tawsho mining inc.tawsho mining inc. 43-101 technical report on the mineral resource of the chevrier...

$: Tawsho Mining Inc.Tawsho Mining Inc. 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource of the Chevrier Gold Project Page i April 2010 QPF-009-12/B P:\29067\Texte\Rapports\Final\Report_Chevrier_43-101_FINAL.docx$
Tawsho Mining Inc.

Project Number: 29067-2

NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE

MINERAL RESOURCE OF THE

CHEVRIER GOLD PROJECT

CHIBOUGAMAU,

QUEBEC – CANADA

FINAL REPORT

April 2010

Tawsho Mining Inc. 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource of the Chevrier Gold Project

April 2010

QPF-009-12/B

P:\29067\Texte\Rapports\Final\Report_Chevrier_43-101_FINAL.docx

Prepared for:

Tawsho Mining Inc.

1155 University Ave.

Suite 1215

Montreal, Quebec

H3B 3A7

Canada

Prepared by:

Met-Chem Canada Inc.

555, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest, 3e étage

Montréal (Québec)

H2Z 1B1

Tawsho Mining Inc. 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource of the Chevrier Gold Project Page i

April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Basis of the Report .................................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Units, Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Met-Chem’s Qualifications ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ............................................................................................................. 6 3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................................................... 7

3.1 Property Description ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Environmental Considerations ................................................................................................................ 8

4.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, PHYSIOGRAPHY ... 11 4.1 Accessibility .......................................................................................................................................... 11 4.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................................. 11 4.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 13 4.4 Physiography and Vegetation................................................................................................................ 13

5.0 HISTORY ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.1 Previous Exploration Activities ....................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Previous Mineral Resource Estimates ................................................................................................... 18

6.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING............................................................................................................................ 20 6.1 Regional Geology ................................................................................................................................. 20 6.2 Local geology ........................................................................................................................................ 22

7.0 DEPOSIT TYPE ............................................................................................................................................. 23 8.0 MINERALIZATION ..................................................................................................................................... 24 9.0 EXPLORATION (2008-2009) ....................................................................................................................... 26 10.0 DRILLING ...................................................................................................................................................... 28

10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 28 10.2 Hole Planning, Site Preparation and Set-Up (2008-09) ........................................................................ 28 10.3 Deviational Survey ................................................................................................................................ 30 10.4 Hole Logging Procedures ...................................................................................................................... 31 10.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 32 10.6 Verification by Met-Chem .................................................................................................................... 33

11.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH ................................................................................................ 36 11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 36 11.2 2008-09 Drill Program .......................................................................................................................... 36 11.3 Verification by Met-Chem .................................................................................................................... 36

12.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY ...................................................................... 38 12.1 1990-1997 Programs ............................................................................................................................. 38 12.2 2002 Program ........................................................................................................................................ 38 12.3 2008-09 Program .................................................................................................................................. 38 12.4 Specific Gravity Determination (1997) ................................................................................................. 40

13.0 DATA VERIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ 41 13.1 Database Validation .............................................................................................................................. 41 13.2 Quality Control of the Laboratories ...................................................................................................... 45

Tawsho Mining Inc. 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource of the Chevrier Gold Project Page ii

April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


13.3 Internal Laboratory Quality Control...................................................................................................... 59 13.4 Gold-Silver Correlation in the Chevrier Deposit................................................................................... 60 13.5 Independent Check Sampling and Visit of the Laboratories by Met-Chem .......................................... 61

14.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES .......................................................................................................................... 67 14.1 Murgor Property .................................................................................................................................... 67 14.2 Hygrade Property .................................................................................................................................. 68 14.3 Other Properties .................................................................................................................................... 69

15.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGY .................................................................................... 70 16.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION ..................................................................................................... 71

16.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 71 16.2 Drill Hole Database. .............................................................................................................................. 71 16.3 Geological Interpretation ...................................................................................................................... 76 16.4 Block Modeling ..................................................................................................................................... 78 16.5 Mineral Resources Classification .......................................................................................................... 84 16.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 86

17.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ................................................................................ 87 18.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 94 19.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 96

19.1 General, Proposed Work ....................................................................................................................... 96 19.2 Improvements to the Geo-scientific Data .............................................................................................. 98 19.3 Improvements to the Future Drill Programs .......................................................................................... 98

20.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 101 21.0 CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFICATION .................................................................................................. 102

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 – List of Abbreviations Used in the Report ................................................................................................... 4 Table 3.1 –Location of Main Points of the Perimeter .................................................................................................... 7 Table 5.1 – Summary of the Historical Exploration Work Completed on the Chevrier Property Area ................ 15 Table 5.2 – Summary of Historical Diamond Drilling Completed ............................................................................. 18 Table 5.3 – Chevrier Deposit - Summary of Historical Tonnage and Grade Estimates .............................................. 19 Table 6.1 – Stratigraphy of the Chibougamau Region................................................................................................. 20 Table 8.1 – Un-weighted Average Grade of Ag, Cu and Zn Analyses ........................................................................ 24 Table 9.1 – Diamond Drilling by Tawsho (2008-09) .................................................................................................. 26 Table 9.2 – Summary of All the Diamond Drilling Completed on the Chevrier Property .......................................... 27 Table 10.1 – Intervals used by the Operators for the Systematic Down-hole Survey Measurements ........................ 30 Table 13.1 – Content of Tawsho’s MS-Access Drill Hole Database ........................................................................... 41 Table 13.2 – Database - Examples of Assay Samples Straddling Lithological Contacts ........................................... 42 Table 13.3 – Database – Examples of Short Sample Intervals .................................................................................... 42 Table 13.4 – Database - Examples of “Open” Sample Intervals with Significant Assay Results............................... 43 Table 13.5 – Database - Examples of Measured Core Angles and Sulphides Reported in the Lithology Column ..... 43 Table 13.6 – Canmet Standards - Expected Values and Analytical Results (1997) .................................................... 46 Table 13.7 – Rocklabs Certified Reference Materials - Certified Values and Analytical Results (2008-09) .............. 47 Table 13.8 – Pulp and Screen Assays - 1996 Drill Program ........................................................................................ 50 Table 13.9 – Results from the Original and Pulp and Screen Fire Assays (1997) ....................................................... 53 Table 13.10 – Samples Shipped by Tawsho in December, 2009 for Re-Assay ........................................................... 56 Table 13.11 – Tawsho Duplicate Samples - Summary of Analytical Results ............................................................. 56 Table 13.12 – Correlation Coefficients for the Assays on the Different Sets of Samples .......................................... 57 Table 13.13 – Assay Results from Standard SH35 (expected value of 1.323 g/t Au) ................................................. 57 Table 13.14 – List of Check Samples Collected by Met-Chem ................................................................................... 63 Table 13.15 – Summary of Assay Results from the Check Samples Selected by Met-Chem .................................... 65 Table 13.16 – Standards and Blanks within the Met-Chem Check Samples ............................................................... 65

Tawsho Mining Inc. 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource of the Chevrier Gold Project Page iii

April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 14.1 – Selected Sample Results from Murgor’s Fancamp Project..................................................................... 67 Table 14.2 – Selected Sample Results from 2009 Sampling on Murgor’s Fancamp Project ..................................... 68 Table 16.1 – Content of the Drill Hole Database Imported in to MineSight ............................................................... 72 Table 16.2 – Samples and Assay Results in the Database ........................................................................................... 72 Table 16.3 – Statistical Results for the Assays within the Envelope of the Mineralization ......................................... 73 Table 16.4 – Statistical Results from the Composites ................................................................................................. 74 Table 16.5 – Block Model Parameters ......................................................................................................................... 78 Table 16.6 – Interpolation Parameters for Resources in the Higher and Lower Density of Drill Holes ..................... 80 Table 16.7 – Chevrier Deposit; Estimated Tonnage and Average Grade at various Cut-Off Grades to a Maximum

Depth of 250 m .................................................................................................................................................. 85 Table 16.8 –Mineral Resources at 1.0 g/t Au Cut-Off, from Surface to -250 m......................................................... 86 Table 17.1 – Chevrier South; Samples in the Database ............................................................................................... 87 Table 17.2 – Chevrier South, Statistical Results for all the Assays within the Mineralized Envelopes (ppb) ............ 87 Table 17.3 – Chevrier South; Statistical Results from the Composites ....................................................................... 88 Table 17.4 – Chevrier South Deposit; Estimated Tonnage and Average Grade at various Cut-Off Grades (using the

same parameters as the Chevrier deposit) .......................................................................................................... 93

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 – Location Map ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3.2 – Claim Map & Claim Blocks .................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4.1 – Infrastructures and Surface Rights .......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6.1 – Regional Geology .................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 10.1 – Diamond Drill and Mineralized Envelopes ........................................................................................... 29 Figure 13.1 – Standards OxL63, OxK69, OxE74 and SH35 Expected Values and Analytical Results ...................... 48 Figure 13.2 – 2008-09 Drill Program - Assays on Blank Control Samples Blanks Inserted in the 2008-09 Drill

Program by Tawsho ........................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 13.3 – Pulp and Screen Assays – 1996 Drill Program (g/t Au) ........................................................................ 50 Figure 13.4 – Original and Pulp and Screen Assays (1997) ........................................................................................ 54 Figure 13.5 – Inter-Laboratory Pulp Duplicate Assays ............................................................................................... 55 Figure 13.6 – Graph of the Laboratory Duplicate Assays of Standard SH35 .............................................................. 58 Figure 13.7 – Chevrier Deposit - Scatter Plot of Au versus Ag ................................................................................... 60 Figure 16.1 – Chevrier Deposit; Distribution of Gold in ppb (Log Normal; on original assays) ............................... 73 Figure 16.2 – Distribution of Au (ppb) in the Composites (After capping)................................................................. 74 Figure 16.3 – Chevrier Deposit Variogram (horizontal all directions) .................................................................... 75 Figure 16.4 – Chevrier Deposit Variogram (45° all directions) ............................................................................... 75 Figure 16.5 – Chevrier Deposit Variogram (90° all directions) ............................................................................... 76 Figure 16.6 – Drill Hole Longitudinal View (Looking West) of the Chevrier Deposit (red) against Topography

(green line) ......................................................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 16.7 – Plan View of the Mineralized Envelopes of the Chevrier Deposit (projected to surface) .................... 81 Figure 16.8 – 3D View of the Mineralized Envelopes of the Chevrier deposit against Topography ......................... 82 Figure 16.9 – 3D View of the Gold Grades in the Chevrier Deposit Block Model against Topography ................... 83 Figure 16.10 – Sectional view (2225W looking North) of the Chevrier Deposit Block Model against Topography

(green line) ......................................................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 17.1 – Drill Hole Longitudinal View (looking West) of the Chevrier South Deposit (blue) against

Topography (green line) ..................................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 17.2 – Chevrier South; Log Normal Distribution of Gold on Composites (ppb) ............................................. 88 Figure 17.3 – Chevrier South; Log Normal Distribution of Gold (ppb) ...................................................................... 88 Figure 17.4 – Plan view of the Mineralized Envelopes of the Chevrier South Deposit (projected to surface)........... 89 Figure 17.5 – 3D View of the Mineralized Envelopes of the Chevrier Deposit against Topography ........................ 90 Figure 17.6 – Sectional view (3500W looking North) of the Chevrier Deposit Block Model against Topography

(green line) ......................................................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 17.7 – 3D View of the Gold Grades in the Block Model ................................................................................. 92

Tawsho Mining Inc. 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource of the Chevrier Gold Project Page iv

April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – CIM Definition Standards – For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Appendix B – Mining Titles Report Appendix C – Analytical Results from the Duplicate Samples sent by Tawsho to ALS Chemex in November, 2009 Appendix D – Sample Preparation Flowchart – Table jamésienne de concertation minière, Chibougamau Appendix E – Check Samples Collected by Met-Chem – Analytical Results Appendix F – An Investigation of the Recovery of Gold, Lakefield Research (written permission to publish

obtained from Lakefield Research on March 04, 2010)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


SUMMARY

Property and Ownership

The Chevrier gold project of Tawsho Mining Inc. (“Tawsho”) is located some 35 km to the south

of Chibougamau, in northwestern Quebec. The property consists of 557 mostly contiguous

claims covering 9,542 hectares, and Tawsho holds 100% interest in 515 of them.

In 2007, Tawsho purchased the property from GéoNova Explorations Inc. and has since

conducted surface exploration work, ground and airborne geophysical surveys and a 24-hole

diamond drill program.

The property hosts several gold prospects and the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits, for

which historical tonnages and grade of mineralized material have been published.

Geology, Deposit Type, Mineralization

The Chevrier and Chevrier South gold deposits are hosted in the Fancamp Deformation Corridor.

The Chevrier deposit has been defined by diamond drill holes at 25-m and 50-m spacing, and

surface exposures, whereas the Chevrier South has been delineated by only 19 drill holes. Both

deposits are known to extend over a strike length of about 1.1 km.

The gold mineralization of Chevrier is associated with quartz-carbonate veins and disseminated

pyrite chiefly hosted in gabbro and felsic porphyry units. The Chevrier South mineralization is

similar, but for a concordant pyrite envelope, and a host predominantly represented by tuff and

intermediate to felsic volcanic rocks. Both zones are highly deformed and show strong

carbonate, sericite and chlorite alteration.

The deposits are interpreted as strata-bound and, consequently, were affected by the major

tectonic events. The mineralization of Chevrier is of the Non-Carbonate-Stockwork-

Disseminated, Porgera type, also found in the Andacollo mining camp or at the East Malartic or

Holt-McDermott mines.

Exploration Status

The first exploration work documented on the Chevrier property area was performed by Teck

Corp. in 1950. This was followed by sporadic exploration activities targeted at different portions

of the present property area held by the various mining companies. A combination of mapping,

outcrop stripping, geophysical and geochemical surveying and drilling led to the discovery of

several gold showings and culminated with the discovery of the Chevrier deposit in 1988 and of

the Chevrier South deposit in 1992.

On October 27, 2009, Tawsho requested Met-Chem Canada Inc. (“Met-Chem”) to complete a

geological-structural interpretation of the two deposits, generate a 3D model and issue a

Technical Report compliant with the National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) regulation.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Data Verification and Visit

Data verification by Met-Chem included essentially a field visit, a tour of the sample preparation

facilities, examination of selected core intervals, validation of the database, checks on analytical

results and collection of independent check samples.

Met-Chem visited the sites of selected drill holes and examined the stripped outcrops over the

Chevrier deposit area on November 03, 2009. The observations from the field visit were checked

against the database entries and the plot on the maps and drill sections.

As part of the audit, Met-Chem visited the sample preparation facilities of Table jamésienne de

concertation minière in Chibougamau used by Tawsho to process the samples from the 2008-09

drill program.

Nine holes drilled at different times and locations into the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits

were selected by Met-Chem for examination of the mineralized intercepts and lithologies. Met-

Chem compared the match of intensity of alteration and density of quartz-carbonate veins and

veinlets with the gold assay results.

The Assay table of the database supplied by Tawsho was re-constructed by Met-Chem, as errors

that compromised its integrity were picked up.

Met-Chem performed spot checks on the analytical data from the quality control samples used by

the different operators to monitor the laboratory performance. The data were used to prepare

control graphs and calculate basic statistics. Some verification was also performed on the results

from the internal laboratories quality control samples.

Met-Chem selected 58 reject or core samples and 25 coarse duplicate samples for independent

check assay. The samples represented mineralized intervals in different holes spread in the two

deposits.

Estimate of Resource and Mineralized Material

The resource estimate was performed in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 and the

CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (2005). Met-Chem

performed the geological interpretation and modeling of the mineralized lenses, followed by the

numerical modeling and resource estimation using MineSight mining software. The parameters

applied to both deposits are very similar.

Uncertainties raised by concerns on part of the analytical results and unverified hole-to-hole

correlations of the mineralized structures lead Met-Chem to classify all the resource of the

Chevrier deposit in the lower confidence Inferred category. The Chevrier deposit is estimated by

Met-Chem to contain the following resource, between surface and a depth of 250 m, using a cut-

off grade of 1.0 g/t Au and a minimum width of 1.5 m:


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Chevrier

Resource Tonnage Average Grade Au (oz)

Inferred 4.6 million tonnes 1.99 g/t Au 295,000

Met-Chem cautions that mineral resources have no demonstrated economic viability. In addition,

there is no certainty that all or part of the mineral resources will be converted into reserves.

The Chevrier South deposit has been investigated by only 19 drill holes, which Met-Chem

believes did not provide sufficient and reliable information to estimate a mineral resource.

However, the 3D model prepared by Met-Chem allows an estimate of a tonnage and grade of the

mineralized material potentially present at Chevrier South:

Chevrier South

Tonnage Average Grade

Mineralized Material 8.5 to 9.0 million tonnes 1.8 to 2.2 g/t Au

Interpretation and Conclusions

The study by Met-Chem of the data related to the Chevrier deposit confirmed the complex

geometry of the mineralized zones and indicated a general lack of geological and grade

continuity of the mineralization. Met-Chem found that a better continuity of the mineralized

structures is exhibited in a series of plan projections of the 3D model than in vertical cross

sections, which is a signature attributable to steeply plunging mineralized shoots.

Met-Chem interprets the system hosting the gold mineralization at Chevrier as an anastomosing

arrangement of barren and mineralized shears. The mineralized structures within the shear zone

are taken by Met-Chem to form a large-scale, isoclinal, refolded fold with sub-vertical

mineralized shoots controlled by the second-phase folds. The association of gold mineralization

with fold closures indicated by the work of Murgor on the adjacent property lends support to

Met-Chem’s interpretation.

The Chevrier deposit has previously been described as a high-grade gold deposit, in contrast with

the low-grade Chevrier South deposit. Inspection of the assay results from both deposits by Met-

Chem clearly indicates that the Chevrier deposits are not of the high-grade type of mineralization

and suggests little coarse gold is present. Indeed, out of 11,451 assay results falling in the

mineralized envelopes, 169 are over 5 g/t Au and 353 equal or exceed 3 g/t Au.

Some of the analytical results are cause for concern, particularly the variability and bias in many

of the assays of the Standard Reference Materials, which monitor the accuracy of the

laboratories. Met-Chem’s study also showed that the reproducibility of the assay results is

generally not outstanding, although little coarse gold seems to be present within the Chevrier

deposits. In addition, a bias is commonly observed between the gold assay results yielded by the

fire assay method with the AA or the Gravimetric finish.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Met-Chem believes the entire resource base at Chevrier has to be placed in the Inferred category.

Indeed, the geological and grade continuity is reasonably assumed, but not verified, and

uncertainties in some of the analytical data contribute to decrease the level of confidence in the

resource estimate. Consequently, Met-Chem believes the criteria for the present resource to

qualify for classification in the Measured or Indicated categories are not met.

Sufficient and reliable information is lacking to estimate a mineral resource for the Chevrier

South deposit, although the 3D model allows to calculate a tonnage and grade of the mineralized

material potentially contained in the deposit.

The present work constitutes the first estimate of the resource for the Chevrier deposit and the

mineralized material in the Chevrier South deposit based on 3D modeling. The 3D model helped

to a large degree improves the understanding of the geometry of the deposit. The block model

has successfully discerned trends in the distribution of the mineralization that remain to be

confirmed by additional geological work.

Recommendations, Budget

Met-Chem recommends performing a cursory economic study to determine the potential merits

of the deposits to become economically viable and the pertinence to complete additional work. If

the study is positive, the project could be advanced by increasing the confidence level in the

analytical results and in the geological interpretation as follows:

• Re-assay about 10% of the samples (1,300) in order to resolve some

inconsistencies;

• Collect about 200 samples to bracket “open mineralized intervals;

• Re-log selected drill core to firm up the geological interpretation of the Chevrier

deposit;

• Update the resource estimate at Chevrier and conduct a preliminary economic

study;

• Drill about 7,000 m into the Chevrier South deposit in order to upgrade the known

mineralized material to the resource status.

Met-Chem recommends the following work program and budget for the next steps toward

developing the Chevrier Project.

Phase I – Chevrier

Enhance the reliability of the geological-structural interpretation and of the analytical results for

the Chevrier deposit. It is estimated that a budget of $90,000 is required to complete Phase I.

Phase I – Chevrier South

Complete a drill program of 7,000 m in 20 holes along ten infill sections to bring the spacing to

50 m between them. It is estimated that a budget of $550,000 is be required to complete Phase I.

Phase II


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Proceed with a preliminary economic study of the Chevrier deposit. Chevrier South may be

included in the study if a resource is delineated. Preliminary metallurgical testing, definition of

mining parameters and a basic environmental study are among the data that will be required for

the economic study.

The other showings on the property and the area recently staked by Tawsho should be revisited

and re-evaluated in light of the better understanding gained during Phase I on the controls

governing the gold mineralization of the Chevrier deposits.

Tawsho Mining Inc. 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource of the Chevrier Gold Project Page 1

April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


1.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.1 Introduction

The Chevrier Gold Project is located in the Chibougamau area, in northwestern Quebec,

and consists of the Chevrier and the Chevrier South deposits, and of several gold

prospects.

The Chevrier property has been the target of exploration work since 1950, and the

various operators have generated a large amount of geoscientific data. Historical tonnages

and grade of mineralized material contained in the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits

were estimated and published by Inmet and Géonova Explorations Inc. (“GéoNova”). In

2007, Tawsho Mining Inc. (“Tawsho”) purchased the Chevrier Property from GéoNova.

Tawsho has since conducted surface exploration work, ground and airborne geophysical

surveys and a 24-hole diamond drill program.

In October 2007, SNC-Lavalin prepared a Technical Report for Tawsho that consisted of

a review of the historical data from the Chevrier project and advised on whether the

project had sufficient potential to justify additional work.

On October 27, 2009, Tawsho requested Met-Chem Canada Inc. (“Met-Chem”) to

prepare an estimate of the mineral resources contained in the Chevrier and Chevrier

South deposits and to issue a Technical Report compliant with the National Instrument

43-101 (“NI 43-101”) regulation. The most recent mineral resource estimate for the

Chevrier deposits was completed by GéoNova in 1998, but is only historical and non-

compliant with NI43-101. An audit of the mining properties of MSV Resources Inc.

(“MSV”), Géonova and Campbell Resources Inc. conducted for MSV in 2001 represents

Met-Chem’s previous direct involvement in the Chevrier project. However, Met-Chem

did not visit the property, did not examine the core and only briefly reviewed the

application of the polygons method of estimating resources by Géonova to complete this

report.

The present report documents the results of the mineral resource estimate by Met-Chem

and constitutes a Technical Report under the guidelines of NI 43-101. The classification

of the mineral resources is compliant to the CIM criteria adopted by NI 43-101 Appendix

A – CIM Definition Standards – For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves). This

report is based on data provided by Tawsho, a brief review of public geoscientific reports

and a site visit by Met-Chem. The pertinent data up to the end of the drill program of

2008-09 by Tawsho is incorporated into the calculations of the mineral resource. The

duplicate samples sent by Tawsho in November 2009 were also examined during this

study.

1.2 Scope of Work

Met-Chem has been retained by Tawsho to prepare an independent NI 43-101 compliant

Technical Report on the mineral resource of the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits in


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


the Chibougamau area of Quebec. This work is based on the electronic drill holes

database prepared by Tawsho and on information supplied by Tawsho, complemented by

Met-Chem’s geological interpretation and 3D modeling.

Met-Chem had planned the following steps to estimate the mineral resources of the

Chevrier project:

• Visit the site of the deposits, selected stripped outcrops and drill pads;

• Visit the core storage area, examine some of the available drill core;

• Review the field procedures, sample preparation and analytical protocol with

Tawsho’s project geologist;

• Perform a review of the exploration work;

• Review exploration and previous resource estimate reports;

• Review the drill hole database, including collar and down hole survey information;

• Review and re-do Tawsho’s geological interpretation of the deposits;

• Review mineralization correlation, continuity and characteristics;

• Digitize the interpreted contacts on cross-sections;

• Check assay data reproducibility;

• Check QA/QC procedures;

• Check assay intervals and composite statistics;

• Perform a geostatistical analysis of the data;

• Review density determination test work and mineralization tonnage factors;

• Review and recommend a cut-off grade based on mining and metallurgical

parameters;

• Develop parameters for geological modeling and grade interpolation;

• Review metallurgical and mine development reports.

1.3 Basis of the Report

This report is based on the observations gathered during a site visit completed between

November 02 and 05, 2009 and on the data made available to Met-Chem by Tawsho, as

follows:

• Several visits at Tawsho’s office in Montreal; discussions, telephone conversations,

correspondence with Françoise Gagnon, Tawsho project geologist, and Serge

Tremblay, GIS/ Database/ Graphics Specialist;

• Electronic files provided by Tawsho in MS-Access, MS-EXCEL, DXF, PDF,

MapInfo and Word formats;

• Various reports, documents and maps supplied by Tawsho as listed under

References;


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


• Visit of the sample preparation facilities of Table jamésienne de concertation

minière (“TJCM “) in Chibougamau on November 02, 2009;

• Field visit of the Chevrier deposit area by Mr. Yves A. Buro, Eng., Senior

Geological Engineer, Met-Chem, on November 03, 2009, with Tawsho Project

Geologist, Françoise Gagnon, Eng.;

• Discussions of the geology and project results with geologists involved in previous

drill programs and with the Resident Geologist at Québec Ministry of Natural

Resources’ regional office in Chibougamau;

• Historical review of the Project;

• Old geological interpretation performed by Tawsho geologists for the deposits;

• Spot checks of the drill holes database;

• Spot checks of selected drill core;

• Collection of check samples from selected drill holes (quarter core and laboratory

rejects) by Yves A. Buro, Eng.

1.4 Units, Abbreviations

All the units in this report, except for the Troy ounces, are in the metric system. The

former operators collected data in imperial measurements that were later converted into

metric units but more recently the metric system was used. Table 1.1 lists the

abbreviations used in this report.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 1.1 – List of Abbreviations Used in the Report

Abbreviation Description

AA Atomic Absorption (Finish in Fire Assay Method)

Au1, Au2 First, Second Assay for Gold

BLK Blank Control Sample

CANMET Canmet Materials Technology Laboratory at Natural

Resources Canada

DDH Diamond Drill Hole

DTM Digital Terrain Model

DUP Duplicate Sample

EM Electro-Magnetic (Geophysical Survey)

FA, FA1, FA2 Fire Assay, First Fire Assay, Second Fire Assay

GPS Global Positioning System

Grav Gravimetric (Finish in Fire Assay Method)

g/t Au Gram Of Gold Per Tonne

ha Hectare

ID Identification

IP Induced Polarization (Geophysical Survey)

JV Joint Venture Agreement

km Kilometer

m Meter

MAG Magnetic (Geophysical Survey)

MNR Quebec Ministry Of Natural Resources

NI43-101 National Instrument 43-101 (Canadian Reporting

Code)

NTS National Topographic System

oz Au Troy Ounce Of Gold (31.1035 g)

ppm, ppb Part per Million (Equivalent To g/t), Part per Billion

QA-/QC Quality Assurance - Quality Control

RL Reference Level (for Elevations Measurements, above

Sea Level)

RQD Rock Quality Designation

SMPL Sample

STD Standard , or Standard Reference Material

TJCM Table Jamésienne de Concertation Minière (Sample

Preparation Laboratory)

TWP Township

tonne Metric Tonne


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


1.5 Met-Chem’s Qualifications

Met-Chem Canada Inc. is an internationally renowned consulting engineering company

established in 1969 that provides services to the mining, mineral processing and

metallurgical sectors. Its range of technical services cover the preparation of studies

(conceptual, feasibility, bankable feasibility and detailed reports), design engineering,

EPCM, process development, mineral resource estimation, 43-101 reports, audits, pit

design and mine development, training and operations assistance as well as

environmental studies. Met-Chem’s specialists have experience in the iron ore,

pelletizing and steel-making, coal, gold, base metals and industrial minerals sectors.

Yves Buro, Eng. – Senior Geological Engineer

Mr. Buro has thirty-three (33) years of international experience in exploration and mining

geology, in field and managerial positions. He has participated in a variety of gold,

nickel, base metals and iron projects at different stages of development, ranging from the

generation of exploration targets through to mineral resource estimation, mine

development and production. This varied experience includes detailed mapping and

structural analysis of a dozen underground gold mines. As a qualified person, he took part

in several audits of mineral resources and the preparation of technical reports in

conformity with NI 43-101.

Raynald Jean, Geo. – Senior Geologist

Mr. Jean has thirty three (33) years of experience in mining geology and geotechnics. He

was involved in exploration, resources evaluation, geological modeling and mine

planning. His field of expertise includes iron ore, gold and base metals. He was involved

in pre-feasibility and feasibility studies for both underground and open pit mining

projects.

Marc-Andre Brulotte, Geo. – Geologist

Mr Brulotte has nine (9) years of experience in the field of mineral resources and

economic geology. His main achievements include geological data capture, geological

model generation, analysis and interpretation of geological data, mineral resources

estimation, environment study characterization reports. He has a participated in various

iron ore and base metals projects.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


2.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

The present report has been written by Met-Chem for Tawsho and is based on historical

information available to Met-Chem at the time of preparation of the report, in

February 2010, on all the assay results as at the end of the drill program of 2008-09 and

on a site visit carried out in November 2009.

Met-Chem has not researched legal ownership information such as property title and

mineral rights, or possible environmental liabilities, and has relied on information

provided by Tawsho.

No metallurgical test work was carried out by Met-Chem. The limited relevant

information described under Mineral Processing and Metallurgy of this report is drawn

entirely from a report by Lakefield Research Limited. A copy of the report is attached to

this report after obtaining written consent from Lakefield. Lakefield remains fully

responsible for the work and results.

It should be understood that the mineral resources presented in this report are estimates of

the size and grade of the Chevrier deposit based on core drilling and sampling and the

assumptions and parameters currently available. The level of confidence in the estimates

depends upon a number of uncertainties, which is reflected by the classification of the

resources in different categories. Met-Chem cautions that the mineral resources have no

demonstrated economic viability and there is no certainty that all or part of the mineral

resources estimated for the Chevrier deposit will be converted into reserves. Likewise,

there is no assurance that the mineralized material estimated in the Chevrier South

deposit will be converted into mineral resources.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

3.1 Property Description

The Chevrier property is located some 35 km to the south of Chibougamau, Quebec, and

is covered by NTS (National Topographic System) Sheets 32G09 and 32G10 (Figure

3.1). The property consists of 557 mostly contiguous claims, for a total of 9,542 hectares

located in Hauy, Queylus, Fancamp and La Dauversière Townships, Province of Quebec.

The property is centered near the junction of these four townships. Tawsho holds 100%

interest in 515 of the 557 claims (Appendix B). A portion of the property is over two

lakes. The claims give the holder an exclusive right to search for mineral substances in

the public domain, except sand, gravel, clay and other loose deposits, on the land

subjected to the claims. One lease to mine surface mineral substances is held by Tawsho

(Appendix B) but is about to be relinquished.

The property has an irregular shape (Figure 3.2), with the main corners of the outside

perimeter located, from the northeast and clockwise, at UTM coordinates listed in Table

3.1.

Table 3.1 –Location of Main Points of the Perimeter

Easting Northing

542694 5504518

544380 5501499

531942 5489620

529819 5489608

531590 5495407

533075 5501401

536062 5504470

For easier reference, the Chevrier property has been divided into two sectors. The Diana

block is located in the Southwestern quarter of the Queylus Township. The contiguous

Diana-Obatogamau, Fancamp, Haufan, and Dolbo blocks are predominantly located in

the Northeast sector of the Fancamp Township, with a few claims in the Southern half of

the Hauy Township. The blocks of claims encountered, from Northeast to Southwest

(Figure 3.2) are described as follows:

• Diana block: consists of 69 claims covering an area of 1,104 hectares in Queylus

Township. This block was held by Géonova (100%) with a royalty of 7.5% of the

Net Proceeds of Production retained by Resources Diana Ltd;

• Diana-Obatogamau block: was 100% held by Géonova who had acquired it from

INMET. This block consists of 82 claims covering an area of 1,312 hectares in the

Fancamp and Hauy townships. Resources Diana Ltd, the original owner, still holds

a royalty of 10% of the Net Profits of Production. Peter Smith and Charles Robbins


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


hold each a 0.5% royalty of the Net Smelter Returns. These original contractual

agreements are still in effect;

• Fancamp block: consists of 17 claims covering an area of 264 hectares in Fancamp

Township. Géonova held 100% of this block and Fancamp Resources Inc. still

holds a royalty of 10% of the Net Profits of Production;

• Haufan block: was held at 100% by Géonova, except for claim CL 5041860 which

was held jointly by Géonova (10%) and Inmet (90%). The Haufan block consists of

30 claims located in the Fancamp Township and covers an area of 477 hectares;

• Dolbo block: consists of 41 claims covering an area of 656 hectares in Fancamp

Township. This block was jointly held by Géonova (63.83%) and LamGold-

Quebec (36.17%);

• Other: the remaining 318 claims are located in between and around those blocks

and cover an area of 5,490 hectares in the four townships mentioned before.

Tectonic Resources Inc. owns 9 contiguous mining titles (4 cells and 5 claims) covering

254 hectares on the north border of the Diana-Obatogamau block. The exploration rights

are entirely surrounded by Tawsho’s property.

The Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits are located in the west-central sector of the

property (Figure 3.2). There are no known tailings ponds or waste dump on the property,

as no production has ever taken place.

Aboriginal rights to trapping are exercised in the region (area 0/60). Spawning grounds

exist in the east- and west-central areas of the Chevrier property.

The Band Council of Oujé-Bougoumou of the Cree Nation has some traditional rights on

the land use on parts of the Chevrier property.

3.2 Environmental Considerations

Met-Chem has not undertaken a review of the environmental management on Tawsho’s

property. Consequently, the exact environmental liabilities to which the property is

subjected are unknown. However, the Chevrier property is not affected by any

environment liabilities. In general terms, the presence of lakes and swampy ground

imposes some conditions to the exploration activities, like drilling near or on the lakes.

All the permits required to complete the previous exploration work on the property were

granted, including the permits to drill on the lakes.

In preparation for a proposed project of collecting a 50,000-tonne bulk sample from the

Chevrier deposit, Tawsho was granted all the necessary permits, albeit for 5,000 tonnes

of mineralized material, in keeping with new regulations in the Quebec’s Mining Act.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 3.1 – Location Map

L209-S


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 3.2 – Claim Map & Claim Blocks


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


4.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE,

PHYSIOGRAPHY

4.1 Accessibility

The Chevrier property is located about 30 km to the southeast of Chapais and 35 km

south of Chibougamau. It consists of 557 mostly contiguous claims totalling

9,542 hectares located in Hauy, Queylus, Fancamp and La Dauversière Townships,

Province of Quebec.

The property is shown on the NTS sheets 32G/09 and 32G/10 of the Ministry of Natural

resources (MNR) and lies between the latitudes 49°33'30" N at the southern end of

Dolbo block and 49°41'30" to the North of Diana block and longitudes 74°23'05"

W at the East end of Diana block and 74°36'15" W at the West end of Dolbo block.

The claims located in the western part of the property are accessible by forestry road

L209-South (also referred to as R1009) that crosses the northwestern portion of the

property, and by water via the Obatogamau Lake and streams (Figure 4.1). An access

road off L209-South (R1009) at km 39 (formerly km 26) has been re-opened as part of an

old forestry winter road over a distance of 4,85 kilometers and leads to the boundary of

the Diana-Obatogamau block, about 200 meters of the Lipsett showing and 1.5 km of the

Chevrier Zone.

Due to inactivity on the site since 2002, beavers have constructed dams that caused most

of the area to be flooded, which made the access to the property difficult other than in the

winter period when the water is frozen. To provide a permanent access, Tawsho hired a

contractor from Chibougamau in the summer of 2008 to build a gravel road and uplift

sections of it when crossing the swamps. A geotextile membrane was placed between the

sub-base and the road base and several culverts were installed to help draining the

swamps. This road provides access to within 500m from the outcrops near the Chevrier

Zone.

The eastern side of the property is readily accessible by a forestry road off Regional

Road 167 which connects Chibougamau to St-Félicien, or by water via the Obatogamau

and Chevrier lakes.

4.2 Climate

The region is characterized by a typical cold continental climate of the northern

hemisphere. Winters last from November to April, with average temperatures of -3.1°C

in November and -16.7°C in February. The average temperature varies between 9.9°C

and 17.6°C during the short summers, between May and September. In a year, the

average daily temperature is slightly above freezing point (1.4°C). The average annual

precipitation is 920 mm, 237.8 mm of which falls as snow, and the maximum is reached

in July, with an accumulation of 117.1 mm (Canada Environment 1971-2000).


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 4.1 – Infrastructures and Surface Rights

Trap line


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


4.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure

The town of Chibougamau has a population of some 8,000 people and local exploration

and mining firms can provide trained labour, supplies, equipment and maintenance. All

the major services are available in Chibougamau or in Val-d’Or.

The Chibougamau area is known for its historic mining activities, which, however, had

declined over the last few years. In 2008, Campbell Resources Inc. ceased all activities at

the Copper Rand underground mine and the ramp at their Corner Bay Project. A bid for

the acquisition of the Campbell Resources mill is pending and a decision is expected

shortly. Chibougamau also benefits from mineral exploration activities conducted in the

North, such as the Otish Basin.

The property is located near two provincial roads: Provincial Road 113 connecting the

Abitibi-Témiscamingue region to Provincial Road 167 toward the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean

region. An abandoned railroad line crosses the forestry road L209-South (Ll009) less

than a kilometer south of Provincial Road 113. A power line crosses the claims through

the northeast of the property in a NW-SE direction. The Chibougamau-Chapais regional

airport can accommodate large aircraft and provides regular air services from Montreal,

Roberval and Val-d’Or.

4.4 Physiography and Vegetation

The Chevrier property area is relatively flat, and is dominated by low hills and many

lakes and streams. The general elevation is less than 400 m above sea level, with an

average of 371 m in the Chevrier Zone sector. The overburden coverage is thin and the

vegetation is bushy. Cold climate forest essentially represented by black spruce and birch

covers the area.

Several rock outcrops occur and the overburden on some of them has been excavated to

allow geological mapping and sampling. The area has seen extensive logging activities in

the past and several forestry roads still exist on the property and in surrounding areas.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


5.0 HISTORY

5.1 Previous Exploration Activities

The Chevrier project is comprised of 5 blocks of claims previously held by different

owners and a group of claims recently staked by Tawsho.

The first exploration work documented on the Chevrier property area was performed by

Teck Corp. in 1950 (Table 5.1). This was followed by sporadic exploration activities

targeted at different portions of the present property area by the various mining

companies. A combination of mapping, geophysical and geochemical surveying, outcrop

stripping and drilling led to the discovery of several gold showings and culminated with

the discovery of the Chevrier deposit in 1988, and the Chevrier South deposit in 1992.

The exploration history within the boundary of the Chevrier property is summarized

separately for each block in Table 5.1. The meterage of diamond drilling completed by

the different operators is provided in Table 5.2.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 5.1 – Summary of the Historical Exploration Work Completed

on the Chevrier Property Area

Operator Year Area

Diana Block

(Queylus Twp)

Diana-Obatogamau, Fancamp,

Haufan Blocks

(Haüy & Fancamp Twp)

Dolbo Block (Fancamp

Twp)

Teck 1950 Drilling

Start of exploration at the

gold showings of the

Murgor property

Lipsett Group 1951 Prospecting, outcrop stripping,

sampling (Lipsett showing)

Cantin & Lortie (1955),

R. Hinse (1956), Bibeau

& Rondeau(1965)

1951-

65

Mapping,

geophysical survey

Campbell Chibougamau 1968 Mapping, drilling

Quebec Ministry of

Natural Resources 1974

Regional EM-

INPUT survey

Regional EM-INPUT survey Regional EM-INPUT

survey

Patino Mines Ltd. 1977 MAG-EM survey (Chevrier

South sector)

SEREM

1977 Staking of the Dolbo

property (140 claims)

1977-

82

Recognition, mapping line

cutting, geophysical

surveys

1978 MAG-EM surveys

mapping

1979 Soil survey (192 samples)

1980 Drilling (7 holes) into

HEM conductors

Resources Diana Ltd 1984-85 Helicopter-borne

geophysical survey

Corporation

Falconbridge Copper

Exploration (JV with

Drilling (34 holes)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Resources Diana Ltd.)

Minnova (formerly

Corporation Falconbridge

Copper)

1987 Drilling (19 holes) Option on most of the Fancamp claims

1988 Drilling (13 holes)

Line cutting, mapping, MAG-

EM, IP surveys, discovery of the

Chevrier zone.

1988-

94

Mapping, IP survey drilling (Lipsett &

Coyote showings, Chevrier, IP

anomalies)

1990-91 Drilling, mapping, geophysical survey

(Chevrier sector)

Corporation Miniere

Metall (formerly

Minnova)

1992 Drilling

1992 Dolbo property optioned

1993

Line cutting (71.7 km), IP

survey (35.4 km), drilling

into IP anomalies (Chevrier

South)d detailed mapping

1993-94 Drilling

1994

Drilling (18 holes - Dolbo

property, 1 hole - Haufan

property) into IP anomalies,

extensions of Chevrier

South, base metal targets,

drilling (3 holes; Dolbo

property, NW extensions of

Chevrier-South)

Géonova

1995-

2007

Option on the 5 blocks of

INMET ground

geophysics

drilling (Chevrier and

Chevrier South)

1996

Drilling (38 holes, DO-58 deepened,

outcrop stripping (Chevrier), channel

sampling

1997 Resource estimate

(Chevrier)

1998 resource estimate


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


(Chevrier), drilling (32

drill holes) Chevrier 1 & 2

zones, re-sampling (700

core samples), density

determination,

metallurgical tests

(Lakefield Research Ltd)

2002 Drilling (30 holes), line-

cutting, refreshing


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 5.2 – Summary of Historical Diamond Drilling Completed

Operator Year Number

of Holes

Total Meterage

(M)

Teck 1950 9 161

Campbell

Chibougamau 1951 ? 89

SEREM 1977-80 8 799

Gold Reef Resources 1985 1 186

Corp. Falconbridge

Copper Expl. 1985 35 5,678

Minnova

1987-88 35 9,477

1989 25 4,541

1990 22 9,078

1991 12 7,061

1992 9 2,975

1993 ? 973

1994 27 11,485

Géonova

Explorations Inc.

1996 38 13,940

1997 32 9,406

2002 30 3,307

TOTAL 79,156

5.2 Previous Mineral Resource Estimates

In 1991, Inmet (Minnova) completed the first resource estimation of the Chevrier deposit

(Table 5.3) regarded as a single tabular zone at the time. The estimate was updated by

Géonova in 1997 and 1998 for five discrete zones interpreted for the deposit. The

estimate from 1998 constitutes the latest available figures.

Although Met-Chem is not aware of all the details on the methodology applied by the

geologists estimating the tonnage and grade in the Chevrier deposit, it appears that the

calculations are essentially based on the polygonal method. Various constraints were

applied, in terms of cut-off grade and minimum width, to select the volumes to be

included in the resource tonnage.

In the resource estimate of 1998, Géonova subdivided the Chevrier deposit into 14 lenses,

cut one assay exceeding 34 g/t Au, used a minimum composite size of 1.5 m and

projected the drill hole intercepts onto a vertical longitudinal section used to trace the

polygons. The polygons were extended to a maximum distance of 50 m from the drill

intercepts. The reported resources are undiluted and are not broken down into the


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


categories set out by the CIM Council classification system. The results from these

historical figures are presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 – Chevrier Deposit - Summary of Historical Tonnage and Grade Estimates

Mineralize

d intervals Trenches

Parameters Cut-off

(g/t Au) Tonnes

Grade

(g/t Au)

Oz Au

(1,000) Minimum Width;

Density (d)

Inmet,

1991

35 2 width : 2 m; 1.0 8,306,000 2,28 609

19 2 d=2.8; 3.0 2,090,000 5,01 337

Géonova,

Feb. 1997

120 width : 2 m; 1.0 13,353,000 2,41 1,035

d=2.8; 3.0 3,413,000 5, 33 585

Géonova,

Oct. 1997

width : 2 m; 1.0 14,543,000 2,43 1,136

d=2.8; 3.0 3,733,000 5,42 650

Géonova,

Aug.

1998

258 5 no minimum;

d=2.9 1.0 12,606,000 2,72 1,102

96 4 width :1.50m;

d=2.9 3.0 3 563 321 5,10 584

Met-Chem cautions that the previous “mineral resource” estimates completed on the

Chevrier deposit are historical in nature, are not compliant with the standards set out in

NI43-101, are no longer up to date, and consequently should not be relied upon or treated

as current resource. Met-Chem has not verified the methodology and calculations and has

not attempted to classify the historical estimate into resource categories. The results from

a new, up to date resource estimate based on 3D modeling by Met-Chem are the subject

of this report.

No gold production or bulk sampling have been reported from the Chevrier deposit.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


6.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING

6.1 Regional Geology

The Chapais-Chibougamau region is located within the Matagami-Chibougamau

orogenic greenstone belt of the northeastern Abitibi Subprovince, in the Superior

Province of the Canadian Shield (Figure 6.1). The Archean rocks of the Chibougamau

region belong to the Roy Group, dominantly comprised of volcanic formations, and the

volcano-sedimentary assemblage of the Opemisca Group, (Table 6.1). The Roy Group is

uncomfortably overlain by the Opemisca Group.

Table 6.1 – Stratigraphy of the Chibougamau Region

Group Volcanic

Cycle Formation Rock Types

Opemisca Hauy Sediments, andesitic flows

Stella (Chebistuan) Sediments

Roy

Second

Bordeleau Tuff, sediments

Blondeau Volcanic and sedimentary rocks

Gilman Basalt, andesite; gabbro sills

First Waconichi

Rhyolite, felsic pyroclastic rocks,

mafic flows, iron formation

Obatogamau Basalt, gabbro sills, felsic rocks

The layered intrusion of the Dore Lake Complex, the sill-shaped Chibougamau Pluton

and the Cummings Complex represent the main intrusive bodies in the Chibougamau

region. The Cummins Complex occurs within the Blondeau formation and is comprised

of the Roberge, Venture and Bourbeau sills, of mafic to ultramafic composition.

The Chibougamau region is dominated by an east-west synclinorium formed of a series

of isoclinal, symmetrical folds. The Waconichi syncline is the northernmost fold,

followed to the south by the Waconichi anticline, the Chibougamau syncline, the

Chibougamau anticline, the Chapais syncline, the Dauversière anticline and the

Druillettes syncline. Early north-south folds have also been mapped locally, as well as

folds from a third deformation phase oriented N60°E.

Five major fault or shear systems have been recognized in the region. The NE trending

set includes many regional faults (Gwillim, Dore Lake, Tache Lake) along which most of

the region’s deposits are spatially associated. The NW system hosts the bulk of the

deposits in the Dore Lake Complex, as well as the copper mineralization at Chapais. The

N-S system is well developed to the north of Chibougamau, and several deposits such as

Norbeau and Bruneau are associated with them. Strike faults were also mapped in the

Chibougamau syncline. The last recorded deformation is related to the Grenvillian

orogenic event and manifests itself as a N-NE fault system near the Grenville Front. The

Chevrier deposit is entirely hosted within the bounds of the Fancamp deformation

corridor.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 6.1 – Regional Geology


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


6.2 Local geology

The Chevrier property is dominantly underlain by basalt, concordant and discordant

bodies of gabbro, and felsic to intermediate pyroclastic rocks. All the units are cut by

felsic quartz-feldspar porphyry dykes. The mafic rocks of the region belong to the

Obatogamau formation, while the pyroclastic rocks are part of the Waconichi formation.

The property lies between the Muscocho pluton to the west, the Verneuil Pluton to the

south and the La Dauversière Pluton to the east. The first is a post-tectonic intrusive with

a dioritic to tonalitic composition while the last two are syntectonic and granodioritic

bodies.

The Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits are located in the Fancamp deformation zone,

an E-NE trending structure that is sub-parallel to the lithological units. The Fancamp

deformation corridor is also host to the Zones A to E, investigated by limited

underground development, and the Lipsett showings of Murgor Resources. Several

showings have been uncovered so far on the Chevrier property: Coyote, Tranchées,

Lipsett, East, West and RO.

The Chevrier property can be broken down in three structural domains:

• Western sector: 240° trending foliation, stratigraphic units oriented 010-030°;

• Central sector: NE trending units and foliation of the Fancamp deformation zone;

• Southeastern sector: predominantly E-W foliation.

The faults recognized at the regional scale have affected the Chevrier deposits, notably a

probable major fault separating the Chevrier from the Chevrier South deposit. Indeed, the

Chevrier South deposit is interpreted to represent the shallower part of the two deposits

(M. Legault and R. Daigneault). The mineral assemblages observed in the field suggest

that the rocks have undergone greenschist facies metamorphism. Chlorite is ubiquitous

within the mafic to intermediate units, whereas carbonate is fairly widespread in most of

the rocks. Metamorphism increases to the amphibolite grade as the Verneuil Pluton is

approached. The contact metamorphism manifests itself by the presence of hornblende

and garnet in the mafic units, and by garnet only in the felsic rocks.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


7.0 DEPOSIT TYPE

The following description is an excerpt from “Synvolcanic Gold Mineralization Within a

Deformation Zone: the Chevrier Deposit, Chibougamau, Abitibi Subprovince, Canada;

Marc Legault, Réal Daigneault; Mineralia Deposit, 2006”.

The Chevrier gold mineralization is associated with quartz-carbonate veins and

disseminated pyrite, mostly within a melanocratic gabbro unit. The Chevrier South

deposit lies within a concordant pyrite envelope associated with quartz-carbonate-pyrite

veinlets. Both zones are highly deformed and show strong carbonate, sericite and chlorite

alteration.

Although these zones share many characteristics with orogenic deposits, the crosscutting

of the Chevrier deposit by structures associated with the major deformation events

suggests that mineralization was prior to these events. Furthermore, felsic dykes

associated with the formation of the Chevrier calc-alcaline volcanic center crosscut the

auriferous veins and zones, therefore suggesting a synvolcanic timing for the gold

mineralization. Characteristics displayed by the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits,

such as similar composition, mineral assemblage and location within the volcanic pile

suggest that they are part of a single hydrothermal event.

The Chevrier deposit is classified as non-carbonate-hosted stockwork and disseminated

deposit of Porgera type, and shows many similarities with strata-bound gold deposits of

the Andacollo mining district of Chile, or the East malartic of Holt-McDermott deposits

(F. Robert, K. H. Poulren and B. Dubé’s classification).


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


8.0 MINERALIZATION

The Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits are located in the NE trending Fancamp

Deformation Zone. The mineralization within the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits

consists of gold, with subordinate amounts of silver, copper and zinc. The un-weighted

averages of the metals beside gold, as calculated from the available analytical data are

provided in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 – Un-weighted Average Grade of Ag, Cu and Zn Analyses

Element Number of Assays Assay Results (ppm)

Ag 10,673 1.036

Cu 13,641 112

Zn 11,064 76

The Ag, Cu and Zn content in the Chevrier deposits was not considered in the resource

estimate by Met-Chem, in view of the low values indicated by the analytical results.

The gold mineralization of Chevrier is enclosed within a 300 m wide corridor and

previous workers have distinguished three telescoped zones based on their intensity of

deformation and alteration:

• A wide foliated envelope, several tens of meters, often more than 100 m wide,

associated with the D2 regional deformation event. It encloses the host lithologies

to the mineralization and is cut by late felsic dykes. The rocks are affected by a

penetrative fabric but the protolith is still recognizable. The main alteration

minerals are represented by calcite and chlorite. Pyrite is rare or absent, and the

gold values seldom exceed 100 ppb.

• An anastomosing, folded, sheared and boudinaged envelope within the previous

one, ranging from 10 to 60 meters in width. It is characterized by a near total

obliteration of the original texture and by a gray-beige colour imparted by the

strong sericite alteration and the occurrence of iron carbonate (ankerite). The fabric

is banded and often crenulated. The pyrite and quartz-ankerite veinlets increase to

about 5 %. The gold grades seldom exceed 2.0 g/t and generally range from 0.5 to

1.5 g/t.

• The shear is cored by a mylonite of undetermined makeup, hosting quartz-ankerite

veins several meters wide. The rock has undergone strong sericitic alteration and

hosts a high percentage of quartz-ankerite veins, up to 1 m wide, with the silica

scavenged from the leached wallrock and re-deposited into the veins. The zone is

enriched in pyrite (5 to 20 %) and fuschite (2 to 5%). The primary structural fabric

is lost, folds and crenulation are ubiquitous, breccias are common. The gold grades

are systematically over 1 g/t, sometimes reaching 20 g/t and exhibit an average of

3 to 7 g/t. Visible gold is occasionally observed in the veins, even though these

usually contain low percentages of pyrite and low gold grades.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Met-Chem interprets the envelope hosting gold mineralization as an anastomosing system

of barren and mineralized shears enclosing sub-vertical mineralized shoots possibly sited

on second-phase fold closures of a major isoclinal re-folded fold.

The Chevrier mineralization is hosted in several rock types as follows:

• Massive, fine-grained to aphanitic basalt, commonly pillowed or brecciated, with

local amygduloidal or feldspar porphyritic intercalations;

• Thick layered gabbro sill, the main host to the mineralization, occurs as a fine-

grained, locally porphyritic unit, salt-and-pepper leuco-gabbro and porphyritic

gabbro composed of pyroxene phenocrysts set in a fine-grained chlorite and

feldspar matrix;

• Intermediate crystal and lapilli tuff, up to tens of meters thick;

• Felsic porphyry characterized by 3-10% rounded, cm-size quartz eyes set in a

medium-grained quartz-feldspar matrix: in fault contact with the gabbro on the

northwest and in sub-parallel contact with the volcanic rocks on the southeast. This

unit can reach a thickness of more than 100 m.

Meter-size, late dykes, generally quartz, feldspar or quartz-feldspar porphyries cross-cut

all the units, including the mineralized zones, and are occasionally foliated or folded.

Several units were described as leucoxene and/or ankerite, porphyritic gabbro or basalt.

The phenocrysts are idiomorphic, seldom larger than 1 mm and are concentrated in the

mafic rocks.

The Chevrier South mineralization is characterized by a higher percentage (1-3%) of

pyrite disseminated throughout most of the zone than at the Chevrier deposit. In contrast

to Chevrier, the host rocks of the Chevrier South deposit are predominantly composed of

tuffs and intermediate to felsic volcanic rocks.

Except for the late dykes, all the rock units on the property exhibit a schistosity and

crenulation inherited from the regional tectonic events.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


9.0 EXPLORATION (2008-2009)

In November 2007, Tawsho purchased from Géonova the Chevrier Property of

239 claims covering 4,052 hectares. Tawsho subsequently staked 318 claims covering

5,490 hectares.

Shortly after the signature of the agreement, SNC-Lavalin was mandated to propose

work to advance the project. Compilation of all geological and geophysical data to plan

additional field exploration was recommended in the technical report issued in January

2008. Following that report, Mr. Camille St-Hilaire, Geo, was hired to review the

available geophysical data, and Mr. Pierre-Jean Lafleur, Eng., revised the drill hole

database, prepared a preliminary geological computer model for the Chevrier and

Chevrier South deposits and proposed a diamond drill program to provide sufficient data

to carry out a resource estimate.

In January 2008, a helicopter-borne Magnetic Survey was carried out by Geo Data

Solutions Inc. on the property and a total of 2,792 line-km were flown. A ground

INFINITEM survey (deep EM time-domain survey) was carried out by Abitibi

Géophysique to test conductive mineralization in the Chevrier and Chevrier South areas

(25 linear km).

From March 2008 to March 2009, 24 holes totalling 7,862.4 m of BQ size core were

drilled by Les Forages SL at Chevrier and Chevrier South (5 of those on Obatogamau

Lake) and on IP anomalies (Table 9.1 and Table 9.2). From the 24 holes, 3 have been re-

drilled (T1-08, T2-08 and T18-09). The geologist concluded that the holes from the drill

program of 2008-09 were generally less successful than the older holes in confirming the

presence, or the thickness, of the mineralized zones and found the correlations of gold

grades between sections arduous.

Table 9.1 – Diamond Drilling by Tawsho (2008-09)

Year

Target Area IP

Anomalies Assays

Chevrier Chevrier

South

2008 12 DDH;

3,989.3 m

6 DDH;

1,770.3 m

1,056 Au-Ag assays

455 Cu analyses

614 analysed at SGS

2009 2 DDH;

1,109.1 m

4 DDH;

993.7 m

1,036 Au-Ag assays by

AccurAssay


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 9.2 – Summary of All the Diamond Drilling Completed on the Chevrier Property

Operator Year Number Of

Holes

Total Meterage

(m)

Total 1950-2002 79,156

Tawsho 2008-09 24 7,862

TOTAL 87,018

In November 2008, Tawsho applied for the permits from the Ministry of Natural

Resources (MNR) to extract a 50,000-tonne bulk sample from the Chevrier sector.

Tawsho was granted a permit for 5,000 tonnes only, due to a new mining regulation

limiting the bulk sample quantity (MNR, February 2009). The project was later

abandoned by Tawsho.

In 2009, Genivar was hired by Tawsho to produce different reports related to a proposed

scoping study based on the bulk sample on the Chevrier property mostly meant to be

sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Native Council of Oudjé-Bougoumou.

In June 2009, detailed structural mapping of the eight outcrops stripped in 1996 was

undertaken by Itasca Consulting Canada Inc., Sudbury (J.S. Fedorowich, Sept. 2009). A

review and update of the database was also completed by R.F. Fry & Assoc.

(Pacific) Ltd from Vancouver.

In June 2009, Géolocation, Quebec, Canada, was contracted to perform an aerial

photogrammetric survey over the entire property and generate ortho-photographs. The

photographs confirmed that there were no visible environmental issues on the property.

In September 2009, the same firm generated a topographic map for the property, with

contours at 2 meters and at 1 meter in the Chevrier and Chevrier South sector. Accuracy

of the contours was respectively 1 m and 0.5 m. The maps served as a control on the

location of the surveyed collars of the diamond drill holes.

In November 2009, Met-Chem was hired to complete a 3D model and an estimate of the

mineral resource and mineralized material on the Chevrier property compliant with the

NI 43-101 regulation.

In November 2009, 368 rejects and pulps were sent to ALS Chemex in Val-d’Or for

check-assay on gold. The samples were submitted to Fire Assay on 30 g charges with

AA finish and the samples exceeding 500 ppb were re-assayed with a gravimetric finish.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


10.0 DRILLING

10.1 Introduction

The Chevrier deposit has been investigated by surface drilling over a strike length of

about 1.1 km. The Chevrier South deposit has been traced over a strike length of about

1.1 km along the SW extension of the Chevrier deposit from which it seems to be

separated by a major cross fault.

A total of 286 holes amounting to 81,755 m drilled into the Chevrier and Chevrier South

deposits have been documented (Figure 10.1).

The combined holes drilled by Tawsho and by their predecessors achieve an irregular

drill pattern with a general line spacing of 50 m, tightened to 25 m in about a quarter of

the strike length of the Chevrier deposit. The deviation of the holes and the fact that they

have been drilled into two opposite directions contribute to create a somewhat irregular

pattern of the pierce points into the mineralized zones.

The Chevrier South deposit has been drilled largely along lines 50 m and 100 m apart.

The Chevrier deposit has been investigated by relatively closely spaced holes drilled to a

depth of 250 m, and a fair amount of more widely-spaced holes have reached the

mineralization at a depth of 400 m below surface. The Chevrier South deposit has been

drilled to the same depths, albeit with far fewer holes.

About 55% of the holes (156, totalling 30,219 m) were drilled to a depth ranging from

100 to 300 m, and the deepest holes have a length of 1,100 m (DO-58A, Chevrier, at

1600SW) and 1,102.90 m (HA-100; Chevrier South, at 3300SW).

122 holes totalling approximately 41,800m were drilled into the Chevrier and Chevrier

South deposits toward AZ135°, as compared to 97 holes for a total of about 25,700 m

drilled toward AZ315°.

10.2 Hole Planning, Site Preparation and Set-Up (2008-09)

22 drill holes were proposed by Pierre-Jean Lafleur, Eng., for Tawsho’s 2008-09

program. The recommended holes (T-series) were selected on the basis of a review of the

geological data, construction of a database and a preliminary 3D geological model using

Gemcom software. Essentially, the holes were also laid out as infill holes in order to

achieve a 25-m grid in the central portion of the deposit.

Camille St-Hilaire Geo., reviewed the results from past geophysical IP surveys on the

Chevrier property and identified 3 exploration targets tested by drill holes G1 to G3. The

results from the data interpretation of the Helicopter-borne Aeromagnetic Survey,

correlated with IP results, allowed generating 4 additional exploration targets drilled by

holes G4 to G7. Only 3 boreholes were completed (in addition to T18 re-drilled) to

further investigate the core of the Chevrier South mineralization.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 10.1 – Diamond Drill and Mineralized Envelopes


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


A hand-held GPS was used to locate and prepare the pads for the planned holes. The

collars of the holes were spotted in the field and pegged using the same GPS. The field

geologist used a Brunton magnetic compass to mark the fore and back sights using

pickets for drill rig alignment and orientation purposes.

Once drilled, the casings are left in the holes, except for those close to the shore of the

lake and on the Obatogamau Lake that were cemented, in conformity to the Quebec

Environment Ministry (MDDEP) regulations. A cap is screwed on the casing with the

bearing the hole number and the drilling contractor.

All the casings were surveyed by a local land surveyor who used a GPS Leica System

500 pair of receivers (cm-accuracy).

The surveyor also established a point (CHV1) attached to the geodesic network and two

points for control purposes (CHV2 and CHV3), in November 2008.

10.3 Deviational Survey

10.3.1 Historical Holes

The drilling records indicate that the down-the-hole survey was completed for most of the

holes drilled into the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits at various periods. The

measurements were probably taken using an instrument relying on the earth magnetic

field for the azimuth readings. The distance applied by the different operators for the

systematic readings taken to survey the path of the holes has widely varied (Table 10.1).

Table 10.1 – Intervals used by the Operators for the

Systematic Down-hole Survey Measurements

Operator Date Systematic Survey Interval

Minnova 1985 60 m

Corp. Minière 1989 60 m

Metall

1990 60 m

1991 30 m

1992 15 m

1993 60 m

1994 15 m

Géonova

1996 60 m

1997 100 m (15, 30, 50 m)

2002 30 m

Tawsho 2008-2009 30 m

The depth of many of the measurements varied from the set intervals because of the

adjustments necessary to place the instrument within non-magnetic rock units. The

measurements in most holes drilled into the Chevrier deposits indicated no unusual


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


behaviour, although a fair percentage of the holes show rather severe, sometimes

extreme, deviation both in plunge and azimuth.

10.3.2 2008-09 Drill Program

Readings for the deviational survey were taken at 30-m increments measured from the

top of the hole. The first measurement was taken with the instrument positioned about

2 m into the bedrock to avoid interference from the casing and to correct the deviation of

the hole if needed. The path of the holes was surveyed using a Reflex instrument that

measures several parameters, among them the plunge and the three components of the

magnetic field, and relies on a magnetic compass to read the azimuth. The azimuth

angles are validated by the measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, which

indicates whether the compass readings were affected by local magnetism and by an

accelerometer that tells whether the instrument was still at the time the measurement was

taken.

Even though the instrument occasionally produces some obviously incorrect results,

spurious readings can be filtered out and the deviation path can be estimated between

two valid readings.

A hexagonal core barrel and a long reaming shell (18 inches) were used systematically,

after the first hole was drilled (T3-08), in order to minimize deviation.

Like on most projects, the majority of the holes tended to flatten with depth and to

wander off sections. However, a striking features noticed by Met-Chem for the Chevrier

deposit is the fact that many holes drilled toward the northwest tended to deviate to the

left of the collar section (toward the SW) while the holes drilled toward the southeast

commonly moved off section to the right (toward the SW). No explanation was found for

these trends.

No original records of the down-hole surveys were available for cross-checking.

However, Met-Chem believes the path of the holes has been generally determined with

sufficient accuracy and number of measurements to adequately determine the position of

the samples from which the true width of the mineralized structures is defined and the

resource estimated. The down-the-hole survey results were incorporated into the

construction of the 3D model by Met-Chem.

10.4 Hole Logging Procedures

10.4.1 Historical Drill Programs

The details on the logging procedures applied by the operators prior to 2002 are not

known. However, all the drill logs have been entered into mining software and printed,

even though the core from the early drill programs were certainly logged on paper

forms.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


10.4.2 2002 Program

The observations by the geologist logging the core were recorded manually during the

first half of the campaign, and were later entered directly into a computer. All the

information was eventually processed by the Pro-Log software.

10.4.3 2008-09 Program

The core recovered by the drillers was stored in boxes with wooden blocks inserted at

the end of each run to indicate the depth. The boxes were transported to the core shed at

the Copper Rand Mine of Campbell Resources at the end of the shifts. The geologist

first checked the meterage against the depth markers and possible core mix-ups. A

technician stapled an embossed aluminum strip bearing the box and hole numbers, and

from-to interval on the end of the boxes. Prior to logging, the geologist marks the

lithological contacts, the structural features, the mineralized zones and the sample

intervals.

The following information was recorded in the core logs on a printed Excel template (in

2008) and directly into an MS-Excel spreadsheet (2009):

Geology: Lithology, Color, Texture, Grain size, Alteration, Mineralogy,

Quartz and other type of veins, Sulphides

Structure: Angle measurement of shear, fracture and joint, crenulation

Samples: Number (allowing for insertion of the control samples)

Cover

Page:

MS-Excel sheet containing: Company name, Project, Township,

Claim, Hole ID, NTS sheet, Collar location, Geologist and

Contractor names, Dates of Drilling (start-end) and Logging,

Core size, Casing (pulled or not), Cementing, Sample intervals

(total, blank, standard), ID and Number, Laboratory name,

Overburden, Planned and Actual length, Collar Azimuth and

Plunge, Down-the-hole measurements, Location of the core

boxes, Target and Motivation for the hole, Remarks.

10.5 Conclusions

It appears that during the 2002 and 2008-2009 drill programs the overall core recovery

was derived by calculating the ratio total-length-of-the-hole over total-length-of-core-

recovered. Actually, the parameter should be measured individually for each driller run.

One of the reasons is that the assay results from intercepts with low core recovery are not

considered as representative.

The RQD index was not calculated from the core drilled in 2008-09. The RQD is a basic

parameter but is of useful as it provides a quantitative estimate of the rock quality. Met-


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Chem noted that the RQD was calculated for holes GDO-182 to -200 and GFA-201 and -

202 drilled by Géonova in 2002.

Met-Chem recommends recording the following information:

• Core angles of the bedding or schistosity, by run, together with the recovery and

RQD measurements; this is easily done and constitutes useful information (detect

the presence of large-scale folds, for example);

• Nature and angles of zones containing the structural elements such as faults, shears,

veins, dykes captured in separate columns in the database so as to be easily filtered,

processed, rather than be included in the text of the lithological descriptions.

10.6 Verification by Met-Chem

10.6.1 Field Visit

Met-Chem examined the sites of 19 drill holes and 5 stripped outcrops over the Chevrier

deposit area, on November 03, 2009. The sites of 15 drill hole collars were found. The

back and front-sight pickets were located for one hole and another one was likely covered

by an access road. No field evidence could be found from the other two selected drill

holes.

A total of 24 measurements were taken using a hand-held GPS, and azimuths were

checked with a Brunton compass. All the GPS coordinates and the orientations measured

in the field matched Tawsho’s master database entries and the plot on the maps and

sections, within the accuracy of the instrument used.

The drill hole collars examined were usually identified by a short steel casing (sometimes

as short as 10 to 20 cm) with the identification label welded on the tube or punched on an

aluminum cap. Several old drill holes, and a few from the 2002 programs, were only

marked with a wooden picket that has since but disappeared.

A steel tube bearing the label FA-59 welded on its cap was found in the field at the

location of drill hole GDO-105 (Section 1450SW). It appears that the cap from FA-59

was placed by error on the collar of GDO-105. The original logs and database indicate

hole FA-59 was drilled on section 2500SW,

The main structural elements and mineralized zones described by John S. Fedorowich in

the stripped outcrops were examined by Met-Chem, but no samples were collected.

The observations from the field visit did not indicate any errors associated with the

database entries or the plot of the collar locations on the maps and drill sections. Met-

Chem believes the three coordinates of the hole collars have been determined with

sufficient accuracy and reliability to be used in the resources estimation. No field

activities were taking place on the project at the time of Met-Chem’s visit.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


10.6.2 Core Examination

Nine holes drilled at different times and locations into the Chevrier and Chevrier South

deposits were selected by Met-Chem for examination of the mineralized intercepts and

lithologies. The core boxes from one drill hole (GDO-190) could not be found and

virtually no core was left of the selected mineralized zones in drill holes GFA-116 and

DO-05. No paper indicating why the core was missing had been placed into the boxes.

The core from adjacent drill holes was retrieved to replace these two holes.

The core from previous programs seen by Met-Chem on the racks was of BQ diameter,

which was the standard size drilled until recently. BQ- and NQ-diameter

(GDO-173 to-181) core was drilled in the 2002 and the BQ size was retrieved in the

2008-2009 program. Met-Chem advises against mixing core of different diameters as the

variability of the gold assays is affected by the sample size. Drill rigs equipped to retrieve

the larger NQ core are now widely used in the industry.

No photographs are available for the core drilled on the Chevrier project. Digital

photographic records of the core under dry and wet conditions, prior to splitting, are

widely taken in the industry and are part of Exploration Best Practices Guidelines. In

addition, the photographs may be of great help in subsequent desk work or geological

interpretation.

Met-Chem noted that the depth on some of the wooden blocks used by the drillers for a

few recent holes had been striked out but the errors were not corrected on the blocks (T3-

08).

A few discrepancies were found in the coding of the rock units, in part caused by the fact

that many geologists using a somewhat different nomenclature had been involved in core

logging. However, the lithologies or mineralization contacts checked by Met-Chem

generally matched the information reported in the drill logs.

A few units were occasionally coded simply as Shear, Schist, Fault or Breccia under the

Rockcode heading. Met-Chem believes it is preferable to retain the lithology code when

the protolith is still recognizable, and to enter the superimposed structural elements into a

separate column of the logs and database, so that either, or both data can be easily

plotted.

Met-Chem agrees that the lithologies and alteration of the core examined were generally

correctly described and the contacts were well located. The zones from the Chevrier

deposit that could be visually distinguished as potentially gold-bearing were picked up

and sampled by the geologists. However, a few exceedingly short sample intervals or

gaps between suites of samples were noted by Met-Chem.

Since the Chevrier South zone contains widespread pyrite, it is difficult to decide on the

intercepts to sample until sufficient experience on this type of mineralization is gained.

Complete sampling of a few holes is recommended to serve as a test.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


10.6.3 Storage of Archived Core and Sample Rejects

Most of the core from the old drill programs is stored in wooden core boxes stacked in

racks outside, on the property of the Copper Rand mine of Campbell Resources. The

boxes for a few holes drilled in 2008-2009 are stored inside a core shed. The storage area

is fenced and security is provided permanently by a watchman. The core shed is an

enclosed and locked building. The core boxes for several older drill holes have not been

located by Tawsho and part of them were reported as possibly being in a warehouse in

Chapais.

The sample rejects from old drill programs are saved inside a building on the Copper

Rand mine site. Met-Chem observed that many of the plastic bags containing the rejects

have been partially damaged or spilled. The rejects and pulps from the 2008-09 program

are saved at the TJCM facilities. Some pulps were still at the analytical laboratories at the

time of Met-Chem’s visit.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


11.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH

11.1 Introduction

No detail is available on the sampling methods applied in the early drill programs,

although the drill logs show that the methodology has not changed much over time.

11.2 2008-09 Drill Program

The drill core from the 2008-09 program was generally sampled in intervals ranging

from 0.5 to 1.5 meters and in approximately 1-m intercepts or less when a mineralized

zone was encountered. The sample intervals were lengthened in the sections of reduced

core or poor recovery to obtain enough material for assay purposes. Each core sample

was given a unique identification number by numerical order using the assay books

provided by the laboratory.

A hydraulic splitter was used to split the core lengthwise following a line drawn by the

geologist. Sections visually determined as typical mineralization or of high-grade gold

were cut with a diamond blade rock saw for presentation purposes. The technician

reported the rarely observed visible gold on the cut surfaces for validation of the

analytical results.

One half of the core was placed with the stub from the assay book into a plastic bag

marked with the sample number with a felt marker. The bag was closed with a tamper-

proof tie for shipment to the laboratory. A second stub was stapled in the core boxes at

the beginning of the sample interval.

11.3 Verification by Met-Chem

Most of the sampled core intervals examined by Met-Chem, including the core from the

2008-09 program, had been split, instead of being cut with a rock saw.

Generally, is seems that little attention was paid to systematically cut the core along the

dip direction of the fabrics intersected, to obtain two halves that are mirror images. In

addition, it appears that the technicians splitting the core did not consistently return the

same half of the core to the boxes. Consequently, the crayon markings showing the

sample limits and numbers were often missing from the halved core left in the boxes after

splitting. The sample tags stapled in the core boxes at the beginning of each interval only

approximately indicate the location of the contact between two samples. Occasionally,

Met-Chem found unbroken pieces of half core straddling the sample contact, which

shows that the split core from the two samples sent to the laboratory was separated after

splitting. This practice should be avoided as it promotes cross-contamination of the

samples.

Poor quality samples tags were occasionally used. The red ink showing the sample

number on some of these paper tags stapled in the core boxes (ITS laboratories, GDO-


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


155) had faded away, while some non water-resistant tags from SGS laboratories had

been damaged by water and snow or torn by handling (T3-08).

In most cases, Met-Chem found the mineralization, as evidenced by intensity of alteration

and density of quartz-carbonate veins and veinlets, matched the assay results (GDO-155;

GFA-166). One interval at 235.0-236.0 m in T19-09 returned an assay value of 0.438 g/t

Au, although the core looked as well-mineralized as the sample immediately above

grading 1.671 g/t Au. The laboratory rejects from this mineralized zone were selected by

Met-Chem for re-assay as a check on these values. The duplicate assays of the two

intersections confirmed the original results.

A measurement error was found for sample 753702, and sample tags 1093414 and

1093415 were inverted (GDO-162). However, the contacts of the mineralized zones

checked by Met-Chem generally matched the information reported in the drill logs. The

meterage on the depth markers generally corresponded to the depths of the contacts

reported by the geologists and the core lengths. The fact that most of the core examined

had been split, and the common absence of the line showing the contacts between the

sampled intervals prevented Met-Chem from checking the depths with great accuracy.

However, Met-Chem believes the few errors found in the measurements or in the ID

numbers of the sampled intervals examined, and the lack of consistency in the way the

core was oriented prior to splitting, would not significantly affect the mineral resource

estimate of the Chevrier deposits.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


12.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY

12.1 1990-1997 Programs

The samples from the 1990-91 drill program were prepared and analysed for Au by Fire

Assay and gravimetric finish at Abilab in Val-d’Or. The Bourlamaque Assay

Laboratories Ltd in Val-d’Or was used as a second laboratory for gold assay on selected

rejects and on sludge samples.

The samples (2,059) from the 1996 drill program were analysed for Au, Ag, Cu and Zn

by Atomic Absorption, at the ALS Chemex laboratory in Val-d’Or. All the samples

returning a grade of more than 500 ppb were re-assayed by Fire Assay with a gravimetric

finish.

The samples (2,050) from the 1997 drill program were analysed for Au, Ag, Cu and Zn

by Atomic Absorption, at ALS Chemex in Val-d’Or. All the samples returning a grade of

more than 500 ppb were re-assayed by Fire Assay with a gravimetric finish.

12.2 2002 Program

The half core samples from the 2002 program were shipped to the ALS Chemex

laboratory in Val-d’Or. The samples were crushed to 70% passing 2 mm. A sub-sample

of 250 to 300 g of –10 mesh material was extracted and pulverized to 85% passing 200

mesh and homogenized. The pulp sub-samples were submitted to Fire Assay for gold on

30 g aliquots with an AA finish. The samples with gold values in excess of 0.5 g/t were

re-assayed using the same method. The rejects from all the samples grading more than

3.0 g/t Au were also re-assayed and the samples returning more than 7.0 g/t Au were

checked by Fire Assay with a gravimetric finish. One sample was assayed using the Pulp

and Screen Fire Assay method. Silver and copper were also analysed.

12.3 2008-09 Program

All the samples were sorted by the geologist to ensure that no samples are missing and

that they are in sequential order. The samples were shipped in sealed, numbered, 5-gallon

plastic buckets, loaded at the core shed by a private carrier in the presence of the

geologist to maintain chain of custody. The complete sample list was entered into an MS-

Excel spreadsheet and sent by e-mail to the contact person at SGS with the shipping and

approximate arrival date.

Each pail bore the Name, Address, Contact details of the exploration company and the

laboratory. A list of the sample ID within each pail, with the quotation number and the

project name is placed inside and pasted on the outside. A copy of the list of all buckets,

with the quotation number and project name, was placed in the first bucket.

Two laboratories were used in 2008 because of exceedingly high turn-around time at

SGS. The samples were first prepared and assayed at SGS Minerals Services, Toronto

(July-November 2008). Since November 2008, the sample preparation was done by Table


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Jamésienne de Concertation Minière (TJCM) in Chibougamau and assayed at

AccurAssay Laboratories, Thunder Bay.

Although this was necessary, it is preferable to use one main laboratory in a drill program

to avoid introducing another layer of variability in the results. The QA programs

generally provide for a selection of samples to be sent to a second laboratory, but only to

check on the first laboratory.

In November 2009, coarse and pulp duplicate samples were submitted to Fire Assay for

gold on 30 g aliquots with AA finish, and gravimetric finish for all samples returning

over 500 ppb, at ALS Chemex, Val-d’Or.

a) SGS Minerals Services

The samples sent to SGS Minerals Services were prepared and assayed for gold,

silver and copper using five specific methods as follows:

• Weighing of the sample and reporting of weights (WGH79);

• Dry, crush to 75% passing 2 mm, split to 250 g and pulverise to 85% passing

75 microns (PRP89);

• Gold by FA, ICP-AES finish using a 30 g charge; 1-ppb lower detection limit

(FAI303);

• Silver by AAS, Aqua Regia on 2 g; detection limit of 0.3 g/t (AAS12E);

• Copper with Ore Grade Analyses by sodium peroxide fusion with ICP finish;

detection limit of 0.01% (ICP90Q).

The results are reported electronically and the final signed PDF Certificates are

e-mailed to the client’s designated contact.

b) TJCM and AccurAssay

The samples were placed into woven polypropylene bags with a list and brought by

the geologist from the core shed to the TJCM laboratory for preparation. The

procedure applied by TJCM is described under section 13.5 of this report.

The prepared samples are shipped by TJCM via Canada Post and followed with a

tracking number. A requisition form is completed with information such as:

Contacts of TJCM and AccurAssay, Submittal date, ID, Number and Type of

samples, Requested analyses, Sample disposition, Client’s Name and Signature.

Samples were assayed for gold and silver at AccurAssay. Analysis for copper was

stopped because most of the previous results received from SGS were under the

limit of detection (<0.01%). Upon receipt at the laboratory, determinations are

done by two methods:

• Gold by FA, AA finish using a 30g aliquot; lower detection limit of <5ppb

(ALFA1);


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


• For values >500 ppb, gold by FA/Gravimetric finish; detection limit of 2g/t

(ALFA4);

• Silver by Aqua Regia, Geochemical; detection limit of <1ppm (ALGAR1).

The results were reported electronically and the final signed PDF Certificates were

e-mailed and sent in a paper copy format to the client’s designated contact.

c) ALS Chemex

Sample preparation and shipping to the laboratory via Canada Post was taken care

of by TJCM.

ALS Chemex assayed the samples by Fire Assay with an AA finish (code Au-

AA23) on 30g aliquots and re-assayed the samples with gold values higher than

500 ppb by FA with a gravimetric finish (code Au-GRAV21).

The results were reported electronically and the final signed PDF Certificates were

e-mailed and sent in a paper copy format to the client’s designated contact.

12.4 Specific Gravity Determination (1997)

A program of specific gravity determinations was implemented on 287 mineralized

samples by Géonova in 1997. The individual results and details on the methodology were

not available to Met-Chem. The measurements were reported as varying between 2.65

and 3.14. The average density for all the samples tested was calculated as 2.92, with 2.95

obtained when the samples grading 0.5 g/t Au or less had been filtered out.

A density of 2.8 was applied in 1991 and 1997 to arrive at the historical resources,

whereas the calculations of 1998 used 2.9.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


13.0 DATA VERIFICATION

13.1 Database Validation

13.1.1 Database Construction (Tawsho)

In 2002, Géonova standardized the various codes used by the different geologists and

constructed the first database for all the data for the Chevrier project. In 2007,

P.J. Lafleur, Eng. completed the database in MS-Excel format from the amalgamation of

electronic files, hand-written drill logs and paper copies of laboratory certificates. A

database in MS-Access format was supplied to Met-Chem by Tawsho after it had been

updated with the 2008-09 results by GIS/ Database/ Graphics Specialist S. Tremblay. The

information recorded in Tawsho’s drill hole database is described in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1 – Content of Tawsho’s MS-Access Drill Hole Database

Table Fields

Header Hole ID, Northing, Easting, Elevation, Length, Azimuth, Dip,

Claim, Casing, Zone, Type Location (Survey)

Survey Hole ID, Distance, Azimuth, Dip

Assays Hole ID, From, To, Length, Au-gt, Au2-gt, Au-gt-Moy, Ag-gt,

Cu-ppm, Zn-ppm, Sample Number

Lithology Hole ID, From, To, Length, Litho, Rock Code

Structure Hole ID, From, To, Length, Fault

Alteration Hole ID, From, To, Length, AK (ankerite), CL (chlorite), FC

(fuchsite), SR (sericite)

Mineralization Hole ID, From, To, Length, Quartz, Pyrite

13.1.2 Database Validation by Met-Chem

Met-Chem checked the master database supplied by Tawsho prior to starting the

geological interpretation and the construction of the 3D model. Met-Chem found several

errors or shortcomings in the database as illustrated in the following examples:

a) Core Sampling

Assay intervals occasionally straddle the lithological contacts (Table 13.2).


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 13.2 – Database - Examples of Assay Samples

Straddling Lithological Contacts

Hole-ID Assays

To SMP-No Litho

To Rockcode From From

T12-09

233.00 234.00 567967 224.10 234.35 I3A

234.00 234.50 567968 234.35 234.60 vQZ

234.50 235.00 567969 234.60 237.20 D1

236.00 237.00 567970 237.20 238.45 ZCHE

237.00 238.00 567971 238.45 238.55 vQZ

312.00 313.00 567996 309.20 313.30 ZCHE?/I3A

313.00 314.00 567997 313.30 397.70 V1

GDO-154 72.60 73.40 66976 66.90 73.80 V3A/I3A

73.40 74.35 66977 73.80 82.25 ZCHE1/I3A

Exceedingly short intervals (Table 13.3) were sometimes sampled. These sampled

intervals cannot be modified at this point but no sample shorter than 30 cm should be

collected in future drill programs.

Table 13.3 – Database – Examples of Short Sample Intervals

Hole-ID From To Length Au_Gt SMP-No

DB-70 371.60 373.00 0.14 0.000 110401

DO-60 573.50 573.65 0.15 0.000 114585

GDO-155 140.90 141.00 0.10 0.029 753046

GDO-190

51.67 51.84 0.17 0.139 227832

55.41 55.54 0.13 0.892 227839

58.52 58.71 0.19 0.501 227845

105.32 105.41 0.09 0.000 227879

106.74 106.88 0.14 1.853 227882

110.93 111.12 0.19 0.049 227888

GDO-191

75.87 76.03 0.16 0.025 228117

98.69 98.80 0.11 0.091 228148

120.57 120.63 0.06 0.012 228172

GFA-107 452.20 452.30 0.10 0.000 593373

GFA-194 137.06 137.23 0.17 0.005 228485

Intervals with first or last samples containing significant assay results (over 0.5 g/t Au

and more) were left “open” after receiving the results from the laboratory, as illustrated

by a few examples shown in bold in Table 13.4.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 13.4 – Database - Examples of “Open” Sample Intervals with

Significant Assay Results

Hole-ID From To Length Au_Gt_Avg SMP-No

FA-01 91.00 91.90 0.90 1.480 86329

FA-51 207.15 208.75 1.60 2.610 103615

FA-53

431.65 431.95 0.30 2.460 100493

475.30 475.75 0.45 0.770 100756

480.30 480.75 0.45 2.340 100757

658.40 659.30 0.90 1.370 100797

FA-56 239.05 240.00 0.95 3.920 103963

T10-08

19.00 20.50 1.50 1.240 569860

20.50 21.60 1.10 1.155 569861

185.40 185.90 0.50 0.531 569879

197.50 198.50 1.00 0.598 569880

202.30 202.90 0.60 2.365 569881

205.60 206.10 0.50 1.170 569882

208.80 209.30 0.50 1.015 569883

232.50 233.00 0.50 1.240 569888

b) Core Logging

Some of the rock codes need to be standardized (for instance: I1, D1 found to

denote Felsic Intrusive; D or DYKE for Dyke; ZMIN or ZONE) and simplified

(I3A/V2?/TUF?; I3A?/CIS.ALT.INJ) for easier handling and plotting on maps and

sections.

The angles of bedding, contacts or structures, as well as the percentages of

sulphides are included in the lithological description (Table 13.5).

Table 13.5 – Database - Examples of Measured Core Angles and Sulphides

Reported in the Lithology Column

Hole-ID From To Length Lith Rockcode

GFA-109 6.30 9.35 3.05 I1 POR QZ-FP.#.35-40° I1

GFA-109 9.35 20.55 11.20 D1.SR+.CB+.FOL.RU.45-50° D1

GFA-109 20.55 22.45 1.90 Z.CHE (SR-CB-vQZ-5PY) ZCHE

The angles measured on the core should be entered into separate columns in the

database for easier retrieval and plotting. The angles of bedding or schistosity are

better recorded for each driller’s run with the core recovery and RQD.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


c) Assay Table

The Assay table in the MS-database provided by Tawsho was found to contain

errors and discrepancies that Met-Chem believes significantly reduce the

confidence in the integrity of the analytical results. Examples of errors picked up by

Met-Chem are provided below: meterage: T12-09 : From-To-Length 242-243 m

= 0, indicating at least one formula was altered both the “Traces Au” and the “No

Assay Performed” labels in the analytical results were usually denoted as 0 values

of Au1 (AU_GT) occasionally reported only in the column of gold average

(AU_GT_MOY) or AU2_GT columns the average in the Au_GT_MOY shown as

14 g/t Au while the Au_GT and Au2_GT are at 10 and 0, respectively (sample

184129; T6-08, at 180.8-181.8 m); the original value for Au_GT was found to be

>10,000 ppb and the re-assay using a gravimetric finish was 14.0 g/t Au identical

values shown in the Au_GT and Au2_GT columns (GDO- and GFA- series of

holes), whereas the average in the Au_GT_MOY is different; difference between

the first gold assay (Au1) in the laboratory certificates and the Au1 column

(AU_GT) in the database, for values exceeding 1,000 ppb Au.

Met-Chem believes the integrity of the database was in doubt, as errors were still

picked up after several corrections and manipulations. Consequently, Met-Chem

recommended to build a new Assay table of the database from scratch, reverting to

the original electronic laboratory files and the original paper copies of the older

assay certificates or drill logs.

13.1.3 Construction of the Assay table of the Database by Met-Chem

The assay results used for the present resource estimation were compiled in the Assay

table re-constructed by Met-Chem. The Assay table of the database for the Chevrier and

Chevrier South deposits was constructed by Met-Chem in MS-Excel format. The

information was drawn from the MS-Access database supplied by Tawsho,

complemented by data extracted from the 2007 MS-Excel database, the drill logs or the

laboratory certificates.

Selected drill logs and original laboratory certificates were used to validate the data

entries and to lift ambiguities between the field and laboratory duplicates, or retrieve raw

data when averages of gold assays had been entered.

One column (“Au1”) was added specifically for modeling purposes. When the first assay

results (Au1, by FA-AA) exceeded the upper detection limit, the assay by FA-

Gravimetric finish was considered as Au1 for the construction of the model. One column

was added as well to enter a code to distinguish the Field Duplicates from the Laboratory

Duplicates in order to prepare the control graphs.

The Assay table in the database rebuilt by Met-Chem is only complete for the first Au

assays and for Ag, Cu, and Zn. Although up to six assay results for gold are available for

part of the samples (Au1, Au30-FA, Au30-Grav, Au_Pulp-FA, Au_RewFA, Au_RejD,


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Au_Rej-FA, etc.). The results for the repeat assays and those from the standards and

blanks samples were not incorporated into the database by Met-Chem. The results from

the control samples should be in the master database as the location of the QC samples in

the sequence is important (blank following a high-grade or a low-grade sample). The

results from the duplicate samples collected as check samples by Met-Chem and Tawsho

in November 2009 were not entered by Met-Chem into the Assay table.

The surface channel sample results were imported into the Assay database to be part of

the 3D model. The analytical data were extracted from the paper copies of the channel

samples plans and the location was drawn from the maps supplied by Tawsho. One

channel, the longest and closest to the drill sections, was selected by Met-Chem from

each of the stripped outcrops.

13.1.4 Conclusions - Recommendations

After review of the database supplied by Tawsho, Met-Chem believes that the handling

of the data other than the Assay results was done in a professional manner. The survey

data were found to be reliable as well as the lithological descriptions, although a few

units were re-coded. The Assay table of the database was re-constructed by Met-Chem

and was validated by spot checks.

Met-Chem concludes that the database is now free of major errors that would

compromise its integrity and significantly impact on the present resource estimate.

Although additional verification of the database is recommended, the main potential

source of error in the estimated resource figures is likely to originate more from the

uncertainty of the interpreted complex geometry of the deposit than from minor errors in

the large number of assay data available.

13.2 Quality Control of the Laboratories

13.2.1 Introduction

Various programs aiming at monitoring the laboratory performance were used by the

different operators working on the Chevrier project. Met-Chem performed spot checks of

these data and used them to prepare control graphs and calculate basic statistics.

13.2.2 Standards (1997)

Three CANMET standards from the “Canadian Materials Technology Laboratory,

Natural Resources Canada” were added to the samples as part of the QA-/QC program

of 1997. The results from the eleven available assays are presented in Table 13.6. The

number of assay is insufficient to draw statistically valid conclusions, but several results

shown in bold in Table 13.6 appear to display a high variability.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 13.6 – Canmet Standards - Expected Values

and Analytical Results (1997)

Canmet Standards Assays - CHIMITEC

Sample ID ID

Au/95%

Confidence

Interval (g/t)

Au1 (g/t) Au2 (g/t)

MA-2b 2.39

2.55 2.43 754000

2.37 2.47 767600

2.49 2.38 767900

2.43 2.81 770100

2.27 2.74 770400

MA-3a 8.56

± 0.09

7.61 8.64 753900

8.33 5.32 770200

8.67 8.26 768000

MA-1b 17.00

± 0.30

18.09 16.69 767700

14.28 17.14 767800

17.09 - 770300

13.2.3 Quality Control (2002)

Assays were performed on 30 g of pulp by Fire Assay with an AA finish. The pulps from

the samples with gold grades higher than 500 ppb were repeated by the same method.

The rejects from the samples exceeding 3,000 ppb were re-assayed as well, whereas the

sample grading more than 7 g/t Au were re-assayed by FA with a gravimetric finish.

No standards were used in the 2002 drill program.

13.2.4 Duplicate Samples (2008-09)

No field duplicate samples were added to the sample stream from the 2008-2009 drill

program. Duplicate samples are part of Quality Control samples and should have been

inserted while drilling progressed, in order to monitor the laboratory performance. That

way the duplicate samples are true field duplicates assayed by the same laboratory and in

the same batch. In addition, problems can be detected immediately and corrective actions

can be taken.

One batch of 87 samples from the 2008-09 program were re-analysed by the SGS

laboratory because the assay result for Standard OxK69, (expected value of

3,583 ppb Au) returned a grade of 40 ppb Au (sample 184200, certificate TO103403).

Re-assay of the same standard yielded 3,310 ppb Au (certificate TO103403A). Only

8 samples in this batch yielded a significant gold value (500 ppb or more) in at least one

of the assays. The averages for the original and second assays of these samples are

2.074 and 2.121 g/t Au, if the results for the standard are excluded. Although some


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


degree of variability exists in the very low values, the reproducibility of these samples is

high. The samples were re-assayed under the same sample number, and as such are not

blind samples.

13.2.5 Standards (2008-09)

The four standards used in 2008-2009 for insertion with the field samples are commercial

Certified Reference Materials prepared by Rocklabs Ltd of New Zealand and purchased

from their agent, Mines Assay Supplies, Division of Anachemia Canada Inc. in Kirkland

Lake, Ontario. Two standards were used in 2008 (OxL63 and OxK69) and four standards,

including the previous two, were used in 2009 (OxE74 and SH35). These standards are

prepared from basalt and feldspar with added gold-containing minerals.

The Assigned Values and 95% Confidence Intervals for gold in the standards are

provided by the manufacturer as shown in Table 13.7. Three of the standards are not

matrix-matched for the Chevrier project as they are composed of oxide materials. Pyrite

is present in the sulphide standard only. The use of standards with the same matrix as the

project samples is recommended to eliminate the possible effects of difference in matrix

as a source of bias.

Table 13.7 – Rocklabs Certified Reference Materials - Certified Values

and Analytical Results (2008-09)

Standard

Label Matrix

Assigned_Value

(ppb Au) +/-95%_Confidence

Interval (ppb Au)

OxL63 Oxide 5865 55

OxK69 Oxide 3583 33

SH35 Sulphide 1323 17

OxE74 Oxide 615 6

One Standard was inserted in the sample sequence for every 50 samples, and at least one

per drill hole, at the beginning of the 2008-2009 program. Since December, 2008, one

standard was added for every batch of 25 samples.

In order to verify the standards accuracy used in 2008, those standards were sent to ALS

Chemex in Val-d’Or in December 2008.

Out of the 64 assays of the standards inserted blind into the field samples by Tawsho

during the 2008-09 drill program, 61 returned gold contents below the assigned values

(Figure 13.1).


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 13.1 – Standards OxL63, OxK69, OxE74 and SH35

Expected Values and Analytical Results

(Note: the horizontal lines indicate the Assigned Value for each Standard)

The bias applies to all 4 standards and to both laboratories (SGS and AccurAssay) that

analysed them. A few standards were assayed by AccurAssay, regardless of the

insufficient mass sent by Tawsho. This fact, and the unexplained very low assay returned

by three of them, points to a serious problem that remains to be explained and resolved.

This situation illustrates the importance of maintaining an up to date record of the results

in order to monitor the laboratory performance in real time and take immediate corrective

action.

Met-Chem believes that no statistically valid calculations can be performed on the

results, owing to the overall bias and the large variability displayed.

Standard OxK69, with an expected value of 3,583 ppb Au, inserted in a batch of

87 samples shipped to SGS returned a grade of 40 ppb Au (sample 184200, certificate

TO103403). Tawsho had the entire batch re-assayed and the result for the same standard

yielded 3,310 ppb Au (certificate TO103403A), which remains below the expected value.

However, the results for the re-assayed samples showed no significant differences, as

evidenced by an identical average assay value for the two sets of data, provided the

original and the new assays of the standard are excluded.

13.2.6 Blanks (2002 Drill Program)

No blanks were used by the geologists during the 2002 drill program.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


13.2.7 Blanks (2008-09 Drill Program)

One blank for each batch of 30 samples and a minimum of one per hole were inserted

into the sample sequence at the beginning of the 2008-2009 drill program. Starting in

December 2008, one blank was added for every 20 samples. A mix of certified blanks

provided by TJCM (2009) and in-house blanks prepared from landscaping white quartz

purchased from a hardware store were used. The blanks were inserted 83 times in the

sample stream. The quartz from the hardware store turned out to contain significant silver

values. Out of 64 such blanks used in 2008-09, 15 contained more than 1 g/t Ag (up to

4.36 g/t), while no silver was detected in the certified blanks.

Sample184299 (G5-08, 2008) returned 0.466 g/t Au (Figure 13.2). As the precedent and

following samples in the sequence yielded very low levels of gold, contamination or

sample mix-up does not seem to be the reason for this high value that remains

unexplained.

The gold values from the other blanks do not point to contamination or mis-sequencing of

the samples.

Figure 13.2 – 2008-09 Drill Program - Assays on Blank Control Samples

Blanks Inserted in the 2008-09 Drill Program by Tawsho

(Maximum value of 466 ppb cut to 200 ppb)

13.2.8 Pulp and Screen Fire Assay

a) Pulp and Screen Fire Assay (1996)

Sixty-one rejects were retrieved by Géonova in 1996 to be re-analysed by the Pulp

and Screen Fire Assay method (Total Assay) at the Chimitec laboratory. The Total

Assay corresponds to the weighted average of the separate assays of the pulp and


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


the screen oversize material. The results generally indicate a distinctly higher gold

content in the Total Assay results relative to the original Fire Assays (Figure 13.3

and Table 13.8).

Figure 13.3 – Pulp and Screen Assays – 1996 Drill Program (g/t Au)

Table 13.8 – Pulp and Screen Assays - 1996 Drill Program

Drill_Hole_ID From

(m) To (m)

Interval

(m)

Original Assay

(g/t Au)

Pulp&Screen

(g/t Au)

Difference

(g/t Au)

GDO-104

19.15 20.00 0.85 2.396 4.760 2.364

20.00 20.75 0.75 3.679 6.470 2.791

20.75 21.30 0.55 0.514 1.270 0.756

21.30 22.10 0.80 6.461 12.850 6.389

22.10 23.10 1.00 3.672 6.580 2.908

23.10 24.15 1.05 1.450 2.660 1.210

24.15 25.15 1.00 2.094 3.350 1.256

28.40 29.00 0.60 4.725 9.060 4.335

51.00 51.20 0.20 1.911 3.600 1.689

51.20 51.90 0.70 1.713 2.210 0.497

51.90 52.60 0.70 17.616 14.230 -3.386

52.60 53.40 0.80 3.475 27.200 23.725

GDO-105 77.55 78.00 0.45 0.897 0.720 -0.177

78.00 78.50 0.50 16.812 17.000 0.188


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Drill_Hole_ID From

(m) To (m)

Interval

(m)

Original Assay

(g/t Au)

Pulp&Screen

(g/t Au)

Difference

(g/t Au)

GFA-106

277.20 278.00 0.80 4.241 3.750 -0.491

278.00 279.00 1.00 2.795 3.060 0.265

279.00 279.80 0.80 3.121 2.810 -0.311

GFA-107

124.70 125.25 0.55 5.441 4.110 -1.331

125.25 126.50 1.25 5.951 6.590 0.639

126.50 127.00 0.50 1.581 1.510 -0.071

127.00 127.40 0.40 2.539 2.460 -0.079

GFA-109

229.90 230.70 0.80 1.099 1.180 0.081

230.70 231.55 0.85 1.349 1.230 -0.119

231.55 232.55 1.00 9.585 11.910 2.325

232.55 233.60 1.05 1.462 1.120 -0.342

233.60 234.60 1.00 1.917 1.760 -0.157

234.60 235.60 1.00 3.331 3.280 -0.051

235.60 236.70 1.10 1.262 1.250 -0.012

236.70 237.80 1.10 2.065 1.870 -0.195

237.80 239.00 1.20 0.775 0.620 -0.155

239.00 240.00 1.00 2.336 2.290 -0.046

240.00 241.00 1.00 4.504 4.590 0.086

241.00 242.00 1.00 1.672 1.580 -0.092

242.00 243.00 1.00 2.459 2.560 0.101

GFA-111

175.45 176.30 0.85 3.932 10.090 6.158

176.30 177.00 0.70 4.967 9.950 4.983

177.00 177.60 0.60 1.747 2.770 1.023

177.60 178.35 0.75 1.786 2.610 0.824

178.35 179.20 0.85 2.905 4.750 1.845

473.00 473.40 0.40 5.011 10.570 5.559

473.40 473.90 0.50 0.075 0.250 0.175

473.90 474.25 0.35 3.311 7.310 3.999

474.25 475.00 0.75 0.111 0.180 0.069

475.00 475.70 0.70 5.013 10.790 5.777


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Drill_Hole_ID From

(m) To (m)

Interval

(m)

Original Assay

(g/t Au)

Pulp&Screen

(g/t Au)

Difference

(g/t Au)

GFA-112

497.35 498.00 0.65 4.250 4.880 0.630

498.00 498.85 0.85 0.381 0.440 0.059

498.85 499.65 0.80 1.192 1.270 0.078

499.65 500.50 0.85 0.168 0.190 0.022

500.50 501.00 0.50 0.005 0.030 0.025

501.00 502.00 1.00 0.228 0.130 -0.098

502.00 502.50 0.50 0.833 0.810 -0.023

502.50 503.20 0.70 1.820 1.830 0.010

503.20 504.10 0.90 1.010 1.380 0.370

504.10 505.10 1.00 1.414 1.850 0.436

505.10 506.15 1.05 4.851 5.380 0.529

506.15 506.85 0.70 1.868 2.030 0.162

506.85 507.65 0.80 2.044 2.180 0.136

507.65 508.55 0.90 1.069 1.380 0.311

GFA-116 110.60 111.30 0.70 5.668 8.560 2.892

GFA-117 241.60 242.15 0.55 18.130 16.100 -2.030

278.65 279.00 0.35 1.531 5.480 3.949

Mean 3.315 4.667

Median 2.065 2.660

The average of 3.315 g/t Au (median = 2.065 g/t Au) for all the original assays

increases to 4.667 g/t Au (median = 2.660 g/t Au) in the Pulp and Screen assay

results.

Surprisingly, an increase of gold in the Total Assay results started from low gold

values in a few samples and a significant number of samples (19) returned Total

Assays lower than the original assays (Table 13.8). These discrepancies remain

unresolved.

Met-Chem believes a few samples suggest the presence of modest amounts of

particulate gold, as seems to be the case in the sample tested by Lakefield (Mineral

Processing and Metallurgy of this report).

b) Pulp and Screen Fire Assay (1997)

Twenty rejects from samples assayed by Chimitec were shipped to Abilab in 1997

to be analysed by the Pulp and Screen Fire Assay method. The results indicate a

rather large low bias in the Pulp and Screen assays in four of the pairs (Figure 13.4;

Table 13.9) and a lower gold content, when compared to the original Fire Assay

data. However, a distinct increase in the average gold content is evidenced in the +

150 mesh fraction (7.11 g/t Au), over the -150 mesh (4.71 g/t Au)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Although no statistically valid conclusions can be drawn from this small dataset,

the results do not suggest the presence of significant coarse gold in these samples,

and the unexpected low bias returned by a few Pulp and Screen assays remains

unexplained.

Table 13.9 – Results from the Original and Pulp and Screen Fire Assays (1997)

SMPL_ID

Chimitec Abilab Difference

(g/t Au) Au1_FA (g/t Au) Pulp&Screen_FA

(g/t Au)

753113 0.01 0.01 0.00

753114 2.33 2.08 -0.25

753115 18.26 13.50 -4.76

753116 1.20 1.11 -0.09

753117 12.82 10.17 -2.65

753118 1.23 0.97 -0.26

753119 0.27 0.24 -0.03

753225 0.79 0.87 0.08

753226 0.42 0.86 0.44

753227 11.22 10.19 -1.03

753228 21.35 26.18 4.83

753229 0.11 0.16 0.05

767744 1.66 1.58 -0.08

767745 1.74 1.75 0.01

767746 0.12 0.11 -0.01

767747 25.59 22.24 -3.35

767748 0.13 0.18 0.05

767749 0.73 0.80 0.07

767750 1.73 1.99 0.26

767751 0.44 0.30 -0.14

Average 5.11 4.76


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 13.4 – Original and Pulp and Screen Assays (1997)

c) Pulp and Screen Fire Assay (2002)

One sample was assayed using the Pulp and Screen Fire Assay method (2002).

13.2.9 Duplicate Samples (2002)

62 field samples were re-assayed as duplicate samples in 2002 under the same number as

the original samples. This practice creates confusion with the laboratory duplicates and

makes the results difficult to handle in the database. In addition, a duplicate sent to the

laboratory with the same number as the original does not constitute a blind sample.

The exploration company should assign a unique number to the sequence of field

samples, duplicates, blanks and standards shipped to a laboratory.

13.2.10 Second Laboratory - Pulp Duplicates (1997)

79 pulps assayed by Chimitec were sent to Abilab in Val d’Or for check assays. A

scattergram of the results is provided in Figure 13.5.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 13.5 – Inter-Laboratory Pulp Duplicate Assays

The results examined by Met-Chem show that 56% of the pairs have a ratio absolute-

difference-over-average between the two pulp assays exceeding 10%, which is high. The

means for the assays by the two laboratories are 3.71 and 3.56 g/t Au, which corresponds

to a difference of about 4% and is acceptable. No bias is indicated between the two

populations.

13.2.11 Duplicate Samples from Tawsho (November 2009)

a) Introduction

No duplicate samples were inserted by the geologists in the sample stream as part

of the QA-/QC program during the 2008-2009 drilling activities. Although the field

duplicate samples have to be inserted as control samples at the time of drilling,

Met-Chem recommended to re-submit about 5% of the samples collected in 2008-

09 for duplicate assay. In November 2009, a first batch of 330 pulps and rejects

from the 2008-09 samples was sent to ALS-Chemex, Val-d’Or, for re-assay. The

analytical results from these duplicate samples and from the added 38 control

samples were examined by Met-Chem.

The 368 samples were prepared by Tawsho from the archived rejects or pulps of

the original core samples shortly after Met-Chem’s site visit (Table 13.10). 188 re-

assays were performed on pulp samples. Two splits (Sub-samples 1 and 2) were

extracted from each of 71 original rejects and submitted blind under separate

numbers to the ALS Chemex laboratory in Val-d’Or.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 13.10 – Samples Shipped by Tawsho in December, 2009 for Re-Assay

Sample Type Number of Samples

Rejects Sub-Sample 1 71

Sub-Sample 2 71

Pulps 188

Blanks 20

Standard SH35 18

Total 368

b) Results

The basic statistical parameters were calculated on the results from the 71 first

coarse duplicates (Sub-sample 1) and the 71 second coarse duplicates (Sub-sample

2) extracted from the rejects of the original assays (Table 13.11).

39 pairs out of the 42 (92.9%) coarse Sub-sample 1 with an average gold grade of

the individual pairs less than 15 times the detection limit have an absolute

difference of less than 3 times the detection limit, which is acceptable. Nine out of

the 29 pairs (31.0%) with an average over 15 times the detection limit had a ratio

average of the pair over Au1 exceeding 10%, which is high. However, these

samples are not true field duplicates as they were not analysed at the same time and

in the same laboratories as the original samples, which accounts for some additional

variability.

The difference in the average grade between the Original, Sub-Sample 1 and Sub-

Sample 2 populations is very low, if one outlier with high variability is removed,

(Table 13.11).

Table 13.11 – Tawsho Duplicate Samples - Summary of Analytical Results

Sample Type Number

of

Samples

Average

Grade

(g/t Au)

Median

(g/t Au)

Standard

Deviation

Original 71 0.191 0.041 0.316

Rejects - Sub-

Sample 1 70

(*) 0.214 0.034 0.362

Rejects - Sub-

Sample 2 70

(*) 0.220 0.033 0.381

Original 188 1.029 0.505 1.68

Pulp

Duplicates 188 1.078 0.456 1.94

(*) One sample removed (10.000, 28.500 and 23.800 g/t Au, respectively)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


The complete results from the duplicate samples are presented under Appendix C.

The correlation coefficients between the assay results from the original and the two

sub-samples are high, very similar and slightly lower than between the Sub-samples

(Table 13.12).

Table 13.12 – Correlation Coefficients for the Assays

on the Different Sets of Samples

Results Correlation Coefficient

Original - Rejects Sub-Sample 1 0.936

Original - Rejects Sub-Sample 2 0.940

Rejects Sub-Sample 1 - Rejects Sub-Sample 2 0.987

Original - Pulps 0.958

The 188 pulp duplicates yielded gold assays similar to the original results. As

expected, the correlation between the original pulp and the corresponding duplicate

is higher than for the reject samples, (Table 13.12).

The standard SH35 (expected value of 1.323 g/t Au) was assayed 18 times with the

batch of duplicates, and 17 were repeated by the laboratory using the Gravimetric

finish after the first assay with the AA finish (Table 13.13).

Although the number of assays of Standard SH35 is too low to draw statistically

valid conclusions, the results from the Laboratory duplicate assays of this standard

suggest a modest but distinct low bias for all but three of the second assays

(gravimetric finish) (Figure 13.6 and Table 13.13). In addition, one assay returned a

very low gold content for the standard (H674719).

Table 13.13 – Assay Results from Standard SH35

(expected value of 1.323 g/t Au)

STD-

SH35_SMPL_ID Au_FA-AA (g/t Au) Au_FA-Grav (g/t Au) Difference

H674519 1.330 1.690 27%

H674539 1.320 1.310 -1%

H674559 1.365 1.330 -3%

H674579 1.205 1.270 5%

H674599 1.320 1.270 -4%

H674619 1.305 1.300 0%

H674639 1.315 1.290 -2%

H674659 1.305 1.260 -3%

H674679 1.290 1.200 -7%


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


STD-

SH35_SMPL_ID Au_FA-AA (g/t Au) Au_FA-Grav (g/t Au) Difference

H674699 1.300 1.250 -4%

H674719 0.730 - -

H674738 1.340 1.040 -22%

H674758 1.340 1.160 -13%

H674778 1.370 1.460 7%

H674798 1.330 1.220 -8%

H674818 1.360 1.010 -26%

H674837 1.320 1.260 -5%

H674857 1.325 1.270 -4%

Average

(H674719 excluded) 1.320 1.270

The bias may reflect a problem with the calibration curves used for the Atomic

Absorption analyses. This hypothesis has to be resolved with the laboratory

The Blanks inserted in the sample stream were analysed 19 times and they all

returned values below the detection but for one at 0.011 g/t Au, which is

acceptable.

Figure 13.6 – Graph of the Laboratory Duplicate Assays of Standard SH35


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


13.2.12 Conclusions

Relatively high variability was observed in the analytical results from the Canmet

standards, as well as a widespread low bias in the repeat assay with the Fire Assay and

gravimetric finish. All four standards analysed by two laboratories with the samples from

the 2008-09 program returned a significant low bias in the large majority of the results.

Met-Chem believes that the inconsistencies observed in the assays on the standard

reference materials are cause for concern since the standards monitor the accuracy of the

laboratory results.

The results from the duplicates samples are not outstanding but are acceptable. As

expected, the variance on the quartered core duplicate was distinctly higher than that on

the rejects.

The results from the blanks inserted in the field samples from the 2008-09 program

showed no cause of concern, but for one high assay result. A blank made up of

landscaping material contained significant silver values but appeared to be devoid of

gold. One blank within Tawsho’s duplicate sample sent in November 2009 and one in

Met-Chem’s check samples returned elevated gold values.

The results from the Pulp and Screen assays of 1996 and 1997 suggest the presence of

low amounts of coarse gold. The unexpected lower gold content yielded by many of the

Total Assays relative to the standard Fire Assay remains unexplained.

Met-Chem believes the discrepancies indicated by the assay results from the standard

and, to a point, by the Pulp and Screen assays must be resolved, as they may somewhat

impact on the resource estimate.

Met-Chem recommends investigating the potential effects of gold telluride in the

Chevrier mineralization on the analytical work. The telluride sylvanite ((Au, Ag) Te2)

was recognized in the Chevrier deposit by Marc Legault (Ph.D. Thesis, March 2003). The

loss of precious metals in the cupels in the presence of tellurium, if the assayer is

unaware of it, is well documented.

13.3 Internal Laboratory Quality Control

The analytical results from a series of 123 ALS-Chemex laboratory duplicates from the

2008-09 drill program were examined by Met-Chem as part of the spot checks.

79 individual pairs of original and duplicates assays had an average below 15 times the

5 ppb detection limit. The difference between the original and the duplicate assays for

9 pairs (11.4%) exceeded the value of three times the detection limit, which is acceptable.

34 of the 44 samples (77.3%) for which the average for the pairs of assays is over 15 ppb

have a ratio of the difference-over-average for individual pairs below 10%. Ideally, 90%

of the samples should be below this pass/fail limit.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


However, the mean for the 123 original and duplicate assays is virtually identical at 1.23

and 1.24 g/t Au, and the correlation coefficient is 99.7%.

These results suggest that the repeatability of the assays on these samples from the

Chevrier deposit is not outstanding but is acceptable.

13.4 Gold-Silver Correlation in the Chevrier Deposit

The Au/Ag ratio in the Chevrier mineralization was briefly examined by Met-Chem as it

represents a tool to check the high gold assays or to distinguish different mineralized

zones or events in the deposits where a clear correlation exists between the two metals.

The plot of 11,876 pairs of Au/Ag assays (Figure 13.7) and the correlation coefficient

calculated at 0.16 indicated no correlation between the two metals at any gold grade.

However, the scattergram illustrates that upward of tenors of 2 g/t of silver, the increase

of silver is accompanied by a slight increase in gold. The average of all the values graded

0.230 g/t Au and 0.951 g/t Ag.

Figure 13.7 – Chevrier Deposit - Scatter Plot of Au versus Ag


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


13.5 Independent Check Sampling and Visit of the Laboratories by Met-Chem

13.5.1 Introduction

As part of the audit, Met-Chem visited the sample preparation facilities of Table

jamésienne de concertation minière in Chibougamau (“TJCM”) on November 2, 2009.

The TJCM facilities were used by Géonova and Tawsho for the preparation of the

samples from the 2008-09 drill programs.

The analytical laboratories used by Tawsho and Géonova, ALS-Chemex in Val-d’Or and

AccurAssay in Thunder Bay, were not visited during this audit. Both are reputable,

accredited laboratories, apply Standard Operating Procedures and internal QC/QA

protocol and participate in performance testing programs (Round Robin). The author has

been using the ALS-Chemex Chimitec laboratory in Val d’Or sporadically for many

years.

13.5.2 Visit to the TJCM Laboratories

a) Introduction

TJCM uses a typical methodology for the sample preparation widely applied in

most analytical laboratories. Adjustments, particularly in terms of grind size, are

made by TJCM to conform to the requirements from the different clients or

analytical laboratories. A flowchart showing the procedures followed by TJCM is

provided under Appendix D.

b) Methodology

Upon receipt at TJCM’s warehouse, the sample bags are checked against the

client’s list, sorted and verified for spilled, mislabelled or missing bags before

being emptied into aluminum trays and weighed. The date and time of receiving the

samples, as well as the name of the technician handling the samples are recorded

and transmitted to the client by e-mail with applicable comments. The samples are

processed as follows:

• Oven-dry at a temperature of 40°, in order to avoid roasting the sulphides or

melting the sample tags;

• Crush the entire samples in a “Terminator” jaw crusher with opening

adjusted to obtain 75% of material passing 2 mm;

• Extract a sub-sample of 250-400 g using a riffle splitter;

• Determine the time necessary for the sample to be pulverized to the desired

grind size by testing with type rocks at the start of each project; record the

results;

• Pulverize the sub-sample in a ring-and-puck pulverizer to a grind of 98%

passing 200 mesh (adjusted as per different laboratories’ or clients’

requirements);


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


• Homogenize by rolling 40 times on a wax paper;

• Extract a sample for shipping to the laboratory and save the rest of the pulp in

paper envelopes.

c) Laboratory Internal QA-/QC

In addition to the clients’ quality control samples, TJCM’s internal Quality

Assurance program monitors the sample preparation by routinely taking the

following precautions:

• A qualitative check is done between the sample size and the reported weight;

• The crusher is cleaned with compressed air after each sample and every 25th

sample is a blank crushed and sent for assay;

• The pulveriser is cleaned with:

– Barren quartz for 10-15 seconds after each sample; a piece of plastic tie

wrap is added as a marker to avoid possible confusion with a field

sample or a blank;

– A brush and compressed air;

– Ethanol, as needed.

• A glass bead is added to the samples in the pulveriser to prevent

agglomeration of the powder;

• The wax paper used to homogenize the pulp is discarded after each sample;

• The grind size is tested on every 10th sample, or more often if highly variable

sample material is processed; the records of the results and the operator’s

name are available on request.

Other precautions to ensure the quality of the prepared samples include:

• The crusher room is entirely enclosed and the ventilation intake is located

over the extractor hoods and near the crusher, but not too close, so as not to

remove the fine particles

• The chain of custody is preserved by shipping the samples directly to the

laboratories via registered mail with Canada Post, with tracking number, to

preserve chain of custody

• The rejects are saved in plastic bags in wooden boxes covered by a plastic

tarp stored outside in a secure fenced area

d) Conclusions

Although the TJCM is not ISO accredited, it is in the process of achieving the

status. In addition, TJCM has built a reputation resting on the experience of their

management and technicians. TJCM follows a strict program involving quality

control procedures for sample preparation. Furthermore, the facilities are being

audited repeatedly on behalf of large and small mining companies. TJCM works in


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


partnership with AccurAssay laboratory in Thunder Bay and applies integrated QA-

/QC procedures.

Met-Chem visited the TJCM premises and the facilities were found to be generally

clean, well ventilated, well organized and run in a professional manner. The crusher

and the sample sorting rooms seemed a little tight although they are adequate for

the one or two technicians working in it.

No major problem was seen during our visit that would lead us to believe the

samples prepared for Tawsho may have been processed in a way that may cause

contamination or poor analytical results.

13.5.3 Independent Check Samples by Met-Chem

a) Introduction

Met-Chem selected 58 samples for check assay and a second split out of the

25 coarse duplicates among them for re-assay (Table 13.14). The samples were

chosen in an attempt to represent mineralized intervals in different holes, with some

geographic spread in the two deposits, in a range of gold tenors mimicking the

distribution of gold in the deposits and with low and high values in adjacent

samples. Fewer samples (a total of 13 samples in T15-09 and T19-09) were taken

from the Chevrier South zone considering the relatively modest amount of drilling

carried out on this deposit.

Table 13.14 – List of Check Samples Collected by Met-Chem

Original Sample Check Samples Number of

Samples

Half Core Quarter Core 26

Rejects

Duplicates (Sub-

Sample 1) 32

Duplicates (Sub-

Sample 2) 25

Standards 4

Blanks 4

Total 91

The coarse rejects were preferred to core samples as Met-Chem believes they more

closely represent the original half core than the quartered core sample. However,

since a few of the selected rejects could not be located reasonably quickly, 26

samples consisted of quarter core, together with the 32 rejects from the original

samples.

In addition, 25 out of the 32 rejects were prepared as two splits (Sub-samples 1 and

2) submitted under separate numbers so as to be blind to the analytical laboratory.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


The control samples that were added to Met-Chem’s check samples consisted of

4 standards and 4 blanks.

b) Methodology

The pairs of coarse check samples are rejects duplicates re-split from the material

stored in the original sample bags at the TJCM’s facilities. Two splits were

prepared for 25 out of the 32 rejects. This was done since no duplicate had been

added as part of the QA-/QC protocol of the 2008-2009 drill program.

The quarter core samples were split using a hydraulic core splitter, under the direct

supervision of Met-Chem. Two samples (1093414 and 1093415) were irremediably

mixed by the splitter operator. The retrieval and preparation of the rejects for

duplicate assays were performed by TJCM after Met-Chem had left site. It is noted

that TJCM is an independent sample preparation facility that does not provide

analytical services.

Met-Chem transported the quarter core samples from the core shed to the sample

preparation facility. Met-Chem requested all the samples to be analyzed for gold by

fire assay at the ALS-Chemex Chimitec laboratory in Val-d’Or.

c) Results

The complete results for the check samples collected by Met-Chem are provided in

Appendix E.

The 26 duplicate core samples form a population hardly large enough to allow a

statistically valid analysis of the results. Yet, the difference-over-average of

12 individual pairs exceeds 30%, which is very high. However, no systematic bias

is observed. The difference in average grade between the original and duplicate

samples assay results (16.9%) further illustrates the observed variability (Table

13.15).

The 32 reject duplicate samples (Sub-sample 1) selected by Met-Chem returned an

average of 2.118 g/t Au for the duplicate assays, as compared to 1.981 g/t Au for

the original assays, which represents a difference of 6.9% and is acceptable (Table

13.15). If one outlier (0.402 g/t Au for Au1 and 3.980 g/t Au for the Assay on the

duplicate) is removed, the averages for the two populations become 2.032 and

2.058 g/t Au, with a correlation coefficient of 0.967.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 13.15 – Summary of Assay Results from the Check Samples

Selected by Met-Chem

Sample Type n=

Average Grade

(g/t Au) Difference

(%)

Correlation

with Original

Sample

Average Original

Samples

Duplicate

Samples

Quarter Core 26 2.609 3.052 16.9 0.912

Rejects Sub-sample 1 32 1.981 2.118 6.9 0.934

Sub-sample 2 25 2.066 2.200 6.5 0.974

The 25 rejects prepared as a second split (Sub-sample 2) submitted blind to the

analytical laboratory returned similar results, with an average of 2.066 g/t Au for

the assay on the first duplicate (Sub-sample 1) and 2.200 g/t Au for the duplicate of

the former (Sub-sample 2). The correlation coefficient with the original assay is

0.974 (Table 13.15). No distinct bias is revealed by the assays results.

The control samples inserted by Met-Chem in the batch of check samples are too

few to draw statistically valid conclusions. However, the maximum deviation in the

assays of the standards from the expected value is 5.5%, which is acceptable (Table

13.16). One blank returned 0.032 g/t Au, which is a little high, but does not indicate

contamination, considering it follows a sample grading more than 10 g/t Au.

The results from 49 duplicate assays from the internal laboratory Quality Control

System show a high degree of correlation between the two assays. The average of

the first assays is 2.742 g/t Au, while the duplicate samples average 2.681 g/t Au,

with a correlation coefficient of 0.996.

Table 13.16 – Standards and Blanks within the Met-Chem Check Samples

Control Sample Expected Value

(g/t Au) SMPL_ID

Au1_FA/AA (*)

(g/t Au)

Au1_FA/GRAV (**)

(g/t Au)

STD SH35 1.323

1093420 1.330 1.390

1093431 1.330 1.250

1093460 1.305 1.300

1093482 1.365 1.340

BLK 0.000

1093407 0.032

1093430 0.017

1093448 0.008

1093469 0.011 (*)

Fire Assay with Atomic Absorption finish (**)

Fire Assay with Gravimetric finish


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


d) Conclusions

Although the original and the duplicate samples were analyzed at different times,

and by two laboratories, unlike true field duplicates, the coarse duplicate samples

(rejects) showed a good repeatability. As expected, the reproducibility in the results

is distinctly lower in the quartered core samples than in the rejects (Table 13.5).


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


14.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

14.1 Murgor Property

Several gold showings have been reported along the strike of the Fancamp Deformation

Zone which crosses the Chevrier property.

The Murgor Resources Inc. (Murgor) Fancamp property lies along the strike extension of

the Chevrier deposits at the immediate southwest boundary of the Chevrier property. The

property consists of 43 claims (Press release, Sep 24, 2009) covering an area of 1,712 ha

and is located 5 km to the southwest of the Chevrier South deposit. The Property covers a

6-km strike length of the Fancamp Deformation Zone and subsidiary shear zones.

Murgor completed trenching, diamond drilling and limited underground development in

the mid-1980's. Five gold mineralized zones were discovered (Murgor Website and Press

Releases):

• A and B Zones: small, NNW-plunging deposits located along the western contact

of the Verneuil Pluton and hosted by a splay off the Fancamp Deformation Zone.

Gold mineralization consists of gold-bearing pyrite-quartz-tourmaline veins. The

zones were investigated by trenching, diamond drilling and limited underground

development;

• C-Zone, 1km to the west of the A-Zone within the Fancamp Deformation Zone;

• D Zone lies 450 m NE and on strike with the B-Zone. It is hosted by the Fancamp

Fault at the western contact of the Verneuil Pluton. Limited drilling has been

carried out

• E Zone lies 900 m NE of the D Zone in a subsidiary shear zone. Tested by a single

drill hole.

Selected results from the gold-mineralized zones A to E are shown in Table 14.1.

Table 14.1 – Selected Sample Results from Murgor’s Fancamp Project

Zone Width (m) Grade

(g/t Au)

A 6.10 8.22

B 3.36 5.14

C 0.75 8.52

D 3.05 4.60

E (DDH MU-88-2) 2.27 1.42

In August 2009, Murgor mechanically excavated five trenches which uncovered a wide,

NE-trending, gold-bearing deformation corridor believed to be the Fancamp Deformation

Zone or a possible subsidiary structure.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


The Northeast Trench uncovered two parallel, NE-trending gold-bearing structures. The

West Structure is a new discovery whereas the East Structure is the south extension of a

previously known gold occurrence where channel sampling had previously returned

assays of up to 9.3 g/t Au over 8.2 m. The South Trench exposed a similar structure

located 325 meters to the SW and on strike with the Northeast Trench. Channel samples

were collected across the general trend of the shear zone or across the fold hinges and the

significant gold values are listed in Table 14.2.

Table 14.2 – Selected Sample Results from 2009 Sampling

on Murgor’s Fancamp Project

Zone Width (m) Grade

(g/t Au)

West Structure

4.30 10.40

5.60 5.21

1.60 18.03

5.75 0.90

East Structure 1.40 6.69

0.80 13.05

South Trench

18.90 1.00

7.67 1.00

5.71 0.98

Gold occurs in foliation-parallel quartz-carbonate veins with visible gold, and in the

pyritic wall-rocks of the veins. Murgor reported that higher gold grades are typically

encountered within the hinges of the folds. The mapped folds were recognized as an

important structural control to the gold mineralization in the area.

14.2 Hygrade Property

The Hygrade property consists of 9 claims totalling 254 hectares, surrounded by the

claims of Tawsho, in Hauy Township.

The Malartic Hygrade showing was discovered in 1990 in the central portion of the

property, within a highly sericitized, E-NE trending shear 10 to 25 m wide. It appears that

the Hygrade showing is located either in a change of direction of the Fancamp

deformation zone or at the junction of two deformation corridors.

In 1990, Malartic Hygrade Gold Mines carried out a drilling program of eight holes to

test an IP anomaly. The highest grades obtained were:

• 22.3 g/t Au over 0.82 m;

• 7.69 g/t Au over 1.37 m;

• 7.97g/t Au over 1.0 m;


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


• 10.07 g/t Au over 1.37 m.

In 2003, Les Ressources Tectonic Inc. (Tectonic) conducted geological mapping on the

property. A grab sample returned an anomalous value of 190 ppb Au. Arianne Resources

Inc. (Arianne) acquired an option to gain a 50% interest in the property.

Arianne conducted an IP (induced polarization) survey, sampling, and tested some of the

conductors by drilling 1,214 m of core in June 2008. Following the results, Arianne

dropped the option on the property.

14.3 Other Properties

No other contiguous properties neighbouring the Chevrier property is known. Unrelated

to Chevrier, yet important deposits in the region are the gold and copper mines of

Campbell Resources Inc. located about 35 km to the northeast of Chevrier, such as the

Merrill Island open pit mine and the Corner Bay and Copper Rand underground mines.

The former Meston Lake (Joe Mann) underground gold mine lies 12 km to the southeast

but is hosted in a separate deformation Zone (Guercheville).

No information on these projects is available to Met-Chem other than that publicly

disclosed by the owners of the mining properties. The author has not verified the

available information and warns that the mineralization on adjacent properties is not

necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the Chevrier project that is the subject of

this Technical Report.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


15.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGY

In February 1998, Géonova shipped forty reject samples weighing about 27 kg to

Lakefield Research Limited, Lakefield, Ontario, (“Lakefield”) for bench metallurgical

testing (2-kg charges). One composite sample that contained 6 g/t Au, 1.5 g/t Ag and 6%

Fe was prepared for the test work.

The following description is entirely drawn from the report by Lakefield entitled: An

Investigation of the Recovery of Gold from Project Samples submitted by Géonova

Explorations Inc., Progress Report No.1; June 3, 1998 (Appendix F). Met-Chem did not

verify the results from this test work and, as such, cannot offer any comment on the

results.

The recovery of gold was investigated by Lakefield by testing the following flow sheet

configurations:

• Whole-sample cyanidation;

• Gravity separation followed by cyanidation;

• Gravity separation followed by flotation and cyanidation of the flotation products.

Bottle roll cyanidation of the complete sample resulted in 97-98% gold extraction after

48 hours of leaching, with the residue assaying 0.2 g/t Au. The test results suggested the

fineness of grind has a significant effect on gold extraction.

Gravity separation resulted in 22% gold extraction and produced a concentrate grading

1,430 g/t Au. Cyanidation of the gravity tailings resulted in 94% gold extraction, with the

overall extraction of 95.4%.

Gravity separation followed by whole-sample sulphide flotation and cyanidation of finely

reground flotation concentrate and flotation tailings yielded 95.5% overall recovery.

On the basis of this initial test work, Lakefield concluded that:

• Whole-sample cyanidation was the optimum process for the recovery of gold;

• A gravity circuit could be incorporated in the flow sheet;

• Flotation followed by cyanidation of the flotation products did not improve overall

recovery.

The Bond Index was estimated at approximately 14 kWh/tonne.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


16.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION

16.1 Introduction

Met-Chem was retained by Tawsho to perform a 3D model and a resource estimate for

the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits. The methodology and results of the resource

estimation for the Chevrier deposit are described in this chapter. No resources were

estimated for the Chevrier South deposit, owing to insufficient data. However, the

estimated hypothetical tonnage and grade of mineralized material present in the Chevrier

South deposit is discussed under Chapter “Other Relevant Data and Information” of this

report.

The resource estimate was performed in accordance with National Instrument 43-101,

Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects and the CIM Definition Standards on

Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves adopted by CIM Council (2005).

Basic geological interpretation and modeling of the mineralized lenses were performed

by Y. Buro, Eng. Geologist with Met-Chem.

The numerical modeling and resource estimation were performed by M. A. Brulotte,

géo., using Mintec MineSight (Version 4.60-09) mining software under Y. Buro’s

supervision and were validated by R. Jean, géo., both with Met-Chem.

Met-Chem cautions that mineral resources have no demonstrated economic viability. In

addition, there is no certainty that all or part of the mineral resources will be converted

into reserves.

16.2 Drill Hole Database.

16.2.1 Content of the Database

The present resource estimation is based on the data obtained from all but a few old drill

holes completed by the previous owners, and includes the results from the last drill

program of 2008-09 by Tawsho. The results from diamond drilling and from the channel

samples collected from the stripped outcrops were used in the geological interpretation

and the mineral resource estimate. Met-Chem extracted the data required for the present

3D modeling and resource estimate from the master database provided by Tawsho in MS-

Access format (Collar and Survey) and from the Assay table validated and constructed by

Met-Chem from all the data provided.

Table 16.1summarizes the information used by Met-Chem for the MineSight database

construction.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 16.1 – Content of the Drill Hole Database Imported in to MineSight

File Fields

Collar Hole ID, Northing, Easting, Elevation, Azimuth, Dip, Length

Survey Hole ID, Depth, Azimuth, Dip

Assays Hole ID, From, To, Length, Sample Number, Au in ppb

The Chevrier drill hole database contains 146 drill holes and 4 lines of surface channel

samples, (49 samples for a total of 44.67 m analysed), all used for the resource estimate.

Table 16.2 presents a summary of the number of samples and the total length in the main

files in the database.

Table 16.2 – Samples and Assay Results in the Database

File Number Total Length (m)

Collar 150 45,321

Samples 19,211 45,321

Assays 7,524 6,537

16.2.2 Database Validation

The details on the handling of the drill hole database by the previous operators to protect

its integrity are not available. The correctness of the data entries for the samples was

checked by Met-Chem by visual inspection of selected drill core and by various

mathematical formulas within the database. Additional checks were completed by Met-

Chem while constructing the Assay table of the database, by referring to original

laboratory certificates or drill logs. Further checking on the soundness of the database

was completed by the validation process built in MineSight when importing the data.

Validation of the assay results was done by check samples collected by Met-Chem.

16.2.3 Statistical Analysis

Met-Chem performed the basic statistical analysis for the gold values, since gold is the

major element and represents the primary interest in the Chevrier deposit. The gold in the

Chevrier deposit shows a typical log normal distribution and the presence of a few high

gold values. The high gold values are associated with narrow sample intervals.

Compositing is necessary to better define the capping value. (Figure 16.1)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 16.1 – Chevrier Deposit; Distribution of Gold in ppb

(Log Normal; on original assays)

16.2.4 Capping of High Gold Values

Met-Chem built histograms and cumulative frequency plots to determine the capping of

the exceptionally high gold values. This process is meant to eliminate the effect of

uncommonly extreme values over the distribution of grades within the deposit. The

samples grading above 7,800 ppb (i.e. above 99% of the cumulative frequency) were

capped (Table 16.3).

Table 16.3 – Statistical Results for the Assays within

the Envelope of the Mineralization

Chevrier Deposit – Assays (Envelopes)

N = 1882 Intervals (m) Au ppb Au ppb (Capped)

Total 1,579.27 N/A N/A

Mean (Au = weighted) 0.84 1,781 1,632

Median 0.83 939 939

Standard Deviation 0.32 2,671 1,955

1882 intervals including 66 without analytical result (= 0)

Capping at 7,800 ppb Au

16.2.5 Compositing

Met-Chem composited all the assays into 1-m intervals. Classical statistical analysis was

repeated for those gold grades within the mineralized envelopes. The statistical results are


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


provided in Table 16.4 and Figure 16.2 presents the gold values (ppb) after high grade

capping and compositing.

Figure 16.2 – Distribution of Au (ppb) in the Composites (After capping)

Table 16.4 – Statistical Results from the Composites

Chevrier Deposit – Composites (1 m)

N = 1649 Intervals (m) Au ppb

Total 1,579.27 N/A

Mean (Au = weighted) 0.97 1,613

Median 1.00 1,050

Standard Deviation 0.13 1,691


Capping at 7,800 ppb Au

No significant differences were observed in the statistical parameters calculated on the

complete set of assays or on the composites. The mean of 1,638 ppb Au obtained before

compositing compares well with 1,612 ppb Au after compositing.

16.2.6 Variograms

Met-Chem generated variograms using GemCom’s Surpac (Version 6.1) software to

determine the continuity and geometry of the mineralization, trends in the grade

distribution and, ultimately, the parameters for the various search ellipsoids. Figure 16.3

to Figure 16.5 present the variograms for the Chevrier deposit.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 16.3 – Chevrier Deposit Variogram (horizontal all directions)

Figure 16.4 – Chevrier Deposit Variogram (45° all directions)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 16.5 – Chevrier Deposit Variogram (90° all directions)

All the directional axes (major horizontal, minor horizontal and vertical) were analyzed

using 15-m lags, considered by Met-Chem as the ideal distance, based on the data set. A

weak structure striking between N049° and N063° (indicating short continuity) with no

range was identified at dips ranging from 0° to 65°. All of the variograms were found to

be erratic, giving no precise information. This may occur when there are insufficient data

intervals, erratic mineralization or lack of continuity. In addition, parameters such as lag

distances, horizontal and vertical search bands and search angle openings can slightly

modify the shape of the variograms.

However, the results obtained are strongly influenced by the "geological" interpretation

since only the intervals of assays located within the mineralized envelopes are analyzed.

Therefore, it is possible that better continuity of the envelopes between holes and sections

would be obtained if the structures that control the mineralisation process were better

understood.

16.3 Geological Interpretation

16.3.1 Introduction

Tawsho requested Met-Chem to complete the geological interpretation of the Chevrier

and Chevrier South deposits as no up to date interpretation was available. The geological

and structural context of the Chevrier deposit has long been regarded as rather complex.

Five main mineralized zones were recognized by the geologists in 1995 and up to

68 mineralized lenses have been subsequently identified for the Chevrier deposit.

Met-Chem completed the interpretation on the 1:500 scale drill sections and used the 3D

model to assist with the interpretation. The information derived from various public and

unpublished reports, discussions with several geologists with knowledge of the project,

examination of the stripped outcrops and of selected core intersections were used to help

with the interpretation.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


The Chevrier deposit has been largely drilled on sections 25- and 50-m apart. However,

locally, the holes were drilled at a low angle to the mineralized zones, or as “scissor

holes” intersecting the mineralized zones at the same elevation (Section 1400SW), which

complicated the interpretation.

16.3.2 Methodology

In a first attempt, the hole-to-hole correlations were guided by a lithological marker

horizon, since the gold mineralization within the Chevrier deposit had been described as

being concentrated in a shear zone at the contact of a leucoxene gabbro. More than 75%

of the 68 mineralized zones formerly identified by the geologists had been described as

being within, or at the contact of, this gabbro unit. This marker was found by Met-Chem

to be difficult to follow as it was often obscured or offset, likely as a result of dyke

injection, shearing, folding and transposition of the units within the Fancamp Shear Zone.

A second step by Met-Chem to interpret the distribution of mineralization in the Chevrier

deposit consisted in connecting all the shears logged by the geologists. When projected

on a plan (200-m RL), the shears formed a map pattern indicating a typical anastomosing

shear zone with a few disruptions by cross faults. However, it became apparent that a

system of barren shears existed beside the mineralized shears when the correlations using

significant gold values were attempted.

Consequently, Met-Chem used a cut-off of 0.2 g/t Au as the background value to

distinguish the two sets of shears and draw the envelopes of the mineralization. The value

was selected on the basis of the histogram of all the gold results in the database which

showed that the assay results below 0.2 g/t Au represented about 68% of all the assays,

which Met-Chem considered as background noise for this purpose. The surfaces

enveloping the mineralised zones constructed using the 0.2 g/t Au cut-off suggested the

presence of a large scale, isoclinal, re-folded fold as the host to the mineralization, when

plotted on the 200-m elevation plan.

16.3.3 Results

In general, difficulties were experienced in interpreting the geology/structure of the

mineralized zones and defining the control on the mineralization. Examples of the

numerous cases where poor continuity is observed between adjacent drill holes and

sections can be found in Sections 1500SW, 1850SW, 2200-2250SW. However, excellent

continuity is locally displayed along a few mineralized zones traced by several drill holes

on the same section to depths of 470 m (Section 2350SW) and 570 m (Section 1475SW)

below surface (RL 370 m).

The vertical cross sections cutting the 3D model confirmed the poor continuity of the

structures and of grade in the Chevrier deposit. However, the continuity improved when

the 3D model was sliced with horizontal planes. The structures occurred, in plan view, as

discrete zones interrupted by gaps in gold values on drill sections at regular intervals.

This map pattern strongly suggests that the horizontal planes are closer to normal to


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


steeply plunging mineralized shoots of short strike length. This geometry partially

accounts for the difficult hole-to-hole correlations seen on vertical sections cutting

steeply plunging zones of short lateral extension. Looking at the deposit in longitudinal

view was not possible, since the Chevrier deposit is made up of a complex system of sub-

parallel zones.

The interpreted geometry of the mineralized zones suggests the presence of a series of

sub-vertical mineralized shoots with short strike lengths related with the fold noses of the

re-folded fold interpreted by Met-Chem. This interpretation is confirmed by the study

completed by Murgor on the adjacent property that indicated a clear relationship between

the fold hinges and the gold mineralization (Press Release of September 24, 2009).

As an alternate interpretation, the discontinuous and persistent mineralized structures

might be accounted for by long-lived mineralizing event. The early stage mineralization

would have been disrupted and contorted by subsequent tectonic events, whereas later in

the history, the mineralizing fluids were injected into newly-formed shears that escaped

deformation. However, Met-Chem believes the control on mineralization by folds is more

likely, considering the short lateral continuity of the shoots.

16.4 Block Modeling

16.4.1 Model Definition

One block model was constructed by Met-Chem in order to estimate the mineral

resources of the Chevrier deposit. The model also includes the Chevrier South deposit, as

discussed under Other Relevant Data and Information. The block size is 10.0 m (major

axis - along strike) by 2.5 m (minor axis) by 10.0 m (elevation). In Met-Chem's opinion,

this block size is considered adequate for the current estimate of narrow mineralized

zones. Table 16.5 presents the details of the block model.

Table 16.5 – Block Model Parameters


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


The block model was restricted to the surface topography (Digital Terrain Model, DTM)

defined from a land survey and provided by Tawsho.

16.4.2 Density

A density of 2.9 g/t was used to convert the volumes into tonnes, based on a study

conducted by Géonova in 1997. The individual results and details on the methodology

were not available to Met-Chem. Met-Chem recommends to carry out a program of

additional density determinations.

16.4.3 Mineralized Envelopes

The mineralized envelopes were coded into the block model and each block was assigned

a topographic percent (TOPO %) corresponding to the portion of the block below the

topography and a parameter equivalent to the fraction of the block inside the envelope

(“ORE %”).

The Chevrier deposit consists of several sub-parallel, steeply-dipping, generally narrow

mineralized zones. Met-Chem decided to apply a minimum mining width of 1.5 m to

draw the envelope, since this corresponds to the minimum width used in the underground

mining of steeply dipping, narrow vein gold deposits in the Abitibi region.

The mineralized zones were defined by envelopes generated by gold grade contours at

0.50 g/t Au cut-off. Even though this value is below the cut-off grade evaluated at 1.0 g/t

for an open pit and 4.0 g/t Au for an underground operation, it was used to draw the

envelopes to counter the general lack of continuity and facilitate the generation of the

mineralized envelopes.

16.4.4 Grade Interpolation

Grade interpolation was performed using the inverse distance weighted squared (IDW2).

Since the variography did not show any range, the search ellipsoids parameters were

determined from drill spacing.

Considering that part of the Chevrier deposit has been investigated with more closely-

spaced drill holes than the rest, the conditions applied to complete the grade interpolation

was based on the drill density. A minimum of three samples up to a maximum of six

samples, and a maximum of three per hole, were used in the interpolation within the

portion of the deposit drilled on a tighter grid. A minimum of two samples, up to a

maximum of four samples, and a maximum of two per hole, were used in the

interpolation of the less densely drilled portion of the deposit. Table 16.6 presents the

parameters used for the two sets of blocks subdivided on the basis of drill density.

Figure 16.6 to Figure 16.10 illustrate the drill hole density and show the block model in

plan and three-dimensional views.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Table 16.6 – Interpolation Parameters for Resources in the

Higher and Lower Density of Drill Holes

Items Description

Grade interpolation ID (inverse distance

weighted squared)

Composite 1 m down the hole

Capping of high values >7 800 ppb

Resource DDH@25 m DDH@50 m

Minimum number of composite

per block 16 3

Maximum number of composite

per block 25 25

Maximum number of composite

per hole 4 3

Ellipse size – Major axis

(diameter in meters) 82.5 220

Ellipse size – Minor axis

(diameter in meters) 10 40

Ellipse size – Vertical axis

(diameter in meters) 82.5 220

Number of holes 4 1

Ellipse Dip Location

Mineralised envelopes, striking

N045° 0° Entire model

Figure 16.6 – Drill Hole Longitudinal View (Looking West) of the

Chevrier Deposit (red) against Topography (green line)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 16.7 – Plan View of the Mineralized Envelopes

of the Chevrier Deposit (projected to surface)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 16.8 – 3D View of the Mineralized Envelopes

of the Chevrier deposit against Topography


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 16.9 – 3D View of the Gold Grades in the Chevrier Deposit

Block Model against Topography


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 16.10 – Sectional view (2225W looking North) of the Chevrier

Deposit Block Model against Topography (green line)

16.5 Mineral Resources Classification

Met-Chem used a cut-off grade of 1.0 g/t Au for the portion of the mineralization that can

conceivably be mined by open pit. A grade of 4.0 g/t Au is considered by Met-Chem as

the minimum grade to envisage in an underground operation. It can reasonably be

assumed that the maximum depth of an open pit is 250 m. Met-Chem believes these

parameters are general but are based on figures for similar operations in the

Chibougamau region, are reasonable and are adequate to estimate a resource in the

Inferred category.

Met-Chem estimated all the resource present to 250 m below surface at the cut-off of

1.0 g/t Au. Indeed, the tonnage present above -250 m that can be defined using a cut-off

of 4.0 g/t Au is too limited to anticipate an underground mining operation. However, it

can reasonably be assumed that the resource below the bottom of the open pit could be

mined at a minimum grade of 4.0 g/t Au. Met-Chem estimated the tonnage present below

a depth of 250 m using a cut-off of 4.0 g/t Au to be negligible.

Consequently, all the resource for the Chevrier deposit has been estimated by Met-Chem

to a depth of 250 m below surface and using a cut-off grade of 1.0 g/t Au.

The Chevrier deposit is composed of several sub-parallel mineralized zones that were

formed as the result from multi-phase mineralizing and tectonic events. The lack of


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


geological and grade continuity, even locally over short distances or when considering

low gold grades, combined with the limited understanding of the complex geometry

prevent the unequivocal correlations of the mineralized zones. All the mineralized zones,

or portions of, were interpreted as tabular bodies, although it is clear that folded

mineralized structures as observed on surface were intersected by several of the drill

holes (examples on Sections 1850SW, 2250SW).

As a consequence, the interpretation of the mineralized zones by Met-Chem is considered

as reasonably assumed within the limits of the available data but is likely simplified. The

geology and grade continuity is not verified. As an example, the perceived mineralized

shoots of short strike length could be attributed to a series of cross faults that disrupt the

deposit, rather than, as Met-Chem interprets them, concentrations of higher gold values in

steeply plunging fold closures.

Additional uncertainties are generated by unresolved discrepancies in the analytical

results, notably in those from the standard reference materials used to monitor the

accuracy of the analytical results.

Consequently, all the mineral resources at the Chevrier deposit have been classified as

Inferred resources.

The Inferred resource within the portion of the deposit with a higher density of drill holes

only amounts to 58,000 tonnes grading 2.394 g/t Au. The total resource for the Chevrier

deposit estimated by Met-Chem is that present between surface and a depth of 250 m

below surface using a cut-off grade of 1.0 g/t Au.

Met-Chem calculated the variation of the tonnage and average gold grade within the

Chevrier deposit at increasing cut-off grades (Table 16.7). This study allows the

generation of a grade-tonnage curve and quantifies the impact of selecting different cut-

off grades on the estimated tonnage and average grade.

The reader is cautioned that the reported quantities and grades are only presented as an

indication of the sensitivity of the resource model to the selection of cut-off grade and

these figures should not be misconstrued as a mineral resource.

Table 16.7 – Chevrier Deposit; Estimated Tonnage and Average Grade

at various Cut-Off Grades to a Maximum Depth of 250 m

Cut-Off (g/t Au) Tonnes (x 1000) Average Grade (g/t Au)

1.0 4,616 1.990

1.5 2,927 2.426

2.0 1,681 2.946

2.5 930 3.573

3.0 556 4.106

3.5 351 4.614

4.0 248 4.986


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


As can be observed in Table 16.7, the tonnage in the Chevrier deposit is sensitive to cut-

off selection. In addition, the average grade increases marginally if a cut-off of 4.0 g/t Au

is applied. This is an indication of a relatively low-grade gold deposit with a low number

of high-grade intervals.

16.6 Conclusions

The classification of the mineral resource in the Chevrier deposit was based on the

geological and grade continuity of the auriferous zones. The CIM Definitions, Standards

on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (2005) have been used for the resource

classification. Details can be found in Appendix A this report.

The mineral resource estimate by Met-Chem for the Chevrier deposit is presented in

Table 16.8.

The other metals, Ag, Cu and Zn, documented in the Chevrier deposits were not

considered in the resource estimate by Met-Chem, in view of the low percentages

present.

Table 16.8 –Mineral Resources at 1.0 g/t Au Cut-Off,

from Surface to -250 m

Resource Type Tonnes (x 1000) Grade (g/t Au) Au (oz)

Inferred 4,616 1.990 295,000


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


17.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

Both the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits were included in the 3D model

constructed by Met-Chem. However, the Chevrier South deposit has been investigated by

only 19 drill holes (Figure 17.3).

Met-Chem applied the same grade interpolation technique and method to estimate the

resource of both the Chevrier and the Chevrier South deposits. Table 17.1 presents a

summary of the number of samples and the total length for the main files in the database.

Table 17.1 – Chevrier South; Samples in the Database

Files Number Total Length

(m)

Collar 19 10,146

Samples 4,960 10,146

Assays 3,892 4,924

The gold values were statistically analysed (Figure 17.2 and Table 17.2). Samples

grading above 14,800 ppb (i.e. mean + 3 times the standard deviation) were capped. Met-

Chem composited all the assays into 1-m intervals. Figure 17.3 and Table 17.3 present

the gold values (ppb) after high-grade capping and compositing.

Figure 17.1 – Drill Hole Longitudinal View (looking West) of the Chevrier

South Deposit (blue) against Topography (green line)

Table 17.2 – Chevrier South, Statistical Results for all the Assays

within the Mineralized Envelopes (ppb)

South Chevrier – Assays (Envelopes)

N = 397 Intervals (m) Au ppb Au ppb (Capped)

Total 517.50 N/A N/A

Mean (Au = weighted) 1.30 1,346 1,122

Median 1.50 705 705

Standard Deviation 0.39 4,480 1,764


Capping at 14,800 ppb Au (X + 3SD)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 17.2 – Chevrier South; Log Normal Distribution

of Gold on Composites (ppb)

Table 17.3 – Chevrier South; Statistical Results from the Composites

Chevrier South – Composites (1 m)

N = 529 Intervals (m) Au ppb (Capped)

Total 517.70 N/A

Mean (Au = weighted) 0.97 1,122.88

Median 1.00 722

Standard Deviation 0.10 1,800


Capping at 14,800 ppb Au (X + 3 SD)

Figure 17.3 – Chevrier South; Log Normal Distribution of Gold (ppb)

Figure 17.4 and Figure 17.5 illustrate the block model in plan and 3D views.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 17.4 – Plan view of the Mineralized Envelopes of the

Chevrier South Deposit (projected to surface)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 17.5 – 3D View of the Mineralized Envelopes of the

Chevrier Deposit against Topography


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 17.6 presents a typical cross section through the 3D model showing the parallel

mineralized zones and the interpolated gold values in the blocks.

Figure 17.6 – Sectional view (3500W looking North) of the Chevrier

Deposit Block Model against Topography (green line)

Figure 17.7 presents a 3D view of the gold grades in the block model.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Figure 17.7 – 3D View of the Gold Grades in the Block Model


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


As for the Chevrier deposit, Met-Chem generated a series of variograms. All the

directional axes (major horizontal, minor horizontal and vertical) were analyzed using

15 m-lags. No structure was identified and all of the variograms were found to be erratic,

giving no precise information. This probably occurred because of insufficient data

(19 drill holes for 529 composites).

No resources were estimated for the Chevrier South deposit, since Met-Chem believes

the density of information is not sufficient to delineate a mineral resource. The potential

quantity and grade of Mineralized material estimated by Met-Chem for the Chevrier

South Deposit is conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration to define a

mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being

delineated as a mineral resource.

However, the potential tonnage and grade of mineralized material contained in the

Chevrier South deposit was estimated by Met-Chem on the basis of a 3D model built

from the small dataset.

Although the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits share several characteristics, in terms

of alteration and deformation, the mineralization hosted in the concordant pyrite envelope

of Chevrier South distinguishes it from the Chevrier deposit. However, in Met-Chem's

opinion, the Chevrier model is adequate for the present estimate of a potential tonnage

and grade of mineralized material in the South Chevrier deposit Met-Chem estimates that

the Chevrier South deposit contains a potential between 8.5 and 9.0 million tonnes of

mineralized material grading 1.8 to 2.2 g/t Au.

Met-Chem calculated the variation of the estimated tonnage and average gold grade

mineralized material within the Chevrier South deposit at increasing cut-off grades

(Table 17.4). The reader is cautioned that the reported quantities and grades are only

presented as an indication of the sensitivity of the 3D model to the selection of cut-off

grade and these figures should not be misconstrued as a mineral resource.

Table 17.4 – Chevrier South Deposit; Estimated Tonnage and Average Grade at various

Cut-Off Grades (using the same parameters as the Chevrier deposit)

Cut-Off

(g/t Au)

Tonnes

(x1,000,000)

Average Grade

(g/t Au)

1.0 8,9 1.984

1.5 4,4 2.784

2.0 1,9 4.341

2.5 1,4 5.109

3.0 1,2 5.498

3.5 0,9 6.216

4.0 0.8 6.515


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


18.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION

The study by Met-Chem of the data related to the Chevrier deposit confirmed the

complex geometry of the mineralized zones recognized by the previous operators, and

indicated a general lack of geological and grade continuity of the mineralization.

A long history of multi-phase mineralizing and tectonic events has culminated in the

formation of folded, sheared and transposed gold-bearing bodies. However, a few

mineralized structures displaying good continuity were observed on cross sections (e.g.

around 2300SW) beside the isolated blocks of mineralization.

Met-Chem found that a better continuity of the mineralized structures is exhibited in a

series of plan projections of the 3D model than in vertical cross sections, which is a

signature attributable to steeply plunging mineralized shoots.

The persistent mineralized zones juxtaposed with isolated blocks observed on the vertical

sections, and the poor continuity of the zones along the strike are interpreted by Met-

Chem to reflect sub-vertical shoots with short strike lengths. As a result, the holes drilled

along vertical sections would cut the mineralized shoots at low angles and suffer from the

inherent apparent distortion of the mineralized bodies they present. Met-Chem interprets

the system hosting the gold mineralization at Chevrier as an anastomosing arrangement

of barren and mineralized shears. The mineralized structures within the shear zone are

taken by Met-Chem to form a large-scale, isoclinal, refolded fold. In this interpretation,

the sub-vertical mineralized shoots are controlled by the closure of the second-phase

folds of the major re-folded fold. The association of gold mineralization with fold closure

indicated by the work of Murgor on the adjacent property lends support to Met-Chem’s

interpretation.

An alternate interpretation would see the more continuous mineralized zones as the result

from late emplacement of the mineralizing fluids into zones that have escaped the earlier

tectonic events that the disrupted and folded zones have undergone. However, the vertical

continuity of these zones is not matched by the lateral continuity and Met-Chem favours

the model involving a control by the folds.

The Chevrier deposit has previously been described as a high-grade gold deposit, in

contrast with the low-grade Chevrier South deposit. Inspection of the assay results from

both deposits by Met-Chem clearly indicates that the Chevrier deposits are not of the

high-grade type of mineralization and suggests little coarse gold is present. Indeed, out of

11,451 assay results falling in the mineralized envelopes, only 169 (1.5%) are over

5 g/t Au and 353 (3.1%) equal or exceed 3 g/t Au and 9.7% of them equal or exceed

1.0 g/t Au. The un-weighted average of all the assays within the mineralized envelopes is

0.422 g/t Au.

Some of the analytical results are cause for concern, particularly the variability and bias

in many of the assays of the Standard Reference Materials, which monitor the accuracy

of the laboratories. Met-Chem’s study also showed that the reproducibility of the assay


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


results is generally not outstanding, although little coarse gold seems to be present within

the Chevrier deposit. In addition, a bias is commonly observed between the gold assay

results yielded by the fire assay method with the AA or the Gravimetric finish. The drill

pattern into the Chevrier deposit is fairly tight, with a portion drilled on sections 25 m

apart. In addition, the mineralized zones are exposed in several stripped outcrops.

Although one would expect the information gained from the relatively closely-spaced

holes and the surface exposures of the mineralized zones in a few stripped outcrops to

allow the definition of resources of the higher categories, Met-Chem believes the entire

resource base at Chevrier has to be placed in the Inferred category. Indeed, the geological

and grade continuity is reasonably assumed, but not verified, and uncertainties in some of

the analytical data contribute to decrease the level of confidence in the resource estimate.

Consequently, Met-Chem believes the criteria for the present resource to qualify for

classification in the Measured or Indicated categories are not met. This view is supported

by the following observations:

• Uneasy correlations between mineralized zones for lack of detailed descriptions in

the logs and limited understanding of the geometry of the mineralized zones,

variously affected by folding, shearing, transposition and cross-faulting ;

• Lack of geological and grade continuity over long distances through drill holes and

drill sections;

• Lack of grade continuity confirmed by the highly erratic variograms;

• Uncertainties introduced by unresolved discrepancies in part of the analytical

results.

If the resource is to be classified into the higher categories, the continuity of the

mineralized zones and the results from the sampling data need to be reliable. To achieve

this, the hole to hole correlations of the mineralized zones have to be verified and some

analytical issues have to be resolved. Since the Chevrier deposit has been drilled along a

relatively tight drill pattern, additional information can essentially be gained from re-

examination of selected core and re-assay of archived rejects and pulps. The Chevrier

South deposit has only been investigated by 19 holes representing 10,146 m of core.

The present work constitutes the first estimate of the resource for the Chevrier deposit

and the mineralized material in the Chevrier South deposit based on 3D modeling. The

latest available figures of 1998 do not include the results from the 2002 and 2008-09 drill

programs and are based on the polygonal method. The 3D models helped to a large

degree improve the understanding of the geometry of the deposit. The block model has

successfully discerned trends in the distribution of the mineralization that remain to be

confirmed by additional geological work. The general model of re-folded folds with

increased gold grades concentrated into sub-vertical, shoots of restricted strike length is

proposed by Met-Chem. 3D modeling was a necessary step in advancing the project,

prior to completing any additional drilling, field work or moving toward a preliminary

economic study.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


19.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

19.1 General, Proposed Work

Met-Chem recommends a very preliminary economic study to determine whether the

project seems to have sufficient potential to be economically minable and to justify

additional work. If the study is positive, Met-Chem recommends the following actions to

upgrade the mineral resource of the Chevrier deposit:

a) Sampling, Assays

• Trace back the origin of the erratic gold values and the low bias detected for

all 4 standard reference materials inserted by Tawsho in the 2008-09 drill

program and take corrective action;

• Resolve the commonly observed bias of the results produced by the two

analytical methods (AA or Gravimetric finish) for gold assays;

• Insure that all the sample intervals are bracketed by samples devoid of

significant gold values (0.5 g/t Au or more);

• Perform additional density determinations;

• Investigate the occurrence of gold tellurides in the Chevrier deposit as a

potential cause of part of the discrepancies in the analytical results.

b) Geological-structural Interpretation

• Re-log part of the core;

• Correlate the mineralized zones that can be visually distinguished, between

holes, between holes and surface outcrops;

• Use the core angles, micro-folds observed in core to refine the interpretation;

• Refine the geological-structural interpretation.

Additional drilling is required before a mineral resource can be estimated for the Chevrier

South deposit.

19.1.1 Summary of Proposed Work, Budget

Met-Chem recommends the following work program and budget for the next steps

toward developing the Chevrier Project.

a) Phase I - Chevrier

Enhance the reliability of the geological-structural interpretation and of the

analytical results for the Chevrier deposit.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Action Estimated Quantities Estimated

Costs (CDN$)

Re-log the core from selected

portions of the deposit 1 month, 1 geologist @ $400/day $9,000

Refine the geological/structural

interpretation of the deposit 1 month, 1 geologist @ $400/day $9,000

Re-assay part of the samples

10% of 11,451samples + 15% Quality

Control samples, or about 1,300 samples @

$30 (analytical, shipping); number of

samples to be adjusted depending on the

results

$40,000

Close intervals not bracketed by

barren samples 200 samples $6,000

Field expenses, travels, room-

board $5,000

Complete the validation of the

master database, in particular the

Assay table 2 weeks, 1 geologist @ $400/day $4,000

Re-run the 3D model with

parameters derived from a better

understanding of the geometry

and grade distribution within the

deposit

2 weeks, 1 technician @ $300/day $3,000

Drafting, report 2 weeks, 1 geologist @ $400/day $4,000

Miscellaneous, contingencies $10,000

TOTAL $90,000

b) Phase I - Chevrier South

Met-Chem recommends completing a drill program targeted at the Chevrier South

deposit. Drilling along ten infill sections will be required to bring the spacing to 50

m between them. An estimated total of 7,000 m in 20 holes will be necessary.

Action Estimated Costs

(CDN$)

Drilling (7,000m) 250,000

Geology 125,000

Analytical 85,000

Permits 1,000

Travel, room, board 18,000

Field supplies, equipment rental 9,000

Shipping, communications 7,000

Drafting, report 5,000

Miscellaneous, contingencies 50,000

TOTAL 550,000$


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


c) Phase II

Met-Chem recommends to proceed with a preliminary economic study as the next

stage of development of the Chevrier deposit. Chevrier South may be included in

the study if a resource is delineated. Preliminary metallurgical testing of the

mineralization, mining parameters and basic environmental study are among the

data that will be required for the economic study.

The other showings on the property and the area recently staked by Tawsho should

be revisited and re-evaluated in light of the better understanding gained during

Phase I on the controls governing the gold mineralization of the Chevrier deposits.

19.2 Improvements to the Geo-scientific Data

Met-Chem recommends the following actions to improve the quality and reliability of the

geo-scientific information related to the Chevrier and Chevrier South deposits. These

improvements can be achieved on existing data.

19.2.1 Database

• Standardize and simplify the rock codes for easier handling and plotting;

• Enter the complete suite of analytical results into the Assay table rebuilt by Met-

Chem;

• Include the results from the control samples into the Assay table of the master

database;

• Incorporate the data gathered from the channel samples through the stripped

outcrops into the database;

• Further validate the Assay table of the database built by Met-Chem.

19.2.2 Archiving of the Core and Reference Samples

• Retrieve all the available core drilled on the project and save in a secure location

with protection against the elements;

• Consider photographing the existing core, even though the sampled intervals have

been split;

• Retrieve the laboratory rejects from the Copper Rand site and store in a clean and

secure place;

• Retrieve the pulps and rejects that may still be with the laboratories and store in a

clean and secure place.

19.3 Improvements to the Future Drill Programs

Met-Chem makes the following recommendations to serve as a guide to exploration best

practices guidelines in future exploration and drill programs.


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


19.3.1 Drilling

• Drill NQ-size core to obtain a larger sample (70% more weight per m than BQ

core), as the sample size affects the variability of the gold assays;

• Leave a casing or a PVC tube, ideally set in a concrete base, with a cap and

permanent ID number to identify the drilled boreholes, for possible re-entry or

cementing;

• Consider cementing the full length of the drill holes, since the project lies near and

under large bodies of water (swamps and lakes).

19.3.2 Core logging and sampling

• Photograph the core in dry and wet conditions prior to logging and sampling;

• Log core directly into a computer, ideally using commercial logging software;

• Measure the core recovery percentage by driller’s run, and record in database;

• Systematically measure RQD by driller’s run and enter into the database;

• Enter core axis measurements of structural elements and contacts into a separate

column of the database;

• Set a minimum sample lengths (30 cm);

• Do not take samples that straddle the lithological contacts;

• Avoid leaving short un-sampled sections (gaps) between two series of samples;

• Cut the core using a diamond blade saw, rather than split it;

• Saw the core parallel to the dip direction, so as to obtain mirror images of the core

halves;

• Consistently return the same halved core, the one with the markings, to the boxes;

• Use only sample tags not prone to fading, tearing or damage by water.

19.3.3 QA-/QC Protocol

• Write standard procedures for core handling, logging and sampling, and for a QA-

/QC system;

• Insert duplicate samples while drilling progresses, so that they will be true field

duplicates assayed by the same laboratory, in the same batch as the original;

• Use a unique number for all the samples, including the duplicate samples sent by

the operator, so as to be blind samples, eliminate confusion with the laboratory

duplicates and facilitate handling of the results in the database;

• Carefully weigh the standard reference materials inserted into the field samples to

provide sufficient mass to the laboratories;

• Use sulphide-matrix standard reference materials that more closely match the rocks

from the Chevrier project;

• Draw the control charts as drilling progresses, so as to be able to take immediate

corrective action if required;


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


• Insert a paper tag in the boxes whenever core is removed for special purposes (thin

section, metallurgical tests, etc.).


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


20.0 REFERENCES

De Corta, H., Leblanc, M., Projet Chevrier, Blocs Diana-Obatogamau, Fancamp,

Campagne de sondages, Automne 1997; Février 1998 (Géonova).

De Corta, H., Projet Chevrier, Calcul des ressources géologiques, août 1998, (Géonova).

Federowich, J. S., Structural Characterization of the Chevrier Gold Deposit,

Chibougamau Region, Quebec, Itasca Consulting Canada Inc., September 8, 2009.

Girard, J., V. P. Exploration; Projet Chevrier, Sommaire des résultats, Chibougamau,

Québec, Canada, mars 2004 (Géonova).

Lakefield Research Limited, An Investigation of the Recovery of Gold from Project

Samples Submitted by Géonova Explorations Inc., Progress Report No.1, June 03, 1998.

Legault, M. I., Thèse présentée à l’Université du Québec à Chicoutimi comme exigence

partielle du doctorat en ressources minérales, Environnement métallogénique du couloir

Fancamp avec emphase sur les gisements aurifères de Chevrier, région de Chibougamau,

Québec, mars 2003.

Legault, M. I., Daigneault, R., Couture, J. F., Dion, C., Contexte structural et

métallogénique des gisements Chevrier et Chevrier sud, région de Chibougamau, ET 99-

02.

Legault, M. I., Daigneault, R., Couture, J. F., Étude structurale et métallogénique du

couloir de déformation Fancamp (Phase 1), MB 95-50, Gouvernement du Québec,

Ministère des Ressources naturelles, 1995.

Legault, M. I., Daigneault, R., Couture, J. F.; Contexte structural et métallogénique des

indices aurifères du couloir de déformation Fancamp; MB 97-32, Gouvernement du

Québec, Ministère des Ressources naturelles, 1997

Met-Chem Canada Inc., MSV Resources Inc., Géonova, Campbell Resources Inc.

Reserves/Resources Audit of Mining Properties, April 2001.

Milord, I., Projet Chevrier, Blocs Diana-Obatogamau, Fancamp, Campagne de sondages,

automne 2002, avril 2003, (Géonova).

SNC-Lavalin, Summarized Review of the Technical Report for the Chevrier Project,

October 2007.

Tremblay, A., Projet Chevrier, Calcul des ressources géologiques, février 1997

(Géonova).

Tremblay, A., Projet Chevrier, Calcul des ressources géologiques, octobre 1997

(Géonova).

Tremblay, A., Projet Chevrier, Campagne de sondages, Hiver 1997, 2 Volumes,

août 1997 (Géonova)


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


21.0 CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFICATION


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Appendix A – CIM Definition Standards – For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves

CIM DEFINITION STANDARDS - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions Adopted by CIM Council on December 11, 2005 FOREWORD CIM Council, on August 20, 2000, approved the “CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves – Definitions and Guidelines,” developed by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions. The CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves (CIM Definition Standards) establish definitions and guidelines for the reporting of exploration information, mineral resources and mineral reserves in Canada. The Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve definitions were incorporated, by reference, in National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101), which became effective February 1, 2001. At the August 20, 2000 Council meeting a new CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions was established consisting of the following: John Postle, Bernie Haystead, Larry Cochrane, Normand Champigny, Mike Hoffman, Colin McKenny, Jack Mullins, Phil Olson, Fred Payne, Jody Todd and Joe Ringwald. Subsequent to the publishing of the August 20, 2000 CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, various CIM committees have compiled and published more extensive documentation on mining industry standard practices for estimating Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. These standard practices provide more detailed guidance than that contained in the August 20, 2000 CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves. On November 14, 2004 CIM Council adopted an update to the CIM Definition Standards to reflect the more detailed guidance available and effect certain editorial changes required to maintain consistency with current regulations. This version of the CIM Definition Standards includes further editorial changes required to maintain compatibility with the new version of National Instrument 43-101 which is expected to become law at the end of 2005. The CIM Definition Standards can be viewed on the CIM website at www.cim.org. Readers should be aware that reports written by persons issuing technical reports that disclose information about exploration or other mining properties to the public are governed by a number of regulations in Canada. The most important of these are NI 43-101 for mineral properties and National Instrument 51-101 for oil and gas properties. CIM DEFINITION STANDARDS The CIM Definition Standards presented herein provide standards for the classification of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates into various categories. The category to which a resource or reserve estimate is assigned depends on the level of confidence in the geological information available on the mineral deposit; the quality and quantity of data available on the deposit; the level of detail of the technical and economic information which has been generated about the deposit, and the interpretation of the data and information. In the document the definitions are in bold type and the guidance is in italics.

CIM Definition Standards Page 1 of 10 November 22, 2005

http://www.cim.org/

DEFINITIONS

Throughout the CIM Definition Standards, where appropriate, ‘quality’ may be substituted for ‘grade’ and ‘volume’ may be substituted for ‘tonnage’. Technical Reports dealing with estimates of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves must use only the terms and definitions contained herein. Qualified Person Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates and resulting Technical Reports must be prepared by or under the direction of, and dated and signed by, a Qualified Person. A “Qualified Person” means an individual who is an engineer or geoscientist with at least five years of experience in mineral exploration, mine development or operation or mineral project assessment, or any combination of these; has experience relevant to the subject matter of the mineral project and the technical report; and is a member or licensee in good standing of a professional association. The Qualified Person(s) should be clearly satisfied that they could face their peers and demonstrate competence and relevant experience in the commodity, type of deposit and situation under consideration. If doubt exists, the person must either seek or obtain opinions from other colleagues or demonstrate that he or she has obtained assistance from experts in areas where he or she lacked the necessary expertise.

Determination of what constitutes relevant experience can be a difficult area and common sense has to be exercised. For example, in estimating Mineral Resources for vein gold mineralization, experience in a high-nugget, vein-type mineralization such as tin, uranium etc. should be relevant whereas experience in massive base metal deposits may not be. As a second example, for a person to qualify as a Qualified Person in the estimation of Mineral Reserves for alluvial gold deposits, he or she would need to have relevant experience in the evaluation and extraction of such deposits. Experience with placer deposits containing minerals other than gold, may not necessarily provide appropriate relevant experience for gold.

In addition to experience in the style of mineralization, a Qualified Person preparing or taking responsibility for Mineral Resource estimates must have sufficient experience in the sampling, assaying, or other property testing techniques that are relevant to the deposit under consideration in order to be aware of problems that could affect the reliability of the data. Some appreciation of extraction and processing techniques applicable to that deposit type might also be important.

Estimation of Mineral Resources is often a team effort, for example, involving one person or team collecting the data and another person or team preparing the Mineral Resource estimate. Within this team, geologists usually occupy the pivotal role. Estimation of Mineral Reserves is almost always a team effort involving a number of technical disciplines, and within this team mining engineers have an important role. Documentation for a Mineral Resource and Mineral


Reserve estimate must be compiled by, or under the supervision of, a Qualified Person(s), whether a geologist, mining engineer or member of another discipline. It is recommended that, where there is a clear division of responsibilities within a team, each Qualified Person should accept responsibility for his or her particular contribution. For example, one Qualified Person could accept responsibility for the collection of Mineral Resource data, another for the Mineral Reserve estimation process, another for the mining study, and the project leader could accept responsibility for the overall document. It is important that the Qualified Person accepting overall responsibility for a Mineral Resource and/or Mineral Reserve estimate and supporting documentation, which has been prepared in whole or in part by others, is satisfied that the other contributors are Qualified Persons with respect to the work for which they are taking responsibility and that such persons are provided adequate documentation.

Preliminary Feasibility Study

The CIM Definition Standards requires the completion of a Preliminary Feasibility Study as the minimum prerequisite for the conversion of Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves.

A Preliminary Feasibility Study is a comprehensive study of the viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where the mining method, in the case of underground mining, or the pit configuration, in the case of an open pit, has been established and an effective method of mineral processing has been determined, and includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions of technical, engineering, legal, operating, economic, social, and environmental factors and the evaluation of other relevant factors which are sufficient for a Qualified Person, acting reasonably, to determine if all or part of the Mineral Resource may be classified as a Mineral Reserve.

Exploration Information

Exploration information means geological, geophysical, geochemical, sampling, drilling, trenching, analytical testing, assaying, mineralogical, metallurgical and other similar information concerning a particular property that is derived from activities undertaken to locate, investigate, define or delineate a mineral prospect or mineral deposit. It is recognised that in the review and compilation of data on a project or property, previous or historical estimates of tonnage and grade, not meeting the minimum requirement for classification as Mineral Resource, may be encountered. If a Qualified Person reports Exploration Information in the form of tonnage and grade, it must be clearly stated that these estimates are conceptual or order of magnitude and that they do not meet the criteria of a Mineral Resource. Mineral Resource

Mineral Resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into Inferred, Indicated and Measured categories. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than an Inferred Mineral Resource but has a lower level of confidence than a Measured Mineral Resource.


A Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals in or on the Earth’s crust in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics and continuity of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge. The term Mineral Resource covers mineralization and natural material of intrinsic economic interest which has been identified and estimated through exploration and sampling and within which Mineral Reserves may subsequently be defined by the consideration and application of technical, economic, legal, environmental, socio-economic and governmental factors. The phrase ‘reasonable prospects for economic extraction’ implies a judgement by the Qualified Person in respect of the technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction. A Mineral Resource is an inventory of mineralization that under realistically assumed and justifiable technical and economic conditions might become economically extractable. These assumptions must be presented explicitly in both public and technical reports. Inferred Mineral Resource

An ‘Inferred Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity. The estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. Due to the uncertainty that may be attached to Inferred Mineral Resources, it cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will be upgraded to an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource as a result of continued exploration. Confidence in the estimate is insufficient to allow the meaningful application of technical and economic parameters or to enable an evaluation of economic viability worthy of public disclosure. Inferred Mineral Resources must be excluded from estimates forming the basis of feasibility or other economic studies.

Indicated Mineral Resource

An ‘Indicated Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics, can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough for geological and grade continuity to be reasonably assumed.


Mineralization may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such as to allow confident interpretation of the geological framework and to reasonably assume the continuity of mineralization. The Qualified Person must recognize the importance of the Indicated Mineral Resource category to the advancement of the feasibility of the project. An Indicated Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient quality to support a Preliminary Feasibility Study which can serve as the basis for major development decisions. Measured Mineral Resource

A ‘Measured Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are so well established that they can be estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support production planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough to confirm both geological and grade continuity. Mineralization or other natural material of economic interest may be classified as a Measured Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such that the tonnage and grade of the mineralization can be estimated to within close limits and that variation from the estimate would not significantly affect potential economic viability. This category requires a high level of confidence in, and understanding of, the geology and controls of the mineral deposit. Mineral Reserve

Mineral Reserves are sub-divided in order of increasing confidence into Probable Mineral Reserves and Proven Mineral Reserves. A Probable Mineral Reserve has a lower level of confidence than a Proven Mineral Reserve.

A Mineral Reserve is the economically mineable part of a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified. A Mineral Reserve includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined.

Mineral Reserves are those parts of Mineral Resources which, after the application of all mining factors, result in an estimated tonnage and grade which, in the opinion of the Qualified Person(s) making the estimates, is the basis of an economically viable project after taking account of all relevant processing, metallurgical, economic, marketing, legal, environment, socio-economic and government factors. Mineral Reserves are inclusive of diluting material that will be mined in conjunction with the Mineral Reserves and delivered to the treatment plant or


equivalent facility. The term ‘Mineral Reserve’ need not necessarily signify that extraction facilities are in place or operative or that all governmental approvals have been received. It does signify that there are reasonable expectations of such approvals.

Probable Mineral Reserve

A ‘Probable Mineral Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of an Indicated and, in some circumstances, a Measured Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified. Proven Mineral Reserve

A ‘Proven Mineral Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of a Measured Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction is justified. Application of the Proven Mineral Reserve category implies that the Qualified Person has the highest degree of confidence in the estimate with the consequent expectation in the minds of the readers of the report. The term should be restricted to that part of the deposit where production planning is taking place and for which any variation in the estimate would not significantly affect potential economic viability.

RESOURCE AND RESERVE CLASSIFICATION Technical Reports dealing with estimates of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves must use only the terms and the definitions contained herein. Figure 1, displays the relationship between the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve categories.

The CIM Definition Standards provide for a direct relationship between Indicated Mineral Resources and Probable Mineral Reserves and between Measured Mineral Resources and Proven Mineral Reserves. In other words, the level of geoscientific confidence for Probable Mineral Reserves is the same as that required for the in situ determination of Indicated Mineral Resources and for Proven Mineral Reserves is the same as that required for the in situ determination of Measured Mineral Resources.


Figure 1 sets out the framework for classifying tonnage and grade estimates so as to reflect different levels of geological confidence and different degrees of technical and economic evaluation. Mineral Resources can be estimated by a Qualified Person, with input from persons in other disciplines, as necessary, on the basis of geoscientific information and reasonable assumptions of technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction. Mineral Reserves, which are a modified sub-set of the Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources (shown within the dashed outline in Figure 1), require consideration of factors affecting profitable extraction, including mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, socio-economic and governmental factors, and should be estimated with input from a range of disciplines. Additional test work, e.g. metallurgy, mining, environmental is required to reclassify a resource as a reserve.

In certain situations, Measured Mineral Resources could convert to Probable Mineral Reserves because of uncertainties associated with the modifying factors that are taken into account in the conversion from Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves. This relationship is shown by the dashed arrow in Figure 1 (although the trend of the dashed arrow includes a vertical component, it does not, in this instance, imply a reduction in the level of geological knowledge or confidence). In such a situation these modifying factors should be fully explained. Under no circumstances can Indicated Resources convert directly to Proven Reserves.


In certain situations previously reported Mineral Reserves could revert to Mineral Resources. It is not intended that re-classification from Mineral Reserves to Mineral Resources should be applied as a result of changes expected to be of a short term or temporary nature, or where company management has made a deliberate decision to operate in the short term on a non-economic basis. Examples of such situations might be a commodity price drop expected to be of short duration, mine emergency of a non-permanent nature, transport strike etc.

GUIDANCE FOR REPORTING MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE INFORMATION Qualified Persons preparing public Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve reports in Canada must follow the requirements in Form 43-101F1 of National Instrument 43-101, available on the following websites: www.osc.gov.ca; www.bcsc.bc.ca; www.albertasecurities.com and www.cvmq.com. The following discussion is included for additional guidance when preparing a Technical Report. For the CIM Definition Standards a Technical Report is defined as a report that contains the relevant supporting documentation, estimation procedures and description of the Exploration Information, or the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimate. Technical Reports of a Mineral Resource must specify one or more of the categories of ‘Inferred’, ‘Indicated’ and ‘Measured’ and Technical Reports of Mineral Reserves must specify one or both of the categories of ‘Proven’ and ‘Probable’. Categories must not be reported in a combined form unless details for the individual categories are also provided. Inferred Mineral Resources cannot be combined with other categories and must always be reported separately. Mineral Resources must never be added to Mineral Reserves and reported as total Resources and Reserves. Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves must not be reported in terms of contained metal or mineral content unless corresponding tonnages, grades and mining, mineral processing and metallurgical recoveries are also presented

Qualified Persons are encouraged to provide information that is as comprehensive as possible in their Technical Reports on Exploration Information, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. The Mineral Exploration Best Practices Guidelines, the Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Best Practice Guidelines and the Guidelines for the Reporting of Diamond Exploration Results provide, in a summary form, a list of the main criteria which should be considered when reporting Exploration Information, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserve estimates. These guidelines are available on the CIM website, www.cim.org.

These Guidelines are not prescriptive and it may not be necessary to comment on each item in the guidelines, however, the need for comment on each item should be considered. It is essential to discuss any matters that might materially affect the reader’s understanding of the estimates being reported. Problems encountered in the collection of data or with the sufficiency of data must be clearly disclosed at all times, particularly when they affect directly the reliability of, or confidence in, a statement of Exploration Information or an estimate of Mineral Resources


http://www.osc.gov.ca/

http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/

http://www.albertasecurities.com/

http://www.cvmq.com/

and Mineral Reserves; for example, poor sample recovery, poor reproducibility of assay or laboratory results, limited information on tonnage factors etc.

Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves must be reported on a site by site basis.

Where estimates for both Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves are reported, for consistency, it is recommended that Mineral Resources be reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves. Notwithstanding, it is recognized that there are legitimate reasons, in some situations, for reporting Mineral Resources inclusive of Mineral Reserves (the Australian approach) and, in other situations, for reporting Mineral Resources additional to Mineral Reserves (the South African and United States approach). When reporting both Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, a clarifying statement must be included that clearly indicates whether Mineral Reserves are part of the Mineral Resource or that they have been removed from the Mineral Resource. A single form of reporting should be used in a report. Appropriate forms of clarifying statements may be:

• ‘The Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are inclusive of those Mineral Resources modified to produce the Mineral Reserves,’ or

• ‘The Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are additional to the Mineral Reserves.’

Inferred Mineral Resources are, by definition, always additional to Mineral Reserves.

REPORTING OF COAL RESERVES For consistency in public reporting of coal resources and reserves, it is recommended that all issuers use the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve categories set out in the CIM Definition Standards. Qualified Person(s) should be guided by the Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserve Best Practices Guidelines for Coal and by GSC Paper 88-21: A Standardized coal Resource/Reserve Reporting System for Canada. It is acceptable to use the GSC Paper 88-21 as a framework for the development and categorization of coal estimates, but the GSC 88-21 categories should be converted to the equivalent CIM Definition categories for public reporting. When using GSC 88-21 as a framework, in the classification of coal by A.S.T.M. ranking, the “Group” designation is preferred over the less descriptive “Class” designation. REPORTING OF INDUSTRIAL MINERALS When reporting Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates relating to an industrial mineral site, the Qualified Person(s) should be guided by the Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines for Industrial Minerals.


REPORTING OF DIAMONDS AND GEMSTONES When reporting diamond Exploration Information and Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves the Qualified Person is expected to comply with the CIM Guidelines for the Reporting of Diamond Exploration Results and the Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines.



April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Appendix B – Mining Titles Report

MINING TITLES REPORT

NTS Township Row Column Type Claim Registr. Date

Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner

dd/mm/yy dd/mm/yy dd/mm/yy

25-janv-10 1Page :

PROJECT CHEVRIER COMPANY Tawsho Mining inc.

32G10 BNE 24514 16-05-08 31-03-10 31-03-10 0.01 0.00 229.00 0.00 0 TawshoSMS 32G10-2

32G09 0020 0001 CDC 2140383 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.72 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0021 0001 CDC 2140384 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.71 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0021 0002 CDC 2140385 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.71 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0021 0003 CDC 2140386 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.71 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0022 0001 CDC 2140387 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.70 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0022 0002 CDC 2140388 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.70 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0022 0003 CDC 2140389 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.70 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0023 0001 CDC 2140390 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.69 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0023 0002 CDC 2140391 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.69 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0023 0003 CDC 2140392 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.69 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G10 0020 0060 CDC 2140393 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.72 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G10 0021 0058 CDC 2140394 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.71 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G10 0021 0059 CDC 2140395 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.71 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G10 0021 0060 CDC 2140396 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.71 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G10 0022 0058 CDC 2140397 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.70 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G10 0022 0059 CDC 2140398 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.70 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G10 0022 0060 CDC 2140399 19-12-07 18-12-11 18-10-11 55.70 0.00 52.00 1 200.00 1 Tawsho

32G09 0007 0011 CL 3629721 07-04-77 18-03-11 16-01-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoQueylus



Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 2Page :


32G09 0007 0009 CL 3629723 07-04-77 18-03-11 16-01-11 16.00 54 559.20 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoQueylus








32G10 0030 0018 CL 3676241 06-06-77 20-05-11 20-03-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 IamGoldFancamp







32G10 0031 0019 CL 3677083 30-06-77 13-06-11 13-04-11 16.00 58 077.62 26.00 1 000.00 10 IamGoldFancamp








Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 3Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 4Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 5Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 6Page :


















32G10 0002 0018 CL 4123001 22-09-83 02-09-11 03-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoHauy

32G10 0001 0018 CL 4123002 22-09-83 02-09-11 03-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoHauy

32G10 0001 0019 CL 4123003 22-09-83 02-09-11 03-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoHauy

32G10 0040 0019 CL 4123004 22-09-83 02-09-11 03-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoFancamp




Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 7Page :


32G10 0040 0022 CL 4123032 22-09-83 03-09-11 04-07-11 16.00 1 067.33 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoFancamp



















32G09 0003 0029 CL 4123071 22-09-83 03-09-11 04-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoHauy

32G09 0002 0029 CL 4123072 22-09-83 03-09-11 04-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoHauy

32G09 0001 0028 CL 4123073 22-09-83 03-09-11 04-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoHauy


Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 8Page :


32G09 0001 0029 CL 4123074 22-09-83 03-09-11 04-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoHauy























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 9Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 10Page :



32G10 0002 0017 CL 4124801 11-10-83 24-09-11 25-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoHauy

32G10 0001 0017 CL 4124802 11-10-83 24-09-11 25-07-11 16.00 203.73 26.00 1 000.00 10 TawshoHauy





















Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 11Page :















32G10 0035 0019 CL 5041860 27-07-89 26-07-11 26-05-11 16.00 3 109.61 26.00 1 000.00 10 InmetFancamp










Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 12Page :



















32G09 0015 0001 CL 5274211 22-01-08 21-01-12 21-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoQueylus






Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 13Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 14Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 15Page :







32G09 0009 0029 CL 5274265 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy



32G09 0008 0029 CL 5274268 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy



32G10 0031 0024 CL 5275053 23-07-08 22-07-10 22-05-10 16.00 203.73 26.00 500.00 0 TawshoFancamp












Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 16Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 17Page :
















32G10 0007 0018 CL 5275612 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0007 0020 CL 5275613 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0007 0022 CL 5275614 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0007 0026 CL 5275615 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 14.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0007 0028 CL 5275616 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0007 0029 CL 5275617 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy




Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 18Page :


32G10 0006 0017 CL 5275620 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0006 0018 CL 5275621 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0006 0019 CL 5275622 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0006 0020 CL 5275623 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0006 0021 CL 5275624 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0006 0022 CL 5275625 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0006 0026 CL 5275626 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0006 0027 CL 5275627 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0006 0028 CL 5275628 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0006 0029 CL 5275629 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy





32G10 0005 0017 CL 5275634 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0005 0018 CL 5275635 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0005 0019 CL 5275636 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0005 0020 CL 5275637 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0005 0021 CL 5275638 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0005 0022 CL 5275639 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0005 0024 CL 5275640 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 15.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0005 0026 CL 5275641 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy


Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 19Page :


32G09 0005 0027 CL 5275642 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0005 0028 CL 5275643 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0005 0029 CL 5275644 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy





32G10 0004 0017 CL 5275649 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0004 0018 CL 5275650 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0004 0019 CL 5275651 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0004 0020 CL 5275652 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0004 0021 CL 5275653 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0004 0022 CL 5275654 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0004 0023 CL 5275655 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0004 0024 CL 5275656 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0004 0025 CL 5275657 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0004 0026 CL 5275658 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0004 0027 CL 5275659 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0004 0028 CL 5275660 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0004 0029 CL 5275661 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy




Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 20Page :



32G10 0003 0017 CL 5275665 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0003 0018 CL 5275666 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0003 0019 CL 5275667 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0003 0020 CL 5275668 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0003 0021 CL 5275669 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0003 0022 CL 5275670 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0003 0023 CL 5275671 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0003 0024 CL 5275672 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0003 0025 CL 5275673 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G09 0003 0026 CL 5275674 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy






32G10 0002 0019 CL 5275680 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0002 0020 CL 5275681 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0002 0021 CL 5275682 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0001 0020 CL 5275683 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy

32G10 0001 0021 CL 5275684 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoHauy



Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 21Page :























32G09 0042 0001 CL 5275707 16-01-08 15-01-12 15-11-11 16.00 0.00 26.00 500.00 1 TawshoLa Dauversièr


Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 22Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 23Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 24Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 25Page :

























Expiry Date

Renewal Date

Area (hectares)

Excess Work ($)

Fee required ($)

Work required ($)

Renewals number

Partner


25-janv-10 26Page :












9 541.93 3 059 118.3615 153.00 409 900.00558 mining titles

OWNERSHIP Tawsho Intérêt de 100 % sur Tawsho

IamGold Intérêt de 36 % IamGold, 64% Tawsho

Inmet Intérêt de 90 % Inmet, 10% Tawsho


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Appendix C – Analytical Results from the Duplicate Samples

sent by Tawsho to ALS Chemex in November, 2009

Hole_ID From To Interval Smpl_ID Chk_Smpl_ID Smpl_Type

Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T1B-08 179.80 180.90 1.10 183767 H674501 Rejects 0.080 0.021

T1B-08 H674502 DUP 0.050

T1B-08 234.20 234.80 0.60 183787 H674503 Rejects 1.140 0.860

T1B-08 H674504 DUP 0.879

T1B-08 343.00 343.50 0.50 183798 H674505 Pulp 0.525 0.403

T1B-08 388.40 389.40 1.00 183807 H674506 Rejects 0.052 0.156

T1B-08 H674507 DUP 0.055

H674508 BLK -0.005

T2B-08 144.00 144.50 0.50 184020 H674509 Rejects 0.001 -0.005

T2B-08 H674510 DUP -0.005

T2B-08 148.30 149.30 1.00 184023 H674511 Pulp 0.154 0.175

T2B-08 149.30 150.30 1.00 184024 H674512 Pulp 2.170 2.210 2.390

T2B-08 150.30 151.30 1.00 184025 H674513 Pulp 4.270 4.210 4.280

T2B-08 151.30 152.30 1.00 184026 H674514 Pulp 0.272 0.245

T2B-08 168.20 169.20 1.00 184031 H674515 Pulp 1.500 1.420 1.470

T2B-08 169.20 170.20 1.00 184032 H674516 Pulp 0.031 0.028

T2B-08 172.50 173.00 0.50 184033 H674517 Pulp 0.240 0.334

T2B-08 173.00 173.50 0.50 184034 H674518 Pulp 9.710 8.600 8.370

H674519

STD-

SH35 1.330 1.690

T2B-08 208.50 209.50 1.00 184040 H674520 Rejects 0.010 0.009

T2B-08 H674521 DUP 0.009

T2B-08 209.50 210.50 1.00 184041 H674522 Pulp 2.370 2.110 2.200

T2B-08 210.50 211.50 1.00 184042 H674523 Pulp 0.691 0.460

T2B-08 211.50 212.50 1.00 184043 H674524 Pulp 0.175 0.181


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T2B-08 212.50 213.50 1.00 184044 H674525 Pulp 0.222 0.270

T2B-08 213.50 214.50 1.00 184045 H674526 Pulp 0.251 0.183

T2B-08 214.50 215.50 1.00 184046 H674527 Pulp 0.151 -0.005

H674528 BLK -0.005

T4-08 81.90 82.40 0.50 183829 H674529 Pulp 6.470 6.490 7.090

T4-08 82.40 83.40 1.00 183830 H674530 Pulp 0.022 0.057

T4-08 83.40 84.90 1.50 183831 H674531 Pulp 0.018 0.024

T4-08 84.90 86.40 1.50 183832 H674532 Pulp 0.361 0.162

T4-08 114.20 115.70 1.50 183835 H674533 Rejects 0.005 0.006

T4-08 H674534 DUP -0.005

T4-08 142.70 144.20 1.50 183855 H674535 Rejects 0.010 0.012

T4-08 H674536 DUP 0.008

T4-08 322.10 322.60 0.50 183875 H674537 Rejects 0.030 0.044

T4-08 H674538 DUP 0.051

H674539 STD-SH35

1.320 1.310

T4-08 370.10 371.10 1.00 183888 H674540 Pulp 0.271 0.293

T4-08 371.10 372.10 1.00 183889 H674541 Pulp 0.321 0.337

T4-08 372.10 373.10 1.00 183890 H674542 Pulp 0.262 0.370

T4-08 377.10 378.10 1.00 183895 H674543 Rejects 0.006 -0.005

T4-08 H674544 DUP 0.009

T5-08 124.40 124.90 0.50 183922 H674545 Rejects 0.003 -0.005

T5-08 H674546 DUP -0.005

H674547 BLK -0.005

T5-08 204.00 205.50 1.50 183942 H674548 Rejects 0.004 -0.005

T5-08 H674549 DUP 0.006

T5-08 224.50 225.50 1.00 183957 H674550 Pulp 1.490 1.665 1.890

T5-08 224.50 225.50 1.00 183957 H674551 Rejects 1.490 1.420 1.460

T5-08 H674552 DUP 1.830 1.600


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T5-08 268.60 269.50 0.90 183962 H674553 Rejects 0.011 0.008

T5-08 H674554 DUP 0.007

T6-08 114.70 115.30 0.60 183989 H674555 Pulp 0.105 0.147

T6-08 115.30 116.40 1.10 183990 H674556 Pulp 0.004 0.024

T6-08 116.40 117.00 0.60 183991 H674557 Pulp 0.910 1.120 1.040

T6-08 117.00 117.60 0.60 183992 H674558 Pulp 0.026 0.027

H674559 STD-SH35 1.365 1.330

T6-08 145.50 147.00 1.50 183996 H674560 Rejects 0.006 0.010

T6-08 H674561 DUP -0.005

T6-08 177.80 179.30 1.50 184127 H674562 Rejects 0.175 0.101

T6-08 H674563 DUP 0.228

T6-08 179.30 180.80 1.50 184128 H674564 Pulp 0.066 0.054

T6-08 180.80 181.80 1.00 184129 H674565 Rejects 10.000 >10000 28.500

T6-08 H674566 DUP >10000 23.800

H674567 BLK 0.011

T6-08 180.80 181.80 1.00 184129 H674568 Pulp 10.000 >10000 16.700

T6-08 181.80 182.80 1.00 184130 H674569 Pulp 2.750 2.320 2.820

T6-08 182.80 183.80 1.00 184131 H674570 Pulp 0.136 0.167

T6-08 183.80 184.80 1.00 184132 H674571 Pulp 0.035 0.047

T6-08 184.80 185.80 1.00 184133 H674572 Pulp 0.059 0.119

T6-08 185.80 186.80 1.00 184134 H674573 Pulp 0.231 0.398

T6-08 186.80 187.80 1.00 184135 H674574 Pulp 0.469 0.626

T6-08 199.80 200.80 1.00 184148 H674575 Rejects 0.046 0.027

T6-08 H674576 DUP 0.027

T6-08 203.80 204.80 1.00 184154 H674577 Pulp 0.302 0.256

T6-08 204.80 205.80 1.00 184155 H674578 Pulp 0.251 0.268

H674579 STD-SH35

1.205 1.270

T6-08 205.80 206.80 1.00 184156 H674580 Pulp 0.331 0.322


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T6-08 206.80 207.80 1.00 184157 H674581 Pulp 0.613 0.544

T6-08 207.80 208.80 1.00 184158 H674582 Pulp 0.293 0.279

T6-08 208.80 209.80 1.00 184159 H674583 Pulp 0.387 0.334

T6-08 209.80 210.80 1.00 184160 H674584 Pulp 0.429 0.423

T6-08 217.80 218.80 1.00 184168 H674585 Rejects 0.010 0.014

T6-08 H674586 DUP 0.012

H674587 BLK -0.005

T6-08 237.80 238.50 0.70 184186 H674588 Pulp 0.079 0.293

T6-08 244.70 245.70 1.00 184187 H674589 Pulp 0.003 0.008

T6-08 245.70 246.20 0.50 184188 H674590 Pulp 0.864 1.015 0.950

T6-08 245.70 246.20 0.50 184188 H674591 Rejects 0.864 1.255 1.270

T6-08 H674592 DUP 1.170 1.070

T6-08 246.20 247.20 1.00 184189 H674593 Pulp 0.006 0.005

T6-08 250.50 251.50 1.00 184190 H674594 Pulp 0.338 0.309

T6-08 251.50 252.50 1.00 184191 H674595 Pulp 3.040 3.580 3.420

T6-08 252.50 253.50 1.00 184192 H674596 Pulp 2.400 0.005

T6-08 257.00 257.50 0.50 184193 H674597 Pulp 0.178 0.188

T6-08 257.50 258.00 0.50 184194 H674598 Pulp 0.953 1.080 1.150

H674599 STD-SH35 1.320 1.270

T6-08 261.20 262.20 1.00 184195 H674600 Pulp 0.099 0.103

T6-08 262.20 263.20 1.00 184196 H674601 Pulp 0.036 0.042

T6-08 382.90 384.40 1.50 184208 H674602 Rejects 0.003 -0.005

T6-08 H674603 DUP -0.005

T7-08 109.60 110.20 0.60 569653 H674604 Pulp 0.665 0.723 0.089

T7-08 111.80 112.50 0.70 569654 H674605 Pulp 0.163 0.141

T7-08 112.50 114.00 1.50 569655 H674606 Pulp 0.035 0.074

H674607 BLK -0.005

T7-08 114.00 115.50 1.50 569656 H674608 Pulp 0.011 -0.005


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T7-08 115.50 116.40 0.90 569657 H674609 Pulp 1.809 2.210 2.370

T7-08 118.30 119.50 1.20 569658 H674610 Pulp 2.254 2.200 2.180

T7-08 119.50 120.20 0.70 569659 H674611 Pulp 0.129 0.124

T7-08 130.60 131.90 1.30 569670 H674612 Rejects 0.041 0.035

T7-08 H674613 DUP 0.031

T7-08 131.90 132.50 0.60 569671 H674614 Pulp 0.655 0.628

T7-08 132.50 133.60 1.10 569672 H674615 Pulp 2.787 2.760 2.270

T7-08 133.60 135.00 1.40 569673 H674616 Pulp 1.829 1.805 1.710

T7-08 135.00 135.80 0.80 569674 H674617 Pulp 2.689 3.160 3.180

T7-08 135.80 136.70 0.90 569675 H674618 Pulp 0.189 0.166

H674619 STD-SH35 1.305 1.300

T7-08 136.70 137.50 0.80 569676 H674620 Pulp 0.725 0.747 0.664

T7-08 137.50 138.70 1.20 569677 H674621 Pulp 0.034 0.020

T7-08 162.50 164.00 1.50 569690 H674622 Rejects 0.005 -0.005

T7-08 H674623 DUP -0.005

T8-08 37.90 39.40 1.50 569714 H674624 Rejects 0.003 -0.005

T8-08 0.00 H674625 DUP -0.005

H674626 BLK -0.005

T8-08 95.90 96.40 0.50 569734 H674627 Rejects 0.006 -0.005

T8-08 H674628 DUP -0.005

T8-08 152.80 153.30 0.50 569744 H674629 Pulp 0.484 0.395

T8-08 162.90 163.50 0.60 569754 H674630 Rejects 0.003 0.007

T8-08 H674631 DUP 0.007

T8-08 169.30 170.20 0.90 569759 H674632 Pulp 1.108 1.184 1.010 0.880

T8-08 170.20 171.60 1.40 569760 H674633 Pulp 0.003 0.719

T8-08 233.50 234.90 1.40 569774 H674634 Rejects 0.009 0.014

T8-08 H674635 DUP 0.011

T8-08 244.10 245.60 1.50 569785 H674636 Pulp 0.016 0.071


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T8-08 245.60 247.10 1.50 569786 H674637 Pulp 0.217 0.368

T8-08 247.10 248.60 1.50 569787 H674638 Pulp 0.131 0.297

H674639 STD-SH35

1.315 1.290

T8-08 248.60 249.60 1.00 569788 H674640 Pulp 0.198 0.241

T8-08 270.30 271.80 1.50 569794 H674641 Rejects 0.174 0.301

H674642 DUP 0.285

T8-08 385.50 387.00 1.50 569814 H674643 Rejects 0.017 0.008

T8-08 H674644 DUP 0.006

T10-08 19.00 20.50 1.50 569860 H674645 Pulp 1.240 0.914

H674646 BLK -0.005

T10-08 20.50 21.60 1.10 569861 H674647 Pulp 1.155

0.972

T10-08 36.40 37.00 0.60 569862 H674648 Pulp 0.013 0.006

T10-08 172.70 173.70 1.00 569873 H674649 Pulp 0.336 0.363

T10-08 173.70 174.70 1.00 569874 H674650 Pulp 1.746 1.635 1.760

T10-08 174.70 175.70 1.00 569876 H674651 Pulp 2.341 2.760 2.440

T10-08 175.70 176.70 1.00 569877 H674652 Pulp 2.610 2.310 2.570

T10-08 176.70 178.00 1.30 569878 H674653 Pulp 0.461 0.375

T10-08 185.40 185.90 0.50 569879 H674654 Pulp 0.531 0.379

T10-08 197.50 198.50 1.00 569880 H674655 Rejects 0.598 0.636

T10-08 H674656 DUP 0.591

T10-08 202.30 202.90 0.60 569881 H674657 Pulp 2.365 2.340 2.380

T10-08 205.60 206.10 0.50 569882 H674658 Pulp 1.170 1.265 1.070

H674659 STD-SH35

1.305 1.260

T10-08 208.80 209.30 0.50 569883 H674660 Pulp 1.015 0.956

T10-08 217.30 218.30 1.00 569884 H674661 Pulp 0.511 0.432

T10-08 218.30 219.20 0.90 569885 H674662 Pulp 0.435 0.537

T10-08 219.20 220.50 1.30 569887 H674663 Pulp 0.268 0.286

T10-08 232.50 233.00 0.50 569888 H674664 Pulp 1.240 1.260 1.280


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T10-08 266.40 267.50 1.10 569889 H674665 Pulp 0.517 0.347

H674666 BLK -0.005

T10-08 271.50 272.50 1.00 569893 H674667 Pulp 0.177 0.136

T10-08 272.50 273.50 1.00 569894 H674668 Pulp 1.764 1.935 1.850

T10-08 273.50 274.50 1.00 569895 H674669 Pulp 2.133 3.190 2.830

T10-08 274.50 275.50 1.00 569896 H674670 Pulp 3.184 2.440 2.270

T10-08 275.50 276.50 1.00 569897 H674671 Pulp 3.299 3.210 3.080

T10-08 276.50 277.50 1.00 569898 H674672 Pulp 0.120 0.121

T10-08 277.50 278.50 1.00 569899 H674673 Rejects 0.069 0.065

T10-08 H674674 DUP 0.059

T10-08 278.50 279.50 1.00 569902 H674675 Pulp 0.774 0.623

T10-08 279.50 280.50 1.00 569903 H674676 Pulp 0.052 0.048

T10-08 280.50 281.30 0.80 569904 H674677 Pulp 0.218 0.192

T10-08 281.30 281.80 0.50 569905 H674678 Pulp 0.945 0.783

H674679 STD-SH35 1.290 1.200

T10-08 290.10 290.70 0.60 569914 H674680 Pulp 1.033 0.955

T10-08 290.70 292.20 1.50 569915 H674681 Pulp 0.857 0.889

T10-08 292.20 293.70 1.50 569917 H674682 Pulp 0.249 0.383

T10-08 293.70 295.20 1.50 569918 H674683 Pulp 0.016 -0.005

T10-08 295.20 295.70 0.50 569919 H674684 Rejects 0.638 0.614

T10-08 H674685 DUP 0.707

H674686 BLK -0.005

T12-09 448.00 449.00 1.00 567871 H674687 Rejects 0.030 0.027

T12-09 H674688 DUP 0.030

T12-09 79.00 80.00 1.00 567911 H674689 Rejects 0.007 0.006

T12-09 H674690 DUP -0.005

T12-09 206.00 207.00 1.00 567931 H674691 Rejects 0.003 -0.005

T12-09 H674692 DUP -0.005


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T12-09 210.00 211.00 1.00 567935 H674693 Pulp 0.025 0.081

T12-09 211.00 212.00 1.00 567936 H674694 Pulp 2.497 4.830 4.190

T12-09 216.50 217.00 0.50 567943 H674695 Pulp 1.098 1.055 1.200

T12-09 217.00 217.50 0.50 567944 H674696 Pulp 3.024 3.240 3.200

T12-09 217.50 218.00 0.50 567945 H674697 Pulp 0.168 0.109

T12-09 218.00 219.00 1.00 567946 H674698 Pulp 0.013 0.016

H674699 STD-SH35 1.300 1.250

T12-09 219.00 220.00 1.00 567947 H674700 Pulp 0.006 0.013 0.010

T12-09 220.00 220.50 0.50 567948 H674701 Pulp 0.121 0.105

T12-09 220.50 221.00 0.50 567949 H674702 Pulp 1.013 1.015 1.110

T12-09 221.00 221.50 0.50 567951 H674703 Rejects 0.599 0.622

T12-09 H674704 DUP 0.629

T12-09 221.50 222.00 0.50 567952 H674705 Pulp 3.951 3.540 3.800

H674706 BLK -0.005

T12-09 222.00 223.00 1.00 567953 H674707 Pulp 0.212 0.229

T12-09 223.00 223.50 0.50 567954 H674708 Pulp 0.480 0.465

T12-09 223.50 224.00 0.50 567955 H674709 Pulp 0.366 0.368

T12-09 239.00 240.00 1.00 567972 H674710 Rejects 0.119 0.044

T12-09 H674711 DUP 0.016

T12-09 296.00 297.00 1.00 567992 H674712 Rejects 0.003 0.009

T12-09 H674713 DUP -0.005

T18B-09 78.00 79.00 1.00 567321 H674714 Rejects 0.087 0.095

T18B-09 H674715 DUP 0.091

T18B-09 105.00 106.00 1.00 567349 H674716 Rejects 0.130 0.133

T18B-09 H674717 DUP 0.129

T18B-09 11.00 12.00 1.00 569404 H674718 Pulp 0.416 0.499

H674719 STD-SH35 0.730

T18B-09 12.00 13.00 1.00 569405 H674720 Pulp 0.498 0.750


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T18B-09 13.00 14.00 1.00 569406 H674721 Pulp 0.100 0.109

T18B-09 14.00 15.00 1.00 569407 H674722 Pulp 0.298 0.289

T18B-09 15.00 16.00 1.00 569408 H674723 Pulp 0.937 0.838

T18B-09 16.00 17.00 1.00 569409 H674724 Pulp 5.077 4.936 5.390 5.930

T18B-09 17.00 18.00 1.00 569410 H674725 Pulp 0.647 0.663

H674726 BLK -0.005

T18B-09 18.00 19.00 1.00 569411 H674727 Pulp 0.134 0.373

T18B-09 19.00 20.00 1.00 569412 H674728 Pulp 0.418 0.424

T18B-09 20.00 21.00 1.00 569413 H674729 Pulp 0.436 0.411

T18B-09 21.00 22.00 1.00 569414 H674730 Pulp 0.301 0.338

T18B-09 22.00 23.00 1.00 569415 H674731 Pulp 0.547 0.533

T18B-09 23.00 24.00 1.00 569416 H674732 Pulp 0.630 0.643

T18B-09 24.00 25.00 1.00 569417 H674733 Pulp 1.301 1.335 1.360

T18B-09 25.00 26.00 1.00 569418 H674734 Pulp 0.326 0.323

T18B-09 26.00 27.00 1.00 569419 H674735 Pulp 0.732 0.735 0.707

T18B-09 27.00 28.00 1.00 569421 H674736 Rejects 0.230 0.231

T18B-09 H674737 DUP 0.234

H674738 STD-SH35 1.340 1.040

T18B-09 45.00 46.00 1.00 569441 H674739 Rejects 0.010 0.010

T18B-09 H674740 DUP 0.008

T18B-09 113.00 114.00 1.00 752008 H674741 Pulp 1.076 1.080 1.030

T18B-09 114.00 115.00 1.00 752009 H674742 Pulp 0.234 0.217

T18B-09 126.00 127.00 1.00 752022 H674743 Rejects 0.071 0.080

T18B-09 H674744 DUP 0.107

H674745 BLK -0.005

T18B-09 144.00 145.00 1.00 752042 H674746 Rejects 0.045 0.042

T18B-09 H674747 DUP 0.043

T18B-09 162.00 163.00 1.00 752062 H674748 Rejects 0.028 0.033


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T18B-09 H674749 DUP 0.034

T18B-09 190.00 191.00 1.00 752092 H674750 Rejects 1.019 1.120 0.970

T18B-09 H674751 DUP 0.936

T18B-09 209.00 210.00 1.00 752112 H674752 Rejects 0.055 0.041

T18B-09 H674753 DUP 0.039

T18B-09 210.00 211.00 1.00 752113 H674754 Pulp 14.230 >10000 14.650

T18B-09 211.00 212.00 1.00 752114 H674755 Pulp 0.215 0.202

T18B-09 216.00 217.00 1.00 752119 H674756 Pulp 0.990 1.050 1.030

T18B-09 218.00 219.00 1.00 752122 H674757 Pulp 1.014 0.998

H674758 STD-SH35 1.340 1.160

T18B-09 227.00 228.00 1.00 752132 H674759 Rejects 0.103 0.126

T18B-09 H674760 DUP 0.125

T18B-09 245.00 246.00 1.00 752152 H674761 Rejects 0.479 0.501

T18B-09 H674762 DUP 0.469

T18B-09 263.00 264.00 1.00 752171 H674763 Pulp 0.869 0.895

H674764 BLK -0.005

T18B-09 264.00 265.00 1.00 752172 H674765 Rejects 0.779 0.777

T18B-09 H674766 DUP 0.794

T18B-09 265.00 266.00 1.00 752173 H674767 Pulp 1.218 1.245 1.170

T18B-09 266.00 267.00 1.00 752174 H674768 Pulp 0.839 0.869

T18B-09 267.00 268.00 1.00 752176 H674769 Pulp 1.183 1.345 1.200

T18B-09 268.00 269.00 1.00 752177 H674770 Pulp 1.756 1.810 1.780

T18B-09 269.00 270.00 1.00 752178 H674771 Pulp 0.640 0.681

T18B-09 270.00 271.00 1.00 752179 H674772 Pulp 0.556 0.576

T18B-09 276.00 277.50 1.50 752185 H674773 Pulp 0.876 0.920

T18B-09 277.50 279.00 1.50 752186 H674774 Pulp 1.193 1.235 1.200

T18B-09 279.00 280.50 1.50 752187 H674775 Pulp 2.033 2.240 2.170

T18B-09 280.50 282.00 1.50 752188 H674776 Pulp 0.477 0.451


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T18B-09 282.00 283.50 1.50 752189 H674777 Pulp 0.939 0.998

H674778 STD-SH35 1.370 1.460

T18B-09 283.50 285.00 1.50 752190 H674779 Pulp 1.014 1.080 1.110

T18B-09 285.00 286.50 1.50 752191 H674780 Pulp 2.518 2.557 2.690 2.560

T18B-09 286.50 288.00 1.50 752192 H674781 Rejects 0.291 0.296

T18B-09 H674782 DUP 0.288

T18B-09 288.00 289.50 1.50 752193 H674783 Pulp 0.818 0.813

H674784 BLK -0.005

T18B-09 289.50 291.00 1.50 752194 H674785 Pulp 1.547 1.670 1.530

T18B-09 293.50 294.50 1.00 752195 H674786 Pulp 0.240 0.264

T18B-09 294.50 295.50 1.00 752196 H674787 Pulp 1.540 1.775 1.660

T20-09 168.00 169.00 1.00 567221 H674788 Rejects 0.518 0.592

T20-09 H674789 DUP 0.586

T20-09 169.00 170.00 1.00 567222 H674790 Pulp 1.068 1.075 1.170

T20-09 170.00 171.00 1.00 567223 H674791 Pulp 0.928 0.917

T20-09 171.00 172.00 1.00 567224 H674792 Pulp 0.325 0.346

T20-09 188.00 189.00 1.00 567241 H674793 Rejects 0.685 0.749

T20-09 H674794 DUP 0.762

T20-09 231.00 232.00 1.00 752307 H674795 Pulp 2.980 2.029 2.810 2.440

T20-09 246.00 247.00 1.00 752312 H674796 Rejects 0.415 1.165 1.040

T20-09 H674797 DUP 1.260 1.040

H674798 STD-SH35 1.330 1.220

T20-09 272.00 273.00 1.00 752326 H674799 Pulp 1.980 1.430 1.300

T20-09 278.00 279.00 1.00 752332 H674800 Rejects 0.093 0.077

T20-09 H674801 DUP 0.072

T20-09 298.00 299.00 1.00 752352 H674802 Rejects 0.477 0.493

T20-09 0.00 H674803 DUP 0.579

0.00 H674804 BLK -0.005


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T20-09 299.00 300.00 1.00 752353 H674805 Pulp 2.162 2.136 2.300 2.360

T20-09 300.00 301.00 1.00 752354 H674806 Pulp 0.536 0.693

T20-09 328.00 329.00 1.00 752372 H674807 Rejects 0.006 0.005

T20-09 H674808 DUP -0.005

T20-09 21.00 22.00 1.00 567515 H674809 Rejects 0.140 0.146

T20-09 H674810 DUP 0.145

T20-09 39.00 40.00 1.00 567535 H674811 Rejects 0.003 -0.005

T20-09 H674812 DUP 0.008

T20-09 62.00 63.00 1.00 567555 H674813 Rejects 0.041 0.048

T20-09 H674814 DUP 0.045

T20-09 81.00 82.00 1.00 567576 H674815 Rejects 0.097 0.104

T20-09 H674816 DUP 0.099

T20-09 85.00 86.00 1.00 567581 H674817 Pulp 0.198 0.268

H674818 STD-SH35 1.360 1.010

T20-09 86.00 87.00 1.00 567582 H674819 Pulp 0.547 0.635

T20-09 87.00 88.00 1.00 567583 H674820 Pulp 2.194 2.270 2.370

T20-09 88.00 89.00 1.00 567584 H674821 Pulp 0.624 0.759

T20-09 89.00 90.00 1.00 567585 H674822 Pulp 1.987 2.080 2.400

T20-09 90.00 91.00 1.00 567586 H674823 Pulp 0.514 0.665

H674824 BLK -0.005

T20-09 91.00 92.00 1.00 567587 H674825 Pulp 0.289 0.298

T20-09 92.00 93.00 1.00 567588 H674826 Pulp 1.858 1.964 2.030 2.060

T20-09 93.00 94.00 1.00 567589 H674827 Pulp 1.199 1.145 1.100

T20-09 94.00 95.00 1.00 567590 H674828 Pulp 1.422 1.700 1.670

T20-09 100.00 101.00 1.00 567596 H674829 Rejects 0.511 0.499

T20-09 H674830 DUP 0.502

T20-09 102.00 103.00 1.00 567598 H674831 Pulp 1.238 1.640 1.610

T20-09 103.00 104.00 1.00 567599 H674832 Pulp 0.613 0.794


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

T20-09 119.00 120.00 1.00 567616 H674833 Rejects 0.661 1.225 1.210

T20-09 H674834 DUP 1.200 1.020

T20-09 136.00 137.00 1.00 567636 H674835 Rejects 0.034 0.043

T20-09 H674836 DUP 0.043

H674837 STD-SH35 1.320 1.260

G1-08 127.60 128.60 1.00 569521 H674838 Rejects 0.013 0.007

G1-08 H674839 DUP 0.005

G1-08 140.60 141.60 1.00 569535 H674840 Pulp 0.013 0.008

G1-08 141.60 142.30 0.70 569536 H674841 Pulp 0.073 0.082

G1-08 142.30 143.10 0.80 569537 H674842 Pulp 0.022 0.018

G1-08 143.10 143.90 0.80 569538 H674843 Pulp 0.058 0.045

H674844 BLK -0.005

G1-08 143.90 144.60 0.70 569539 H674845 Pulp 0.010 -0.005

G1-08 174.10 175.10 1.00 569541 H674846 Rejects 0.011 -0.005

G1-08 H674847 DUP 0.008

G4-08 255.50 257.00 1.50 184235 H674848 Rejects 0.004 -0.005

G4-08 H674849 DUP 0.007

G4-08 280.50 281.00 0.50 184242 H674850 Pulp 0.005 0.010

G4-08 332.50 333.00 0.50 184254 H674851 Rejects 0.052 -0.005

G4-08 H674852 DUP -0.005

G5-08 150.00 151.50 1.50 184267 H674853 Pulp 0.001 -0.005

G5-08 151.50 153.00 1.50 184268 H674854 Pulp 0.002 -0.005

G5-08 236.50 237.50 1.00 184275 H674855 Rejects 0.001 -0.005

G5-08 H674856 DUP 0.005

H674857 STD-SH35 1.325 1.270

G5-08 291.00 292.50 1.50 184295 H674858 Rejects 0.001 0.005

G5-08 H674859 DUP -0.005

G5-08 0.00 184299 H674860 Pulp (BLK) -0.005


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B



Original

Sample

Au1

Au2

Duplicate

Sample

Au1

Au2

G5-08 367.10 367.60 0.50 184304 H674861 Pulp 0.484 -0.005

G5-08 367.80 368.30 0.50 184305 H674862 Pulp 0.046 -0.005

H674863 BLK -0.005

G7-08 200.00 201.00 1.00 184328 H674864 Rejects 0.001 -0.005

G7-08 H674865 DUP -0.005

G7-08 308.60 310.10 1.50 184348 H674866 Rejects 0.005 -0.005

G7-08 H674867 DUP -0.005

G7-08 348.60 349.10 0.50 184360 H674868 Pulp 0.004 -0.005


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Appendix D – Sample Preparation Flowchart – Table jamésienne de concertation minière,

Chibougamau


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Appendix E – Check Samples Collected by Met-Chem – Analytical Results

Hole_ID From To Interval Smpl_ Original Samples Check_Samples (G/T Au)

(m) (m) (m) Type Smpl_ID Au1 Au1_FA/AA (*) Au_FA/GRAV (**) CHK_SMPL_ID

GDO-155 122.90 123.40 0.50 Core 753037 5.209 4.880 4.660 1093401

GDO-155 123.40 123.90 0.50 Core 753038 9.830 >10.000 11.150 1093402

GDO-155 123.90 124.60 0.70 Core 753039 2.115 2.430 2.700 1093403

GDO-155 124.60 125.30 0.70 Core 753040 7.764 9.250 8.590 1093404

GDO-155 125.30 125.90 0.60 Core 753041 7.157 >10.000 15.150 1093405

GDO-155 125.90 126.40 0.50 Core 753042 7.254 >10.000 10.850 1093406

BLK

0.000 0.032

1093407

GDO-155 126.40 127.80 1.40 Core 753043 0.412 0.090

1093408

GDO-162 151.75 152.35 0.60 Core 753686 0.488 0.047

1093409

GDO-162 162.50 163.15 0.65 Core 753700 0.480 0.377

1093410

GDO-162 163.15 164.00 0.85 Core 753701 0.530 0.505

1093411

GDO-162 164.00 164.65 0.65 Core 753702 0.852 0.870

1093412

GDO-162 164.65 165.60 0.95 Core 753703 0.026 0.042

1093413

GDO-162 165.60 167.00 0.70 Core 753704/05 0.653 0.602

1093414

GDO-162 167.00 167.75 0.75 Core 753706 1.969 3.680 4.110 1093416

GDO-162 167.75 168.50 0.75 Core 753707 0.475 0.251

1093417

GDO-162 168.50 169.40 0.90 Core 753708 0.479 0.281

1093418

GDO-162 169.40 170.00 0.60 Core 753709 0.323 0.319

1093419

STD

1.323 1.330 1.390 1093420

GFA-170 110.50 111.40 0.90 Core 770170 1.235 1.330 1.580 1093421

GFA-170 111.40 112.10 0.70 Core 770171 0.709 1.205 1.400 1093422

GFA-166 141.30 142.00 0.70 Core 767652 0.848 0.748

1093423

GFA-166 142.00 142.75 0.75 Core 767653 3.384 1.860 1.390 1093424


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B




GFA-166 142.75 144.00 1.25 Core 767654 1.069 0.805

1093425

GFA-166 144.00 144.80 0.80 Core 767655 0.170 0.181

1093426

GDO-180 31.13 31.48 0.35 Core 227158 1.188 2.050 2.240 1093427

GDO-180 31.48 32.73 1.25 Core 227159 9.153 7.590 7.140 1093428

GDO-180 32.73 33.55 0.82 Core 227160 4.060 2.810 3.030 1093429

BLK

0.000 0.017

1093430

STD

1.323 1.330 1.250 1093431

T19-09 234.00 235.00 1.00 Rejects 752458 1.671 1.600 1.550 1093432

DUP

1.705 1.630 1093433

T19-09 235.00 236.00 1.00 Rejects 752459 0.438 0.476

1093434

DUP

0.473

1093435

T19-09 236.00 237.00 1.00 Rejects 752461 10.060 >10.000 10.200 1093436

DUP

>10.000 13.650 1093437

T19-09 237.00 238.00 1.00 Rejects 752462 2.299 2.340 2.250 1093438

DUP

2.240 2.340 1093439

T19-09 238.00 239.00 1.00 Rejects 752463 7.161 8.240 8.180 1093440

DUP

7.820 7.270 1093441

T19-09 239.00 240.00 1.00 Rejects 752464 0.170 0.179

1093442

DUP

0.175

1093443

T15-09 134.00 135.00 1.00 Rejects 567716 0.030 0.049

1093444

T15-09 135.00 136.00 1.00 Rejects 567717 1.487 1.440 1.540 1093445

T15-09 136.00 137.00 1.00 Rejects 567718 6.101 5.440 5.500 1093446

T15-09 137.00 138.00 1.00 Rejects 567719 7.057 7.140 6.940 1093447

BLK

0.000 0.008

1093448

T15-09 138.00 139.00 1.00 Rejects 567721 0.513 0.816

1093449


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B




T15-09 139.00 140.00 1.00 Rejects 567722 1.056 1.070 1.030 1093450

T15-09 140.00 141.00 1.00 Rejects 567723 0.021 0.031

1093451

T9-08 148.30 149.30 1.00 Rejects 569594 0.812 1.160 1.530 1093452

DUP

1.050 1.070 1093453

T9-08 149.30 150.30 1.00 Rejects 569595 0.868 1.305 1.210 1093454

DUP

1.195 1.240 1093455

T9-08 150.30 151.30 1.00 Rejects 569596 0.431 0.436

1093456

DUP

0.408

1093457

T3-08 107.20 108.20 1.00 Rejects 184065 0.105 0.255

1093458

DUP

0.433

1093459

STD

1.323 1.305 1.300 1093460

T3-08 108.20 109.20 1.00 Rejects 184066 1.170 1.550 1.250 1093461

DUP

1.540 1.500 1093462

T3-08 109.20 110.20 1.00 Rejects 184067 1.170 1.260 1.140 1093463

DUP

1.205 1.280 1093464

T3-08 110.20 111.20 1.00 Rejects 184068 1.110 0.902

1093465

DUP

1.065 0.980 1093466

T3-08 111.20 112.20 1.00 Rejects 184069 4.030 3.360 3.300 1093467

DUP

3.540 3.330 1093468

BLK

0.000 0.011

1093469

T3-08 112.20 113.20 1.00 Rejects 184070 0.562 1.090 1.300 1093470

DUP

1.230 1.220 1093471

T3-08 113.20 114.20 1.00 Rejects 184071 2.590 3.160 3.210 1093472

DUP

4.150 3.580 1093473

T3-08 114.20 115.20 1.00 Rejects 184072 1.080 2.120 1.710 1093474


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B




DUP

1.345 1.650 1093475

T3-08 115.20 116.20 1.00 Rejects 184073 1.870 1.195 1.300 1093476

DUP

1.700 1.540 1093477

T3-08 116.20 117.20 1.00 Rejects 184074 0.234 0.387

1093478

DUP

0.396

1093479

T3-08 365.40 365.90 0.50 Rejects 184092 0.087 0.100

1093480

DUP

0.095

1093481

STD

1.323 1.365 1.340 1093482

T3-08 365.90 366.90 1.00 Rejects 184093 0.495 0.461

1093483

DUP

0.435

1093484

T3-08 366.90 367.90 1.00 Rejects 184094 2.240 3.410 2.830 1093485

DUP

3.290 3.370 1093486

T3-08 367.90 368.90 1.00 Rejects 184095 3.760 2.380 2.350 1093487

DUP

2.160 2.170 1093488

T3-08 368.90 369.90 1.00 Rejects 184096 2.320 0.249

1093489

DUP

0.247

1093490

T3-08 369.90 370.90 1.00 Rejects 184097 0.402 3.980 4.000 1093491

DUP

3.460 2.940 1093492

(*) Fire Assay with Atomic Absorption finish (**) Fire Assay with Gravimetric finish


April 2010

QPF-009-12/B


Appendix F – An Investigation of the Recovery of Gold, Lakefield Research

(written permission to publish obtained from Lakefield Research on March 04, 2010)

tawsho mining inc.tawsho mining inc. 43-101 technical report on the mineral resource of the chevrier...

Documents