mckinley gold mine laboratory testwork report-stage 1

GEKKO SYSTEMS

Quote: T0535

McKinley Gold Mine

Laboratory Testwork Report- Stage 1

Spicedew Pty Ltd

Approved by: Michael Braaksma

Technical Coordinator Accepted by:

Tim Bell Sales Person

Version: 1.1 Date: 2009/11/11

Status: Final

Document Number: T0535 Status : Final

For more information on procedures and testwork results:

Gekko contact

Name : Suzanne Dorey

Title : Laboratory Manager

321 Learmonth Road

Ballarat, Victoria

Australia 3350

Telephone : +61 3 5339 5859

Fax : +61 3 5339 5803

e-mail : [email protected]

About this document

Filename: LabReport-Spicedew-McKinleyGold-Final-091111.doc Version of the document template 1.0 Produced using Microsoft® Word 2003, SP2

Revision History

Version Date Author Description

1.0 10-11-09 Tim Hughes Testwork Report- Stage 1

1.1 11-11-09 Peer reviewed

Copyright Notice Copyright© 2009 Gekko Systems Limited . All rights reserved.

Spicedew Ply Ltd -McKinley Gold Mine

Version 1.1

of 30

Document Number: T0535 Status : Final Version 1.1

Executive Summary

This report describes the testwork performed and the results received on the McKinley Gold

Mine sample.

The head grades of the sample (50 g FA) are summarised in Table A and indicate

reasonable repeatability for gold. The assays also indicated the sample had low sulphide

content.

Table A: Head Grade Summary

Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) s (%) As (ppm)

Head grade 1 5.17 3 0.03 2300

Head grade 2 4.29 3 0.01 2300

Head grade 3 5.26 3 0.03 2300

Head grade 4 4.51 3 0.04 2250

Average 4.81 3 0.03 2288

The calculated head grades from the test work correlated well with the assay head grades

above .

The sample was found to be highly amenable to crushing by a Vertical Shaft Impactor

(VSI) producing a net 37% passing 600 IJm in a single pass.

The response of the sample to gravity separation at a P80 of 637 IJm, using Single Pass

Tabling (SPT) and Pao of 75 IJm using Progressive Grind Tabling (PGT) is illustrated in Table

B.

Table B: Tabling Tests

Mass Rec. Au Grade Au Rec

% g/t %

SPT Concentrate- Low mass pull 5.9 25 .9 28.7

SPT Concentrate- High mass pull 10.6 16.8 33.4

PGT Concentrate - Low mass pull 2.2 46.4 25.1

PGT Concentrate - High mass pull 27 .1 9.0 60.7

The tabling results are generally on the low side of samples previously tested by Gekko .

Spicedew Ply Ltd - McKinley Gold Mine of 30

Document Number: T0535 Status: Final Version 1.1

Scavenging gold from the lower grade concentrates and tailings from the PGT using a

Falcon concentrator recovered 6.3% of the feed gold in 0.6% of the mass.

Floating the tails from the Falcon concentrator test increased overall gold recovery to 69.2%

at a grade of 25.3 g/t into 12.0% of the mass as shown in Figure A.

100%

9 0 %

80 %

70 %

~60% > §50% 0::

40 %

3 0 %

20%

10%

0 %

Combined Recovery Yield Curve

---0-- A.J Distribution

+Ci---=.L-- ----- -----1 ---I!r-- S Distribution 1--------1 --o--1'9 Distribution

-+-As Distribution

0 % 20% 40% Yield 60% 80 % 100°

Figure B: Combined Tabling/Falcon/Flotation Recovery - Yield Curve

Overall, the test work has indicated that even with crushing/grinding the ore to 75 1-Jm,

gravity and flotation will only recover a moderate amount of gold into a concentrate.

Spicedew Ply Ltd -McKinley Gold Mine of 30


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............... .... ..... ...................... .. .. ........ ... ...... ....... ........... .. ...... . 3

1. lntroduction ...... ........ ....... .. ......... ...... .. ......... ........ ........... ........... .. .... ....... ........ . 6

2. Sample Receipt and Preparation .... ...... .. .. .... .......... .. ............ .. ........ ........ .. .... .. 6

3. Metallurgical Tests .. .. .... ............ .. ................................................................... 7 3.1 . Testwork Flowsheet ......... ..... .. ... .. .............. ............. .. .... ......... ....... ............... . 7

3.2. Testwork Variations ....... ................. .. .. ............ ... ........ ........ .... .... ......... .. .. ...... 8 3.3. Sizing Analysis Method .. ... ...................... ... .... .. ....... ...... ........ ..... ........ .. .. ....... 8

3.4. Comminution Tests Method ..... ... .................................. .. ................. · ............ . 8 3.5. VSI Amenability Test Method ............ .. .................... .... ................. ........ .... .. .. 9

3.6. Single Pass Tabling Method ............ ... ............ .... ...... .. .. .. .... ... ........ .. .. ... ........ 9

3. 7. Progressive Grind Tabling Method ... .. ... .............. ..... .. .. .... .. .. .. .... ..... .... ..... .. 1 0

3.8. Centrifugal Concentrator Test Method ............ .. ...... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ........ ... ... ...... 1 0

3.9. Flotation Test Method ..... ...... .......... .. .... ...... ......... .. ..... ... .... ...... .. ....... ..... ... .. 1 0

4. Results .......... ..... ......... ... ...... ................... ........ .................. ........ ................... 12 4.1. Head Grade Determination .............. ....... .. ... ... ...... ..... ..... ....... ........ .... ... ...... 12

4.2. Size by Grade Analysis ........... .. .... ... ....... .. ... ......... ..... ................ ........ ...... ... 12

4.3. Comminution Tests .. ........ .. ............ .... ......... ...... ....... .... ............. ... ....... .. ...... 15 4.4. VSI Amenability Test ...... .. .... .. .. .... .. ......... ....... .. .. .... .............. ..... ................. 15

4.5. Single Pass Tabling Test.. ........... .. .. ... .......... ...... ................ .. .............. ..... ... 16 4.6. Progressive Grind Tabling Test ... .. ........ .. ...... ... ....... .. .... ........ .... ... .. .. ..... ... .. 16 4.7. Falcon Test ............ .. ........ ...... .. ....... ..... .... .............................. .......... .......... . 17

4.8. Combined Gravity Results ................ ... .... .. .... ... ..... ...... .............. ...... .. ..... .... 18

4.9. Flotation Test .............. .. .. ... .... ......... .. .... ........ .. ..... .. ..... ...... .... ........... .... ..... .. 19 4.1 0. Combined Gravity- Flotation Result ..... .... .. ........... .... ... ........ ...... ..... .. ... .... .. 20

5. Conclusions ................. .. ..... .. .. .. ..................... ... ........... ...... ............... .. ....... ... 22

6. Recommendations ...................................... ....... .. .. .......... ... ....... .... ............. . 22 Appendix A- Ore Size Distribution Results .. .... ..... ...... ............ .... ..... ..................... 23 Appendix B- Comminution Test Results ........ ... ... .... ........ .... ........ .... ....... .............. 25

Appendix C- Gravity Test Results ......... ... ..... ........ .. .... ...... .. ................ .. ............... 26

Appendix D- Flotation and Combined Results ...... ..... ........ .. .. .......... ..... ....... .. .. ... .. 28 Appendix E - Disclaimer ...... .... ..... .... .... ............ .. .. ... ........ .. ......................... ............ 30

Spicedew Pty Ltd- McKinley Gold Mine of 30


1. Introduction

The purpose of the Testwork was to establish the amenability of the ore to gravity

concentration, flotation and intensive cyanidation . The program is broken up into 2 stages

with the execution of the second stage dependent on the results from the first.

Single pass and progressive grind gravity concentration tests will be conducted to maximise

gravity recovery at a coarse crush size . The tails from the gravity tests will be subjected to

flotation tests to maximise metal recovery. If the results are acceptable, the gravity and

flotation concentrates will then be tested for their amenability to intensive cyanidation.

2. Sample Receipt and Preparation

Sample Receipt

140 kg of sample was received at Gekko.

The assigned name for the sample was LMAC.

Sample Preparation

Samples for comminution tests were selected and kept separate to be sent if the

gravity/flotation results were encouraging.

The remaining material was jaw crushed to -11 .2mm, combined and sample split out for size

analysis and further testwork.

Sample Remaining

Approximately 60 kg of sample remains at a prepared crush size of P1 00 11.2mm.



3. Metallurgical Tests

3.1. Testwork Flowsheet The testwork flowsheet outlining all steps of the program is shown in Figure 1 below.

Commilution testilg (a) Bond lmpa::t Crusting Work Index Test- 20 rocks -+50rrm- 75mm (10M) (b) 1.6 kg of minus 314~ plus 112" for Abrasion Test (Ai)

20kg Singe Pass VSI Amenability Test@ 600 ~o~m

t R•i.., VSI ~ performance to deterrrine 'I Progressive

Grind sho~d be done v.if'IVS«BaiiMiJt

30kg- Single Pass Tablilg Test (P lOD 118mm) -(0.5, 1.5. 3.0. 5.0.

10.0'.4Yield)

rs~-·2·----- - ------- - --- - ------- - --------------- ----·············---------····--

( 2- JToslsotv.mu.J ______..,

Coi'l~Wc:ns.

dry, wtir/'1. 5ize-by ga~. assayed

a1dstore

Dry, Wflr/1. Size 11J Grade Assi!IJ

andstae

Figure 1: Quoted test work flowsheet

&f'\. Ml!estone-seektechadJi:ebefore ~starting/continuing

Spicedew Pty Ltd - McKinley Gold Mine

JOkg- Progessive Fine Grind Tabling Test (P80 85tl.Jm. PBO

40D.Jm Md PSO 75Lm on Wifrey Lab Sized Table) - (0.5, 1.5. 3.0. 5.0.

10.0%Yield)

of 30

dly, wei!~'!, size-by g-ade, OES~jed

iWld s1Dre


3.2. Testwork Variations

At times the sample and/or initial results dictate a variation to the proposed program is

required . In this case , the following variations were carried out:

Table 1: Test Work Variations

Date Issue Revised Work 15-10 Tabling recovery was A centrifugal concentrator- Falcon -test

lower than expected was carried out on the Table tail to maximise gravity recovery. A flotation test was also brought forward into stage 1 to maximise recovery . No further work on the coarse

tabling is justified . 15-10 Tabling recovery was Hold external comminution testwork.

lower than expected

3.3. Sizing Analysis Method

Various samples are subjected to a size by grade distribution analysis throughout the

program. The sieve sizes used are a root 2 series from 16 mm to 38 1-1m depending on the

top size of the sample. The -75 1-Jm, -53 1-1m and the -38 1-1m fractions are obtained via

washing 100% of the sample over a 75 IJm, 53 IJm and a 38 1-1m screen respectively using

a pneumatic sieve shaker.

The +75 IJm fractions are dried in a low (50 °C) temperature oven and dry sieved through

the nest of sieves using an electric shaker for 20 minutes .

The weight of each sample fraction is recorded and each size fraction sent for assay if

required .

3.4. Comminution Tests Method

UCS, CWi, BBMWi and Ai

Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), Crushing Work Index test (CWi) , Bond Ball Mill

Work Index tests (BBMWi) and Abrasion Index tests (Ai) are conducted at Amdel 's

Adelaide Laboratory if required.



3.5. VSI Amenability Test Method

This test is conducted to determine the amenability of processing the sample through a

vertical shaft impactor (VSI). The test involves:

1. Reducing a sample to 100% Passing 11 .2 mm via a Jaw Crusher (minimum 10 kg)

2. The entire sample is then screened at 850 ~m (or as specified) on a Kason screen

several times , until no sample reports to the undersize

3. A 2 kg lot is then split from the 0/S sample for a feed size analysis .

4. The oversize is then fed through a lab sized VSI running at 2800 rpm . The feed to

the VSI is deliberately choke fed to ensure rock on rock breakage during the test.

5. A 2kg sample from the VSI product, is split out for a product size analysis

The feed and product size ranges are compared, with the amount of fines generated (<850

~m) in one pass a key measure of the viability of using a VSI for comminution.

3.6. Single Pass Tabling Method

A laboratory size Wilfley shaking table is used for the tabling test. A thin film of town water

is applied to the shaking surface and several concentrate ports are available to separate

the products . The products are collected in large tubs that are not allowed to overflow

during the test.

The sample is initially slurried before being carefully added to the top of the table. The

angle of the table is then adjusted to produce the required mass recovery to the

concentrate streams. At the end of the test the products are allowed to settle and clarify

(flocc is added if necessary) before excess water is drained off and the solids are then

filtered, dried , weighed and sampled .

Spicedew Ply Ltd- McKinley Gold Mine of 30


3.7. Progressive Grind Tabling Method

A laboratory size Wilfley shaking table is used for the tabling test. A thin film of town water

is applied to the shaking surface and several concentrate ports are available to separate

the products. The tails are then taken and reduced in size using either a HPGR, VSI or rod

mill, and then passed over the table. The tails of the second stage can then be reduced in

size again for a third pass over the table. The concentrates from each pass are then re

tabled to produce a number of concentrate products .

The products are collected in large tubs that are not allowed to overflow during the test.

3.8. Centrifugal Concentrator Test Method

The centrifugal concentrator test is typically run on table tailings. The centrifugal

concentrator is turned on and fluidizing water is set to the desired rate. The slurried sample

is fed to the centrifugal concentrator at a constant rate. When the sample has been run

through, the concentrator is turned off and the fluidizing water shut off simultaneously to

avoid concentrate loss.

The centrifugal concentrator bowl is removed and the concentrate washed into a separate

collection container. The solids from both concentrate and tailings are allowed to settle, the

excess water is drained off and the solids are then filtered, dried, weighed and sampled.

3.9. Flotation Test Method

Flotation Test

A flotation exploratory test is conducted with a strong reagent mix of Copper Sulphate, PAX

and frother-MIBC to maximise the mass recovery to the concentrate. Depending on

particle size, sulphuric acid is sometimes added to freshen sulphide surfaces. The

conditions are summarised in Table 2.



Figure 2: Flotation test in action

Table 2: Flotation test conditions

Test Weight (g) CuS04 g/t PAX (g/t) Frother (mllt)

FL01 1300 100 100 50- 150

Spicedew Pty Ltd -McKinley Gold Mine of 30


4. Results

4.1. Head Grade Determination

Four samples weighing approx 50 grams each were split out from the prepared sample (P80

637 IJm) and sent for head grade determination . Samples were sent to AMMTEC Burnie

Laboratory in Tasmania, Australia for analysis. Table 3 below shows the results obtained.

Table 3: Head Grade of Ore Sample

Sample Weight (g) Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) s (%) As (ppm) 1 50.1 5.17 3 0.03 2300 2 49.9 4.29 3 0.01 2300 3 50.3 5.26 3 0.03 2300 4 49.3 4.51 3 0.04 2250

Average 49.9 4.81 3 0.03 2288

Table 4 displays a summary of the calculated head grades from all tests conducted.

Table 4: Calculated Head Grades

Test Calculated Head Grades

Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) s (%) As (ppm)

Avg Head Assay 4.81 3 0.03 2288

Size Analysis- 1180 1-Jm 5.21 3.2 0.02 2233

Single Pass Tabling 5.33 2.8 0.02 2155

Progressive Grind Tabling (PGT) 4.03 1.6 0.02 1399

Combined Gravity + Flotation 4.38 2.1 0.04 2169

In general , the calculated head grades correlated well between tests and with the assayed

head grade.

4.2. Size by Grade Analysis

See Appendix A - Ore Size Distribution Results for the full size and assay analysis.

P100 1.18mm (Gravity Test Feed)

The prepared sample had a particle size range of P80 637 IJm I P50 260 IJm.



The gold size distribution was slightly finer with Pao 592 !Jm IPso 127 IJm. All the other

elements were finer .

The particle and elemental distributions are shown in Figure 3.

100 ~,.

~~ ~

90 Vi

80 1--- - -- -1- - --~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OJ v v ~ r:::: 70 v 'iii

i ~ 60 v- fn v a..

~ :::!:: JY 0

50 ~v ~ y i 40 ~~

----Size C um % Pass ing

'3 ~ -o- Gold Distribu tion

E 30 0~ f..« --l:!r-- Sulphur Di stribution ::J 0 • 1{-~f* -o- Silver Di s tribution

20 ! /

----+-Arseni c Dis tributi on

10

0

10 100 1000 10000

Particle Size (microns)

Figure 3: Table Feed Size Analysis

Single Pass Table Tail

The SPT tail had a particle size range of Pao 668 !Jm IPso 264 IJm which matches the feed

sizing.

The gold size distribution was only slightly finer with P80 616 IJm I P50 189 !Jm indicating the

gold is not significantly liberated. All the other elements were finer.



Document Number: T0535

100

90

80 g' 'iii 70

IQ n. 60

'<ft. ~ 50

1§ 40

§ 30 0

20

10

1---

0

10

- r-- - -

c _...-- P"'

v v ~~ ~

·-I-"

Status: Final

vv [?'"

~ lf~

c ~ [I ~ ~ pf ~ ~ ~ rf 7~ ~ <t ~ Iff p~

/ JY v /

/ ..

100 1000


Figure 4: Single Pass Table Tail Size Analysis

Progressive Grind Table Tail

_._Size Cum % Passing

-o-Gold Distribution

-o- Sulphur Distribution

-o- Silver Dis tribution

---+---Arsenic Distribution

--o- lron Distribution

I

The PGT tail had a particle size range of Pao 74 IJm IPso 53 IJm.

Version 1.1

10000

The gold size distribution was slightly finer with Pao 57 IJm I P50 28 IJm. Again, all the other

elements were finer.


100

90

80

~70 Ill :Q 60 a.. ~50

~ 40 :;:; ro :; 30 E (po

10

0

.rT' / (; ~ v I

1----- r--- 1- _rr r-1 -~ ~

y i I

; I

l:/ I

lr I .. I I I I I I I

10 100 Particle Size (microns)

Figure 5: Progressive Grind Table Tail Size Analysis

Spicedew Pty Ltd -McKinley Gold Mine

_.,_Size Cum % Pas sing -<r Gold Distribution -Ill- Sulphur Distribution -o- Silver Distribution

-+-Arsenic Distribution ~Iron Distribution

I 1000

of 30


4.3. Comminution Tests

These tests are currently on hold pending review of the gravity/flotation results.

4.4. VSI Amenability Test

The results of the Vertical Shaft Impactor (VSI) amenability test at a pre-screen size of 600

1-1m are shown in Table 5 and Figure 6 . The test has indicated that the sample has a high

amenability for this method of Comminution. Refer to Appendix B- Comminution Test

Results for the full results.

Table 5: VSI Amenability Test- Production of Product Size

Product

Size (1-Jm)

-1180

850

600

100

90

80

"'' ·~ 70 1/)

1:. 60 ~ ~ 50 > :E 40 :::l

§ 30 0

20

10

0

10

% Passing Product Size Circulating Load,%@

(Net) Product Size

49 202 - --

44 224 ---

37 266

VSISingle Pass Amenability Test

~ ~~~ · l' / v

J

/ P'.)

/ 1 v \ / I

100 1000 10000


I --FEED -<>- FROOlX;T I

Amenability

High

High -

High

100000

Figure 6: VSI Single Pass Amenability Test Particle Size Distributions



4.5. Single Pass Tabling Test

Approximately 51 kg of sample was used for a single pass tabling test at a particle size P100

1180 1-1m and Psa 637 IJm. The results indicated that 28.7% of the gold could be recovered

by pulling 5.9% of the mass, which produced a concentrate with a grade of 25.9 g/t

(upgrade ratio of 5.2). The recovery only increases to 33.4% when the mass pull is

increased to 10.6%.

Figure 7 displays the elemental recovery versus mass yield with the detailed results given

in Appendix C- Gravity Test Results .

Tabling Recovery Yield Curve

100%

90%

80%

70%

~ 60% ~ ~50% If:

40% -o-Au Distribution

30% ----&- S Distribution

-tt----...,.r:..__---;;""'7-"---~~~~~~---j --G-- Ag Distributionl~------1

20% -+- As Distribution

10%

0% 0% 20% 40% Yield 60% 80% 100°

Figure 7: Single Pass Tabling Test (P 100 1.18mm), Recovery vs. Yield%

4.6. Progressive Grind Tabling Test

Approximately 15.5 kg of sample was used for the Progressive Grind Tabling (PGT) test at

grind sizes (P 100) of 1180, 600 and 106 IJm. The results indicated that 25.1% of the gold

could be recovered by pulling 2.2 % of the mass, which produced a concentrate with a

grade of 46.4 g/t (upgrade ratio of 11.5). The recovery can increase to 60.7% when the

mass pull is increased to 27.1%; however concentrate grade drops to 9.0 g/t.


in Appendix C- Gravity Test Results .



Tabling Recovery Yield Curve

100%

90 o/o

80°/o

70 °/o

r% 50 °/o

40 o/o -o-- Au Dis tribution

-'F-17?--- - - - ---- -------l ---Lr- S Dis tributio n l------l ----o--Ag Dis tribu tion

30o/o

20o/o ----+-As Dis tribution

1 Oo/o

oo/o

Oo/o 40% Yield 60% 100°

Figure 8: PGT Test Recovery vs . Yield%

4.7. Falcon Test

Table concentrates 3, 4, 5 and 6 were combined with the table tails from the PGT test and

used for a centrifugal concentrator test in a Falcon lab-scale machine.

The centrifugal concentrator was able to collect 8.2% of the gold remaining into 0.6% of the

centrifugal concentrator feed mass . The concentrate produced had a grade of 48 g/t Au

(upgrade ratio of 12). The results show that centrifugal concentration was only able to

collect a small amount of gold from the tabling tailings .


in Appendix C - Gravity Test Results.

Spicedew Pty Ltd- McKinley Gold Mine of 30

Document Number: T0535

100%

90 %

80%

70 %

~60%

~ ~50%

0:: 40 %

30%

20%

10%

0 %

Status: Final

Falcon Recovery Yield Curve

-o-Au Distributio

+--- - ----,.L....,;{L..------1 ---I:r-- S Dis tribution l----1 --o-l'{j Dis tributio

-+-As Dis tributio

0 % 20% 40o;. Yield 60 o;. 80% 100°

Version 1.1

Figure 9: Recovery versus Yield %for the Falcon concentrator test on PGT concentrates 3 to 6 and table tails .

4.8. Combined Gravity Results

The results from the PGT test and the Falcon test were mathematically combined to

determine an overall recovery using an IPJ and centrifugal concentrator circuit. The overall

recovery was 29.3% in 2.8% of the mass. The combined concentrate had a grade of 46.6

g/t Au (upgrade ratio of 1 0.6). This recovery is on the low side of samples tested by

Gekko.

Figure 1 0 displays the elemental recovery versus mass yield for the sample.




100%

90%

80%

70%

~60% > 0 g 50% n::

40% -o-Au Distribution

-fr-- S Distribution 30% tb?L--------,~----------1 -G-Ag Distributionl-----1

20% -+-As Distribution

10%

0% 0% 20 % 40% Yield 60% 80% 100°

Figure 10: Combined Tabling and Falcon Recovery vs. Yield %

4.9. Flotation Test

A single rougher flotation exploratory test was conducted on the Falcon tails . The surfaces

were "freshened" using sulphuric acid and sodium silicate was added as a dispersant

before flotation was carried out using copper sulphate, PAX and IF56 frother over a total

float time of 27 minutes (see Appendix D- Flotation and Combined Results).

The flotation test indicated 52.2% of the gold, 29.4% of the sulphur and 7.6% of the arsenic

could be recovered in 4.3% of the mass . The recoveries increase to 56.4%, 40.0% and

16.4% respectively when the mass pull is increased to 9.5%.

The elemental recovery for the test is shown in Figure 11 . Refer to Appendix D- Flotation

and Combined Results for the detailed results.


Document Number: T0535 Status: Final

Flotation Recovery Yield Curve

100%

90%

80%

70%

rO% 50%

40%

30%

-o-Au Distribution

+n-k-- - ------o,.L------ --- ----1 ----fr- S Distribution l------1 -o- Ag Distribution

20% --+--- A s Distribution

10%

0°/o

0°/o 20% 40% Yield 60% 80% 100°

Figure 11: Falcon Tail flotation test Recovery versus Yield%

4.1 0. Combined Gravity - Flotation Result

Version 1.1

When the results of the progressive grind tabling test are combined with the Falcon and the

flotation results, the combined gravity- flotation potential of the ore can be assessed .

For this sample, recovery to concentrate was 66.3% gold, 49.4% sulphur and 20.5%

arsenic into a mass pull of 6.9%.

A higher mass pull concentrate would contain 69.2% of the gold, 57.0% of the sulphur and

28.2% of the arsenic in 12.0% of the mass.

The results of the combined tests are shown in Figure 12. Refer to Appendix D - Flotation

and Combined Results for the detailed results .




~60%+-+-~~~~------------~--------------------~

> ~50%+-~~------------~-------------------------~

0::

40% +-~--------~-------------r-o---~Au~Di~s t~ri~bu~ti-on'-------~

30 % -t-Cl-------c-7':__-------------------1 ----tr-- S Distribution l--------1 ---0-- Ag Di s tribution

--+--As Dis tribution 20% ~~L_ ____________________ -L~ ________ _j---------l

10% ~--------------------------------------------~

0%8---------~------~~------~--------~------~

0% 20% 40% Yield 60% 80% 100°

Version 1.1

Figure 12: Combined Gravity/Falcon/Flotation Recovery versus Yield%



5. Conclusions

The following conclusions can be made:

• The sample is highly amenable to crushing using a Vertical Shaft Impactor

showing a net 37% production of -600 IJm material in a single pass .

• The S.P .T. test indicated that a gravity jigging circuit operating at a coarse crush

(P80 = 637 IJm) could recover approximately 33.4% of the gold with a mass

recovery of 1 0.6%.

• The P.G.T. test indicates that at smaller crush and grind sizes (P8o 75 IJm), the gold

recovery improves to 49.3% into a mass of 11.7%.

• The Falcon test on the PGT low grade concentrates and tails only recovered 6.3%

of the total gold.

• Flotation of the Falcon tails increased overall gold recovery to 69.2% in 12.0%

mass.

6. Recommendations

From the results above, the following recommendations can be made:

• The stage 1 testwork has shown the ore is only mildly amenable to gravity/flotation

pre-concentration at a grind size of 75 IJm.

• To determine the cause of the low recovery, detailed mineralogy of the feed and

flotation tails is required to determine the nature of the gold occurrence.

Spicedew Pty Ltd -McKinley Gold Mine of 30


Appendix A- Ore Size Distribution Results

CEKKU LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS SYSTEM$

Particle Size Analysis Project: Spicedew- McKinley Gold Mine Stream: Sample prepared to P100 -1 .18mm Date: 1 0/09/2009

Partic le Stze 0 str ibution Gold Distribution Sui hur Distribution Silver Distribution .. etatne I ' "m ''" m I ....., " .ass um "'' .ass I "m

miCrons Sili 1 Reta ined Passl " Units ReBined Pas'Si .• Units Retained Pass Units Retained Pass'

\\80 0 .00 0 .00 100.00 0 .00 0 .00 000 100.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 100.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 100.00 850 153.2 7.71 92.29 5.47 0.42 809 91.91 0.01 0 .00 3.49 96.51 2.00 0.16 5.01 94.99 600 291.2 14.65 77.64 4 .14 0.61 11 .64 60.27 O.Q1 0.00 6.64 89.80 2.00 0 .23 7.21 87.78 425 228.2 11.48 66.16 2.97 0 .34 6 .54 73.73 0.02 0.00 10..41 79.46 2.00 0.13 4.05 83.73 300 238.1 11 .98 54 .18 3.36 0.40 7.72 66.01 0.02 0.00 10.86 68.60 2.00 0.15 4.78 78.95 212 190.0 9.56 44 .62 3.78 0.36 6.93 59.06 0.04 0.00 17.33 51 .26 2.00 0 .14 4.29 74 .65 \50 177.2 8.92 35.71 3 .57 0 .32 6 .11 52.97 0.01 0.00 4.04 47.22 2.00 0.12 3.78 70.87 \06 134 .7 6.78 28.93 4.59 0 .31 5.97 47.00 0 .03 0.00 9.22 36.00 3 .00 0 .18 5.55 65.32 75 88.3 4.44 24.49 6.80 0 .30 41.21 0 .04 0 .00 8.08 29.95 3 .00 0 .17 5.39 59.94 53 100 .7 5 .07 19.42 6.43 0 .33 6. 34. 6 0 .04 0.00 9.19 20.76 3 .00 0 .19 5.81 54.13 38 03.2 3.48 15 .94 8.43 0.29 29.33 0 .04 0.00 6.31 14.45 5 .00 0.28 8 .72 45.41 0 316.8 15.94 0 .00 9 .59 1.53 29.33 0.00 0.02 0.00 14.45 0 .00 5 .00 1.47 45.41 0 .00

Total \988 100.00 Head Grade 5 .21 100.00 Head Grade 0.02 100.00 Head Grade 3 .23 100.00 lnibiWt \990 RKOnc: it 1 00~.4. Assay Head 4.81 Assay Head 0.03 Am Head 3 .00

080 637 050 260 080 592 050 127 080 433 050 191 080 325 050 46

\00

90 Arsenic Distribution

80 --- - ·- --v o; C) v (;)~ 1: I "iii 70 111

~ I "' / IL 60

;!. /rt'

~ I

QJ 50 I ~

c ~SizeCum'hPanlng

40 I ~Gok:IO is tr ibu ti:Jn

:; ~::::: ~/ 1 ~SulphurDlstrH:utlon

E 30 ::l I -Q- SitltiOIIII"ibuti:Jn

0 20 ~ I --+-Alltnlc Distribution

\0 ft...-

I

"" .ass t ....., (. nits Retained Passi 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 100.00 1700 131.D3 5.67 94.13 1650 241 .74 10.63 63.31 1600 183.70 8.23 75.06 1750 209.64 9.39 65.69 \650 157 .73 7.06 58.63 \800 160.47 7.19 51.44 2400 162.65 7.28 44.16 2 119.95 5.37 38.79 3 154 .53 6 .92 31 .87 3500 121 .86 5.46 26.41 3700 589.74 26.41 0.00

Head Grade 2233 100.00 Am Hea d 2288

080 525 050 141

0 I

10 100 1000 10000



Document Number: T0535 Status : Final

GEKKO LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS S Y ST E M -S

Particle Size Analysis- Table Tails Project: Spicedew- McKinley Gold Mine Stream: Sample prepared to P 100 - 1.18mm Date: 14/09/2009

art1ce "" stn t1on "" uhon u '"' Size IM.Retaned Wt 0.4 Size Cum% Assao Mass WI% C!Sn% .... Mass (mlcrms Sizing 1 Retamed Pass•ng (gil) (Units) Rel<ined Passing % (Units)

1180 0.00 0. 10000 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 850 92.26 9. 14 90.86 3.76 0.34 8.87 91 .13 0.01 0.00 600 154.33 1529 75.57 3.03 0.46 11.96 79.17 0.01 0.00 425 11 9.56 11 .84 63.73 4 . 12 0 .49 12.60 66 .57 0.02 0.00 300 106.93 10.59 53.14 3.08 0.33 8.42 58. 14 0.02 0.00 212 81.81 8.10 45.04 2.99 0.24 6.26 5 1.89 0.01 0.00 150 84.05 8.33 36.71 2.55 0.21 5.48 46.40 0.03 0.00 100 59.56 5.90 30.81 2.77 0. 16 4.22 .112. 18 0.01 0.00 75 55.80 5.53 25.29 3.09 0. 17 4..41 37.77 0.08 0.00 53 73.03 7.23 18.05 3.69 0.27 6 .89 30.88 O.Q7 0.01 38 24.95 2.47 15.58 4.26 0. 11 2.77 28. 16 0. 10 0.00 0 157.29 15.58 0.00 7.00 1.09 28. 16 0.00 0.08 0.0 1

Total 101 100.00 Head Grade 3.87 100.00 Head Grade 0.04

n•• Reco r.c~t ,w·• "' .. "' .. 080 668 050 264 080 616 050 189 080 245

90

C) 80 1: ·v; 70 111 .. n. 60

o" Ql 50 > ~ 40 3 E 30 ::l 0

20

10

10 100 1000


~Size Cum "h Pau ing

~GotiDk.llibuli:m

~Sulphur Distribution

~ Silve r O!s llibutiln

-+-Anenlc Distribution

10000

1stn ut on

Wt% Retained

0.00 247 4.13 6.40 5.72 219 6.75 6.37 11 .94 13.68 6.68 33.67 100.00

050

LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS

Particle Size Analysis - Table Tails Project: Spicedew- McKinley Gold Mine Stream: LMAC (2) Table Tails Date: 13/10/2009

Patttcle Size Ois tri tion Gold Distribution S ui hur Distribution .. ete~ne 1 " "m ... . '"' .., , . .ass t (mic rons) Sizing 1 Retalnl!d Passing (gil Units Reta"ned Passing % (Units) Retained

100 0.00 0. 100.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75 1 18.43 81 .57 0.66 0.12 5.32 94.68 0.03 0.01 31.37 53 335.7 3 1.59 49.98 1.29 0.4 1 17.81 76.87 0.01 0 .00 17.92 38 112.2 10.$ 39.42 2.00 0.22 9.50 67.37 0 .0 1 0.00 5.99 0 419.0 39.42 0.00 3.9 1 1.54 67.37 0.00 0.02 0.01 44.73

Total 1 3 100.00 Head Grade 2.29 100.00 H•"" ""' 0.02 100.00 Initial 1068 RKOnc:it 100% Assa Head 2.17 Assa Head 0.01

080 74 050 53 080 57 050 28 080 86 0 50

100

90

80 C) 1: 70 ·v; 111

60 .. n. o" 50

Ql 40 > ~ 30 3 E 20

jl _~ I I I f I V ------ -;rr 1\; . I w I lJV J ~~ I --.- s ize Cum 'h Paning

--o-Gol:l Dlstr ibutiln • I ~SutphuiO is t ributio n

I --o- Silve1 Olstributiln

I -+-Menie Oi5tributil n

-<>-::l 0 10 I

I I 10 100 1000


Spicedew Ply Ltd- McKinley Gold Mine

Version 1.1

""" IS irl Ullon

Cum% As. Mass WI% Cum% Passi (gil) (Units) Retclned Passing 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 97.53 2.00 0.18 5.98 94.02 93.40 2.00 0 .24 8.06 85.96 87.00 2.00 0.25 8.49 77.47 81 .28 2.00 0. 17 5.68 7 1.80 79.09 2.00 0.13 4.22 67. 58 72.34 2.00 0. 11 3.69 63.89 65.97 2.00 0.08 284 61 .04 54.03 2.00 0.09 2 .97 58.07 40.35 3.00 0.2 1 6 .97 51 . 10 33.67 4.00 0. 11 3.66 47.44 0.00 5.00 1.41 47.44 0.00

HeadGra e 2.01 100.00

"' .. 68 080 473 050 48

SeniC tst t1 utmn

A" Mass Wt% Cum% (gil Units) et.:ined Passing 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

1450.00 132.51 6 . 13 93.87 1450.00 221.66 10.26 83.61 1250.00 148.03 6 .85 76.76 1400.00 148.28 6 .86 69.89 1550.00 125.60 5.8 1 64.08 1850.00 154.02 7. 13 56.95 2100.00 123.89 5.73 51.22 2500.00 138. 18 6 .40 44.82 3350.00 242.33 11.22 33.6 1 3850.00 95. 15 4.40 29.20 4050.00 630.99 29.20 0.00

HeadGra 2160.6 100.00

"'" .. d 1625.00

080 502 050 100

S ilver Dis tribution m .. . '" "m

P assl (gil) (Units) Rete~" ned Passing 100.00 000 0.00 0.00 100.00 68.63 1.00 0.05 2. 18 97.82 50.72 1.00 0. 18 7.29 90.53 44.73 2.00 0. 19 7 .78 82.75 0.00 3.00 202 82.75 0.00

Head Grade 2.44 100.00 Assa Head 1.00

51 080 37 050 23

Alsenic Distribution . ass t "m

(gil) Units Retaned Passing 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 300 55.30 4.06 95.~

900 284 .28 20.88 75.00 1650 174.19 12.80 62.26 2150 847.62 62.26 0.00

Head Grad! 1361 100.00 Assa Head 850

080 58 050 3 1

of 30


Appendix B- Comminution Test Results

GEKKO LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS SVSTEMS.

Particle Size Analysis Project: Spicedew Pty Ltd- McKinley Gold Mine

Test: Single Pass VSI Amenability Test @600um

Stream : Date:

Sample prepared to P1 00- 11.2mm

4/09/2009 FEED PRODUCT

Particle Size Distribution Particle Size Distribution Size

(microns) 11200 9500 8000 6700 4750 3350 2360 1700 1180 850 600 425 300 212 150 106 0

Total Initial WI

100

90

80 C'l

·~ 70 VI

t:. 60 ~ 0

50 g! ~ 40 :; 5 30 u

20

10

0

10

Wt Retained (g) Wt% Size Cum% Wt Retained (g) Sizing 1 Retained Passing Sizing 2

0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 170.0 3.86 96 .14 2.5 554.4 12.58 83.57 17.7 502.7 11.40 72 .16 39.1 880.6 19.98 52 .19 138.2 633.4 14.37 37.82 267.7 457.5 10.38 27.44 317.4 379 .0 8.60 18.84 450.4 339.5 7.70 11.14 456.7

220.30 5.00 6.14 412 .7 207.60 4.71 1.43 510.3

342.1 305.5 224.7 209.5 197.6

63.10 1.43 0.00 388.3 4408 100.00 4280 4400 4280

p80 7589 p80

VSI Single Pass Amenability Test

1.-J: 1--' ,:(

? ~

/ ~ v

~ 17'

l-l' " / / / - - -

100 1000


I _._FEED -Q-PRODUCT I

Spicedew Ply Ltd - McKinley Gold Mine

WI% Size Cum% Retained Passing

0.00 100.00 0.06 99.94 0.41 99.53 0.91 98.61 3.23 95.39 6.25 89.13 7.42 81.72 10.52 71.19 10.67 60.52 9.64 50.88 11.92 38.96 7.99 30.97 7.14 23.83 5.25 18.58 4.89 13.69 4.62 9.07 9.07 0.00

100.00

2244 IJm

10000 100000

of 30


I

Appendix C -Gravity Test Results

f~ CEKKO LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS

Gravity Separation Test- Single Pass Table Test Project: Spicedew Ply Ltd - McKinley Gold Mine Test: LMAC (1) Stream: Sample prepared to P100 - 1.18mm Date: 11/0912009 Results Date:

Sample

Con-centrate 1 Con-centrate2 Con-centratel Con-centrate<!

Table TaUs

Cak:'d Feed

Assay Feed

30\

'" \834 2<103 45800

51225

51580

" 0.59',1, 1.73'.J. 3.58',1, 4.69',1, 89.4',1,

\00.0'.1.

100.0'.1.

c:umulallve

" 0.59',1, 2.32',1, 5.90',1, 10.59'.1. 100.0'.1.

Aaaay Distribution Cumulaliw Cumulative ppm % Distribution grade ppm

1<46.00 20 .90 8 .58 5 .32 3.97

5.33

<4.81

16.10',1, 6.80'.1. 5.77'.1. <4.69'.1. 66.7'.1.

\00.0'.1.

100.00

16.10% 22.90',1, 26.66'1.i 33.35',1, 100.0',1,

100.00

146.00 52.57 25.88 16.77 5.33

5.33

Su urOiatrl utlon SU'o'erDistrl uUon Assay DlatrlbuUon Cumulative Cumulatlw As&ay Distribution Cumulative Cumulative

% % DlstrlbuUon grade% ppm % Distribution grade ppm

1.43 0.08 O.Ql om 0.01

0 .02

0.03

42.95',1, 7.09',1, 1.83',1, 2.40% 45 .7°A.

100.0'/,

100.00

42.95 ".1. 5{),04",1, 51 .87'-' 5427',1, 100.0',1,

100.00

1.<43 0.<42 0. 17 0.10 0.02

0.02

3<4 .00 10.00 <.00 2.00 2.50

2.85

3.00

7.02'h 6.09'h 5.03'h 3.30'h 78.56'/,

100.00

7.02'h 13.11'h 18.1<4'h 21.44'.4 100.0'h

100.00

34.00 16.08 8 .75 5.76 2.85

2.85

Tabling Recovery Yield Curve Tabling Grade Yield Curve

100%

90% ~

~J 8o•~o

~ 70%

ro%

~ // ~so~.~.

" // 40%

Lf ~~-.o'>b"";E 30% --6- SOsbb.lfun

!'.# ~~.AQ Dstrinfun

20% -+-AsD:stributXln

if' 10%

0% 0% 20% 40 % Yield 60% 80% 1QOO

\60

140

120

E 1oo

~

~ 80

~ 60

40

~ 20 ~

0

0% 20% 40% Yield 60% 80% 100%

Assay Olstrlbutlon Cumulative Cumulative ppm % Dl.stribulion gradeppm

26 100 9000 3550 1850 1825

2155

2288

7.11°h 7.2<4'.4 5.90°,1, 4.03',1,

75.73',1,

100.0',1,

100.00

7.1\'h 14 .35'h 20.25'h 24 .2 7'h 100.0'h

100.00

26100 13329 7395 4939 2 155

2 155

I ~ OEIIKO LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS

Gravity Separation Test- Progressive Grind Tabling Test {P.G.T.) Project: Spicedew Ply Ltd- McKinley Gold Mine Test: LMAC (2) Stream: Three stage progressive crush (P100- 1.1Bmm, 600~m & 106]Jm) Date: 1/10!2009 Results Date: 13/1 0!2009

Sarnpl!! MassYJe ld Gold Distribution

" cumulative Assay Distribution Cumulative Cumulative

Concentrate\ Concentrate2 Concentrate) Concentrate-4 ConcentrateS Conce ntrateS

Table TaUs

Cak:'d Feed

Assay Feed

79 259

530.00 947.50 1735.80 650.30

11320.00

15522

15900

0.51 '.1. 1.67 '.1. 3 .41'h 6. \0'h 11.18'.1. 4.19'h 72.93'h

100.0'1.

100.0 '.1.

% ppm % Dls trlbution gradet>PJll

0_5\'h 2.18 '1. 5.60'1.

11.70'1. 22.88'1. 27 .07'h 100.00'1.

132.00 2020 16.50 6.79 3.23 2.37 2.17

<4 .03

-4 .81

16 .70'1. 8.37'1. 13 .97'1. 1028'h 8.95 '1. 2A6 'h 3928',1,

100.0'h

100.00

16.70 '1. 25.06'1> 39.03'1> 49.31'1. 5826% 60.72'1> 100.00'1>

100.00

132.00 46.36 28 .14 17.00 10.27 9.05 <4 .03

4.03

Sui urDis trlbutlon Ms..ay Distribution Cumulative Cumulative Assay

% % Di stribution grade% DDm

1.38 0.20 0.07 0.01 0.01 O.DI O.DI

0.02

0.03

31 .70'.1. 15.04°.1. 10.76'.1. 2.75'h 5.03 '.1. 1.89',1,

32.83',1,

100.0'1>

100.00

31.70'h 46.7<4'h 57.50'h 60.25'.4 65.28'.4 67.1 7'.4 100.00'.1.

100.00

1.38 0.<48 0.23 0.11 0.0£ 0.0£ 0.02

0.02

35.00 B.OO 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00

1.60

3.00

snverDis trlbutlon Dls tribuUon Cumulative Cumulattve

% Distribution nrade ppm

11.16 'h 8.35'h

10.67',1, 7.63',1, 13.98',1, 2.62'h 45.58'1.

100.0',1,

100.00

11 .16% 19.52'h 30.19'h 37.82'h 51.80% 54 .42% 100.00'.4

100.00

35.00 14.32 8.63 5.17 3.62 3.22 1.60

1.60

Tabling Recovery Yield Curve Tabling Grade Yield Curve

100%

~ 140

90%

~ 120

80%

~ 70% \DO

ro% ~~ i (// BD

~50% .

If // ~ " "' 60

40% ~

.W l~ .. "··::t= 30",(, --6-SOistri;.o.Jfun

40

Iff 1--o-- .A\jDistrilWln \ 20% -+-As Oisbitwon

20

"--.... 10%

0% 0

0% 20% 40% Yield 60% 80% 100° 0% 20% 40% Yield60% 80%

Spicedew Pty Ltd- McKinley Gold Mine

100•,(,

aenk: 01:.\ri utlon Assay Dla trlbutlon Cumulative Cumulative pprn % Distribution grade ppm

21700 9300 5650 2050 1350 1050 B50

1399

2288

7.91',1, 11.11'1. 13.79".1. 8.94",1, 10.79'1> 3.14',1, 4431'1.

1oo.o•1>

100.00

7.9\"J. 19.02".4 32 .8\"h 41 .75°.4 52 .55',1, 55.69".4 IOO.OO'h

100.00

of 30

21700 12201 8203 -4993 3213 2876 1399

1399


I ~ GE.!'.~.IL LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS

Gravity Separation Test- Falcon Concentration Project: Spicedew Pty Ltd - McKinley Gold Mine Test : LMAC (2)- Falcon Stream: Table Concentrates 3, 4, 5, 6 and table tails Date: 15/1 Of2009 Resul ts Date: 3/11 /2009

Sample Mau Yield Go ld Distribution Sui hurOistributlo n SUvurOistrlbullon % cumulative A nay Distr ibution Cumula tive Cumula tive Assay Distribution Cumulative Cumulative Amy Distribution Cumulat ive Cumulative .,. ppm .,. D!alributlon grade ppm % % Distribution grade% ppm % Distribution grade ppm

Pan Con 58. 1 0.59'1:. 0 .59'1> 47.70 8.20'/, 820'.4 47.70 021 3 .04'/o 3.04'1:. 0 .21 9 .00 1.76'h 1.76'1. 9 .00 FalconTalla 9723 99.-41'1:. 100.00'1:. 3 .19 91.80 '1> 100.00'!. 3.45 0.04 96.96 '/o IOO.OO'h 0 .04 3 .00 98.24'h \OO,OO'h 3.04

Cak:'d Feed 978 1 \OO.O'h 3.45 100.0',1, 3.45 0.04 100.0'1. 0 .04 3.04 100.0% 3.04

Assay Feed 9781 100.0',1, 3 .W 100.00 100.00 0.0 1 100.00 100.00 1.32 100.00 100.00

Falcon Recovery Yield Curve Falcon Grade Yield Curve

100% 60

/ 90%

/ 50 80%

/ 70% 40

ra% f "[

f B

~50% ~ 30

/.?' --o- /wOStrouti:m ~

0::4 0% '" ~ l =:~o~~ritr~~n ~ ii 20 30% \ // -+-k.Oi511ili.Ul n

20%

// 10 ----10%

0% v 0

•enlc Dlstr1 utlon Ass ay Distribution CumuLat ive Cumulative ppm " Dl&tributlon (]rndDppm

6500 2.. 11 '!. 2.11'h 6500 1800 97.89'1. 100.00:1. 1828

1828 100.0'1. 1828

1158 100.00 100.00

0% 20% 40% Yield 60% 80% 100~ 0% 20% 40% Yi e ld60% 80% 100%

I f.;:._ GE!'_~_Q __ LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS

Combined Recovery Project: Spicedew Pty ltd- McKinley Gold Min e Test : LMAC (2) Table+ Fa lcon Resu lts Date: 3/11/2009

Sarnplll MaasY"~e ld Gold Dl&trlbutlon Sui hur Dl&trlbuUon Sllve rOI&tr lbut lon % cumula tive Assay Dl&trl butlon Cum ulative Cumulative Aas.ay Dis tribution CumuLative Cumulative As&ay Dlstrlbutlon Cumulative Cumulative

" ppm % Oi&lllbutlon grnd11 ppm % " OlstrlbuUon grab% ppm % Dis tribution grad11ppm

TabiD Con 1 79 0.51'1. 0.51',1, 132 .00 15.34',1, 15.3-4',1, 132 .00 1.38 22.68'h 22.68',1, 1.38 35.00 13.36°,1, 13 .36'h 35.00 TabiD Con 2 259 1.67'h 2.18'.1. 2020 7.69',1, 23.03'1. 46.36 0 .20 10.76'h 33.44'.1. 0.-48 8 .00 10.00'/, 23.35'1. 14.32 Fa lcon Con 90 0.58'h 2.76'.1. 47.70 6 .31% 29.34'1. 46.64 0 .21 3 .93",1, 37 .37'1. 0.-42 9 .00 3 .91'1. 2727'h 13.20 FalconTal1s 15<>93 9724'h 100.00'h 3 .19 70.66'1. 100.00% 4.39 0 .02 62 .63'.1. \00.00'1. 0 .03 1.00 72.73',1, 100.00:1. 1.34

Calc'dfDed 15522 100.0'h -4 .39 100.0% 4.39 0 .03 100.0'1. 0 .03 1.3-4 100.0'.4 1.34

Assay Feed 15522 100.0'1. -4 .8 1 100.00 100.00 0 .03 100.00 100.00 3 .00 100.00 100.00

Combined Recovery Yield Curve Combined Grade Yield Curve

140 100%

/ 90%

~ 120

60%

~ 100 70%

~/ I ~60% 80

~50% //'/ ~

//'/ 1--o-- AJJOStrbJti:lnl ~

"' '" 60 40%

/' / [:::~:ri::J '1! 30% 40

20% p / 1-+-k.OStrbl.tilnl \ v 20

'----10%

As-&e nlc Dls tr1 ution Assay OlstrlbuUon Cumulative Cumulative PPm " 015trl butlon grade ppm

21700 5 .39% 5.39'h 21700 9300 7.56'1. 12.95'h 12201 6500 \_84'h 14.79'h 11002 1800 85.2 1'1. 100.00:1. 2054

2054 100.0 '1. 2054

2288 100_00 100.00

0% 0 0% 20% 40% Yield 60% 80% 1000, 0% 20% 40% Yie ld60% 80% 100%

Spicedew Pty Ltd - McKinley Gold Mine of 30


Appendix D - Flotation and Combined Results

DU.alle RESEARCH LABORATORY ROUG HER FLOTATION REPORT SHEET

Primary Millin a Mill type

Media type Media kg

RoT y Feed

Solids g Con 1-4 Water g Time min

Speed rpm Lime g

End pH pH End p80 ~m 94

Float Cell Volume Rougher 2. 7 Litre

Cleaner 1 ,2 Litre Soeed 800 rpm

1.0 0.2 2 100 100.0 Cond pH CuS04 PAX Na2Si03 H2S04 IF 56 Time

oft oft oft oft oft min Condition 5.5 134 2 Condition 7.5 191 2 Condition 29 67 1

RoC1 7.0 Condition 29 1 Condition 48 1

Ro C2 7.1 Condition 96 2 Condition 29 19 1

Ro C3 6.9 Condition 29 1 Condition 29 1

Ro C4 7.1

REAGENT TOTALS lo ft 96 115 191 134 163

PRODUCTS WT WT Au DIST s DIST Ag DIST As a % Fire %

T01 C1 21.3 2.0 74.7 47.9 0.36 24.3 26.0 29.8 3824 C2 23.2 2.2 6.14 4.29 0.07 5.1 6.00 7.50 3043 C3 31 .5 3.0 2.69 2.55 0.07 7.0 4.00 6.79 3228 C4 22 .8 2.2 2.32 1.59 0.05 3.6 4.00 4.91 3334

Ro Tail 946.7 90.5 1.53 43.6 0.02 60.0 1.00 51 .0 1770 CALC 1045 100.0 3.18 100.0 0.03 100.0 1.78 100.0 1918

ASSAY HEAD 3.19 0.04 3.00 1800

CUM PRODUCTS CUM WT Au CUM s CUM Ag CUM As Wt % Fire %

T01 C1 21.3 2.0 74.7 47.9 0.36 24.3 26.0 29.8 3824 C2 44 .5 4.3 39.0 52.2 0.21 29.4 15.6 37.3 3417 C3 76.0 7.3 23.9 54.8 0.15 36.4 10.8 44.1 3339 C4 98 .8 9.5 18.9 56.4 0.13 40.0 9.21 49.0 3338

FEED 1045 100.0 3.18 100.0 0.03 100.0 1.78 100.0 1918

Spicedew Ply Ltd- McKinley Gold Mine

Version 1.1

PROJECT T0531 TEST NO T01 DATE 28f10f2009 TECHNICIAN BE

NOTES Standard 4 stage rougher

Air Float Cum WetWt Con % Umin Time Float g Solids

min Time

3-8 5.0 5.0 400 5

3-8 6.0 11 .0 480 5

3-7 8.0 19.0 600 5

5-9 8.0 27 .0 800 3

DIST

4.1 3.5 5.1 3.8

83.6 100.0

CUM

4.1 7.6

12.7 16.4

100.0

of 30


I ~ GlKKO LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS

Four Stage Rougher Flotation Test Project : Spicedew Pty Ltd · McKinley Gold Mine Test: LMAC (2- FL01) Stream : Falcon Tails Date: 28/10f2009 Results Date: 3/11 /2009

Sampkt Mass Yie ld GoldDial.-ibutlon Sui ur Dhstrlbutlon Silver Dlslributlon

" cumulaUve Assay Distribution Cumulative Cumulative ~&ay Distribution Cumulatlw Cumulatlv. Assay Distribution Cumulati ve Cumulative "1. ppm % Ols trlbutlon grade ppm "1. % Dis tribution grade% % Dlal.-lbution grade ppm

Float Con1 Float Con2 Float ConJ FloatCon-4 Float Tails

Cak:'d Feed

Ass.ay F.ed

100"A.

, 23 32 23

947

1046

1045

2.04',1, 2.22 'h 3.01',1, 2.18'):,

90.55',1,

100.0'.1.

100.0%

2.04'1. 4.26'1:. 727'1. 9.45'h

100.00 '/,

Flotation Recovery Yield Curve

74.70 6.1-4 2.69 2_32

1.53

3.18

3.19

47.93',1, 4.29'h 2.55'), 1.59 '1.

43.63',1,

100.0',1,

100.00

90% ~ ~ 80%

~/ 70%

~~/ / I ~0%

~50% r~L L ~

f./ / ~ 0: "' <10% ~AuO~trobufun

~ Iff / 1-tr-s o~_t libl.6o.n _I 30%

/ 1=:~~==~~1 20%

/ 10%

I 0%

0% 20'/, 40% Yield 60% 80% 100~

I f~ OEKKO

Combined Recovery Project: Spicede\'1 Pty Ltd + McKinley Gold Mine Test: UMC (2) Table+ Falcon+ Flotation Results Date: 911112009

BO

70

60

50

" 30

20

10

0

47 .93',1, 52.22',1, 54 .77',1, 50 .37'1.

100.00°1.

100.00

•

I

~ ~

74.70 38.96 23.92 18.94 3 .18

3.18

0.36 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.02

0.03

0.04

24.29'h 5.14°h 6.98'h 3.6 1'h 5997'./o

\OO.O'h

100.00

Flotation Grado Yield Curve

--0% 20% 40% Yield60% 80%

24.29'/, 29.43'/, 36.42'.1. 40.03'.1.

100.00'.1.

100 .00

100%

LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS

0 .36 021 0 .15 0 .13 0.03

0.03

26.00 6 .00 4.00 4.00 1.00

1.78

3.00

29.82 '/, 7 .50'h 6.79 ',1, 4.9 1'/,

50.98'h

IOO.O'h

100.00

29.82'h 37.32 'h 44 .1 1'1> 49.02 '1>

100 .00'/,

100.00

An.e nk: Dlstr1 ution

26.00 15.57 10.78 921 1.78

1.78

Assay Dlatrlbut lon Cumulative CurnulatiY!I 'lio Distribution u rade pprn

382<1 4.06',1, 4.06'/, 3824 3043 352',1, 7.58'/, 3417 3228 5.07',1, 12 .65',1, 3339 3334 3.79'h \6A4'h 3338 1770 83.56',1, 100.00'/, 1918

1918 100.0 ',1, 1918

1800 100.00 100.00

Sam pia loin& Yie ld Gold Oi&!ribullon Sui urDiatrlbutlon Sllve r Disl rl butJo n

Tabl& Con 1 Table Con 2 Falco n Con Float Con i Flo at Con2 Float Con3 Float Con4 Float Talis

Cak:'dFu d

AssayFnd

100°,{,

90'"

80°h

70°h

i::'60°h

~ gso% 0:

40°h

30%

20°h

10%

0% 0%

~

r {'

79 259 90

307 335 455 319

13667

15522

15522

" 0.51',1, 1.67',1, 0.58',1, 1.98',1, 2.16',1, 293',1, 2.12',1,

88.05'/o

100.0°,1,

100.0%

cumulative %

0.51'h 2.18'h 2.76'h 4.7<1 '/o 6.90'h 9.83'h 11.95°h

100 .00'.1.

Auay Dlalfibutlon Cumulatlv& Cumulative ppm % Distribution gradeppm

132 .00 20 .20 47 .70 74 .70 6.14 2.60 2.32 1.53

4.38

15.39% 7.71'h 6.33'/o

33.82',1, 3.03'/o 1.60'h 1.12'/o

30 .79'/o

100.0',1,

100.00

15.39'h 23.10'h 29.44'.-i. 63.26'.-i. 66.29',1, 66.09'/, 69.21'/, 100.00',1,

\00.00

132.00 46.36 46 .64 58.36 42 .03 30.31 25.34 4.36

4.38

As&ay Olatrlbutlon Cumulative Cumulatlv& Assay Dis tribution Cumu lati ve Cumulative 'lio % Distribution orad& % ppm % Dlslrlbutlon grade ppm

1.38 0.20 021 0.36 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.02

0 .04

0.03

17. 19'h 8.16'/, 2.96',1, 17.4\',{, 3.69'1. 5.0J<h 2.59'1. 42 .99',1,

100 .0<,{,

100.00

17.19'h 25.34',1, 28.32',1, <15.73',1, 49.42',1, 54.42',1, 57.01°!. 100.00'!.

100.00

0.48 0.42 0.40 029 023 020 0.04

0.04

35.00 8,00

26.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 1.00

2.09

3.00

8.54'/, 6.39',1, 2.50%

24.63'!. 6. \9% 5.60'h 4.06'h

42.10%

IOO.O'h

100.00

8.54°h \4.93% 17.43'/o 42 .05'!. 482 4',1, 53.85',1, 57.90'h 100 .00',1,

100.00

35.00 14.32 13.20 16.55 14.62 11.46 10.13 2.09

2.09

Combined Recovery Yield Curve Combined Grade Yield Curve

180

~ 160

~/

-------~ / 140

~ / 120

i / i 100

/ ;; 60 -o-Av O~trinlfun

ArsenlcDlslrtbutlon Assay Dhstrtbutlon Cumula tive Cumulative __l!_E_m % Olslrtbutlon Oflll de ppm

21700

6500 3824 3043 3226 333 4 1770

5.10'1. 7. 16'1. 1.74'!. 3.49',1, 3.03',1, 4.35<,-i, 326'!.

7 1. 85'/o

2169 100.0<,1,

2288 100.00

5.\0'h 12 .27'h 14.01'h 17.50'1. 20.53',1, 24.89',1, 28.15',1, 100.00',1,

100.00

21700 12201 I 1002 8004 6453 5492 5 109 2169

~

/ ~~SO~tri>ut:on~~ 60 -o-Ag O~tritlution

/ I-.-A5Clstrillution] " "' I" ~ 20 --0

20% 40o;, Yield 60% 00% 100', , .. 20°k 40% Yield ooo;, 80% 100%



Appendix E - Disclaimer. Gekko has undertaken test work to characterize the response of your ore to certain separation techniques and/or to help your own experts make a decision as to whether you wish to purchase our product and, if so, the number and type.

It is important that you understand that:

Our testing is preliminary only. You should obtain, independent advice from all relevant specialists, including a metallurgist, before acquiring any equipment and before committing to and proceeding with your project. You must have your own experts examine the detailed analysis in our report to decide its applicability to your project. We analyse only the sample you provide. Any one of a number of factors may cause that sample inaccurately to reflect the ore body. You must determine the extent to which the sample represents the ore body. That includes the detection limits and confidence intervals relevant to our results .

At all times we endeavour to provide accurate test work outcomes but you should not use our results as a basis for your broader business decisions about your project.

If we have not exercised due care with our tests, the limit of our liability, both at common law and under any statute, will be to provide a further set of test results to you free of charge. You indemnify us with respect to all other loss and damage of every kind, including, without limitation:

damage to or loss of property; injury to or death of any person; and

• economic and consequential loss arising from the negligent act or omission of us or any one else in connection with our test

Company Name - Project Name of 40

mckinley gold mine laboratory testwork report-stage 1

Documents