technical report and updated resource estimate...

TECHNICAL REPORT

AND

UPDATED RESOURCE ESTIMATE

ON THE

ATLANTA GOLD PROPERTY

ELMORE COUNTY, IDAHO, USA

Longitude: 115°06’51”

Latitude: 43°46’55”

Prepared for:

Atlanta Gold Inc.

By

P&E Mining Consultants Inc.

Suite 202 - 2 County Court Boulevard

Brampton, Ontario,

L6W 3W8

NI-43-101F1

TECHNICAL REPORT No. 224

Dr. Wayne D. Ewert, P.Geo.

Mr. Eugene Puritch, P.Eng.

Mr. David Burga, P.Geo.

Mr. Fred H. Brown, CPG, Pr.Sci.Nat.

Ms. Tracy Armstrong, P.Geo.

Mr. Alfred Hayden, P.Eng.

Effective Date: June 30, 2011

Signing Date: Sept 1, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,

P&E Mining Consultants Inc.

{SIGNED AND SEALED}

[Eugene Puritch]

______________________________

Eugene Puritch, P.Eng. President


Dated this 1st day of September, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i

1.1 BEHRE DOLBEAR 2005 RESOURCE ESTIMATE ........................................... iii 1.2 JOSEY MARCH 2009 RESOURCE ESTIMATE ................................................ iv 1.3 P&E FEBRUARY, 2011 RESOURCE ESTIMATE ............................................. iv 1.4 P&E JUNE, 2011 RESOURCE ESTIMATE ........................................................ vi

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE .........................................................1

2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ......................................................................................1 2.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ............................................................................1 2.3 UNITS AND CURRENCY .....................................................................................2 2.4 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATION OF TERMS ...............................................2

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ..................................................................................4

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ...............................................................5 4.1 ATLANTA PROPERTY LOCATION ....................................................................5

4.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND TENURE ........................................................5 4.2.1 Land Surveying ............................................................................................6

4.3 OWNERSHIP ..........................................................................................................8 4.3.1 Current Status of the Lease / Option Agreements .......................................8

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE,

AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................11

5.1 ACCESS ................................................................................................................11 5.2 CLIMATE ..............................................................................................................12 5.3 LOCAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................12

5.3.1 Water Supply .............................................................................................12 5.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................12

5.5 PHYSIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................13 6.0 HISTORY ..........................................................................................................................14

6.1 HISTORICAL IN-HOUSE FEASIBILITY STUDIES .........................................17 6.2 PREVIOUS MINERAL RESOURCE/RESERVE ESTIMATES .........................18

6.2.1 2005 Behre Dolbear Mineral Resource/Reserve Estimate.........................18 6.2.2 2007 Vector Engineering Mineral Resource/Reserve Estimate .................21 6.2.3 2009 Josey Mineral Resource Estimate .....................................................22

6.3 HISTORICAL PRODUCTION .............................................................................24 7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ...................................................26

7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .......................................................................................26 7.2 GEOLOGY OF THE PROPERTY ........................................................................27

7.3 MINERALIZATION .............................................................................................31 8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES ..............................................................................................................33 9.0 EXPLORATION................................................................................................................35

9.1 2009 SURFACE TRENCHING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROGRAM ...............35 9.2 2010 SURFACE TRENCHING PROGRAM ........................................................35 9.3 HISTORICAL EXPLORATION DATA COMPILED FOR TAHOMA

SHEAR ..................................................................................................................37

10.0 DRILLING .........................................................................................................................38 10.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................38 10.2 2009 SURFACE DRILLING PROGRAM ............................................................38

10.3 2010 SURFACE DRILLING PROGRAM ............................................................39 10.3.1 2010 Shallow Confirmation Drilling .........................................................40

10.4 2010 INTERMEDIATE DEPTH DRILLING .......................................................43 11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ..........................................46

12.0 DATA VERIFICATION ...................................................................................................48

12.1 ATLANTA GOLD QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM .....................................49

12.1.1 Performance of Certified Reference Materials ..........................................49

12.1.2 Performance of Blank Material ..................................................................50 12.1.3 Performance of Duplicates .........................................................................50

13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING .................................51 13.1 HEAP LEACH TESTING .....................................................................................51 13.2 FLOTATION TESTING .......................................................................................53

14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ............................................................................55 14.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................55 14.2 PREVIOUS RESOURCE ESTIMATES ...............................................................55 14.3 SAMPLE DATABASE .........................................................................................57 14.4 DATABASE VALIDATION ................................................................................57

14.5 TOPOGRAPHY & SURVEY ...............................................................................58 14.6 BULK DENSITY...................................................................................................58

14.7 ECONOMIC PARAMETRES ...............................................................................59 14.8 DOMAIN MODELING .........................................................................................59 14.9 COMPOSITING ....................................................................................................60 14.10 EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................60

14.11 TREATMENT OF EXTREME VALUES.............................................................61 14.12 CONTINUITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................62

14.13 BLOCK MODEL ...................................................................................................63 14.14 ESTIMATION & CLASSIFICATION .................................................................64 14.15 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ...................................................................65

14.16 VALIDATION .......................................................................................................68 15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES................................................................................69

16.0 MINING METHODS ........................................................................................................70 17.0 RECOVERY METHODS ..................................................................................................71

18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................72 19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...........................................................73

20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY

IMPACT ............................................................................................................................74 21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ............................................................................76

22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................................77 23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ..............................................................................................78 24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION .....................................................79 25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................80

26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................81 26.1 RECOMMENDED EXPLORATION WORK PLAN ...........................................81

27.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................83

28.0 CERTIFICATES ................................................................................................................85

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Atlanta Mineral Resource Estimate Summary (Behre Dolbear 2005) ................... iii

Table 1.2 Summary of Measured and Indicated Resource Estimate Josey (2009) ................ iv Table 1.3 Atlanta February 2011 P&E Mineral Resource Estimate ....................................... v Table 1.4 Atlanta mineral resource estimate as of June 30, 2011 .......................................... vi Table 4.1 Atlanta Property Tenure .......................................................................................... 7 Table 4.2 Advance Royalty Payments as at June 30, 2011 ................................................... 10

Table 6.1 Summary of Historical Exploration in the Atlanta Project Area .......................... 14 Table 6.2 Atlanta Mineral Resource Estimate Summary (Behre Dolbear 2005) .................. 20 Table 6.3 Atlanta Mineral Reserve Estimate Summary (Behre Dolbear 2005) .................... 21 Table 6.4 Atlanta Mineral Resource/Reserve Estimates Vector Engineering 2007 .............. 21 Table 6.5 Summary of Measured and Indicated Resource Estimate Josey (2009) ............... 23

Table 6.6 Josey (2009) Resource Estimates at a Range of Cut-Off Grades .......................... 24 Table 6.7 Historical Production Reports From Talache Mill ................................................ 25

Table 9.1 Atlanta 2009-2010 Surface Trenching Program Mineralized Intercepts .............. 36 Table 10.1 Atlanta 2009 Surface Drilling Program Mineralized Au Intercepts ..................... 39 Table 10.2 Atlanta 2010 Surface Drilling Program Mineralized Au Intercepts ..................... 41 Table 14.1 Atlanta Mineral Resource Published November 3, 2004 ...................................... 55

Table 14.2 Extract from the Atlanta Mineral Resource Published 30 March 2009 ................ 56 Table 14.3 Extract from the Atlanta Mineral Resource Published 01 February 2011 ............ 57

Table 14.4 Bulk Density and Tonnage Factors ....................................................................... 58 Table 14.5 Composite Summary Statistics .............................................................................. 61 Table 14.6 Capping Thresholds ............................................................................................... 62

Table 14.7 Experimental Semi-Variograms for Au ................................................................ 63 Table 14.8 Block Model Setup ................................................................................................ 63

Table 14.9 Atlanta mineral resource estimate as of June 30, 2011 ......................................... 68 Table 14.10 Block Estimate Means Compared with NN Estimate Means ............................... 68

Table 26.1 Proposed 2011 Exploration Budget ....................................................................... 82

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Tenure map showing Atlanta Property. (January 2011) ......................................... ii

Figure 4.1 Regional Location Map showing Atlanta Property ................................................. 5 Figure 4.2 Tenure map showing Atlanta Property claim holdings (January 2011) .................. 7 Figure 5.1 Access to the Atlanta Property .............................................................................. 11 Figure 6.1 3-D Mineralization Solids of Atlanta Project (Looking 325

o) .............................. 23

Figure 7.1 General Geology of the Hailey Quadrangle, Idaho ............................................... 27

Figure 7.2 Shear Zones and Drill Collar Locations ................................................................ 28 Figure 7.3 Cross-section view of the Epithermal-type Atlanta Shear .................................... 30 Figure 8.1 Conceptual Model Illustrating Styles of Magmatic Arc Porphyry Cu-Au and

Epithermal Au-Ag Mineralization ........................................................................ 34 Figure 12.1 Site Visit Sample Results for Gold ....................................................................... 48

Figure 12.2 Site Visit Sample Results for Silver ...................................................................... 49 Figure 14.1 Defined 0.03 Opt Grade Domains ......................................................................... 59

Figure 14.2 Q-Q plots of DDH vs. RC composite values for the Monarch zone ..................... 61 Figure 14.3 Log probability plots of the composite sample sets .............................................. 62 Figure 14.4 Principle direction Au experimental semi-variograms .......................................... 64 Figure 14.5 Optimized Mineral Resource Pit Shells ................................................................ 66

Figure 14.6 Newmont and Glaspey Areas ................................................................................ 67

P&E Mining Consultants Inc. i

Atlanta Gold Project, Idaho Report No. 204

1.0 SUMMARY

The following report was prepared to provide an NI 43-101 compliant Technical Report and

updated resource estimate of the gold-silver mineralization in the Atlanta Gold Property, Elmore

County, Idaho, USA.

This report (the “Report”) was prepared by P&E Mining Consultants Inc., (“P&E”) at the request

of Atlanta Gold Inc. (“Atlanta” or the “Company”), which holds the Atlanta Gold property (the

“Property”) and owns and operates the Atlanta Gold project (the “Project”) through its wholly-

owned subsidiary, Atlanta Gold Corporation, an Idaho corporation.

The Project is located in the historic Middle Boise Mining District in an area with historic

exploration, development, and production of gold and silver ore. The Project site is located on

top of Atlanta Hill, which has a maximum elevation of 7,580 feet (2,310 metres) above mean sea

level (msl) and is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometres) south of the town of Atlanta, Idaho.

Gold was discovered in the vicinity of Atlanta in 1863 and the region has since undergone

sporadic periods of metal production. The most productive years were during the periods from

about 1870 to 1885, 1902 to 1917, and 1932 to 1957. Estimated production from the Atlanta

lodes during those years was 297,000 ounces of gold and 2.6 million ounces of silver at cut-off

grades of 0.4 ounces per ton or opt (13.70 grams per tonne, gpt or g/t) and 0.5 opt (17.1 gpt)

when gold was US$35.00 and US$20.00 per ounce. This historic gold production of

344,000 gold equivalent (“AuEq”) ounces from Atlanta consisted of shallow high grade mining

from surface to a vertical depth of 1,000 feet (305 metres) below surface.

The Atlanta lode and associated lateral veins occur in a biotite granodiorite, affected to varying

degrees by hydrothermal alteration. Gold and silver mineralization is closely associated with the

more intensely silicified zones of the biotite granodiorite.

Modern day exploration activities were commenced by Atlanta Gold Corporation (formerly

Atlanta Gold Corporation of America Inc.) in 1985 and have continued through to the present.

Joint ventures were formed during that period in order to fund exploration of the deposit, notably

with Ramrod Gold Corporation and Newmont Mining Ltd. The Property occupies an area of

2,197 acres (8.89 square kilometres or 889 hectares) and is comprised of four blocks of leased

claims. The Figure below depicts the Property boundary, land tenure, mineralized zones and

previously proposed large open pit areas of the Property.

The Atlanta Gold deposit is classified as an epithermal gold-silver deposit, with the economic

concentrations of gold and silver deposited with silica by hydrothermal fluids in vein systems.

Most of the mineralization appears at the convergence of lateral veins with more prominent veins

within an intensely sheared zone known as the Atlanta Shear Zone which is 11,400 feet

(3,475 metres) long, 30 to 120 feet (9 to 37 metres) wide and goes down to a known vertical

depth of 2,000 feet (610 metres) below surface. Since Atlanta started exploration, a total of

168,081 feet (51,231 metres or m) of reverse circulation (RC) drilling and 91,666 feet

(27,940 m) of diamond core drilling have been completed.

P&E Mining Consultants Inc. ii


Figure 1.1 Tenure map showing Atlanta Property. (January 2011)

Source: P&E Mining Consultants Inc. 2011

Note: Previously proposed large open pit areas are taken from Behre Dolbear 2004

Historic drilling and the 2010 exploration results confirm continuity to a vertical depth of at least

2,000 feet (610 metres) and that, at a depth of 1,000 feet (305 metres) the Atlanta Shear splits

into two individual zones (the North and South Zones) which appear to widen at depth. A vein

appears to extend from the north side of the Atlanta Shear in a north westerly direction towards

the Tahoma structure. If this connection is confirmed by further drilling, it will add a north

westerly horizontal extension of approximately 8,200 feet (2,500 metres) from the 11,400 foot

(3,475 metre) long, north easterly-trending Atlanta Shear Zone. These results bring further

evidence that the Atlanta Shear Zone is open to exploration at depth and in other directions and

is part of a large mineralized system which will ultimately multiply the gold content per vertical

foot and the economic potential of the Project.

The Company previously commissioned other NI 43-101 compliant technical reports and

resource estimates as well as the 2005 Feasibility Study completed by Behre Dolbear which

proposed to develop Atlanta as a bulk mining open pit and cyanide heap leach operation. In

2008 the Company changed its mining strategy to instead proceed with a smaller open pit and

underground mining operation with an on-site milling facility. The revised strategy does not

involve a surface heap leach process and will significantly reduce the surface or environmental

footprint and reduce environmental risk. This more selective method of ore extraction positively

addresses environmental concerns identified during previous permitting efforts. It also increases

expected metal recovery rates from 63% to 83% for gold and 88% for silver.

P&E Mining Consultants Inc. iii


1.1 BEHRE DOLBEAR 2005 RESOURCE ESTIMATE

Behre Dolbear (2004) defined two areas of the Property as being mineable by open pit heap

leach methods. Prospective pits in the Idaho and Monarch areas were proposed for the western

and eastern portions of the Property respectively. An open-pit mineral resource was calculated by

Behre Dolbear in November 2004, and used in their 2005 Feasibility Study. Based on a 0.015 opt

(0.51 gpt) Au cut-off, Measured and Indicated resources of 27,887,000 tons at an average grade

of 0.049 opt (1.68 gpt) Au containing a total of 1,360,000 ounces of gold was outlined and is

shown in the Table below highlighted in yellow. An additional 560,000 ounces of gold are

shown in the Inferred category. The sensitivity of the resource estimate to varying gold cut-off

grades (0.020 and 0.025 opt (0.69 and 0.86 gpt) is also depicted in Table 1.1 below.

TABLE 1.1

ATLANTA MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE SUMMARY (BEHRE DOLBEAR 2005)

*Note: P&E has not conducted the work necessary to verify the classification of the mineral resource estimates and

therefore, for purposes of this Report such estimates cannot be treated as NI 43-101 defined resources

verified by a qualified person. Accordingly, the estimates presented in this section of the report should not

be relied upon.

P&E Mining Consultants Inc. iv


1.2 JOSEY MARCH 2009 RESOURCE ESTIMATE

The most recent mineral resource estimate prepared prior to that of the P&E February, 2011

estimate was that presented by Bill Josey in 2009. As summarized below in Table 1.2, Josey

(2009) estimated the Measured and Indicated resources at 3.00 million tons above cut-off gold

grades of 0.05 opt (1.71 gpt) for the mini-pit resource and 0.100 opt (3.43 gpt) for the

underground resource with average grades of 0.154 opt (5.28 gpt) Au and 0.357 opt (12.24 gpt)

Ag. This mineral resource contains 460,300 ounces of gold and 1,069,900 ounces of silver,

respectively, or 474,900 gold equivalent ounces (including silver resources as a gold equivalent).

TABLE 1.2

SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND INDICATED RESOURCE ESTIMATE JOSEY (2009)

Atlanta Gold Measured and Indicated Resources

Area

GOLD SILVER

Total

Equivalent

Ounces of

Gold6

(000's)

Cut-

Off

Grade

(opt)

Gold

Grade

(opt)

Tons

(000’s)

Ounces

of Gold

(000’s)

Ratio

of

Silver

to Gold

Ounces

Ounces

of

Silver

(000's)

Price

Factor2

Gold

Price /

Silver

Price

Equivalent

Ounces of

Gold

(000's)

Mini-Pit Resource

East and West

Monarch1 0.05 0.111 419.3 46.4 4.28

4 198.6 73.7 2.7 49.1

Idaho1 0.05 0.060 82.3 4.9 4.28

4 21.1 73.7 0.3 5.2

Total Mini Pit

Resource 0.095 501.6 51.3 4.284 219.7 3.0 54.3

Underground Resource

Monarch and

Idaho1 0.10 0.161 2,125.8 343.3 2.02 797.7 73.7 10.8 354.1

East Extension5 0.10 0.177 370.5 65.7 0.80 52.5 73.7 0.7 66.4

Total

Underground

Resource 0.10 0.164 2,496.3 409.0 1.81 850.2 73.7 11.5 420.5

Total Resource 0.1543 2,997.9 460.3 2.12 1,069.9 14.5 474.9

1.) Based on a compilation of the same input data used for the 2007 Technical Report which is Canadian

National Instrument 43-101(“NI 43-101”) compliant

2.) Price Factor, using closing prices as of the close of business on November 3, 2008 on New York Globex is

73.70 (US$722.00 per ounce of gold / US$9.79 per ounce of silver)

3.) Average grade of gold per ton = 0.154 ounces per ton (460,300 ounces / 2,997,900 tons)

4.) Estimated ratio of silver to gold ounces

5.) The resource for the East Extension is a total resource. It has not been decided with certainty whether the

East Extension area can be mined by open pit methods or underground or both.

6.) The average grade of gold equivalent (including silver resources as a gold equivalent) per ton

= 0.158 ounces per ton (474,900 ounces / 2,997,900 tons)

1.3 P&E FEBRUARY, 2011 RESOURCE ESTIMATE

The P&E, February, 2011, Resource Estimate was prepared for both open pit and underground

scenarios and is therefore not comparable with the Behre Dolbear 2004 model which was

presented as a large tonnage, open pit, heap leach operation. The P&E Resource Estimate model

was based on a smaller combined open pit and underground operation using flotation processing.

In addition, the P&E Resource Estimate was restricted to mineralization occurring solely on

patented claims. Consequently, the P&E Resource Estimate model would result in higher

operating costs and cut-off grades, lower resource tonnages and higher recovery rates.

P&E Mining Consultants Inc. v


Atlanta has delineated two underground targets as the Newmont and Glaspey Zones and

underground resources for these zones were included as part of the P&E February 2011 Resource

Estimate. A cut-off grade of 0.04 opt (1.37 grams per tonne, gpt or g/t) Au was used for open pit

mining and a cut-off grade of 0.09 opt (3.09 gpt) Au was used for underground mining. As noted

in Table 1.3 below the P&E February, 2011 Resource Estimate contains a total of 466,000 gold

equivalent (AuEq) ounces classified as Indicated, and 290,000 AuEq ounces classified as

Inferred, with AuEq ounces calculated using a gold to silver price ratio of 77.6:1. Based on

production of 40,000 AuEq ounces per year, the P&E Resource Estimate would extend the

Project‟s mine life to approximately 19 years.

The resource was estimated on the basis of the November 30, 2010 two-year trailing average

US$ metal prices of $1,075 per ounce of gold and $16.61 per ounce of silver with mill recoveries

of 90% and 75% respectively. Prevailing metal prices at December 31, 2010 were US$1,422 per

ounce of gold and US$30.91 per ounce of silver.

TABLE 1.3

ATLANTA FEBRUARY 2011 P&E MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE(1)(2)(3)(4)

Open Pit Resource

Resource

Cut-

Off

Grade

opt Au

Short

Tons

'000

Gold Silver

Gold

Equivalent

Au

Grade

opt

Au

Grade

g/t

Au

Ozs

'000

Ag

Grade

opt

Ag

Grade

g/t

Ag ozs

'000

AuEq ozs

'000

Indicated 0.04 2,331 0.130 4.46 303.0 0.389 13.34 906.8 314.7

Inferred 0.04 58 0.123 4.22 7.1 0.235 8.06 13.6 7.3


Zone Resource

Cut-

Off

Grade

opt Au

Short

Tons

'000

Gold Silver Gold

Equivalent

Au

Grade

opt

Au

Grade

g/t

Au

ozs

'000

Ag

Grade

opt

Ag

Grade

g/t

Ag ozs

'000

AuEq ozs

'000

Glaspey Indicated 0.09 61.20 0.193 6.62 11.8 0.209 7.17 12.0

Newmont Indicated 0.09 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.0

Other Indicated 0.09 872.80 0.156 5.34 135.9 0.318 10.91 139.3

Glaspey Inferred 0.09 18.10 0.181 6.21 3.3 0.176 6.03 3.3

Newmont Inferred 0.09 503.70 0.223 7.65 112.6 0.211 7.23 114.0

Other Inferred 0.09 978.20 0.166 5.67 161.9 0.298 10.20 165.4

Total Open Pit and Underground Resources

Resource

Short

Tons

'000

Gold Silver

Gold

Equivalent

Au

Grade

opt

Au

Grade

g/t

Au

ozs

'000

AuEq

ozs

'000

Ag

Grade

g/t

Ag ozs

'000

AuEq ozs

'000

Indicated 3,265 0.138 4.73 450.6 466.0 12.580 1,197.3 466.0

Inferred 1,558 0.183 6.27 284.6 290.0 9.090 414.1 290.0

1) Open pit resources are accumulated at a cut-off grade of 0.04 opt (1.71 gpt) Au within an optimized pit

shell

2) Underground resources are accumulated at a cut-off grade of 0.09 opt (3.09 gpt) Au

3) Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The

estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,

taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.

4) Confidence in the estimate of Inferred Mineral Resources is insufficient to allow the meaningful application

of technical and economic parameters. There is no guarantee that all or any part of a mineral resource can

or will be converted into a mineral reserve.

P&E Mining Consultants Inc. vi


1.4 P&E JUNE, 2011 RESOURCE ESTIMATE

This Report outlines the updated mineral resource estimate prepared by P&E effective June 30,

2011, which supersedes all existing mineral resource estimates.

(1) Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The



(2) The quantity and grade of reported inferred resources in this estimate are uncertain in nature and there

has been insufficient exploration to define these Inferred resources as an Indicated or Measured mineral

resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an Indicated or

Measured mineral resource category.

(3) The mineral resources were estimated using the CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves,

Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions.

(4) AuEq was calculated such that one ounce of Au = 55.6 ounces Ag. Metal prices used were the

June 30, 2011 two year trailing average for Au at US$1,231.00/oz and Ag at US$22.48/oz with process

recoveries of 83% for gold and 88% for silver.

(5) The estimated mined tonnage from historic operations which was mined at cut-off grades above 0.4 and 0.5

opt (13.7 and 17.1 gpt) was removed from the block model.

(6) Gold cut-off grades of 0.041 opt (1.41 gpt) for open pit and 0.113 opt (2.25 gpt) for underground resources

were established from metal prices, expected recoveries, and estimated operating costs.

TABLE 1.4

ATLANTA MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE AS OF JUNE 30, 2011(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)

Area

Tons

(000’s)

GOLD SILVER

Total

Equivalent

Ounces of

Gold

(000's)

Cut-

Off

Grade

(opt)

Grade

Ounces

of

Gold

(000’s)

Grade

Ounces

of

Silver

(000's)

Ounces of

Silver as

Gold

Equivalent

(000's)

Ounces

Per

Ton

Au

Grams

Per

Tonne

Au

Ounces

Per

Ton

Ag

Grams

Per

Tonne

Ag

Open -Pit

Indicated 6,732 0.041 0.099 3.39 665.5 0.263 9.02 1,769.2 31.8 697.3

Inferred 850 0.041 0.093 3.19 79.4 0.200 6.86 170.2 3.1 82.5

Underground

Indicated 95 0.113 0.222 7.61 21.1 0.319 10.92 30.3 0.6 21.6

Inferred 938 0.113 0.216 7.42 203.0 0.272 9.33 255.2 4.6 207.6

Total

Indicated 6,828 0.101 3.45 686.6 0.264 9.04 1,799.5 32.4 719.0

Inferred 1,788 0.158 5.42 282.4 0.238 8.16 425.4 7.7 290.1

P&E Mining Consultants Inc. vii


Based on the following criteria, P&E has not included any of the mineral resource at Atlanta in

the Measured category:

A change in the conceptual mining plan from a large open-pit heap leach to a

small open-pit and underground operation has significantly reduced mineral

resource tonnage and metal content and increased expected recovery rates.

P&E‟s review of historical data resulted in the reclassification of mineral resource

estimates and the level of confidence in these estimates, including:

Difficulty in interpreting results from historical sub-vertical reverse

circulation drilling to delineate and sample the Atlanta Shear Zone;

A consistent bias between diamond drill hole data and historic reverse

circulation (“RC”) drilling data;

Historic drill hole collars were not all surveyed;

Historic down hole drill hole surveys are of varying quality;

Historic QA/QC protocols do not meet current generally accepted

standards;

Historical mineral resource estimates included resources generated outside

the defined mineralization envelopes;

Lack of sufficiently representative bulk density measurements;

Uncertainty as to the extent and location of historical mining, particularly

in the Monarch area.

During preparation of the P&E Mineral Resource Estimate, it became evident that additional

technical studies and drilling would be required to more fully delineate potential economic

mineralization at the Atlanta Gold Deposit. Therefore, it is recommended that:

A comprehensive density study be conducted across the deposit to provide data

for creation of a density block model which will allow the calculation of accurate

tonnages;

A structural interpretation be undertaken across the entire Property (including a

ground penetrating radar survey of the mined out areas) to improve understanding

of the relationship between structure and ore localization as well as to facilitate

mine design for optimum ore extraction and grade control;

A minimum 60,000 foot (18,288 metre) detailed, targeted drilling campaign be

completed to further define historically mined areas, to delineate known splays off

the Monarch zone, to explore historical mineralization peripheral to the Atlanta

deposit, and to further investigate the nature and extent of the oxide/sulphide

boundary;

The available RC drilling data used in current mineral resource estimate modeling

needs to be further validated and it is therefore recommended that the RC drilling

results be investigated on a hole-by-hole basis.

The recommended program outlined above is designed to increase confidence levels for the

current resource categories and move the Project though the Scoping Study stage.

The Atlanta deposit remains open at depth. Additional exploration and development work is

warranted to identify the vertical extent of gold mineralization and to explore for potential

resources west of the current resource, as well as fault-displaced blocks. In addition, several

P&E Mining Consultants Inc. viii


north-trending splays off the Monarch zone have been identified, and constitute a viable

exploration target.

In order to complete the recommended exploration work programs in 2011, a minimum

$4.2 million exploration Budget is required.

Based on the current resource base and technical understanding of the Property, P&E concludes

that the Property has sufficient merit to warrant continued resource definition and exploration

drilling and preparation of an Advanced Scoping Study, or Preliminary Economic Assessment.

P&E Mining Consultants Inc. Page 1 of 90


2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The following report was prepared to provide an independent National Instrument 43-101 (“NI

43-101”) compliant Technical Report and Updated Mineral Resource Estimate (the “Report”) of

the gold mineralization contained on and below the Property located on Atlanta Hill, which is

approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometres) north of the town of Atlanta, Idaho (the “Property”).

The purpose of the Report is to review the geology and existing data from exploration of the

Atlanta gold deposit and estimate the mineral resource with a view to mining by a combination

of shallow open pit and underground methods. The Report may also be used to support public

equity financings.

This Technical Report is prepared in accordance with the requirements of Form NI 43-101F1 of

the Canadian Securities Administrators (“CSA”). The mineral resources in the estimate are

compliant with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) Standards

on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing

Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council December 11, 2005.

This report was prepared by P&E Mining Consultants Inc. (“P&E”) at the request of Atlanta

Gold Inc. (the “Company”), an exploration and development company based in Toronto,

Ontario, Canada. Its registered corporate office is located in Ontario at:

First Canadian Place

100 King Street West

Suite 5600

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

M5X 1C9

Telephone: 416-777-0013

Fax: 416-777-0014

This Report has an effective date of June 30, 2011.

Mr. Fred H. Brown, MSc. (Eng), CPG, Pr.Sci.Nat., a qualified person under National Instrument

43-101, conducted a site visit to the Property during the period September 29 to 30, 2010. An

independent verification sampling program was conducted by Mr. Brown at that time.

In addition to the site visit, P&E carried out a study of all relevant parts of the available literature

and documented results concerning the Property and held discussions with technical personnel

from the Company regarding all pertinent aspects of the Project. The reader is referred to those

data sources, which are outlined in the References section of this Report, for further detail.

2.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

This Report is based, in part, on internal Company technical reports, and maps, published

government reports, Company letters and memoranda, public information listed in the

References section 27.0 at the conclusion of this Report. Several sections from reports authored

by other consultants have been directly quoted or summarized in this Report, and are so indicated

where appropriate.



It should be noted that the author has drawn heavily upon selected portions or excerpts from

material contained in a previous NI 43-101 report prepared by William L. Josey titled “National

Instrument 43-101 Technical Report and Resource Estimate for the Atlanta Project, Elmore

County, Idaho” and dated March, 2009.

2.3 UNITS AND CURRENCY

Units of measure used in the Report, except where otherwise indicated, are based on the Imperial

Measurement system, using troy ounces and short tons. Various conversion factors from Imperial

measures to metric units are given below:

Linear Measure

1 inch =2.54 centimetres

1 foot =0.3048 metre

1 yard =0.9144 metre

1 mile =1.6093 kilometres

Area Measure

1 acre =0.4047 hectare

1 acre =0.004047 square kilometres

1 square mile =640 acres =259 hectares

Weight

1 short ton =2,000 pounds =0.907 metric tonnes

1 pound =0.454 kilograms =14.5833 troy ounces (oz)

Assay Values

1 oz per ton =34.2857 grams/tonne

1 troy ounce =31.1035 grams

1 ppm =0.0292 oz per ton

2.4 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATION OF TERMS

In this document, in addition to the definitions contained heretofore and hereinafter, unless the

context otherwise requires, the following terms have the meanings set forth below.

“$” and “US$” means the currency of the United States

“AAS” means Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy

“AA” is an acronym for Atomic Absorption, a technique used to measure metal

content subsequent to fire assay

“amsl” means above mean sea level

“Atlanta” means Atlanta Gold Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Atlanta

Gold Inc.

“Au” means gold

“CIM” means the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.



“cm” means centimetres

“Company” means Atlanta Gold Inc.

“CSA” means the Canadian Securities Administrators

“DCP” means an acronym for Direct Coupled Plasma, a technique used to

measure metal content subsequent to fire assay

“E” means east

“el” means elevation level

“gpt” means grams per tonne

“ha” means Hectare

“km” means kilometre

“m” means metre

“M” means million

“Ma” means millions of years

“mm” means millimetres

“Mt” means millions of tonnes

“MT” means millions of short tons

“N” means north

“NE” means northeast

“NI” means National Instrument

“NTS” means National Topographic System

“NW” means northwest

“NSR” means an acronym for net smelter return, which is the amount actually

paid to the mine or mill owner from the sale of ore, minerals and other

materials or concentrates mined and removed from mineral properties,

after deducting certain expenditures as defined in the underlying smelting

agreements

“opt” means ounces per short ton

“oz/T” means ounces per short ton

“P&E” means P&E Mining Consultants Inc.

“Property” means the Atlanta Gold Property hosting the Atlanta Gold Deposit

“ppm” means parts per million

“QP” means “qualified person” as defined in National Instrument 43-101

“S” means south

“SE” means southeast

“SEDAR” means the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval

“SW” means southwest

“t” means tonne(s)

“T” means short ton(s)

“t/a” means tonnes per annum

“T/a” means short tons per annum

“TN” means True North

“tpd” means tonnes per day

“TSXV” means the TSX Venture Exchange

“US$” means the currency of the United States

“UTM” means Universal Transverse Mercator

“W” means west



3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

P&E has assumed, and relied on the fact, that all the information and existing technical

documents listed in the References section of this Report are accurate and complete in all

material aspects. While we carefully reviewed all the available information presented to us, we

cannot guarantee its accuracy and completeness. We reserve the right, but will not be obligated

to revise our Report and conclusions if additional information becomes known to us subsequent

to the date of this Report.

In general, copies of the tenure documents, operating licenses, permits, and work contracts were

not reviewed and an independent verification of land title and tenure was not performed. P&E

has not verified the legality of any underlying agreement(s) that may exist concerning the

licenses or other agreement(s) between third parties but has relied on, and believes it has a

reasonable basis to rely upon, the legal counsel for Atlanta, to have conducted the proper legal

due diligence in this regard.

Atlanta has provided tenure data to P&E that was presented as current as of the effective date of

this Report and P&E has relied on this data to be an accurate and valid representation of

government and private land records. In this regard Ms. Becky Shull, Office Administrator, was

especially helpful in providing up to-date tenure information.

To the best of the authors‟ knowledge there are no other contingent or actual environmental

liabilities or other liens against the Property as of the effective date of this Report, except as set

forth in Section 20 of this Report.



4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The Property lies within the historic Middle Boise Mining District where gold and silver has

been mined since the 1860s, with an even longer history of exploration and development.

4.1 ATLANTA PROPERTY LOCATION

The Property in Elmore County, Idaho, is located at Longitude 115o 06‟ 51” and Latitude

43o 46‟ 55” a position situated 60 air miles (90 air kilometres) east/northeast of Boise, Idaho's

capital, at elevations between 5,400 and 7,200 feet (1,646 to 2,195 metres) in rugged, largely

timbered country. It is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometres) south of the historic mining

town of Atlanta (Figure 4.1), within the drainage of the Middle Fork of the Boise River.

Figure 4.1 Regional Location Map showing Atlanta Property

4.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND TENURE

The Project site is located on top of Atlanta Hill, which has a maximum elevation of 7,200 feet

(2,195 metres) amsl. The town of Atlanta is located on the north side and at the foot of Atlanta

Hill, which rises approximately 1,900 feet (579 metres) above the town over a horizontal

distance of 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometres). A group of patented mining claims surround the Atlanta

Shear Zone and some of the associated lateral veins which trend through Atlanta Hill. These



claims have been in existence since the late 1800s. The Property consists of 153 unpatented

mining claims, 35 patented lode claims, two patented mill site claims, and one unpatented mill

site claim totalling 2,159 acres (872.27 hectares or 8.73 square kilometres).

The current land package as depicted above and outlined in Table 4.1 and shown in Figure 4.2

contains two blocks of leased claims and reflects the recent purchase by Atlanta of the Monarch

Greenback claims (21 patented and 7 unpatented claims) as described herein under Subsection

4.3 – Ownership and the dropping of two of Atlanta‟s unpatented claims. The current lessors are

Gardner, and Hollenbeck Properties LLC. The Gardner Lease consists of 31 unpatented mineral

claims; the lease is due to expire in 2016. The Hollenbeck Lease consists of 10 patented and 5

unpatented mining claims; the lease is through 2012. In addition the Company owns three

patented mineral claims and leases 117 unpatented mineral claims from the U.S. Forest Service

(“USFS”).

An annual maintenance fee of US$140 is paid to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management for each unpatented claim.

These claims encompass portions of Sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 21 of

Township 5 North, Range 11 East (Boise Meridian). Since a fire in August of 2000 burned much

of the area, most of the unpatented U.S. mineral claims have been re-monumented.

It should be noted that a total of 115 acres of patented and unpatented claims lying remote from

the main mineralized Atlanta Shear Zone, but still within the perimeter of the Property are held

by others (see Figure 4.2). All facilities have, however, been located on mineral claims owned or

leased by Atlanta.

4.2.1 Land Surveying

The Atlanta Project coordinate system is rotated 30 degrees west of north since the Atlanta Shear

Shear Zone trends in a N60E direction. North in the mine grid represents a N30W true bearing.

A baseline was established in the late 1980s that trends parallel with the main Shear so that all

drill holes could be oriented perpendicular to the Shear. Drill hole collar coordinates are

converted to the mine grid from the true north grid after surveying.

Idaho Survey Group and its predecessor, Hubble Engineering, Inc. has been performing

professional surveying services on the Atlanta Project since 1988. Services provided have

included establishing horizontal and vertical control points, staking boundary lines, topographic

surveys for site design, staking mining claim corners, staking exploratory drill hole locations,

and providing as-built surveys for drill hole casings. Drill holes for exploratory work done by the

Company were independently surveyed by Idaho Survey Group in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

The mine area survey control was established by Idaho Survey Group's predecessor, Hubble

Engineering, Inc. in the 1980‟s. A horizontal control baseline was established and a local "Mine

Grid" coordinate system was adopted. Vertical control was established on the baseline using a

mine datum elevation which is 19.02 feet below NAVD 1988 vertical datum. Idaho Survey

Group has expanded this original "Mine Grid" datum throughout the Project and has computed

conversion factors to convert surveyed positions to NAD 83 UTM coordinates and NAVD 88

elevations. Independently surveyed positions on drill hole location are reported in "Mine Grid"

datum and are accurate to within 0.2 feet horizontally and 0.2 feet vertically, using standard

surveying practices.



The original "Mine Grid" baseline was established utilizing 5-Second Precision Topcon Total

Station instruments. Most work performed within the past 10 years has been accomplished

utilizing Leica System 1200 high precision survey grade GPS receivers and standard surveying

practices.

TABLE 4.1

ATLANTA PROPERTY TENURE

Holder Number of Claims Year of Lease Expiry Total Area (Acres)

Patented Mining Lode Claims with Surface Rights

Hollenbeck 10 2012 139.65

Atlanta 25 -- 266.75

Total Patented 35 406.40

Unpatented Mining Claims

Gardner 31 2016 471.92

Hollenbeck 5 2012 76.90

Atlanta (USFS) 117 -- 1204.11

Total Unpatented 153 1752.93

Total 188 2,159

Figure 4.2 Tenure map showing Atlanta Property claim holdings (January 2011)

Source: P&E Mining Consultants Inc. 2011

Note: Previously proposed large open pit areas are taken from Behre Dolbear 2004



4.3 OWNERSHIP

On July 22, 1997, Atlanta Gold Corporation of America Inc., a predecessor company to Atlanta

and Canadian American Mining Company, LLC (“CAMC”) (formerly Quest International

Resources Corporation) (“Quest”), entered into a joint venture agreement (the “Quest

Agreement”) whereby Atlanta became the operator of the Property with an 80% interest, with

Quest holding the remaining 20% participating interest. CAMC subsequently agreed in

December 2002 to transfer its 20% participating interest in the joint venture to Atlanta, and retain

a 2% NSR royalty (the “Royalty”) on the Property as per the Quest Agreement. In September

2009, the Company purchased half of the Royalty (1%) from CAMC by issuing 5.75 million

common shares of the Company, which were valued at $1,035,000, and agreeing to pay an

additional US$200,000 to CAMC as follows: US$20,000 paid on closing; US$30,000 on

October 25, 2009, and US$10,000 monthly payments paid for 15 consecutive months from

November 2009 to January 2011. As at the date of this Report, the Company has made all of the

foregoing payments and completed the purchase of one half of the Royalty (1%).

4.3.1 Current Status of the Lease / Option Agreements

Pursuant to a Lease / Purchase Option agreement between Atlanta and Monarch Greenback, LLC

(“Monarch”) dated February 2, 1999, as subsequently amended in 1999, 2001 and 2009 Atlanta

leased Monarch‟s surface and mineral rights to Atlanta with an option to purchase all of such

rights.

In a news release dated April 29, 2011, the Company announced that Atlanta had provided to

Monarch notice of exercise of Atlanta‟s option to purchase the Monarch claims. The purchase

price was US$3,075,000 and Monarch retained a variable net smelter return royalty, varying

from 0.5% to a maximum rate of 3.5% for gold prices exceeding US$665 per ounce. As at

December 31, 2010, advance royalty payments of US$1,500,000 had been made by the

Company and will be deducted from future royalty payments to Monarch. The Company

announced in a news release dated June 9, 2011 that the transaction to acquire the Monarch

claims was completed as of June 8, 2011.

To assist in the financing of the purchase of the Monarch claims, the Company borrowed US$3

million from Concept Capital Management Ltd. (“CCM”) by way of a secured, non-interest

bearing bridge loan (the “Loan”) which will be repaid by the proceeds from and is intended to be

replaced by the issuance of a 5-year 6% secured convertible redeemable debenture (the

“Debenture”) for C$3 million, to be issued by the Company to CCM. The Loan is non-interest

bearing and is secured by a limited recourse guarantee of Atlanta and by a mortgage on the

Monarch claims. The Debenture will also be secured by a limited recourse guarantee of Atlanta

and by a mortgage on the Monarch claims. As additional consideration to CCM for providing the

Loan to the Company, Atlanta has provided CCM with an option to purchase the Monarch

claims for US$3 million (the “Property Option”). This option will only become exercisable if the

Loan is repaid other than by the issuance of the Debenture or if the Loan remains outstanding as

of January 31, 2012. The Property Option will terminate upon the earlier of (i) the issuance of

the Debenture and warrants to purchase 30 million common shares of the Company (the

“Warrants”) and (ii) 90 days following repayment of the Loan other than by means of issuing the

Debenture and the Warrants. The issuance of the Debenture and the Warrants is subject to the

approval of the TSX Venture Exchange and, as required by the Exchange, the approval of

shareholders of the Company. The Company advises that it is in the process of settling definitive



documentation for the Debenture and the Warrants with CCM, following which it will seek stock

exchange and shareholder approvals. If such approvals are not obtained, the Debenture and

Warrants may not be issued and the Loan will continue to be outstanding. Failure to issue the

Debenture by a date to be determined may constitute an event of default under the Loan,

whereupon the Loan will become immediately due and payable and CCM may then elect to

enforce its mortgage security against the Monarch claims. In addition, if the Loan is repaid other

than by the issuance of the Debenture and the Warrants, or if the Loan remains unpaid at

January 31, 2012, the Property Option will become exercisable by CCM. Should CCM elect to

enforce its mortgage security, Atlanta may cease to hold an interest in the Monarch claims.

Should CCM elect to exercise the Property Option and subsequently complete the purchase the

Monarch claims, Atlanta will cease to hold an interest in the Monarch claims. There can be no

assurance that Atlanta will be able to re-acquire any interest in the Monarch claims on

satisfactory terms or at all.

Upon issuance of the Debenture, Atlanta will issue to CCM an option to purchase an aggregate

of 4,000 ounces Au from the Atlanta Project at a price of US$1,400 per ounce. The option will

vest after the Atlanta Project has completed production of 20,000 ounces Au and will expire on

the fifth anniversary of the date of vesting.

The option to purchase the Hill & Davis patented mining claim was exercised by Atlanta in

December 2010 upon the payment, pursuant to an amended lease-purchase option agreement

with Born, Johns and Rhees, of the final option payment of US$30,975 (US$29,500 plus accrued

simple interest of $1,475 @ 5% per year). As of December 31, 2010, advance royalty payments

of US$203,500 will be deducted from future royalty payments to Born, Johns and Rhees.

Atlanta leases 31 unpatented lode claims pursuant to a lease agreement, as amended, with Frank

C. Gardner. The lease expires on April 18, 2016. Lease payments are currently US$10,000 per

year and are treated as minimum annual advance royalties. If these claims go into commercial

production before expiry of the lease, then the annual minimum advance royalty will be

US$20,000. If this property is mined, Frank Gardner will receive a 6% NSR, from which all

advance royalty payments shall be deducted. As of December 31, 2010, advance royalty

payments of US$168,500 will be deducted from any future royalty payments to Frank Gardner.

Atlanta leases 9 patented and 5 unpatented claims pursuant to a lease agreement with Hollenbeck

Properties LLC. The lease expires November 14, 2012 and is renewable year to year thereafter at

an amount to be negotiated. Annual lease payments of US$10,000 per year are treated as

minimum advance royalties. If this property goes into commercial production, then the annual

minimum advance royalty will be US$20,000. If it is mined, Hollenbeck will receive a 4.25%

NSR, from which all advance royalty payments shall be deducted. As of December 31, 2010,

advance royalty payments of US$282,500 will be deducted from any future royalty payments to

Hollenbeck Properties LLC.

Annual rental and advance royalty payments are required to keep lease agreements in good

standing for the properties that collectively comprise the Property. Advance royalty payments to

lessors are credited against future royalties payable on production. As of June 30, 2011, advance

royalty payments totalling US$2,164,500 will be deducted from any future royalty payments to

lessors/royalty holders. Advance royalty payments as at June 30, 2011 are summarized in t

below.



TABLE 4.2

ADVANCE ROYALTY PAYMENTS AS AT JUNE 30, 2011

Lessor / Royalty Holder Property Advance Royalty Payments as at

June 30, 2011

Monarch Greenback, LLC Monarch Greenback US$1,500,000

Born, John and Rhees Hill & Davis 203,500

Frank C. Gardner Gardner 178,500

Hollenbeck Properties LLC Hollenbeck 282,500

Total US$2,164,500



5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE,

AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.1 ACCESS

Several routes to Atlanta from Boise exist with portions of certain routes paved with asphalt. The

only year-round access available is the route following the Middle Fork of the Boise River from

just outside of Boise. The road distance along this route is approximately 105 miles with a

required driving time of approximately 3 hours. The Middle Fork road is an all-weather

gravel/dirt road that is maintained throughout the year (Figure 5.1).

Another principal route is by means of State Highway 21 through Idaho City, over USFS Roads

384 and 327, then onto a county road along the Middle Fork through Atlanta and onto USFS

Road 207 to the Project site. This route and other routes into Atlanta are not maintained in the

winter months.

Mine roads from the town of Atlanta ascend the hill to various historic mines and prospects that

have not received recent exploration activity. The principal access to the Property starts about 0.5

miles east of the center of Atlanta and proceeds along Montezuma Creek up to the divide at the

head of the stream. From there, mine roads extend west to the various mine workings. Another

road from Atlanta extends up Yuba-Decker to and beyond the old Minerva mine.

Figure 5.1 Access to the Atlanta Property



5.2 CLIMATE

The Atlanta area has a variation of the continental climate that is characterized by hot summers

and winters that are moderately cold with abundant moisture falling predominately as snow.

Spring time alternates between rainy and cool periods and extended days that are sunny and

warm. Summers are warm to hot and clear except for occasional thunderstorms. Autumn is

similar to spring in that it alternates between clear and warm days with increasing periods that

are cold and moist. Snow covers the area generally from mid-November to the end of April with

temperature and precipitation patterns varying with elevation.

The majority of the annual precipitation on the Project site occurs as snow – as much as 50 to

70% depending on elevation. Annual average precipitation for the Atlanta town site (1981-1986)

was 33 inches while on the nearby Atlanta Summit (elevation 7,580 feet or 2,310 metres),

approximately seven miles (11.3 kilometres) west of Atlanta Hill, the average precipitation was

50 inches. At Atlanta Summit the average snow depth from 1935 to 1985, recorded on

April 1, was 96 inches.

The average annual temperature at the Atlanta town site is approximately 40 degrees Fahrenheit

(°F). Temperatures can vary widely during all seasons with mean daily highs in July from 45° to

85°F to the mean daily low in January of l0°F. Significant lows are recorded to below -30°F.

5.3 LOCAL RESOURCES

Atlanta has located several buildings on the Property that include several storage units, a

rudimentary laboratory building, core logging facilities, aboveground storage tanks, and a 45KW

diesel generator.

Water for exploration purposes is available from Quartz Gulch and Montezuma drainages which

under even fairly severe conditions contain enough water to support a drilling program.

5.3.1 Water Supply

Atlanta has a 10-year lease for an existing, decreed water right on the Middle Fork of the Boise

River from Greene Tree Incorporated, for a monthly rental of $287.50. The water right consists

of 0.92 cfs (413 gpm) and is a seasonal, irrigation water right that must have the use and point of

diversion changed through the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) prior to its use for

mining purposes. Additional water can be acquired through lease or purchase of existing water

rights, or from an annual lease of stored water from the Water District #63 rental pool. Rental

pool water is priced at $6.50 per acre-foot for in-basin use.

5.4 INFRASTRUCTURE

Due to the small population of the town of Atlanta, only the basic services are available. The

Beaver Lodge offers the only restaurant, bar, and lodging accommodations. Supplies and

gasoline need to be purchased in Boise or the surrounding communities. There is a small pool of

available workers in Atlanta, but for anything other than exploration, the work force would have

to be supplemented from outside the area.



5.5 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The Property lies in mountainous terrain characterized by steep topography. Mountains

surrounding the Project rise significantly above Atlanta Hill. The area consists of moderately to

steeply dissected mountain slopes with narrow ridge crests and steep, narrow stream channels.

Elevations at the Project site vary from approximately 5,400 feet (1,646 metres) at the Atlanta

town site to 7,200 feet (2,195 metres) at the top of Atlanta Hill.

Vegetation in the area is a mixture of coniferous trees, grasses, and shrub habitats. Most of the

timber in the Project area is second growth, as past mining operations used the wood for both

fuel and mine support. Generally, north-facing slopes are heavily wooded while south/southwest-

facing topography consists of sparse grass and sagebrush. Much of the surrounding forest and

grassland on and around Atlanta Hill was burned in a forest fire in August of 2000.



6.0 HISTORY

The Atlanta area has a long history of exploration and gold production. Gold was discovered in

the vicinity of Atlanta in 1863, and placer mining along the nearby Yuba River started in 1864.

In late 1864, the northeast-trending outcrops of quartz, were discovered on the hill east of the

Yuba River. These outcrops now known as the Atlanta lode can be traced for approximately

11,400 feet (3,475 metres) and form the surface expression on which exploration and production

has been carried out since the late 1800s.

Metal production from mines on Atlanta Hill has been sporadic. The most productive period of

mining was from 1932 to 1957, when the eastern part of the Atlanta lode was mined first by the

St. Joseph Lead Company and then later by Talache Mines, Inc. During this period, an

amalgamation/flotation mill was used to recover gold from the refractory ore. Information on

geology and mining activity during these periods is presented by Clayton (1877), Hasting (1895),

Eldridge (1895), Bell (1908), Ballard (1928), Campbell (1932), Anderson (1939), and Wells

(1983).

Gold and silver production from the various mines along the Atlanta lode is estimated to have

totalled approximately 297,000 ounces of gold and 2,600,000 ounces of silver. This is probably a

conservative estimate due to such factors as lack of information on the early production years

and inconsistency in reporting data to the U.S. Bureau of Mines.

TABLE 6.1

SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL EXPLORATION IN THE ATLANTA PROJECT AREA

Year Exploration

1863-

1864

Placer gold was discovered in the vicinity of Atlanta and placer mining immediately

commenced along the nearby Yuba River. While placer mining outcrops of

auriferous quartz, were discovered on the hill east of the Yuba River. These

outcrops established the “Atlanta lode and have been intermittently explored since

that time”.

1864-

1885

This was a period of intense discovery and mining activity in the Atlanta Hill area.

Discoveries of offshoots and mineralized veins related to, the Atlanta lode included

the Minerva, Tahoma, Last Chance, Big Lode deposits.

After 1869, high-grade ore, netting up to $2,000 per ton, was shipped by pack train

to Kelton, Utah, and from there was shipped by rail to smelters in Omaha and New

Jersey.

As the bonanza ore was depleted in the late 1870s, stamp mills were installed at

several of the major properties in an attempt to continue production.

1886-

1901

After operating into the middle 1880s, mining ceased due primarily to the refractory

nature of the ore.

1902-

1917

Activity in the district surged again in the early 1900s with a number of the

properties being reopened and new mills constructed utilizing cyanidation in

conjunction with amalgamation and concentration. By 1911, the boom had ended

and except for three years (1915 through 1917), during which the Boise Rochester

property was worked, production in the district ceased for almost 20 years.

Production prior to 1932 probably exceeded $70 million at today‟s metal prices.

1918-

1930

Production from the Atlanta District ceased in 1917 and there was no mining

activity for almost two decades.

1931- The St. Joseph Lead Company acquired the Boise Rochester property in 1917, but



TABLE 6.1


Year Exploration

1963 did not initiate any development of consequence until 1931 when the last boom of

the Atlanta District began.

The St. Joseph Lead Company consolidated the major properties along the Atlanta

Lode, and then built a new amalgamation/flotation mill, which improved recoveries

from refractory ore, and began production in February 1932. After operating the

mine for four years, operations were suspended and the property was leased to

Talache Mines, Inc.

By 1938, the lessees had discovered enough new ore to justify purchasing the mine.

The mill was refitted and the mine was operated continuously from 1939 to 1952,

producing tungsten during World War II.

During the period 1932 through 1952, 215,000 ounces of gold and 900,000 ounces

of silver were produced from the Atlanta Lode. The Talache operation was worked

intermittently until 1963 by lessees and has been idle since.

From April 1, 1942 to July 31, 1943, the Talache mill which was located on the

Atlanta property processed 363,615 pounds of tungsten concentrate which contained

37,835 pounds or 10.41% tungsten trioxide (WO3) extracted from 16,895 tons of

ore

1963-

1987

The district essentially remained idle with even exploration/development work in

abeyance. Atlanta Gold Corporation (a predecessor to the Company), through its

wholly-owned subsidiary Atlanta Gold Corporation of America, Inc. ( a predecessor

of Atlanta Gold Corporation) commenced exploration on the Atlanta Gold Project in

1985.

1988-

1989

Commissioned in 1988 and completed in 1989, Behre Dolbear-Riverside, Inc. and

Bateman Engineers, Inc. prepared a feasibility study for the Atlanta gold and silver

Project near the town of Atlanta, Idaho. Although the study showed favourable

economics, at a gold price of $375/oz, for a medium-size mill plus a small heap

leach operation, the property was not developed.

1990-

1996

Newmont USA Limited drilled 21 intermediate depth holes to a maximum vertical

depth of 563.9 metres in 1991.Ramrod Gold conducted underground drilling in

1994 on the 900 Adit level in the East Extension. This drilling identified the

Glaspey underground resource. In 1994, Atlanta Gold Corporation entered into a

joint venture agreement with Ramrod Gold, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Consolidated Ramrod Gold Corporation) whereby Ramrod could earn 51% interest

in the Property by expending US$2.5 million through May 1995 and a further

US$7.0 million including feasibility study to bring the property into production.

In 1996, Ramrod Gold changed its name to Quest and engaged Behre Dolbear to

prepare pre-feasibility level studies for a number of cases, including:

heap leach;

a small mill;

open pit; and

small, underground operations.

Although the study showed favourable results at a gold price of $375, no

development plans resulted as the gold price subsequently decreased.

1997- In April 1997 Twin Mining Corporation (as the Company was then known)



TABLE 6.1


Year Exploration

2002 commissioned Behre Dolbear to perform a technical, financial and operating

scoping assessment of the development plans to heap leach the oxide ore along with

bio-oxidation of the refractory transition and sulphide ores followed by heap

leaching.

Quest changed its name to Canadian American Mining Company, LLC (“CAMC”)

a private exploration company and on July 22, 1997 entered into an updated joint

venture agreement with Atlanta (the “Quest Agreement”) whereby Atlanta became

an 80% owner and operator of the Property.

On February 2, 1999, Atlanta signed a 10-year Lease/Option to Purchase Agreement

(the “Monarch Agreement”) with Monarch Greenback, LLC (“Monarch”) relating

to Monarch‟s surface and mineral rights to Atlanta, which agreement was

subsequently amended in 1999, 2001 and 2009. Similar option lease agreements

were made with lessors known as Gardner, Hollenbeck Properties LLC, and Hill

and Davis.

In December 2002, in accordance with provisions in the joint venture agreement,

CAMC relinquished its participating interest and Atlanta became the 100 percent

owner of the Atlanta gold property with CAMC retaining a 2% NSR royalty

interest.

2002-

2008

In December 2004, an NI 43-101 Technical Report that outlined two economically

mineable open pits for the ore resources of the Atlanta Project site was published by

Behre Dolbear.

Bacon and Kunter (2004) prepared an NI 43-101 Technical Report dated January

23, 2004 that documented all of the practices and procedures used in the 2002

metallurgical core drilling program and reported on the metallurgical test work.

In April 2005, Behre Dolbear combined their work with that previously completed

by Knight Piesold Consulting and Lyntek, Inc. and published a Feasibility Study.

The study addressed development plans, which included open pit mining, milling

and heap leaching. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was concurrently

completed by Tetra Tech, Inc.

In June 2007, an NI 43-101 Technical Report was completed by Vector

Engineering, Inc., which evaluated the mineral resource and reserve models for the

Atlanta Project. Only the Monarch and Idaho pit areas were included in the model.

The East Extension and Tahoma peripheral areas were modeled but lower

confidence in the results and lack of complete drilling precluded including those

zones within the model at that time.

2008-

present

In April, 2009, Atlanta and Monarch agreed to extend the term of the Monarch

Lease / Option until April 30, 2011. The other option and lease agreements have

terms extending from 2012 to 2016.

Atlanta completed six NQ diamond core drill holes to an average depth of

approximately 500 feet (152 metres) for a total of 3,040 feet (927 metres). Also

completed was the excavation and sampling of additional trenches in the East

Monarch and East Extension zones along with additional trenches in the west end of

the Idaho zone to the Buffalo shaft in the east. A total of 14 trenches with an

average length of 100 feet (30 metres) were excavated for a total of 1,400 feet (427

metres) of trenching in the west Idaho area to a depth of up to 12 feet (4 metres).

These trenches were not sampled.



TABLE 6.1


Year Exploration

An NI 43-101 compliant Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimate for the

Atlanta Project was prepared by William Josey and dated March 30, 2009.

In September 2009, Atlanta purchased one-half (1%) of the 2% NSR held by

CAMC. On June 03, 2010 Atlanta commenced compilation of all available

historical exploration data on the Tahoma structure at its Atlanta Gold Project with

the intention of carrying out follow-up trenching and drilling on the structure.

A 2010 drill program was completed by Atlanta on November 4th after drilling 48

diamond drill holes totalling approximately 39,075 feet (11,910 m) comprised of 42

shallow confirmation drill holes totalling 27,165 feet (8,282 m) and six intermediate

depth holes totalling 11,900 feet (3,628 m). The objective of the program was to

identify new structural lode zones and extensions of vein systems and confirm the

continuity of the Atlanta Shear Zone below existing mine workings to depths of at

least 2,000 feet (610 metres).

In April 2011, Atlanta exercised its option under the Monarch Agreement and in

June 2011 completed the purchase of a portion of the Monarch claims.

6.1 HISTORICAL IN-HOUSE FEASIBILITY STUDIES

Behre Dolbear-Riverside, Inc. and Bateman Engineers completed a Feasibility Study on the

Atlanta Project in 1989, using a milling only scenario.

Pre-Feasibility studies on varied heap leach scenarios were completed in 1996 and 1997 and on

cases combining heap leach with a small mill for the high-grade, refractory mineralization

(Behre Dolbear, 2005).

In April 1997 Twin Mining Corporation (as the Company was then known) commissioned Behre

Dolbear to perform a technical, financial and operating scoping assessment of the development

plans to heap leach the oxide mineralization along with bio-oxidation of the refractory transition

and sulphide material followed by heap leaching. Although the study showed favourable

economics, at a gold price of US$375/oz, for a medium-size mill plus a small heap leach

operation, the property was not developed.

In 2004, Twin Mining Corporation (as the Company was then known) commissioned Behre

Dolbear to perform a Feasibility Study of development plans which included open pit mining and

heap leaching. Also participating in the study, which culminated in a Technical report dated

April, 2005, were Lyntek Incorporated (Lyntek) and Knight Piesold Consulting. An

Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was concurrently completed by Tetra Tech, Inc.

The Behre Dolbear (2005) report concluded that, at a gold price of US$375 per ounce and a

silver price of US$6 per ounce (the Base Case), an economically mineable gold deposit had been

identified and confirmed by the Company at its Atlanta Property located in Elmore County,

Idaho. The study indicated that the Project had an IRR of 24.8 percent and an NPV of

US$14.3 million at a discount rate of 10 percent. Life-of-Mine (LOM) capital expenditures total

US$38.927 million.



The operation, which was predicated on a Project life of six or more years, would employ

conventional open pit mining of two deposits, the Monarch and Idaho, followed by three-stage

crushing, heap leaching and processing through an adsorption-desorption-refining (ADR) carbon

plant.

6.2 PREVIOUS MINERAL RESOURCE/RESERVE ESTIMATES

In February 2011, P&E completed an updated NI 43-101 Technical Report and Resource

Estimate on the Property.

Lance Bacon, the chief geologist for all drilling programs on the Property from 1988 through

2002, was instrumental in creating an ore resource model using Mineral Evaluation and Design

System (MEDS) MineSight geological modeling software produced by Mintec, Inc. (Josey,

2009).

This original mineral resource model was detailed in an NI 43-101 Technical Report authored by

Lance Bacon and Richard Kunter and dated January 23, 2004. The 2004 Technical Report was

prepared to document all of the practices and procedures used in the 2002 metallurgical core

drilling program and subsequent resource modelling as well as reporting on the metallurgical test

work.

In December 2004, an NI 43-101 Technical Report that outlined two economically mineable

open pits for the ore resources of the Atlanta Project site was published by Behre Dolbear. In

April 2005, Behre Dolbear combined their work with that previously completed by Knight

Piesold Consulting and Lyntek, Inc. and published a Feasibility Study.

In June 2007 and based on a previously proposed bulk mining open pit and cyanide heap leach

operation, an NI 43-101 Technical Report was completed by Vector Engineering, Inc., which

evaluated mineral resource and reserve models for the Atlanta Project. The resource

classification conformed to CIM Definition Standards for reporting of mineral resources and

reserves as referred to in NI 43-101. Only the Monarch and Idaho pit areas were included in the

model. The East Extension and Tahoma peripheral areas were modeled but lower confidence in

the results and lack of complete drilling precluded including those zones within the model at that

time.

In addition to updating the gold price, the new mine model included operating cost updates to

April 2007, which were applied to determine the cut-off grades for the new mine model. The

reader is referred to the Vector Engineering, 2007 report for more details on their procedures.

In the NI 43-101 Technical Report and Resource Estimate by Josey (2009) the computer models

used were similar to those previously done by Behre Dolbear in the 2005 Feasibility Study. The

2009 Mineral Resource Estimate encompassed a larger area than that considered in the

Feasibility Study but did not deal with mineable reserves.

The previously prepared Mineral Resource Estimates noted above are briefly summarized in the

sub-sections below.

6.2.1 2005 Behre Dolbear Mineral Resource/Reserve Estimate



Based on a previously proposed bulk mining open pit and cyanide heap leach operation and

using all available geological and assay information provided by the Company. Behre Dolbear

constructed a mineral resource model for the Atlanta Project Feasibility Study. The block model

gold and silver grade resource estimate included both mining dilution and mining loss, due to the

grade smoothing effect of the Ordinary Kriging procedures. In order to fully account for the

mining dilution and mining loss that occur during the open-pit mining operation, the block model

gold and silver grade estimates were reduced by an additional three percent. This is equivalent to

applying a dilution factor of about three percent and a mining loss factor of about three percent

on the estimated block model grades. The block model recoverable gold grades were generated

by multiplying the diluted block model gold grade with the block model heap-leach gold

recovery estimate. Only Measured and Indicated blocks were used to calculate the recoverable

gold grade, as the confidence level of the Inferred blocks was too low to be used for financial

analysis of the Project.

Behre Dolbear noted that at the time of preparation the resource/reserve classifications

conformed to Canadian NI 43-101 resource/reserve definitions however, P&E has not conducted

the work necessary to verify the classification of the mineral resource estimates.

Resources

The 2005 Mineral Resource Estimate by Behre Dolbear for the Atlanta Project is summarized in

yellow highlighting within Table 6.2 using a gold cut-off grade of 0.015, opt Au (0.51gpt): the

sensitivity of the resource to varying cut-off grades (0.020 and 0.025 opt Au (0.69 and 0.86 gpt

Au) is also depicted in the Table 6.2.



TABLE 6.2

ATLANTA MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE SUMMARY (BEHRE DOLBEAR 2005)


the resource estimates and therefore, for purposes of this Report such estimates cannot be treated as NI 43-

101 defined resources verified by a qualified person. Therefore the estimates presented in this section of the

report should not be relied upon.

Reserves

Table 6.3 presents the Behre Dolbear 2005 mineable proven and probable reserves for the

Atlanta Project, calculated at a gold price of US$350/oz and a silver price of US$6.00/oz.

It should be noted that the mineral resource estimates presented in the Tables below are based on

prior data and reports prepared by previous operators. P&E has not conducted the work

necessary to verify the classification of the resource/reserve estimates and therefore such

estimates cannot be treated nor relied upon as NI 43-101 defined resources verified by a

qualified person.



TABLE 6.3

ATLANTA MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE SUMMARY (BEHRE DOLBEAR 2005)

6.2.2 2007 Vector Engineering Mineral Resource/Reserve Estimate

In their report dated April 19, 2007 and based on a previously proposed bulk mining open pit and

cyanide heap leach operation, Vector Engineering provided estimates of the gold and silver

resources within the Atlanta Mine property at a cut-off grade of 0.015 opt (0.51 gpt) Au, and the

reserves at a gold price of US$600 per ounce and a silver price of US$12 per ounce. Resources

are divided into Measured, Indicated, and Inferred categories, with decreasing levels of

confidence. Reserves are categorized as Proven, Probable, and Possible, with decreasing levels

of confidence. The Atlanta Gold Project estimated gold and silver resources and reserves,

including silver reserves as a gold equivalent, are summarized below in Table 6.4.

TABLE 6.4

ATLANTA MINERAL RESOURCE/RESERVE ESTIMATES VECTOR ENGINEERING 2007

Atlanta Gold Project – Gold And Silver Resources

Class Ounces

Gold Ounces Silver

Measured 986,000 2,577,000

Indicated 567,000 1,240,000

Measured + Indicated 1,553,000 3,817,000

Inferred 746,000 1,573,000

Atlanta Gold Project – Saleable Gold and Silver Reserves

Class Ounces

Gold

Ounces

Silver

Gold Equivalent

Ounces

Proven 587,000 1,224,000 611,000

Probable 149,000 298,000 155,000

Total 736,000 1,522,000 766,000


the resource estimates therefore, cannot be treated as NI 43-101 defined resources verified by a qualified

person. Therefore the resource/reserve estimates presented in the Table above should not be relied upon.



6.2.3 2009 Josey Mineral Resource Estimate

A Mineral Resource Estimate prepared by Josey (2009) was presented in a report titled “National

Instrument 43-101 Technical Report and Resource Estimate of the Atlanta Project Elmore

County, Idaho, USA” and dated March 30, 2009. Although results of the Mineral Resource

Estimate are briefly summarized below the reader is referred to the above report for a more

detailed presentation.

The computer models used by Josey (2009) are similar to those previously done by him for the

Behre Dolbear 2004 Technical Report and the 2005 Feasibility Study as well as for the 2007

Vector Engineering report.

Gold mineralization at the Atlanta Project is primarily controlled by a major sub-vertical Shear

Zone, as are secondary veins and structural splits. Three separate mineralized bodies have been

defined: the East Extension mineralization to the east, the Monarch zone immediately west of the

East Extension, and the Idaho zone to the west of the Monarch. The Monarch and Idaho

presently constitute the two principle zones and are separated by an under drilled essentially

barren area (Figure 6.1). The Monarch zone appears to be more controlled by the Shear Zone,

and exhibits stronger grade continuity.

Gold resources at the Atlanta Project have been classified into measured, indicated and inferred

resource categories using the anisotropy distance to the nearest composite and the number of drill

holes used to estimate the block gold grade. For blocks inside the gold mineral envelope of the

Monarch zone and East Extension zones, a measured block is defined by a distance of less than

85.5 feet and at least three drill holes; an indicated block is defined by a distance of 171 feet and

at least two drill holes, and the remaining blocks with a gold grade estimate are classified as

inferred. For blocks outside the gold mineral envelope of the Monarch zone and East Extension

zones only indicated and inferred blocks were defined. An indicated block is defined by a

distance of 85.5 feet and at least two drill holes, and the remaining blocks with a gold grade

estimate were classified as inferred.

For blocks inside the gold mineral envelope of the Idaho zone, a measured block is defined by a

distance of less than 99 feet and at least three drill holes; an indicated block is defined by a

distance of 198 feet and at least two drill holes, and the remaining blocks with a gold grade

estimate are classified as inferred. For blocks outside the gold mineral envelope of the Idaho

zone, only indicated and inferred blocks were defined. An indicated block is defined by a

distance of 99 feet and at least two drill holes, and the remaining blocks with a gold grade

estimate were classified as inferred.

The total Measured and Indicated resource for the Project, effective as of March 30, 2009, is

estimated at 3.00 million tons above cut-off grades of 0.05 opt for the mini-pit resource and

0.100 opt Au for the underground resource with an average grade of 0.154 opt Au and 0.357 opt

Ag, that contain 460,300 ounces of gold and 1,069,900 ounces of silver, respectively, or

474,900 equivalent ounces (including silver resources as a gold equivalent). Table 6.5 outlines

the total Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources estimated by Josey (2009) while Table 6.6

provides a Summary of the Overall Resource Estimates Using a Range of Cut-Off Grades

It should be noted that the mineral resource estimates presented in Table 6.4 and Table 6.5 are

based on prior data and reports prepared by previous operators. P&E has not conducted the work

necessary to verify the classification of the resource estimates and therefore such estimates



cannot be treated nor relied upon for purposes of this Report as NI 43-101 defined resources

verified by a qualified person.

Figure 6.1 3-D Mineralization Solids of Atlanta Project (Looking 325o)

Source: Behre Dolbear, 2005

TABLE 6.5

SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND INDICATED RESOURCE ESTIMATE JOSEY (2009)

Atlanta Gold Measured and Indicated Resources

Area

GOLD SILVER

Total

Equivalent

Ounces of

Gold6

(000's)

Cut-

Off

Grade

(opt)

Gold

Grade

(opt)

Tons

(000’s)

Ounces

of Gold

(000’s)

Ratio of

Silver

to Gold

Ounces

Ounces

of

Silver

(000's)

Price

Factor2

Gold

Price /

Silver

Price

Equivalent

Ounces of

Gold

(000's)

Mini-Pit Resource

East and West

Monarch1

0.05 0.111 419.3 46.4 4.284 198.6 73.7 2.7 49.1

Idaho1 0.05 0.060 82.3 4.9 4.28

4 21.1 73.7 0.3 5.2

Total Mini Pit

Resource 0.095 501.6 51.3 4.28

4 219.7 3.0 54.3


Monarch and

Idaho1

0.10 0.161 2,125.8 343.3 2.02 797.7 73.7 10.8 354.1

East

Extension5

0.10 0.177 370.5 65.7 0.80 52.5 73.7 0.7 66.4

Total

Underground

Resource

0.10 0.164 2,496.3 409.0 1.81 850.2 73.7 11.5 420.5

Total Resource 0.1543 2,997.9 460.3 2.12 1,069.9 14.5 474.9

1.) Based on a compilation of the same input data used for the 2007 Technical Report which is Canadian

National Instrument 43-101(“NI 43-101”) compliant

2.) Price Factor, using closing prices as of the close of business on November 3, 2008 on New York Globex is

73.70 (US$722.00 per ounce of gold / US$9.79 per ounce of silver)

3.) Average grade of gold per ton = 0.154 ounces per ton (460,300 ounces / 2,997,900 tons)

4.) Estimated ratio of silver to gold ounces



5.) The resource for the East Extension is a total resource. It has not been decided with certainty whether the

East Extension area can be mined by open pit methods or underground or both.

6.) The average grade of gold equivalent (including silver resources as a gold equivalent) per ton = 0.158

ounces per ton (474,900 ounces / 2,997,900 tons)

TABLE 6.6

JOSEY (2009) RESOURCE ESTIMATES AT A RANGE OF CUT-OFF GRADES

OVERALL ATLANTA RESOURCE

CUT-OFF

GRADE

(opt Au) CLASS

TONS

(000’s

GOLD (Au) SILVER (Ag)

Grade

(opt)

Ounces

(000’s)

Grade

(opt)

Ounces

(000’s)

0.025

Measured 15,452.2 0.063 974.1 0.097 2,564.4

Indicated 5,706.4 0.055 313.5 0.107 609.6

Measured

+Indicated 21,158.6 0.061 1,287.6 0.150 3,174.0

Inferred 9,520.9 0.053 499.8 0.067 636.4

0.050

Measured 7,328.7 0.094 688.5 0.246 1,805.7

Indicated 3,024.6 0.091 275.7 0.137 415.1

Measured

+Indicated 10,353.3 0.093 964.2 0.215 2,220.8

Inferred 2,933.5 0.049 143.6 0.102 298.8

0.100

Measured 1,949.2 0.164 319.8 0.437 851.4

Indicated 741.4 0.163 121.0 0.185 137.4

Measured

+Indicated 2,690.6 0.164 440.8 0.368 988.8

Inferred 919.6 0.150 138.2 0.168 154.0

0.150

Measured 750.6 0.236 176.9 0.623 467.8

Indicated 322.1 0.222 71.6 0.204 65.8

Measured

+Indicated 1,072.7 0.232 248.5 0.497 533.6

Inferred 299.5 0.214 64.2 0.075 22.3

In June 2011 P&E completed a re-evaluation of the mineral resource estimate at the Company‟s

Atlanta Gold Project in Idaho, USA, previously announced on January 6, 2011. The increase

over the previous mineral resource estimate was primarily attributable to expansion of the

conceptual open pit shell onto unpatented lands and to a lesser extent due to increases in trailing

average metal prices, offset somewhat by increases in estimated operating costs.

6.3 HISTORICAL PRODUCTION

Precious Metals

To the authors knowledge there are no accurate accounts outlining the mineral production from

the Property. However, the production of gold and silver from the various mines along the



Atlanta lode has been estimated to have totalled approximately 297,000 ounces of gold and

2,600,000 ounces of silver. This is probably a conservative estimate due to such factors as lack

of information on the early production years and inconsistency in reporting data to the U.S.

Bureau of Mines.

Tungsten

From April 1, 1942 to July 31, 1943, the Talache mill which was located on the Atlanta property

processed 363,615 pounds of tungsten concentrate which contained 37,835 pounds or 10.41%

tungsten trioxide (WO3) extracted from 16,895 tons of ore. The Table 6.7 below shows the

historical monthly production reports from the Talache mill.

TABLE 6.7

HISTORICAL PRODUCTION REPORTS FROM TALACHE MILL*

Report Date Tonnage Assay Pounds WO3

Recovery % Concentrates

Heads Tails Heads Tails Pounds WO3 % WO3 Pounds

1942

April 30 957 0.100 0.020 1,848.0 418.6 80.0 23,028 6.20 1,428

May 31 1,452 0.080 0.020 2,317.2 673.5 70.8 12,615 13.00 1,640

June 30 1,258 0.090 0.026 2,334.4 694.5 70.2 16,988 9.60 1,631

July 31 1,156 0.237 0.066 5,481.6 1,533.4 72.0 26,329 15.00 3,949

August 31 1,108 0.207 0.034 4,604.0 766.5 83.4 21,414 17.92 3,837

September 30 1,326 0.185 0.041 2,915.6 1,096.8 77.7 24,603 15.50 3,813

October 31 1,842 0.146 0.022 5,412.0 793.0 85.3 41,908 11.00 4,610

November 30 2,603 0.167 0.027 8,725.4 1,408.8 83.8 60,433 12.10 7,312

December 31 1,974 0.161 0.034 6,393.9 1,445.4 77.4 45,502 10.87 4,946

1943

January 31 2,174 0.109 0.035 4,763.0 1,507.7 68.3 53,103 6.10 3,239

February 28 915 0.103 0.036 1,891.7 659.8 65.1 34,051 3.60 1,226

July 31 131 0.110 0.038 302.8 99.4 67.0 3,641 5.58 203

Total 16,895 363,615 10.41 37,835

*Source: Daily and Accumulative Mill Report, Monarch Greenback LLC historical records

The above data is historical in nature, predates National Instrument 43-101 enforcements and has

not been reviewed by a qualified person compliant with NI 43-101. Historical production does

not guarantee future production or the discovery of a resource. However the Company believes

that these historical results provide an indication of the Property‟s tungsten potential and are

therefore relevant to ongoing exploration.



7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Central and south central Idaho is dominated by granitic rocks belonging to the Cretaceous-age

Idaho Batholith. The batholith was emplaced as a less dense buoyant mass displacing the more

dense Belt series metasedimentats. Many Tertiary plutons were emplaced approximately 44

million years ago throughout the batholith. Tertiary dike swarms, which trend in a northeast

direction, seem to be related to the metallogenic periods within the batholiths (Figure 7.1).

The Atlanta Hill area is underlain by biotite granodiorite of Cretaceous age and is part of the vast

expanse of the Idaho Batholith. North of Atlanta, biotite granite (pink granite) has intruded into

the older biotite granodiorite. West of Atlanta, from the vicinity of Steel Mountain to the western

side of the Hailey 10 x 20 quadrangle, the Cretaceous biotite granodiorite also has been intruded

by northeast-trending plutonic rocks of Eocene age.

Trending northeast, parallel to the belt of Eocene plutonic rocks are swarms of Tertiary dikes,

most commonly rhyolite. These dikes are likely controlled by major northeast trending faults.

Cutting across all of the rocks are regional northwest trending faults, of which the Montezuma

fault passes along the eastern side of the town of Atlanta and continues up Montezuma Creek

into the northeastern portion of the Atlanta project area.



Figure 7.1 General Geology of the Hailey Quadrangle, Idaho

Source: Kilsgaard and Bacon, 2004

7.2 GEOLOGY OF THE PROPERTY

Geology of the Atlanta Hill area is dominated by biotite granodiorite of the Idaho Batholith.

Locally, pegmatite and aplite dikes occur, but are limited in both length and width. A post-

mineral andesite dike occurs along the Atlanta lode east of the Monarch shaft and reaches widths

of up to five feet. Faults in the area include the Montezuma Fault in the northeast portion of the

Property that defines the eastern termination of the Atlanta lode. The Atlanta lode itself is located

within a near-vertical shear zone that traverses the Property in a northeast trend. Several other

northeast and northwest-trending faults occur throughout the Property.

The Atlanta deposit is a product of near-vertical fracture zones or shears, which were produced

by horizontal shearing stress and subsequent repeated injection of mineralized fluids. The main

shear, the Atlanta lode, strikes in a N60E direction but has a curvilinear trend. The lode is

dipping steeply to the southeast near the west end of the main shear and steeply to the northwest

in the eastern portion of the shear.

Lateral or gash veins extend obliquely away from the Atlanta lode primarily on the north side of

the shear zone. These lateral veins have the effect of increasing the overall width of the shear



zone where they intersect the main lode. Typically, the lateral veins decrease in gold grade with

increasing distance from the main lode, but several of these have had economic potential as

demonstrated by the past production along these structures. Other vein structures do not intersect

the main Atlanta shear zone and have had histories of mine production such as the Bascom and

Tahoma veins. Figure 7.2 shows the main Atlanta shear zone, Bascom, Tahoma, and the

associated lateral veins as well as drill hole collar locations from the 2002 drilling campaigns.

Figure 7.2 Shear Zones and Drill Collar Locations

Biotite granodiorite along the Atlanta lode and associated gash veins have been affected to

varying degrees by hydrothermal alteration. As the lode is approached from either the northwest

or southeast, biotite in the granodiorite becomes increasingly altered to chlorite. The chloritic

zone may range from only a few feet to as much as 50 feet in thickness, and is far more

developed on the northwest side of the lode. The zone of chloritic alteration on the southwest

side is much narrower.



With increasing intensive chloritic alteration, feldspars lose their crystalline appearance and

begin stages of argillic alteration to clay minerals and sericite. With increasing sericite content of

the rock, the abundance of quartz increases from disseminated quartz in the intensely altered

rock, to veinlets of quartz, and finally to large masses and veins of quartz. Most of the gold and

silver-bearing minerals and various other sulfide minerals are contained within, or are associated

with, the more intensely silicified zones.

Alteration along the Atlanta lode and associated gash veins range from zones of intense

alteration at, or within, the more mineralized parts of the lode, and to decreasingly altered zones

away from the inner core. Aside from the abrupt walls of a quartz vein, there are no demarcation

lines between the different alteration zones. Further, the zones commonly overlap to the point

where separation of the individual zones is difficult to distinguish. (Figure 7.3)



Figure 7.3 Cross-section view of the Epithermal-type Atlanta Shear

Source: Hingley and Bacon, 2004



Altered and unaltered rocks in the deposit are described as follows:

Biotite Granodiorite — Fresh

Rock is hard, usually gray in color, biotite is hard and black, feldspars are clear to white to

pinkish tan and can be distinguished from the mostly clear plagioclase, which exhibits excellent

twinning. Strong granitic texture, and occasional microfractures contain very fine-grained pyrite

and chalcopyrite.

Biotite Granodiorite — Weakly Altered

Exhibits an overall iron oxide stain (usually goethite) to the point where the biotite is strongly

chloritized and begins to disappear. Visible twinned plagioclase and granitic texture is still

distinct. Minor pyrite and sphalerite may occur with beginning stages of feldspars altered to

kaolinite and smectite.

Biotite Granodiorite — Moderately Altered

Biotite grains are absent but the granitic texture is still visible. Two feldspars are possible to

identify although not distinctly. Weak to moderate sulfide mineralization may be present and

visible clay minerals are abundant.

Biotite Granodiorite — Strongly Altered

Granitic texture ranges from barely visible to indistinguishable. It is impossible to identify the

two feldspars as the rock is strongly sericitized or silicified. Where silicified, the relic granitic

texture can barely be seen. Sulfide mineralization is usually disseminated throughout, including

fresh euhedral (granular) pyrite, euhedral acicular arsenopyrite, and very fine-grained dark

sulfides. Often there are blebs or veinlets of dark, very fine-grained sulfides.

Quartz — Very strong Silicification

The quartz is microcrystaline in texture and light gray or white where no sulfides are present.

Hematite or limonite stained with sparse pseudomorphs after pyrite where sulfides are present.

Very finely-disseminated fluid inclusions can he identified throughout

7.3 MINERALIZATION

The mineralization at the Property is directly related to the relative porosity of the rock. The

Atlanta lode is comprised of the Monarch, Buffalo, Old Chunk, Pettit and Central Ore Shoots.

The occurrence of the primary ore shoots was dictated by rock porosity and permeability, vein

intersections, stage of brecciation and some minor post-mineral dike replacement.

The greatest influence on the deposit, with regards to high grade ore bearing solutions, is the

convergence of the gash lateral veins with the main Atlanta shear. The majority of these lateral

gash veins occur north and south of the main Atlanta shear at approximately 30 degrees to the

strike of the system and usually intersect the Atlanta shear in areas with evidence of heavy

mining activity. The intersection of the gash veins with the main shear structures created an area



of increased permeability and porosity which constrained fluid circulation and thus created a

suitable location for mineral emplacement.

The Atlanta lode consists largely of fine-grained quartz, part of which contains widespread,

relatively abundant, finely crystalline arsenopyrite and pyrite. The valuable minerals, gold and an

assemblage of complex silver sulphosalts accompanied by minor amounts of pyrite and

negligible amounts of lead, zinc, and copper sulfides, are associated with comb and drusy quartz.

Two stages of fine-grained quartz deposition with the second stage accompanied by arsenopyrite,

preceded the introduction and deposition of the comb and drusy quartz and associated ore

minerals. A minor amount of quartz and calcite was deposited later.

Ore minerals present in quantities to be recognizable in outcrop, reverse circulation (RC) drill

cuttings, and core include native gold, proustite, pyrargyrite, chalcopyrite, arsenopyrite, pyrite,

goethite, limonite, and scorodite. Gangue minerals include quartz, calcite and sericite.

Although silver exceeds gold in weight, gold has been the most valuable metal produced from

the Atlanta lode. Much of the gold is microscopic in size although free gold is present in a size

large enough to be seen occasionally in core samples. Tests of sulfide concentrates by Hazen

Research Inc. indicate that approximately half of the gold is free metallic gold and the other half

is structurally associated with arsenopyrite and arsenic-bearing pyrite.



8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES

The mineralization and alteration in the Atlanta Hill area are indicative of an epithermal gold-

silver environment. The predominant alteration in the country rock is due to hydrothermal fluids

flowing through fractures which were subsequently filled by vein minerals. The alteration pattern

present on Atlanta Hill is similar to epithermal gold-silver vein systems in other mining districts

in the western part of the United States.

Epithermal gold-silver deposits are comprised of veins and disseminations near the Earth‟s

surface (<1.5 km) in volcanic, sedimentary rocks, sediments and sometimes in metamorphic

rocks. These deposits are sometimes found in association with hot springs and frequently occur

at centres of young volcanism (Figure 8.1)

Epithermal gold deposits are a type of lode deposit containing economic concentrations of Au

(+/- Ag and base metals). These types of deposits form in a variety of host rocks due to the

migration of hydrothermal fluids, usually through replacement (i.e. by solution and

reprecipitation) or by open-space filling (e.g. veins, breccias, pore spaces). The Atlanta deposit is

formed in near-vertical shear zones produced by horizontal shearing stress and the subsequent

injection of mineralized fluids. Mineralogical, textural, and alteration features of the Atlanta lode

and associated gash veins indicate derivation from ascending hydrothermal solutions. The

various features are typical of epithermal gold-silver deposits associated with Tertiary plutonic

activity in central Idaho, particularly those deposits that commonly extend along or near north-

east trending faults.

In classic examples, alteration along epithermal veins, the outer chloritic (propylitic) zone

represents mild hydrothermal alteration, followed progressively by more intensive argillic,

sericitic and silicic alteration as the vein is approached (Figure 7.3).

The Atlanta lode was considered to be a shallow, bonanza-like epithermal deposit. It was noted

that none of the commercial ore shoots of the Atlanta lode extended through a vertical range of

more than 820 feet (250 metres). Recent exploratory drilling results indicated a greater range of

gold-silver mineralization is present, with grades of 0.658 opt (22.56 gpt) gold intercepted

1,804 feet (550 metres) below the point of highest outcrop of the Atlanta lode which is at

7,200 feet (2,195 metres) amsl. Whether the gold at this greater depth is part of a commercially-

viable ore shoot remains to be proven.

It should be noted that the epithermal origin for the deposit is not compatible with fluid inclusion

studies performed by Fluid Inc. of Denver, Colorado, which indicate that the quartz formed at a

depth of 0.9 to 1.9 miles (1.5 to 3 kilometres), at temperatures less than 2000 oC. The suggested

formation temperature is compatible with those normally associated with epithermal deposits but

the depths are somewhat deeper than are commonly associated with epithermal deposits. Also,

epithermal deposits are generally found to be of Tertiary age, whereas a pre-Eocene age for the

Tahoma vein is supported by the apparent crosscutting of the vein by an Eocene or younger

rhyolite dike. Isotope dating of sericite from veins on Atlanta Hill date from the early Tertiary to

late Cretaceous.



Figure 8.1 Conceptual Model Illustrating Styles of Magmatic Arc Porphyry Cu-Au and

Epithermal Au-Ag Mineralization

Source: Corbett 2007



9.0 EXPLORATION

The only exploration activities, other than drilling, undertaken by Atlanta over 2009 and 2010

were two surface trenching programs, along with some soil sampling, which have been described

in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 below. Also included within Section 9.3, is a brief description of a

historical data compilation for the Tahoma structure within the Property to enable further

exploration of this area.

9.1 2009 SURFACE TRENCHING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROGRAM

Subsequent to the successful 2008 surface trenching program, which exposed and identified

significant gold-bearing mineralization in 22 out of 25 trenches made along-strike of the Atlanta

Shear Zone, a follow-up program was designed to facilitate the expansion of the encouraging

areas along strike of the Atlanta Shear Zone. These areas included Idaho, Monarch and East

Extension.

During the 2009 trenching program, Atlanta carried out further trenching in the East Monarch

and East Extension areas, covering an area 98.4 feet (30 m) north and 98.4 feet (30 m) south of

the Atlanta Shear Zone, as well as within the Shear Zone area from the Monarch shaft to the

698.6 feet (213 m) level of the East Extension above the 600 portal. In the area between the

trenches and 98.4 feet (30 m) north and south of the trenches, the A, B, and C soil horizons were

sampled at 26 feet (8 m) centres.

Additional trenches, with a total length of over 1,400 feet (427 m), were completed in the west

end of the Idaho zone to the Buffalo zone in the east. These trenches had an average length of

98.4 feet (30 m) and were excavated to a depth of up to 13 feet (4 m). These trenches were

sampled in 2010.

In total, approximately 1,000 trench and soil samples (of which 512 were trench samples) were

sent for assaying during the 2009 trenching and soil sampling programs. Along with the

2008 trenching program, significant gold-bearing mineralization was exposed and identified in

greater than 95% of the returned samples sent for assaying. A total of 12 trenches (T09-1 to T09-

12) over 2,562.7 feet (780.3 m) were completed in the 2009 trenching program and a summary

of the gold and silver mineralization is given in Table 9.1.

9.2 2010 SURFACE TRENCHING PROGRAM

In 2010, Atlanta continued exploration with additional surface trenching at the Property to

further evaluate the near surface potential of the Atlanta Shear Zone. During the 2010 surface

trenching program a total of seven trenches over 213.9 feet (65.2 m) were completed within the

Tahoma area. Trenches were cut perpendicular to the zone and all trenches were surveyed and

sampled. A total of 99 soil samples were sent for assaying and analysed for both gold and silver.

At the completion of the 2009-2010 surface trenching programs a total of 19 trenches over

2,773.2 feet (845.5 m) were sampled with 611 samples being sent for analysis. Atlanta intends to

utilize the exploration trench samples to assist in identifying additional drill targets on splays

north and south of the main shear zone.



A summary of the gold and silver mineralization for the 2009-2010 trenching programs is given

in Table 9.1.

TABLE 9.1

ATLANTA 2009-2010 SURFACE TRENCHING PROGRAM MINERALIZED INTERCEPTS

Trench ID From

(ft)

To

(ft)

Width

(ft)

True Width

(ft)

Assay (oz

Au/t)

Assay (oz

Ag/t)

T09-1

69.9 75.1 4.9 4.9 0.033 0.035

85.0 89.9 4.9 4.9 0.048 0.064

95.1 100.0 4.9 4.9 0.025 0.074

109.9 115.1 4.9 4.9 0.030 0.049

125.0 245.0 120.0 120.0 0.064 0.081

245.0 265.0 20.0 20.0 0.114 0.113

265.0 305.0 40.0 40.0 0.060 0.074

T09-2 95.1 100.0 4.9 4.9 0.036 0.018

262.4 305.0 40.0 40.0 0.030 0.183

T09-3 64.9 75.1 9.8 9.8 0.035 0.138

T09-8

115.1 120.0 4.9 4.9 0.024 0.071

125.0 134.8 9.8 9.8 0.030 0.035

145.0 149.9 4.9 4.9 0.035 0.035

154.8 160.1 4.9 4.9 0.042 0.459

T09-9

80.0 85.0 4.9 4.9 0.035 0.039

105.0 125.0 20.0 20.0 0.026 0.035

160.1 165.0 4.9 4.9 0.025 0.035

T09-10 105.0 109.9 4.9 4.9 0.037 0.067

T09-11 0.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 0.024 0.028

T09-4

174.8 180.1 4.9 4.9 0.025 0.049

189.9 194.8 4.9 4.9 0.137 0.085

220.1 234.8 15.1 15.1 0.054 0.120

240.1 245.0 4.9 4.9 0.037 0.106

274.9 279.8 4.9 4.9 0.029 0.120

399.8 404.8 4.9 4.9 0.028 0.049

T09-12 4.9 9.8 4.9 4.9 0.037 0.046

20.0 44.9 24.9 24.9 0.038 0.102

T09-5

109.9 115.1 4.9 4.9 0.037 0.243

174.8 180.1 4.9 4.9 0.046 0.279

200.1 205.0 4.9 4.9 0.075 0.134

214.8 245.0 29.8 29.8 0.042 0.116

T09-6

0.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 0.050 0.085

40.0 44.9 4.9 4.9 0.028 0.095

49.9 64.9 15.1 15.1 0.036 0.053

89.9 100.0 9.8 9.8 0.029 0.095

105.0 109.9 4.9 4.9 0.054 0.049

115.1 160.1 44.9 44.9 0.031 0.067

169.9 174.8 4.9 4.9 0.037 0.028

180.1 200.1 20.0 20.0 0.047 0.021

T09-7 9.8 15.1 4.9 4.9 0.024 0.032

29.8 35.1 4.9 4.9 0.052 0.049



TABLE 9.1

ATLANTA 2009-2010 SURFACE TRENCHING PROGRAM MINERALIZED INTERCEPTS

Trench ID From

(ft)

To

(ft)

Width

(ft)

True Width

(ft)

Assay (oz

Au/t)

Assay (oz

Ag/t)

80.0 95.1 15.1 15.1 0.029 0.074

100.0 115.1 15.1 15.1 0.043 0.081

134.8 140.1 4.9 4.9 0.033 0.127

149.9 160.1 9.8 9.8 0.073 0.141

165.0 169.9 4.9 4.9 0.026 0.134

Tah10-1A

54.1 64.0 9.8 9.8 0.039 0.208

74.1 80.0 5.9 5.9 0.048 0.723

80.0 85.9 5.9 5.9 0.065 3.056

Tah10-2A

41.0 44.0 3.0 3.0 0.037 0.131

44.0 45.9 2.0 2.0 0.040 0.049

56.1 61.0 4.9 4.9 0.033 0.480

T10-Sp7-T1

20.0 24.9 4.9 4.9 0.051 0.014

24.9 29.8 4.9 4.9 0.046 0.025

T10-Sp7-T2

75.1 80.0 4.9 4.9 0.118 0.007

80.0 85.0 4.9 4.9 0.096 0.004

85.0 89.9 4.9 4.9 0.155 0.004

T10-Sp7-T3

20.0 24.9 4.9 4.9 0.105 0.120

24.9 29.8 4.9 4.9 0.059 0.004

69.9 80.0 9.8 9.8 0.224 0.021

T10-Sp7-T4 20.0 29.8 9.8 9.8 0.173 0.081

9.3 HISTORICAL EXPLORATION DATA COMPILED FOR TAHOMA SHEAR

During 2010, Atlanta compiled all available historical exploration data on the Tahoma structure

at the Property with the intention of carrying out follow-up trenching and drilling on the structure

following completion of the 2010 exploration program.

Historic records have indicated that significant size lode deposits were discovered and mined and

more recent surface sampling of the Tahoma structure has also revealed significant gold grades.

Based on the historical data, the surface expression of the Tahoma shear structure extends over a

distance of at least 3,998.32 feet (1,219.2 m) and can be observed in both outcrop and trenches

along its entire strike length. The Tahoma structure remains open along strike and at depth.

The historical data also indicates that the Monarch, Pettit, Last Chance, Minerva and Tahoma

mines also appear to be part of a larger system of buried mineralization.



10.0 DRILLING

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Following the 2008 surface drilling program, which comprised 15,072 feet (4,595 m) of coring

in 57 holes, the Company designed a follow-up surface drilling program to be undertaken over

two years from 2009 to 2010. Previous exploration carried out by Atlanta at the Property had

identified several excellent exploration targets as well as extended the length of the Atlanta Shear

Zone from 1.5 to 2.2 miles (2.4 to 3.5 km). Following this campaign, zone width was known to

range from 29.5 to 121 feet (9-37 m) and mineralization to extend from the surface to a vertical

depth of 1,850 feet (564 m), with numerous splays branching off to the northwest and southeast

along the main Shear. Mineralization was also open to both the east and west.

The objectives of the 2009-2010 exploration programs were to increase the size of the near-

surface, shallow open-pit resource which could be mined at a relatively low cost, to increase the

size of the sparsely-drilled higher-grade (0.35 oz Au/t (+12.0 g Au/t)) zones found between the

Monarch and Idaho areas in both the west and east and to confirm continuity between these

higher-grade zones.

The 2009-2010 surface drilling programs were planned to include components of shallow infill

core drilling to a depth of 400 feet (122 m) at the East Extension, West Monarch zones to

confirm surface findings and delineate continuity and grade of gold-silver mineralization, as well

as intermediate depth drilling to approximately 1,300 feet (400 m). The intermediate zone (below

6200 ft. elevation) between the Newmont to the West and the Glaspey zone in the East, there is

1,970 (600 m) that remains unexplored.”

10.2 2009 SURFACE DRILLING PROGRAM

A short six-hole surface drilling program over a total of 3,041 feet (927 m) was carried out by

Atlanta in 2009 at the East Extension of the Property. The drill program was designed to better

define the open pit and underground potential within this area with the use of definition drilling.

Highlights from the 2009 program included a 5 foot (1.5 m) interception of 0.55 oz Au/t (18.8 g

Au/t) and another three above 0.10 oz Au/t (3.429 g Au/t). A summary of mineralized

interceptions for the six holes drilled is provided below. The true widths of the mineralization in

these drill holes are not precisely known as there is insufficient drill hole density at this time to

be certain.



TABLE 10.1

ATLANTA 2009 SURFACE DRILLING PROGRAM MINERALIZED AU INTERCEPTS

Hole ID From (ft) To (ft) Width1 (ft)

True Width

(ft)

Assay (oz

Au/t)

D09130E01

335.9 340.8 4.9 3.6 0.029

376.9 381.8 4.9 3.6 0.664

487.7 490.0 2.0 1.3 0.134

533.0 542.8 9.8 6.9 0.208

D09140E02

263.1 272.9 9.8 6.9 0.042

303.1 308.0 4.9 3.6 0.025

342.8 348.0 4.9 3.6 0.038

467.7 487.7 20.0 14.1 0.042

D09145E03

123.0 127.9 4.9 3.6 0.057

132.8 138.1 4.9 3.6 0.033

147.9 152.8 4.9 3.6 0.028

163.0 172.9 9.8 6.9 0.075

D09125E04

323.1 332.9 9.8 6.9 0.031

382.8 388.0 4.9 3.6 0.034

392.9 397.9 4.9 3.6 0.038

448.0 453.0 4.9 3.6 0.347

497.9 507.7 9.8 6.9 0.034

D09085E05 248.0 272.9 24.9 17.4 0.050

288.0 292.9 4.9 3.6 0.074

D09075E06 298.8 344.1 44.9 31.5 0.029

344.1 368.0 23.9 16.7 0.046

(1.) True widths are estimates based on current available data and may be subject to change.

10.3 2010 SURFACE DRILLING PROGRAM

The 2010 surface drilling program undertaken by Atlanta at the Property commenced in May of

2010 with the mobilization of drilling crews and two core drill rigs (a large and a smaller core

rig), operational seven days per week during two 10 to 12 hour rotating shifts. The larger

contractor core drill rig was employed to drill the intermediate depth holes west of the Glaspey

Zone (below the East Extension area) and within the Glaspey Zone itself, to conduct infill

drilling at the Monarch area to better define the mineralization and to drill shallow confirmation

holes. Both the Newmont and Glaspey Zones remain open for expansion. The smaller Company-

owned and operated core drill rig was employed to drill shallow confirmation holes.

During the first phase of the surface drilling program at the Property, Atlanta focused both drills

on shallow confirmation holes in the Monarch area above the Newmont Zone and in the East

Extension area above the Glaspey Zone. The larger drill was then directed to commence drilling

intermediate depth holes to explore deeper horizons east of the Newmont Zone (below the

Monarch area).

All drill holes were oriented in a north-south direction along strike of the 30 to 120 feet

(9 to 37 m) wide Atlanta Shear Zone with an attempt to avoid underground workings. Where

workings were intersected and/or no core was recovered, grades of nil were assigned to those

intervals and these intervals have not been included in the weighted average grades listed in

Table 10.2.



The 2010 drill program at the Property concluded on November 4, 2010 after the completion of

48 diamond drill holes totalling approximately 39,075 feet (11,910.0 metres). Within this total,

42 were shallow confirmation drill holes totalling 27,173 feet (8,282.4 m) and six were

intermediate depth drill holes totalling 11,902 feet (3,627.8 m).

The following summarizes the highlights from both the shallow confirmation drilling and the

intermediate depth drilling components of the drilling program:

10.3.1 2010 Shallow Confirmation Drilling

All 42 shallow confirmation holes of the 2010 drilling campaign were carried out in the Monarch

and East Extension areas, with the majority of the reported holes intercepting gold

mineralization.

Drill hole D10060E13 intercepted two zones of mineralization averaging 14.54 g Au/t over

10 feet (3.0 m) and 14.33 g Au/t over 20 feet (6.0 m) at vertical depths of approximately 279 feet

(85.0 m) and 499 feet (152.0 m) respectively below the surface. These zones included intercepts

of 27.91 g Au/t over 3 feet (0.8 m) and 41.01 g Au/t over 3 feet (0.8 m).

Drill hole D10154E36, drilled in the East Extension area, confirmed the potential for higher

grade gold mineralization both near the surface and at depth with an intercept of 43.44 g Au/t

over 5 feet (1.5 m). Hole D10144E42, in the final stages of the program intercepted a high value

of 9.36 g Au/t over 5 feet (1.5 m).

An exploration hole, D10026E38, was drilled at the Monarch area to test for splays, which were

intercepted from 535 to 541 feet (163.1 to 164.9 m) and 818 to 884 feet (249.3 to 269.4 m), with

the most impressive assays contained in the Atlanta Shear Zone between 995 to 1,058 feet

(303.3 to 322.5 m).

A summary of mineralized intercepts is given in Table 10.2 below, with the intermediate depth

holes highlighted in blue. The true widths of the mineralization in these drill holes are not

precisely known as there is insufficient drill hole density at this time to be certain. 42 were

shallow confirmation drill holes totalling 27,173 feet (8,282.4 m) and six were intermediate

depth drill holes totalling 11,902 feet (3,627.8 m).

The following summarizes the highlights from both the shallow confirmation drilling and the

intermediate depth drilling components of the drilling program:



TABLE 10.2


Hole ID From

(ft) To (ft)

Width

(ft)

True Width1

(ft)

Assay2(oz

Au/t)

Assay (oz

Ag/t)

D10241E01 220.1 225.0 4.9 3.6 0.073 0.003

319.8 325.0 4.9 3.6 0.058 0.002

D10248E02 Less than 0.048 oz Au/t


D10231E04 279.8 290.0 9.8 6.9 0.061 0.002

394.9 404.8 9.8 6.9 0.576 0.020


D10221E06 294.9 299.8 4.9 3.6 0.137 0.005

D10101W01 744.9 754.7 9.8 6.6 0.184 0.006

784.9 794.7 9.8 6.6 0.164 0.006

D10101W02

909.9 929.9 20.0 12.1 0.063 0.002

949.9 959.7 9.8 5.9 0.057 0.002

994.8 1009.6 15.1 8.9 0.075 0.003

D10085W03 599.9 619.9 20.0 14.1 0.106 0.004

954.8 959.7 4.9 3.6 0.048 0.002

D10085W04 1004.7 1029.6 24.9 16.4 0.049 0.002

1139.8 1169.6 29.8 19.4 0.066 0.002

D10078W05 994.8 1004.7 9.8 5.9 0.065 0.002

1019.8 1064.7 44.9 26.9 0.059 0.002

D10194E07 305.0 310.0 4.9 2.6 0.359 0.013

D10194E08 314.9 330.0 15.1 6.9 0.049 0.002

D10194E10 370.0 374.9 4.9 3.6 0.157 0.006

D10204E12 234.8 249.9 15.1 10.5 0.048 0.002

D10204E14 334.9 339.8 4.9 2.3 0.110 0.004

D10078W07

634.7 649.8 15.1 7.5 0.099 0.003

849.8 864.9 15.1 7.5 0.065 0.002

1144.7 1159.8 15.1 7.5 0.138 0.005

D10060W09

470.0 474.9 4.9 2.6 0.135 0.005

579.9 609.8 29.8 15.1 0.079 0.003

624.8 634.7 9.8 4.9 0.087 0.003

700.0 709.8 9.8 4.9 0.083 0.003

729.8 764.9 35.1 17.4 0.074 0.003

D10060W11 Less than 0.048 oz Au/t

D10026E13

279.8 290.0 9.8 4.9 0.513 0.018

634.7 654.7 20.0 9.8 0.506 0.018

654.7 689.8 35.1 17.4 0.067 0.002

729.8 740.0 9.8 4.9 0.054 0.002

744.9 749.8 4.9 2.6 0.053 0.002

D10214E16 145.0 149.9 4.9 3.6 0.196 0.007



D10164E22 434.9 439.8 4.9 3.6 0.065 0.002

555.0 629.8 75.1 52.5 0.095 0.003

D10026E15 684.9 704.9 20.0 8.9 0.156 0.006



TABLE 10.2


Hole ID From

(ft) To (ft)

Width

(ft)

True Width1

(ft)

Assay2(oz

Au/t)

Assay (oz

Ag/t)

D10026E17

214.8 220.1 4.9 2.0 0.318 0.011

444.8 450.0 4.9 2.0 0.068 0.002

1019.8 1034.8 15.1 5.6 0.222 0.008

1299.5 1349.7 49.9 15.1 0.055 0.002

1454.7 1469.8 15.1 4.6 0.091 0.003

1719.7 1724.6 4.9 1.6 0.104 0.004


D10174E26 524.8 544.8 20.0 9.8 0.056 0.065

D10174E28 365.1 374.9 9.8 5.9 0.068 0.095

599.9 615.0 15.1 8.9 0.068 0.156

D10026E21

964.6 979.7 15.1 5.6 0.246 0.318

1079.8 1084.7 4.9 2.0 0.096 0.068

1244.8 1259.5 15.1 5.6 0.091 0.222

1329.7 1334.6 4.9 2.0 0.053 0.055

1374.6 1404.5 29.8 11.2 0.082 0.091

1409.7 1419.6 9.8 3.6 0.070 0.104

1429.8 1434.7 4.9 2.0 0.098 0.117

1464.5 1469.8 4.9 No Recovery

1469.8 1484.5 15.1 5.6 0.055 0.002

1529.5 1534.7 4.9 No Recovery

1544.6 1549.5 4.9 2.0 0.081 0.003

1559.6 1564.6 4.9 2.0 0.211 0.007

1569.5 1574.7 4.9 No Recovery

1644.6 1664.6 20.0 7.5 0.087 0.003

2014.6 2024.4 9.8 3.9 0.052 0.002

D10184E30

464.8 470.0 4.9 3.6 0.049 0.002

529.7 535.0 4.9 3.6 0.265 0.009

544.8 555.0 9.8 6.9 0.080 0.003

564.8 569.7 4.9 3.6 0.084 0.003


D10154E36

515.0 519.9 4.9 3.0 1.533 0.054

579.9 584.8 4.9 3.0 0.279 0.010

584.8 589.7 4.9 No Recovery

604.8 609.8 4.9 No Recovery

D10105E23

1124.7 1134.6 9.8 3.9 0.134 0.005

1139.8 1169.6 29.8 11.2 0.056 0.002

1204.7 1209.7 4.9 2.0 0.116 0.004

1279.5 1294.6 15.1 5.6 0.074 0.003

D10105E25 799.7 809.8 10.2 3.0 0.081 0.003

954.8 964.6 9.8 3.0 0.053 0.002

D10026E38

700.0 704.9 4.9 3.6 0.252 0.009

994.8 1009.6 14.8 10.5 0.109 0.004

1014.8 1057.8 43.0 30.2 0.095 0.003

D10154E40 379.8 384.7 4.9 2.3 0.134 0.005



TABLE 10.2


Hole ID From

(ft) To (ft)

Width

(ft)

True Width1

(ft)

Assay2(oz

Au/t)

Assay (oz

Ag/t)

604.8 609.8 4.9 2.3 0.064 0.002

D10144E42 509.7 515.0 5.2 3.6 0.330 0.012

D10144E44 595.0 599.9 4.9 3.0 0.235 0.008

D10010E27 1204.7 1209.7 4.9 2.6 0.288 0.010

D10007W29

749.8 759.6 9.8 4.9 0.434 0.015

1294.6 1299.5 4.9 2.6 1.339 0.047

1484.5 1494.7 10.2 4.9 0.683 0.024

1759.4 1789.6 30.2 15.1 0.389 0.014

D10140E48 220.1 229.9 9.8 6.9 0.103 0.004

544.8 549.7 4.9 3.6 0.051 0.002

D10081E50 454.9 464.8 9.8 5.9 0.054 0.002


(1.) True widths are estimates based on current available data and may be subject to change.

(2.) Assays with a value of less than 1.37 g Au/t have not been included within the above table.

10.4 2010 INTERMEDIATE DEPTH DRILLING

A total of six intermediate depth holes were drilled over 11,899 feet (3,627.8 m) with the

objective to explore deeper horizons east of the Newmont Zone (below the Monarch area).

Hole D10026E17, the first intermediate depth hole located east of the Newmont Zone (below the

Monarch area), intercepted mineralization of 0.10 oz Au/t (3.43 g Au /t) from 1,019.8 to

1,034.8 feet (310.9 to 315.5 m), 0.045 oz Au/t (1.55 g Au/t) over 15.09 feet (4.6 m) from

1,299.59 to 1,349.7 feet (396.2 to 411.5 m), 0.075 oz Au/t (2.57 g Au/t) over 4.59 feet (1.4 m)

from 1,454.7 to1,469.8 feet (443.5 to 448.1 m) and 0.085 oz Au/t (2.95 g Au/t) over 4.964 feet

(1.5 m) from 1,719.7 to 1,724.6 feet (524.3 to 525.8 m), confirming the potential for higher grade

gold mineralization at depth.

Hole D10026E21, located 869.2 feet (265.0 m) south of hole D10026E17 east of the Newmont

Zone (below the Monarch area), was drilled to a total depth of 2,059.8 feet (628.0 m) and

towards hole D10026E17. Hole D10026E21 intercepted mineralization of 0.20 oz Au/t

(6.96 g Au/t) over 15 feet (4.57 m), also confirming the potential for higher grade gold

mineralization at depth, with this zone possibly being an extension of the mineralization

identified in the core from hole D10026E17.

Hole D10105E23, the first hole drilled at the East Extension area, approximately 220.1 feet

(61.0 m) west of the westernmost holes in the Glaspey zone (below the Eastern Extension area)

intercepted mineralization of 0.11 oz Au/t (3.81 g Au/t) over 9.84 feet (3.0 m) from

1124.7 to1,169.65 feet (342.9 to 356.6 m) and 29.8 feet (9.1 metres) of 0.047 oz Au/t (1.601 g

Au/t) from 1,139.8 to1,169.7 feet (347.5 m to 356.6 m). The mineralization intercepted in hole

D10026E23 indicating the potential for continuation of the known mineralization and alteration

in the Glaspey Zone to the west where, a similar alteration and structural style was identified east

of the Newmont Zone. The 1,000 ft (305 m) distance between these two zones being virtually

unexplored.



Hole D10105E25, drilled from the same site as hole D10105E23 but at a steeper angle,

intercepted several zones of mineralization with grades ranging from 0.021 oz Au/t (0.72 g Au/t)

to 0.036 oz Au/t (1.234 g Au/t) from 1,329.7 to1,414.7 feet (405.4 m to 431.3 m). The upper two

intercepts correlate well with the main shear and the lower two intercepts appear to be low-

dipping features and it is not certain how these lower zones relate to the upper zones.

The final two intermediate depth holes, D10010E27 and D10007W29, returned results of 1.11 oz

Au/t (37.95 g Au/t) over 4.92 feet (1.5 m) along with four additional intercepts above 0.23 oz

Au/t (8.0 g Au/t). Hole D10010E27 was collared on the south side of the main shear and drilled

to the east boundary of the Newmont Zone (below the Monarch area) 98.5 feet (30 metres) east

of the nearest drill hole in the Newmont Zone. Hole D10007W29 was collared on the north side

of the main shear and drilled towards 298.5 feet (91 metres) west of the east boundary of the

Newmont Zone.

The 2010 exploration program has resulted in the identification of new structural lode zones and

extensions of vein systems, as well as the confirmation of the continuity of the Atlanta Shear

Zone below existing mine workings to a depth of at least 2,000 feet (610 m) below the surface.

Drill holes D10026E17 and D10026E21 have also indicated that the main shear zone splits into

two individual zones at depth (the North and South Zones).

Based upon the results of the 2009-2010 drilling campaign, further drilling is warranted at the

Property. The Atlanta Shear Zone remains open in several directions, including to depth and

further drill testing of the various major lode systems (including the Minerva, Tahoma and

Bascom lodes) extending from or in close proximity to the shear zone is recommended. In

particular, further drilling is recommended to investigate the continuity of the north-westerly-

trending vein extending from the north side of the Atlanta Shear Zone, 2,640 feet (805 m) south

from the Tahoma structure to determine the relationship and continuity of the Tahoma North to,

and intersect with, the main Shear east of the Monarch shaft.

The Company commenced a drilling program in June 2011.

The exploration objective is to establish continuity of the Atlanta Shear Zone at vertical depths

below 2,000 feet (610 metres) while increasing the gold mineral resource at the Property by:

drilling two deep holes to vertical depths of between 3,500 and 4,200 feet (1,068

and 1,281 metres) respectively to test continuity of the Atlanta Shear Zone at

depth;

increasing the size of the near-surface, shallow open-pit resource which can be

mined at a relatively low cost;

continue infill drilling to upgrade the resource status of the sparsely-drilled

higher-grade (0.35+ ounce per ton) (12.0+ gram per tonne) zones found between

the Monarch and Idaho areas in the west and the East Extension area in the east at

the 900 to 1,200 foot horizon; and

proving confidence in the continuity between these higher-grade zones.

Based on compilation and geological interpretation of the 2010 drilling and trenching data and

subject to receipt of required drilling and other permits and completion of additional short-term

funding of up to C$6 million, the 2011 exploration program includes up to 60,000 feet (18,300

metres) of drilling. The program commenced in June 2011, with the mobilization of three drills.



Targets for this phase of drilling are the three principal gold zones within the Monarch, Idaho

and East Extension areas. The objectives of the Company‟s 2011 program are to upgrade the

confidence category of resources defined during previous drill campaigns, increase the known

resource and further refine the geological model. Subject to the availability of financing, the

Company expects to extend the mineralized systems, continue in-fill and definition drilling in

preparation for an updated Block Model by the fall and an updated NI 43-101 resource estimate

by Q1 OF 2012.

Most of the 2011 drill hole collars will be on private land and, based on past experience, the

Company anticipates that the U.S. Forest Service (“USFS”) will approve the remaining proposed

2011 drill hole collars to be located on USFS land.

The Company plans to complete a total of 84,350 feet (25,710 metres) of diamond drilling with

94 drill holes plus additional infill and exploration drilling in 2011 and 2012 in order to:

define extensions to the higher grade drill intercepts in the Newmont and Glaspey zones

by completing 50,390 feet (15,359 metres) of core drilling to an intermediate depth of

2,000 feet (610 metres) on the East Extension, Monarch and Idaho areas. The 1,300 foot

(396 metre) distance between these highly prospective zones is underexplored as

previous programs focused on shallower, potentially open-pitable mineralization. The

deeper holes are targeting an increase in the underground resource which is currently

21,700 AuEq ounces Indicated and 207,600 AuEq ounces Inferred;

increase the near-surface open-pit resource - currently 697,300 AuEq ounces Indicated

and 82,500 AuEq ounces Inferred by completing 25,360 feet (7,730 metres) of shallow

infill core drilling to a depth of 1,000 feet (305 metres) in the East Extension, West

Monarch and Idaho zones. It is anticipated that the open-pit resource could be mined at a

relatively low cost for the first 19 years of mining assuming an annual production rate of

40,000 AuEq ounces;

further evaluate the near surface potential of the Tahoma Shear Zone by surveying,

sampling and assaying 1,000 feet (305 metres) of trenches along strike of the northwest

trending Tahoma, logging, sampling and assaying 14 drill holes, and sampling and

assaying approximately 300 soil samples.(The 2009 and 2010 trenching programs

exposed and identified significant gold-bearing mineralization in 95% of the returned

samples); and

Continue to evaluate the economic potential of recovering by-products from the Atlanta

Shear Zone.

The 2011 exploration program, as well as the Company‟s other initatives for 2011, will require

that the Company successfully complete additional financings during the remainder of 2011 of

approximately C$6.0 million, which will supplement existing cash on hand. The timing and the

extent of drilling, exploration and other planned activities for 2011 are dependent upon the

availability of additional funding on a timely basis.



11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

Sampling procedures were established by P&E in order to meet the requirements for NI 43-101

Reporting. Sample procedures followed industry standards with minor specific changes or

additions. Particular attention was paid to checking and verifying the recording of sample data as

compared to the actual samples on a daily basis, to ensure all numbering sequences and samples

were correct.

All drill core logging and sample preparation was conducted by qualified Atlanta personnel to NI

43-101 standards at Atlanta‟s core logging facilities in Atlanta, Idaho, U.S.A. Following the core

logging, the sample boxes were marked (red star) for sampling and were moved to the secured

sample room. The other core boxes not designated for sampling were stored in consecutive order

in secured areas adjacent to the logging and sampling rooms.

The sample procedure included integrating the work of the geologist/splitter and the geo-tech

/recorder. The geologist/splitter conducted the actual splitting and checked the sample interval

against the blocks. The geo-tech/recorder entered the data on the various data sheets, marked the

sample bags and verified the interval being split. Separating the duties worked well in preventing

numbering errors and verifying the actual samples and records.

Samples were marked and split on regular five foot (1.52 metre) intervals using a hydraulic

splitter. The splitter worked better than a saw because the core was generally strongly fractured

in the silicified areas of the Atlanta Shear Zone and this, combined with strong sericite alteration,

made for difficult sawing of rock.

Samples were assigned an individual sample tag number from a pre-numbered sample book. One

half of the core was sampled and bagged and the remaining one half of the core was returned to

the core box for storage, except where the two halves of the same core interval were sent as field

core duplicates.

Remaining samples were returned to the core boxes, which were transported to the adjacent areas

and stored in consecutive order, along with the original unsampled drill hole boxes.

Sample shipments were separated into numbered individual batches of 35 samples each. The KB

drill batches had the prefix batch number KB10-1, KB10-2 etc. The Atlanta drill batches had the

prefix number AG10-1, AG10-2 etc. Other separate sample types included trench samples with

the designation TR09-1, or TR10-1 depending on the year of the trench, and the re-assays of

previous 2007 and 2008 drill core samples which were designated RA10-1 to RA10-4.

Sample data were recorded on four separate sheets that included the Sample Tag Book, the

Sample Shipment Internal and Lab copies, and the Core Sample Record sheet. The Sample Tag

Book included the hole number and footage interval or check sample, and batch number. The

Sample Shipment Internal Copy included the drill hole and sample number and designation of

the duplicates and standards along with the batch number that was for Atlanta‟s information

only. The Sample Shipment Lab Copy included only the sample number and batch number with

some limited sample procedure information and was sent to the analytical lab along with the

samples. The Core Sample Record included the sample number, footage interval, width and

batch number and was the primary link between the sample number and the sample interval. An

individual Core Sample Record was kept for each hole and stored in the drill hole file.



All sample records were checked daily for errors and the Internal and Lab copies were double

checked before final shipment. Individual large rice bags were used to hold the samples and

these were labeled with the batch number and the individual bag number (KB10-1, bag 1 of 4

etc). Generally four rice bags were required for each batch. Individual samples were laid out,

sample numbers identified and verified by the geologist and geo-tech together and then

transferred to the rice bags to ensure that all the correct numbers and documentation were

included in each batch shipment.

Samples were stored in the secured sample room prior to bagging and loading in shipment bins.

Large sample shipment bins holding six or seven batches were obtained from Inspectorate and

were closed with a chain and lock each night until ready for final shipment. The shipment bins

were bound with four metal straps just prior to shipment. A sample transmittal sheet of Lab Copy

was given to the driver and was also included in the first rice bag of each batch. The samples

were transported by Atlanta personnel directly to Inspectorate Group in Sparks, Nevada from the

Atlanta site once a week.

Inspectorate Group has locations in over 100 countries, with eight Exploration & Mining Service

(EMS) hub laboratories around the world. In North America the Sparks (Reno) lab is ISO

9001:2008 certified. The lab participates in round robin testing, such as CanMet, and hires BC

Certified Assayers, experienced technicians and chemists to complete all analytical work.

Inspectorate Group is independent of the issuer of this report.

Split core samples were analyzed for gold using lead collection fire assay with an AAS finish.

All silver was analyzed using acid digest and AAS finish. Silver values greater than 200 g/t Ag

were reanalyzed using fire assay with gravimetric finish.

The author states with confidence that the sample preparation, security and analytical procedures

are adequate and that the data are suitable for the intended purpose of rendering a Resource

Estimate.



12.0 DATA VERIFICATION

The Property was visited by Mr. Fred Brown, Pr.Sc.Nat, from September 29, 2010 to September

30, 2010. Nine verification samples were collected from four drill holes by taking the entire

remaining half core from the box. At no time were any officers or employees of Atlanta notified

as to the location of any of the samples to be collected.

Samples were tagged, bagged and brought by Mr. Brown to ALS Chemex in Vancouver, British

Columbia, Canada for analysis.

The Vancouver facility operates under ALS Laboratory Group‟s global Quality Management

System and is in compliance with ISO 9001:2000 for the provision of assay and geochemical

services according to QMI-SAI Global Management Systems Registration. The laboratory has

also been accredited to ISO 17025 standards for specific laboratory procedures by the Standards

Council of Canada (SCC).

Results obtained by P&E were very similar to the results obtained by Atlanta for both gold and

silver, (Figure 12.1 and Figure 12.2).

Figure 12.1 Site Visit Sample Results for Gold

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Au (g/t)

Diamond Drill Hole

Atlanta Gold Project

Site Visit Sample Results for Gold

P&E Au g/t

Atlanta Au g/t



Figure 12.2 Site Visit Sample Results for Silver

020406080

100120140160180

Ag (g/t)

Diamond Drill Hole

Atlanta Gold Project

Site Visit Sample Results for Silver

P&E Ag g/t

Atlanta Ag g/t

12.1 ATLANTA GOLD QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

The Company instituted a strict quality control, (“QC”) program for the 2010 drilling, which

included assembling the samples into numbered batches of 35 samples. Included in the

35 samples were one blank, two certified reference materials, one core (field), one coarse reject

and one pulp duplicate.

Results of the QC program were monitored by P&E on a real-time basis.

12.1.1 Performance of Certified Reference Materials

Two certified reference materials were purchased from CDN Resource Labs in Langley, British

Columbia and were used on the Project. Both materials were certified for gold only, and the

accuracy of silver was monitored using the lab‟s two certified reference materials.

The reference materials for gold had a total of 197 data points between the two of them. There

were very few problems encountered and in the event a reference material did not pass the

established criteria, the lab was contacted and a rerun was requested.

The two certified reference materials used by the lab to monitor silver had a combined total of

190 data points. There were very few problems encountered and in the event a reference material

did not pass the established criteria, the lab was contacted and a rerun was requested.

In the author‟s opinion all data used in the current resource estimate are considered accurate.



12.1.2 Performance of Blank Material

The blank material used for the program was a pre-pulverized silica sand purchased from CDN

Resource Labs, which monitored potential analytical contamination. There was a total of 99 data

points for the blank. The blank sample caught one sequencing error, which was dealt with by

requesting a rerun of the batch in question with a new blank inserted. No contamination at the

analytical level was observed.

12.1.3 Performance of Duplicates

Three types of duplicates were prepared and analyzed during the 2010 drill program. Field (1/2

core) duplicate samples were taken at the core shack, and coarse reject and pulp duplicates were

routinely prepared at the lab.

A total of 97 duplicate pairs were analyzed. Precision at the field and coarse reject duplicate

levels was similar, and indicated moderate precision. At the pulp duplicate level, precision was

excellent, with all gold values falling on a 1:1 line and all silver values, (with the exception of

one outlier), falling on a 1:1 line.



13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

No new processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted by the Company (previously

Twin Mining Corporation) since the early work conducted in the late 1980‟s and 1990‟s

augmented by limited work performed by Kappes Cassidy and Associates in 2003. The

following section draws heavily from the Kappes Cassidy and Associates (2003), Behre Dolbear

(2005) and Josey (2009) reports.

13.1 HEAP LEACH TESTING

It should be noted that the development plans for the Atlanta Project as currently envisioned

by the Company no longer include the option of heap leaching the ore. Instead a concentrate

will be produced at the mine site and shipped to Nevada for processing at an existing facility.

The following section on heap leach testing is therefore no longer relevant but has been

included for the sake of historical completeness.

Several rounds of testing were conducted on samples from the Property to determine

metallurgical recoveries for several process scenarios considered for the property. Bottle roll

cyanidation tests were carried out for many drilled intervals to determine the ore response to

cyanidation. This has resulted in an orebody that had more metallurgical evaluation than a

typical project utilizing cyanidation response test work.

Four metallurgical composite samples were created to focus on the intended heap-leach

processing flowsheet and establish recoveries for two different crush sizes. In February of 2003,

Kappes Cassidy and Associates (“KCA”) began a comprehensive test program on the four

Atlanta composites. Fourteen separate column leach tests were conducted on the individual

composites. The composites represented the Monarch Pit high, the Monarch Pit moderate and the

Monarch Pit low extraction ores and the Idaho Pit combined ores. Bottle roll cyanidation tests

were used to determine the classification of the ore as high, moderate or low extraction. High

extraction ores had gold recoveries in excess of 50% within 24 hours. Moderate extraction ores

had recoveries between 20% and less than 50% within 24 hours. Low extraction ores had less

than 20% recovery within 24 hours. Three of the column leach tests were run through fresh water

rinsing at the conclusion of leaching to help determine the time required for detoxification at the

conclusion of heap leach operations.

The column tests provided leach extraction data for the composites during 120 days of leaching

at two crush sizes; parameters determined included leach time and crush size for the composites

representing the orebody. A nominal minus 3/8-inch crush size was determined to be the optimal

size considering cost and extraction. The data from this testing program was used to assign

metallurgical recoveries to ore blocks in the mine model. The model weight averaged the

recoveries to produce an overall metallurgical recovery for the mineable reserve. The

extrapolated gold recovery for the Monarch Pit, weighted by ore type, is 63.26 percent. The

silver recovery is projected at 50 percent. The gold and silver recoveries for the Idaho Pit are

65.73 percent and 50 percent respectively. The overall weighted recoveries for the Project are

64.0 percent for gold and 50.0 percent for silver.

KCA conducted a total of 31 bulk density measurements according to test procedure ASTM 914:

Standard Test Method for Rock Density and Volume of Solid Refractories by Wax Immersion.

By ignoring the two highest and two lowest density values, the average density was found to be



2.52 grams per cubic centimetre or 12.7 cubic feet per short ton. This was the bulk density value

used for both the ore and waste for the 2004 Behre Dolbear feasibility study of the Atlanta

Project.

The overall average density of all of the measurements was 2.49 grams/cm3 (12.86 ft

3/ton) and

the range was 2.06 to 2.62 grams/cm3 (15.55 to 12.22 ft

3/ton). The Monarch Pit Low Extraction

average was 2.44 grams/cm3 (13.13 ft

3/ton). The average for the Idaho Pit samples was

2.47 grams/cm3 (12.97 ft

3/ton), and the reject core samples averaged 2.52 grams/cm

3

(12.71 ft3/ton). Prior testing by Hazen (1988) included duplicate testing of three core samples,

called “A”, “B” and “oxide” in their report. Hazen measured densities of 2.66 grams/cm3 to

2.68 grams/cm3 (12.04 ft

3/ton to 11.95 ft

3/ton) with an average of 2.67 grams/cm

3 (12.00 ft

3/ton).

Estimates of densities used by geotechnical engineers for their waste dump designs and for other

purposes were consistent with the KCA data.

The reason that the Behre Dolbear study focused on the KCA samples to the exclusion of other

testing was because there was little variation between the density data sets, the KCA data was

subject to the highest level of quality control and allowed Behre Dolbear to validate that data set,

and the KCA testing was possibly conservative. While there is almost certainly a variation in

density between ore and waste, and possibly within the different ore zones, more data are needed

to be able to reasonably estimate these variations and thus a uniform density 2.52 grams/cm3

(12.7 ft3/ton) was used.

In 2007, Atlanta commissioned further bulk density work and 14 core samples were selected by

rock types, i.e. fresh granodiorite, chloritic granodiorite, argillic granodiorite, and silicic

granodiorite (including veins) and had density measurements completed by Florlin Analytical

Services, which is part of KCA. The argillic and silicic rocks are generally ore and the chloritic

and fresh rocks are generally waste rock.

An average of all samples is 2.53 grams/cm3 (12.65 ft

3/ton); however, when averaged by rock

types the chloritic and fresh rocks are 2.59 grams/cm3 (12.37 ft

3/ton) and the strongly altered

rocks are 2.49 grams/cm3 (12.86 ft

3/ton). Fourteen samples are not enough to change the tonnage

factor currently used, but additional sampling and density measurements may show that the

waste rock and ore do have different densities.

The 2005 Behre Dolbear Feasibility Report proposed that the ore undergo a three-stage crushing

circuit and then be agglomerated with cement and cyanide solution in an agglomeration drum

prior to placement on the leach pads. The ore was to be crushed to a nominal 80 percent passing

3/8-inch size. Two heap leach pads were to be constructed – the Ridge heap leach pad and the

larger Valley heap leach pad. The initial 2.2 million tons of ore were to be placed on the Ridge

Pad with the remainder of the ore to be placed on the Valley pad. This was done so

detoxification and reclamation of the Ridge Pad could commence during the operation of the

Valley Pad, thus decreasing the overall time requirement for this part of the Project. Also, the

volume of ore on the Valley Pad is reduced allowing for additional capacity should additional

reserves be proven or cost reductions should the full potential volume of the pad not be needed.

The pregnant solutions from the heap leaching pads was then to be processed through a carbon

adsorption plant to remove the gold and silver and the barren solution would be recycled to the

heap after adjusting cyanide strength and pH. Provisions were made in the pregnant and barren

pond arrangements to allow for the internal recycling of cyanide solutions to maintain the gold



and silver content to the carbon adsorption plant. The carbon plant was to operate year round in

conjunction with the leaching operations.

The gold and silver recovered in a concentrated cyanide solution from the stripped carbon would

be recovered in electrolytic cells with the cathodic sludge from the cells to be smelted to produce

gold and silver dore for shipment to a refiner.

13.2 FLOTATION TESTING

Between 1987 and 1989, Hazen Research Inc. conducted a series of flotation test work on ore

samples from the Atlanta Gold Project.

In 1987, a 40-ton bulk sample of mine-run ore was crushed to minus 5/8 inch. The ore was coned

and quartered and approximately 1000-lb split out for testing. The 1000-lb split was crushed to

minus 6 mesh and three samples were split for head assay. An assay pulp was then prepared for

each split. The head assay splits assayed 0.042, 0.062 and 0.0184 oz Au/T. The variance in the

assay values was indicative of significant amounts of coarse free gold in the ore. A subsequent

mineralogical examination confirmed this.

The flotation test results showed that a rougher flotation tail, containing approximately 0.02 oz

Au/T was produced when the ore was floated at grinds of 85 to 99% passing 200 mesh. The head

assays of discrete samples used for flotation varied from 0.055 to 0.112 oz Au/T due to coarse

free gold contained in the ore. Gold recoveries ranged from approximately 67% to 83%. Silver

recoveries varied from 47% to 92%.

A gravity table test was performed on ore samples ground to minus 35 mesh in a wet ball mill.

The test produced a gravity concentrate containing 4.32 oz Au/T and 3.09 Ag/T with a

concentrate weight recovery of 0.69%. Gold and silver recoveries were approximately 44 and

33%, respectively.

The middlings, tails and slimes produced from the gravity table test were combined, ground to

approximately 82% passing 150 mesh and floated. A rougher tail containing 0.026 oz Au/T was

produced.

Flotation of the table middlings and tails produced a combined concentrate containing 0.573 oz

Au/T and 0.84 oz Ag/T and a concentrate weight of 7.93% of the feed to the gravity table.

Overall gold and silver recoveries were approximately 66% and 89% respectively.

In 1988, locked-cycle flotation tests were performed on a 1:1 mixture of A and B ores with the

objective to investigate the gold metallurgy of a flowsheet simulating flotation with one stage

each of rougher and cleaner flotation and recycling of the cleaner tailings to the rougher

flotation.

The locked-cycle test procedure was intended to simulate a balanced continuous plant operation

so the laboratory procedure required enough cycles to achieve equilibrium. In the tests,

equilibrium was defined as the achievement of three consecutive cycles producing near constant

product weights. Six cycles were required for the test work and the last three cycles were in

equilibrium. The last three cycles had an average gold recovery of 80.3% and rougher tailings

averaging 0.016 oz Au/ton. The calculated feed for the last three cycles averaged 0.079 oz

Ag/ton and represented 2.79 weight percent of the ore mixture.



The rougher tailings from locked-cycle tests normally increase and stabilize at a value higher

than a similar open-circuit batch test due to the recycling of the cleaner tailings. However, the

rougher tailings from the present locked-cycle tests were nearly constant and the tailings from

the first cycle were not significantly lower than those for the other cycles.

The data indicates a very high efficiency for reflotation of the cleaner tailings. However, the

rougher tailings were higher than previous batch tests which assayed less than 0.01 oz Au/ton

and corresponded to gold recoveries of near 90%.

Hazen believed that the higher locked-cycle tailing was not due to recycling the cleaner tailings

but rather due to a lack of flotation response from the ore mixture. The cause for the lower

response was unknown but it was possible that long-term storage of the ore feeds may have

resulted in some surface oxidation of the sulphides.

Flotation work was carried out on a third bulk sample, labelled „RC‟. Seven cycles of flotation

for the RC ore sample were completed. The rougher concentrate from each cycle was cleaned

once, the cleaner tailings were thickened without the use of flocculant, the water was decanted

and the solids were combined with the ground ore feed for the next cycle. The cleaner

concentrate from the last three cycles averaged 1.08 oz Au/ton with a gold recovery of 89.1%, a

weight percentage of 5.31 and rougher tailings averaging 0.008 oz Au/ton. The rougher tailings

from all seven cycles did not vary much, with the exception of cycle 3. The cleaner tailings from

the last cycle assayed only 0.014 oz Au/ton which indicated an efficient flotation of the values

during cleaning. The locked-cycle results indicated a good potential for producing high grade

sulphide concentrate from the RC ore with relatively high gold recoveries and minimal weight

percentages.



14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

14.1 INTRODUCTION

The mineral resource estimate presented herein is reported in accordance with the Canadian

Securities Administrators‟ National Instrument 43-101 and has been estimated in conformity

with generally accepted CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves Best

Practices” guidelines. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated

economic viability. There is no guarantee that all or any part of the mineral resource will be

converted into a mineral reserve. 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 of Inferred Mineral Resources is insufficient

to allow the meaningful application of technical and economic parameters or to enable an

evaluation of economic viability worthy of public disclosure.

All resource estimation work reported herein was carried out by F.H. Brown MSc (Eng) CPG

Pr.Sci.Nat., an independent Qualified Person in terms of NI 43-101. The site was visited by F.H.

Brown over the period September 29, 2010 to September 30, 2010. This mineral resource

estimate relies on information and data supplied by the Company. A draft copy of this Report

was reviewed by the Company for factual errors. The effective date of this estimate is

June 30, 2011.

Mineral resource modeling and estimation were carried out using the commercially available

GEMS Gemcom and Snowden Supervisor software programs.

14.2 PREVIOUS RESOURCE ESTIMATES

Three previous NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimates have been released for the

Atlanta deposit. An open-pit mineral resource based on a 0.015 opt (0.514 gpt) Au cut-off was

reported in November 2004, listing a total of 1,360,000 oz Au in the Measured and Indicated

categories and an additional 560,000 oz Au in the Inferred category (Table 14.1).

TABLE 14.1

ATLANTA MINERAL RESOURCE PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 3, 20041

Behre Dolbear November 3, 2004

Resource

Cut-

Off opt

Short

Tons

'000

Gold Silver

Gold

Equivalent

Au

Grade

opt

Au

Grade

g/t

Au oz

'000

Ag

Grade

opt

Ag

Grade

g/t

AuEq oz

'000

Measured 0.015 18,046 0.053 1.82 953 0.140 4.80 985.6

Indicated 0.015 9,841 0.041 1.41 406 0.088 3.02 417.2

Measured

+ Indicated 0.015 27,887 0.049 1.68 1,360 0.122 4.18 1403.8

Inferred 0.015 16,767 0.033 1.13 560 0.075 2.57 576.2

1 Rance DC, Kunter RS and Deng Q (2004). Technical report of the Atlanta Project, Elmore County, Idaho USA.

Behre Dolbear & Company Ltd.



Note: P&E has not independently verified this mineral resource estimate, and makes no assurances as to the

validity or economic viability of any of the stated mineral resources, in whole or in part.

A mineral resource estimated based on a 0.025 opt (0.86 gpt) Au cut-off was reported in March

2009, listing a total of 1,287,600 ounces of gold in the Measured and Indicated categories and an

additional 499,800 ounces of gold in the Inferred category (Table 14.2).

TABLE 14.2

EXTRACT FROM THE ATLANTA MINERAL RESOURCE PUBLISHED 30 MARCH 20092

Atlanta Gold Inc. 30 March 2009

Resource

Cut-

Off

opt

Short

Tons

'000

Gold Silver Gold

Equivalent

Au

Grade

opt

Au

Grade

g/t

Au ozs

'000

Ag

Grade

opt

Ag

Grade

g/t

AuEq ozs

'000

Measured 0.025 15,452 0.063 2.16 974.1 0.097 3.33 993.4

Indicated 0.025 5,706 0.055 1.89 313.5 0.107 3.67 321.4

Mea + Ind 0.025 21,159 0.061 2.09 1,287.6 0.150 5.14 1328.5

Inferred 0.025 9,521 0.053 1.82 499.8 0.067 2.30 508.0

Note: P&E has not independently verified this mineral resource estimate, and makes no assurances as to the

validity or economic viability of any of the stated mineral resources, in whole or in part.

A further mineral resource estimated by P&E was reported in February 2011. The mineral

resource was based on an open pit cut-off grade of 0.04 opt (1.37 gpt) Au and for underground

mining a cut-off grade of 0.09 opt (3.09 gpt) Au. The estimated mineral resource contained a

total of 466,000 gold equivalent (AuEq) ounces classified as Indicated, and 290,000 gold

equivalent ounces classified as Inferred (Table 14.3), with AuEq ounces calculated using a gold

to silver price ratio of 77.6:1. Cut-off grades were derived from knowledge of similar projects,

utilizing a processing cost of US$22.00/ton, a General & Administration cost of US$15.00/ton

and an underground mining cost of US$50.00/ton. Pit optimization assumed a mining cost of

$2.00/ton and a pit slope of 50°. The conceptual pit was constrained to remain within the

patented boundaries as far as possible.

The mineral resource was estimated on the basis of the November 30, 2010 two-year trailing

average US$ metal prices of $1,075 per ounce of gold and $16.61 per ounce of silver with mill

recoveries of 90% and 75% respectively.

2 Josey WL (2009). Technical report and resource estimate of the Atlanta Project, Elmore County, Idaho USA.

Atlanta Gold Inc.



TABLE 14.3

EXTRACT FROM THE ATLANTA MINERAL RESOURCE PUBLISHED 01 FEBRUARY 20113

Open Pit Resource

Resource

Cut-

Off

opt

Short

Tons

'000

Gold Silver

Gold

Equivalent

Au

Grade

opt

Au

Grade

g/t

Au ozs

'000

Ag

Grade

opt

Ag Grade

g/t

AuEq oz

'000

Indicated 0.04 2,331 0.130 4.46 303.0 0.389 13.34 314.7

Inferred 0.04 58 0.123 4.22 7.1 0.235 8.06 7.3


Zone Resource

Cut-

Off

opt

Short

Tons

'000

Gold Silver

Gold

Equivalent

Au

Grade

opt

Au

Grade

g/t

Au oz

'000

Ag

Grade

opt

Ag Grade

g/t

AuEq oz

'000

Glaspey Indicated 0.09 61.20 0.193 6.62 11.8 0.209 7.17 12.0

Newmont Indicated 0.09 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.0

Underground Indicated 0.09 872.80 0.156 5.34 135.9 0.318 10.91 139.3

Glaspey Inferred 0.09 18.10 0.181 6.21 3.3 0.176 6.03 3.3

Newmont Inferred 0.09 503.70 0.223 7.65 112.6 0.211 7.23 114.0

Underground Inferred 0.09 978.20 0.166 5.67 161.9 0.298 10.20 165.4

Total Open Pit And Underground Resources

Resource

Short

Tons

'000

Gold Silver

Gold

Equivalent

Au

Grade

opt

Au

Grade

g/t

Au ozs

'000

Ag

Grade

opt

Ag

Grade

g/t

AuEq oz

'000

Indicated 3,265 0.138 4.73 450.6 0.367 12.580 466.0

Inferred 1,558 0.183 6.27 284.6 0.265 9.090 290.0

14.3 SAMPLE DATABASE

Atlanta supplied the data in electronic format primarily as text files and dxf-format wireframes.

All data supplied are located relative to the local mine grid coordinate system. Drilling data

included collar coordinates and orientation, downhole survey interval measurements, assay

values and lithological information.

The drilling data supplied encompassed 741 drillholes and a total of 22,355 gold assay values

and 21,916 silver assay values. Of the 741 drillholes, 605 fell within the defined Project limits

and contained assay data. The 605 drillholes included 105 diamond drillholes completed by

Atlanta Gold between 2007 and 2010, 72 pre-2007 diamond drillholes, 403 reverse circulation

drillholes, and 24 underground drillholes. Due to the span of historical assay procedures and

results, all gold and silver assay values that were reported as less than 0.002 opt were set to a

nominal value of 0.001 opt.

14.4 DATABASE VALIDATION

Industry standard validation checks were completed on the supplied data. P&E typically

validates a mineral resource database by checking for inconsistencies in naming conventions or

analytical units, duplicate entries, interval, length or distance values less than or equal to zero,

blank or zero-value assay results, out-of-sequence intervals, intervals or distances greater than

3 Ewert WD, Puritch E, Burga D, Brown FH, Armstrong T, Hayden A (2011). Technical report

and updated resource estimate on the Atlanta Gold property Elmore County, Idaho USA.



the reported drill hole length, inappropriate collar locations, and missing interval and coordinate

fields. A number of minor out-of-sequence interval errors and terminal interval lengths were

corrected; no other significant validation errors were noted in the supplied database.

A total of nineteen drillholes lacked downhole survey data due to hole collapse. These drillholes

were visually examined for domaining purposes but were not used for estimation due to a lack of

certainty as to their final orientation.

14.5 TOPOGRAPHY & SURVEY

Atlanta supplied a digital terrain model relative to the mine grid coordinate system. The Project

area was flown with LIDAR data acquisition methods by Terrapoint in mid-June 2006.

Topographic data were originally prepared by Vector Colorado LLC / Tetra Tech, and the mine

grid models were then utilized by Vector Engineering, Inc. to prepare two foot contour maps.

The coordinate conversion in use is based on Project benchmarks that had previously been

surveyed in both the mine grid coordinates and UTM11-NAD83-NAVD88 coordinates. The

rotation and shifts (spatial and elevation) are performed according to the following convention:

1. Rotate 31.6874 degrees about mine grid origin (0,0)

2. Northing shift = + 15909842.61

3. Easting shift = + 2138098.21

4. Elevation shift = +19.02

Drillhole collar locations for the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 drilling programs were

independently surveyed by the Idaho Survey Group, Meridian, Idaho

14.6 BULK DENSITY

A historical tonnage factor of 12.7 ft3/ton (2.52 t/m

3) has been used previously at Atlanta. Behre

Dolbear in 2004 reported an overall average of 12.53 cubic feet for a limited number of

metallurgical samples. For this mineral resource estimate Atlanta geologists reported a total of

106 bulk density samples from drillhole core, averaging 12.95 ft3/ton (2.57 t/m

3). The average

bulk density of the ten mineralized check samples collected from drillhole core by P&E is

13.96 ft3/ton (2.77 t/m

3) (Table 14.4). For this mineral resource estimate a tonnage factor of 12.6

cubic feet was used as a bulk factor across varying lithology, although P&E notes that this value

may be somewhat conservative and additional density samples will be required moving forward.

TABLE 14.4

BULK DENSITY AND TONNAGE FACTORS

Atlanta Gold P&E

Count 106 10

Minimum (t/m3) 2.22 2.69

Maximum (t/m3) 2.75 2.82

St Dev 0.10 0.03

Average (t/m3) 2.57 2.77

Average (TF) 12.5 11.6



14.7 ECONOMIC PARAMETRES

A gold equivalent value was calculated for reporting purposes at one ounce Au equal to

55.6 ounces Ag. Metal prices used were the 30 June 2011 two year trailing average for Au of

US$1,231/oz and for Ag of US$22.84/oz. A process recovery of 83% for Au and 88% for Ag

was assumed.

14.8 DOMAIN MODELING

Three distinct mineralization domains have been defined at Atlanta along the primary shear

structure, based on historical mining, drilling, geological mapping and grade continuity. From

west to east these are the Idaho Zone, the Monarch Zone, and the East Extension.

For each zone two grade domains were modeled, based on a 0.04 opt (1.37 gpt) grade shell and a

0.09 opt (3.09 gpt) grade shell. Domain models were generated from successive polylines spaced

every 25 feet (8 metres) and oriented perpendicular to the trend of the mineralization. The

outlines of the polylines were determined by the defined grade cut-offs with demonstrated

continuity along strike and down dip, and include low-grade material where necessary to

maintain continuity between sections. All polyline vertices were snapped directly to drillhole

assay intervals, in order to generate a true three-dimensional representation of the extent of the

mineralization (Figure 14.1). Domain wireframes were then clipped above the topographic

surface. The resulting domains were used for rock coding, statistical analysis and compositing

limits.

Figure 14.1 Defined 0.03 Opt Grade Domains

Extensive historical mining has taken place at Atlanta. In order to account for the historical

mining, wireframe solids representing void spaces were constructed using historical information

View towards grid NW.

Scale Bar = 2000 ft.

Idaho

Monarch

East Extension



combined with drillhole records indicating voids and areas of very poor core recovery or loss.

The resulting wireframes were used to deplete the mineral resource prior to volumetrics

calculations. P&E notes that as the total extent of historical mining activities is not known, it is

recommended that a delineation program targeted at better defining areas of historical production

be considered.

Atlanta geologists have identified an oxide/sulphide boundary based on the first appearance of

sulphide minerals in drill core. Examination of the boundary and assay grades across the contact

suggests a low-sulphidization environment modified by the local water table. P&E recommends

that moving forward additional characterization of the extent of oxidization be considered.

14.9 COMPOSITING

Assay sample lengths range from 0.40 ft to 287.00 ft (with an average sample length of 8.13 ft

and a median sample length of 10.00 ft). A total of 30% of the samples have a sample length of

5.00 ft and an additional 59% have a sample length of 10.00 ft. A compositing length of 5.00 ft

was therefore selected for use during estimation. Length-weighted composites were calculated

for Au and Ag within the defined grade domains. Missing sample intervals in the data were

treated as null values.

The compositing process started at the first point of intersection between the drillhole and the

domain intersected, and halted upon exit from the domain. Terminal composites that were less

than 2.5 ft in length were discarded so as to not introduce a short sample bias into the estimation

process. The interpreted grade domains were also used to back-tag a rock code field into the

drillhole workspace. Each assay and composite were assigned a domain rock code value based

on the domain that the interval midpoint fell within. The composite data were then exported to

Gemcom extraction files for grade estimation.

14.10 EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS

Summary composite statistics were calculated by zone for each commodity (Table 14.5). A

comparison of the domain averages demonstrates the differences in grade distributions between

the defined zones, with the highest average composite grades occurring at Monarch, followed by

the East Extension and then Idaho.

The overall correlation coefficient between Au and Ag for the composite data is 0.35, suggesting

some degree of correlation. However, this correlation also appears to increase from west to east,

with Idaho reporting a correlation coefficient between Au and Ag of 0.22, Monarch a correlation

coefficient of 0.36, and the East Extension a strong correlation coefficient of 0.52.

Approximately 67% of the drillholes completed at Atlanta are reverse circulation (RC) drillholes.

Analysis of the composite sample distributions suggest that the RC data may overestimate the

grades in comparison to diamond drillhole (DDH) data, on the order of ~0.02 opt Au (Figure

14.2). No adjustment was made to the RC data; however P&E notes that the use of high-angle

reverse circulation drilling data for delineation of a structurally-controlled epithermal deposit can

be difficult to interpret, and recommends that key sections be re-drilled where possible.



TABLE 14.5

COMPOSITE SUMMARY STATISTICS

Au Composites (opt Au)*

Statistic Total Idaho Monarch East Extension

Samples 7268 2050 4857 361

Minimum opt 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Maximum opt 3.4688 0.7500 1.9560 3.4688

Mean opt 0.0773 0.0559 0.0863 0.0789

St Dev 0.1181 0.0603 0.1226 0.2336

CV 1.5272 1.0774 1.4210 2.9626

Variance 0.0140 0.0036 0.0150 0.0546

Skewness 8.2167 4.3965 5.3336 10.3307

Ag Composites (opt Ag)

Statistic Total Idaho Monarch East Extension

Samples 6891 1942 4608 341

Minimum opt 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Maximum opt 19.6525 3.6000 19.6525 6.7352

Mean opt 0.2198 0.0959 0.2752 0.1776

St Dev 0.7698 0.2275 0.9117 0.5644

CV 3.5020 2.3727 3.3134 3.1775

Variance 0.5926 0.0518 0.8313 0.3186

Skewness 11.5374 8.0552 10.0108 9.0104

Figure 14.2 Q-Q plots of DDH vs. RC composite values for the Monarch zone

14.11 TREATMENT OF EXTREME VALUES

The presence of high-grade outliers was evaluated by examining histograms and log-probability

graphs for the defined zones (Figure 14.3), and where possible the observed correlations between

Au and Ag were also taken into account. Threshold values were selected that reduce the

influence of high-grade outliers during linear estimation, while minimizing changes in the

composite sample distribution, and composites were capped to this value prior to estimation

(Table 14.6).



Figure 14.3 Log probability plots of the composite sample sets

TABLE 14.6

CAPPING THRESHOLDS

Zone Grade

Domain Au opt Ag opt

Idaho 0.09 0.6 1.4

Idaho 0.03 0.4 1.4

Monarch 0.09 1.2 5.9

Monarch 0.03 0.8 5.9

East Extension 0.09 1.5 5.3

East Extension 0.03 1.2 5.3

14.12 CONTINUITY ANALYSIS

Three-dimensional continuity analyses were conducted on the domain-coded composite data.

Downhole and directional normal-scores transformed experimental semi-variograms were

generated by domain, and in general, horizontal and across-strike directions were aligned with

the modeled grade domains (Figure 14.4). The nugget effect for each zone was defined by the

back-transformed downhole experimental semi-variogram.

A continuity ellipsoid was generated for each domain. Rotation was defined by the Gemcom

ZXZ convention within the mine grid coordinate space. All continuity ellipsoids for each domain

were displayed as search ellipsoids in Gemcom to validate the ellipsoid orientations. The

resulting ellipsoids were used to define sample selection requirements and classification criteria

(Table 14.7).



TABLE 14.7

EXPERIMENTAL SEMI-VARIOGRAMS FOR AU

Idaho

Rotation (ZXZ) 10 75 -90

Direction 1 0.15 + SPH(0.34, 15) + SPH(0.51, 80)

Direction 2 0.15+SPH(0.34, 25)+SPH(0.51, 160)

Direction 3 0.15+SPH(0.34, 25)+SPH(0.51, 40)

Monarch

Rotation (ZXZ) 0 -80 90




East Extension

Rotation (ZXZ) 10 -45 90




14.13 BLOCK MODEL

An orthogonal block model was established across the Property relative to the mine coordinate

grid (Table 14.8), consisting of separate models for estimated grades, rock code, percent, density

and classification attributes and a calculated Au-equivalent (“AuEq”) grade. A percent block

model was used to accurately represent the volume and tonnage that was contained within the

constraining grade domains. As a result, the mineral resource boundaries were properly

represented by the percent model‟s capacity to measure infinitely variable inclusion percentages.

TABLE 14.8

BLOCK MODEL SETUP

Origin Blocks Size

X -5000 320 25 ft

Y -2000 160 25 ft

Z 7200 80 25 ft

Rotation None



Figure 14.4 Principle direction Au experimental semi-variograms

14.14 ESTIMATION & CLASSIFICATION

Inverse Distance Cubed (“ID3”) linear weighting of capped composite values was used for the

estimation of block grades. A three-pass series of expanding search ellipsoids with varying

minimum sample requirements was used for sample selection and estimation, with the axis of the

search ellipsoid defined by the Au semi-variogram ranges. Composite data used during

estimation were restricted to samples located in their respective domains. Individual Au and Ag

block grades were then used to calculate a Au-equivalent block model.



During the first pass, seven to twelve composites from three or more drillholes within a search

ellipsoid defined by the zone semi-variogram ranges were required for estimation. All blocks

estimated during the first pass were classified as Indicated.

During the second pass, four to twelve composites from two or more drillholes within a search

ellipsoid defined by twice the semi-variogram ranges were required for estimation. All blocks

estimated during the third pass were classified as Inferred.

During the third pass, four to twelve composites from two or more drillholes were required for

estimation. The search ellipsoid axis was expanded to eight times the semi-variogram ranges in

order to insure that all blocks defined by the grade domains were estimated. All blocks estimated

during the third pass were also classified as Inferred.

14.15 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

Mineral resources were classified in accordance with guidelines established by the Canadian

Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum:

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 drillholes

that are spaced closely enough to confirm both geological and grade continuity.”

Due to uncertainties in some of the older data with regard to collar locations,

survey information and assay results, no mineral resources were classified as

Measured.

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 drillholes that are spaced closely enough for

geological and grade continuity to be reasonably assumed.”

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 drillholes.”

The resource was estimated on the basis of the 30 June 2011 two-year trailing average US$ metal

prices of $1,231 per ounce of gold and $22.84 per ounce of silver with mill recoveries of 83%

and 88% respectively.



In order to ensure that the reported mineral resources meet the CIM requirement of “reasonable

prospects for economic extraction” a conceptual floating-cone pit shell was developed based on

all available mineral resources (Indicated and Inferred) within the 0.04 opt (1.37 gpt) domains

(Figure 14.5). For the design of the conceptual floating-cone pit shell partial blocks were not

diluted. Additional resources outside the pit-shell limits were accumulated using the 0.09 opt

(3.09 gpt) domains. Cut-off grades were derived from knowledge of similar projects, utilizing a

processing cost of US$13.08/ton, a General & Administration cost of US$8.06/ton and an

underground mining cost of US$59.21/tonne. Pit optimization assumed a mining cost of

$2.08/tonne and a pit slope of 50°. For underground mining a mining cost of US$/59.21 was

used. The conceptual pit was NOT constrained to remain within the patented claim boundaries,

and now falls within the boundaries of both patented and unpatented claims

For open-pit mining a cut-off grade of 0.041 opt (1.41 gpt) Au and for underground mining a

cut-off grade of 0.113 opt (3.87 gpt) Au was calculated. Cut-off grades include power, smelting

and shipping charges. The estimated mineral resource contains a total of 719,000 gold equivalent

(AuEq) ounces classified as Indicated, and 290,100 gold equivalent ounces classified as Inferred

(Table 14.9), with AuEq ounces calculated using a gold to silver price ratio of 55.6:1.

Figure 14.5 Optimized Mineral Resource Pit Shells

Atlanta has delineated two underground targets as the Newmont and Glaspey zones (Figure

14.6), and underground resources for these areas have been included as part of the mineral

resource totals.

View towards grid N.

Scale Bar = 2000 ft.



Figure 14.6 Newmont and Glaspey Areas

The average gold equivalent grade (including silver resources as a gold equivalent) of the open

pit resource is 0.104 opt (3.57 gpt) AuEq in the Indicated resource classification and 0.097 opt

(3.33 gpt) AuEq in the Inferred resource classification. The average gold equivalent grade of the

underground resource is 0.228 opt (7.82 gpt) AuEq in the Indicated resource classification and

0.221 opt (7.58 gpt) AuEq in the Inferred resource classification.



(1) Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The



(2) The quantity and grade of reported inferred resources in this estimate are uncertain in nature and there

has been insufficient exploration to define these Inferred resources as an Indicated or Measured mineral

resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an Indicated or

Measured mineral resource category.

(3) The mineral resources were estimated using the CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves,

Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions.

(4) AuEq was calculated such that one ounce of Au = 55.6 ounces Ag. Metal prices used were the June 30,

2011 two year trailing average for Au at US$1,231.00/oz and Ag at US$22.48/oz with process recoveries of

83% for gold and 88% for silver.

(5) The estimated mined tonnage from historic operations was removed from the block model.

14.16 VALIDATION

The block model was validated visually by the inspection of successive section lines in order to

confirm that the block model correctly reflects the distribution of high-grade and low-grade

samples. An additional validation check for global bias was also completed by comparing the

ID3 block model estimates to a Nearest Neighbour (NN) block model estimate generated using

the same search criteria and tabulated at a zero cut-off. Results demonstrate a minimal global

bias and slight smoothing for the ID3 estimate as compared to the NN estimate (Table 14.10).

TABLE 14.10

BLOCK ESTIMATE MEANS COMPARED WITH NN ESTIMATE MEANS

Total Idaho Monarch East Ext

Au Block Estimate opt 0.081 0.058 0.083 0.100

Au NN Estimate opt 0.084 0.058 0.083 0.113

Ag Block Estimate opt 0.206 0.095 0.242 0.217

Ag NN Estimate opt 0.216 0.095 0.249 0.248

TABLE 14.9

ATLANTA MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE AS OF JUNE 30, 2011(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)

GOLD SILVER

Total

Equivalent

Ounces Of

Gold

(000's)

Tons

(000’s)

Cut-

Off

Grade

(opt)

Grade

Ounces

of Gold

(000’s)

Grade

Ounces

of

Silver

(000's)

Ounces of

Silver as

Gold

Equivalent

(000's) Area

Ounces

Per

Ton

Au

Grams

Per

Tonne

Au

Ounces

Per

Ton

Ag

Grams

Per

Tonne

Ag

Open -Pit

Indicated 6,732 0.041 0.099 3.39 665.5 0.263 9.02 1,769.2 31.8 697.3

Inferred 850 0.041 0.093 3.19 79.4 0.200 6.86 170.2 3.1 82.5

Underground

Indicated 95 0.113 0.222 7.61 21.1 0.319 10.92 30.3 0.6 21.6

Inferred 938 0.113 0.216 7.42 203.0 0.272 9.33 255.2 4.6 207.6

Total

Indicated 6,828 0.101 3.45 686.6 0.264 9.04 1,799.5 32.4 719.0

Inferred 1,788 0.158 5.42 282.4 0.238 8.16 425.4 7.7 290.1



15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

This section is not applicable at this stage of the project.



16.0 MINING METHODS




17.0 RECOVERY METHODS




18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE




19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE




20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY

IMPACT

The Property operates under a variety of permits issued by local, State and Federal agencies. The

Company reports that current activities at the Property are in material compliance with all

required permit conditions, including monitoring and reporting conditions, except as described

below. Certain operating permits may be amended to more closely reflect planned operations

(http://www.atgoldinc.com).

In February, 2010 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) advised Atlanta

that discharge monitoring reports received from Atlanta since August 2009 indicated certain

effluent limit violations and expressed concern that arsenic and iron concentrations could

continue to exceed effluent limitations until additional treatment or other corrective actions are

implemented. The EPA conducted an audit of Atlanta‟s records in order to evaluate compliance

with the United States Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the “Clean Water Act”).

On April 18, 2011, the Idaho Conservation League (“ICL”) and the Northwest Environmental

Defense Center (“NEDC”), two environmental interest groups, filed a complaint in the United

States District Court for the State of Idaho against Atlanta alleging violations of the “Clean

Water Act” and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as civil penalties. Atlanta

advises that it believes that it has complete defences to the allegations made by ICL and NEDC

and that it will vigorously defend itself against their claims.

The complaint alleges that Atlanta is in violation of the effluent limits contained in its National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (“NPDES permit”) with respect to waters

discharged into Montezuma Creek from property owned by the Bureau of Land Management and

administered by the United States Forest Service (“USFS”), from the historic 900 adit portal

located at the historic Atlanta mine.

ICL previously sued Atlanta in 2005, alleging that Atlanta was discharging water into

Montezuma Creek without a NPDES permit. Without admitting any liability, Atlanta and ICL

entered into a Consent Decree, wherein Atlanta agreed to apply for a NPDES permit and to

construct a pilot water treatment facility. Atlanta has continued to use best management practices

in operating the pilot water treatment facility (“PWTF#1”) in what it believed to be in

cooperation with ICL and compliant with all terms of the Consent Decree.

Groundwater drains from the historic 900 adit, which was originally driven by companies that

previously were in production at the historic mine site, into Montezuma Creek through the pilot

water treatment facility constructed by AGC in 2006 as directed by the Consent Decree with

ICL. AGC does not own the land on which the historic adit is located, nor does it have any use or

right to use the groundwater that is discharged from the historic adit. Notwithstanding that

AGC‟s activities on the Property have not caused the groundwater discharge, Atlanta since 2006

has been treating approximately 2.5 million gallons of groundwater per month utilizing the pilot

water treatment facility. That pilot water treatment facility was designed and constructed to meet

or exceed applicable effluent standards that were in effect at the time of its installation. The

naturally occurring historical levels of arsenic and iron are higher than the corresponding effluent

levels contained in the NPDES permit, which are based on drinking water quality criteria.



As part of Atlanta‟s continuing efforts to reduce effluent levels, it has proposed a draft Plan of

Operations to the USFS, subject to USFS approval, for the construction of a diversion pipeline to

redirect water that flows through Montezuma Fault into the historic mine workings and

discharging from the historic 900 adit to the existing pilot water treatment facility. Atlanta also

proposed improvements to and expansion of the existing pilot water treatment facility to

determine final best management practices for treating arsenic contaminated water in accordance

with the applicable NPDES permit. In addition, Atlanta is proposing closure of the historic 900

adit eliminating the water discharge and reclamation of the pilot water treatment facility area.

Atlanta has submitted complete defences to the allegations made by ICL and NEDC and will

vigorously defend itself against their claims. However, there can be no assurance that Atlanta

will be successful in its defence of this action, nor is it currently possible to determine the

penalties which could be imposed by the Court should ICL and NEDC receive all relief

requested by them.

In 1996, Quest International Management Services Inc. conducted a geochemical study of the

rocks in the Property area in a report titled “Geochemical Rock Characterization Program for the

Proposed Atlanta Mine, Elmore County, Idaho”. The purpose of the study was to conduct whole

rock chemical analyses, static acid base accounting, and meteoric water mobility procedure tests

for each rock and alteration type in the Project area. The report found that the largest component

of waste rock at the Property would be altered and unaltered granodiorite and that the majority of

the rocks from the Property were neither acid generating nor non-acid generating. The significant

quantity of sulphide mineralization was offset by the significant component of neutralizing

carbonate minerals (primarily calcite) to buffer acid production within those materials.



21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

This section is not applicable at this stage of the Project.



22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS




23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

There are no adjacent properties that have a direct effect on this Report. The regional geology

and local historic mining, however, do suggest that additional mineralized zones are likely to

exist in the vicinity.



24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

The Property has a long history that includes periods of exploration and mining. The most recent

exploration period began in 1985 and thus there is a substantial amount of data that has been

generated by various personnel, most of which is available in Atlanta offices or that of current

and prior project consultants and laboratories. Much of that data has been used by prior authors

(especially the 2005 feasibility study) and thereby is incorporated in the current study. It is the

author‟s belief that the most relevant and material information has been considered and that there

are no other significant relevant data or information applicable to this Report.



25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

The Atlanta Project is predicated on an established mining property that is a proven past

producer in an area with significant exploration potential. In overview, the Project area exhibits

significant gold and silver mineralization within a favourable geologic province. Based on a

previously proposed bulk mining cyanide heap leach operation, the geologic and ore-reserve

models and prior Feasibility Study (Behre Dolbear, 2005) indicated that gold and silver reserves

were minable at the then current metal prices and expected recoveries.

In 2008, the Company changed its mining strategy for the Property from bulk mining and heap

leaching, to a combined smaller open-pit and underground operation with an on-site milling

facility. This new mining strategy will produce both a gravity concentrate and a precious metal

rich sulphide concentrate to be custom smelted. The revised strategy will not involve a surface

heap leach process and will significantly reduce the surface or environmental footprint and

reduce environmental risk. This more selective method of ore extraction positively addresses

environmental concerns identified during previous permitting efforts. It also increases expected

metal recovery rates from 63% to 83% for gold and 88% for silver.

The Atlanta deposit remains open at depth. Additional exploration and development work is

warranted to identify the vertical extent of gold mineralization and to evaluate any potential

resources west of the current resource, as well as fault-displaced blocks. The deep levels of the

Project area make excellent drilling targets for resource expansion, especially for exploitation by

underground methods. Resource expansion through aggressive exploration in the Atlanta Project

area is a strategic decision for planned development of the Property.

In order to demonstrate the economic viability of the Project, an updated Pre-Feasibility or

Feasibility Study using the current mining strategy, resource estimate and prevailing metal prices

is warranted. The Study should be based on a combined shallow open pit (two shallow open pits)

and underground mining operation and should envision production and sale of smelter-grade

gold and silver concentrate to a smelter in Nevada. With enhanced resources additional

development activities may indicate it is possible to incorporate both surface and underground

mining operations coupled with milling metal recovery methods designed to increase the

economic viability of the Project. The Study should be designed to review and confirm the

existing current mineral resource estimate, determine preliminary designs, estimate capital and

operating costs for a shallow open pit and underground mine with different ore and waste

production rates. This Study will be the first one to apply current economics to a combined

shallow open pit and underground mine operation at Atlanta.

This more selective method of ore extraction positively addresses environmental concerns that

will allow the management of Atlanta to continue working closely with environmental groups,

the town of Atlanta and surrounding communities, federal, state and local agencies with a view

to developing a combined shallow open pit and underground mine at Atlanta in a timely manner.



26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

26.1 RECOMMENDED EXPLORATION WORK PLAN

During preparation of the current updated Mineral Resource Estimate, it became evident that

additional technical studies and drilling would be required to fully delineate the known

potentially economic mineralization at the Atlanta Gold Deposit. Therefore, the following

recommendations are proposed:

It is recommended that a comprehensive density study across the deposit should

be completed to provide data for creation of a density block model which will

allow for delineation of accurate tonnage calculations;

A better structural understanding of the Property is required and it is

recommended that a structural interpretation be undertaken across the entire

Property.

It is recommended that a detailed, targeted drilling campaign be completed to

delineate historical mined areas, possibly in conjunction with a ground

penetrating radar survey;

It is recommended that results driven drilling program be undertaken to further

delineate known splays off the Monarch zone;

Given the amount of previous exploration work conducted on mineralization

peripheral to the Atlanta deposit it is recommended that the exploration drilling be

extended into known historical sites on the Property;

It is recommended that the proposed drilling program be designed to further

investigate the nature and extent of the oxide/sulphide boundary;

The available reverse circulation (“RC”) drilling data used in current mineral

resource estimate modeling needs to be further validated and it is therefore

recommended that the RC drilling results be investigated on a hole-by-hole basis;

It is recommended that rehabilitation of the 900 adit be continued in order to

facilitate underground exploration and Project development.

The recommended program outlined above is designed to increase the confidence levels of

current resource categories and move the Project though a Scoping Study.

In order to complete the above recommended exploration work programs a proposed

2011 exploration Budget of $4,000,000 has been designed.



TABLE 26.1

PROPOSED 2011 EXPLORATION BUDGET

General Exploration US$

Delineation of historical mining 30,000

Detailed drill core density study 75,000

Comprehensive structural analysis of Property 70,000

Validation of existing reverse circulation drill data 55,000

Sub Total – General Exploration 230,000

Exploration Diamond Drilling

Drilling – 60,000 feet @ US$50.00 per foot 3,000,000

Environmental and permitting 340,000

Sub Total – Exploration Diamond Drilling 3,340,000

Pre-Development

Rehabilitation of 900 Adit 300,000

Carrying costs 160,000

Sub Total - Pre-Development 460,000

Updated Mineral Resource Estimates

Atlanta Shear Zone 85,000

Contiguous Zones 85,000

Sub Total – Mineral Resource Estimates 170,000

Total Exploration Budget 4,200,000



27.0 REFERENCES

Anderson, A.L.; September 1939; “Geology and Ore Deposits of the Atlanta District Elmore

County, Idaho” Idaho Bureau of Mines Pamphlet No. 49; 7lp Bacon, Lance D. January 2004: Technical Report of the Atlanta Project, Elmore County, Idaho

USA.,

Ballard, S.M., 1928, Geology and ore deposits of the Rocky Bar quadrangle: Idaho Bureau of

Mines and Geology Pamphlet 26, 41 p.

Behre Dolbear & Company (USA) Inc.; 2005; “The Atlanta Gold Project, Elmore County Idaho,

Feasibility Study” (note that this superseded the November 2004 report issued in support of the NI 43-101 of the same date.)

Behre Dolbear & Company Inc.; November 2004; “Technical Report of the Atlanta Project,

Elmore County, Idaho USA” Behre Dolbear & Company (USA) Inc. July 1998; “The Proposed Oxide and Sulfide Mining and

Processing Operation of the Atlanta Gold Project (Scoping Study)” Behre Dolbear & Company (USA) Inc.; April 1997; “Pre-Feasibility Analyses of the Atlanta

Gold Project, Elmore County, Idaho (Revised)” Bell, R.N., 1908, Atlanta gold district, Idaho: Engineering and Mineral Journal, v. 86, p. 176-

177. Campbell, Stewart, 1932, St. Joseph Lead Company: State Mine Inspector for the Mining

Industry of Idaho, Thirty-fourth Annual Report, p. 32-39. Clayton, J.E., 1877, Atlanta district: Engineering and Mineral Journal, v. 23, p. 374-375.

Coleman, R.B., (1987): HRI Project 6607, Beneficiation of Oxide Gold Ore, Hazen Research

Inc.

Corbett, G., (2007): Controls to Low Sulphidation Epithermal Au-Ag mineralization, Sydney

Mineral Exploration Discussion Group.

Dughman, T.L., (1994): Caustic Leaching and Cyanidation of Flotation Concentrate, HRI Project

006-345, Hazen Research Inc.

Eldridge, G.H., 1895, A geological reconnaissance across Idaho: Sixteenth Annual Report of the

U.S. Geological Survey, p. 253-257. Ewert, W., Puritch, E., Burga, D., Brown, F., Armstrong, T., Hayden, A., (2011): Technical

Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the Atlanta Gold Property, Elmore County, Idaho, USA, P&E Mining Consultants Inc.

Gathe, J.C., (1988): HRI Project 6886, Locked-cycle Testing of the A and B Gold Ores, Hazen

Research Inc.



Hastings, J.B., 1895, The Atlanta lode, Idaho: Engineering and Mineral Journal, v. 59, p. 128. Hazen Research Inc.; 1988:“Metallurgical Investigations Atlanta Gold Project for Atlanta Gold

Corporation of America, Inc.” dated February 10, 1988. Hingley, F.J., and Bacon, L.D., (1990): Geology and Structure of the Atlanta Project Elmore

County, Idaho. Atlanta Gold Corporation of America.

Josey, W. L., 2009: National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report and Resource Estimate of

the Atlanta Project Elmore County, Idaho, USA. March 30, 2009. Kappes Cassiday & Associates, 2003: Atlanta Project Report of Metallurgical Test Work. Dated

November, 2003. Killsgaard, T.H., Bacon, L.D., 2004; “Geology and Mineral Deposits of the Atlanta Hill Area,

Elmore County, Idaho”, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2064-Z

Kilsgaard, T.H., and Bacon, L.D., (2004): Preliminary Report on the Geology and Mineral

Deposits of the Atlanta Hill Area, Elmore County, Idaho. Open File Report 2004-

1205, USGS. Kappes Cassiday & Associates; November 2003; “Atlanta Project Report of Metallurgical Test

Work” Vector Engineering, Inc.; June 30, 2007; “National Instrument 43-101, Technical Report of the

Atlanta Project, Elmore County, Idaho USA”

Wells, M.W., 1983, Gold camps and silver cities, nineteenth century mining in central and

southern Idaho: Idaho Department of Lands, Bureau of Mines and Geology,

Bulletin 22, 165 p.



28.0 CERTIFICATES

CERTIFICATE of AUTHOR

Dr. Wayne D. Ewert, P.Geo.

I, Wayne D. Ewert, P.Geo., residing at 10 Langford Court, Brampton, Ontario, L6W 4K4 do hereby certify that:

1. I am a principal of P&E Mining Consultants Inc. and currently contracted as a consultant by Atlanta Gold Inc. and have

worked as a geologist continuously since obtaining my B.Sc. degree in 1969;

2. This certificate applies to the technical report titled “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the Atlanta Gold

Property Elmore County, Idaho, USA” (the “Technical Report”) with an effective date of June 30, 2011;

3. I graduated with an Honours Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from the University of Waterloo in 1970 and with a

PhD degree in Geology from Carleton University in 1977. I am a member of the Geological Association of Canada, of the

Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a P. Geo., Registered in the Province of British Columbia (APEGBC No.

18965), the Province of Ontario (APGO No. 0866) and the Province of Saskatchewan (APEGS No.16217);

I have read the definition of “qualified person” as set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by

reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work

experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. My relevant experience for

the purpose of the Technical Report is:

Supervising Project Geologist III, Cominco Ltd., ........................................................................... 1976 – 1982

Supervising Project Geologist, Getty Mines Ltd., ............................................................................ 1982 – 1986

Canadian Manager, New Projects, Gold Fields Canadian Mining Limited, ..................................... 1986 – 1992

Vice-President, A.C.A. Howe International Limited, ....................................................................... 1992 – 2004

Principal, P&E Mining Consultants Inc., ..................................................................................... 2004 – Present

During the past 25 years I have had direct and indirect experience with epithermal lode gold mineralizing systems similar to

that at the Atlanta project. I have been involved with Canadian shield lode gold deposits since graduating from University

and subsequently with lode gold deposits around the world;

4. I have not visited the Atlanta Property;

5. I am responsible for sections 1 through 5, 22, 23, 24. In addition I co-authored portions of sections 25 and 26 and am

responsible for the overall structuring of this Technical Report;

6. I am independent of the issuer applying the test in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101;

7. I have had no prior involvement with the Atlanta Property that is the subject of this Technical Report;

8. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance therewith;

9. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report contains all

scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.



[SIGNED and SEALED]

{Wayne D. Ewert}

______________________________

Dr. Wayne D. Ewert P.Geo.




EUGENE J. PURITCH, P.ENG.

I, Eugene J. Puritch, P. Eng., residing at 44 Turtlecreek Blvd., Brampton, Ontario, L6W 3X7, do hereby certify that:

1. I am President of P&E Mining Consultants Inc. under contract by Atlanta Gold Inc. (the “Issuer”);

2. This certificate applies to the updated technical report titled “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the

Atlanta Gold Property Elmore County, Idaho, USA” (the “Technical Report”) with an effective date of June 30, 2011;

3. I am a graduate of The Haileybury School of Mines, with a Technologist Diploma in Mining, as well as obtaining an

additional year of undergraduate education in Mine Engineering at Queen‟s University. In addition, I have met the

Professional Engineers of Ontario Academic Requirement Committee‟s Examination requirement for Bachelor‟s

Degree in Engineering Equivalency. I am currently licensed by the Professional Engineers of Ontario (License No.

100014010) and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (License No. 16216) and

registered with the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists as a Senior

Engineering Technologist. I am also a member of the National and Toronto CIM. I have practiced my profession

continuously since 1978.

4. I have read the definition of “qualified person” as set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and

certify that by reason of my education and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a

“qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. I have practiced my profession continuously for over

twenty years, and during this time I have been involved in the estimation of numerous mineral resources for

structurally controlled precious mineral deposits worldwide, including Canada, Peru, Mexico, South Africa

and the USA. This report is based on my personal review of information provided by the Issuer and on

discussions with the Issuer‟s representatives; 5. During the past 21 years, I have undertaken numerous resource estimates and mine designs for epithermal gold deposits

similar to that at the Atlanta project. These projects have ranged from large open pit to small underground potential and

existing mining operations. My involvement was specifically with the actual database management, geologic

interpretation, geostatistics and grade estimation involved in resource estimation. In the mine design aspects, I was

directly involved with cut-off grade determination, cost modeling, pit and stope design and development of mineable

reserves via dilutin and extraction calculations. Some specific epithermal gold projects I was involved with are as

follows:

Kinross Gold - Fruta del Norte

Barrick Gold – Veladero

Aquiline Resources - Calcatreu

Geomaque Exploration - Vueltas el Rio

Intrepid Mineral - Casposo

Pershimco Resources - Cerro Quema

St. Andrew Goldfields - Hislop

Gold Canyon Resources Springpole

William Resources - Rustler's Roost

European Goldfields – Certej


5. I am responsible for co-authoring Sections 14 and 25 of the Technical Report;

6. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101;


8. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance therewith;

As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report contains all

scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.



[SIGNED and SEALED]

{Eugene Puritch}

________________________________

Eugene J. Puritch, P.Eng




DAVID BURGA, P.GEO.

I, David Burga, P.Geo., residing at 3884 Freeman Terrace, Mississauga, Ontario, L5M 6P6, do hereby certify that:

1. I am an independent geological consultant contracted by P&E Mining Consultants Inc., and have worked as a

geologist continuously since obtaining my B.Sc. degree in 1997;

2. This certificate applies to the technical report titled “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the

Atlanta Gold Property Elmore County, Idaho, USA” (the “Technical Report”) with an effective date of June 30,

2011;

3. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from The University of Toronto, Ontario in 1997. I

am currently licensed by the Association of Professional Geologists of Ontario, (License No. 1836); I have

practised my profession as a geologist

I have read the definition of “qualified person” as set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and

certify that, by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and

past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-

101.

Exploration Geologist, Cameco Gold ................................................................. 1997-1998;

Field Geophysicist, Quantec Geoscience .......................................................... 1998-1999;

Geological Consultant, Andeburg Consulting Ltd. ............................................ 1999-2003;

Geologist, Aeon Egmond Ltd. ........................................................................... 2003-2005;

Project Manager, Jacques Whitford ................................................................... 2005-2008;

Exploration Manager – Chile, Red Metal Resources ......................................... 2008-2009:

Consulting Geologist ...................................................................................... 2009-Present.

During the past 12 years I have been involved with numerous epithermal gold projects in an exploration

capacity. I have evaluated approximately 10 epithermal projects for potential purchase in northern Chile and

southern Peru. Properties were evaluated based on size, alteration, mineralization, structure, location and

economic potential. I was the project geologist for the Chaparra epithermal gold property in the Arequipa area

of Peru and responsible for field mapping and surface sampling programs;

4. I have not visited the Atlanta property;

5. I am responsible for Sections 6, through 10 as well as Sections 15 through 21.

6. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101;

7. I have not had prior involvement with the Atlanta Property that is the subject of this Technical Report;

8. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance herewith;

9. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report

contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report

not misleading.


Signing Date: September 1, 2011

{SIGNED AND SEALED}

[David Burga]

________________________________

David Burga, P.Geo.




Fred H. Brown, MSc. (Eng), CPG, Pr. Sci. Nat.

I, Fred H Brown, of Suite B-10, 1610 Grover St., Lynden Washington, do hereby certify that:

1. I am an independent geological consultant under contract to P&E Mining Consultants Inc;

2. This certificate applies to the updated technical report titled “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate

on the Atlanta Gold Property Elmore County, Idaho, USA” (the “Technical Report”) with an effective date of

June 30, 2011;

3. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from New Mexico State University, USA in 1987. I

obtained a Graduate Diploma in Engineering (Mining) in 1997 from the University of the Witwatersrand and a

Master of Science in Engineering (Civil) from the University of the Witwatersrand in 2005; I am registered

with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions as a Professional Geological Scientist

(registration number 400008/04), the American Institute of Professional Geologists as a Certified Professional

Geologist (certificate number 11015) and the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Engineering as a Registered

Member (#4152172); I have worked as a geologist continuously since my graduation from university in 1987;

I have read the definition of “qualified person” as set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and


“qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. I have practiced my profession continuously for over twenty

years, and during this time I have been involved in the estimation of numerous mineral resources for

structurally controlled precious mineral deposits worldwide, including Canada, Peru, Mexico, South Africa

and the USA. This report is based on my personal review of information provided by the Issuer and on

discussions with the Issuer‟s representatives;

4. I visited the project site over the period September 29 to 30, 2010;

5. I am responsible for the co-authoring portions of Sections 14 and 26 of the Technical Report;

6. I have not had prior involvement with the Atlanta project that is the subject of this Technical Report;


8. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and the Report has been prepared in compliance therewith;


contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report

not misleading;



[SIGNED and SEALED]

{Fred H. Brown}

________________________________

Fred H Brown CPG, PrSciNat




Tracy J. Armstrong, P.Geo.

I, Tracy J. Armstrong, residing at 2007 Chemin Georgeville, res. 22, Magog, QC J1X 0M8, do hereby certify that:

1. I am an independent geological consultant contracted by P&E Mining Consultants Inc. and have worked as

a geologist continuously since my graduation from university in 1982;

2. This certificate applies to the updated technical report titled “Technical Report and Updated Resource

Estimate on the Atlanta Gold Property Elmore County, Idaho, USA” (the “Technical Report”) with an

effective date of June 30, 2011;

3. I am a graduate of Queen‟s University at Kingston, Ontario with a B.Sc. (HONS) in Geological Sciences

(1982). I am a geological consultant currently licensed by the Order of Geologists of Québec (License 566),

the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (License 1204) and the Association of Professional

Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, (Licence No. 34720);

I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and


"qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101. This report is based on my personal review of

information provided by the Issuer and on discussions with the Issuer‟s representatives. My relevant

experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

Underground production geologist, Agnico-Eagle Laronde Mine1988-1993;

Exploration geologist, Laronde Mine 1993-1995;

Exploration coordinator, Placer Dome 1995-1997;

Senior Exploration Geologist, Barrick Exploration 1997-1998;

Exploration Manager, McWatters Mining 1998-2003;

Chief Geologist Sigma Mine 2003

Consulting Geologist 2003-to present.


5. I am responsible for the preparation and authoring of Sections 11 and 12 of this Technical Report;

6. I am independent of Atlanta Gold Inc. applying the test in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101;


8. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance

therewith;


contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical

Report not misleading.



{SIGNED AND SEALED}

[Tracy J. Armstrong]

________________________________

Tracy J. Armstrong, P.Geo.



CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

ALFRED S. HAYDEN, P. ENG

I, Alfred S. Hayden, P. Eng., residing at 284 Rushbrook Drive, Ontario, L3X 2C9, do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently President of:

a. EHA Engineering Ltd.,

b. Consulting Metallurgical Engineers

c. Box 2711, Postal Stn. B.

d. Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4E 1A7

2. This certificate applies to the updated technical report titled “Technical Report and Updated Resource

Estimate on the Atlanta Gold Property Elmore County, Idaho, USA” (the “Technical Report”) with an

effective date of June 30, 2011;

3. I graduated from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. in 1967 with a Bachelor of Applied

Science in Metallurgical Engineering. I am a member of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and

Petroleum and a Professional Engineer and Designated Consulting Engineer registered with Professional

Engineers Ontario. I have worked as a metallurgical engineer for a total of 42 years since my graduation

from university.

I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and

certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101)

and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of

NI 43-101;

4. I have not visited the Atlanta property;

5. I am responsible for authoring of Section 13 of the Technical Report;


7. I have had no prior involvement with the Project that is the subject of this Technical Report;

8. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance

therewith;


contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical

Report not misleading.



{SIGNED AND SEALED}

[Alfred Hayden]

__________________________

Alfred S. Hayden, P.Eng.

technical report and updated resource estimate...

Documents