Response to Wek èezhìi Land and Water Board Undertaking Number One NICO Project Land Use Permit and Type A Water Licence Application

Transcription

1 Response to Wek èezhìi Land and Water Board Undertaking Number One NICO Project Land Use Permit and Type A Water Licence Application FORTUNE MINERALS LIMITED 148 Fullarton St., Suite 1600 London, Ontario N6A 5P3 Date: March 5, 014

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction Geochemical Dataset for the NICO Project Sulphur Speciation in Mine Rock and Ore Acid Generation Potential Rationale for Sulphur Criterion for Mine Rock Management Sulphur Cut Off Criterion Based on Total Sulphur Expected Mass of Each Rock Type According to the Revised Geochemical Classification Criteria Sensitivity of Sample Classification According to the Proposed Geochemical Classification Criteria for Mine Rock Management Conclusions References... 8 Appendix A Statistical Summaries of Results of Geochemical Characterization According to Mine Rock Classification... A Page Fortune Minerals Limited TABLE OF CONTENTS i

3 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Fortune Minerals Limited TABLE OF CONTENTS ii

4 1.0 Introduction The public hearings for the NICO Project Water Licence and Land Use Permit Applications were completed in Behchoko, Northwest Territories on 5 and 6 February 014. The Wek èezhìi Land and Water Board (WLWB) requested that Fortune Minerals Limited (Fortune) complete the following undertaking related to mine rock classification: Undertaking #1: Fortune Minerals to provide sulphur cut off criteria for Type 1, and 3 waste rock based on total sulphur and reconfirm the expected mass of each type of waste rock. Fortune Minerals Limited Fortune Minerals Response 1

5 .0 Geochemical Dataset for the NICO Project The geochemical dataset presented in Appendix IV of the Developer s Assessment Report (DAR) (Fortune 011) was used to develop the geochemical criteria for mine rock classification presented in the Mine Rock Management Plan (MRMP) (Fortune 013). Geochemical test results that were used to develop the mine rock classification criteria included: acid base accounting (ABA), including total sulphur, sulphide sulphur, sulphate sulphur, total carbon, carbonate, and neutralization potential (NP). The results of analysis of total sulphur and sulphide sulphur were used to calculate the maximum potential acidity (MPA) and acid potential (AP), respectively. Carbon concentrations were used to calculate the carbonate neutralization potential (CaNP); net acid generation (NAG) testing; mineralogical Analysis (X-ray diffraction (XRD) with Rietveld refinement); trace metal analyses; short-term leach testing (shake flask extraction, synthetic precipitation leachate procedure (SPLP), and comprehensive analyses of NAG leachates); humidity cell tests (HCT); and field cell leachate analyses. Appendix A of the MRMP discusses the evaluation that was undertaken to establish the proposed geochemical criteria for mine rock management. 3.0 Sulphur Speciation in Mine Rock and Ore Sulphur analysis is carried out to identify the concentration and composition of sulphur species in a geologic material. Sulphur species present in geological materials include: sulphide and sulphosalt minerals, sulphate minerals, and organic sulphur. Sulphide mineral oxidation can result in the release of acidity, sulphate and trace metals to water that comes in contact with sulphidic mine rocks (MEND 009). Dissolution of some soluble sulphate minerals present in highly oxidized bodies can also release acidity. Mineralogical analysis was performed to determine the source of sulphur in mine rock and samples at the NICO Project. Table 1 summarizes the results of mineralogical analysis of mine rock and, including results presented in the DAR and results from recent analysis of sub-samples collected from mine rock field cell FC-11. The only sulphide Fortune Minerals Limited Fortune Minerals Response

6 mineral detected by X-ray diffraction was pyrite [FeS ]; however, the minimum detection limit for XRD is 1%. Sulphide minerals including pyrite and arsenopyrite [FeAsS], and trace chalcopyrite [CuFeS] and pyrrhotite [Fe 1-x S] were observed in exploration drill c and samples from the mine rock field cells. 3.1 Acid Generation Potential Acid generation potential (AP) refers to the total amount of acid a geological material can produce. The acid generation potential of a sample is calculated according to Equation 1, using the percent sulphur in acid generating sulphur containing species (MEND 009): ( ) Equation 1 The sulphur species selected to calculate acid generation potential is typically selected based on the known mineralogy of the deposit. Sulphide minerals tend to be the largest source of potential acid in aerobic weathering conditions. The potential for future mineral acid generation can usually be calculated from the sulphide sulphur content (MEND 009). In samples lacking previous sulphide oxidation, the measured total sulphur concentration should approximately equal the sulphide sulphur concentration. If total sulphur concentrations are greater than measured sulphide concentrations, the difference may result from the presence of unanalyzed sulphate minerals or analytical error. Total sulphur can be used to calculate acid potential; however, this may conservatively overestimate AP because of the inclusion of basic sulphates and / or organic sulphur that are not a significant, long term source of AP (MEND 009). As expected based on the mineralogy of the deposit, sulphide sulphur is the main sulphur species in mine rock at the NICO Project. However, total sulphur concentrations are slightly greater than sulphide sulphur concentrations (Figure 1). Figure compares total sulphur concentrations to the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between sulphur and sulphide sulphur concentrations. Low sulphur samples reported the greatest RPDs between sulphur and sulphide. In part, this is due to the fact that some samples had lower analytical detection limits for sulphide sulphur versus total sulphur, as a result of analytical method. Furtherm, analytical accuracy generally decreases at concentrations near the detection limit, which may also account for the larger RPDs measured in low sulphur samples. The difference between total and sulphide sulphur concentrations in low sulphur samples could also be the result of oxidation of sulphide minerals during the delay between drilling, sample collection and static testing. The agreement between total sulphur and sulphide sulphur concentrations increases with increasing total sulphur concentration (Table 3). The average proportion of sulphide Fortune Minerals Limited Fortune Minerals Response 3

7 sulphur in samples containing greater than 0.3% total sulphur ranged from 80 to 89%. A marked decrease in the average sulphide sulphur content of samples was noted in samples containing less than 0.3% total sulphur. This comparison indicates that total sulphur concentrations reliably indicate the sulphide sulphur concentration of samples containing greater than 0.3% total sulphur. In low sulphur samples, total sulphur could overestimate the AP of a sample if the total sulphur concentration includes non-reactive sulphur unlikely to generate acidity. 4.0 Rationale for Sulphur Criterion for Mine Rock Management The sulphur criterion for mine rock management was selected following a detailed review of the results of ABA, NAG testing, and HCT, as presented in Appendix A of the MRMP. The decision making process was guided by the following considerations: - In general, most rock at the NICO Project has low sulphur concentrations. Mine rock and samples had an average concentration of 0.1% total sulphur (0.17% sulphide sulphur), and a median concentration of 0.07% total sulphur (0.04% sulphide sulphur) (Table ). - As suggested by the results of mineralogical analysis, mine rock and contain little neutralization potential (NP), owing to the absence of large quantities of carbonate mineralization. The average NP of mine rock and was 14 t CaCO 3 /0 t, and the median 1 t CaCO 3 /0 t. Despite the absence of carbonate minerals, the low median sulphide concentration of the mine rock and dataset suggests that most samples are not capable of generating a large amount of acidity. - Static test results used to establish a sample s acid generation potential included NP/AP ratio and NAG-pH: o o An NP/AP ratio of is commonly used to distinguish PAG from non-acid generating (non-ag) rock, which represents a reasonable factor of safety (MEND 009). A well-defined trend existed between NP/AP ratio and sulphur concentrations, and most samples with an NP/AP less than contained greater than 0.5% sulphide sulphur (Figure 3). Figure 3 also demonstrates that samples with an NP/AP ratio less than contained greater than 0.3% total sulphur. Samples with a NAG-pH less than 4.5 are considered to have a high potential for acid generation, owing to a lack of buffering capacity relative to the acid generation potential of a sample (MEND 009). All samples with a NAG-pH less than 4.5 had sulphide sulphur concentrations greater than Fortune Minerals Limited Fortune Minerals Response 4

8 0.5% (Figure 4). Similar to NP/AP, samples with a NAG-pH less than 4.5 contained greater than 0.3% total sulphur. - Table 4 summarizes the HCT results. Two samples in the HCT dataset generated acidic ph leachate. Sample 93, a sample of rhyolite mine rock from exploration drill c collected in 004, contained 0.59% total sulphur (0.49% sulphide sulphur) and no measurable neutralization potential. Acidic leachate ph values were generated from the onset of the test. Sample 907, a sample of black rock schist mine rock from exploration drill c collected in 004, contained 0.31% total sulphur (0.7% sulphide sulphur). All other mine rock samples in the HCT dataset contained less than 0.07% total sulphur (less than 0.04 % sulphide sulphur). Initially, a sulphide sulphur concentration of 0.3% was selected to classify PAG rock (Fortune 013). The PAG criterion was subsequently updated to 0.5% sulphide sulphur in January 013, in response to Technical Session Information Request #13 (Fortune 014). The use of a PAG criterion of 0.5% sulphide sulphur added m conservatism in defining PAG rock relative to the original criterion of 0.3% sulphide sulphur. In general, samples containing less than 0.5% sulphide sulphur had an average sulphide sulphur concentration of 0.05%, and a median sulphide sulphur concentration of 0.01% (Table 5). The low median sulphide sulphur concentration indicates that most rock with less than 0.5% sulphide sulphur has a very low acid generation potential. 5.0 Sulphur Cut Off Criterion Based on Total Sulphur For this undertaking, Fortune Minerals is to provide sulphur cut off criteria for Type 1, and 3 waste rock based on total sulphur and reconfirm the expected mass of each type of waste rock. Based on a review of the existing geochemical dataset, rock containing greater than 0.3% total sulphur is classified as PAG according to NP/AP ratio (Figure 3), NAG ph (Figure 4) and HCT (Table 4). The geochemical classification of samples using a total sulphur concentration of 0.3% and a sulphide sulphur concentration of 0.5% was similar: - Approximately 76% of the samples in the ABA dataset had sulphide sulphur concentrations less than 0.5%. Likewise, 76% of the ABA dataset samples contained less than 0.3% total sulphur. Theref, the use of a total sulphur concentration of 0.3% to classify PAG rock is appropriate based on the results of sulphur speciation in the existing geochemical dataset, Table 6 presents the proposed revision to the geochemical criteria for mine rock management using total sulphur. Using a total sulphur concentration of 0.3% to classify Fortune Minerals Limited Fortune Minerals Response 5

9 PAG rock, Type 1 and Type rock would contain less than 0.3% total sulphur, whereas rock would contain greater than 0.3% total sulphur. Samples submitted for geochemical testing as a component of the DAR were re-classified according to the revised geochemical criteria for mine rock management presented in Table 6. Appendix A presents statistical summaries of the results of trace metal analysis, acid base accounting, short-term leach testing, and comprehensive analysis of NAG leachates according to mine rock classification. The information in Appendix A supersedes the classification of samples presented in Technical Session Information Request 13 (Fortune 013), where several samples of Type rock were conservatively grouped in with rock. It is recognized that using a sulphur cut-off criterion of 0.5% total sulphur would provide an added level of conservatism in selection of non-pag rock, which could account of the oxidation of rock between sample collection and analysis. A review of availability of rock for construction under lower total sulphur values is included in Sections 5.1 and Expected Mass of Each Rock Type According to the Revised Geochemical Classification Criteria Table 7 presents the tonnages of each category of mine rock based on a sulphide sulphur concentration of 0.5%. Based on a review of the geochemical data set and the similarity in percentage of samples classified as PAG between a 0.5% sulphide sulphur cutoff (76% of samples), or 0.3% total sulphur cutoff concentration (also 76% of samples), it can be reconfirmed that the masses of available rock as presented in Table 7 for each rock type will not change appreciably with the change to a total sulphur concentration of 0.3%. The block model is expected to be updated as part of the Mine Rock Management Plan, and will be used in conjunction with operational sampling to verify that appropriate rock is used in construction. Preliminary estimates of the tonnage of Type 1a rock based on a total sulphur concentration of 0.5% are provided for reference, for the purpose of evaluating the potential effect of using total sulphur to classify mine rock on the amount of construction material. The block model will ultimately be updated based on the final mine rock management criteria, which will reduce the uncertainty associated with material quantities and origins well in advance of on-site construction activities. Fortune Minerals Limited Fortune Minerals Response 6

10 5. Sensitivity of Sample Classification According to the Proposed Geochemical Classification Criteria for Mine Rock Management Table 8 presents the classification of samples in the geochemistry dataset according to the range of geochemical classification criteria that were considered as part of the decision making process for the MRMP. Figures 5 and 6 compare solid phase concentrations of arsenic and bismuth to geochemical test leachate concentrations for arsenic and selenium, respectively. Figures 5 and 6 were originally presented in Appendix A of the MRMP. As demonstrated in Table 7, it is expected that a suitable amount of rock with a low arsenic and selenium leaching potential, and a low acid generation potential will be available for construction. Table 8 presents the potential variability in percentages of samples from the geochemical database that meet the classification criteria for differing combinations of arsenic, bismuth, and total sulphur cutoff values Lowering the total sulphur criterion from 0.3% total sulphur to 0.15% total sulphur has no material change in the relative proportion of samples classified as Type 1a construction rock. Approximately 16% of the geochemistry samples would be classified as Type 1a construction rock using an arsenic cut-off criterion of 500 ppm. The proportion of Type 1a samples decreases by only a few percent when the arsenic cut-off criterion is decreased to ppm arsenic and 00 ppm arsenic, respectively. The arsenic cutoff of 500 ppm was selected based on feedback during the December 013 technical sessions (Fortune 014). All but 3 samples that contained less than 500 ppm arsenic had leachate concentrations less than the Mine Metal Effluent Regulation (MMER) concentration of 0.5 arsenic. Mine rock classification is most sensitive to the bismuth criterion, which is correlated to selenium leachate potential. Increasing the bismuth criterion from 50 ppm bismuth to ppm bismuth would result in a 7 to 1% increase in the amount of construction rock available. The bismuth criterion of 50 ppm bismuth was selected as it was the lowest solid phase concentration at which selenium concentrations were measured in geochemical test leachates (Figure 6). 6.0 Conclusions A review of the available data set indicates a reasonable agreement between the results of total sulphur and sulphide sulphur analysis. Total sulphur and sulphide sulphur concentrations vary at lower total sulphur concentrations. This could be a result of analytical error at concentrations near the detection limit, or it could be the result of oxidation of sulphur in the time between drilling, sample collection and analysis. It is Fortune Minerals Limited Fortune Minerals Response 7

11 recognized that no corresponding sulphate mineral were identified by mineralogical analysis; theref, the presence of sulphate in samples in the geochemical dataset is likely the results of oxidation of sulphide minerals within the c. Theref, it is possible that the predicted AP could be slightly underestimated by using sulphide sulphur alone. It is considered reasonable and appropriate to use a criterion of either 0.5% sulphide sulphur or 0.3% total sulphur for identifying PAG mine rock. Using a sulphur criterion with a cutoff value of 0.5% sulphide sulphur, or a total sulphur cutoff of 0.3 weight percent yields similar results in terms of amount of available construction rock. Using a slightly m conservative value of 0.5% total sulphur would yield less available construction rock. 7.0 References Fortune Minerals Limited Developer s Assessment Report, NICO Project. Fortune Mine Rock Management Plan, NICO Project. Fortune Response to Technical Session Information Request Number 13. MEND Prediction manual for drainage chemistry from sulphidic geologic materials. MEND Report Fortune Minerals Limited Fortune Minerals Response 8

12 List of Tables Fortune Minerals Limited Tables 8

13 FC-1 FC- FC-3 FC-4 FC-5 FC-11 # FC-11 #3 FC-11 #5 Mine Rock Mine Rock Mine Rock Mine Rock Ore Mine Rock Mine Rock Mine Rock Feldspar Porphyry and Black Rock Schist (±magnetite) Table 1 Results of Mineralogical Analysis of Mine Rock and Ore NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Limited Black Rock Schist (±magnetite) Black Rock Schist (±magnetite) Black Rock Schist (±magnetite) Black Rock Schist (±magnetite) Mineral Ideal Formula Composition (%) Ferrohornblende [(Ca,Na)3(Fe,Mg,Al)5Si8O(OH,F)] Ferrohornblende, sodian [(Na,K)Ca (Fe,Mg) 5 (Al,Si) 8 O (OH,F) ] 18.4 Tremolite [Ca Mg 5 Si 8 O (OH) ] 4 1 Actinolite [Ca (Mg,Fe) 5 Si 8 O (OH) ] 54.4 Omphacite [(Ca,Na)(Mg,Fe +,Al)Si O 6 ] Black Rock Schist (±magnetite) Black Rock Schist (±magnetite) Clinochl [(Mg,Fe + ) 5 Al(Si 3 Al)O 10 (OH) 8 ] 1.6 Kaolinite [Al Si O 5 (OH) 4 ] 1.9 Diopside [MgCaSi O 8 ] Microcline [KAlSi 3 O 8 ] Orthoclase [KAlSi 3 O 8 ] 8. Albite [NaAlSi 3 O 8 ] Quartz [SiO ] Biotite [K(Mg,Fe) 3 AlSi 3 O 10 (OH,F) ] Siderophyllite [KFe + Al(Al Si )O 10 (F,OH) ] Forsterite [Mg SiO 4 ] 6.7 Ilmenite [FeTiO 3 ] Magnetite [Fe 3 O 4 ] Aresenopyrite [FeAsS] 6.5 Pyrite [FeS ] Calcite [CaCO 3 ] Phlogopite 1 M Mica [KMg 3 (AlSi 3 O 10 )(OH)] Hastingsite [NaCa Fe 4 (Al,Fe)Al Si 6 O (OH) ] Notes: - XRD cannot identify amorphous phases, and theref semi-crystalline precipitate minerals may not be fully represented by the results of XRD. - Diffraction peak overlap between minerals can cause peaks to be exaggerated, obscured or misidentified. - Trace concentrations of minerals are difficult to identify due to the limitations of the analytical method: as a rule-of-thumb, the minimum detection limit for XRD is approximately 1%. Black Rock Schist (±magnetite)

14 Table Comparison of Sulphide and Sulphur Concentrations in Mine Rock and Ore NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Limited Sulphate Sulphur Sulphide Sulphur Total Sulphur % % % Number of Samples Minimum Maximum Median Average th Percentile th Percentile * Note: Concentration ranges include all samples of mine rock and.

15 Table 3 Evaluation of the Proportion of Sulphide Sulphur in Mine Rock and Ore Samples NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Limited Total Sulphur Concentration Average Proportion of Sulphide Sulphur to % 0.1 to 0. 66% 0. to % 0.3 to % 0.4 to % 0.5 to 1 8% 1 to 3 89%

16 Sample ID NP/AP Ratio Total Sulphur Sulphide- Sulphur Depletion Rate Time to Depletion % % mg/kg/week Years NP t CaCO3 / 0 t Depletion Rate mg/kg/week Feldspar Porphyry Non-acid generating Non-acid generating - negligible sulphide content 65 Rhyolite < Non-acid generating N/A (1) N/A Acid generating - Acid generation realized during kinetic testing Non-acid generating Breccia Non-acid generating 00 4 Black Rock Schist (+ magnetite) Non-acid generating 1, Non-acid generating 1, 0.01 Black Rock Schist (± magnetite) < Non-acid generating 41 < Acid generating - Acid generation realized during kinetic testing. 5, 0.03 Sub-Arkosic Wacke Non-acid generating Siltstone < Non-acid generating 5 1. Initial NP is zero and theref these calculations cannot be competed.. Average concentration over last five weeks of testing. Sulphide-Sulphur Depletion Table 4 Results of Humidity Cell Testing NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Limited NP Depletion Time to Depletion Years Acid Generation Potential Arsenic (ppm) Arsenic ()

17 Table 5 Range of Concentration of Sulphide Sulphur and Total Sulphur in Potentially Acid Generating and Non-Potentially Acid Generating Samples NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Limited < 0.5% Sulphide Sulphur >0.5% Sulphide Sulphur Number of Samples 5 69 Minimum % 0.7 Maximum % Median % Average % th Percentile % th Percentile % < 0.3% Total Sulphur >0.3% Total Sulphur Number of Samples 6 8 Minimum % Maximum % Median % Average % th Percentile % th Percentile %

18 Table 6 Proposed Changes to the Geochemical Classification Criteria for Mine Rock Management NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Limited Mine Rock Classification Cover Construction Material Original Criteria (Table 4-1, Mine Rock Management Plan) Revised Criteria (December 013 Technical Hearings Information Request #13) Revised Criteria (January 014) Mine Rock Management Practise Glacial till / sand Glacial till / sand Glacial till / sand Natural aggregate or soil material with a low potential for acid generation and metal leaching, and the required grain size characteristics to meet the objectives of the closure cover. Type 1a Type 1 Type Sub-economic Mine Rock Samples contain < 0.3% sulphide sulphur <50 ppm bismuth < 1,000 ppm arsenic Samples contain < 0.3% sulphide sulphur < 1,000 ppm arsenic Samples contain > 0.3% sulphide sulphur > 50 ppm bismuth > 1,000 ppm arsenic Classified according to Fortune s grade control cut-offs Samples contain <0.5% sulphide sulphur <50 ppm bismuth < 500 ppm arsenic Samples contain < 0.5% sulphide sulphur <50 ppm bismuth between 500 and 1,000 ppm arsenic Samples contain < 0.5% sulphide sulphur < 1,000 ppm arsenic Samples contain > 0.5% sulphide sulphur > 50 ppm bismuth > 1,000 ppm arsenic Classified according to Fortune s grade control cut-offs CDF = Co-Disposal Facility; ppm = parts per million; < = less than; > = greater than; % = percent Samples contain <0.3% total sulphur <50 ppm bismuth < 500 ppm arsenic Samples contain < 0.3% total sulphur <50 ppm bismuth between 500 and 1,000 ppm arsenic Samples contain < 0.3% total sulphur < 1,000 ppm arsenic Samples contain > 0.3% total sulphur > 50 ppm bismuth > 1,000 ppm arsenic Classified according to Fortune s grade control cut-offs Rock with a low potential for acid generation and metal leaching to be used for construction of roads, upgrades to existing roads, rock pads and lay down area outside the boundaries of the co-disposal facility (CDF). Can also be used for construction in or on the CDF. Rock with a low potential for acid generation and metal leaching to be used for construction of seepage collection pond dams and perimeter embankments within the boundaries of the CDF. Rock with a low potential for acid generation, to be used for construction of perimeter dykes within the CDF. Potentially acid generating and metal leaching rock, to be contained within the CDF. rock should only be placed inside of the perimeter embankments of the CDF. Sub-economic Mine Rock will be placed within the CDF with a minimum offset of 0 m from the inside edge of the perimeter dyke.

19 Mine Rock Classification Type 1A Type 1A (1) Type 1 Type < 0.5% Sulphide Sulphur <500 ppm As <50 ppm Bi Table 7 Mine Rock Production Schedule according to Preliminary Geochemical Classification Criteria <0.5% total sulphur <500 ppm As <50 ppm Bi < 0.5% Sulphide Sulphur 500-1,000 ppm As <50 ppm Bi < 0.5% Sulphide Sulphur <1,000 ppm As >50 ppm Bi > 0.5% Sulphide Sulphur and/or > 1,000 ppm As and/or > 50 ppm Bi Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes 015 Year 0 1,353,686 1,57, ,444,35,897 17,130 1, Year 1 4,538,808 4,457,594 1,6,15 4,866, ,14 16, Year 1,507,117 1,489,814 55,16 3,348,983 1,443,47 85, Year 3 1,138,366 Tonnage Pending 573,715 4,414,66,849 1,487, , Year 4,63,486 Tonnage Pending 1,096,84,006 3,854,659 1,486,65 359,01 00 Year 5 968,333 Tonnage Pending 318,65 795,598 1,661,310,30 01 Year 6 1,507,864 Tonnage Pending 54,569,461,619 1,748,536,143 0 Year 7 3,005,490 Tonnage Pending 1,31,084,668,983 1,695, , Year 8 3,08,850 Tonnage Pending 1,315,866 13,46 3,983,388 1,694,911 4, Year 9 1,664,351 Tonnage Pending 1,097,155 10,939 3,19,909 1,700,013 38,99 05 Year 10 97,49 Tonnage Pending 490,577 7,313 1,811,548 1,708,15 63, Year 11 1,079,456 Tonnage Pending 636, ,886,698 1,691,107 76,81 07 Year 1 83,395 Tonnage Pending 580,379 1,65,97 1,698, , Year ,063 Tonnage Pending 53,06 1,585,501 1,707,036 31, Year ,919 Tonnage Pending 96,73 865,84 1,713,31 345, Year 15 61,806 Tonnage Pending 435,98 1,794,410 1,691,60 98, Year 16 58,313 Tonnage Pending 388,74,517,88 1,640,161 70, Year ,384 Tonnage Pending 57,500 1,757,97 1,658,975 05, Year ,535 Tonnage Pending 78, ,781 1,797, , Year ,39 Tonnage Pending 377,47,766,966 1,657, , Year 0 698,591 Tonnage Pending 31,51 1,011,94 1,70,971 07, Year 1 314,64 Tonnage Pending 78,777 80,08 438,190 5,40 Total (Tonnes) 9,499,58 8,330,378 13,536,398 38,34 49,167,96 3,500,406 5,484,473 Ore Sub-Economic Mineralized Mine Rock * As presented in: Fortune Response to Technical Session Information Request #13.

20 Case 1: 0.3 % Total Sulphur cutoff; 50 ppm Bismuth cutoff, varying Arsenic content Table 8 Sensitivity Analysis for Proposed Arsenic, Bismuth and Total Sulphur Criteria for Mine Rock Management NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Limited Case : 0.15 % Total Sulphur cutoff; 50 ppm Bismuth cutoff, varying Arsenic content Proposed Criteria Proposed Criteria Total Sulphur (%) (Type 1a) 00 (Type 1a) 500 (Type 1a) (Type 1a) 00 (Type 1a) 500 (Type 1a) 0* Arsenic (ppm) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0* Bismuth (ppm) Total Number of Samples Percent of each category Type 1a 13% 14% 16% 13% 14% 16% 19% Type 1 6% 5% 3% 6% 4% % 18% Type 46% 46% 46% 46% 39% 39% 39% 39% 35% 35% 35% 35% 43% 43% 43% 43% Case 3: 0.3 % Total Sulphur cutoff; ppm Bismuth cutoff, varying Arsenic content Case 4: 0.15 % Total Sulphur cutoff; ppm Bismuth cutoff, varying As content Proposed Criteria Proposed Criteria Total Sulphur Arsenic (Type 1a) 00 (Type 1a) 500 (Type 1a) (Type 1a) 00 (Type 1a) 500 (Type 1a) 0* 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0 (Type 1, and 3) 0* Bismuth Total Number of Samples Percent of each category Type 1a 0% 3% 8% 0% % 7% 31% Type 1 11% 8% 3% 10% 7% % 9% Type 35% 35% 35% 35% 8% 8% 8% 8% 35% 35% 35% 35% 43% 43% 43% 43% * No distinction between Type 1a and Type 1 material

21 List of Figures Fortune Minerals Limited Figures 9

22 Total Sulphur Figure 1 Comparison of Sulphide Sulphur and Total Sulphur Concentrations in Mine Rock Samples from the NICO Project Fortune Minerals Limited 3 1: FAP - fortune FAP - Golder QAP - Fortune QAP - Golder rhyolite - fortune rhyolite - Golder Siltstone - Fortune Siltstone - Golder Wacke / BRS - Fortune Wacke / BRS - Golder Breccia General Waste Ore - Fortune Ore - Golder Sulphide Sulphur (%)

23 Total Sulphur Figure Comparison of Sulphide Sulphur and Total Sulphur Concentrations in Mine Rock Samples from the NICO Project Fortune Minerals Limited FAP - fortune FAP - Golder QAP - Fortune QAP - Golder rhyolite - fortune rhyolite - Golder Siltstone - Fortune Siltstone - Golder Wacke / BRS - Fortune Wacke / BRS - Golder Breccia General Waste Ore - Fortune Ore - Golder Relative Percent Difference between Sulphur and Sulphide Sulphur Concentrations (%)

24 NP/AP Ratio NP/AP Ratio Figure 3 Sulphur Concentrations versus NP/AP Ratio in Mine Rock Samples from the NICO Project Fortune Minerals Limited 0 Non-Acid Generating Sulphide-sulphur = 0.5% Uncertain 10 1 NP/AP = 0.1 Potentially Acid Generating 0.01 Uncertain Sulphide Sulphur (%) 0 Non-Acid Generating Total Sulphur = 0.3% Uncertain 10 1 NP/AP = 0.1 Potentially Acid Generating 0.01 Uncertain Total Sulphur (%) NOTE: NP/AP ratio calculated using AP based on sulphide sulphur concentrations.

25 Total Sulphur (%) Sulphide Sulphur (%) 3.5 Potentially Acid Generating Figure 4 Sulphur Concentrations versus NAG-pH in Mine Rock Samples from the NICO Project Fortune Minerals Limited NAG ph = 4.5 Uncertain Sulphide-sulphur = 0.5% Uncertain Non-Acid Generating NAG ph 3 Potentially Acid Generating Uncertain.5 NAG ph = Uncertain Total Sulphur = 0.3% Non-Acid Generating NAG ph

26 Arsenic () Figure 5 Arsenic Concentrations in Geochemical Leach Tests as a Function of Solid Arsenic Concentrations NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Limited 10 As = ppm As = 00 ppm As = 1,000 ppm As = 500 ppm FAP QAP 1 Rhyolite Siltstone Wacke / BRS Arsenic (ppm) Symbols cold according to geochemical test: Shake flask extraction Synthethic leachate precipitation procedure Comprehensive analysis of net acid generation leachates Humidity Cell Testing (First Flush and Steady State concentrations) Field cell leachates (minimum and maximum concentrations)

27 Selenium () Figure 6 Selenium Concentrations in Geochemical Leach Tests as a Function of Solid Bismuth Concentrations NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Limited 1 Bi = 50 ppm Bi = ppm Bismuth (ppm) Symbols cold according to geochemical test: Shake flask extraction Synthethic leachate precipitation procedure Comprehensive analysis of net acid generation leachates Humidity Cell Testing (First Flush and Steady State concentrations) Field cell leachates (minimum and maximum concentrations)

28 Appendix A Statistical Summaries of Results of Geochemical Characterization According to Mine Rock Classification Fortune Minerals Limited APPENDIX A

29 Appendix IV-a Solid Phase Analysis - Drill C and Outcrop Samples NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Ltd. Sample Number 1 Hole Mine Rock Ag Al As Ba Be Bi Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe K Li Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P Pb Sb Se Sn Sr Ti Tl U V Y Zn Lithology From To Classification mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Breccia Type 1a Follow Up BRS+mt Type 1a Follow Up BRS+mt Type 1a Follow Up Type 1a Follow Up Type 1a Follow Up Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Follow Up Rhyolite Type 1a Follow Up Rhyolite Type 1a Follow Up Rhyolite Type 1a Follow Up Rhyolite Type 1a Follow Up 0046S 1 10 Rhyolite Type 1a Follow Up Siltstone Type 1a Follow Up Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type 1a Follow Up Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type 1a Follow Up Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type 1a Follow Up Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type 1a Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a NICO Feldspar Porphyry Type 1a Rhyolite Type 1a Rhyolite Type 1a Rhyolite Type 1a Rhyolite Type 1a Rhyolite Type 1a Rhyolite Type 1a S 1 10 Rhyolite Type 1a NICO Rhyolite Type 1a NICO Rhyolite Type 1a NICO Outcrop Rhyolite Type 1a NICO Outcrop Rhyolite Type 1a NICO Outcrop Rhyolite Type 1a NICO Outcrop Rhyolite Type 1a NICO Outcrop Rhyolite Type 1a NICO Outcrop Rhyolite Type 1a Type 1a Siltstone Fortune Minerals Preliminary Samples Fortune Minerals Type 1a Siltstone Preliminary Samples NICO Outcrop Siltstone Type 1a NICO Outcrop Siltstone Type 1a Minimum Maximum Median Average Standard Deviation Sample Number 1 Hole Mine Rock Ag Al As Ba Be Bi Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe K Li Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P Pb Sb Se Sn Sr Ti Tl U V Y Zn Lithology From To Classification mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Rhyolite Type Follow Up Type Follow Up Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Follow Up Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Follow Up Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type S 0 30 Rhyolite Type Fortune Minerals 1 81 Upper Type Preliminary Samples Ore Zone Minimum Maximum Median Average Standard Deviation Sample Number 1 Hole Mine Rock Ag Al As Ba Be Bi Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe K Li Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P Pb Sb Se Sn Sr Ti Tl U V Y Zn Lithology From To Classification mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type Type Type Type Type Rhyolite Type Rhyolite Type Rhyolite Type Siltstone Type Breccia Type Breccia Type Breccia Type Breccia Type Breccia Type BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type BRS+mt Type Type Type Type Type A-1/14 Type

30 Appendix IV-a Solid Phase Analysis - Drill C and Outcrop Samples NICO Project, Fortune Minerals Ltd Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Feldspar Porphyry Type Outcrop Portal Type Outcrop Portal Type Outcrop Portal Type Outcrop Portal Type Rhyolite Type S 10 0 Rhyolite Type Rhyolite Type Rhyolite Type Rhyolite Type Rhyolite Type Rhyolite Type Rhyolite Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Siltstone Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type S Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Follow Up Breccia Type Follow Up Type Follow Up Type Follow Up Type Follow Up Rhyolite Type Follow Up Rhyolite Type Follow Up Rhyolite Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Breccia Type Sub-Arkosic Wacke Type Minimum Maximum Median Average Standard Deviation A-/14