Guyana Gold Sulphur Rose Resource Estimate Final · · 2016-08-16CIM Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy cm centimetre(s) Co cobalt Cu copper ... and the contained Sulphur

SUITE 900 - 390 BAY STREET, TORONTO ONTARIO, CANADA M5H 2Y2 Telephone (1) (416) 362-5135 Fax (1) (416) 362 5763

GUYANA GOLDFIELDS INC.

A MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE FOR THE SULPHUR ROSE DEPOSIT, THE ARANKA PROPERTY GROUP, NORTH-CENTRAL GUYANA

B. TERRENCE HENNESSEY, P.Geo. ALAN J. SAN MARTIN, MAusIMM SAM J. SHOEMAKER, B.Sc., MAusIMM FEBRUARY 14, 2011

ii

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................1

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................7

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ..........................................................................9

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ...................................................10 4.1 PROPERTY LOCATION AND ACCESS ...............................................................10 4.2 TYPE OF MINERAL TENURE...............................................................................12 4.3 SURFACE RIGHTS .................................................................................................15 4.4 LOCATION OF PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ........................................................15 4.5 LOCATION OF MINERALIZED ZONES ..............................................................15 4.6 AGREEMENTS ........................................................................................................15 4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES ........................................................................16 4.8 PERMITS ..................................................................................................................16

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ......................................................16

6.0 HISTORY ....................................................................................................................19

7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ........................................................................................20 7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ..........................................................................................20 7.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY IN THE SULPHUR ROSE AREA .........................................22

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES .......................................................................................................24

9.0 MINERALIZATION ..................................................................................................24

10.0 EXPLORATION .........................................................................................................25

11.0 DRILLING ..................................................................................................................27 11.1 DRILLING PROGRAM ...........................................................................................27 11.2 CORE LOGGING PROCEDURES ..........................................................................30 11.3 DRILL RESULTS.....................................................................................................31 11.4 CORE RECOVERY .................................................................................................36

12.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH .............................................................36 12.1 CHANNEL SAMPLES .............................................................................................36 12.2 DIAMOND CORE LOGGING AND SAMPLING .................................................36 12.3 SECURITY AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY .............................................................37 12.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................37

iii

13.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY .................................38 13.1 ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES .........................................................................38 13.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION ......................................................................................38 13.3 ANALYSES ..............................................................................................................39 13.4 ACME LABORATORY QA/QC .............................................................................40 13.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY...............................................................................................41 13.6 SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................41

14.0 DATA VERIFICATION ............................................................................................42 14.1 GUYANA GOLDFIELDS QA/QC ..........................................................................42

14.1.1 QAQC Program .................................................................................................42 14.1.2 Duplicates ..........................................................................................................42 14.1.3 Coarse Blanks ...................................................................................................43 14.1.4 CRM/Standards .................................................................................................43 14.1.5 Check Samples ..................................................................................................45

14.2 MICON DATA VERIFICATION ............................................................................45 14.2.1 Check Sampling ................................................................................................45 14.2.2 Database Validation ..........................................................................................46

14.3 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................46

15.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ......................................................................................46

16.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING .......................46

17.0 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ..................47 17.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................47 17.2 RESOURCE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY ....................................................47

17.2.1 Description of the Database ..............................................................................47 17.2.2 Geological Interpretation ..................................................................................48 17.2.3 3D Wireframe Modelling ..................................................................................48 17.2.4 Grade Capping ..................................................................................................49 17.2.5 Sample Composites ...........................................................................................51 17.2.6 Variography ......................................................................................................51 17.2.7 Specific Gravity ................................................................................................52 17.2.8 Block Model ......................................................................................................52 17.2.9 Resource Estimation .........................................................................................53 17.2.10 Resource Classification .....................................................................................53

17.3 MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................53 17.3.1 Whittle Optimization .........................................................................................56 17.3.2 Underground Resources ....................................................................................56 17.3.3 Mineral Resource Results .................................................................................57 17.3.4 Confirmation of Estimate ..................................................................................59

17.4 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ESTIMATION ................................................................62

18.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ............................................62

iv

19.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................62

20.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................64

21.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................66

List of Tables Page

Table 1.1 Estimated Inferred Mineral Resources for Sulphur Rose ..................................5

Table 1.2 Proposed Sulphur Rose Exploration Budget ......................................................6

Table 4.1 Sulphur Rose Concessions ...............................................................................14

Table 11.1 Sulphur Rose Drill Holes .................................................................................27

Table 11.2 Published Drill Results from Sulphur Rose .....................................................31

Table 14.1 Statistics of Original vs. Duplicate Assay Data ...............................................43

Table 14.2 Summary of Oreas Standards ...........................................................................44

Table 14.3 Micon Check Samples......................................................................................45

Table 17.1 Grade Capping .................................................................................................50

Table 17.2 Sulphur Rose Interpolation Plan ......................................................................54

Table 17.3 In-situ Mineralization at Sulphur Rose ............................................................55

Table 17.4 Estimated Inferred Mineral Resources for Sulphur Rose ................................58

Table 17.5 Comparison of Means ......................................................................................59

Table 19.1 Estimated Inferred Mineral Resources for Sulphur Rose ................................63

Table 20.1 Proposed Sulphur Rose Exploration Budget ....................................................65

v

List of Figures Page

Figure 1.1 National Location Map ......................................................................................1

Figure 1.2 Regional Location Map ......................................................................................2

Figure 4.1 National Location Map ....................................................................................10

Figure 4.2 Regional Location Map ....................................................................................11

Figure 4.3 Aranka Project Mining Concessions ................................................................13

Figure 5.1 Access Route to Sulphur Rose .........................................................................17

Figure 5.2 Sulphur Rose Field Camp ................................................................................18

Figure 7.1 Aranka Area Regional Geology Map ...............................................................21

Figure 7.2 Sulphur Rose Geological Map .........................................................................23

Figure 9.1 Photo of Strongly Bleached Altered Core ........................................................25

Figure 10.1 Sulphur Rose Trench Photo .............................................................................26

Figure 11.1 Drill Hole Location Map ..................................................................................29

Figure 12.1 Sample Bag Seals .............................................................................................37

Figure 13.1 Sample Preparation Flowsheet. ........................................................................39

Figure 14.1 Example Control Chart ....................................................................................44

Figure 17.1 Sulphur Rose Deposit, North and South Mineralized Zone Location. ............49

Figure 17.2 South Fresh Rock Domain Histogram .............................................................50

Figure 17.3 South Fresh Rock Domain Probability Plot .....................................................51

Figure 17.4 Semi-Variogram for the RXS Zone .................................................................52

Figure 17.5 Underground Resource Reporting Shell ..........................................................57

Figure 17.6 Grade Distribution of the Aranka Mineral Resources......................................59

Figure 17.7 Sectional Blocks Grade Distribution vs. Drill Holes Samples Checks ............60

Figure 17.8 RXN Block Model vs. 3m Composites Trend Analysis Chart ........................61

Figure 17.9 RXS Block Model vs. 3m Composites Trend Analysis Chart .........................61

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Unit or Term ' minutes of longitude or latitude ~ Approximately US$ United States dollar(s) US$/oz United States dollars per ounce US$/t United States dollars per tonne % Percent < less than > greater than

degrees of longitude, latitude, compass bearing or gradient ºC degrees Celsius 2D two-dimensional 3D three-dimensional µm microns, micrometres ac acre AAS atomic absorption spectroscopy Ag silver As arsenic Au gold AuEq Equivalent gold grade CIM Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy cm centimetre(s) Co cobalt Cu copper d day dmt dry metric tonnes et al. and others FA fire assay Fe iron ft foot, feet g/t grams per tonne g/t Au grams per tonne of gold GPS global positioning system h hour(s) ha hectare(s) h/d hours per day HQ H-sized core, Longyear Q-series drilling system ICP inductively coupled plasma ICP-AES inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry ID Inverse distance grade interpolation in inch(es) kg kilogram(s) km kilometre(s) km2 square kilometre(s) L litre(s) lb pound(s) LIMS laboratory information management system m metre(s) m3 cubic metre(s) m/s metres per second M million(s) Ma million years masl metres above sea level mm millimetre(s) Mn manganese Mo molybdenum Mt million tonnes Mt/y million tonnes per year N North n.a. not applicable, not available Na sodium NAA Neutron Activation Analysis

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Unit or Term OK Ordinary kriging grade interpolation oz troy ounce(s) oz/t troy ounces per ton Pb lead pH concentration of hydrogen ion PIMA portable infrared mineral analyser ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million, equal to grams per tonne (g/t) QA/QC quality assurance/quality control RC reverse circulation RQD rock quality designation (data) s second S South Sb antimony SD standard deviation SEM scanning electron microscope/microscopy SG specific gravity SI International System of Units t tonne(s) (metric) t/h tonnes per hour t/d tonnes per day t/m3 tonnes per cubic metre t/y tonnes per year US United States W west or watt wt % percent by weight y year Zn zinc

viii

The conclusions and recommendations in this report reflect the authors’ best judgment in light of the information available to them at the time of writing. The authors and Micon reserve the right, but will not be obliged, to revise this report and conclusions if additional information becomes known to them subsequent to the date of this report. Use of this report acknowledges acceptance of the foregoing conditions. This report is intended to be used by Guyana Goldfields Inc. (Guyana Goldfields) subject to the terms and conditions of its agreement with Micon. That agreement permits Guyana Goldfields to file this report as an NI 43-101 Technical Report with the Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities pursuant to provincial securities legislation. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws, any other use of this report, by any third party, is at that party’s sole risk.

1

1.0 SUMMARY Guyana Goldfields Inc. (Guyana Goldfields) has been actively exploring in Guyana since the 1990’s and has been working in the Aranka project area since 2009. The mineral concessions of the Aranka project consist of 2 mining permits and 40 prospecting permits held in the name of Guyana Goldfields’ country manager. The total area of the project is 42,292 ac, or approximately 19,948 ha. Guyana Goldfields has a 100% interest in the property subject to a 1.5% net smelter return royalty. Details can be found in Section 4. The Aranka project, and the contained Sulphur Rose gold deposit, are located in north-central Guyana in the continent of South America. It lies some 155 km west of Georgetown, the capital city (see Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2). Aranka and Sulphur Rose are accessed by a combination of boat and truck, using rivers and logging roads, from the town of Parika on the Essequibo river. Parika can be reached from Georgetown via a short drive on paved highway. Georgetown can be reached by daily commercial flights from the United States or Trinidad. Aranka is located in a relatively remote region at elevations of approximately 75 to 100 masl. Little infrastructure, beyond the logging roads, is available near the site, although artisanal alluvial mining and logging takes place near the deposit.

Figure 1.1 National Location Map

Map taken from www.jetsetnow.com

2

Figure 1.2 Regional Location Map

3

No communities are located near the Sulphur Rose deposit. The majority of towns in Guyana are located near the coast or along the major rivers, which are used for transportation. An experienced labour workforce, suitable for field exploration is to be found in Georgetown and the regional communities. The Sulphur Rose gold deposit is generally considered to be shear zone-hosted orogenic style mineralization. The deposit occurs within the Paleoproterozoic Barama-Mazaruni Supergroup, a northwest trending greenstone belt within the Guyana Shield. As well, there are local placer gold deposits, likely derived from weathering of orogenic deposits. In 2009, exploration by Guyana Goldfields commenced in the Sulphur Rose area with surface geochemical, stream sediment and soil sampling near artisanal alluvial mine workings and magnetic anomalies on the property. Work quickly concentrated on a magnetic anomaly at Sulphur Rose, which is the subject of this report. The Sulphur Rose deposit was originally discovered by Guyana Goldfields geologists through follow-up soil sampling over a magnetic anomaly after stream sediment samples had identified gold. It was later sampled on surface by trenching and then by drilling. Initial results were generally encouraging with significant widths of gold mineralization at grades which could potentially be economic in an open pit mine of sufficient size. The drilling has concentrated on defining the extents of the mineralized shear zone followed by the initial stage of infill drilling. As a result of the initial success, Guyana Goldfields continued drilling throughout 2010, as part of the preliminary definition drill program. Drilling currently exists on a nominal 50-m spaced set of sections. As of December, 2010 Guyana Goldfields had completed a total of 67 drill holes and approximately 25,450 m of drilling at Sulphur Rose. The drilling program has outlined a body up to several tens of metres in thickness with quartz-carbonate veins and veinlets in quartz-sericite alteration and mineralized with potentially economic levels of gold. In July, 2010 Guyana Goldfields approached Micon International Limited (Micon) to review the exploration results to-date and complete an initial independent, mineral resource estimate for the Sulphur Rose deposit. Mr. B. Terrence Hennessey, P.Geo., of Micon visited the project site during the period September 13 to 16, 2010 to review the exploration activities, geology and mineralization at the deposit. Mr. Hennessey, Mr. Alan San Martin, MAusIMM and Mr. Sam Shoemaker, MAusIMM, also of Micon, have worked on the mineral resource estimate presented herein. Micon received from Guyana Goldfields the following data:

• Drill hole database with collar location, down-hole survey, assay and geology data.

• Sectional interpretation of the drilling at the Sulphur Rose deposit.

4

• Three-dimensional model of the topography.

• Results for the Guyana Goldfields quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

program.

• Access to Acme laboratories for direct retrieval of assay certificates related to the Aranka exploration program.

• Summary logs of the drilling.

• QA/QC procedure descriptions.

• A bulk density (specific gravity) dataset.

• Initial metallurgical test results for Sulphur Rose drill core samples.

The database was validated and verified as described later in this report (Sections 14 and 17) with particular attention paid to data entry and geological domain definition. While still a relatively early stage project, it was apparent that the drilling and other exploration completed to date has resulted in sufficient sample density in three dimensions, and confidence in the geological interpretation, for Micon to reasonably estimate an inferred mineral resource for Sulphur Rose. In the process of completing the estimate Micon has interpreted the available data and come to the following conclusions:

• Based on a nominal 50-m spaced sectional drilling pattern, a reasonably large body of potentially economic, low grade, potentially open pittable gold mineralization approximately 650 m long, has been identified.

• Guyana Goldfields’ QA/QC program lends sufficient confidence to the assay data

generated for it to be used in a resource estimate.

• Outlier values in the gold assay population have been analyzed and top cuts were applied. However, the assay data are well enough behaved that only a few assays were capped.

• Two closely spaced bodies of mineralization have been modelled (North Zone and South Zone) and the two have been separated into fresh and weathered rock (saprolite) zones for grade interpolation.

• Drilling has not yet found the bottom of the mineralization at depth and the deposit

may still remain open to the east or northeast.

5

• The resources were estimated using inverse distance cubed interpolation except for

the South Zone, where sufficient local data density allowed for modelling of a variogram, and ordinary kriging was used. Based on the 50-m spaced drilling and the variography, the mineral resources have been classified as inferred under the CIM guidelines.

• Both open pit and underground mineral resources have been estimated. The open pit resources were reported using a Whittle pit shell, operating costs determined for a feasibility study being conducted on Guyana Goldfields’ nearby Aurora project and metallurgical recovery from initial tests of Sulphur Rose mineralization. The underground resources were reported using a 2.56 g/t Au cut-off also derived from underground mining costs estimated at Aurora.

The resulting estimate of inferred mineral resources for the Sulphur Rose deposit is presented in Table 1.1 below.

Table 1.1 Estimated Inferred Mineral Resources for Sulphur Rose

Tonnes Au Grade

(g/t) Contained Au

(oz) Open Pit1 6,366,000 1.99 407,300 Underground2 487,000 3.39 53,100 Total 6,853,000 2.09 460,400

Note: Table may not add precisely due to rounding. 1 - Determined using the following assumptions: $1.45/t mining, $10.02/t processing, $10/t G&A and 91.9% recovery. 2 - Determined using the following assumptions: $75.70/t mining, processing and operating costs above and 91.9% recovery. - Numbers are rounded to reflect the precision of a resource estimate. - Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There are no mineral reserves presently identified at the Aranka Project. - The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant issues, however, there are no known mining, metallurgical, infrastructure or other factors that are known to affect this mineral resource estimate, at this time. - The quantity and grade of reported inferred resources in this estimation are conceptual in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define these inferred resources as an indicated or measured mineral resource. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an indicated or measured mineral resource category.

Guyana Goldfields has completed one season of exploration drilling to define the extents and continuity of the Sulphur Rose deposit. A potentially economic gold deposit has been delineated over a strike length of nearly 650 m and an inferred mineral resource has been independently determined on it.

6

In light of this, it is Micon’s opinion that Guyana Goldfields will be justified in continuing exploration in the area and to engage in further definition drilling on the known extents of the Sulphur Rose deposit. Either of those actions is recommended. Other, less material observations and recommendations are made within the body of this report, particularly in Sections 19 and 20. Guyana Goldfields’ exploration team have a proposed a program of 20,000 m of diamond drilling and 26 trenches to infill and define the saprolite and fresh rock mineralization at the Sulphur Rose deposit so that its mineral resources may be upgraded to a higher confidence category than inferred. A budget of CDN$3.3 million is estimated to be required for this work as set out in Table 20.1 below.

Table 1.2 Proposed Sulphur Rose Exploration Budget

Category Comments Budget

($CDN) Drilling 20,000 m 2,000,000 Trenching 26 trenches 100,000 Analyses of core and geochemical samples 500,000 Technical Staff Overhead 5 geologists 500,000 Camp, maintenance, admin, expenses Includes labour 200,000 Total 3,300,000

Micon has reviewed the proposed exploration program in a meeting with the Guyana Goldfields exploration geologists and finds it to be reasonable and justified. Should it fit with Guyana Goldfields management’s strategic goals it is Micon’s recommendation that the company conduct the proposed exploration program. The data used in the preparation of this report are current as of December 2, 2010. The mineral resource estimate presented is current as of December 31, 2010.

7

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK At the request of Mr. Dan Noone, Vice President of Exploration for Guyana Goldfields Fields Inc. (Guyana Goldfields) Micon International Limited (Micon) has been retained to complete an initial mineral resource estimate for the recently discovered Sulphur Rose deposit at Guyana Goldfields’ Aranka group of properties in north-central Guyana and to prepare a Technical Report to support its release to the public. The resource estimate was completed by Alan San Martin, MAusIMM, under the direction of B. Terrence Hennessey, P.Geo., of Micon with assistance from Sam J. Shoemaker, MAusIMM, in floating a pit cone to report the open pittable portion of the mineral resource. The technical report has been compiled under the overall direction of Mr. Hennessey. This report follows the format and guidelines of Form 43-101F1, Technical Report for National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101), Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, and its Companion Policy NI 43-101CP, as amended by the Canadian Securities Administrators on December 23, 2005. The mineral resource estimate contained herein is compliant with NI 43-101 and the CIM definition standards for mineral resources and mineral reserves. The Sulphur Rose deposit is located in a remote part of north-central Guyana. It is found at elevations of approximately 75 to 100 masl, some 155 km west of Georgetown, the capital of Guyana. The project currently consists of 2 mining permits and 40 prospecting permits with a total area of 49,292 ac, or approximately 19,948 ha. The concessions are held in the name of Violet Smith, Guyana Goldfields’ country manager. The Sulphur Rose gold deposit is considered to be a shear zone-related orogenic style deposit. It occurs in clastic sediments and dioritic to granodioritic intrusives associated with quartz-sericite-carbonate-pyrite alteration. There are also gold placer deposits in the area likely derived from the weathering of other orogenic deposits. As of December of 2010, Guyana Goldfields had completed a total of 25,457 m of drilling in 67 holes and 10 trenches at Sulphur Rose. These holes have been completed on a nominal 50-m spacing sections over a total strike length of approximately 650 m. Mineralization is still open down-dip and may not have been closed off to the east. The drilling completed as of the date of this report has reasonably demonstrated the extent and the continuity of the mineralization at the Sulphur Rose with sufficient confidence to allow for the estimation of an inferred mineral resource. B. Terrence Hennessey, P.Geo., of Micon, travelled to Guyana and visited Sulphur Rose and the Aranka project site during the period September 13 to 16, 2010 to review the exploration activities, geology and mineralization at the deposit. On September 15, a visit was made to the sample preparation laboratory of Acme Analytical Laboratories S.A. (Acme) and the

8

offices of Guyana Goldfields in Georgetown, Guyana. The site visit was completed in the company of Mr. Dan Noone, Vice President Exploration for Guyana Goldfields. This was Micon’s first visit to the project site although a previous visit had been made to the nearby Aurora project site, Guyana Goldfields’ advanced project. Mr. Hennessey is a Professional Geoscientist registered in Ontario. He has over 30 years of experience in mineral exploration, mine operations, resource estimation and consulting. Mr. Hennessey is a Vice President of Micon and the principal author of this report. Mr. San Martin, the second author, is a mining engineer and Mineral Resource Modeller with Micon. He has over 10 years of experience in exploration database management and mineral resource modelling. Mr. Sam Shoemaker is a mining engineer with significant experience in open pit mine planning and scheduling who operated the Whittle software for the pit optimization. The authors are “qualified persons” (QP) and independent of Guyana Goldfields as defined by NI 43 101. At the time of Micon’s visit to Sulphur Rose the diamond drill program was ongoing with one rig in operation. During the visit Micon reviewed several drill hole intersections through the deposit and visited surface exposures of the mineralization in several trenches. The camp core logging facilities were also examined and mineralization styles, geology, previous exploration, and current logging, data collection and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures were reviewed. The economic viability of mineral resources that are not mineral reserves has not been demonstrated. Mineral resource estimates used in the report include Inferred resources. These estimates are considered too geologically speculative to have any economic considerations applied to them or to be considered as mineral reserves. In addition, there is no assurance that further work will lead to mineral reserves that can be mined economically. This report is intended to be used by Guyana Goldfields subject to the terms and conditions of its agreement with Micon. That agreement permits Guyana Goldfields to file this report as an NI 43-101 Technical Report with the Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities pursuant to provincial securities legislation. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws, any other use of this report, by any third party, is at that party’s sole risk. All currency amounts in this report are stated in US or Canadian dollars (US$, CDN$), as specified, with commodity prices in US dollars (US$). Quantities are generally stated in SI units, the Canadian and international practice, including metric tons (tonnes, t), kilograms (kg) or grams (g) for weight, kilometres (km) or metres (m) for distance, hectares (ha) for area, litres (L) for volume and grams per tonne for gold (g/t Au) and silver (g/t Ag) grades. Base metal grades are usually expressed in weight percent (%). Geochemical results or precious metal grades may be expressed in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). (1 ppm = 1 g/t). Elevations are given in metres above sea level (masl). Precious metal quantities may also be reported in troy ounces (ounces, oz), a common practice in the mining industry.

9

Micon is pleased to acknowledge the helpful cooperation of Guyana Goldfields’ management and field staff, all of whom made any and all data requested available and responded openly and helpfully to all questions, queries and requests for material.

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS Micon has reviewed and analyzed exploration data provided by Guyana Goldfields, its consultants and previous explorers of the area, and has drawn its own conclusions therefrom, augmented by its direct field examination. Micon has not carried out any independent exploration work, drilled any holes or carried out any significant program of sampling and assaying. However, mesothermal style veining, alteration and associated mineralization are visible at surface and/or in the drill core. The local presence of gold mineralization has also been substantiated by the independent samples collected by Micon. The samples come from quartered drill core. They independently confirm the presence of gold at grades similar to those claimed by Guyana Goldfields (see Section 14). While exercising all reasonable diligence in checking, confirming and testing it, Micon has relied upon the data presented by Guyana Goldfields, and any previous operators of the project, in formulating its opinion. The various agreements under which Guyana Goldfields holds title to the mineral lands for this project have not been thoroughly investigated or confirmed by Micon and Micon offers no opinion as to the validity of the mineral title claimed. The description of the property has been presented here for general information purposes only, as required by NI 43-101. Micon is not qualified to provide professional opinion on issues related to mining and exploration title and land tenure, royalties, permitting and legal and environmental matters. The authors have accordingly relied upon the representations of the issuer, Guyana Goldfields, for Section 4 of this report and have not verified the information presented in that section. The conclusions and recommendations in this report reflect the authors’ best judgment in light of the information available to them at the time of writing. The authors and Micon reserve the right, but will not be obliged, to revise this report and conclusions if additional information becomes known to them subsequent to the date of this report. Use of this report acknowledges acceptance of the foregoing conditions. This report is intended to be used by Guyana Goldfields subject to the terms and conditions of its agreement with Micon. That agreement permits Guyana Goldfields to file this report as an NI 43-101 Technical Report with the Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities pursuant to provincial securities legislation. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws, any other use of this report, by any third party, is at that party’s sole risk. Those portions of the report that relate to the location, property description, infrastructure, history, deposit types, exploration, drilling, and adjacent properties (Sections 4, to 11 and 15) are taken, at least in part, from information provided by Guyana Goldfields.

10

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 4.1 PROPERTY LOCATION AND ACCESS The Aranka property is located on the South American continent in north-central Guyana and lies approximately 155 km west of Georgetown, the capital city (see Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2). It is found at elevations generally between 50 and 100 masl although a few local hill tops reach up to 260 masl. The property is centered on longitude 59º33’11” W and latitude 6º52’02” N and is situated on the north side of the Cuyuni River, one of the largest rivers in the country. It is also located about 23 km northeast of Aurora, Guyana Goldfields’ flagship gold project. Aurora is found on the south bank of the Cuyuni River

Figure 4.1 National Location Map

Map taken from www.jetsetnow.com

11

Figure 4.2 Regional Location Map

12

Access from Georgetown is via a combination of boat and four-wheel drive vehicle over logging roads, or by helicopter to the project site. Access routes are discussed in more detail in Section 5 below. 4.2 TYPE OF MINERAL TENURE The system of mineral property rights in Guyana is managed by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC). Several types of mineral concessions are found in Guyana and the GGMC website describes them as follows:

APPLICATION FOR MINERAL PROPERTIES IN GUYANA The Mining Act, 1989 allows for four scales of operation:

1. A Small Scale Claim has dimensions of 1500 ft x 800 ft whilst a river claim consists of one mile of a navigable river.

2. Medium Scale Prospecting and Mining Permits. These cover between 150 and 1200 acres each.

3. Prospecting Licences for areas between 500 and 12,800 acres. 4. Permission for Geological and Geophysical Surveys for reconnaissance surveys over

large acreages with the objective of applying for Prospecting Licences over favorable ground selected on the basis of results obtained from the reconnaissance aerial and field surveys.

Small and medium scale property titles (items 1 and 2 above) are restricted to Guyanese, however, foreigners have been entering into joint-venture arrangements whereby the two parties jointly develop the property. This is strictly by private contract. In 2003 there were 2513 Medium Scale Prospecting Permits and 18 Prospecting Licences in existence. Foreign companies may apply for Prospecting Licences and Permission for reconnaissance surveys.

According to Guyana Goldfields these are frequently abbreviated to PL, (Prospecting Licenses), PPMS (Prospecting Permit Medium Scale) and MP (Mining Permits). The concessions are map staked. No survey of borders is done and no claim posts exist. The property containing the Sulphur Rose deposit consists of 2 Mining Permits and 40 Prospecting Permits with a total area of 42,292 ac, or approximately 19,948 ha (see Figure 4.3 and Table 4.1). The concessions are held in the name of Violet Smith, Guyana Goldfields’ country manager.

13

Figure 4.3 Aranka Project Mining Concessions

Map from Guyana Goldfields Inc.

14

Table 4.1 Sulphur Rose Concessions

GGMC File

Number Any other Ref. No. (License Number)

Property Type Acreage Hectares Date of Grant Assigned to Status Yearly Renewal Date

1 B‐22/MP/000 B‐113/000 Mining Permit 1,198 485 June 26, 2009 Violet Smith Active 26‐Jun 2 B‐22/MP/001 B‐113/001 Mining Permit 1,200 486 June 26, 2009 Violet Smith Active 26‐Jun 3 H‐141/000 Prospecting Permit 964 390 June 5, 2001 Violet Smith Active 5‐Jun 4 H‐150/000 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 5 H‐150/001 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 6 H‐150/002 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 7 H‐150/003 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 8 H‐150/004 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 9 H‐150/005 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb

10 H‐150/006 Prospecting Permit 1,102 446 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 11 H‐150/007 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 12 H‐150/008 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 13 H‐150/009 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 14 H‐150/010 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 15 H‐150/011 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 16 H‐150/012 Prospecting Permit 1,126 456 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 17 H‐150/013 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 18 H‐150/014 Prospecting Permit 1,018 412 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 19 H‐150/015 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 20 H‐150/016 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 21 H‐150/017 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 22, 2005 Violet Smith Active 22‐Feb 22 H‐156/000 Prospecting Permit 1,194 483 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 23 H‐156/001 Prospecting Permit 1,197 484 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 24 H‐156/002 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 25 H‐156/003 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 26 H‐156/004 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 27 H‐156/005 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 28 H‐156/006 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 29 H‐156/007 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 30 H‐156/008 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 31 H‐156/009 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 32 H‐156/010 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 33 H‐156/011 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 34 H‐156/012 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 35 H‐156/013 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 36 H‐156/014 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 37 H‐156/015 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 38 H‐156/016 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 39 H‐156/017 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 40 H‐156/018 Prospecting Permit 1,165 471 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 41 H‐156/019 Prospecting Permit 1,200 486 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb 42 H‐156/021 Prospecting Permit 728 295 February 24, 2005 Violet Smith Active 24‐Feb

Total 49,292 19,948

15

The concessions must be renewed annually by making a rental fee payment. The fee for a mining permit is US$1.00/acre for the life of the permit and for a prospecting permit the rate is US$0.25/acre for the first year with increments of US$0.10/acre for each additional year (e.g. $0.35 for the second year and $0.45 for the third year.) There are no annual work commitments or expenditures required to keep a prospecting permit in good standing. Mining Permits require annual report submissions, filed with the GGMC, indicating:

• records of mining operations, • financial records, • records of all sales and • use of minerals and costs and revenue of the operations.

4.3 SURFACE RIGHTS Neither Guyana Goldfields, nor any of its subsidiaries, hold any surface rights on the Sulphur Rose deposit or the Aranka property. 4.4 LOCATION OF PROPERTY BOUNDARIES The property boundaries are defined by standard UTM coordinates using the PSAD 56 datum. They can be seen in Figure 4.3. No surveys of the property boundaries have been performed. 4.5 LOCATION OF MINERALIZED ZONES The Location of the Sulphur Rose deposit is shown relative to the concession boundaries on Figure 4.3. No other deposits have been defined by Guyana Goldfields on the property. Some of the local creeks near the deposit contain small scale, informal placer workings indicating the potential for the discovery of other deposits. None of these are known to have previously had mineral resources or reserves estimated on them. Sulphur Rose is a new discovery made in 2009/2010. There are no tailings ponds or waste deposits within the property boundaries other than the gravel piles left behind by the informal alluvial miners. 4.6 AGREEMENTS Aranka Gold Inc. acquired the property from S. Hopkinson in 2006 with an option-to-buy agreement subject to a 1.5% net smelter return (NSR) royalty in favour of the vendor. However, the southern half of Hopkinson’s property was dropped in 2008 when Aranka Gold was merged with Guyana Goldfields. Guyana Goldfields re-acquired the dropped property in 2009 with a different option-to-buy agreement earning a 100% interest by paying USD$40,000 over three years subject to a 1.5% net smelter return (“NSR”) royalty in favour

16

of the vendor. Guyana Goldfields has the right to purchase the NSR royalty at any time for US$ 1.5 million. 4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES There are no known environmental liabilities at Sulphur Rose and Aranka which accrue to Guyana Goldfields. The company reports that this includes disturbance by the local informal alluvial miners. 4.8 PERMITS Exploration may be conducted without any permits being necessary, beyond GGMC authorization of the PL, PPMS or MP.

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

Guyana’s capital, Georgetown, has an international airport serviced by daily flights from the United States. Flight access from Canada is available on Caribbean Airlines through Port of Spain, Trinidad or via transfers in the US. The Aranka project area is accessible by land from Georgetown over the Barama Logging Company’s (Barama) road network, by water using the Cuyuni River, by fixed wing aircraft to Guyana Goldfields’ airstrip at the Aurora project or by helicopter to the helipad at the Sulphur Rose field camp. The most commonly used access route is by land travelling over 41 km of good paved road from Georgetown to Parika, then by boat across about 23 km of the Essequibo River delta from Parika to Buck Hall landing and then by four-wheel drive vehicle over 145 km of main logging road (M-1, M-3, M-3A) to the camp (see Figure 4.2 and Figure 5.1). The deposit is approximately 3 km further up the Barama M-3A road from the camp. The logging roads are unpaved but sometimes capped with laterite. The actively used roads receive regular maintenance from Barama. The inactive ones can wash out quickly. The entire trip could require one half to two days travel depending on the weather and road conditions. It is common practice for Barama to prohibit access to their roads during periods of heavy rain through their toll/security checkpoints located at their main camps at Km 70 and Km 112. This is done to prevent severe rutting of the road and consequent slowing of traffic and damage to vehicles. A sometimes faster, alternative route is an approximately 50 minute plane ride from Georgetown’s Ogle Airport (domestic) to a gravel-covered company airstrip at the Aurora project, then by a 30-km boat ride from Aurora to the company’s Tapir camp downstream along the Cuyuni River, followed by four-wheel drive vehicle over about 42 km of logging

17

road from Tapir landing to the Sulphur Rose field camp. This mode of travel requires only half a day but is not dependable during the rainy season. Flights from Georgetown to Aurora are routinely cancelled due to inclement weather conditions in Aurora. The fastest alternative route is via a 55 minutes helicopter ride from Georgetown to a helipad at the Sulphur Rose field camp. A formerly common access route that has been virtually abandoned is to travel by boat up the Essequibo River from Parika to Itabali, then by four-wheel drive truck through logging roads from Itabali to Warudi, followed by a boat trip up the Cuyuni River to Tapir Landing, then by four-wheel drive vehicle via logging roads to the Sulphur Rose field camp. The route used by Micon (as recorded by GPS) was that through Buck Hall landing using the Barama logging roads as shown in the black dotted line on Figure 5.1. The travel distance from the Georgetown airport was 247 km and 218 km to downtown Georgetown.

Figure 5.1 Access Route to Sulphur Rose

The local climate is typical of a tropical rainforest with four recognized rainy and dry seasons as follows:

N

18

Short dry season February to Mid-April Long rainy season Mid-April to Mid-August

Long dry season Mid-August to Mid-November Short rainy season Mid-November to end of January The project is located close to the equator at approximately 7º N and temperatures are warm year round. The average annual temperature in Georgetown is 27º C with the highest monthly average temperature being 31ºC in October and the lowest 24º C in January (www.climatetemp.info/guyana/). Georgetown receives an average of 2,418 mm of rain per year, however, there can be significant local variation in rainfall throughout Guyana. The driest weather is in September. There is little basic infrastructure near the Sulphur Rose camp (see Figure 5.2) beyond the logging road development and the mining and logging camps. There is no electrical power or phone service. There are relatively few towns and most are located on rivers which, historically, are the main form of transportation infrastructure. Local labour, familiar with bush camps and suitable for conducting field exploration, is readily available in Georgetown or the larger communities.

Figure 5.2 Sulphur Rose Field Camp

The project area is criss-crossed by logging roads built by Barama and local access roads cut by the local miners to their various workings. The main Rupa River, both upstream and

19

downstream from the Sulphur Rose deposit is currently being worked by groups of small-scale alluvial miners (“pork knockers”). Excavators and slurry pumps are ubiquitous equipment in the alluvial operations, with gold being recovered through a system of oversized sluice boxes. All-wheel drive Bedford Military style trucks are used extensively to transport fuel, equipment and supplies from Buck Hall to the local miners’ camps through the Barama logging road network. The local miners’ camps and the inevitable shops that spring up are mainly temporary structures with tarpaulin covers. It is common practice for the local miners to move to other locations as their alluvial gold workings become depleted. The shops inevitably follow them. In the project area, the number of people working has significantly declined over the past two years. The property is situated at the boundary of a topographic change from very low relief on the west and south, to moderate and steep to the east and northeast. The hills are relatively low but with deeply incised intermittent creeks with steep lateritic slopes. Two prominent topographic highs are found to the east and northeast, respectively rising up to 260 m RL and capped by ferruginous laterite (duricrust). The highest elevation on the deposit itself is only about 108 m. The area is drained by creek tributaries of the southwest flowing Rupa River which is in turn a tributary of the generally east-flowing Cuyuni River.

6.0 HISTORY The Sulphur Rose area had been passed over by alluvial gold miners in the past in favour of the more easily accessed and/or perceived richer historical gold centers in areas like Aranka, Arangoy (Pigeon Island), Arawapai and Kopang headwaters. The area was not even mentioned in McDonald’s comprehensive report on all known gold occurrences in Guyana published in 1968. Lloyd (1959), reporting on the geological studies done in the area, mentioned that the Rupa River is an old pork-knocker working area. They noted only traces of gold throughout the Rupa River and suggested that it is probably shedding from the Aranka granite to the northwest. In 2006, Aranka Gold Inc. (Aranka Gold) signed an option-to-buy agreement with S. Hopkinson covering the latter’s medium-scale claims immediately south of the prospecting licenses owned by them in the general Aranka area. The company also commissioned Terraquest Ltd. to conduct an airborne geophysical survey for its tenements in the Aranka area. In 2008, Aranka Gold merged with Guyana Goldfields. Most of the southernmost medium-scale claims owned by S. Hopkinson, which included the Sulphur Rose area, were dropped due to carrying cost considerations. At approximately the same time, Sulphur Rose was experiencing a “shout” which started the influx of local alluvial miners. Interestingly the

20

alluvial miners did not discover Sulphur Rose and no artisanal mining has taken place on the deposit. This is likely due to the lack of a stream in the immediate vicinity. Because of the difficulty with access, the area was not visited by company geologists until early 2009. Recent logging road construction has made this task much simpler. The initial and subsequent visits from Guyana Goldfield’s geologists in early 2009 returned gold-anomalous soil, silt and rock assays from various sites in the Sulphur Rose area. The company decided to concentrate some of its limited manpower resources at that time for follow-up work in the area. In late October, 2009, the company reacquired the property around Sulphur Rose with a new option-to-buy agreement with S. Hopkinson along with two new adjoining medium-scale claim groups immediately east of the Sulphur Rose property. Trenching commenced shortly thereafter and diamond drilling on Sulphur Rose started in January, 2010. This work resulted in the discovery of the deposit.

7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING 7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Aranka property lies near the inferred contact zone between the Cuyuni Formation and the older Barama Formation. Both belong to the Paleoproterozoic Barama-Mazaruni Supergroup, a northwest trending greenstone belt within the Guyana Shield. This greenstone belt was inferred to have been formed during the Trans-Amazonian orogeny between approximately 2.25 and 1.9 Ga (Voicu et al., 1999). In the Aranka property area the greenstone belt consists of intercalated volcanic rocks and associated thick layers of sedimentary rocks. The metamorphic grade is generally of lower greenschist facies. These rocks were intruded by dioritic to granitic rocks which are possibly part of an extensive group of calc-alkaline, felsic to intermediate intrusions generally referred to as the Granitoid Complex or the Trans-Amazonian Granitoids (Voicu et al., 1999). A much younger set of doleritic to andesitic dikes and sills intruded the older rocks. It has been noted in several studies that the majority of the gold occurrences in northern Guyana are associated with the Paleoproterozoic greenstone belt, and spatially associated with northwest trending shear zones (Voicu et al., 1999). McDonald (1968) also noted that most of Guyana’s historic mines are in strongly altered granitic stocks hosting gold-rich stockwork veins. Figure 7.1 shows a regional geologic map of the Aranka project area.

21

Figure 7.1 Aranka Area Regional Geology Map


22

7.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY IN THE SULPHUR ROSE AREA Locally, the immediate Sulphur Rose area is underlain by a sequence of moderately to highly foliated mudstone, siltstone, wacke, coarse sandstone and conglomerate. Intercalated layers of volcanics were also recognized in drill cores, some of which contain feldspar porphyries. These associations are interpreted to indicate that the sequence belongs to the Cuyuni formation. Thinly bedded siltstones and mudstones belonging to the older Barama Formation were recognized in road outcrops about 8.5 km to the northeast. The sediments were metamorphosed to lower greenschist facies. Petrographic studies indicated evidence of some contact metamorphism possibly related to the dioritic to granodioritic dikes intruding the metasediments around and within the deposit. A small granodioritic plug, just over one kilometre in diameter outcrops about 5 km from Sulphur Rose. The southeastern edge of the Aranka Batholith, composed mainly of biotite granite, is about 10 km to the northwest while the Rupa Granitic Stock reported in Lloyd (1959) is about 4 km to the southwest. The main foliation trend, which is inferred to be related to a shear zone, is oriented west-northwest (azimuth 113º to 293º). Steeply-dipping quartz-carbonate veins and veinlets appear to follow this west-northwest trend with a conjugate steeply-dipping east-west trend. Shallow dipping quartz-carbonate veins have also been observed in outcrops and in oriented cores but these are not as pervasive as at the Aurora project. Dioritic to granodioritic dike swarms generally follow the west-northwest (along foliation) and north-south (across foliation) trends. The north-south trending intrusives are generally strongly altered and associated with chrome (green) mica. Figure 7.2 shows a geologic map of the Sulphur Rose deposit area. Figure 11.1 shows a version of the same map with a surface projection of the outline of the gold mineralization, as interpreted by Guyana Goldfields’ geologists, along with traces of the drilling completed as of the mineral resource estimate presented in this report. There are no old mine or artisanal workings at the Sulphur Rose deposit although there are alluvial mine workings in nearby creeks.

23

Figure 7.2 Sulphur Rose Geological Map


24

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES Sulphur Rose is considered to be an orogenic-style gold deposit formed along shear zones in metasedimentary rocks cut by calc-alkaline felsic intrusives at crustal depth. It developed along a west-northwest trending regional shear zone within a north-west trending greenstone belt of the Guyana Shield. It shares many similar characteristics with the Aurora gold deposits located 23 km to the southwest, and the Omai gold deposits, about 181 km to the southeast, all of which are developed in the same greenstone belt defined by the Barama-Mazaruni Supergroup. The felsic intrusions are considered to be syn to post gold mineralization. The temperature of crystallization, using the chlorite thermometer technique on petrographic samples, was determined to be 350º to 380°C (Schandl, 2010).

9.0 MINERALIZATION Gold mineralization is hosted in narrow quartz and quartz-carbonate veins and breccias zones developed in both the clastic rocks and intermediate intrusives. The gold occurs in fractures in pyrite, as over-growth on pyrite, within quartz pressure shadows of pyrite and in muscovite/sericite aggregates (Schandl, 2010). The gold is generally fine grained. Altaite (PbTe) and hessite (Ag2Te) were found to be associated with the gold. The host rock is altered to quartz-sericite-carbonate-pyrite with alteration widths ranging from narrow centimetre-wide zones along quartz veinlets to tens of metres. The alteration gives the rock a bleached appearance and locally, chrome micas may give it a greenish tinge. Figure 9.1 show a photograph of strongly altered and bleached Sulphur Rose drill core showing quartz and quartz-carbonate veins along with fine veinlets. Several narrow dioritic to granitic dikes occur throughout the mineralized system. These predate the mineralization although mineralization is more pronounced in the sediments. Pyrite is the main sulphide, commonly occurring as fine disseminations and aggregates at or near quartz vein boundaries. Chalcopyrite, molybdenite and bornite are rare. The country rock outside the mineralization is characterized by chlorite-sericite alteration with greenish dark gray to blackish color on fresh rock. At the surface this rock appears as dark gray to brown often with banding due to bedding and foliation.

25

Figure 9.1 Photo of Strongly Bleached Altered Core

10.0 EXPLORATION The pork knocker workings in the Sulphur Rose area were visited by company geologists in 2009. Two grab samples of clay-rich saprolite from one of the pork-knocker pits returned 0.168 and 0.428 ppm Au, respectively. Quartz float from another pit returned 3.10 ppm Au. Encouraged by the anomalous gold values, a second visit was scheduled. A grab sample from a clay-weathered andesitic rock exposed in a pork knocker pit returned 39.26 ppm Au. Guyana Goldfields management determined that these results should be followed up immediately using a deep auger drilling program. A fly-camp was established and the deep auger drilling program was started at the end of May, 2009. The auger was a hand-held device but was capable of drilling as much as 10 to 20 m into weathered rock (saprolite) under favourable conditions. The initial results of the deep auger program around the area where the 39.26 ppm Au sample was collected were not promising so a decision was made to conduct silt sampling of the creeks in the Sulphur Rose area. In one of the small creeks about 5 km from the original target, fine gold was panned and returned an assay of 1.89 ppm Au. The location of this silt sample coincided with a small isolated airborne magnetic anomaly and it was decided to follow this up with a 100 m x 100 m grid soil auger sampling. Because of the promising soil sampling results, infill 50 m x 25 m grid soil auger sampling immediately followed which confirmed and further defined the gold-in-soil anomaly recognized previously.

26

Three excavator trenches (ST-1, 2 and 3) were dug across the anomaly in January, 2010 which confirmed the sub-surface presence of gold in the weathered bedrock. This was followed by diamond drilling in February, 2010. The diamond drilling program is described in Section 11 below. A total of 10 trenches were dug and were available for use in the resource estimate. The remaining seven (ST-3, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) were completed as drilling progressed. All trenches were mapped and continuously channel sampled. Local road cuts were also mapped and these data were used to compile the geological map seen in Figure 7.2 and Figure 11.1. Figure 10.1 shows a photograph of a trench floor with quartz-carbonate veinlets crossing sedimentary beds. Note the sample channel on the left wall.

Figure 10.1 Sulphur Rose Trench Photo

27

11.0 DRILLING 11.1 DRILLING PROGRAM Diamond drilling at Sulphur Rose commenced in February, 2010 after the first three trenches were cut and the optimal drilling direction was estimated. It was later discovered that the mineralized trend was somewhat different than the mineralization exposed in the trenches and the drill direction was modified from a northerly azimuth to northeast (see Table 11.1 and Figure 11.1). As of the date of the resource estimate presented herein, 67 diamond holes were completed with total length of 25,457 m. All were drilled in 2010. Of these, 61 holes were available for the resource estimate, having had full assay results returned and QA/QC complete (SDH-01 to 56 and SSD-01 to 05). A list of available drill holes can be seen in Table 11.1. The 10 trenches were converted to pseudo drill holes and are also shown in the list.

Table 11.1 Sulphur Rose Drill Holes

Hole ID Northing Easting Elevation(masl)

Length (m)

Azimuth (º)

Dip (º)

Hole Type

SDH-01 760024.17 217921.09 74.60 253.00 170.00 -50.00 DDH SDH-02 759748.57 217966.43 74.68 190.00 350.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-03 759747.76 217966.59 74.66 250.00 350.00 -70.00 DDH SDH-04 760047.55 217808.04 81.69 247.00 170.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-05 759771.99 217850.11 75.49 205.00 350.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-06 759750.40 218017.11 71.06 170.00 0.00 -75.00 DDH SDH-07 760077.01 217745.36 86.99 295.00 180.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-08 759802.09 217750.99 76.98 319.00 0.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-09 760011.71 218004.86 73.30 181.00 180.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-10 759820.74 217651.76 78.32 211.00 0.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-11 760143.62 217654.69 76.50 214.00 180.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-12 759996.90 217846.22 81.12 205.00 0.00 -44.00 DDH SDH-13 759968.13 217979.68 77.06 244.00 0.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-14 760125.88 217595.75 80.00 181.00 180.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-15 760036.30 217742.39 86.58 170.00 0.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-16 760024.39 217890.37 76.56 303.00 180.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-17 759690.87 217976.58 69.67 208.00 0.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-18 759753.48 217899.16 74.05 214.00 0.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-19 759719.58 218060.13 77.57 223.00 0.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-20 759849.83 217700.77 71.89 307.00 0.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-21 760125.07 217704.12 80.63 248.00 180.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-22 759995.39 217548.09 70.72 472.00 0.00 -45.00 DDH SDH-23 759801.33 217776.55 77.29 509.00 0.00 -65.00 DDH SDH-24 759700.83 217903.12 83.66 476.00 0.00 -65.00 DDH SDH-25 759599.60 217796.72 76.47 506.00 0.00 -65.00 DDH SDH-26 759675.45 217978.07 67.95 500.00 0.00 -65.00 DDH SDH-27 759594.51 217897.13 73.10 620.00 355.00 -60.00 DDH SDH-28 759998.91 217858.05 80.83 461.00 180.00 -67.00 DDH SDH-29 759849.53 217705.73 72.26 557.00 360.00 -65.00 DDH

28

Hole ID Northing Easting Elevation(masl)

Length (m)

Azimuth (º)

Dip (º)

Hole Type

SDH-30 759888.58 217638.64 74.20 513.00 357.00 -67.00 DDH SDH-31 760121.22 217584.77 79.78 278.00 352.00 -55.00 DDH SDH-32 760093.14 217739.45 87.74 593.00 175.00 -65.00 DDH SDH-33 760090.24 217448.00 76.20 344.00 352.00 -55.00 DDH SDH-34 760054.63 217498.17 72.02 308.00 352.00 -55.00 DDH SDH-35 759645.09 218146.73 70.29 338.00 352.00 -50.00 DDH SDH-36 760121.73 217591.23 80.02 344.00 172.00 -65.00 DDH SDH-37 759644.62 218146.78 70.29 206.00 352.00 -65.00 DDH SDH-38 760199.65 217913.93 80.93 612.00 172.00 -60.00 DDH SDH-39 759813.65 217956.81 93.25 504.00 360.00 -90.00 DDH SDH-40 760173.11 217803.47 79.48 681.00 175.00 -60.00 DDH SDH-41 759797.82 218037.30 75.25 512.00 360.00 -90.00 DDH SDH-42 760173.09 217706.54 75.47 267.00 172.00 -60.00 DDH SDH-43 760172.80 217704.69 75.29 566.00 175.00 -60.00 DDH SDH-44 759846.84 217894.88 93.22 642.00 360.00 -90.00 DDH SDH-45 760046.34 217776.30 83.82 527.00 177.00 -65.00 DDH SDH-46 759766.80 217851.95 75.42 253.00 357.00 -75.00 DDH SDH-47 759796.30 217750.43 77.34 581.00 352.00 -70.00 DDH SDH-48 759886.49 217674.81 75.64 517.00 352.00 -70.00 DDH SDH-49 760021.84 217939.57 73.77 482.00 172.00 -75.00 DDH SDH-50 760072.36 217887.15 78.34 566.00 172.00 -60.00 DDH SDH-51 760078.04 217448.49 76.04 365.00 215.00 -55.00 DDH SDH-52 760448.18 217327.20 98.77 443.00 215.00 -55.00 DDH SDH-53 760279.25 217864.18 93.30 407.00 215.00 -60.00 DDH SDH-54 759743.23 217622.20 80.51 618.00 35.00 -65.00 DDH SDH-55 759775.07 217581.02 73.19 626.00 35.00 -70.00 DDH SDH-56 759872.81 217463.55 75.07 530.00 35.00 -55.00 DDH SSD-01 759808.52 217958.71 93.46 60.00 350.00 -70.00 DDH SSD-02 759834.01 217899.28 94.79 257.00 350.00 -75.00 DDH SSD-03 759769.22 218011.70 75.27 172.00 0.00 -50.00 DDH SSD-04 759775.05 217984.28 81.69 112.00 0.00 -60.00 DDH SSD-05 760031.33 217787.51 84.75 270.00 180.00 -45.00 DDH ST-01 759847.43 218047.20 73.64 149.00 240.00 4.00 TRENCH ST-02 759999.35 217920.37 76.88 222.00 167.70 11.00 TRENCH ST-03 760009.78 217788.41 87.38 156.75 215.00 11.00 TRENCH ST-04 759756.76 218072.01 77.22 303.00 0.00 12.00 TRENCH ST-04b 759856.00 218084.77 70.76 34.00 357.00 7.00 TRENCH ST-05 759981.25 217624.84 73.72 153.00 24.00 -8.00 TRENCH ST-06 759594.92 217750.65 74.28 209.00 5.00 11.00 TRENCH ST-07 760437.04 217898.49 81.94 127.00 209.50 0.60 TRENCH ST-08 760317.50 217763.18 96.17 150.00 229.30 -6.10 TRENCH ST-09 760227.60 217285.24 99.79 200.00 30.00 0.00 TRENCH

The drill program was completed using two Longyear 38 rigs which were operated by Carib Drilling, a Guyana-based company. The average depth of hole is 380 m with the drill hole lengths ranging from 60 m to 681 m. Drilling took place on two 12-hour shifts.

29

Figure 11.1 Drill Hole Location Map


30

All drill holes were collared using an HQ core barrel (63.5 mm diameter core) until hard rock was reached. After the hole was stabilized with HQ casings, drilling resumed using an NQ core barrel (47.6 mm diameter core) to the end of hole. The holes were down-hole surveyed approximately every 50 m using a Reflex EZ-Shot down-hole survey instrument. Drill hole collar locations were picked up by Jose Mari Ayton a professional surveyor using a Leica Total Station Model TCR805. Access roads and drill platforms were constructed and the rig was moved to the drill site by heavy equipment owned by Guyana Goldfields and situated on site (dozers and excavators). The drill core was recovered and placed in 60-cm long corrugated plastic core boxes (see Figure 9.1) with depth markers (blocks) inserted after every drill “run” (typically 3 m, unless the core barrel plugged necessitating early recovery). Plastic lids were placed on the core boxes and they were transported to the field camp at the end of every shift, having been picked up by Guyana Goldfields field technicians. Core was not left unattended. The drill was also visited every morning and evening by the field geologists, as well as whenever a hole was scheduled to be stopped. Figure 11.1, above, shows the locations of the drill holes relative to the surface projection of the gold mineralization, as interpreted by Guyana Goldfields geologists. 11.2 CORE LOGGING PROCEDURES All core was stored in the plastic core boxes, each capable of holding 3 m of recovered length. Core was brought to the core processing shed, in the morning and afternoon where it was processed. Technicians opened the boxes and checked the blocking (footage markers placed in the core box by the drillers) for footage errors. Discrepancies were rectified before proceeding. The core was then aligned and photographed at which point it was checked by the field geologists. Recovery and RQD geotechnical data (RQD, or rock quality designation, is a measurement of the percentage of each 3-m run of core composed of core pieces longer than 10 cm between natural breaks) data were then collected prior to geological logging. Geological logging recorded the lithology, alteration and mineralization. The core was then marked up for the portion of the hole to be sampled. During logging, a line to guide the sample cutters was placed on the core with a lumber crayon or grease pencil. The sampling intervals were selected by the geologist based on the alteration and mineralization seen in the rocks. Some intervals that were known to be outside the mineralized zones were not sampled. Sample lengths were generally 1 or 1.5 m, with a median length of 1.5 m and a maximum length of 3 m in the database. The longer lengths (2 m or 3 m) were generally taken early in the drill program and are confined to weakly altered rocks on the periphery of the deposit. The sampling procedures used are described in Section 12 below.

31

Core logging is limited to 3 geologists, at least one of whom is in camp on a work rotation at any given time. This was selected as a way of minimizing variation in logging styles and interpretation. Geotechnical logging of oriented core was initiated during the last half of the drilling campaign. Core orientation was done using the Reflex ACT core orientation instrument. This program was terminated prematurely before the end of the drilling program because of difficulties in getting a replacement part. Only 13 out of the 67 drill holes have core orientation data. Magnetic susceptibility data were collected from 61 out of the 67 drill holes. Magnetic susceptibility readings were typically taken only from weathered broken rock and solid fresh rock. Point measurements were normally collected at the start of a sampled interval. In unsampled (unsplit) core, magnetic susceptibility readings were taken every 1.5 m. Electronic drill logs were stored on computer in camp and backed up to an external hard drive daily. Logs were also e-mailed to the Toronto office of Guyana Goldfields after logging of each hole was completed. A copy of the hard drive was also taken to Toronto each time someone traveled there. The core is stored in stacks raised off the ground by timbers at the processing shed. The shed is overseen by watchmen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including during crew breaks at major holidays such as Christmas. The field technicians and workers in the core shed are all experienced people who have been trained at, and worked on, Guyana Goldfields’ main project, Aurora. 11.3 DRILL RESULTS The drilling campaign at Sulphur Rose was largely confined to the immediate area of the soil anomaly discovered in 2009 (see Section 10). Over the course of 2010, Guyana Goldfields released the following results for the drill program. All widths are intersected widths. The Sulphur Rose deposit has been intersected over a strike length of approximately 600 m.

Table 11.2 Published Drill Results from Sulphur Rose

Hole From To Width Grade

(g/t Au) Comments

SDH-01 92.0 105.0 13.0 1.03 121.0 173.5 52.5 0.44 including 131.0 154.0 23.0 0.58 SDH-02 73.0 114.0 41.0 1.62 including 82.5 107.0 24.5 2.47 including 92.0 99.0 7.0 6.06 124.0 133.0 9.0 1.43

32

Hole From To Width Grade (g/t Au) Comments

SSD-01 0.0 22.5 22.5 2.54 including 0.0 9.0 9.0 5.86 SSD-02 1.8 236.0 234.2 0.42 including 1.8 78.5 76.7 0.57 including 113.0 138.5 25.5 0.68 including 225.5 233.0 7.5 1.05 SSD-03 36.0 98.5 62.5 1.60 including 69.0 78.0 9.0 6.63 including 67.5 82.5 15.0 4.43 SDH-03 134.0 139.0 5.0 1.23 144.0 159.0 15.0 1.36 160.0 172.0 12.0 0.71 178.0 183.0 5.0 0.75 217.0 224.0 7.0 0.95 SDH-04 175.0 238.0 63.0 0.69 including 175.0 181.0 6.0 1.23 including 197.0 205.0 8.0 1.24 including 213.0 223.0 10.0 1.24 including 231.0 238.0 7.0 1.01 SDH-05 88.0 99.0 11.0 8.92 3.08 (cut to 25 g/t) 121.0 193.0 72.0 0.62 including 121.0 127.0 6.0 0.85 146.0 151.0 5.0 1.29 157.0 171.0 14.0 0.84 178.0 188.0 10.0 1.23 SDH-06 103.0 129.5 26.5 3.05 2.55 (cut to 25 g/t) including 103.0 109.0 6.0 11.14 8.92 (cut to 25 g/t) including 103.0 113.0 10.0 7.03 5.70 (cut to 25 g/t) SSD-04 25.5 82.5 57.0 4.05 4.03 (cut to 25 g/t) including 45.0 61.5 16.5 8.82 8.77 (cut to 25 g/t) SSD-05 27.0 33.0 6.0 2.12 40.5 52.5 12.0 1.15 66.0 73.5 7.5 0.52 186.0 243.0 57.0 0.87 SDH-07 90.0 109.0 19.0 1.39 131.0 140.5 905.0 0.46 190.0 220.0 30.0 0.74 including 190.0 196.0 60.0 1.02 including 206.0 220.0 14.0 1.04 224.0 246.0 22.0 1.16 including 227.0 237.0 10.0 2.02 SDH-08 122.0 160.0 38.0 1.36 including 122.0 127.0 5.0 6.48 6.06 (cut to 25 g/t)

33


175.0 188.5 13.5 1.13 228.0 251.0 23.0 1.04 SDH-09 No Significant Results SDH-10 No Significant Results SDH-11 85.0 95.2 10.2 125.0 133.0 8.0 SDH-12 No Significant Results SDH-13 No Significant Results SDH-14 27.0 39.0 12.0 0.91 52.5 58.5 6.0 0.92 SDH-15 No Significant Results SDH-16 181.0 195.0 14.0 1.28 207.0 215.0 8.0 0.55 230.0 234.0 4.0 2.20 246.0 280.0 34.0 1.11 287.0 293.0 6.0 0.91 SDH-17 115.5 176.0 60.5 2.64 including 115.5 159.0 43.5 3.31 including 142.0 158.0 16.0 6.94 SDH-18 103.0 108.0 5.0 1.22 133.0 161.5 28.5 0.58 194.5 202.0 7.5 0.69 SDH-19 123.0 131.5 8.5 3.93 SDH-20 171.0 208.5 37.5 3.55 3.48 (cut to 25 g/t) including 200.5 208.5 8.0 10.43 10.07 (cut to 25 g/t) 216.0 237.0 21.0 2.27 299.0 307.0 8.0 1.43 SDH-21 68.0 79.0 11.0 1.38 99.5 118.5 19.0 1.37 173.0 200.5 27.5 3.15 2.93 (cut to 25 g/t) including 173.0 187.0 14.0 5.84 5.40 (cut to 25 g/t) SDH-22 137.5 155.0 17.5 0.74 163.0 164.0 1.0 16.80 172.0 174.0 2.0 1.24 187.5 190.5 3.0 0.54 SDH-23 171.0 216.0 45.0 0.79 242.0 254.0 12.0 0.43 353.0 363.0 10.0 0.52 387.0 394.0 7.0 1.00 SDH-24 197.0 220.0 23.0 1.15 including 212.0 220.0 8.0 2.41 SDH-25 310.0 318.0 8.0 6.25 358.0 375.0 17.0 0.85 including 358.0 372.0 14.0 1.03 407.0 421.0 14.0 0.41 SDH-26 No significant results

34


SDH-27 407.0 422.0 15.0 0.53 443.0 459.5 16.5 1.17 474.5 503.0 28.5 0.55 SDH-28 25.5 33.0 7.5 0.75 160.5 174.0 13.5 0.69 186.0 196.5 10.5 0.63 235.5 247.5 12.0 0.51 253.5 259.5 6.0 0.63 300.0 310.5 10.5 0.53 340.5 348.0 7.5 1.08 382.5 442.5 60.0 1.04 SDH-29 259.5 276.0 16.5 0.80 294.0 300.0 6.0 1.65 340.5 357.0 16.5 5.23 SDH-30 267.0 270.0 3.0 0.52 300.0 304.0 4.0 0.70 308.0 314.2 6.2 0.55 472.5 501.0 28.5 1.03 SDH-31 192.0 195.5 3.5 1.59 SDH-32 8.5 11.5 3.0 1.88 200.0 203.0 3.0 1.00 234.5 237.5 3.0 2.71 255.0 270.5 15.5 0.79 298.0 302.0 4.0 1.15 405.0 427.0 22.0 0.30 427.0 483.0 56.0 1.03 including 440.0 450.0 10.0 2.94 including 440.0 458.0 18.0 1.87 including 440.0 468.0 28.0 1.47 SDH-33 159.5 168.5 9.0 0.44 248.0 254.0 6.0 1.13 SDH-34 No significant results SDH-35 114.5 125.0 10.5 0.35 133.0 141.0 8.0 0.26 SDH-36 6.0 12.0 6.0 0.40 25.5 31.5 6.0 0.62 71.0 122.0 51.0 0.63 including 71.0 76.0 5.0 1.12 including 82.0 86.0 4.0 1.01 including 91.0 97.0 6.0 1.13 including 109.0 118.0 9.0 1.06 SDH-37 86.0 90.0 4.0 0.45 SDH-38 416.0 449.0 33.0 0.28 458.0 464.0 6.0 0.48 478.0 531.0 53.0 0.76 546.0 564.0 18.0 0.29 576.0 600.0 24.0 0.51 SDH-39 0.0 9.0 9.0 4.23 51.0 172.0 121.0 1.66 67.5 92.0 24.5 4.60

35


69.0 76.5 7.5 7.43 79.5 88.0 8.5 5.17 172.0 222.0 50.0 0.27 222.0 271.0 49.0 0.55 271.0 301.0 30.0 0.33 376.0 384.0 8.0 1.21 424.0 428.0 4.0 0.89 SDH-40 400.5 417.0 16.5 1.30 483.0 509.0 26.0 0.99 518.0 558.0 40.0 0.66 591.0 606.0 15.0 1.64 661.5 667.5 6.0 0.90 SDH-41 92.0 102.5 10.5 0.59 354.5 359.0 4.5 1.28 SDH-42 No significant results,

aborted hole SDH-43 257.0 274.0 17.0 0.31 280.0 386.0 106.0 1.15 397.0 404.0 7.0 0.36 404.0 443.0 39.0 0.94 SDH-44 0.0 173.0 173.0 0.93 including 0.0 17.5 17.5 3.43 including 0.0 52.0 52.0 1.44 179.0 203.0 24.0 1.19 203.0 241.0 38.0 0.27 274.0 320.0 46.0 0.82 353.0 386.0 33.0 0.71 394.0 420.0 26.0 0.61 428.0 438.0 10.0 0.48 516.0 525.0 9.0 0.82 535.0 550.0 15.0 1.28 561.0 573.0 12.0 0.34 592.0 628.5 36.5 0.79 SDH-45 122.0 166.0 44.0 1.06 174.0 201.0 27.0 0.52 218.0 242.0 24.0 0.81 300.5 341.0 40.5 0.68 354.5 398.0 43.5 0.67 405.0 429.0 24.0 1.28 SDH-46 190.0 199.0 9.0 0.32 215.5 250.0 34.5 2.51 including 219.0 233.0 14.0 4.63 222.0 229.0 7.0 6.75 SDH-47 267.0 357.5 90.5 1.36 including 324.0 329.0 5.0 6.94 395.0 408.5 13.5 0.48 423.5 438.5 15.0 0.31 482.0 494.0 12.0 0.58

36

11.4 CORE RECOVERY A review of the diamond drill core from Sulphur Rose indicates that most of the drill holes produced generally very good recoveries. Occasionally, core recovery problems occurred but this was not common. A review of the RQD results from the drill logs shows that average recoveries ranged from approximately 76% to 99% and averaged 96%. Figure 9.1 shows a photo of a typical intersection of well altered Sulphur rose drill core and the typically good recovery.

12.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH Two types of sample were used in the preparation of the mineral resource estimate presented in this report, channel samples from trenches and diamond drill core. 12.1 CHANNEL SAMPLES Collection of the trench channel samples was completed after they were dug to depths of about 1 to 3 m. A channel was cut into the saprolite approximately one half metre off of the trench floor and below any potentially disturbed ground surface. The cut channels were approximately 10 cm wide and several centimetres deep approximating the volume of sample from drill core. Sample lengths were generally 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 m. Samples were collected into plastic sample bags using hand tools. Two sample tags were placed in each bag and the bags were sealed with a cable tie. Once collected the samples were bagged and shipped as per the sample shipment procedures described below. 12.2 DIAMOND CORE LOGGING AND SAMPLING The core to be sampled was split using one of two gasoline engine-powered diamond core saws at the logging shed, under the overall supervision of the logging geologists. The core was sawn in half following the sample cutting line determined by the geologists during logging. After cutting the core was placed back in the core box with the cutting line up and the left side of the split core was sampled. The remaining half core was retained for future reference (see split core in photo of core box in Figure 9.1). The split halves of the cores were bagged for shipment to Acme’s sample preparation laboratory in Georgetown for processing. Prior to shipment each sample bag was sealed with a cable tie after two copies of the sample tag were placed inside.

37

12.3 SECURITY AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY Once the core or channel samples were sealed with zip ties, five sample bags were put into a larger rice bag which was sealed with a secure, numbered seal (see Figure 12.1). That rice bag was then placed inside a second rice bag and sealed with a cable tie. Sealed rice bags were shipped to Georgetown from camp in the presence of an escort who stayed with them all the way to Acme. The escort is a supervisory level employee, either the camp manager or one of the field geologists. The samples were shipped through Buck Hall using the truck and boat route described in Section 5.

Figure 12.1 Sample Bag Seals

Prior to shipment the sample bags were stored in camp which is always occupied. No samples were left in camp during field breaks when only the watchmen are present. A total of 19,299 drill samples, which include QA/QC samples (i.e., Duplicates, Standards, Blanks) were submitted to Acme for analyses. 12.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It is Micon’s opinion that the logging and sampling protocols used by Guyana Goldfields at the Sulphur Rose project are conventional industry standard ones conforming to what are generally regarded as best practices. Micon is confident that the system is appropriate for the collection of a database suitable for the estimation of an NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimate.

38

13.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY 13.1 ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES For the analysis of Sulphur Rose drill core samples Acme Analytical Laboratories SA (Acme), a subsidiary of Acme Analytical Laboratories Ltd. was chosen as the primary laboratory. Samples were crushed and prepared at Acme’s Georgetown, Guyana facility and sample pulps were shipped to its Santiago, Chile laboratory for analysis. Acme’s facilities in Georgetown and Santiago are certified to ISO 9001 and the company reports that they are compliant with ISO 17025 for the supply of assays and geochemical analysis services. The laboratory in Santiago is reported to be ISO 17025 certified and Georgetown hopes to receive ISO 17025 certification within the coming year. Acme also regularly participates in the CANMET and Geostats round robin proficiency tests. Micon visited Acme’s Georgetown sample preparation laboratory during the Sulphur Rose site visit and reviewed the sample preparation equipment and appropriate preparation areas. The trench samples were assayed at Loring Laboratories Guyana Ltd. (Loring). Loring is ISO 9001 certified. 13.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION All samples received by Acme in Georgetown are processed through a sample tracking system that is an integral part of the company’s Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). This system utilizes bar coding and scanning technology that provides complete chain-of-custody records for every stage in the sample preparation and analytical process and helps to limit the potential for sample switches and transcription errors. Acme provided Micon with a copy of the sample preparation flow sheet used for Guyana Goldfields’ Sulphur Rose samples. That flow sheet is reproduced in Figure 13.1. Loring used a similar sample preparation procedure.

39

Figure 13.1 Sample Preparation Flowsheet.

The sample preparation equipment was cleaned with barren quartz wash material every 10 samples and, where necessary, between highly mineralized samples. Sample preparation equipment is also located in hooded workspaces equipped with low velocity dust extraction systems to reduce the risk of sample contamination yet not extract fine material from the processing equipment. Prepared sample pulps were shipped to Santiago, Chile by Acme for analysis. Duplicate pulps and coarse rejects from the prepared samples were returned to Guyana Goldfields and stored in a secure warehouse near Georgetown for future reference. Loring performed its analyses in Georgetown. 13.3 ANALYSES The Prepared sample pulps were analyzed for gold by Acme process code Au-G6 - fire assay using 50 g sample charge with atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) finish. If the returned

40

assay result is greater than 3,000 ppb (3 ppm or g/t) then the sample is reassayed using process code Au-G6GRAV - fire assay with gravimetric finish. When available, assays by the gravimetric method are used as the final result in the assay database. Loring performed a similar procedure as well as screen metallics fire assays on the saprolite samples from the trenches. The screen metallics procedure was performed in case there were nuggets forming in the soil profile. 13.4 ACME LABORATORY QA/QC Like most modern analytical laboratories, Acme runs its own internal QA/QC program involving the use of blank and standard reference materials, as well as duplicate samples. Acme reports:

“Samples submitted are analyzed with the strictest quality control. Blanks (analytical and method), duplicates and standard reference materials inserted in the sequences of client samples provide a measure of background noise, accuracy and precision. QA/QC protocol incorporates a granite or quartz sample-prep blank(s) carried through all stages of preparation and analysis as the first sample(s) in the job. Typically an analytical batch will be comprised of 34-36 client samples, a pulp duplicate to monitor analytical precision, a -10 mesh reject duplicate to monitor sub-sampling variation (drill core only), a reagent blank to measure background and an aliquot of Certified Reference Material (CRM) or Inhouse Reference Material to monitor accuracy. In the absence of suitable CRMs Inhouse Reference Materials are prepared and certified against internationally certified reference materials such as CANMET and USGS standards where possible and will be externally verified at a minimum of 3 other commercial laboratories. Using these inserted quality control samples each analytical batch and complete job is rigorously reviewed and validated prior to release.

Crushing and pulverizing equipment is tested daily with 3% of samples being checked using screen analysis to ensure that the crushers and pulverizers are meeting size criteria. Control charts showing the results of these tests are posted on the wall in the sample preparation area so that laboratory operations personnel may track results themselves. Additionally the Acme laboratory in Georgetown stops work 2 times per shift for equipment cleaning and once a month there is a full day shutdown to tear down all equipment for a thorough cleaning. All data capture is electronic to minimize transcription errors and sample switches. Analytical results are not released to the client unless the batch passes the QA/QC tests. Loring reports that its:

“QA/QC Program includes running in-house validated standards with each batch of samples run, also duplicate samples and blanks are included in each daily run of samples. The

41

standard's results have to be within the standard deviation and accuracy, or the entire batch will require rerun.” “QA and QC checks: QA and QC checks are used as control measures to maintain the validity of the test results, (i.e. to ensure that the uncertainty of measurement does not vary with time but is constant and a reliable measure of the quality of the test results provided by Loring Laboratories.” “We have an internal QA/QC program to ensure the results are within the 95% confidence level. Loring Laboratories has registration with ISO9000:2001 in 2009 and we are working towards ISO17025 in certain analysis.” “On each batch of samples undergoing analysis, there is a chemical blank, a standard and a duplicate for every 20 samples.”

13.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY Guyana Goldfields has completed bulk density measurements on 66 samples of mineralized and unmineralized core from Sulphur Rose. The samples showed an average density of 2.78 tonnes per cubic metre (t/m3) with a range of values from 2.44 to 3.03. Micon has used the average bulk density for its mineral resource estimate. No measurements of the density of saprolite have been made yet for Sulphur Rose. However, an extensive database of measurements exists for the Aurora project. Given its similarity in mineralization styles Micon has used the average value of 1.73 t/m3 from Aurora for the resource estimate at Sulphur Rose. Both sets of measurements were made using the weight-in-water/weight-in-air method on paraffin wax coated core to seal pores. 13.6 SUMMARY Other than the core cutting and bagging described in Section 12 above, no aspect of the sample preparation procedure was conducted by an, employee, officer, director or associate of Guyana Goldfields. Acme’s facilities in Georgetown are fenced in, secure and guarded. The laboratory employs industry standard equipment and methods for the determination of gold and silver content in rock samples. Micon considers the sample preparation, security and analytical procedures employed to be adequate for the analytical requirements of Guyana Goldfields. Micon has reviewed the bulk density results. The results are reasonable and within the expected range for a deposit of this type.

42

14.0 DATA VERIFICATION The QA/QC procedures employed by Acme’s laboratories in Georgetown and Santiago to verify analytical results have been discussed in Section 13 above. Other data verification steps taken by Guyana Goldfields and Micon are described below. 14.1 GUYANA GOLDFIELDS QA/QC The information in this section is largely taken from an internal Guyana Goldfields report, “Sulphur Rose QA/QC Program Update 24-Nov-2010” (Pena, 2010). 14.1.1 QAQC Program Guyana Goldfields stores its diamond drill hole and trench data in Excel spreadsheets. These can be easily imported into Microsoft Access database software and used in many resource estimation/mine planning software packages. The company also uses Gemcom software to evaluate drill results and so has the data stored in Access as well. Century System’s software is used to manage the data and the QA/QC program. Guyana Goldfields reports that all data inputs and imports are validated for errors before being accepted in the Century System database software. Further validation is done through the program’s module, the Fusion Query Builder, where data can be analyzed, graphed, formatted or exported to other programs for further evaluation. The Sulphur Rose QA/QC program includes the use of duplicate split core samples and the insertion of certified reference materials (CRM, or analytical standards) and coarse blanks every 30 samples. This is accomplished by having a duplicate sample as the 10th sample in every batch, followed by a CRM as the 20th sample and a coarse blank as the 30th sample. Sample assay results are evaluated through control charts, log sheets, sample logbook and signed assay certificates to determine the nature of any anomaly or failure. Check assaying is conducted on some of failures and some samples are sent to a second ISO certified laboratory. 14.1.2 Duplicates Quarter core duplicate sampling is done to test sampling precision. The variance between the original and duplicate sample pair assays is evaluated using the following criteria. If the relative percent difference: (Assay A – Assay B)/ 0.5 x (assay A + Assay B), was less than 20% then the pair was passed. For the first 56 holes in the database the total sample pair average comparison variance is less than 1% and the coefficient of correlation between the original and duplicate at 0.85 is considered good for duplicate core samples (see Table 14.1).

43

Table 14.1 Statistics of Original vs. Duplicate Assay Data

Variable Count Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Dev Variance Cor. Coeff.

Original Au Data 502 0.002 27.4 0.322 1.55 2.40 0.85 Duplicate Au Data 502 0.002 15.6 0.324 1.23 1.52 0.85

14.1.3 Coarse Blanks About 1.5 kg of coarse blank material is inserted into the sampling stream every 30th sample. The blank material used is a crushed granitic rock obtained from a quarry at Tiperu, Guyana and hence, not a certified material. Guyana Goldfields reports that the recommended safe value is 25 ppb Au based on a study done by AMC Consultants last year. Assays below the detection limit of 0.005 ppm are given a 0.002 ppm grade by default in the Century System. Coarse blank values above 15 ppb (3 times the detection limit) are reviewed and correlated with preceding assays and nearby CRMs to weigh the significance. The coarse blanks are used to test possible contamination or smearing effect of high grade values to succeeding samples. Eleven coarse blank samples showed results >15 ppb, from which there are a few anomalous cases that are indicative of smearing. These results are interpreted to have only a slight impact on succeeding samples; i.e. one sample within batch GTG10000360 had a lone high grade result (97.2 g/t Au) with the succeeding sample in a lean zone (>60 ppb). These were check assayed. Overall, of the 504 coarse blank assays tested, three samples (1%) have values above the 25 ppb safe limit with indication of smearing but the economic effect appears limited and insignificant. 14.1.4 CRM/Standards CRMs from Ore Research and Exploration PTY LTD (Oreas) were used at Sulphur Rose. The Oreas CRMs were inserted in the sampling stream every 30th sample. Three types of CRM were used, representing “low grade”, “marginal”, and “high grade” material. Table 14.2 below shows the different CRMs that were used in the program, some of which have been discontinued and replaced with more reliable ones.

44

Table 14.2 Summary of Oreas Standards

Standard Mean Value

(Au ppb) -2 Std Dev (Au ppb)

+2 Std Dev (Au ppb)

-3 Std Dev (Au ppb)

+3 Std Dev (Au ppb)

Oreas 4Pb 49 44 54 42 56 Oreas 52Pb 307 272 342 255 359 Oreas 52c 346 312 379 296 396 Oreas 50Pb 841 778 904 746 936 Oreas 15Pa 1,020 960 1,070 940 1,090 Oreas 6Pc 1,520 1,390 1,660 1,320 1,720 Oreas 15Pc 1,610 1,510 1,700 1,460 1,750 Oreas 16a 1,810 1,680 1,930 1,620 1,990 Oreas 54Pa 2,900 2,680 3,120 2,570 3,230 Oreas 61d 4,760 4,470 5,040 4,330 5,190

Control charts were used to evaluate the assaying accuracy through the CRM’s performance in various “gates”, where a pass is usually set within +/-3 standard deviations. Century System automatically generates the charts during import of batch assay values. Figure 14.1 shows an example control chart from the program. There are 28 cases of CRM failures, out of 497 CRMs used, affecting 24 batches of assay certificates. These are usually isolated results in a batch where several other CRMs and blanks passed. For one or two CRM failures the batch was reviewed and selective check sampling may be done. However, three consecutive standard failures automatically triggers reassaying of the entire batch. To date a total of 472 check samples were sent to a secondary laboratory. Split/duplicate pulps of the samples were set aside in case an umpire assay is needed using a third laboratory.

Figure 14.1 Example Control Chart

45

The performance of each CRM was also evaluated and possible unreliable CRM types were discontinued and replaced. One case is Oreas 4Pb which had a high rate of failure at both Aranka and Aurora and its use was discontinued. 14.1.5 Check Samples Check samples for the Sulphur Rose project were submitted to a second laboratory, ACTLABS, an ISO certified laboratory with a sample preparation facility in Beterverwagting, Guyana. Once processed, they ship the sample pulps to their analytical facility in Venezuela. The assaying protocol used is similar to Acme’s using fire assaying with a 50 g charge and AAS finish. Assays above 3,000 ppb Au are re-assayed using a gravimetric method. 14.2 MICON DATA VERIFICATION 14.2.1 Check Sampling During the September, 2010 site visit Micon completed its own program of check sampling of the Sulphur Rose deposit. Three samples were taken of duplicate quarter core (field duplicates) from recent Guyana Goldfields drill holes at the deposit. The 3 samples were submitted to the ALS Chemex sample preparation laboratory in Sudbury, Ontario and analyses were performed at ALS Chemex in Vancouver. The samples were prepared and assayed using similar protocols to those employed by Guyana Goldfields. Micon maintained custody of the samples while in Guyana and until they were shipped to ALS Chemex from its Toronto office. The results of Micon’s field duplicate sample program can be seen in Table 14.3.

Table 14.3 Micon Check Samples

Drill Hole From (m)

To (m)

Original Result

(g/t Au)

Micon Result

(g/t Au) SSD-2 73.00 74.50 1.938 0.814 SDH17 148.00 149.00 6.169 7.690 SDH47 270.00 271.00 2.326 1.680

The field duplicate samples returned values of gold in a similar range to the original sample results reported by Guyana Goldfields from Acme. Micon considers the assays results returned to be an acceptable variance for field duplicate samples. The samples collected have independently confirmed the presence of gold mineralization at the Sulphur Rose deposit.

46

14.2.2 Database Validation The exploration database is the data source for the resource estimation presented in this report and hence the basis for every analysis and decision made in the estimate. Database validation is considered to be a critical task in the process and must be successfully performed before any other task can commence. Typically exploration databases contain a vast amount of data collected in the field exploration campaigns but, for the purposes of this estimation, Micon has focused its validation on collar coordinates, down-holes surveys, assays and density. The database is currently comprised of 62 diamond drill holes and 10 surface trenches with a total of 16,702 assay intervals. Not all holes had full assay results as of the date of the estimate and only 56 were used (only 53 intersected the deposit). An exhaustive cross check validation has been performed on the entire sample table comparing assays certificates received directly from the laboratory against results contained in the database. A few minor discrepancies were found and corrected. The Gemcom-Surpac software package has utilities to check databases for such errors as crossed ‘from’ and ‘to’ intervals for samples, unacceptable lithology codes and other entries not allowed. Micon used these utilities when importing the raw data provided by Guyana Goldfields. Micon also plotted a plan view of all drill holes looking for incorrect azimuths or sharp kinks in holes indicating incorrect entry of down-hole survey information. 14.3 CONCLUSIONS It is Micon’s opinion that Guyana Goldfields is running an industry standard QA/QC program for its insertion of control samples into the stream of core samples for the Sulphur Rose exploration program.

15.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES There are no adjacent properties which materially affect the opinion offered in this report. Guyana Goldfields controls mineral leases covering a significant portion of the along-strike extension of the host lithologies and/or structures for the deposit.

16.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING In the fall of 2010, Guyana Goldfields submitted three variability composite samples (low, medium and high grade) of mineralization from Sulphur Rose drill core to SGS Mineral Services (SGS) metallurgical laboratory in Lakefield Ontario to investigate the recovery of gold. The executive summary of the SGS report is extracted below.

47

“Three composite samples from the Sulphur Rose property were received at SGS (Lakefield) facility for the determination of gold grades, gravity separation and cyanidation testwork. Two 1-kg test charges of each composite sample were submitted for screened metallics analysis and one additional 1-kg test charge was submitted for screen size fraction analysis. The remaining sample of each composite (~10 kg) was ground to ~150 mesh and treated with a Knelson concentrator to isolate the free and coarse gold from the samples. The Knelson concentrate was further upgraded on a Mozley Mineral Separator. The Mozley tailing and Knelson tailing of each composite sample were blended and split into 1-kg test charges for downstream cyanidation. In addition, a single cyanidation test was completed on a blended gravity tailing according to proportions provided by Guyana Goldfields. The head grade ranged from 1.62 g/t (Batch 1) to 10.7 g/t (Batch 3). The gravity recovery was ~30% and the overall recovery (gravity plus cyanidation) was 91.9% on the blended sample, according to proportions provided.”

While the results are from an investigation which is preliminary in nature, Micon has used the recovery value of 91.9% in its pit optimization and cut-off determinations.

17.0 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES 17.1 GENERAL Sulphur Rose is a new discovery and, as such, there are no existing mineral resource estimates for it or any other mineral deposits located on the concessions comprising the Aranka Property. 17.2 RESOURCE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY The Aranka project mineral resource estimation was performed by creating a block model, and populating it with grade using both Ordinary Kriging and Inverse Distance Cubed (ID3) grade interpolation. Guyana Goldfields and Micon both used Gemcom© software for the modelling process and resource estimation. Micon also used Surpac to wireframe the sectional interpretations, manipulate the block model and create reports. For the purposes of mineral resource estimation the data were constrained within two mineralized envelopes, the North and South zones. 17.2.1 Description of the Database Micon received a full Gemcom project folder from Guyana Goldfields containing the full database and interpretation completed by the company’s geologists. This database included such drill hole information as collar location, down hole survey, lithology. Density measurements were stored in a separate Excel spreadsheet.

48

Later, more assays for additional holes arrived and Micon was given updated assay and survey files in the form of Excel spreadsheets. These sheets were imported into the Microsoft Access database which Gemcom uses. The final database was frozen on December 2, 2010 at drill hole SDH-56 for the purposes of the mineral resource estimate. The database used consisted of 61 completely assayed surface diamond drill holes and 10 trenches with a total of 16,628 assay intervals. 17.2.2 Geological Interpretation The geology of, and mineralization styles seen at, the Sulphur Rose deposit are described in Sections 7, 8 and 9 of this report. After completing its initial drilling program Guyana Goldfields interpreted the geology and mineralization and created an initial 3D model of the Sulphur Rose mineralized zones. These results were discussed with Micon. The model was audited and minor adjustments made by Micon and it was used to control the mineral resource estimate. The mineralization envelopes were separated into domains based on geology, alteration and grade continuity. Two zones were interpreted and each was separated into subzones based on weathering. The resulting domains are; North Saprolite (SPN), North Fresh Rock (RXN), South Saprolite (SPS), and South Fresh Rock (RXS) 17.2.3 3D Wireframe Modelling The Guyana Goldfields model was constructed based on information from 53 surface diamond drill holes which intersected the deposit (with a total length of 3,987 m) and from 261 trench channel samples for a total of 194.35 m of sampled length (average sample length, 0.75 m). In addition, surface mapping of the trenches was used to help define the solids. The polylines were snapped to the drill hole or trench traces. One along-strike trench was not snapped to but was entirely captured inside the resultant solid and included in the estimation. After a review of the geological model completed by Guyana Goldfields, Micon decided to modify the interpretation polylines on some sections to better reflect the distribution of gold grade in the wireframes. The mineralization was determined to occur in two closely-spaced zones separated by a few metres to a few tens of metres of weakly altered and poorly mineralized rock. These zones were referred to as the North and South Zones and were modelled separately. The North and South zones were modelled in Gemcom© along 12 vertical sections, facing west (270º) and with a constant spacing of 25 m. Another set of sections were also created exclusively for the block model which was not oriented east-west. The interpreted polygons were then exported to Surpac for wire-framing using its advanced triangulation tools. The

49

resulting solids, North and South, were coded accordingly and a weathering surface was used to separate the saprolite from the fresh rock, in order to separate the weathered and fresh domains and control selection of composites during interpolation. The codes were 10 (SPN), 11 (RXN), 20 (SPS) and 21 (RXS). The North and South Zones can be seen relative to the drill hole traces in Figure 17.1. The wireframe model is 650 m long.

Figure 17.1 Sulphur Rose Deposit, North and South Mineralized Zone Location.

17.2.4 Grade Capping Assay values inside of the wireframes were extracted and evaluated for outlier values. Each domain was evaluated separately using its raw assays to decide the proper grade capping. This was done by determining the population statistics for each zone and plotting histograms, log histograms and probability plots looking for values which lie outside of a normally or lognormally distributed population. Lognormal populations form straight lines on probability plots and the point at which data can be considered as being outliers can usually be readily determined from them. Figure 17.2 and Figure 17.3 show an example histogram and probability plot for the South Fresh Rock domain. Values beyond the lognormally distributed population are reduced to the highest value within it. The applied grade capping used in this estimate is presented in Table 17.1 below.

50

Table 17.1 Grade Capping

Domain Max. Value (Au g/t)

Capping Grade (Au g/t)

Capped Assays

SPN 19.41 n.a. 0 RXN 80.0 16.1 1 SPS 49.87 26.75 4 RXS 38.3 27.9 3

Figure 17.2

South Fresh Rock Domain Histogram

South Fresh Rock

Au (g/t)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Freq

uenc

y

0

10

20

30

40

50

51

Figure 17.3 South Fresh Rock Domain Probability Plot

South Fresh Rock

Au (g/t)

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y

0.1

1

10

30

50

70

90

99

99.9

17.2.5 Sample Composites After the assays were capped and the solids were complete and coded, the mineralized zone intervals were extracted in order to use them as reference for the compositing process. The composites were constrained to the mineralized envelopes and the weathering geology as assays in saprolite and fresh rock were separated. The composite length used was 3.0 m. All samples within the mineralized intervals were composited to this length and were coded according to zone. If the total length of sampled interval was not evenly divisible by 3 m then partial composites remained. Assay composites less than 75% of the 3 m length were not used in order to avoid bias in the estimation. A total of 1,907 composites were created in the 4 domains. The composites were saved as a single 3D point file with attributes of hole-ID, grade, and domain. 17.2.6 Variography Variography was attempted for all four of the domains. Good results were obtained only in the South Fresh Rock Zone (RXS) where meaningful grade continuity was found which could support the use of Ordinary Kriging as an interpolation method for that domain. Given the geometry of the mineralized envelopes, that are essentially vertical, the direction of

52

greatest continuity was found along strike. The down dip direction was found to have very similar ranges to the across strike, meaning that the mineralization had an isotropic behaviour in the vertical plane. The resulting range from the semi-variogram informed the radius of the search ellipsoids. The major axis semi variogram can be seen in Figure 17.4 below.

Figure 17.4 Semi-Variogram for the RXS Zone

Major Axis (North-East), Spread 45º, 5m Lag.

17.2.7 Specific Gravity Specific gravity (SG) is discussed in Section 13.5 above. Values of 2.78 t/m3 and 1.73 t/m3 were used in fresh rock and saprolite, respectively. 17.2.8 Block Model The block model for the Sulphur Rose deposit is rotated 125º and its origin is 216,820E, 759,870N. It has a block size of 5 m x 3 m x 5 m oriented along strike. Its total extent is 1,400 m long by 1,200 m wide and 800 m in depth. The enlarged extents were necessary for the Whittle pit optimization runs. The block model contains various attributes for reporting and querying purposes (Au grade, density, tonnes, zone and weathering domain).

53

17.2.9 Resource Estimation Grade interpolation was performed using Ordinary Kriging (OK) for the RXS domain and Inverse Distance Cubed (ID3) for the remaining RXN, SPN and SPS domains. Interpolation was made in multiple passes to fill the blocks in the model. Initial pass interpolation parameters for RXS were based upon the variography results obtained. Search ellipses for the initial ID interpolation pass were based upon ranges from the Variogram for RXS. Later interpolation passes used expanded ranges to fill the model. Table 17.2 below shows the interpolation plan applied on this estimation. 17.2.10 Resource Classification On average, the exploration drill section spacing is 50 m. The early stage of drilling on the deposit means that on some sections gaps exist in the drilling and spacing occasionally rises to 100 m. The change made in the drill hole azimuth, described in Section 11 above, means that locally in the South Zone some drill holes cross section lines, or each other, and are partially oriented along-strike. This off-section plane data density allows for the modelling of a variogram in that zone. This effect is local though and the drill density elsewhere and in the other zones was insufficient model a variogram. Despite this, there is sufficient reason to interpret continuity of geology and mineralization from section to section. For these reasons the entire mineral resource estimated herein was classified as inferred. The mineral resources in this report were estimated in accordance with the definitions contained in the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves Definitions and Guidelines that were prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by the CIM Council. 17.3 MINERAL RESOURCES The mineral resource estimate presented in this report was derived by querying the interpolated blocks inside of the mineralized envelopes, and applying a constant SG value of 1.73 g/cm3 for saprolite and 2.78 g/cm3 for fresh rock to determine tonnages. A summary of the total in-situ block model tonnages and average gold grades for the entire model domains, at various cut-off grades, is provided in Table 17.3. This is an in-situ estimate of tonnes and grade at various cut-offs and should not be considered a mineral resource. It is provided to reveal indications of sensitivity to cut-off and gold price assumptions. It is presented as reported by Gemcom and has not been rounded to reflect the accuracy of estimation.

54

Table 17.2 Sulphur Rose Interpolation Plan

Nº Domain Bearing Profile Name Pass Rock

Code

Search Parameters

Az Dip Plunge Range X

Range Y

Range Z

Min Samples

Max Samples

Max. Samples Per Hole

Method

115 -90 0 120 75 25 4 12 3 ID3 2 SPN 131 SPN2 2 10 115 -90 0 150 75 50 4 12 3 ID3 3 SPN 131 SPN3 3 10 115 -90 0 150 75 50 3 12 3 ID3 4 SPN 131 SPN4 4 10 115 -90 0 200 100 50 3 12 3 ID3 5 SPN 81 1 1081 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ID3 6 SPN 81 2 1081 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ID3 7 SPN 81 3 1081 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ID3 8 SPS 126 1SPS1 1 20 125 -90 0 80 50 25 4 12 3 ID3 9 SPS 126 1SPS2 2 20 125 -90 0 120 50 25 4 12 3 ID3

10 SPS 126 1SPS3 3 20 125 -90 0 200 75 50 4 12 3 ID3 11 SPS 126 1SPS4 4 20 125 -90 0 250 100 75 3 12 3 ID3 12 SPS 54 2SPS1 1 2055 55 -90 0 40 25 25 4 12 3 ID3 13 SPS 54 2SPS2 2 2055 55 -90 0 80 50 25 4 12 3 ID3 14 SPS 54 2SPS3 3 2055 55 -90 0 120 75 25 4 12 3 ID3 15 SPS 54 2SPS4 4 2055 55 -90 0 250 100 75 3 12 3 ID3 16 RXN 131 1RXN1 1 11 130 -45 10 40 25 25 4 12 3 ID3 17 RXN 131 1RXN2 2 11 130 -45 10 80 50 25 4 12 3 ID3 18 RXN 131 1RXN3 3 11 130 -45 10 120 75 25 4 12 3 ID3 19 RXN 131 1RXN4 4 11 130 -45 10 160 100 50 3 12 3 ID3 20 RXN 81 2RXN1 1 1181 80 -45 10 40 25 25 4 12 3 ID3 21 RXN 81 2RXN2 2 1181 80 -45 10 80 50 25 4 12 3 ID3 22 RXN 81 2RXN3 3 1181 80 -45 10 120 75 25 4 12 3 ID3 23 RXN 81 2RXN4 4 1181 80 -45 10 160 100 50 3 12 3 ID3

55

Nº Domain Bearing Profile Name Pass Rock

Code

Search Parameters

Az Dip Plunge Range X

Range Y

Range Z

Min Samples

Max Samples

Max. Samples Per Hole

Method

24 RXS 126 1RXS1 1 21 125 -45 10 40 25 25 4 12 3 OK

25 RXS 126 1RXS2 2 21 125 -45 10 80 50 25 4 12 3 OK 26 RXS 126 1RXS3 3 21 125 -45 10 120 75 25 4 12 3 OK 27 RXS 126 1RXS4 4 21 125 -45 10 200 100 50 3 12 3 OK 28 RXS 54 2RXS1 1 2155 55 -45 10 40 25 25 4 12 3 OK 29 RXS 54 2RXS2 2 2155 55 -45 10 80 50 25 4 12 3 OK 30 RXS 54 2RXS3 3 2155 55 -45 10 120 75 25 4 12 3 OK 31 RXS 54 2RXS4 4 2155 55 -45 10 160 100 50 3 12 3 OK

Table 17.3

In-situ Mineralization at Sulphur Rose

Cut-Off Grade Volume Tonnes Au Grade

(g/t) Cumulative

Tonnes Cum. Avg. Grade Au

Cum. Au Ounces

>10 4,725 8,253 12.47 8,253 12.47 3,308 5.00 123,225 306,104 6.01 314,357 6.18 62,475 4.00 148,050 379,291 4.45 693,648 5.23 116,740 3.00 374,025 972,852 3.46 1,666,500 4.20 224,899 2.00 676,275 1,691,674 2.40 3,358,174 3.29 355,595 1.00 2,324,025 5,969,074 1.40 9,327,248 2.08 624,269 0.90 451,650 1,203,927 0.95 10,531,175 1.95 660,925 0.80 637,350 1,699,934 0.85 12,231,109 1.80 707,217 0.70 907,050 2,399,536 0.75 14,630,645 1.63 764,692 0.60 1,117,500 2,932,770 0.65 17,563,415 1.46 825,792 0.50 1,359,300 3,629,386 0.55 21,192,801 1.31 889,853 0.40 1,400,400 3,759,158 0.45 24,951,959 1.18 944,240 0.30 1,458,600 3,919,064 0.35 28,871,023 1.06 988,467 0.20 1,370,850 3,722,133 0.25 32,593,156 0.97 1,018,504 0.10 1,091,175 2,969,049 0.16 35,562,205 0.90 1,033,299

56

17.3.1 Whittle Optimization The widths and grade of the mineralization seen at Sulphur Rose indicate that any mining scenario would likely involve an open pit operation. The mineralization extends much deeper than would likely be possible to mine economically by open pit methods. Therefore, in order to comply with the CIM mineral resource reporting requirement for reasonable prospects for economic extraction, Micon chose to float a simple Whittle pit. Micon used the following costs for the exercise, which were developed for the feasibility study on the nearby Aurora deposit:

Mining - US$1.45/t Milling - US$10.02/t G&A - US$10.00/t

In addition a gold price of US$1,000/oz and metallurgical recovery of 91.9% (see Section 16) were assumed. The G&A, at $10.00/t appears to be high but reflects the cost of diesel power generation at a remote site. Pit slope angles were also taken from the Aurora project. The Whittle pit results reflect a simple cone and do not constitute a fully designed and optimized pit. 17.3.2 Underground Resources Once the Whittle pit shell had been exported, Micon decided to see if any underground mineable mineral resources could be reported for the remainder of the Sulphur Rose block model. In order to do this a 30-m thick notional crown pillar was left underneath the pit shell and the remainder of the resource was reported at a higher cut-off grade of 2.56 g/t Au. This number was determined using the parameters described in Section 17.3.1 above with the replacement of the mining costs with US$75.70/t, as determined for underground mining at the Aurora project. The pit shell and notional pillar can be seen in Figure 17.5.

57

Figure 17.5 Underground Resource Reporting Shell

17.3.3 Mineral Resource Results The mineral resources estimated for the Sulphur Rose deposit are presented in Table 17.4 below. The cut-off for the underground portion of the mineral resources was 2.56 g/t Au. Whittle does not calculate a cut-off grade for resources. It estimates the cash flow from mining every block inside of a series of cones of increasing size. The mine haulage costs are incremented as the pit gets deeper so in effect each bench has a different cut-off grade as the pit gets deeper. The ultimate pit chosen to report the mineral resource is the one with the highest net cash flow or net present value. Using the data in Section 17.3.1 the cut-off grade would be approximately 0.75 g/t Au.

58

Table 17.4

Estimated Inferred Mineral Resources for Sulphur Rose

Tonnes Au Grade (g/t)

Contained Au (oz)

Open Pit1 6,366,000 1.99 407,300 Underground2 487,000 3.39 53,100 Total 6,853,000 2.09 460,400


The mineral resource statement for the Sulphur Rose deposit at the Aranka project is effective as of December 31, 2010. The mineral resources listed above were disclosed in a press release by Guyana Goldfields on December 31, 2010. The Mineral Resource estimate is compliant with the current CIM standards and definitions required by NI 43-101 and is, therefore, reportable as a mineral resource by Guyana Gold. Figure 17.6 below illustrates the gold grade distribution in the zones. There is a pronounced horizontal striping to the grade, which Guyana Goldfields geologists indicate is not inconsistent with observations made at site.

59

Figure 17.6 Grade Distribution of the Aranka Mineral Resources

17.3.4 Confirmation of Estimate In order to validate the block model results Micon has performed the following checks: Comparison of Means Micon calculated the means of the raw assays, composites and block models by domain and compared them. The results can be seen in Table 17.5.

Table 17.5 Comparison of Means

SPN RXN SPS RXS Raw Data 1.366 0.628 2.293 0.826 3 m Composites 1.33 0.55 1.92 0.78 Block Model 1.325 0.625 1.26 0.92

Visual Checks in Vertical Sections Micon examined the block model on section and made visual comparisons of the block grades to the informing drill holes. No serious discrepancies were found. An example view of a section can be seen in Figure 17.7.

60

Figure 17.7 Sectional Blocks Grade Distribution vs. Drill Holes Samples Checks

Trend Analysis Trend analysis is a powerful tool that compares the input data (the assay composites) against the block model results over the length of deposit. The process calculates a series of averages for the composites and block model at intervals along the selected direction and plots the results as curves. It is useful for visualizing whether the blocks represent the nearby composite data along the strike of a mineralized zone and can identify local bias. For the Sulphur Rose block model the east-west direction was identified as the suitable direction for the trend analysis. Examples of the results in the North zone fresh rock and South zone fresh rock domains are presented in Figure 17.8 and Figure 17.9 below.

61

Figure 17.8 RXN Block Model vs. 3m Composites Trend Analysis Chart

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2175

50

2175

75

2176

00

2176

25

2176

50

2176

75

2177

00

2177

25

2177

50

2177

75

2178

00

2178

25

2178

50

2178

75

2179

00

2179

25

2179

50

2179

75

2180

00

2180

25

2180

50

Num

ber o

f Sam

ples

Au

g/t

Easting

Aranka Project: RXN Block Model Gold Trend Analysis

Num. Samples

3m Comps Mean

Blocks Mean

Figure 17.9 RXS Block Model vs. 3m Composites Trend Analysis Chart

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2175

50

2175

75

2176

00

2176

25

2176

50

2176

75

2177

00

2177

25

2177

50

2177

75

2178

00

2178

25

2178

50

2178

75

2179

00

2179

25

2179

50

2179

75

2180

00

2180

25

2180

50

Num

ber o

f Sam

ples

Au

g/t

Easting

Aranka Project: RXS Block Model Gold Trend Analysis

Num. Samples

3m Comps Mean

Blocks Mean

62

In the charts above it can seen that the block model curve follows the informing sample curve reasonably closely. The exception is in Figure 17.9 where there is a small apparent bias of results from easting 217550 to 217675 due relative lack of data. Therefore, locally, the block mean is weighted by composites somewhat further away. This is not atypical of inferred resources and in this instance is one of the reasons the resources have been classified as such. Conclusions Micon considers the results of the confirmation studies to be acceptable for an inferred resource. 17.4 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ESTIMATION The estimate of the mineral resources for the Sulphur Rose deposit presented in this report was prepared by Mr. Alan J. San Martin, MAusIMM, with technical input from B. Terrence Hennessey, P.Geo., and under the overall direction of Mr. Hennessey. The Whittle pit optimization was performed by Micon’s open pit mining engineer, Mr. Sam Shoemaker, MAusIMM. Messrs. Hennessey, San Martin and Shoemaker are qualified persons as defined in NI 43-101, and are independent of Guyana Goldfields.

18.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION All relevant data and information in regard to the exploration activities at, and information required to support the disclosure of, a mineral resource estimate for the Sulphur Rose deposit at Guyana Goldfields’ Aranka project are included in other sections of this report.

19.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS The exploration work completed by Guyana Goldfields has demonstrated the existence of an orogenic style gold deposit at the Aranka property in north-central Guyana that has been named Sulphur Rose. Since acquiring the Aranka property Guyana Goldfields has completed some 67 drill holes on, and dug 10 trenches over the deposit. This has resulted in the discovery of a quartz-sericite-carbonate-pyrite altered shear zone in a package of clastic sediments intruded by dioritic to granodioritic intrusives. Initial sampling of the deposit indicates that its grade is potentially economic under an open pit mining scenario. The work completed by Guyana Goldfields has resulted in sufficient drill sample density, and confidence in the geological interpretation, for Micon to reasonably estimate an inferred mineral resource for Sulphur Rose. Micon has now performed that estimate. In the process of completing the estimate, Micon has interpreted the available data and come to the following conclusions:

63

• Based on a nominal 50-m spaced sectional drilling pattern, a reasonably large zone of potentially economic gold mineralization, approximately 650 m long has been identified.

• Guyana Goldfields’ QA/QC program lends sufficient confidence to the assay data

generated for it to be used in a resource estimate.

• Outlier values in the gold and silver assay population have been analyzed and top cuts were applied. However, the assay data are well enough behaved that only a limited number of samples were capped.

• Drilling has not yet found the bottom of the zone and it may also remain open to the east.

• The resources were estimated using inverse distance cubed interpolation, except for the

South Fresh Rock domain which was Kriged. Based on the 50-m spaced drilling, the resources have been classified as inferred under the CIM guidelines. They were reported using a Whittle optimized pit shell or at an underground cut-off grade after leaving a 30-m pillar below the pit.

The resulting estimate of in-situ mineral resources for the Sulphur Rose deposit is presented in Table 19.1 below.

Table 19.1 Estimated Inferred Mineral Resources for Sulphur Rose

Tonnes Au Grade

(g/t) Contained Au

(oz) Open Pit1 6,366,000 1.99 407,300 Underground2 487,000 3.39 53,100 Total 6,853,000 2.09 460,400


64

Given the early stage of exploration, and the success of discovering and completing initial definition of a deposit in less than two years, the exploration potential of the Aranka project must be considered to be high. There is the possibility that there may be stacked lenses at depth on portions of the zones or other zones along strike or nearby. Therefore, further exploration has the potential to increase the current resources. Drilling has also identified potentially economic grades of gold mineralization at depth where underground mining would be required. This mineralization will require further exploration to determine its extent and potential impact in materially affecting any future mineral resource estimates for the Aranka project. Micon believes that the presence of the Sulphur Rose deposit and the pork knocker alluvial workings located on the Aranka Property indicate that the property has the potential to host several additional, potentially economic mineral zones.

20.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Guyana Goldfields has made a potentially important discovery of an orogenic gold deposit at its Aranka project in north-central Guyana. In light of this Micon makes the following recommendations.

• Based on the results of the mineral resource estimate presented herein it is Micon’s opinion that Guyana Goldfields will be justified in proceeding with further exploration of the Sulphur Rose deposit.

• Additional exploration of the other property held in the area is also justified.

• Infill drilling should be completed on the known 650-m extent of the Sulphur Rose deposit. The limited variography which could be completed on the information available at this time indicates that drilling on 25-m spaced sections will be required. And a slightly greater density may be needed down dip.

As a result of the successful drilling program conducted at Sulphur Rose during 2010, Guyana Goldfields has proposed additional exploration for the project. The previous exploration has resulted in the delineation of a potentially economic gold deposit and the estimation of a mineral resource as described in Sections 17 and 19 above. Guyana Goldfields’ exploration team have a proposed a program of 20,000 m of diamond drilling and 26 trenches to infill and define the saprolite and fresh rock mineralization at the Sulphur Rose deposit so that its mineral resources may be upgraded to a higher confidence category than inferred.

65

A budget of CDN$3.3 million is estimated to be required for this work as set out in Table 20.1 below.

Table 20.1 Proposed Sulphur Rose Exploration Budget

Category Comments Budget

($CDN) Drilling 20,000 m 2,000,000 Trenching 26 trenches 100,000 Analyses of core and geochemical samples 500,000 Technical Staff Overhead 5 geologists 500,000 Camp, maintenance, admin, expenses Includes labour 200,000 Total 3,300,000

Micon has reviewed the proposed exploration program in a meeting with the Guyana Goldfields exploration geologists and finds it to be reasonable and justified. Should it fit with Guyana Goldfields management’s strategic goals it is Micon’s recommendation that the company conduct the proposed exploration program. The data used in the preparation of this report are current as of December 2, 2010. The mineral resource estimate presented is current as of December 31, 2010. MICON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED “B. Terrence Hennessey” {signed and sealed} “Alan J. San Martin” {signed and sealed} B. Terrence Hennessey, P.Geo. Ing. Alan J. San Martin, MAusIMM Vice President, Mineral Resource Modeller Micon International Limited Micon International Limited February 14, 2011 February 14, 2011 “Sam J. Shoemaker” {signed and sealed} Sam J. Shoemaker Senior Mining Engineer Micon International Limited February 14, 2011

66

21.0 REFERENCES Huaraz, R. and Dymov, I., 2011. An Investigation of the Recovery of Gold From the Sulphur Rose Property Sample. A report prepared by SGS Mineral Services for Guyana Goldfields Inc. Lloyd, J.W., 1959, Report on the Geology of the Ipuri and Rupa Creeks, Cuyuni River: Geological Survey of British Guiana Report, unpub. MacDonald, J. R., 1968. A Guide To Mineral Exploration in Guyana: Geological Survey of Guyana Bulletin 38, 91 p. Pena, J., 2010. Sulphur Rose QA/QC Program Update 24-Nov-2010. An internal report for Guyana Goldfields Inc., 4 p. Schandl, E. S., 2010. Petrographic and Mineralogical Study of Drill Cored from the Sulphur Rose Property, Aranka Project, Guyana: Consultant Report for Guyana Goldfields Inc., unpub. www.climatetemp.info/guyana/, 2011. Average temperature and climate data for Georgetown, Guyana. http://www.ggmc.gov.gy/lm.html#appminlicgy, 2011. Application for Mineral Properties in Guyana. www.jetsetnow.com, 2011. Magellan Geographic map of South America. Voicu, G., Jebrak, M. B. M., Crepeau, R., 1999. Structural, mineralogical, and Geochemical Studies of the Paleoprotezoic Omai Gold Deposit, Guyana: Economic Geology, v. 94, p. 1277-1304.

CERTIFICATE

B. TERRENCE HENNESSEY As author of a portion of this report on certain mineral properties of Guyana Goldfields Inc. in north-central Guyana, I, B. Terrence Hennessey, P.Geo., do hereby certify that: 1. I am employed by, and carried out this assignment for:

Micon International Limited Suite 900, 390 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y2 tel. (416) 362-5135 fax (416) 362-5763 e-mail [email protected]

2. I hold the following academic qualifications: B.Sc. (Geology) McMaster University 1978 3. I am a registered Professional Geoscientist with the Association of Professional

Geoscientists of Ontario (membership # 0038); as well, I am a member in good standing of several other technical associations and societies, including:

The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (Member) The Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (Member). 4. I have worked as a geologist in the minerals industry for over 30 years. 5. I do, by reason of education, experience and professional registration, fulfill the

requirements of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. My work experience includes 7 years as an exploration geologist looking for iron ore, gold, base metal and tin deposits, more than 11 years as a mine geologist in both open pit and underground mines and 14 years as a consulting geologist working in precious, ferrous and base metals as well as industrial minerals.

6. I visited the Guyana and the Aranka project during the period September 13 to 16,

2010 to review the results of exploration at site. 7. I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 1 to 16, 17 (portions) and 18 to 21 of

the Technical Report titled “A Mineral Resource Estimate for the Sulphur Rose Deposit, the Aranka Property Group, North-Central Guyana” and dated February 14, 2011.

8. I am independent of the parties involved in the transaction for which this report is

required, as defined in Section 1.4 of NI 43-101. 9. I have had no prior involvement with the mineral properties in question. 10. I have read NI 43-101 and the portions of this report for which I am responsible have

been prepared in compliance with the instrument. 11. 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 this report not misleading.

Dated this 14th day of February, 2011

“B. Terrence Hennessey” {signed and sealed}

B. Terrence Hennessey, P.Geo.

CERTIFICATE

Ing. Alan J. San Martin, MAusIMM As one of the authors of this report on the Aranka Property of Guyana Goldfields Inc., located in north-central Guyana, Canada, I, Alan J. San Martin do hereby certify that:

1) I am employed as a Mineral Resource Modeller by Micon International Limited, Suite 900, 390 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y2,

tel. (416) 362-5135, fax (416) 362-5763, e-mail [email protected];

2) I hold a Bachelor Degree in Mining Engineering (equivalent to B.Sc.) from the

National University of Piura, Peru, 1999;

3) I am a member in good standing with the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (Membership #301778), and I am a registered Engineer with the Colegio de Ingenieros del Peru (CIP) Membership # 79184;

4) I have worked as a mining engineer in the mineral industry for 12 years;

5) I am familiar with NI 43-101 and, by reason of education, experience and

professional registration in the AusIMM, I fulfill the requirements of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. My work experience includes 5 years as mining engineer in an exploration project in Peru, 3 years as Resource Modeller and data base manager at an exploration project in Ecuador, 1 year as Senior Geological Modeller and Database Manager and 2 years as Mineral Resource Modeller in mining consulting. For the purposes of this report my work on the resource estimate was supervised by B. Terrance Hennessey;

6) I have not visited the Aranka Property;

7) I have not conducted any previous work on the Aranka Property;

8) 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 this report not misleading I have read the NI 43-101 Instrument and this Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with this Instrument.;

9) I am independent of the parties involved in the Aranka Property, other than providing

consulting services;

10) I assisted in the preparation of Sections 14.2.2 and 17 of this Technical Report dated February 14, 2011 and entitled “A Mineral Resource Estimate for the Sulphur Rose Deposit, the Aranka Property Group, North-Central Guyana”.

Dated this 14 day of February, 2011 “Alan J. San Martin” {signed} Ing. Alan J. San Martin, MAusIMM Mineral Resource Modeller, Micon International Limited

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

SAM SHOEMAKER

As a co-author of this report entitled “A Mineral Resource Estimate for the Sulphur Rose Deposit, the Aranka Property Group, North-Central Guyana”, dated February 14, 2010, I, Sam J. Shoemaker, Jr. do hereby certify that:

1. I am employed as a Senior Mining Engineer by, and carried out this assignment for, Micon International Limited, Suite 900, 390 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y2, tel. (416) 362-5135, fax (416) 362-5763, e-mail [email protected].

2. I hold the following academic qualifications:

B.Sc. (Mine Engineer) Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology 1983

3. I am a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101.

4. I am a member of Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (Member Number

229733); as well, I am a member in good standing of other technical associations and societies, including the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.

5. I have worked as a mining engineer in the minerals industry for 28 years. My experience

includes resource estimation, mine development, open pit production, environmental compliance, financial evaluation, mine commissioning, long and short range mine planning, and open pit optimization with a variety of deposit types including gold, silver, copper, zinc, lead, uranium, nickel, platinum-group metals, iron, and industrial minerals.

6. I am responsible for section 17.3.1 of this report.

7. I am independent of the issuer for which this report is required, other than providing

consulting services.

8. I have had no prior involvement with the mineral property in question and have not visited it.

9. I have read the Instrument and that the technical report is prepared in compliance with the Instrument.

10. 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 this Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 14th day of February, 2011 “Sam Shoemaker” {signed} Sam J. Shoemaker, Jr., MAusIMM

Documents

Guyana Gold Sulphur Rose Resource Estimate Final · · 2016-08-16CIM Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy cm centimetre(s) Co cobalt Cu copper ... and the contained Sulphur