Pampalo February 2009 Resource Estimate - · PDF fileThe resource estimate complies with recommendations in the Australasian Code for ... • A Surpac block model was used for the

RUNGE L IMITED abn 17 010 672 321

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE PAMPALO GOLD DEPOSIT

FINLAND

Endomines Oy

February, 2009

Runge Limited Endomines Oy Pampalo Resource Report

Mineral Resource Estimate Pampalo Gold Deposit

Finland

Runge Limited (Perth), Level 3,

251 Adelaide Terrace, Perth WA 6000

www.runge.com.au

February 2009

Compiled by: Peer Review by:

Jeremy Clark Paul Payne

Senior Consulting Geologist Principal Geologist

Authors:

Jeremy Clark


Page ii

Executive Summary

A Mineral Resource estimate for the Pampalo Gold (Au) Deposit was completed during February 2009 by Runge Limited (Runge) for Endomines Oy (EO). The deposit is located approximately 430km north-east of Helsinki, Finland.

The deposit comprises three main parallel lodes hosted within a sub-vertical shear zone developed within highly deformed mafic and ultramafic lithologies of the Archaean Ilomantsi Greenstone Belt. Mineralisation within the three main lodes (South, Central and North) form long narrow shoots plunging at approximately 40o to the north. The lodes are typically 5-8m wide but vary from less than 1m to up to 15m in width. The lodes comprise silicified, foliated zones with biotite and feldspar alteration with pyrite and scheelite as the dominant sulphide minerals.

Two resource models were prepared for the deposit. Initially constraining wireframes were prepared using a 2g/t Au cutoff grade. These were then adjusted to a 1g/t Au cutoff grade. Separate block models were prepared for each.

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

Table A: Pampalo Deposit February 2009 Resource Estimate 2g/t Au Cutoff Model Measured Indicated Inferred Total

Lode Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Au t g/t t g/t t g/t t g/t Oz

South 44,000 10.2 79,000 9.5 80,000 5.6 203,000 8.1 53,000 Central 134,000 8.4 182,000 4.3 71,000 5.6 387,000 6.0 74,000 North 130,000 4.5 308,000 4.4 93,000 3.1 530,000 4.2 72,000 Other 14,000 5.1 14,000 5.1 2,000

Stockpile 22,000 4.0 22,000 4.0 3,000 Total 308,000 7.0 591,000 5.1 257,000 4.7 1,157,000 5.5 204,000

Table B: Pampalo Deposit February 2009 Resource Estimate 1g/t Au Cutoff Model Measured Indicated Inferred Total

Lode Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Au t g/t t g/t t g/t t g/t Oz


Stockpile 22,000 4.0 22,000 4.0 3,000 Total 368,000 6.1 673,000 4.7 306,000 4.1 1,348,000 4.9 214,000

The deposit was discovered during regional exploration work by the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK). GTK drilled a number of surface holes before the project was acquired by Outokumpu Oy. Outokumpu drilled a substantial number of surface holes, excavated the open pit and commenced decline development. Underground drilling was completed from the decline and some trial stoping was carried out.


Page iii

The project was then acquired by Polar Mining Oy before being purchased by EO. EO extended the decline and carried out another substantial underground drilling program in 2008.

The resource estimates are based largely on underground diamond drilling. Surface diamond drilling has defined the shallower portion of the deposit, much of which has been mined by open pit and the trial underground mining. A small number of surface holes are also included to define the deeper portions of the deposit below the extent of the underground drilling.

The reported resources at Pampalo extend over a vertical extent of some 750m, from below the natural surface of -45mRL, however previous open pit mining has been carried out to a depth of 30m. The trial stoping is located above 70m vertical depth.

Samples within the wireframes were composited to even 2.0m intervals. High grade cuts of 80g/t, for the South and 100g/t for the Central Lodes were applied to the composited data for both cut offs. The North lode did not require the application of a high grade cut.

The resource estimates were completed using Ordinary Kriging (OK) interpolations inside the wireframes defined largely by elevated Au grades. The Au distribution appears remarkably even for a deposit of this tenor.

Runge conducted data validation of a portion of the drilling database and completed a site visit to the project. All data and site procedures were found to be in good order and the work carried out by EO and Outokumpu was of a consistently high standard.

Approximately 29% of the deposit for both models was classified as Measured Mineral Resource due to the close spaced drilling (10m sections), the excellent continuity of the mineralisation and the good reconciliation between the previous resource estimates and the trial mining areas. Approximately 53% of the deposit was classified as Indicated Mineral Resource due to the good continuity of the main mineralised structures, and the use of 20m spaced core drilling used to define the resource. The poorly defined depth extensions of the deposit and the small, discontinuous zones of mineralisation comprising the Other Lodes was classified as Inferred Mineral Resource.

The Pampalo deposit appears to have excellent potential for underground mining. Some potential also exists for a small open pit mine. It is recommended that underground mine design and evaluation be carried out using the Runge resource estimate. The resource model is undiluted, so appropriate dilution needs to be incorporated in any evaluation of the deposit.

Jeremy Clark

Senior Consultant Geologist


Page iv

Pampalo Deposit February 2009 Mineral Resource Statement 2g/t Cutoff Grade

Category Tonnes Au g/t Au Ounces Measured 308,000 7.0 70,000 Indicated 591,000 5.1 96,000 Inferred 257,000 4.7 39,000 Total 1,157,000 5.5 204,000

1g/t Cutoff Grade Category Tonnes Au g/t Au Ounces Measured 368,000 6.1 72,000 Indicated 673,000 4.7 101,000 Inferred 306,000 4.1 41,000 Total 1,348,000 4.9 214,000

Both resource estimates were completed using the following parameters:

• The Pampalo resource extends over a strike length of 810m (from 4,970mN to 5,780mN) and includes the 480m interval from the base of till at -60mRL to -540mRL.

• Drill holes used in the resource estimates included 407 underground core holes and 25 surface holes for a total of 20,414m of drilling. Holes were drilled at 10m spacings on 10m spaced cross sections in the shallower portion of the deposit, and 20m-40m spacing for the remainder.

• Core was generally 42mm in diameter. For the majority of holes, full core was sampled with intervals defined by geological boundaries.

• Samples from all holes were analysed at the VVT laboratory in Outokumpu, Finland using the fire assay technique.

• Quality control data was available. Results were reviewed by Runge and were found to be satisfactory.

• Drill hole collars have been surveyed using standard survey equipment. Down hole surveys using Maxibor equipment were available for most of the deeper surface drill holes and for the small number of underground holes greater than 100m in length had down hole surveys. The majority of underground holes did not have down hole surveys.

• Two sets of wireframes were constructed by preparing cross sectional interpretations of the individual lodes based on a combination of geological boundaries, sulphide content and 1.0g/t and 2.0g/t cutoff grades.

• Samples within the wireframes were composited to even 2.0m intervals. High grade cuts of 80g/t, for the South and 100g/t for the Central Lodes were applied to the composited data for both cut offs. The North lode did not require the application of a high grade cut.

• A Surpac block model was used for the estimate with a block size of 5m NS by 2m EW by 5m vertical with sub-cells of 2.5m by 1.0m by 2.5m.

• OK interpolation with an oriented ellipsoidal search was used. A first pass long axis radius of 40m, 45m and 55m for South, Central and North Lodes respectively. The same radius was used for the second pass but the minimum


Page v

number of samples was decreased from 10 to 5. A third and final pass used a radius double the second and a minimum number of samples of 2.

• A bulk density value of 2.70t/m3 was applied to all lodes and was derived from measurements on drill core.

• Approximately 29% of the deposit for both models was classified as Measured Mineral Resource due to the close spaced drilling (10m sections), the excellent continuity of the mineralisation and the good reconciliation between the previous resource estimates and the trial mining areas. Approximately 53% of the deposit was classified as Indicated Mineral Resource due to the good continuity of the main mineralised structures, and the use of 20m spaced core drilling used to define the resource. The poorly defined depth extensions of the deposit and the small, discontinuous zones of mineralisation comprising the Other Lodes was classified as Inferred Mineral Resource.


Page vi

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

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

Responsibility

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

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

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

Table of Contents


Page vii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ii 1. Introduction and Project Summary.................................................................................................1

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

2. Geology and Mineralisation (Italicised Text is Summarised from Sandberg, 1996) ...................3 3. Mining Status...................................................................................................................................5 4. Previous Estimates..........................................................................................................................6 5. Runge Site Visit ...............................................................................................................................7 6. Sample Data....................................................................................................................................9

6.1. General .................................................................................................................................9 6.2. Sampling and Assaying Procedures.................................................................................10 6.3. Quality Control....................................................................................................................10 6.4. Collar and Down Hole surveys..........................................................................................12 6.5. Data Excluded From Estimate...........................................................................................12

7. Database Verification....................................................................................................................12 8. Resource Estimate........................................................................................................................14

8.1. Geology and Resource Interpretation...............................................................................14 8.2. Sample Statistics................................................................................................................14

8.2.1. General ..........................................................................................................................14 8.2.2. Deposit Statistics ...........................................................................................................15 8.2.3. High Grade Cuts............................................................................................................17

8.3. Geostatistical Analysis .......................................................................................................18 8.3.1. General ..........................................................................................................................18 8.3.2. Results ...........................................................................................................................18 8.3.3. Discussion of Results....................................................................................................20

8.4. Block Model ........................................................................................................................20 8.5. Grade Interpolation.............................................................................................................21 8.6. Bulk Density........................................................................................................................21 8.7. Resource Classification .....................................................................................................22 8.8. Results ................................................................................................................................24

8.8.1. General ..........................................................................................................................24 8.9. Model Validation.................................................................................................................26

9. Conclusion and Recommendations.............................................................................................28 10. References ..............................................................................................................................29 11. Compliance Certificate............................................................................................................30

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Pampalo February 2009 Resource Tables

Appendix 2: Holes Excluded from Estimate

Appendix 3: Variogram Plots

Appendix 4: Resource Validation Tables

Appendix 5: Surpac String File Descriptions


Page 1 February 2009

1. Introduction and Project Summary

1.1. General

Runge Limited (Runge) was contracted by Endomines Oy (EO) to prepare a resource estimate for the Pampalo gold deposit. The deposit is located 430 kilometres northeast of Helsinki in eastern Finland (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. Location Diagram of Pampalo Project

Data used for the resource estimate was provided by EO and included a database of surface and underground drill holes, surface and underground workings, interpreted geological features and previous resource interpretations. The resource area and drilling at the deposit is shown in Figure 1.2.

Pampalo



Figure 1.2. Pampalo Deposit- All Drilling, Workings and Resource Wireframes.

The current resource estimate was completed in the Runge Perth office during February 2009. The Runge work included a site visit, preparation of resource interpretations, geostatistical analysis of the data and block model estimation. Validation of selected drill hole data was also carried out.

Surpac Mining software was used for all modelling and estimation procedures. Supervisor software was used for statistical and geostatistical analysis.

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

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

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

Mr Paul Payne (Runge Manager WA Mining Consulting) responsible for project management, auditing of Mineral Resource Estimate and Competent Person sign off. Mr Payne carried out a site visit to Pampalo in November 2008.

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



2. Geology and Mineralisation (Italicised Text is Summarised from

Sandberg, 1996)

The Pampalo Deposit occurs within the Archaean Ilomantsi Greenstone belt of the Hattu Schist belt of south-eastern Finland. Little outcrop occurs in the area of the deposit which is covered by an extensive blanket of glacial till typically 5-10m thick. In the vicinity of the deposit, four different rock formations have been delineated. The lowermost formations (Sivakkojoki, Hosko and Tiittalanvaara) are mainly composed of feldspar-rich sediments and conglomerate layers which represent local re-deposited felsic volcanics.

The uppermost Pampalo Formation is composed of heterogeneous, highly deformed, mainly mafic and ultramafic volcanics intruded by variably deformed, porphyritic, tonalite dykes. Between mafic and ultramafic sequences is an andesitic tuff horizon which is the host rock to the main gold mineralisation. The host unit has been deformed to a strongly sheared, quartz-plagioclase rich rock, with varying amounts of biotite and chlorite and abundant quartz veining (+- tourmaline).

The major structural feature of the Pampalo area is a series of branching and converging shear zones, generally striking SW-NE and dipping 50-70o to the NW. Within part of the shear zone gold mineralisation has developed within a strongly sheared, hydrothermally altered intermediate schist. Gold is generally in native form, typically occurring on grain boundaries of pyrite, but also between silicate minerals and intergrown with tellurides, galena, chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite. Scheelite also occurs with the gold mineralisation.

The overall deposit comprises a series of parallel, elongate flattened pipes plunging at 30-40o NNE parallel to the strong local mineral lineation. The dip of the lodes is vertical.

The lodes are generally 4-10m wide, typically 30-50m in height and have been defined down plunge for over 600m. The overall deposit geometry is shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Long Section Projection of Pampalo Lodes, Workings and Drill Holes

High grade gold mineralisation is concentrated in three main structural positions termed the Southern Lode, Central Lode and Northern Lode. Other minor mineralisation also



occurs outside the main lode positions. The Southern and Central Lodes maintain a uniform geometry and are very consistent. However the Northern Lode appears to be more erratic and comprises a series of less continuous pods.



3. Mining Status

Details of mining activities were documented in Anttonen, 2000 and the following information is summarised from that report.

Trial mining of the deposit was carried out utilising both open pit and underground methods. The pit was mined between 1996 and 1998 and extended to a depth of approximately 30m. A decline commenced in 1997 and was completed from the base of the pit to a vertical depth of 272m (-324mRL). In addition, a series of hangingwall drives, and several cross cuts were mined. The main purpose of the decline and drives was to provide access for detailed drilling of the deposit, however two small stoping areas were also mined from the decline.

The decline was extended by EO in 2008 to -414mRL. The extent of the workings is shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1. Pit and Decline at Pampalo Project (Looking West) Production details for the previous mining was reported in Sandberg, 2003a. The details are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Ore Previously Mined at Pampalo Deposit Year Mined Cutoff Grade Tonnes Grade g/t Gold (kg)

1996 Pit 1.5g/t 27,500 14.9 408 1998 Pit & UG 2.0g/t 31,800 16.6 528

1999 UG 2.5g/t 56,127 14.7 827 Total 115,427 15.3 1,763

Stope Outlines



4. Previous Estimates

Previous resource estimates have been completed by Wardell Armstrong International (WAI), ResEval (now Runge) and Outokumpu. The estimates were completed by Paul Payne and Esa Sandberg in 2004 and 1999 (respectively). All estimates were selective models created using a strict 2g/t cutoff grade to define the resource outlines. A summary of procedures can be found in Payne, 2004 and WAI 2008.

A summary of the results of the previous estimate and a comparison with the Runge estimate is shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Comparison of Runge Estimate and Previous Resource Estimate

Estimate Tonnes Au g/t Au Oz

Outokumpu 2.5g/t Au COG Ind and Inf 915,000 6.9 202,000 ResEval 2004 OK 2g/t Au COG (Meas, Ind and Inf) 861,000 7.0 193,000

WAI 2008 OK 2g/t Au COG (Meas, Ind, Inf) 1,117,000 5.5 196,000 Runge 2009 OK 2g/t Au COG (Meas, Ind , Inf) 1,153,000 5.5 204,000

The Runge estimate compares very well with the 2008 Wardell Armstrong estimate. This was expected given the well defined, consistent nature of the mineralisation and the similar estimation methods.



5. Runge Site Visit

A initial site visit was carried out in April 2004 with a second site visit carried out during the final stages of the EO underground drilling program in November 2008. Both site visits were carried out by Paul Payne. The purpose of the first visit in 2004 was to allow a clear understanding of the geological setting of the deposit, confirm the nature of the mineralisation, verify the extent of workings and understand the general layout of the project area. The second visit was carried out in 2008 towards the end of the EO drilling program. A review of the regional setting of the project was conducted. It commenced with a review of the Ramepuro deposit area. The small trial pit was filled with groundwater, so exposures were limited, however the mineralised zone was clearly visible in the pit rim, and in outcrops immediately north of the pit. Sedimentary and volcanoclastic host rocks were evident, with a porphyritic intrusive also occurring in the mineralised zone. At the Pampalo area, inspections were carried out of the pit area, the underground workings and outcrops on the eastern side of the pit area. The pit exposures were viewed from the crest of the pit. It was clear that ultramafic lithologies formed much of the eastern wall. The intensely sheared nature of the ultramafics had resulted in unstable ground conditions in the eastern wall. The andesite host lithology was more competent and allowed steep wall angles to be achieved with good stability. Pit walls are shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Pampalo Pit From East Side Looking South



The underground inspection confirmed the presence of a substantial decline development. The profile of the decline was approximately 5m by 5m for the full extent. Ground conditions throughout the decline were excellent. The mineralised zone was exposed in a number of cross cuts and comprised a highly foliated silicified and pyritic zone with sharp boundaries with the weakly mineralised andesitic country rock. Abundant scheelite could be observed with the use of a UV light. The mineralisation clearly formed a well defined, tabular zone with consistent geometry. In some areas the boundary with the ultramafic footwall was observed. It was clear that the ultramafic rock was highly foliated with generally low rock strength. Drill hole collars were obvious in the walls of the decline. No attempt was made to correlate observed positions with database record, but fans of holes at 10m northing intervals were observed.



6. Sample Data

6.1. General

A drilling database containing all drill holes in the Pampalo deposit area was provided to Runge by EO. The data was well organised with no obvious errors.

The full database contained records for 759 drill holes, with the majority in close proximity to the resource area. In addition a number of trench and face sampling records were included. A plan of the resource area and drill hole locations is shown in Figures 6.1.

Figure 6.1. Resource Outlines (2g/t) and All Drilling in Pampalo Area

A summary of the drilling data within the resource area is shown in Table 6.1. The underground drilling has been completed by EO and Outokumpu. The majority of the surface holes were completed by Outokumpu while the remaining surface holes were drilled by the Geological Survey of Finland between 1990 and1995.

In Resource Project Drill Holes Intersection Hole Type Number Metres Number Metres Metres

Surface Diamond 214 26,014 25 2,400 172 Underground Diamond 535 30,958 407 17,916 3,014

Face 10 117 10 98 63 Total 759 57,089 442 20,414 3,249

Table 6.1. Summary of Pampalo Drilling



6.2. Sampling and Assaying Procedures

The following details of sampling and assaying procedures are summarised from Sandberg, 2003b.

Core from surface drilling was sampled by cutting the core in half with a diamond saw. Whole core sampling was carried out for the underground drilling. In all cases, sample intervals were determined by geological contacts, and were generally less than 3m with a median length of 1.4m. Core size was mainly T56 (core diameter 42mm) with some T76 drilling (core diameter 57mm).

Sample preparation was carried out for most samples at the VTT (State Technical Research Centre) laboratory in Outokumpu. More recent samples were prepared by private contractor using the VTT equipment and procedures.

Sample preparation involved the following:

• Crushing of entire sample in a jaw crusher • Grinding of entire sample using a plate crusher • Sample then split to 150-200g using a bottle separator • 150-200g sample pulverised using Herzog HSM100P mill

Analysis was carried out at the VTT laboratory using the fire assay method. A 40g charge was used with gravimetric grade determination.

6.3. Quality Control

Both EO and Outokumpu conducted a program of QA and QC sampling as part of the evaluation program. Procedures and results from the Outokumpu work are documented in Sandberg, 2003b. The program involved the following:

• Sieve analysis of 6 samples • 50 samples selected for half core duplicates. • Above 50 samples also used to prepare duplicates from pulverised samples. • Above 50 samples also used to prepare samples for analysis by independent

laboratory • Another 100 samples were used to prepare duplicates from crushed samples.

These were analysed at VTT and at an independent laboratory In summary, all check analyses showed excellent repeatability between both crushed samples and pulverised samples. The detailed results of the independent laboratory analysis were not included in the Sandberg reports however summary statistics suggest that the results matched very well with those of the VTT laboratory. A substantial QAQC program was also carried out by EO in 2008. This involved the insertion of prepared standards, and a program of inter-laboratory check assaying. The



results were satisfactory and confirmed the integrity of the data analysis. Results a presented graphically in

Standard results

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Standard order

Au

ppm

Blank SI 15 SN 16 SP 17

Figure 6.2 Endomines Standards Analysis

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Labtium Au-AAS g/t

ALS

A

u-A

AS

g/t

Figure 6.3 Endomines Inter-laboratory Check Analysis



6.4. Collar and Down Hole surveys All drill hole collars (surface and underground) were surveyed by EO and Outokumpu personnel using conventional total station survey equipment. Holes drilled by the GSF were down hole surveyed for dip only. Deep surface holes drilled by Outokumpu and the few underground holes greater than 100m in length had dip and azimuth surveys. Maxibor equipment was used for the down hole surveys. Underground holes less than 100m in length were not down hole surveyed. The collar azimuths were determined by inserting into the drill hole a survey rod with an upper and lower survey prism attached. The prisms were then surveyed and a dip and azimuth generated from the respective positions of the prisms.

6.5. Data Excluded From Estimate

The majority of surface drill holes were excluded from the estimate due to better orientated underground drilling data being available. The face data was also excluded due to the dubious nature of the samples. A total of 214 holes and 10 faces were excluded from the estimate.

7. Database Verification

To verify the drill hole data in the database, a selection of 22 holes representing approximately 5% of the resource data were chosen for validation in 2004. A further 9 holes were selected from the 2008 EO program. The selected holes are listed in Table 7.1.

Original assay records were not available from EO, so analysis results were requested from the GTK laboratory in Outokumpu. Original collar surveys were not located, however a spreadsheet reported to represent initial data entry of survey records was provided by EO staff. This also included collar orientations determined from the collar survey.

All original assay, collar and downhole survey records were checked against the database entries. No errors were identified so it was concluded that the database integrity is good.

Table 7.1. Holes Selected for Database Validation



Hole_Number Collar DH_Survey Assay t-57 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-61 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-70 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-82 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-86 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-94 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-96 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes

t-102 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-107 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-118 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-130 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-143 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-168 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-176 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-181 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-200 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-216 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-220 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-323 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-329 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-393 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-399 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-462 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-461 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-478 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-477 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-475 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-474 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-507 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-445 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes t-446 Yes Collar Setup Only Yes



8. Resource Estimate

8.1. Geology and Resource Interpretation

Outokumpu had previously prepared cross sectional outlines of the resource zones and the andesite host lithology. These outlines were exported from the Minenet software in DXF format and imported into the Surpac software. They were used as a guide to the overall geometry for construction of the new resource outlines. Two sets of resource outlines were constructed by Runge on east-west cross sections at 10m intervals using a combination of grade and geological features. The western contact of the sediments and andesite, and the eastern contact with the ultramafic both served as geometric controls on the resource wireframes. To define the resource intersections, two nominal cutoff grades of 1g/t and 2g/t were used. In most cases there was a very clear boundary between weakly mineralised and strongly mineralised material. In some areas it was necessary to include material below the cutoff grade to define the mineralised zone and to maintain continuity of structure. The envelopes comprised numerous separate pods as shown in Figure 8.1. Each of the pods in the wireframes were used as a hard boundary for grade interpolation.

Figure 8.1. Long section View of Pampalo Resource Zone Wireframes (Looking West)

8.2. Sample Statistics

8.2.1. General

The wireframes of the mineralised zones were used to code the database to allow identification of the resource intersections. Separate intersection files were generated for each object. The samples inside the resource wireframes were then extracted to allow analysis of the various sample lengths. While the greatest frequency of sample length was the 1.5m intervals, a large number of samples were greater than 1.5m with a substantial number of samples up to 2.5m in length as shown in Figure 8.2. The value of 2m was chosen as the appropriate interval for compositing.

North Lode

South Lode

Central Lode



Distribution of Raw Samples Lengths

050

100150200250300350400450500

0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 MoreSample Length

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 8.2. Distribution of Raw Sample Lengths in Pampalo Resource

Surpac software was then used to extract downhole composites within the intervals coded as resource intersections. All holes were composited to 2m down hole intervals. The composites were checked for spatial correlation with the objects, the location of the rejected composites, and zero composite values. Individual composite files were created for each object in the wireframe models.

8.2.2. Deposit Statistics

The composite sample data for the deposit was grouped into the main mineralised zones, and then imported into Supervisor software for analysis. Summary statistics are shown in Table 8.1 and 8.2.



Descriptive Domain Statistics South Central North Other Samples 271 727 631 8 Minimum 0.15 0.10 0.04 0.82 Maximum 293.18 207.37 40.13 8.4

Mean 14.69 11.48 4.30 4.94 Standard deviation 30.4 21.7 4.3 3.22

CV 2.1 1.9 1.0 0.65 Variance 924.4 468.9 18.5 10.37

Percentiles 10% 1.62 1.67 1.31 1.22 20% 2.16 2.34 1.82 1.41 30% 2.67 2.99 2.20 1.67 40% 3.34 3.84 2.65 2.8 50% 4.64 4.96 3.10 3.82 60% 6.28 6.26 3.65 4.83 70% 8.95 8.59 4.28 4.89 80% 15.36 12.35 5.36 7.27 90% 36.34 23.31 8.41 7.92 95% 59.54 46.57 12.38 8.4

97.50% 111.56 75.57 15.66 8.4 99% 145.10 120.53 21.57 8.4 Cut 80 100 none none

Table 8.1. Descriptive Statistics For 2g/t Wireframe By Domain 2m Composites. Descriptive Domain Statistics South Central North Other Samples 310 800 755 11 Minimum 0.15 0.10 0.04 0.82 Maximum 293.18 207.37 40.13 8.4

Mean 13.20 10.50 3.87 4.09 Standard deviation 28.45 20.74 4.08 2.8

CV 2.16 1.98 1.05 0.68 Variance 809.57 430.33 16.65 7.82

Percentiles 10% 1.50 1.41 1.13 0.82 20% 1.90 2.00 1.56 1.71 30% 2.39 2.60 1.90 2.8 40% 2.92 3.30 2.23 3.82 50% 4.04 4.43 2.72 4.83 60% 5.38 5.70 3.30 4.83 70% 7.82 7.49 3.98 7.92 80% 13.40 11.52 4.98 8.4 90% 31.13 21.64 7.48 9.24 95% 60.77 40.74 10.30 9.24

97.50% 88.21 64.85 14.91 9.24 99% 131.61 112.36 21.55 9.24 Cut 80 100 none none

Table 8.2. Descriptive Statistics For 1g/t Wireframe By Domain 2m Composites.



The composite data was imported into Supervisor software and log-probability plots were generated. The plots for Au are shown in Appendix 3.

8.2.3. High Grade Cuts

As expected, the data for both datasets is highly positively skewed, the CV for the Southern and Central Lodes is greater than 1.9, so the application of a high grade cut would be required prior to using the data for any linear grade interpolation.

To determine the high grade cuts the log probability plots for both datasets were reviewed (appendix 3) were reviewed to identify inflexion points or breaks in the plots which may represent truncations of particular populations in the data sets. As expected both datasets showed similar patterns with a break evident at 80g/t for the South and 100g/t for the Central populations. No clear break was apparent in the North Lode distribution and with a maximum value of 40.14g/t Au, it was decided that no high grade cut was required.

The selected high grade cut values are shown in Table 8.3 along with the 97.5 percentile values for comparison. The effect of the cut value on the mean grades can be seen in Table 8.1.

Table 8.3: High Grade Cuts Used for Pampalo Estimate Lode Structure High Grade Cut No. of Samples Cut 97.5 Percentile Value

South Lode 80g/t 9 88.2g/t Central Lode 100g/t 19 64.8g/t

North & Other Lodes none none 14.9g/t



8.3. Geostatistical Analysis 8.3.1. General

Geostatistical analysis was completed for the 2g/t resource dataset only. The 1g/t model was completed subsequent to the 2g/t model and a review of the descriptive statistics indicates that only no material changes would result.

Analysis of the spatial and statistical variations of individual lodes within each domain for the 2g/t resource dataset indicates that geospatial analysis should be completed on the largest pod within each domain and applied to the smaller lodes. This is considered appropriate as it will enable the best estimate of the grade distribution for majority. To complete this the 2m composite data was imported into Supervisor software for analysis.

8.3.2. Results

To determine the nugget, an omnidirectional variogram with a 2m lag was used, reflecting the down hole composite spacing. This resulted in a relatively poorly structured variogram for the South Lode, but well structure variograms for The Central and North Lodes. The omnidirectional variograms are shown in Figures 8.4 to 8.6. They were fitted to a nested two structure spherical model.

(Downhole Dir) 00-->000: Normal Scores Continuity for auDomain 11

Sample Separation (m)

Gam

ma (1.000)

Pair Counts

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200.000

0.075

0.150

0.225

0.300

0.375

0.450

0.525

0.600

0.675

0.750

0.825

0.900

0.975

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

N( 0.57 )

Sph( 0.24, 5 )

Sph( 0.19, 10 ) Lag1.0 (20)

Figure 8.4: Omnidirectional Variogram for Au South Lode Object 11)





Gam

ma (1.000)

Pair Counts

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

N( 0.49 )

Sph( 0.15, 5 )

Sph( 0.36, 10 )

Lag1.0 (100)

Figure 8.5: Omnidirectional Variogram for Au Central Lode (Object 21)



Gam

ma (1.000)

Pair Counts

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

0

25

50

75

100

125

N( 0.43 )

Sph( 0.15, 5 )

Sph( 0.28, 10 )

Lag1.0 (20)

Figure 8.6: Omnidirectional Variogram for Au North Lode (Object 31)

Directional variograms were then derived using 10m lags to reflect the closest spaced drill hole data. The direction of greatest continuity was found to be a plunge of 40o to 000o as expected from the geometry of the shoots. The major axis variograms were modelled using the nugget derived from the omni-directional variograms.

Down dip (semi-major) variograms were then derived in a direction perpendicular to the major axis. The semi-major axis variograms were generally poor but were fitted using the nugget, C1 and C2 values determined from the horizontal model.

Comprehensive plots of the variograms are included in Appendix 3. A summary of the fitted variogram models is shown in Table 8.3.



Structure 1 Structure 2 Domain Major

Direction Co C1 A1 Maj/

Semi Maj/

Minor C2 A2 Maj/ Semi

Maj/ Minor

South 35>175 67% 21% 35 1.4 4.67 12% 40.5 1.33 2 Central 40>180 60.6% 17.2% 34 6.8 4.5 22.2% 52.5 2.9 2.9 North 40>180 40% 29 35.5 2.1 4.7 0.19 44 1.8 1.8

Table 8.3. Variography Parameters Used in Estimate.

8.3.3. Discussion of Results

The results of the variography generally matched the interpreted geology and geometry of the main Primary Zone with an overall north-south strike and approximate 40o northerly plunge. The nugget was reasonable for a high grade gold deposit, and the variogram range for all lodes was greater than the drill hole spacing in the better drilled portion of the deposit. The much shorter down dip range compared to the down plunge range reflects the short cross sectional height of the lodes.

As reasonably structured variograms were produced and the results were supported by the geological and geometrical controls on mineralisation, it was considered that the variogram models should be used for Ordinary Kriging interpolation of the resource.

8.4. Block Model Two block models were created using Surpac software to encompass the full extent of the deposit. Separate models were created for the 2g/t and 1g/t estimates. Block model parameters are listed in Table 8.4.

The block models used a primary block size of 5m NS by 2m EW by 5m vertical with sub-blocking to 2.5m by 1.0m by 2.5m.

The parent block size was selected on the basis of approximately 50% of the average drill hole spacing in the well drilled portion of the deposit. The small sub-block size was necessary to provide sufficient resolution to the block models within the resource wireframes considering the narrow nature of the wireframes.

Table 8.4. Pampalo Deposit Block Model Parameters

Block Model Parameters: pampalo_1gt_200902017.mdl, Pampalo_2gt_20090217.mdl Y X Z Origin (minimum y,x,z) 4,902 10,180 -700 Extent 1,100 400 700 Block Size (Sub-blocks) 5 (2.5) 2 (1) 5 (2.5) Rotation None Attributes: min_dis Distance to nearest sample

av_dis Average distance to samples num_sam Number of samples used for block grade interpolation

au_cut Appropriate cut value for each lode (USE FOR REPORTING RESOURCE) au_uncut OK Estimated Au grade using uncut grades

Kvar Kriging variance sg Real

class Character (Meas,Ind, Inf) lode South, Central, North, Other

class_code Integer (2=Ind, 3=Inf) mined No, ug, pit

type Character (till, fresh, air)



8.5. Grade Interpolation

For all zones in the Pampalo deposit, the wireframe objects were used as hard boundaries in the interpolation. That is, only composites inside each object were used to interpolate the blocks inside the object.

Ordinary Kriging (OK) was used to interpolate the resource, with a check interpolation using ID2 also carried out. Kriging parameters used are those detailed in Section 8.3. Search neighbourhood parameters used in the estimate are listed in Table 8.4. An oriented search ellipse was used with a maximum range of 45m, 55m and 45m respectively for South, Central and North Lodes. Blocks not filled in the first pass were estimated using by halving the minimum number of samples from 10 to 5. The blocks remaining unestimated were interpolated with a search radius double the second pass and with 2 minimum samples.

The search ellipse was derived by measuring the typical orientation of each of the lodes. As the geometry was quite consistent throughout the extent of the resource, a single value for each lode was appropriate.

Throughout the deposit, 83% of blocks were filled using the first pass, 11% using the second pass and 6% using the third pass.

Parameters used in the estimate are listed in Table 8.5.

Table 8.5: Pampalo Interpolation Parameters Parameter South Lode Central Lode North & Other

Bearing 175o 000o 000o Dip 90o 0o 0o

Plunge -35o -40o -40o

Major-Semi Major Ratio 2 3 2 Major-Minor Ratio 2 3 2

Search Radius (2nd Pass) (3rd Passd) 40 (40) (90) 45(45) (90) 45 (45) (90)

Max Vertical Search 999 999 999

Minimum Samples 10 5 2 Maximum Samples 40 40 40

The final stage of the estimation was to code the block models to account for the mined areas. Long section projections of the stope areas were used as “cookie cutters” to code the blocks. The open pit dtm was used to code blocks mined in the pit and the underground development solid was used to code that portion of the resource lying within the decline and cross cuts.

8.6. Bulk Density

A substantial database of bulk density measurements was compiled by Outokumpu for the 1999 resource estimate and was tabulated in Sandberg, 1998. Further determinations



have been completed by EO on the ore zone horizon and waste rock. Summary data included results from 616 determinations using the immersion method on drill core.

The determinations were reported by rock type and by mineralised zone. The Au values were identified as above or below 2.0g/t. In the >2.0g/t samples, 43 determinations were made in Andesite Tuff for an average density of 2.78t/m3, and 69 determinations made in Feldspar Porphyry for an average density of 2.67t/m3. Similar values were returned for samples <2.0g/t within the mineralised zone. As a consequence, it was decided to use a uniform value of 2.70t/m3 for all resource blocks.

Further test work is warranted at some stage to determine whether a grade-density relationship exists and to analyse the spatial distribution of values to check for density variations with depth.

8.7. Resource Classification

The Pampalo deposit shows strong continuity of the main mineralised zones allowing the drill hole intersections to be modelled into coherent, geologically robust wireframes. While variations in the thickness and distribution of grade between drill holes in the main structures were present, overall the continuity of both geology and mineralisation is excellent.

The portions of the South, Central and North Lodes defined by 10m spaced drill holes have been classified as Measured Mineral Resource. The sample data is well within the range of continuity defined by the variography, and trial mining within the open pit and underground workings has confirmed the tenor and continuity of the mineralisation.

The portion of the deposit defined by 20m spaced drilling has been classified as Indicated Mineral Resource. The average drill hole spacing is considered adequate to define the main resource zones in thickness, lateral extent and attitude with a reasonable degree of confidence. Sample data is within the range of continuity defined by the variography.

The down-plunge projections of the mineralisation are not well tested by drilling. These have been classified as Inferred Mineral Resource. In addition, small pods of mineralisation defined by three or less drill holes were also classified as Inferred Mineral Resource.

The resource block model has an attribute “class” for all blocks within the resource wireframes coded as either “meas”, “ind” for Indicated or “inf” for Inferred. The distribution of the different classifications of the deposit is shown in Figure 8.7.



Figure 8.7: Plan View Resource Classification (Yellow=Measured, Green=Indicated,

Red=Inferred)



8.8. Results

8.8.1. General

The results of the resource estimate for the Pampalo deposit are tabulated in detail in Appendix 1 of this report. A summary of the estimate is shown in Table 8.6 and Table 8.7.

Table 8.6: Pampalo Deposit February 2009 Resource Estimate 2g/t Cutoff Grade Measured Indicated Inferred Total

Lode Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Au T g/t T g/t T g/t T g/t Oz


Stockpile 22,000 4.0 22,000 4.0 3,000 Total 308,000 7.0 591,000 5.1 257,000 4.7 1,157,000 5.5 204,000

Table 8.7: Pampalo Deposit February 2009 Resource Estimate 1g/t Cutoff Grade Measured Indicated Inferred Total

Lode Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Tonnes Au Au T g/t T g/t T g/t T g/t Oz


Stockpile 22,000 4.0 22,000 4.0 3,000 Total 368,000 6.1 673,000 4.7 306,000 4.1 1,348,000 4.9 214,000

As expected, the 1g/t model has more tonnes at lower grade than the 2g/t model, with an approximate 5% increase in contained gold.

To show the tonnage and grade distribution throughout the deposit, a bench breakdown for the 2g/t model has been prepared and is shown graphically in Figure 8.8.



Figure 8.8 Pampalo Deposit Resource – 20m Bench Breakdown for 2g/t model

The graph above highlights the increase in resource tonnage below -120mRL coinciding with the base of the main workings. Below that level a decline in overall grade occurs until around -440mRL. Below that level the grade of all lodes increases, however the most pronounced increase occurs in the North Lode due to the unusually high grade intersection in hole t-440 of 5.56m at 34.72g/t.

The base of effective drilling is -480mRL for South Lode, -520mRL for Central Lode and -500mRL for North Lode. The deposit remains open down plunge.

The grade-tonnage curve for the resource is shown in Figure 8.9 and is detailed in Appendix 1. While the grade-tonnage curve accurately reflects the distribution of grade within the model, it should not be used to interpret likely mineable quantities and grades at highly elevated cutoffs. If an estimate is required at an elevated cutoff grade, it is recommended that constraining envelopes be constructed from raw data to ensure some degree of spatial continuity of high grade zones in the model.

Pampalo February 2009 Grade-Tonnage Curve

0

240,000

480,000

720,000

960,000

1,200,000

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

Cutoff Grade g/t

Tonn

es

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Gra

de g

/t

Tonnes Au g/tFigure 8.9 Pampalo Grade-Tonnage Curve for 2g/t model



8.9. Model Validation

To check that the interpolation of the block models correctly honoured the drilling data, validation was carried out by comparing the interpolated blocks to the sample composite data by elevation. Validation results for the deposit are summarised in Figure 8.10. Full details of the validation are included in Appendix 4 of this report.

Comparison of OK and Composite Grades by Elevation

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

-140

-150

-160

-170

-180

-190

-200

-210

-220

-230

-240

-250

-260

-270

-280

-290

-300

-310

-320

-330

-340

-350

-360

-370

-380

-390

-400

-410

-420

-430

-440

-450

-460

-470

-480

-490

-500

-510

Bench Top (RL)

Vol

ume

& C

omps

(*22

0)

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

Gra

de (g

/t)

Volume Comps*220 Model UnCut g/t Model Cut g/t Comps Uncut g/t Comps Cut g/t Figure 8.10 Pampalo Resource Validation Plot by Elevation

The validation plot shows reasonable correlation between the composite grades and the block model grades. The broad trends shown by the raw data are honoured by the block model, and the interpolated grades are generally slightly lower than the composite values.

The comparisons show the effect of the interpolation, which results in a degree of smoothing of the block grades compared to the composite grades. Comparisons of the wireframe volume with the block model volume, and the block model grade with the composites grade for each of the main lodes of the wireframes are included in Table 8.8.

WireframeLode Lode Resource Au Au Number of Au AuName Volume Volume Uncut g/t Cut g/t Comps Uncut g/t Cut g/t

11 54,458 54,638 13.01 11.25 221 13.38 11.8412 9,045 9,088 10.52 8.18 12 12.09 9.2313 918 963 2.61 2.61 6 2.58 2.5821 76,024 76,025 11.52 11.08 332 12.76 12.0922 24,680 24,813 19.20 16.37 139 16.34 14.2523 20,385 20,425 4.68 4.68 66 5.09 5.0924 20,775 20,863 5.67 5.67 70 5.59 5.5925 23,468 23,575 6.67 6.67 33 5.35 5.3526 13,440 13,506 3.25 3.25 18 3.02 3.0231 34,248 34,900 4.05 4.05 136 4.27 4.2732 7,167 7,169 3.93 3.93 19 4.41 4.4133 1,431 1,381 5.71 5.71 8 5.40 5.4034 17,658 17,281 4.02 4.02 82 4.06 4.0635 41,717 41,838 5.05 5.05 130 5.22 5.2236 2,515 2,456 4.49 4.49 15 4.43 4.4337 20,609 20,556 4.75 4.75 57 4.41 4.4138 17,307 17,313 3.46 3.46 30 3.41 3.4139 10,733 10,606 4.78 4.78 28 4.70 4.7041 16,362 16,381 2.55 2.55 27 2.57 2.5742 1,572 1,519 4.76 4.76 1 4.76 4.7645 20,528 20,475 3.42 3.42 50 3.61 3.0146 6,760 6,738 3.54 3.54 13 3.54 3.5451 2,884 2,888 4.02 4.02 5 4.04 4.0452 2,202 2,175 6.51 6.51 3 6.45 6.45

Total 446,886 447,572 7.65 7.15 1,501 8.79 8.18

Pampalo Resource Block Model Validation by PodBlock Model Composites

Table 8.8. Pampalo Deposit Block Model Validation by Pod.



The apparent underestimate in the model grades relative to the composite grades for the total deposit is due to the sparse, lower grade values at depth. These have correctly been given a greater volume weighting in the block model that is not reflected in the global composite statistics.

The block model volumes match the wireframe volumes very well.



9. Conclusion and Recommendations

The Pampalo deposit represents a substantial zone of high grade gold mineralisation. The mineralisation appears to be well defined with quite predictable geometry but variable thickness and grade distribution.

Runge considers that the majority of the upper portion of resource is robust and has been classified as Measured Mineral Resource in the closely drilled portion of the deposit and Indicated Mineral resource for the majority of the remainder. The down plunge extensions of the deposit are poorly defined and have been classified as Inferred Mineral Resources.

The resource model is undiluted and appropriate dilution parameters need to be included in any evaluation work on the deposit. The deposit appears to have good potential for profitable exploitation by underground mining.

The deposit has been comprehensively tested by surface and underground drilling throughout the upper 300m of the resource area and in the immediate vicinity of the deposit. Little potential remains to expand the resource above -350mRL however additional drilling is required to upgrade and extend the Inferred portion of the deposit and to define any down plunge extensions.

It appears that little exploration has been carried out along strike of the Pampalo deposit. This should be reviewed and appropriate work programs considered to test any potential for further mineralisation.

Jeremy Clark

Senior Consultant Geologist



10. References

Anttonen, R., 2000: Quarterly Report for 4th Quarter, 1999 - Pampalo Project. Outokumpu Mining Oy report dated 11 January 2000. Payne, P., 2004: Mineral Resource Estimate for the Pampalo Gold Deposit, Finland. Resource Evaluation Pty Ltd. Sandberg, E., 1996: Pampalo Gold Project Geology and Exploration History. Outokumpu Mining Oy report dated 1996. Sandberg, E., 1998: Pampalo UG Drilling. Specific Gravity (SG) of Hosting Rock Types. Outokumpu Mining Oy spreadsheet dated June 1998. Sandberg, E., 2003a: Test Mining at Juomasuo and Pampalo - Reconciliation of Estimated and Mined Gold Grades. Outokumpu Mining Oy report dated February 2003. Sandberg, E., 2003b: Pampalo and Ramepuro Gold Deposits. Sampling, Preparing and Analytical Procedures. Outokumpu Mining Oy report dated August 2003. Sandberg, E., 2003c: Pampalo and Ramepuro Gold Deposits. Laboratory Preparation Procedures. EO Mining Oy report dated December 2003.



11. Compliance Certificate

Certificate – Paul Payne B App Sc., MAusIMM, Grad Dip Min Ec, Grad Cert Geostatistics I, Paul Payne, as co-author of this report entitled; “Mineral Resource Estimate, Pampalo Deposit Finland, January 2009” for Endomines Oy, do here certify that;

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

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

3. I hold a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Geology from the Curtin University, Perth awarded 1985 and have been practicing as a professional since graduation.

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

5. I am co-author of this Mineral Resource report. 6. By reason of experience and education, I fulfill the requirements of a Competent

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

7. I have read the AusIMM JORC Code and the Canadian National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1. This report is prepared in accordance with generally accepted Australian and Canadian mining industry practice and complies with JORC and National Instrument 43-101.

8. As of the date of this certificate, I am not aware of any changes in fact or circumstances as regards to subject matter of this report which may materially affect the content of the report or the conclusion reached. I have completed the work in the capacity of an independent consultant and Runge employees have visited the property on two occasions.

Dated at Perth, 3rd day of March, 2009

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



Appendix 1

Pampalo Deposit

February 2009 Resource Tables



MeasuredBench

Top Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au AuRL T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40-60-80 14,664 2.63 2.63 14,664 2.63 2.63 1,238 1,238-100 3,392 12.33 9.79 22,089 3.52 3.52 25,481 4.69 4.35 3,844 3,568-120 7,982 15.81 13.47 14,901 11.47 11.33 16,656 4.05 4.05 39,539 9.22 8.70 11,720 11,056-140 10,935 8.86 8.59 31,506 9.68 9.31 15,103 3.17 3.17 57,544 7.82 7.56 14,461 13,991-160 13,787 8.79 8.79 26,106 8.48 8.35 22,916 3.21 3.21 62,809 6.63 6.57 13,379 13,272-180 12,994 7.72 7.68 26,612 7.74 7.81 28,958 3.79 3.79 68,564 6.07 6.09 13,376 13,418-200 29,481 5.88 5.85 30,392 4.45 4.45 59,873 5.16 5.14 9,924 9,897-220 22,241 4.72 4.71 16,554 4.53 4.53 38,795 4.64 4.63 5,787 5,780-240 1,046 6.08 6.08 1,046 6.08 6.08 204 204Total 49,090 9.91 9.28 150,847 7.83 7.73 168,378 3.75 3.75 368,315 6.24 6.12 73,934 72,425

IndicatedBench

Top Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au AuRL T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40 287 2.77 2.77 287 2.77 2.77 26 26-60 15,761 3.24 3.24 15,761 3.24 3.24 1,644 1,644-80 7,054 5.31 5.31 7,054 5.31 5.31 1,205 1,205-100 1,536 3.64 3.64 1,536 3.64 3.64 180 180-120 6,969 2.27 2.27 6,969 2.27 2.27 510 510-140 8,336 2.98 2.98 8,336 2.98 2.98 798 798-160 8,606 3.82 3.82 8,606 3.82 3.82 1,057 1,057-180 8,792 3.90 3.90 8,792 3.90 3.90 1,103 1,103-200 13,500 16.84 14.52 12,369 5.18 5.18 25,869 11.27 10.05 9,371 8,362-220 10,294 15.56 12.65 8,387 3.32 3.27 16,335 4.29 4.29 35,016 7.37 6.50 8,296 7,322-240 9,467 17.81 13.46 30,561 3.17 3.17 34,459 4.51 4.51 74,487 5.65 5.09 13,529 12,201-260 8,994 14.57 11.06 24,688 3.81 3.83 43,369 4.00 4.00 77,051 5.17 4.77 12,816 11,817-280 8,387 5.82 5.57 13,905 3.49 3.49 34,020 4.64 4.64 56,312 4.53 4.49 8,200 8,133-300 8,353 4.84 4.84 21,465 4.19 4.18 29,936 3.88 3.88 59,754 4.13 4.12 7,929 7,922-320 7,071 5.44 5.44 17,364 4.58 4.57 26,544 3.78 3.78 50,979 4.28 4.28 7,023 7,018-340 6,767 4.85 4.85 16,858 4.41 4.42 26,409 3.70 3.70 50,034 4.10 4.10 6,590 6,595-360 6,311 5.16 5.16 14,529 4.28 4.28 21,144 3.36 3.36 41,984 3.95 3.95 5,331 5,331-380 6,683 4.86 4.86 12,690 5.56 5.54 15,188 4.12 4.12 34,561 4.79 4.78 5,321 5,315-400 2,481 3.56 3.56 19,288 4.03 4.03 19,558 3.97 3.97 41,327 3.98 3.98 5,283 5,282-420 591 4.38 4.38 16,808 3.51 3.52 19,423 5.05 5.05 36,822 4.34 4.34 5,135 5,141-440 5,096 3.01 3.01 4,556 3.33 3.33 9,652 3.16 3.16 981 981-460 152 9.75 9.75 152 9.75 9.75 48 48Total 88,899 10.39 8.86 201,791 3.95 3.95 360,651 4.06 4.06 651,341 4.89 4.68 102,375 97,990

InferredBench

Top Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au AuRL T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40-60-80-100 219 5.85 5.85 6,581 4.37 4.37 6,800 4.42 4.42 967 967-120 2,818 5.75 5.75 8,168 4.07 4.07 10,986 4.50 4.50 1,590 1,590-140 1,350 4.11 4.11 1,485 3.83 3.83 2,835 3.96 3.96 361 361-160-180-200-220-240-260-280-300-320-340-360-380 2,228 2.84 2.84 2,228 2.84 2.84 203 203-400 51 8.28 6.68 692 1.49 1.49 3,662 2.99 2.99 4,405 2.82 2.80 399 396-420 3,696 11.59 8.76 7,847 2.57 2.57 6,058 3.25 3.25 17,601 4.70 4.11 2,660 2,324-440 7,374 11.93 9.05 21,212 2.84 2.84 23,321 3.02 3.02 51,907 4.21 3.80 7,022 6,341-460 7,256 9.12 7.34 24,638 5.61 5.61 34,678 3.08 3.08 66,572 4.67 4.48 10,000 9,586-480 5,096 9.40 7.58 17,567 6.56 6.56 15,795 2.79 2.79 38,458 5.39 5.15 6,665 6,368-500 1,063 9.52 7.61 11,998 5.70 5.70 3,578 3.02 3.02 16,639 5.37 5.24 2,870 2,805-520 354 4.53 4.53 3,105 2.18 2.18 540 2.02 2.02 3,999 2.37 2.37 304 304-540 5,822 4.53 4.53 34 2.07 2.07 3,257 2.09 2.09 9,113 3.65 3.65 1,068 1,068-560 10,631 4.55 4.55 3,021 2.15 2.15 13,652 4.02 4.02 1,763 1,763-580 11,509 4.54 4.54 726 2.27 2.27 12,235 4.40 4.40 1,732 1,732-600 8,539 4.53 4.53 8,539 4.53 4.53 1,243 1,243-620 1,738 4.53 4.53 1,738 4.53 4.53 253 253-640-660-680 84 1.40 1.40 84 1.40 1.40 4 4-700 3,459 2.26 2.26 3,459 2.26 2.26 251 251-720 8,927 2.49 2.49 8,927 2.49 2.49 715 715-740 11,357 2.61 2.61 11,357 2.61 2.61 954 954-760 10,344 2.72 2.72 10,344 2.72 2.72 904 904-780 4,016 3.08 3.08 4,016 3.08 3.08 398 398-800 169 4.28 4.28 169 4.28 4.28 23 23Total 101,485 5.24 4.69 87,093 4.71 4.71 101,251 3.04 3.04 16,234 4.17 4.17 306,063 4.30 4.12 42,352 40,556

BenchTop Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au AuRL T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40 287 2.77 2.77 287 2.77 2.77 26 26-60 15,761 3.24 3.24 15,761 3.24 3.24 1,644 1,644-80 21,718 3.50 3.50 21,718 3.50 3.50 2,443 2,443-100 3,392 12.33 9.79 23,844 3.55 3.55 6,581 4.37 4.37 33,817 4.59 4.34 4,991 4,714-120 7,982 15.81 13.47 14,901 11.47 11.33 26,443 3.76 3.76 8,168 4.07 4.07 57,494 7.48 7.12 13,820 13,156-140 10,935 8.86 8.59 31,506 9.68 9.31 24,789 3.15 3.15 1,485 3.83 3.83 68,715 7.07 6.86 15,620 15,150-160 13,787 8.79 8.79 26,106 8.48 8.35 31,522 3.38 3.38 71,415 6.29 6.24 14,436 14,330-180 12,994 7.72 7.68 26,612 7.74 7.81 37,750 3.82 3.82 77,356 5.82 5.84 14,479 14,521-200 13,500 16.84 14.52 29,481 5.88 5.85 42,761 4.66 4.66 85,742 7.00 6.62 19,294 18,259-220 10,294 15.56 12.65 30,628 4.34 4.32 32,889 4.41 4.41 73,811 5.93 5.52 14,083 13,102-240 9,467 17.81 13.46 30,561 3.17 3.17 35,505 4.55 4.55 75,533 5.66 5.11 13,734 12,405-260 8,994 14.57 11.06 24,688 3.81 3.83 43,369 4.00 4.00 77,051 5.17 4.77 12,816 11,817-280 8,387 5.82 5.57 13,905 3.49 3.49 34,020 4.64 4.64 56,312 4.53 4.49 8,200 8,133-300 8,353 4.84 4.84 21,465 4.19 4.18 29,936 3.88 3.88 59,754 4.13 4.12 7,929 7,922-320 7,071 5.44 5.44 17,364 4.58 4.57 26,544 3.78 3.78 50,979 4.28 4.28 7,023 7,018-340 6,767 4.85 4.85 16,858 4.41 4.42 26,409 3.70 3.70 50,034 4.10 4.10 6,590 6,595-360 6,311 5.16 5.16 14,529 4.28 4.28 21,144 3.36 3.36 41,984 3.95 3.95 5,331 5,331-380 6,683 4.86 4.86 12,690 5.56 5.54 17,416 3.95 3.95 36,789 4.67 4.67 5,524 5,518-400 2,532 3.66 3.63 19,980 3.94 3.94 23,220 3.82 3.82 45,732 3.86 3.86 5,682 5,678-420 4,287 10.59 8.16 24,655 3.21 3.22 25,481 4.62 4.62 54,423 4.45 4.27 7,795 7,465-440 7,374 11.93 9.05 26,308 2.87 2.87 27,877 3.07 3.07 61,559 4.04 3.70 8,003 7,322-460 7,256 9.12 7.34 24,790 5.64 5.64 34,678 3.08 3.08 66,724 4.68 4.49 10,048 9,634-480 5,096 9.40 7.58 17,567 6.56 6.56 15,795 2.79 2.79 38,458 5.39 5.15 6,665 6,368-500 1,063 9.52 7.61 11,998 5.70 5.70 3,578 3.02 3.02 16,639 5.37 5.24 2,870 2,805-520 354 4.53 4.53 3,105 2.18 2.18 540 2.02 2.02 3,999 2.37 2.37 304 304-540 5,822 4.53 4.53 34 2.07 2.07 3,257 2.09 2.09 9,113 3.65 3.65 1,068 1,068-560 10,631 4.55 4.55 3,021 2.15 2.15 13,652 4.02 4.02 1,763 1,763-580 11,509 4.54 4.54 726 2.27 2.27 12,235 4.40 4.40 1,732 1,732-600 8,539 4.53 4.53 8,539 4.53 4.53 1,243 1,243-620 1,738 4.53 4.53 1,738 4.53 4.53 253 253-640-660-680 84 1.40 1.40 84 1.40 1.40 4 4-700 3,459 2.26 2.26 3,459 2.26 2.26 251 251-720 8,927 2.49 2.49 8,927 2.49 2.49 715 715-740 11,357 2.61 2.61 11,357 2.61 2.61 954 954-760 10,344 2.72 2.72 10,344 2.72 2.72 904 904-780 4,016 3.08 3.08 4,016 3.08 3.08 398 398-800 169 4.28 4.28 169 4.28 4.28 23 23Total 239,474 8.11 7.18 439,731 5.43 5.40 630,280 3.81 3.81 16,234 4.17 4.17 1,325,719 5.13 4.95 218,660 210,970

TotalTotal Pampalo Resource - Measured, Indicated and Inferred (1g/t Cutoff Grade)

South Central OtherNorth

Pampalo Deposit February 2009 Resource Estimate1g/t Cutoff Grade

South Central Other TotalNorth

North


Total

South Central Other



BenchTop Tonnes Uncut Cut Uncut CutRL T g/t g/t Ounces Ounces Tonnes Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40 287 2.8 2.8 26 26 14 1 1-60 15,761 3.2 3.2 1,644 1,644 788 82 82-80 21,718 3.5 3.5 2,443 2,443 1,086 122 122-100 33,817 4.6 4.3 4,991 4,714 1,691 250 236-120 57,494 7.5 7.1 13,820 13,156 2,875 691 658-140 68,715 7.1 6.9 15,620 15,150 3,436 781 758-160 71,415 6.3 6.2 14,436 14,330 3,571 722 716-180 77,356 5.8 5.8 14,479 14,521 3,868 724 726-200 85,742 7.0 6.6 19,294 18,259 4,287 965 913-220 73,811 5.9 5.5 14,083 13,102 3,691 704 655-240 75,533 5.7 5.1 13,734 12,405 3,777 687 620-260 77,051 5.2 4.8 12,816 11,817 3,853 641 591-280 56,312 4.5 4.5 8,200 8,133 2,816 410 407-300 59,754 4.1 4.1 7,929 7,922 2,988 396 396-320 50,979 4.3 4.3 7,023 7,018 2,549 351 351-340 50,034 4.1 4.1 6,590 6,595 2,502 330 330-360 41,984 3.9 3.9 5,331 5,331 2,099 267 267-380 36,789 4.7 4.7 5,524 5,518 1,839 276 276-400 45,732 3.9 3.9 5,682 5,678 2,287 284 284-420 54,423 4.5 4.3 7,795 7,465 2,721 390 373-440 61,559 4.0 3.7 8,003 7,322 3,078 400 366-460 66,724 4.7 4.5 10,048 9,634 3,336 502 482-480 38,458 5.4 5.2 6,665 6,368 1,923 333 318-500 16,639 5.4 5.2 2,870 2,805 832 144 140-520 3,999 2.4 2.4 304 304 200 15 15-540 9,113 3.6 3.6 1,068 1,068 456 53 53-560 13,652 4.0 4.0 1,763 1,763 683 88 88-580 12,235 4.4 4.4 1,732 1,732 612 87 87-600 8,539 4.5 4.5 1,243 1,243 427 62 62-620 1,738 4.5 4.5 253 253 87 13 13-640-660-680 84 1.4 1.4 4 4 4 0 0-700 3,459 2.3 2.3 251 251 173 13 13-720 8,927 2.5 2.5 715 715 446 36 36-740 11,357 2.6 2.6 954 954 568 48 48-760 10,344 2.7 2.7 904 904 517 45 45-780 4,016 3.1 3.1 398 398 201 20 20-800 169 4.3 4.3 23 23 8 1 1Total 1,325,719 5.1 4.9 218,660 210,970

1g/t Cutoff GradePampalo Deposit February 2009 Resource Estimate 1g/t Cut-off

Per Vertical Metre

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0

16,000

32,000

48,000

64,000

80,000

-40

-80

-120

-160

-200

-240

-280

-320

-360

-400

-440

-480

-520

-560

-600

-640

-680

-720

-760

-800

g/t A

u

Tonn

es

Bench Top RL

Pampalo Deposit 1g/t Model: Tonnes and Grade Per 20m Bench

Tonnes Per 20m Bench Cut Uncut g/t

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

0

800

1,600

2,400

3,200

4,000

-40

-80

-120

-160

-200

-240

-280

-320

-360

-400

-440

-480

-520

-560

-600

-640

-680

-720

-760

-800

Oun

ce/V

m

Tonn

es/V

m

Bench Top RL

Tonnes and Ounces Per Vertical Metre

TVM OVM Cut OVM Uncut



Grade CutoffRange Tonnes Au Au Grade Tonnes Au Au

g/t T g/t Ounces g/t T g/t Ounces0.0-1.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 1,325,719 4.95 210,9771.0-2.0 54,371 1.66 2,907 1.0 1,325,719 4.95 210,9772.0-3.0 270,068 2.57 22,314 2.0 1,271,348 5.09 208,0703.0-4.0 363,083 3.49 40,728 3.0 1,001,280 5.77 185,7554.0-5.0 269,325 4.45 38,571 4.0 638,197 7.07 145,0265.0-6.0 112,337 5.42 19,564 5.0 368,872 8.98 106,4546.0-7.0 60,244 6.46 12,511 6.0 256,535 10.53 86,8897.0-8.0 52,667 7.51 12,708 7.0 196,291 11.79 74,3788.0-9.0 26,578 8.50 7,261 8.0 143,624 13.35 61,6699.0-10.0 21,009 9.46 6,390 9.0 117,046 14.46 54,40810.0-11.0 14,563 10.44 4,890 10.0 96,037 15.55 48,01711.0-12.0 11,576 11.48 4,271 11.0 81,474 16.46 43,12712.0-13.0 11,728 12.47 4,701 12.0 69,898 17.29 38,85613.0-14.0 8,657 13.46 3,746 13.0 58,170 18.26 34,15514.0-15.0 7,071 14.52 3,301 14.0 49,513 19.10 30,40915.0-16.0 5,468 15.51 2,727 15.0 42,442 19.86 27,10716.0-17.0 6,480 16.49 3,435 16.0 36,974 20.51 24,38017.0-18.0 4,911 17.46 2,756 17.0 30,494 21.36 20,94618.0-19.0 3,443 18.44 2,041 18.0 25,583 22.11 18,18919.0-20.0 3,763 19.46 2,355 19.0 22,140 22.68 16,148

>20 18,377 23.34 13,793 20.0 18,377 23.34 13,793Total 1,325,719 4.95 210,977

Incremental Resource Cumulative ResourcePampalo Deposit February 2009 Resource Estimate 1g/t Cut-off

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0

300,000

600,000

900,000

1,200,000

1,500,000

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

Gra

de g

/t

Tonn

es

Cutoff Grade g/t

Pampalo February 2009 Grade-Tonnage Curve 1g/t Model

Tonnes Au g/t



MeasuredBench

Top Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au AuRL T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40-60-80 12,656 2.81 2.81 12,656 2.81 2.81 1,145 1,145-100 3,257 13.13 10.46 17,196 4.16 4.16 20,453 5.59 5.16 3,674 3,395-120 6,429 19.40 16.35 13,686 11.88 11.80 14,563 4.73 4.73 34,678 10.27 9.68 11,453 10,787-140 8,843 10.34 10.00 28,890 10.37 9.93 9,585 3.99 3.99 47,318 9.08 8.74 13,807 13,291-160 13,686 9.00 9.00 24,654 9.08 8.88 18,174 3.98 3.98 56,514 7.42 7.33 13,484 13,325-180 12,184 8.57 8.50 23,726 8.32 8.32 21,246 4.60 4.60 57,156 6.99 6.97 12,844 12,815-200 25,515 6.59 6.59 22,427 5.38 5.38 47,942 6.02 6.02 9,285 9,285-220 17,820 5.71 5.71 12,758 5.42 5.42 30,578 5.59 5.59 5,494 5,494-240 1,046 6.46 6.46 1,046 6.46 6.46 217 217Total 44,399 10.96 10.23 134,291 8.59 8.45 129,651 4.48 4.48 308,341 7.20 7.04 71,404 69,754

IndicatedBench

Top Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au AuRL T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40 287 2.77 2.77 287 2.77 2.77 26 26-60 15,559 3.31 3.31 15,559 3.31 3.31 1,656 1,656-80 6,278 6.17 6.17 6,278 6.17 6.17 1,246 1,246-100 1,418 4.11 4.11 1,418 4.11 4.11 187 187-120 4,826 2.68 2.68 4,826 2.68 2.68 416 416-140 7,577 3.30 3.30 7,577 3.30 3.30 803 803-160 6,699 4.65 4.65 6,699 4.65 4.65 1,002 1,002-180 6,598 4.86 4.86 6,598 4.86 4.86 1,031 1,031-200 10,986 20.50 16.92 11,948 5.40 5.40 22,934 12.64 10.92 9,317 8,052-220 7,071 20.54 15.70 5,906 4.26 4.26 15,795 4.49 4.49 28,772 8.39 7.20 7,757 6,657-240 7,071 23.86 17.59 23,912 3.88 3.88 29,818 5.07 5.07 60,801 6.78 6.05 13,261 11,836-260 8,370 15.49 11.98 19,119 4.54 4.54 30,949 4.83 4.83 58,438 6.26 5.76 11,758 10,816-280 8,235 5.93 5.66 13,011 3.67 3.67 29,228 5.14 5.14 50,474 4.89 4.85 7,942 7,870-300 8,336 4.83 4.83 18,444 4.55 4.55 24,806 4.39 4.39 51,586 4.52 4.52 7,496 7,496-320 7,071 5.44 5.44 16,200 4.92 4.92 21,971 4.28 4.28 45,242 4.69 4.69 6,826 6,826-340 6,767 4.85 4.85 16,858 4.45 4.45 23,996 4.10 4.10 47,621 4.33 4.33 6,630 6,630-360 6,311 5.22 5.22 14,462 4.36 4.36 15,863 3.95 3.95 36,636 4.33 4.33 5,106 5,106-380 6,227 5.10 5.10 12,488 5.63 5.63 14,631 4.35 4.35 33,346 4.97 4.97 5,329 5,329-400 2,396 3.90 3.90 19,288 4.06 4.06 17,651 3.76 3.76 39,335 3.91 3.91 4,950 4,950-420 591 4.50 4.50 16,791 3.52 3.52 17,584 4.03 4.03 34,966 3.80 3.80 4,266 4,266-440 5,096 3.01 3.01 4,472 3.05 3.05 9,568 3.03 3.03 932 932-460 152 9.75 9.75 152 9.75 9.75 48 48-480-500-520-540-560-580-600-620-640-660-680-700-720-740-760-780-800Total 79,432 11.40 9.52 181,727 4.29 4.29 307,954 4.43 4.43 569,113 5.36 5.09 97,985 93,179

InferredBench

Top Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au AuRL T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40-60-80-100 219 6.30 6.30 6,092 4.96 4.96 6,311 5.01 5.01 1,016 1,016-120 2,261 6.33 6.33 6,159 5.20 5.20 8,420 5.51 5.51 1,490 1,490-140 1,249 4.49 4.49 1,418 5.22 5.22 2,667 4.88 4.88 418 418-160-180-200-220-240-260-280-300-320-340-360-380 2,228 2.84 2.84 2,228 2.84 2.84 203 203-400 51 8.28 6.68 84 2.43 2.43 3,662 2.99 2.99 3,797 3.05 3.03 372 370-420 3,696 11.59 8.76 5,873 3.34 3.34 6,058 3.23 3.23 15,627 5.25 4.58 2,636 2,300-440 7,374 11.93 9.05 16,993 3.27 3.27 22,883 2.97 2.97 47,250 4.48 4.03 6,799 6,118-460 7,256 9.12 7.34 20,115 6.61 6.61 34,644 3.09 3.09 62,015 4.94 4.73 9,849 9,435-480 5,096 9.40 7.58 15,846 7.31 7.31 13,466 2.95 2.95 34,408 5.91 5.64 6,538 6,241-500 1,063 9.52 7.61 10,716 6.53 6.53 2,734 3.34 3.34 14,513 6.15 6.01 2,870 2,804-520 354 4.53 4.53 1,688 3.03 3.03 84 2.33 2.33 2,126 3.25 3.25 222 222-540 5,822 4.53 4.53 34 2.99 2.99 1,131 2.33 2.33 6,987 4.16 4.16 935 935-560 10,631 4.55 4.55 1,536 2.33 2.33 12,167 4.27 4.27 1,670 1,670-580 11,509 4.54 4.54 608 2.33 2.33 12,117 4.43 4.43 1,724 1,724-600 8,539 4.53 4.53 8,539 4.53 4.53 1,243 1,243-620 1,738 4.53 4.53 1,738 4.53 4.53 253 253-640-660-680-700 1,029 4.28 4.28 1,029 4.28 4.28 142 142-720 3,375 4.28 4.28 3,375 4.28 4.28 465 465-740 4,776 4.28 4.28 4,776 4.28 4.28 658 658-760 4,725 4.28 4.28 4,725 4.28 4.28 651 651-780 2,346 4.28 4.28 2,346 4.28 4.28 323 323-800 169 4.28 4.28 169 4.28 4.28 23 23Total 79,549 6.30 5.59 71,349 5.60 5.60 92,763 3.13 3.13 13,669 5.10 5.10 257,330 4.90 4.68 40,501 38,705

BenchTop Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au AuRL T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t T Uncut g/t Cut g/t Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40 287 2.77 2.77 287 2.77 2.77 26 26-60 15,559 3.31 3.31 15,559 3.31 3.31 1,656 1,656-80 18,934 3.93 3.93 18,934 3.93 3.93 2,391 2,391-100 3,257 13.13 10.46 18,833 4.18 4.18 6,092 4.96 4.96 28,182 5.38 5.07 4,878 4,598-120 6,429 19.40 16.35 13,686 11.88 11.80 21,650 4.44 4.44 6,159 5.20 5.20 47,924 8.67 8.24 13,360 12,694-140 8,843 10.34 10.00 28,890 10.37 9.93 18,411 3.74 3.74 1,418 5.22 5.22 57,562 8.12 7.84 15,028 14,513-160 13,686 9.00 9.00 24,654 9.08 8.88 24,873 4.16 4.16 63,213 7.13 7.05 14,485 14,326-180 12,184 8.57 8.50 23,726 8.32 8.32 27,844 4.66 4.66 63,754 6.77 6.76 13,875 13,846-200 10,986 20.50 16.92 25,515 6.59 6.59 34,375 5.39 5.39 70,876 8.16 7.61 18,602 17,337-220 7,071 20.54 15.70 23,726 5.35 5.35 28,553 4.90 4.90 59,350 6.94 6.37 13,251 12,151-240 7,071 23.86 17.59 23,912 3.88 3.88 30,864 5.11 5.11 61,847 6.78 6.06 13,479 12,053-260 8,370 15.49 11.98 19,119 4.54 4.54 30,949 4.83 4.83 58,438 6.26 5.76 11,758 10,816-280 8,235 5.93 5.66 13,011 3.67 3.67 29,228 5.14 5.14 50,474 4.89 4.85 7,942 7,870-300 8,336 4.83 4.83 18,444 4.55 4.55 24,806 4.39 4.39 51,586 4.52 4.52 7,496 7,496-320 7,071 5.44 5.44 16,200 4.92 4.92 21,971 4.28 4.28 45,242 4.69 4.69 6,826 6,826-340 6,767 4.85 4.85 16,858 4.45 4.45 23,996 4.10 4.10 47,621 4.33 4.33 6,630 6,630-360 6,311 5.22 5.22 14,462 4.36 4.36 15,863 3.95 3.95 36,636 4.33 4.33 5,106 5,106-380 6,227 5.10 5.10 12,488 5.63 5.63 16,859 4.15 4.15 35,574 4.84 4.84 5,532 5,532-400 2,447 3.99 3.96 19,372 4.05 4.05 21,313 3.63 3.63 43,132 3.84 3.84 5,322 5,320-420 4,287 10.61 8.17 22,664 3.48 3.48 23,642 3.82 3.82 50,593 4.24 4.04 6,902 6,567-440 7,374 11.93 9.05 22,089 3.21 3.21 27,355 2.98 2.98 56,818 4.23 3.86 7,731 7,049-460 7,256 9.12 7.34 20,267 6.64 6.64 34,644 3.09 3.09 62,167 4.95 4.74 9,897 9,483-480 5,096 9.40 7.58 15,846 7.31 7.31 13,466 2.95 2.95 34,408 5.91 5.64 6,538 6,241-500 1,063 9.52 7.61 10,716 6.53 6.53 2,734 3.34 3.34 14,513 6.15 6.01 2,870 2,804-520 354 4.53 4.53 1,688 3.03 3.03 84 2.33 2.33 2,126 3.25 3.25 222 222-540 5,822 4.53 4.53 34 2.99 2.99 1,131 2.33 2.33 6,987 4.16 4.16 935 935-560 10,631 4.55 4.55 1,536 2.33 2.33 12,167 4.27 4.27 1,670 1,670-580 11,509 4.54 4.54 608 2.33 2.33 12,117 4.43 4.43 1,724 1,724-600 8,539 4.53 4.53 8,539 4.53 4.53 1,243 1,243-620 1,738 4.53 4.53 1,738 4.53 4.53 253 253-640-660-680-700 1,029 4.28 4.28 1,029 4.28 4.28 142 142-720 3,375 4.28 4.28 3,375 4.28 4.28 465 465-740 4,776 4.28 4.28 4,776 4.28 4.28 658 658-760 4,725 4.28 4.28 4,725 4.28 4.28 651 651-780 2,346 4.28 4.28 2,346 4.28 4.28 323 323-800 169 4.28 4.28 169 4.28 4.28 23 23Total 203,380 9.31 8.14 387,367 6.02 5.97 530,368 4.21 4.21 13,669 5.10 5.10 1,134,784 5.75 5.53 209,889 201,638

North


Pampalo Deposit February 2009 Resource Estimate2g/t Cutoff Grade


Total

South Central Other TotalTotal Pampalo Resource - Measured,Indicated and Inferred (2g/t Cutoff Grade)

South Central OtherNorth



BenchTop Tonnes Uncut Cut Uncut CutRL T g/t g/t Ounces Ounces Tonnes Uncut Oz Cut Oz-40 287 2.8 2.8 26 26 14 1 1-60 15,559 3.3 3.3 1,656 1,656 778 83 83-80 18,934 3.9 3.9 2,391 2,391 947 120 120-100 28,182 5.4 5.1 4,878 4,598 1,409 244 230-120 47,924 8.7 8.2 13,360 12,694 2,396 668 635-140 57,562 8.1 7.8 15,028 14,513 2,878 751 726-160 63,213 7.1 7.0 14,485 14,326 3,161 724 716-180 63,754 6.8 6.8 13,875 13,846 3,188 694 692-200 70,876 8.2 7.6 18,602 17,337 3,544 930 867-220 59,350 6.9 6.4 13,251 12,151 2,968 663 608-240 61,847 6.8 6.1 13,479 12,053 3,092 674 603-260 58,438 6.3 5.8 11,758 10,816 2,922 588 541-280 50,474 4.9 4.8 7,942 7,870 2,524 397 394-300 51,586 4.5 4.5 7,496 7,496 2,579 375 375-320 45,242 4.7 4.7 6,826 6,826 2,262 341 341-340 47,621 4.3 4.3 6,630 6,630 2,381 331 331-360 36,636 4.3 4.3 5,106 5,106 1,832 255 255-380 35,574 4.8 4.8 5,532 5,532 1,779 277 277-400 43,132 3.8 3.8 5,322 5,320 2,157 266 266-420 50,593 4.2 4.0 6,902 6,567 2,530 345 328-440 56,818 4.2 3.9 7,731 7,049 2,841 387 352-460 62,167 5.0 4.7 9,897 9,483 3,108 495 474-480 34,408 5.9 5.6 6,538 6,241 1,720 327 312-500 14,513 6.1 6.0 2,870 2,804 726 143 140-520 2,126 3.3 3.3 222 222 106 11 11-540 6,987 4.2 4.2 935 935 349 47 47-560 12,167 4.3 4.3 1,670 1,670 608 83 83-580 12,117 4.4 4.4 1,724 1,724 606 86 86-600 8,539 4.5 4.5 1,243 1,243 427 62 62-620 1,738 4.5 4.5 253 253 87 13 13-640-660-680-700 1,029 4.3 4.3 142 142 51 7 7-720 3,375 4.3 4.3 465 465 169 23 23-740 4,776 4.3 4.3 658 658 239 33 33-760 4,725 4.3 4.3 651 651 236 33 33-780 2,346 4.3 4.3 323 323 117 16 16-800 169 4.3 4.3 23 23 8 1 1Total 1,134,784 5.8 5.5 209,889 201,638

2g/t Cutoff GradePampalo Deposit February 2009 Resource Estimate 2g/t Cut-off

Per Vertical Metre

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0

16,000

32,000

48,000

64,000

80,000

-40

-80

-120

-160

-200

-240

-280

-320

-360

-400

-440

-480

-520

-560

-600

-640

-680

-720

-760

-800

g/t A

u

Tonn

es

Bench Top RL

Pampalo Deposit 2g/t Cutoff: Tonnes and Grade Per 20m Bench

Tonnes Per 20m Bench Cut Uncut g/t

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

0

800

1,600

2,400

3,200

4,000

-40

-80

-120

-160

-200

-240

-280

-320

-360

-400

-440

-480

-520

-560

-600

-640

-680

-720

-760

-800

Oun

ce/V

m

Tonn

es/V

m

Bench Top RL

Tonnes and Ounces Per Vertical Metre

TVM OVM Cut OVM Uncut



Grade CutoffRange Tonnes Au Au Grade Tonnes Au Au

g/t T g/t Ounces g/t T g/t Ounces0.0-1.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 1,175,345 5.39 203,7481.0-2.0 40,568 1.61 2,105 1.0 1,175,345 5.39 203,7482.0-3.0 161,983 2.56 13,357 2.0 1,134,777 5.53 201,6433.0-4.0 300,038 3.53 34,004 3.0 972,794 6.02 188,2854.0-5.0 267,621 4.45 38,318 4.0 672,756 7.13 154,2805.0-6.0 133,363 5.43 23,301 5.0 405,135 8.90 115,9616.0-7.0 69,609 6.48 14,504 6.0 271,772 10.60 92,6597.0-8.0 51,756 7.50 12,488 7.0 202,163 12.02 78,1558.0-9.0 28,789 8.45 7,826 8.0 150,407 13.58 65,6669.0-10.0 21,836 9.45 6,636 9.0 121,618 14.79 57,84110.0-11.0 16,487 10.47 5,549 10.0 99,782 15.96 51,20511.0-12.0 10,766 11.48 3,974 11.0 83,295 17.05 45,65512.0-13.0 11,138 12.48 4,470 12.0 72,529 17.87 41,68113.0-14.0 8,539 13.47 3,699 13.0 61,391 18.85 37,21114.0-15.0 5,856 14.47 2,725 14.0 52,852 19.72 33,51215.0-16.0 6,480 15.50 3,230 15.0 46,996 20.38 30,78716.0-17.0 6,885 16.52 3,657 16.0 40,516 21.15 27,55717.0-18.0 5,248 17.46 2,946 17.0 33,631 22.10 23,89918.0-19.0 3,881 18.57 2,317 18.0 28,383 22.96 20,95319.0-20.0 3,729 19.59 2,349 19.0 24,502 23.66 18,636

>20 20,773 24.39 16,286 20.0 20,773 24.39 16,287Total 1,175,345 5.39 203,748

Incremental Resource Cumulative ResourcePampalo Deposit February 2009 2g/t Cutoff Resource Estimate

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0

240,000

480,000

720,000

960,000

1,200,000

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

Gra

de g

/t

Tonn

es

Cutoff Grade g/t

Pampalo February 2009 Grade-Tonnage Curve

Tonnes Au g/t



Appendix 2

Pampalo Deposit

Statistics



1g/t Dataset

Log Histogram for auDomain south

au

Frequency (% of 283 points)

1 10 1000.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

Mean:Variance:

CV:

11.456538.4112.026

Log Probability Plot for auDomain south

au

Cum

ulative Probability (%)

1 10 1000.010.020.05

0.10.20.5

125

10

20304050607080

90959899

99.899.9

99.99 Mean:Variance:

CV:

11.456538.4112.026

South

Log Histogram for auDomain central

au


0.1 1 10 1000.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

Mean:Variance:

CV:

10.212453.4512.085

Log Probability Plot for auDomain central

au

Cum


0.1 1 10 1000.010.020.05

0.10.20.5

125

10

20304050607080

90959899

99.899.9


CV:

10.212453.4512.085

Central



Log Histogram for auDomain north

au


0.1 1 100.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

Mean:Variance:

CV:

3.87016.7841.059

Log Probability Plot for auDomain north

au

Cum


0.1 1 100.010.020.05

0.10.20.5

125

10

20304050607080

90959899

99.899.9


CV:

3.87016.7841.059

North



2g/t Dataset

Log Histogram for auDomain south

au


1 10 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18Mean:

Variance:CV:

13.044637.9141.936

Log Probability Plot for auDomain south

au

Cum


1 10 1000.010.020.05

0.10.20.5

125

10

20304050607080

90959899

99.899.9


CV:

13.044637.9141.936

South

Log Histogram for auDomain central

au


1 10 1000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Mean:Variance:

CV:

11.347508.6671.988

Log Probability Plot for auDomain central

au

Cum


1 10 1000.010.020.05

0.10.20.5

125

10

20304050607080

90959899

99.899.9


CV:

11.347508.6671.988

Central



Log Histogram for auDomain north

au


0.1 1 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18 Mean:Variance:

CV:

4.31618.5840.999

Log Probability Plot for auDomain north

auC

umulative Probability (%

)

0.1 1 100.010.020.05

0.10.20.5

125

10

20304050607080

90959899

99.899.9


CV:

4.31618.5840.999

North



Appendix 3

Pampalo Deposit

Variograms



South Lode downhole

(Direction 1) 35-->175: Normal Scores Continuity for auDomain 11


Gam

ma (1.000)

Pair Counts

0.0 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 97.50.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0

75

150

225

300

375

450

525

600

675

750

825

N( 0.57 )

Sph( 0.24, 35 )

Sph( 0.19, 40.5 )

Lag10 (100)

(Direction 2) -55-->175: Normal Scores Continuity for auDomain 11


Gam

ma (1.000)

Pair Counts

0.0 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 97.50.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

N( 0.57 )

Sph( 0.24, 25 )

Sph( 0.19, 32.5 )

Lag10 (100)

South Lode (Object 11) Major and Semi Major Directions



Gam

ma (1.000)

Pair Counts

0.0 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 97.50.000

0.075

0.150

0.225

0.300

0.375

0.450

0.525

0.600

0.675

0.750

0.825

0.900

0.975

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

N( 0.49 )

Sph( 0.15, 34 )

Sph( 0.36, 52.5 )Lag11 (100)



Gam

ma (1.000)

Pair Counts

0.0 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 97.50.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

N( 0.49 )

Sph( 0.15, 5 )

Sph( 0.36, 18 )

Lag10 (100)

Central Lode (object 21) Major and Semi Major Directions





Gam

ma (1.000)

Pair Counts

0.0 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 97.50.000

0.075

0.150

0.225

0.300

0.375

0.450

0.525

0.600

0.675

0.750

0.825

0.900

0.975

0

75

150

225

300

375

450

N( 0.43 )

Sph( 0.15, 35.5 )

Sph( 0.28, 44 )

Lag10 (100)


Sample Separation (m)G

amm

a (1.000)

Pair Counts

0.0 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 97.50.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0.0

7.5

15.0

22.5

30.0

37.5

45.0

52.5

60.0

67.5

75.0

N( 0.43 )

Sph( 0.15, 14 )

Sph( 0.28, 25 )

Lag10 (100)

North Lode (Object 31) Major and Semi Major Directions



Appendix 4

Pampalo Deposit

Resource Validation Tables



Section Volume Au Au Number of Comps*220 Au Au Sample RatioY BCM Uncut g/t Cut g/t Comps Uncut g/t Cut g/t BCM/comp

4,990 600 19.36 15.00 1 300 7.90 7.90 6005,000 900 21.56 17.01 4 1,200 3.65 3.65 2255,010 1288 26.07 20.75 2 600 2.63 2.63 6445,020 1,694 26.98 22.94 9 2,700 41.25 34.44 1885,030 1,850 20.19 18.43 12 3,600 9.90 9.90 1545,040 1,613 10.85 10.48 6 1,800 6.09 6.09 2695,050 1,138 9.68 8.56 2 600 4.44 4.44 5695,060 1,106 20.44 16.04 10 3,000 27.00 20.38 1115,070 1,125 36.25 28.66 7 2,100 8.86 8.86 1615,080 1,069 45.70 35.54 3 900 43.94 28.46 3565,090 1,469 29.20 24.07 7 2,100 23.02 23.02 2105,100 2,156 29.58 24.69 18 5,400 30.35 24.46 1205,110 4,763 25.15 21.57 12 3,600 6.92 6.92 3975,120 6,925 18.86 16.78 35 10,500 21.73 19.65 1985,130 6,194 16.81 15.64 21 6,300 26.77 22.03 2955,140 5,688 16.16 15.44 26 7,800 20.92 20.45 2195,150 5,200 18.90 17.28 27 8,100 12.67 12.67 1935,160 5,094 17.98 16.30 42 12,600 19.67 17.10 1215,170 5,000 15.02 13.73 14 4,200 23.14 21.00 3575,180 4,744 14.83 13.70 38 11,400 11.01 11.01 1255,190 5,131 15.30 14.04 17 5,100 11.76 11.76 3025,200 5,119 14.90 13.44 17 5,100 21.57 17.76 3015,210 6,050 11.65 10.72 20 6,000 11.21 11.21 3035,220 6,175 9.60 9.09 54 16,200 10.57 10.57 1145,230 5,488 10.20 9.12 14 4,200 4.31 4.31 3925,240 5,863 11.84 9.97 20 6,000 20.89 15.75 2935,250 6,656 11.19 9.57 35 10,500 13.12 11.49 1905,260 6,719 9.26 8.54 29 8,700 10.92 10.92 2325,270 7,838 8.58 8.29 26 7,800 8.88 8.88 3015,280 9,694 7.01 7.00 41 12,300 7.28 7.28 2365,290 9,263 6.36 6.36 49 14,700 5.87 5.87 1895,300 7,194 6.22 6.22 35 10,500 7.50 7.50 2065,310 7,156 5.66 5.66 42 12,600 4.51 4.51 1705,320 6,731 5.03 5.03 20 6,000 5.64 5.64 3375,330 6,675 5.06 5.06 44 13,200 5.18 5.18 1525,340 6,706 4.83 4.83 22 6,600 4.69 4.69 3055,350 7,563 4.39 4.39 16 4,800 3.85 3.85 4735,360 8,431 3.80 3.80 24 7,200 3.53 3.53 3515,370 9,219 3.80 3.80 45 13,500 3.56 3.56 2055,380 9,319 4.31 4.31 39 11,700 5.01 5.01 2395,390 8,350 4.60 4.60 19 5,700 4.12 4.12 4395,400 7,731 4.85 4.85 14 4,200 5.16 5.16 5525,410 7,750 4.85 4.85 47 14,100 4.24 4.24 1655,420 10,369 5.84 5.49 45 13,500 5.04 5.04 2305,430 10,956 6.29 5.82 28 8,400 9.53 8.30 3915,440 8,163 5.77 5.33 19 5,700 3.04 3.04 4305,450 7,763 5.15 4.85 13 3,900 4.36 4.36 5975,460 8,019 5.25 5.03 14 4,200 5.38 5.38 5735,470 8,119 5.30 5.13 31 9,300 5.03 5.03 2625,480 8,313 5.06 4.94 21 6,300 5.75 5.75 3965,490 8,213 4.98 4.89 26 7,800 3.65 3.65 3165,500 6,681 5.22 5.10 1 300 1.60 1.60 6,6815,510 6,219 5.34 5.30 25 7,500 5.25 5.25 2495,520 6,269 4.94 4.94 4 1,200 6.68 6.68 1,5675,530 7,319 4.49 4.49 47 14,100 4.83 4.83 1565,540 8,169 4.50 4.50 16 4,800 4.89 4.89 5115,550 8,350 4.50 4.50 22 6,600 4.28 4.28 3805,560 4,075 4.29 4.29 0 5,570 4,881 3.74 3.74 9 2,700 3.73 3.73 5425,580 4,850 3.98 3.98 18 5,400 3.37 3.37 2695,590 5,156 4.06 4.06 32 9,600 4.19 4.19 1615,600 4,725 3.82 3.82 5 1,500 4.15 4.15 9455,610 4,756 3.98 3.98 22 6,600 4.96 4.96 2165,620 5,250 4.08 4.08 7 2,100 3.66 3.66 7505,630 5,506 4.67 4.67 1 300 8.31 8.31 5,5065,640 5,419 4.63 4.63 10 3,000 3.15 3.15 5425,650 6,213 4.69 4.69 14 4,200 2.40 2.40 4445,660 5,950 4.59 4.59 9 2,700 2.16 2.16 6615,670 6,088 4.56 4.56 15 4,500 9.06 9.06 4065,680 6,950 4.01 4.01 2 600 2.20 2.20 3,4755,690 7,288 3.83 3.83 22 6,600 3.47 3.47 3315,700 7,738 3.75 3.75 8 2,400 3.48 3.48 9675,710 6,006 3.56 3.56 15 4,500 3.20 3.20 4005,720 2,025 2.60 2.60 9 2,700 2.49 2.49 2255,730 1,863 2.46 2.46 0 5,740 1,913 2.34 2.34 0 5,750 2,356 2.78 2.78 0 5,760 1,825 2.89 2.89 6 1,800 2.48 2.48 3045,770 1,531 2.98 2.98 0 Total 441,723 7.59 7.10 1,501 448,200 8.79 8.22 294

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

Block Model CompositesPampalo Deeps Block Model Validation by Northing

Comparison of OK and Composite Grades by Northing

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

4990

5040

5090

5140

5190

5240

5290

5340

5390

5440

5490

5540

5590

5640

5690

5740

Northing (Y)

Volu

me

& C

omps

(*22

0)

0.0

6.0

12.0

18.0

24.0

30.0

Gra

de (g

/t)

Volume Comps*220 Model Uncut g/t Model Cut g/t Comps Uncut g/t Comps Cut g/t



BenchTop Volume Au Au Number of Comps*220 Au Au Sample RatioRL BCM Uncut g/t Cut g/t Comps Uncut g/t Cut g/t BCM/comp-80 12,150 19.28 17.03 50 12,500 26.77 23.42 243-90 11,738 20.26 17.61 64 16,000 22.69 19.40 183-100 10,506 15.71 13.84 64 16,000 16.03 14.28 164-110 11,875 11.68 10.82 62 15,500 13.64 12.57 192-120 11,281 9.96 9.55 53 13,250 9.48 9.48 213-130 11,500 9.48 9.15 64 16,000 11.51 10.78 180-140 11,038 8.28 8.06 57 14,250 8.92 8.92 194-150 10,281 7.93 7.58 73 18,250 8.27 7.49 141-160 11,950 7.40 7.26 58 14,500 8.51 8.51 206-170 12,494 7.29 7.28 63 15,750 8.01 8.01 198-180 12,519 7.26 7.26 65 16,250 6.58 6.58 193-190 12,888 7.12 7.09 68 17,000 7.36 7.36 190-200 12,900 7.45 7.17 59 14,750 6.93 6.93 219-210 13,350 8.84 8.03 54 13,500 6.07 6.07 247-220 12,144 7.50 6.84 65 16,250 7.83 6.83 187-230 9,838 6.26 5.79 38 9,500 5.70 5.70 259-240 10,375 6.45 5.88 15 3,750 5.51 5.51 692-250 12,744 7.00 6.18 34 8,500 11.17 8.15 375-260 12,331 6.68 6.02 28 7,000 6.74 6.74 440-270 9,313 5.70 5.41 20 5,000 5.99 5.99 466-280 9,069 5.13 5.04 27 6,750 3.88 3.88 336-290 9,625 4.67 4.67 29 7,250 5.08 5.08 332-300 9,944 4.52 4.52 35 8,750 4.22 4.22 284-310 9,163 4.52 4.52 20 5,000 3.92 3.92 458-320 8,350 4.63 4.63 13 3,250 5.09 5.09 642-330 8,406 4.75 4.75 14 3,500 5.88 5.88 600-340 8,963 4.41 4.41 15 3,750 4.66 4.66 598-350 8,675 4.25 4.25 35 8,750 4.18 4.18 248-360 7,544 4.29 4.29 26 6,500 3.71 3.71 290-370 6,025 4.39 4.39 12 3,000 5.37 5.37 502-380 6,125 4.94 4.94 25 6,250 6.72 6.72 245-390 7,050 4.75 4.75 26 6,500 4.84 4.84 271-400 7,619 3.93 3.93 13 3,250 2.49 2.49 586-410 8,206 3.57 3.56 27 6,750 2.94 2.94 304-420 9,200 3.45 3.36 32 8,000 4.47 4.47 288-430 8,694 4.15 3.80 17 4,250 2.28 2.28 511-440 9,856 4.47 4.01 19 4,750 9.04 7.24 519-450 11,188 3.86 3.57 15 3,750 2.77 2.77 746-460 13,100 4.84 4.65 20 5,000 3.14 3.14 655-470 9,925 5.11 4.87 7 1,750 3.90 3.90 1418-480 7,363 5.62 5.33 5 1,250 4.23 4.23 1473-490 5,381 6.31 6.07 11 2,750 8.65 8.65 489-500 3,688 6.43 6.28 3 750 3.05 3.05 1229-510 1,688 5.53 5.42 1 250 2.31 2.31 1688Total 428,700 7.20 6.77 1,501 375,250 8.79 8.22 286

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

Block Model CompositesPampalo Block Model Validation by Elevation

Comparison of OK and Composite Grades by Elevation

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

-140

-150

-160

-170

-180

-190

-200

-210

-220

-230

-240

-250

-260

-270

-280

-290

-300

-310

-320

-330

-340

-350

-360

-370

-380

-390

-400

-410

-420

-430

-440

-450

-460

-470

-480

-490

-500

-510

Bench Top (RL)

Volu

me

& C

omps

(*22

0)

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

Gra

de (g

/t)

Volume Comps*220 Model UnCut g/t Model Cut g/t Comps Uncut g/t Comps Cut g/t



WireframeLode Lode Resource Au Au Number of Au AuName Volume Volume Uncut g/t Cut g/t Comps Uncut g/t Cut g/t

11 54,458 54,638 13.01 11.25 221 13.38 11.8412 9,045 9,088 10.52 8.18 12 12.09 9.2313 918 963 2.61 2.61 6 2.58 2.5821 76,024 76,025 11.52 11.08 332 12.76 12.0922 24,680 24,813 19.20 16.37 139 16.34 14.2523 20,385 20,425 4.68 4.68 66 5.09 5.0924 20,775 20,863 5.67 5.67 70 5.59 5.5925 23,468 23,575 6.67 6.67 33 5.35 5.3526 13,440 13,506 3.25 3.25 18 3.02 3.0231 34,248 34,900 4.05 4.05 136 4.27 4.2732 7,167 7,169 3.93 3.93 19 4.41 4.4133 1,431 1,381 5.71 5.71 8 5.40 5.4034 17,658 17,281 4.02 4.02 82 4.06 4.0635 41,717 41,838 5.05 5.05 130 5.22 5.2236 2,515 2,456 4.49 4.49 15 4.43 4.4337 20,609 20,556 4.75 4.75 57 4.41 4.4138 17,307 17,313 3.46 3.46 30 3.41 3.4139 10,733 10,606 4.78 4.78 28 4.70 4.7041 16,362 16,381 2.55 2.55 27 2.57 2.5742 1,572 1,519 4.76 4.76 1 4.76 4.7645 20,528 20,475 3.42 3.42 50 3.61 3.0146 6,760 6,738 3.54 3.54 13 3.54 3.5451 2,884 2,888 4.02 4.02 5 4.04 4.0452 2,202 2,175 6.51 6.51 3 6.45 6.45

Total 446,886 447,572 7.65 7.15 1,501 8.79 8.18

Pampalo Resource Block Model Validation by PodBlock Model Composites



Appendix 5

Pampalo Deposit

Surpac String File Descriptions

(All relevant files are included on the Compact Disc

inside the back cover of this report)



DIRECTORIES -3DMs (saved as Surpac and DXF Files)

• Pampalo_1gt20090217.dtm/dxf -1g/t resource wireframe • Pampalo_res20090127.dtm/dxf - 2g/t resource wireframe •

-BModel (Surpac Model and csv export) • Pampalo_1gt_20090217.mdl -resource block model • Pampalo_2gt_20090217.mdl • Pampalo_centroids1gt20090217 -centroid export • Pampalo_centroids2gt20090217 -centroid export • Macros.zip -block model macros

-Data • Pampalo.mdb -Access database • Comps.zip -2m composites

-Nat_Surf • Pit_ns1.dtm/dxf -natural surface topography

-Reports&Spreadsheets • Pampalo February 2009 Resource estimate.pdf -Resource report • Pampalo Feb2009 Resource Tables.xls -Resource tables

The Pampalo resource estimate was completed using Surpac Mining Software version 6.1.

Documents

Pampalo February 2009 Resource Estimate - · PDF fileThe resource estimate complies with recommendations in the Australasian Code for ... • A Surpac block model was used for the