estimate

Per Vertical Metre

Pampolo East Deposit: Tonnes and Grade Per 10m Bench

0

15,000

30,000

45,000

60,000

75,000

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

Bench Top RL

Tonn

es

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

g/t A

uTonnes Per 10m Bench Uncut g/t

Tonnes and Ounces Per Vertical Metre

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

Bench Top RL

Tonn

es/V

m

0

100

200

300

400

500

Oun

ce/V

m

TVM OVM Uncut


Page iii July 2008

Grade CutoffRange Tonnes Uncut Uncut Grade Tonnes Uncut Uncut

g/t T g/t Ounces g/t T g/t Ounces0.0 -> 0.1 0 0 0 0.0 411,013 1.54 20,3180.1 -> 0.2 0 0 0 0.1 411,013 1.54 20,3180.2 -> 0.3 0 0 0 0.2 411,013 1.54 20,3180.3 -> 0.4 0 0 0 0.3 411,013 1.54 20,3180.4 -> 0.5 0 0 0 0.4 411,013 1.54 20,3180.5 -> 0.6 100 0.59 2 0.5 411,013 1.54 20,3180.6 -> 0.7 4,667 0.66 99 0.6 410,913 1.54 20,3160.7 -> 0.8 6,539 0.76 159 0.7 406,246 1.55 20,2170.8 -> 0.9 8,960 0.85 244 0.8 399,707 1.56 20,0580.9 -> 1.0 10,990 0.95 336 0.9 390,747 1.58 19,8141.0 -> 1.1 11,259 1.06 382 1.0 379,757 1.60 19,4781.1 -> 1.2 25,423 1.15 941 1.1 368,498 1.61 19,0961.2 -> 1.3 31,261 1.25 1,259 1.2 343,075 1.65 18,1551.3 -> 1.4 41,871 1.35 1,817 1.3 311,814 1.69 16,8961.4 -> 1.5 53,346 1.45 2,490 1.4 269,943 1.74 15,0791.5 -> 1.6 56,948 1.55 2,840 1.5 216,597 1.81 12,5891.6 -> 1.7 47,809 1.64 2,526 1.6 159,649 1.90 9,7491.7 -> 1.8 30,596 1.75 1,720 1.7 111,840 2.01 7,2221.8 -> 1.9 27,997 1.84 1,661 1.8 81,244 2.11 5,5021.9 -> 2.0 17,671 1.95 1,105 1.9 53,247 2.24 3,8422.0 -> 2.1 12,403 2.04 814 2.0 35,576 2.39 2,7362.1 -> 2.2 7,821 2.15 540 2.1 23,173 2.58 1,9222.2 -> 2.3 3,407 2.24 245 2.2 15,352 2.80 1,3832.3 -> 2.4 2,357 2.33 177 2.3 11,945 2.96 1,1372.4 -> 2.5 2,062 2.43 161 2.4 9,588 3.12 9612.5 -> 2.6 1,245 2.54 102 2.5 7,526 3.30 7992.6 -> 2.7 960 2.63 81 2.6 6,281 3.45 6972.7 -> 2.8 269 2.72 23 2.7 5,321 3.60 6162.8 -> 2.9 74 2.90 7 2.8 5,052 3.65 5922.9 -> 3.0 527 2.97 50 2.9 4,978 3.66 586> 3.0 4,451 3.74 535 3.0 4,451 3.74 535

Total 411,013 1.54 20,318

Incremental Resource Cumulative ResourcePampolo EastJuly 2008 Resource Estimate

Pampolo East Deposit Grade-Tonnage Curve

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Cutoff Grade g/t

Tonn

es

0.00

0.80

1.60

2.40

3.20

4.00

Gra

de g

/t

Tonnes Uncut g/t


Page iv July 2008

Appendix 2


July 2008 Validation Plots


Page v July 2008

Section Resource Au Number of Comps*600 Au Comp RatioN Volume uncut g/t Comps uncut g/t BCM/comp

5,060 7020 2.26 39 23400 2.28 1805,080 4,994 1.69 9 5400 1.81 5555,100 4,600 1.22 8 4800 0.69 5755,120 6,461 1.36 6 3600 1.00 10775,140 9,270 1.46 8 4800 1.25 11595,160 12,139 1.52 17 10200 1.44 7145,180 22,184 1.64 62 37200 1.72 3585,200 27,174 1.56 25 15000 1.55 10875,220 31,590 1.44 38 22800 1.32 8315,240 22,801 1.38 32 19200 1.20 7135,260 6,459 1.81 11 6600 2.04 587Total 154,689 1.54 255 129,600 1.60 607

Note: Calculated validation grades may differ from resource grades due to weighting by volume, not tonnes.

Block ModelPampolo East Deposit Block Model Validation by Northing

Composites

Comparison of Model and Composite Grades by Northing - All Zones

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

5080

5100

5120

5140

5160

5180

5200

5220

5240

5260

Section (N)

Volu

me

(BC

M) C

omps

*600

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Gra

de (A

u g/

t)Model BCM Comps*600 Model Uncut Comps Uncut


Page vi July 2008

BenchTop Resource Au Number of Comps*600 Au Comp RatioRL Volume uncut g/t Comps uncut g/t BCM/comp-40 2,727 1.62 -50 18,016 1.60 12 7,200 1.78 1,501-60 24,406 1.58 62 37,200 1.36 394-70 23,236 1.75 54 32,400 2.22 430-80 23,730 1.59 56 33,600 1.62 424-90 25,172 1.46 37 22,200 1.32 680

-100 20,762 1.40 19 11,400 1.39 1,093-110 12,043 1.34 15 9,000 1.22 803-120 3,973 1.26 50 625 1.35

Total 154,690 1.54 255 153,000 1.61 607Note: Calculated validation grades may differ from resource grades due to weighting by volume, not tonnes.

Block Model CompositesPampolo East Deposit Block Model Validation by Elevation

Comparison of Model and Composite Grades by Elevation - All Zones

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120 50

Bench Top (RL)

Vol (

BC

M) &

Com

ps (*

600)

0.00

0.60

1.20

1.80

2.40

Gra

de (A

u g/

t)

Model Volume Comps*600 Model Uncut Comps Uncut


Page vii July 2008

Appendix 3


Statistics and Histograms


Page viii July 2008

Object 2

Object 3

Object 4

Object 5


Page ix July 2008

Object 6

Object 7

Object 8

Object 9


Page x July 2008

Appendix 4


Search Ellipses


Page xi July 2008

Object Strike plunge dip Major/Semi Major Major/Minor Minimum

Northing Maximum

North 1 6 0 -55W 1 3 0 5210 1 25 0 -42W 1 3 5210 6000 2 8 0 -63W 1 3 0 5200 2 15 0 -66W 1 3 5200 6000 3 351 0 -51W 1 3 0 5175 3 20 0 -71W 1 3 5175 6000 4 23 0 -33W 1 3 0 99999 5 359 0 -52W 1 3 0 5190 5 15 0 -55W 1 3 5190 6000 6 18 0 -60W 1 3 0 6000 7 15 0 -77W 1 3 0 6000 8 353 0 -70W 1 3 0 5175 8 10 0 -70W 1 3 5175 6000 9 345 0 -41W 1 3 0 6000


Page xii July 2008

Appendix 5


Surpac String File Descriptions

(All relevant files are included on the Compact Disc

Inside the back cover of this report)


Page xiii July 2008

PAMPALO EAST DIRECTORIES

-3DMs • Pampalo East_res20080711.dtm -0.5 g/t Au resource wireframe

-BModel

• Pampalo East20080712.mdl -resource block model • Bmodel.zip -block model macros

-Data

• PamEast.mdb -Access database • Comps.zip -composite files uncut Au D1, •

-Nat_Surf & Workings • Pit_ns1.dtm/str -Topo surface

-Reports&Spreadsheets

• Pampalo East July 2008 Resource Estimate.pdf - Resource report • Pampalo East July 2008 Resource Tables.xls - Resource tables

The Pampalo East Deposit Mineral Resource estimate was completed using Surpac Mining Software version 6.0.2.

pampalo east july 2008 resource estimate · pdf file• a standard surpac block model was...

Documents