Morrison Project - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April 2005

Transcription

1 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April 2005 prepared for: Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. Suite 1702, 1166 Alberni Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 3Z3 prepared by: Kevin A. Morin, Ph.D., P.Geo., L.Hydrogeo. Nora M. Hutt, A.Sc.T, c.c.t. Minesite Drainage Assessment Group A Division of Morwijk Enterprises Ltd Redtail Court, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada V3W 0N4 April 4, 2005

2 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April 2005 i NOTICE This study is based on detailed technical information interpreted through standard and advanced chemical and geoscientific techniques available at this time. As with all geoscientific investigations, the findings are based on data collected at discrete points in time and location. In portions of this report, it has been necessary to infer information between and beyond the measured data points using established techniques and scientific judgement. In our opinion, this report contains the appropriate level of chemical and geoscientific information to reach the conclusions stated herein. This study has been conducted in accordance with British Columbia provincial legislation as stated in the Engineers and Geoscientists Act and in the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Act. Kevin A. Morin, Ph.D., P.Geo. Registration No. 18,721 Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Nora M. Hutt, A.Sc.T., c.c.t. Registration No Association of Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

3 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April 2005 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Notice... i List of Tables... iii List of Figures... iii Report Summary... iv 1. INTRODUCTION RESULTS OF ACID-BASE ACCOUNTING Rinse and Paste ph Sulphur Species and Acid Potential Neutralization Potential and Neutralizing Minerals Balances of Acid-Generating and Acid-Neutralizing Capacities TOTAL-METAL CONTENTS AND PRELIMINARY METAL LEACHING RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES...11 APPENDIX A. Chemical Analyses of Morrison Core Samples Through April Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

4 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April 2005 iii List of Tables 1-1. Summary of ABA Samples Through April List of Figures 2-1. Field Rinse ph vs. Laboratory Paste ph for Morrison Samples Through April Solid-Phase Sodium vs. Laboratory Paste ph for Morrison Samples Through April Sulphide vs. Total Sulphur for Morrison Samples Through April Solid-Phase Copper vs. Sulphide for Morrison Samples Through April Neutralization Potential (NP) vs. Paste ph for Morrison Samples Through April Inorganic-Carbon-Based Neutralization Potential vs. Neutralization Potential for Morrison Samples Through April Solid-Phase Calcium vs. Inorganic Carbon for Morrison Samples Through April Solid-Phase Mercury vs. Inorganic Carbon for Morrison Samples Through April Sulphide Net Potential Ratio vs. Paste ph for Morrison Samples Through April Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

5 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April 2005 iv Report Summary This progress report is based on three sets of core samples totalling 140 samples from the Morrison project, which have been analyzed using expanded standard-sobek acid-base accounting (ABA) and using ICP analyses after strong-acid digestion and XRF for total-metal contents. The first two sets were collected from the northwest portion of the deposit. The third and largest set of samples (116) was older core from across the deposit. This third set was analyzed for metals differently, and not all environmentally important metals were captured for this set. Based on rinse and paste ph as part of ABA, a few samples were already generating net acidity with ph below 5.0, whereas many were still near neutral. Nearly all of the total sulphur in most samples was potentially acid generating sulphide, ranging from <0.01%S to 2.38%S. However, copper levels suggested large amounts of the sulphide were actually chalcopyrite rather than acid-generating pyrite. As a result, the actual Acid Potentials for some samples are not clear from available information, so additional work is recommended (see below). As part of the ABA procedure, Neutralization Potential (NP) was found to range from zero to a relatively high 314 kg CaCO 3 equivalent per tonne. The objective is to count on this NP to maintain near-neutral conditions as long as possible. However, available data indicated NP in Morrison rock is a complex mixture of fast-reacting carbonate minerals, slow-reacting to nonneutralizing carbonate minerals, and slowly neutralizing silicate minerals. Additional work is needed to understand more reliably to what extent, and at what rate, these mineralogical mixtures will neutralize acidity at Morrison. Based on provincial guidelines for predicting ARD, 18% of the current samples are net acid generating (although most have some lag time before the ARD appears), 42% are net acid neutralizing indefinitely, and 40% are uncertain until tested further (see below). At this time, a portion of the uncertain category appears to be net acid generating, so a cautious preliminary approach is to combine it with the 18% for a total of 58% as net acid generating. Total-metal contents indicated at least several Morrison samples had relatively elevated levels of: silver, arsenic, bismuth, copper, gallium, mercury, molybdenum, sulphur, selenium, and thallium. For example, arsenic reaches a maximum of nearly 0.14%. This suggests metal leaching may have to be controlled at Morrison even at near-neutral ph conditions, but kinetic tests should be used to delineate metal leaching more reliably (see below). Solid-phase correlations of some elements with NP or sulphide suggested these elements would leach only if NP were dissolving or sulphide were actively oxidizing. Based on the 140 samples to date and the interpretations in this progress report, we offer the following recommendations. 1) There is some question on how much acidity can be generated by the measured sulphide, as chalcopyrite and other sulphide minerals comprise a substantial amount of the sulphide in some samples. Also, the neutralizing minerals to minimize ARD are apparently complex mixtures of fast-reacting carbonate, slow-reacting to non-reacting carbonate, and slowly Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

6 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April 2005 v neutralizing silicate minerals. Therefore, detailed mineralogical studies using petrographics, x-ray diffraction, and electron microprobe techniques are recommended. 2) Laboratory kinetic tests, known as humidity cells which have been in use for more than 40 years, should be started on Morrison rock. These cells will provide standardized rates of acid generation, acid neutralization, and metal leaching. They will also provide data on the lag time until NP is consumed and ARD begins, which could be years and could be important to the waste-management plans. Unavailable NP will also be determined. The 40% of samples that are in the uncertain SNPR range will be resolved, based on site-specific or rock-unit-specific SNPR criteria from the cells. ALS Chemex should be contacted to obtain the weights of Morrison samples currently in their possession, as samples weighing more than 1.5 kg could be started quickly in humidity cells. 3) Field-based leach pads, holding about 1 tonne of rock, should be started as soon as possible. These field pads provide valuable information for scaling up the humidity-cell results under site-specific conditions. 4) Additional ABA and total-metal analyses should be conducted on any new core, and on available core to fill in any pit zones or depths that have not been tested to date. All potentially environmentally important metals should be included, such as selenium and thallium. More data are needed to evaluate the ARD predictions within the geologic block model, in order to assess the proportions of net-acid-generating and net-acid-neutralizing rock to be removed each year and in total. This is critical in designing the optimum waste-management plan, which for example may not require expensive ARD controls in the early years of mining. Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

7 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April INTRODUCTION The Minesite Drainage Assessment Group (MDAG) has been asked by Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. to assist in the prediction and control of acid rock drainage (ARD) and metal leaching (ML) at the near Babine Lake and the closed Bell Mine in British Columbia. The Province of British Columbia is one of only a few jurisdictions that has a formal policy, guidelines, and draft prediction manual for ML/ARD (Price et al., 1997; Price and Errington, 1998; Price, 1998). The process followed in this Morrison ML/ARD assessment is consistent with these documents. The provincial ML/ARD documents recognize that the prediction of ML/ARD is an iterative, multi-phase project. At this time, there are three sets of acid-base accounting (ABA) and total-metal analyses (Table 1-1 and Appendix A). The first two sets were samples of core drilled in 2003 from the northwest side of the Morrison deposit. The third set was relatively old core back to 1998, collected from throughout the deposit, collected in the summer of 2004 by K. Lesnikov of Pacific Booker Minerals. This set includes field rinse ph, but metal analyses did not include some potentially important metals like selenium and used different detection limits. As a result, metal data from the third set cannot be compared closely with the other two sets. Mr. Lesnikov also noted, On the subject of sample descriptions, I noted all occur[r]ences of oxidation in Comments field. Only the core from the top of core racks is weathered. There is no weathering/oxidation on the core from lower shelfs. When oxidized, its limonite only and none of Cu oxides/carbonates. TABLE 1-1 Summary of ABA Samples Through April 2005 (see also Appendix A) Drillholes No. Of Samples Objective Expanded ABA? Total Metals? MO to MO Rock in the northwest side of the pit Yes; no rinse ph Yes MO to MO Rock in the northwest side of the pit Yes; no rinse ph Yes MO to MO Older core to check for insitu acid generation Yes, including field rinse ph Yes, but with fewer metals and higher detection limits Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

8 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April RESULTS OF ACID-BASE ACCOUNTING Acid-base accounting (ABA) is a suite of analyses that provides information such as whether a sample is already acidic, whether a near-neutral sample may become acidic in the future, and how much acidity a sample could neutralize (e.g., Morin and Hutt, 1997 and 2001). The results of available ABA analyses for Morrison rock are compiled in Appendix A, and are based on the expanded standard Sobek (EPA 600) procedure that includes leachable sulphate, Sobek NP, and various forms of carbon. 2.1 Rinse and Paste ph Field rinse ph was determined by measuring ph after pouring distilled water on sections of core, and measurements ranged from 4.5 to 9.0 (Figure 2-1 and Appendix A). The ph of the distilled water was not reported, but was likely around 5.3 to 6.0 with little buffering capacity. Based on this, any sample with a rinse ph below 5.5 was considered to have a net acidic surface. A comparison of field rinse ph and laboratory paste ph, which ranged from 4.8 to 8.8 in mixtures of water and pulverized sample, showed that (1) few samples were clearly acidic in the core boxes (rinse ph < 5.5, Figure 2-1) and (2) most samples provided higher values of paste ph after the rock was pulverized to expose significant amounts of neutralizing minerals. Of the 18 samples with a rinse ph below 5.5, only two also had paste ph below 5.5, highlighting their acidic conditions throughout the sample at the time of analysis. Field observations indicated only one acidic sample showed signs of oxidation, so visual observations were not sufficient to identify acidic rock. A general correlation of paste ph was noted with solid-phase sodium levels (Figure 2-2). This suggests that a sodium-based mineral, such as albite (sodium feldspar), is contributing to neutralization, which is discussed further in Section Sulphur Species and Acid Potential A scatterplot of total sulphur with potentially acid-generating sulphide showed that nearly all total sulphur in most samples is sulphide (Figure 2-3), ranging from <0.01%S to 2.38%S. As a result, total sulphur is an acceptable geochemical surrogate for sulphide, and Acid Potential can be calculated from either sulphide (SAP, Appendix A) or total sulphur (TAP). However, there is some debate in published literature on the amount of acidity from chalcopyrite oxidation. A scatterplot of solid-phase copper and sulphide in these samples (Figure 2-4) suggests most sulphide may occur as chalcopyrite in some samples. This requires mineralogical and kinetic testing to resolve (Chapter 4). Leachable sulphate was a relatively minor sulphur species (to a maximum of 0.38%S). The lack of correlation with paste ph indicated this sulphate was likely not derived from any recent sulphide oxidation. Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

9 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April Samples close to the 1:1 line show that the outer-skin rinse ph was close to the crushed paste ph; samples farther to the right of the line show that reactive neutralization potential was exposed upon crushing Rinse ph Paste ph FIGURE 2-1. Field Rinse ph vs. Laboratory Paste ph for Samples Through April Solid-Phase Sodium (ppm) Paste ph FIGURE 2-2. Solid-Phase Sodium vs. Laboratory Paste ph for Morrison Samples Through April Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

10 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April In most samples, the total sulphur is essentially all potentially acid-generating sulphide Sulphide (%S) Total Sulphur (%S) FIGURE 2-3. Sulphide vs. Total Sulphur for Morrison Samples Through April Solid-Phase Copper (ppm) On this line, all copper occurs as chalcopyrite or chalcocite In this zone, sulphide also occurs as other sulphide minerals Solid-Phase Sulphide (%S) FIGURE 2-4. Solid-Phase Copper vs. Sulphide for Morrison Samples Through April Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

11 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April Neutralization Potential and Neutralizing Minerals Neutralization Potential (NP) was measured by placing a pulverized sample in an acid bath for up to several hours, to determine how much acidity was consumed. NP in the 140 Morrison samples ranged from 0 to 314 kg CaCO 3 equivalent/tonne (Figure 2-5 and Appendix A), with the latter value indicating 31.4% of the sample dissolved in the acid bath and neutralized acidity. A scatterplot of NP and paste ph displayed the typical trend of some samples with lower NP having lower values of paste ph (Figure 2-5). Although some samples have measurable NP, their paste ph values will show that NP is unavailable for neutralization. Unavailable NP values at minesites are usually around 5-15 kg/t, but much higher values are known (Morin and Hutt, 1997 and 2001). Based on Figure 2-5, Unavailable NP at Morrison could be relatively high at 40 kg/t. This is important for accurate predictions, and is addressed further in Chapter 4. NP typically reflects the presence of fast-neutralizing calcium- and magnesium-based carbonate minerals. Iron-based carbonate minerals and non-carbonate silicate minerals are usually slow reacting to non-neutralizing. For the current Morrison samples, the conversion of inorganic carbonate to an NP equivalent shows that Morrison NP seems to be a complex mixture of fastreacting carbonate minerals, slow-reacting to non-neutralizing carbonate minerals, and slowly neutralizing silicate minerals (Figure 2-6). This is supported by the lack of correlation of inorganic carbon with calcium (Figure 2-7), which would reflect the presence of calcite, and by the correlation of non-carbonate-based sodium with paste ph (Figure 2-2). Interestingly, there are some metals such as manganese and mercury that show general correlations with inorganic carbon (e.g., Figure 2-8). This suggests that the dissolution of the inorganic carbon in response to acid generation or simple infiltration will make these metals more susceptible to leaching, which can be resolved through kinetic testing (Chapter 4). 2.4 Balances of Acid-Generating and Acid-Neutralizing Capacities According to provincial documents (Chapter 1), the preferred approach for distinguishing samples that will be acidic at some point in time from those that will remain near neutral is through the ratio of Acid Potential (based on sulphide here) to Neutralization Potential. This ratio is known as the Sulphide Net Potential Ratio (SNPR = SAP/NP, Appendix A). As explained in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, it is not yet clear on (1) whether all sulphide will generate acidity and (2) the types and reactivities of the neutralizing minerals in Morrison rock. This will be resolved with subsequent work (Chapter 4), but at this time we will assume all sulphide is acid generating and all measured NP is available. General non-site-specific criteria for SNPR are that any values above roughly 2 are expected to remain near neutral, any values below 1.0 are expected to generate net acidity at some point, and values between 1.0 and 2.0 are uncertain until further testwork (Chapter 4). At this time (Appendix A), SNPR values of the available Morrison samples range from (a default value meaning NP is less than or equal to zero) to 200 (a default value meaning sulphide is below the detection limit of 0.01%S). Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

12 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April Neutralization Potential (kg CaCO 3 /t) Paste ph indicates Neutralization Potential is not consistently capable of neutralizing all acidity, especially for a few samples below an NP of 40 kg/tonne NP = 40 kg/t Paste ph FIGURE 2-5. Neutralization Potential (NP) vs. Paste ph for Morrison Samples Through April Inorganic-Carbon-Based Neutralization Potential (kg CaCO 3 /t) Inorganic Carbonate exceeds Neutralization Potential in this region, indicating not all carbonate neutralizes acidity Neutralization Potential exceeds Inorganic Carbonate in this region, indicating non-carbonate minerals are also neutralizing acidity Neutralization Potential (kg CaCO 3 /t) FIGURE 2-6. Inorganic-Carbon-Based Neutralization Potential vs. Neutralization Potential for Morrison Samples Through April Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

13 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April Calcium exceeds inorganic carbon in this region, indicating some calcium occurs as non-carbonate minerals Solid-Phase Calcium (ppm) Inorganic Carbon exceeds calcium in this region, indicating some calcium occurs as non-carbonate minerals Inorganic Carbon (%C) FIGURE 2-7. Solid-Phase Calcium vs. Inorganic Carbon for Morrison Samples Through April Solid-Phase Mercury (ppm) Inorganic Carbon (%C) FIGURE 2-8. Solid-Phase Mercury vs. Inorganic Carbon for Morrison Samples Through April Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

14 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April A scatterplot of SNPR against paste ph for the current Morrison samples shows that slightly acidic paste ph values (<6.0) can be found in the uncertain SNPR range of 1.0 to 2.0 (Figure 2-9). Therefore, to be cautious, a preliminary SNPR criterion of 2.0 is applied to Morrison rock. As a result, 18% of the samples with SNPR < 1.0 and 40% of samples with 1.0<SNPR<2.0 are considered net acid generating, whereas the remaining 42% are considered net acid neutralizing. It is possible that with additional testing (Chapter 4), a portion of the samples with 1.0<SNPR<2.0 may become net acid neutralizing, but at this time roughly half the samples are considered net acid generating. Sulphide Net Potential Ratio (SNPR) Below an SNPR of 2.0, samples with acidic paste ph below 6.0 can be found, although most still contain some reactive NP and are thus still near neutral at this time Common SNPR criteria to separate net-acid-generating from net-acid-neutralizing samples are (dashed lines) Default SNPR value of indicates NP is at or below 0 kg/t Default SNPR value of 200 indicates Sulphide is below detection of 0.01%S Paste ph FIGURE 2-9. Sulphide Net Potential Ratio vs. Paste ph for Morrison Samples Through April Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

15 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April TOTAL-METAL CONTENTS AND PRELIMINARY METAL LEACHING According to provincial ML/ARD documents, a preliminary assessment of metal leaching is conducted through comparison of solid-phase metal levels with global crustal averages. This is only preliminary in nature until kinetic testing (Chapter 4), because some elements can be elevated in the solid phase because they do not leach. For the available Morrison samples, the elements that are at least three times greater than crustal averages in more than five samples are: silver, arsenic, bismuth, copper, gallium, mercury, molybdenum, sulphur, selenium, and thallium (see boxes around metal values in Appendix A). For example, arsenic reaches a maximum of nearly 0.14%. There are relatively few analyses for selenium and thallium, due to the lack of analyses in the third, largest sample set, but many of the remaining 24 samples had elevated selenium and thallium. Again, elevated solid-phase levels are not reliable indicators of metal-leaching rates, and further work is needed to delineate metal leaching more reliably (Chapter 4). Additional information on metal leaching can be inferred from correlations among elements. For example, manganese and mercury were found generally to correlate with Neutralization Potential (Section 2.3), indicating the simple dissolution of NP can make these elements more available for leaching. Also, the correlation with sulphide of cobalt and possibly selenium suggests that these elements may leach only when sulphide is actively oxidizing and breaking down. Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

16 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the maximum of 140 samples to date (Appendix A) and the interpretations in this progress report, we offer the following recommendations. 1) There is some question on the amount of acidity that can be generated by the measured sulphide, as chalcopyrite and other sulphide minerals comprise a substantial amount of the sulphide in some samples. Also, the neutralizing minerals to minimize ARD are apparently complex mixtures of fast-reacting carbonate, slow-reacting to non-reacting carbonate, and slowly neutralizing silicate minerals. Therefore, detailed mineralogical studies using petrographics, x-ray diffraction, and electron microprobe techniques are recommended. 2) Laboratory kinetic tests, known as humidity cells which have been in use for more than 40 years, should be started on Morrison rock. These cells will provide standardized rates of acid generation, acid neutralization, and metal leaching. They will also provide data on the lag time until NP is consumed and ARD begins, which could be years and could be important to the waste-management plans. Unavailable NP will also be determined. The 40% of samples that are in the uncertain SNPR range will be resolved, based on site-specific or rock-unit-specific SNPR criteria from the cells. ALS Chemex should be contacted to obtain the weights of Morrison samples currently in their possession, as samples weighing more than 1.5 kg could be started quickly in humidity cells. 3) Field-based leach pads, holding about 1 tonne of rock, should be started as soon as possible. These field pads provide valuable information for scaling up the humidity-cell results under site-specific conditions. 4) Additional ABA and total-metal analyses should be conducted on any new core, and on available core to fill in any pit zones or depths that have not been tested to date. All potentially environmentally important metals should be included, such as selenium and thallium. More data are needed to evaluate the ARD predictions within the geologic block model, in order to assess the proportions of net-acid-generating and net-acid-neutralizing rock to be removed each year and in total. This is critical in designing the optimum waste-management plan, which for example may not require expensive ARD controls in the early years of mining. Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

17 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April REFERENCES Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt Environmental Geochemistry of Minesite Drainage: Practical Theory and Case Studies, Digital Edition. MDAG Publishing ( Vancouver, British Columbia. ISBN: Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt Environmental Geochemistry of Minesite Drainage: Practical Theory and Case Studies. MDAG Publishing ( Vancouver, British Columbia. ISBN: Price, W.A., K.A. Morin, N.M. Hutt Guidelines for the prediction of acid rock drainage and metal leaching for mines in British Columbia: Part II. Recommended procedures for static and kinetic testing. IN: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, May 31-June 6, Vancouver, Canada, Volume I, p Price, W.A., and J.C. Errington Guidelines for Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Minesites in British Columbia. Issued by the British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines. Price, W.A Draft Manual for the Prediction of Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage. Issued by the British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines. Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

18 - Progress Report on Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD), April APPENDIX A Chemical Analyses of Morrison Core Samples Through April 2005 Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

19 Project: Client: Data: Sample Information ABA Data Comments: Samples collected by personnel. Sample Received Rinse Paste HCl Leachable Carbonate Leach Id. Sample # Drillhole From To Lithology Alteration Weight ph ph S (Total) S (Sulphide) S (Sulphate) S (Sulphate) S(BaSO 4) S(del actual) S(del) TAP SAP (kg) Unity Unity (% Leco) (% Calc) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (kg CaCO 3/t) (kg CaCO 3/t) Crustal Abundance: From Crustal Abundance: To M BFP KSi M ZS Se M MS Se M BFP Ar M ZS Se M ZS Se M ZS Se M BFP K M ZS Se M BFP ArCb M SS QzSe M BFP KSi M SS Si M BFP ArCb M BFP ArCb M M M M M M M M M MO BFP KSi MO BFP K3+Si MO ZS Se4, KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4+Si MO BFP ArSe3+Cb MO ZS Se4+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO ZS Se4+Cb3, K MO ZS Se4, K MO ZS Se4, K MO BFP K MO BFP K3+Si MO BFP K MO BFP KSi MO ZS KSi MO ZS-FLT Se4+Cb MO ZS Se4+Cb MO ZS Se4+Cb MO BFP KSi MO BFP ArSe5+Cb MO BFP K4+Si MO ZS ArSe4+Cb MO BFP K MO BFP ArCb MO BFP K MO BFP K MO SS Si MO ZS K4, Se MO ZS Se4+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP K MO BFP K3+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP K2, ArSe MO BFP KSi MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4+Si MO BFP K MO BFP K MO BFP K MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP K4+Ch MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4+Si MO BFP KSi4, ArSe MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP K5+Si MO BFP K5+Si MO BFP KSi4+Ch MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4, Si5, Cb MO ZS Se5, K MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4+Si MO BFP ArSe3+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP ArSe3+Cb MO SS Si5, Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO FLT-ZS Se3, K MO ZS Se5, K MO BFP ArSe3+Si MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO ZS QzSe3, Se MO BFP ArSe3+Cb

20 Project: Client: Data: Sample Information ABA Data Comments: Samples collected by personnel. Sample Received Rinse Paste HCl Leachable Carbonate Leach Id. Sample # Drillhole From To Lithology Alteration Weight ph ph S (Total) S (Sulphide) S (Sulphate) S (Sulphate) S(BaSO 4) S(del actual) S(del) TAP SAP (kg) Unity Unity (% Leco) (% Calc) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (kg CaCO 3/t) (kg CaCO 3/t) Crustal Abundance: From Crustal Abundance: To MO ZS QzSe4, K MO BFP Cb4, QzSe MO BFP K2, ArSe MO BFP ArSe3+Cb4+Si MO ZS KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO ZS KSi5, Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb4+Si MO BFP ArSe3+Cb4+Si MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4+Si MO BFP ArSe4+Si MO ZS Se4, Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb4+Si MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO ZS Si4+Se3, Cb MO ZS Si4+Cb4, Se MO BFP K3+Si4, Ch MO ZS Se3+Si4, Cb MO BFP ArSe3, Si3, Cb MO BFP K3, Ch MO ZS Se4+Si2, Cb MO BFP K3+Si5, Ch MO BFP K3+Si4, Cb MO BFP K4+Si MO ZS QzSe4, Cb MO BFP K3, Cb MO ZS K4, Se4, Si MO SS Si5, Cb MO BFP ArSe3+Si MO ZS/SS QzSe3, Cb MO ZS Se4, Cb MO BFP ArSe4, Cb MO ZS KSi4, Se MO ZS K4+Si3, Se MO ZS KSi Maximum Minimum Mean Standard Deviation Percentile Percentile Median Percentile Percentile Interquartile Range (IQR) Variance Skewness #DIV/0! Coefficient of Variation (CoV) #DIV/0! Count NPR < 1.0 or NPR = < NPR < 2.0 NPR > 2.0 or NPR =2.0 % NPR < 1.0 or NPR = 1.0 of Total % 1.0 < NPR < 2.0 of Total % NPR > 2.0 or NPR =2.0 of Total 1 Interquartile Range (IQR) = 75 th percentile minus 25 th percentile 2 Coefficient of Variation (CoV) = standard deviation divided by mean NOTE: If data was reported as < detection limit half the detection limit is shown in italics and was used in subsequent calculations. % S (Sulphide) (calc) = % S (Total) - % S (Sulphate) HCl Leachable %S(BaSO 4) = Ba (ppm) * * / % S (del actual) = %S(Total) - %S(Sulphide) Leco - %S(Sulphate) Carbonate Leach - %S(BaSO 4) % S (del) = % S (del actual) unless < 0, then 0 TAP = % S (Total) * SAP = % S (Sulphide + del) * 31.25

21 Project: Client: Data: Sample Information Samples collected by Comments: personnel. Sample Id. Sample # Drillhole From To Lithology Alteration Crustal Abundance: From Crustal Abundance: To ABA Data Total Inorganic Inorganic Total Inorganic (Ca) (Ca+Mg) Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Fizz NP C C CO 2 CaNP CaNP CaNP CaNP TNNP SNNP TNPR SNPR Rating TNNP SNNP TNPR SNPR Pot Sil Se Arg Carb Chl Comment (kg CaCO 3/t) (% Leco) (%) (%) (kg CaCO 3/t) (kg CaCO 3/t) (kg CaCO3/t) (kg CaCO 3/t) (kg CaCO 3/t) (kg CaCO 3/t) (kg CaCO 3/t) (kg CaCO 3/t) Unity M BFP KSi4 M ZS Se3 M MS Se2 M BFP Ar1 M ZS Se3 M ZS Se3 M ZS Se4 M BFP K3 M ZS Se4 M BFP ArCb3 M SS QzSe4 M BFP KSi4 M SS Si5 M BFP ArCb4 M BFP ArCb4 M M M M M M M M M MO BFP KSi MO BFP K3+Si MO ZS Se4, KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4+Si MO BFP ArSe3+Cb MO ZS Se4+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO ZS Se4+Cb3, K MO ZS Se4, K MO ZS Se4, K MO BFP K MO BFP K3+Si MO BFP K MO BFP KSi MO ZS KSi MO ZS-FLT Se4+Cb MO ZS Se4+Cb MO ZS Se4+Cb MO BFP KSi MO BFP ArSe5+Cb MO BFP K4+Si MO ZS ArSe4+Cb MO BFP K MO BFP ArCb MO BFP K MO BFP K MO SS Si MO ZS K4, Se MO ZS Se4+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP K MO BFP K3+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP K2, ArSe MO BFP KSi MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4+Si MO BFP K MO BFP K MO BFP K MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP K4+Ch MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4+Si MO BFP KSi4, ArSe MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP K5+Si MO BFP K5+Si MO BFP KSi4+Ch MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4, Si5, Cb MO ZS Se5, K MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO BFP K4+Si MO BFP ArSe3+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO BFP ArSe3+Cb MO SS Si5, Cb MO BFP ArSe4+Cb MO FLT-ZS Se3, K MO ZS Se5, K MO BFP ArSe3+Si MO BFP KSi MO BFP KSi MO ZS QzSe3, Se MO BFP ArSe3+Cb mag= mag=1, Po=Tr MFDY loc Mag= Bn=Tr, Mo=Tr top of rack: starting to rust SeCb4 overprinting KSi top of rack: starting to rust top of rack: vns str oxidized top of rack: vns mod oxidized approx 9m wide Cb alt'd ZS Cb vns 5mm wide end of ArCb alt'd ZS/BFP secn top of rack: mod-str oxidized top of rack: mod-str oxidized top of rack: wkly oxidized top of rack: v wkly-mod oxidized silica flooded K4 relicts, 90% Se FLT zone, part of interval crushed wkly oxidized top of rack: str oxidized