results of orientation and exploration mobile metal ions ...these statistical approaches have been...

Results of Orientation and Exploration Mobile Metal IonsProcess (MMI-ME) Soil Geochemical Surveys on the North Tarp

Grid, Pickle Lake Area, Ontario

NTS 52O09SE

Prepared For:

MetalCorp Ltd.705B Hammond Avenue

Thunder Bay, OntarioP7B 5T5

Tel: (807) 346-2760Fax: (807) 346-2769

Prepared By:

Mount Morgan Resources Ltd.627 Manchester Blvd. NorthWinnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

R3T 1N9Tel./Fax. : 204-284-6869

Cell: 204-998-0271E-mail: [email protected]

October, 2010

Mount Morgan Resources Ltd. “Accurate and Precise Geochemistry In Hydrocarbon and Mineral Exploration”

MetalCorp MMI-ME Survey: 2010 North Tarp Grid Mount Morgan Resources Ltd.2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Mobile Metal Ions Technology MMI-ME soil geochemical survey based on the collection of

40 samples from an orientation survey and 895 samples from the exploration survey has

resulted in the definition of 10-25 cm as the most representative and highest-contrast sample

depth for MMI-ME surveys on the North Tarp grid (Pickle Lake area, Ontario). The

exploration survey delineated four base metal commodity element responses on the grid.

These include the elements Cu, Pb, Zn, Tl, Se and Co. Three of the four occur at or near an

interpreted lithologic contact. Silver is closely associated with the base metal responses

whereas gold responses on the grid are limited to three discrete and areally separate single-

sample anomalies but with maximum response ratios of up to 118 times background..

Lithologically-sensitive elements have defined at least two distinctive lithologies, each

fingerprinted with a diagnostic suite of MMI-ME elements. The pattern of these responses

suggests either a layer cake stratigraphy, a central lithologic unit intruded into flanking

lithologies that have similar bulk chemical compositions, or the CLU cores a fold with the

flanking lithologies on either side. Tin and Ta anomalies suggest the presence of felsic

lithologies on the grid, possibly underpinning the central lithologic unit.

The survey has successfully demonstrated that MMI-ME partial extractions on soil samples

collected from terrain characterized by significant organic overburden can isolate and base,

precious metal and lithologically-sensitive anomalies.

The variability in duplicate analytical and field samples is minimal and insignificant in terms of

anomaly definition. Sampling materials collected for MMI-ME analysis are appropriate sample

media for an MMI-ME survey. The analyses generated by the MMI-ME extraction are

accurate and precise and are effective for the detection of low- to high-contrast anomalies.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................2TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................3PREAMBLE ..........................................................................................................6TERMS of REFERENCE and PURPOSE of the SURVEY ...................................7LOCATION AND ACCESS ...................................................................................9SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ............................................................9DATA TREATMENT AND PRESENTATION ......................................................10RESULTS ...........................................................................................................12

Quality Control-Orientation and Exploration Survey........................................12Data Reproducibility-Analytical Duplicates ..................................................12Data Reproducibility-Field Duplicates ..........................................................15Standard Reference Materials .....................................................................18Analytical Blank Replicates..........................................................................18

Data Description..............................................................................................19Method of Interpretation ..................................................................................20Spearman-Rank Correlation Coefficient Matrix ...............................................20Orientation Survey Results..............................................................................23

AREAL DISTRIBUTION OF ANOMALOUS RESPONSES IN THE NORTH TARPMMI-ME SURVEY AREA....................................................................................27

Vertical Mapper Bubble Plots ..........................................................................27Base and Related Metal Responses (Cu, Pb, Se, Zn, Cd, Tl, Co)...............27Precious and Related Metal Responses (Ag, As and Au)............................35Lithologically-Sensitive Element Responses (Al, Ca, Cr, Cs, Fe, Mg, Mn, Nb,Ni, P, Rb, Sc, Sr, Th, Ti, V, Zr).....................................................................38Rare Earth Elements (Ce, Eu, Yb)...............................................................58Granophile Elements (Sn, Ta) .....................................................................61

OBSERVATIONS and DISCUSSION .................................................................63CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................65CERTIFICATE of AUTHOR ................................................................................67

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of the North Tarp Grid and claim fabric. ..................................8Figure 2: Linear regression plot for Ag................................................................13Figure 3: Linear regression plot for As. ...............................................................13Figure 4: Linear regression plot for Cr. ...............................................................13Figure 5: Linear regression plot for Cs................................................................14Figure 6: Linear regression plot for Cu................................................................14Figure 7: Linear regression plot for Ga. ..............................................................14Figure 8: Linear regression plot for Pb................................................................15Figure 9: Linear regression plot for Zn. ...............................................................15Figure 10: Linear regression plot for Ag..............................................................16Figure 11: Linear regression plot for Ce..............................................................16Figure 12: Linear regression plot for Cu..............................................................16



Figure 13: Linear regression plot for P................................................................17Figure 14: Linear regression plot for Pb..............................................................17Figure 15: Linear regression plot for Ti. ..............................................................17Figure 16: Linear regression plot for Zn. .............................................................18Figure 17: Orientation Survey Results for Ag......................................................24Figure 18: Orientation Survey Results for As......................................................24Figure 19: Orientation Survey Results for Cu. ....................................................25Figure 20: Orientation Survey Results for Ga. ....................................................25Figure 21: Orientation Survey Results for Pb......................................................25Figure 22: Orientation Survey Results for Ti. ......................................................26Figure 23: Orientation Survey Results for V........................................................26Figure 24: Orientation Survey Results for Zn......................................................26Figure 25: Results for CuRR...............................................................................28Figure 26: Results for PbRR. ..............................................................................29Figure 27: Results for SeRR. ..............................................................................30Figure 28: Results for ZnRR. ..............................................................................31Figure 29: Results for CdRR...............................................................................32Figure 30: Results for TiRR. ...............................................................................33Figure 31: Results for CoRR...............................................................................34Figure 32: Results for AgRR. ..............................................................................35Figure 33: Results for AsRR. ..............................................................................36Figure 34: Results for AuRR. ..............................................................................37Figure 35: Results for AlRR. ...............................................................................38Figure 36: Results for CaRR...............................................................................39Figure 37: Results for CrRR................................................................................40Figure 38: Results for CsRR. ..............................................................................41Figure 39: Results for FeRR ...............................................................................42Figure 40: Results for MgRR. .............................................................................43Figure 41: Results for MnRR. .............................................................................44Figure 42: Results for NbRR...............................................................................45Figure 43: Results for NbRR Truncated..............................................................46Figure 44: Results for NiRR. ...............................................................................47Figure 45: Results for PRR. ................................................................................48Figure 46: Results for PRR Truncated. ...............................................................49Figure 47: Results for RbRR...............................................................................50Figure 48: Results for ScRR. ..............................................................................51Figure 49: Results for SrRR................................................................................52Figure 50: Results for ThRR. ..............................................................................53Figure 51: Results for TiRR. ...............................................................................54Figure 52: Results for TiRR Truncated. ..............................................................55Figure 53: Results for VRR. ................................................................................56Figure 54: Results for ZrRR. ...............................................................................57Figure 55: Results for CeRR...............................................................................58Figure 56: Results for EuRR. ..............................................................................59Figure 57: Results for YbRR. ..............................................................................60Figure 58: Results for SnRR. ..............................................................................61



Figure 59: Results for TaRR. ..............................................................................62

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Claim information for North Tarp Grid. ....................................................8Table 2: Summary of contaminants in the replicate analyses of the analyticalblank. ..................................................................................................................19Table 3: Summary of Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient matrix forcommodity elements. ..........................................................................................22Table 4: Summary of MMI-M Responses-North Tarp Property...........................63

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Analytical data from SGS Laboratories (and certificates) (on DVD) 69Appendix 2: Analytical data from analytical duplicates, replicate analyses ofreference material and lab blanks (on DVD) .......................................................69Appendix 3: Report graphics (on DVD)...............................................................69



PREAMBLE

The exploitation of mineral commodities in the near-surface geological environment has become

increasingly difficult due to the exhaustion of mineralization exposed at surface and the mantling

of prospective bedrock by glacially transported till and its derivatives. Thick glaciofluvial and

glaciolacustrine sediments topped by organic deposits make mineral exploration in these terrains

challenging. For this reason a plethora of innovative exploration geochemical selective and partial

digestions, coupled with state-of-the-art instrumentation capable of measuring concentrations in

the parts per billion (ppb) and sub-parts per billion range have been developed. These techniques

offer the explorationist tools to "see through" overburden and derive useful mineral exploration

data for integration with geology and geophysics and ultimately for drill-testing multivariate

anomalies. Disrupted overburden, such as that observed with logging practices (scarification),

tends to complicate MMI responses although modified sampling practices can be adopted to

rectify this disturbed environment. Areas affected by landslide are also complicating factors.

The proprietary Mobile Metal Ions Process (MMI) soil geochemical technique has been utilized on

a wide range of commodity types from base and precious metals to diamonds worldwide. The

Technology has also been utilized to map bedrock lithologies in overburden covered terrain. The

Process is based upon proprietary partial extraction techniques, specific combinations of ligands

to keep metals in solution, and relies on strict adherence to sampling protocols usually

established during an orientation program. Geochemical data resulting from MMI analysis of

improperly collected soils cannot be ameliorated with univariate and/or multivariate statistical and

graphical solutions.

The recognition of anomalies in geochemical data has progressed from simple visual inspection

in small data sets to multivariate, parametric and non-parametric or robust statistical methods for

large datasets usually extracted from regional geochemical surveys. Derived parameters from

these statistical exercises, such as factor scores or discriminant functions, have been

successfully utilized in reducing a large number of potentially useful variables to a select few



variables that identify and localize anomalous geochemical signatures. These statistical

approaches have been required to manipulate accurate and precise, low-cost, multi-element

geochemical data.

The MMI technology uses a different approach to exploration geochemistry by analyzing soils for

a select few commodity elements upon which to base property evaluations. Having stated this,

the MMI-ME multi-element suite that was utilized to analyze inorganic soils from the North Tarp

grid survey comprises analyses for 55 elements. These consist of a multi-element suite that

reports ppb and sub-ppb analyses for base and precious metals, pathfinder elements for these

commodities, as well as elements useful for mapping bedrock geology obscured by glacial

overburden and its derivatives. A small number of elements in this package report in the ppm

concentration range (Al, Ca, Mg, Fe, K, and P). The large number of elements in the database

provides an opportunity to assess an area of interest for a wide range of metallic mineral deposits

with only minor drawbacks in terms of lower limits of determination. The specific details of this

assessment are described below.

TERMS of REFERENCE and PURPOSE of the SURVEY

The author of this report was contracted by Mr. Charles Greig Vice President Exploration for

MolyCorp Ltd. to undertake a Mobile Metal Ions soil geochemical survey on their North Tarp grid

(Pickle Lake area), interpret the data and prepare a report based on the resulting MMI-ME

geochemical database. The survey was undertaken to assess the area encompassed by the

North Tarp grid for MMI geochemical signatures related to stratigraphically/structurally-controlled

base and precious metal mineralization mantled by deep overburden conditions. The depth of

high-contrast residence sites of metals in the soil profile was determined by an orientation survey

as well as experience by the author of this report in the Pickle Lake area. Results of the

orientation survey form part of this report. This report represents a final interpretation of work and

is completed with recommendations for follow-up exploration. Figure 1 indicates the grid location

and the property claim fabric. Table 1 indicates the claim information for North Tarp. A total of 895

samples were collected on the North Tarp Grid.



Figure 1: Location of the North Tarp Grid and claim fabric.

Table 1: Claim information for North Tarp Grid.

ClaimNumber Holder

RecordingDate

ClaimDueDate

PercentOption

WorkRequired

TotalApplied

TotalReserve

ClaimBank

MMISTATIONSIN CLAIM Hectares Township/Area

3008479MetalCorpLimited

2004-Jun-28

2011-Jun-28 100% $6,400 $32,000 $0 $0 63 263.47

COLLISHAWLAKE AREA


2004-Jun-28

2011-Jun-28 100% $6,000 $30,000 $0 $0 40 244.06

FIRSTLOONLAKE AREA


2010-Mar-05

2012-Mar-05 100% $4,800 $0 $0 $0 109 181.35

COLLISHAWLAKE AREA


2010-Mar-05

2012-Mar-05 100% $6,400 $0 $0 $0 178 258.00

COLLISHAWLAKE AREA


2010-Mar-05

2012-Mar-05 100% $6,400 $0 $0 $0 30 258.97

COLLISHAWLAKE AREA


2010-Mar-05

2012-Mar-05 100% $3,600 $0 $0 $0 116 138.27

COLLISHAWLAKE AREA


2010-Mar-05

2012-Mar-05 100% $6,400 $0 $0 $0 153 245.83

COLLISHAWLAKE AREA


2010-Mar-05

2012-Mar-05 100% $6,400 $0 $0 $0 176 246.16

COLLISHAWLAKE AREA

4214449 MetalCorp 2010- 2012- 100% $2,400 $0 $0 $0 1 87.08 COLLISHAW



Limited Mar-05 Mar-05 LAKE AREA


2010-Mar-05

2012-Mar-05 100% $4,800 $0 $0 $0 13 190.97

COLLISHAWLAKE AREA


2010-Mar-05

2012-Mar-05 100% $4,400 $0 $0 $0 1 154.68

COLLISHAWLAKE AREA


2010-Mar-05

2012-Mar-05 100% $6,400 $0 $0 $0 15 264.41

FIRSTLOONLAKE AREA

LOCATION AND ACCESS

The North Tarp property is one of three contiguous mineral properties (North Tarp, Metcalfe and

Connell) located approximately 10 km northeast of the town of Pickle Lake in northwestern

Ontario. The property is easily accessed by all-weather Hwy 808.

SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Sample collection techniques for this survey were determined by Mount Morgan Resources Ltd.

With samples collected according to protocols developed for the landscape environment that

exists at North Tarp. Sample descriptions were noted at each site. The survey was undertaken

between June and August of 2010 and was supervised by Mark Fedikow Ph.D. P.Eng. P.Geo.

C.P.G. of Mount Morgan resources Ltd. at Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba (R0E1A0).

In MMI surveys there are some general approaches that are used to guide sample collection

including preferred depths of sampling and these are described briefly here. Additional

information is also available from the SGS Mineral Services website

(www.sgs.com/geochemistry).

Soil samples, each weighing approximately 250 grams, are usually collected at variable sample

spacing along single transects over known mineralized zones or extrapolated trends of these

zones. Generally, 25-m stations in precious metal exploration and up to 50 m in the case of base

metals are the routine spacing. Sample spacing should be established on the basis of a “best-

estimate” of the likely target being sought with estimates from historical data or exploration results

from nearby programs. Initially, samples are often collected at a closer spacing until it is

determined that a larger spacing is appropriate to the target being sought. At the North Tarp grid

soils were sampled from each pit at a depth of 10-25 cm below the “zero datum” or the point at



which soil formation is initiated in this environment. The sample collected between 10 and 25 cm

represents a continuous 15 cm long plug of sediment or a continuous vertical channel of

sediment. Samples are bagged on site without preparation and shipped to SGS Laboratories.

(Toronto, Ont.) for MMI-ME analysis. The MMI-ME is a pH-neutral extraction with analytical finish

by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The 10-25 cm depth was

determined by an orientation survey which is described below.

DATA TREATMENT AND PRESENTATION

In exploration surveys where sampling and analytical protocols have been determined by an

orientation survey, analytical data is examined visually for analyses less than the lower limit of

detection (<LLD) for ICP-MS. Data <LLD are replaced with a value ½ of the LLD for statistical

calculations and graphical representation. For most exploration surveys, MMI data is plotted as

response ratios. For the calculation of response ratios the 25th percentile is determined using the

software program SYSTAT (V13) and the arithmetic mean of the lower quartile used to normalize

all analyses. The normalized data represent "response ratios" which are then utilized in

subsequent plots. Zeros resulting from this calculation are replaced with “1”. Response ratios are

a simple way to compare MMI data collected from different grids, areas and environments from

year to year. This normalized approach also significantly removes or "smoothes" analytical

variability due to inconsistent dissolution or instrument instability. For the North Tarp survey the

interpretation of the exploration grid-based survey is based on response ratios whereas the

orientation survey results are based on concentration only.

Analytical data as received from SGS Mineral Services is presented in Appendix 1. Analytical

data from analytical duplicates, replicate analyses of standard MMI reference materials and

analytical blanks are given in Appendix 2. The 25th

percentiles and backgrounds used to calculate

response ratios are included in Appendix 2 with the edited analytical data. The variation in

concentration of MMI-ME suite elements on the North Tarp grid is discussed in a geochemical

narrative based on bubble plots produced with Vertical Mapper, a module within MAPINFO.



The bubble plots are presented in Appendix 3 and are presented as “original” plots which

incorporate all North Tarp data and as truncated plots that assess the lower contrast geochemical

flux in the dataset by truncating all response ratios >100RR, re-setting these responses to 100RR

and re-plotting.



RESULTS

Quality Control-Orientation and Exploration Survey

Data Reproducibility-Analytical Duplicates

Analytical duplicate sample analyses are presented in Appendix 2 and permit an assessment of

the ability to reproduce analyses at a wide range in concentration. It is observed that the duplicate

pairs exhibit a very high degree of reproducibility across a wide range in concentration for most

MMI-ME elements including the base and precious metal commodity elements Zn, Pb, Cu and

Ag, associated elements Ga, As and Cs, and the lithologically-sensitive element Cr. Any

variability that exists between duplicates is generally within +/- 25% and as such is interpreted not

to be a hindrance to interpretation and the recognition of bona fide trends and anomalies in the

dataset. Most variability occurs at or near the lower limit of determination. Some analytical

duplicate pairs exhibit significant variance at lower concentration levels near the analytical limits

of determination. It is noted that this variability is not uniform for all duplicate pairs and for most

pairs the reproducibility for these elements is excellent. The use of simple linear regression for

duplicate pairs and analyses for Ag, As, Cr, Cs, Cu, Ga, Pb and Zn, important commodity,

pathfinder and lithologically sensitive elements in this study, indicate the excellent linear

relationship that exists between these duplicate pair analyses. Although some outliers are

identified in these plots the overall quality of the data is considered as excellent. The linear

regression plots for the elements Ag, As, Cr, Cs, Cu, Ga, Pb and Zn are given in Figures 2-9.



Figure 2: Linear regression plot for Ag.

Note: Cook's distance measures the effect of deleting a given observation. Data points with large residuals (outliers)and/or high leverage may distort the outcome and accuracy of a regression. Points with a large Cook's distance areconsidered to merit closer examination in the analysis.

Figure 3: Linear regression plot for As.

Figure 4: Linear regression plot for Cr.



Figure 5: Linear regression plot for Cs.

Figure 6: Linear regression plot for Cu.

Figure 7: Linear regression plot for Ga.



Figure 8: Linear regression plot for Pb.

Figure 9: Linear regression plot for Zn.

Data Reproducibility-Field Duplicates

Field duplicate samples were collected in exactly the same way as an original sample every 50th

station. The data are reviewed in the same manner as were the analytical duplicates using linear

regression plots and the calculation of Cook’s Distances* for seven important commodity,

pathfinder and lithologically-sensitive elements. Results are displayed in Figure 10-16 and

indicate good reproducibility of field data with single outlier duplicates noted for Cu, Pb, Zn, P and

Tl.

These data suggest that any anomalous response delineated by the exploration survey can be

repeated in a subsequent follow-up survey. There is some variance in the datasets but this is

interpreted as insignificant in identifying bona fide anomalous responses on the North Tarp grid.



*Note: Cook's distance measures the effect of deleting a given observation. Data points with large residuals (outliers)and/or high leverage may distort the outcome and accuracy of a regression. Points with a large Cook's distance areconsidered to merit closer examination in the analysis.

Figure 10: Linear regression plot for Ag.

Figure 11: Linear regression plot for Ce.

Figure 12: Linear regression plot for Cu.



Figure 13: Linear regression plot for P.

Figure 14: Linear regression plot for Pb.

Figure 15: Linear regression plot for Ti.



Figure 16: Linear regression plot for Zn.

Standard Reference Materials

The analytical data for the unknown samples were bracketed by two internal reference standards

MMISRM16 and MMISRM18 (Appendix 2). A review of the tabled data in Appendix 2 indicates

that excellent correspondence exists between the replicate analyses for both standards with

some lesser exceptions. In MMISRM16 the recommended value for the rare earth element Gd is

<1 ppb whereas the observed replicate analyses is 5. In MMISRM18 the recommended Pb value

is 178 versus an observed range of 220-310. Also in MMISRM18 Se recommended value is 4

ppb versus the observed value range of 3-14 ppb. This variance is not considered to be

significant and not a hindrance to the recognition of anomalous responses in the survey for

commodity, pathfinder and lithologically-sensitive elements.

Analytical Blank Replicates

A review of the replicate analyses of the analytical blanks (Appendix 2) indicates minor amounts

of laboratory-based contamination are being introduced into the sample. This further attests to the

excellent quality of the analytical data. The summary of elements detected in the analytical blanks

is presented in Table 1.

Despite the presence of multiple samples for multiple elements the magnitude of the

contamination is considered irrelevant in relation to the range in concentration for the particular

element detected in the sample population.



Table 2: Summary of contaminants in the replicate analyses of the analytical blank.

Summary of contaminants in the replicate analyses of the analytical blankNorth Tarp MMI-ME survey.

Element No. of Samples Concentration

Reporting

Fe 5 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 ppm

K 5 0.1, 0.1, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 ppm

Mn 7 10, 10, 30, 20, 10, 10, 10 ppm

Nb 1 0.5 ppb

P 4 0.1, 0.3, 0.2, 0.2 ppb

Se 3 4, 7, 7 ppm

Ti 8 15, 11, 4, 8, 6, 5, 7, 47 ppb

Th 2 0.6, 0.5 ppb

V 3 2, 2, 2 ppb

Data Description

The North Tarp MMI-ME dataset is marked by a number of elements that are at or below the LLD.

These include As, Bi, Cs, Hg, In, Mo, Pd, Pt, Sb, Sn, Ta, Te, Tl and W. These elements are

typically less mobile than Cu or Zn and their presence in measurable quantities in a small number

of samples is testament to this. The high percentage of samples with <LLD for these metals is not

surprising given their very low mobility in the surficial/secondary environment. However, any MMI-

ME analysis for Pd or Pt that is >LLD should be reviewed with care for its overall significance in

the survey. An MMI-ME analysis for Pd and Pt above the LLD should be field checked for

possible association with platinum group metal geological environments. It is worth noting that the

diagnostic signal of a significantly mineralized zone will generally produce moderate- to high-

contrast apical responses over the target; however, away from the mineralization at “background”

locations there may be no trace of the presence of a specific metal in the analysis. This is another

consideration when viewing MMI data-the presence of significant numbers of elements < the LLD

is not necessarily cause for concern or that the MMI-ME extraction is not working or has been

“buffered” by soil composition. The MMI process is designed to only extract metals that are



moving from source to surface and characteristically report metal contents in low ppb

concentrations.

Method of Interpretation

Multivariate statistical and graphical techniques were not utilized for the interpretation of MMI-ME

data in the North Tarp survey 2010 interpretation. A simple visual approach was used. The MMI-

ME data was examined for anomalous spikes or groups of elevated responses for single and/or

coincident elements. Element groupings such as Au-Ag, Au-Ag-Pd, Zn-Cd, Ni-Co, Ni-Co-Ag and

Ni-Cu all have relevance to underlying geological conditions and their contained mineralization

and are used to assist the rankings of any particular MMI response in terms of follow-up.

When concentration-only data is reviewed unique “spikes” or anomalous responses are

assessed. When response ratios are used there are general guidelines brought to bear on the

interpretation. Generally, a response ratio of 1RR-10RR is generally interpreted as little more

than “background”, 11RR-20RR is of limited interest, >20RR or 20 times background is an initial

indication of a low-contrast anomalous response although this "threshold" is not universal. A

response of between 20RR and 50RR is used as a moderate response with RR>50 being

referred to as high-contrast. Often, pattern recognition in the interpretation of geochemical data is

paramount.

Spearman-Rank Correlation Coefficient Matrix

The MMI-ME multi-element geochemical data derived from the North Tarp survey was assessed

with a Spearman-Rank correlation coefficient matrix. This assessment permits the determination

of significantly correlated element pairs and allows the recognition of anomalous geochemical

responses related to mineralization (commodity elements), pathfinder elements and lithologically-

sensitive elements. In addition, the approach is an indirect method of assessing analytical quality.

The geochemical coherence of the rare earth elements should be reflected by strong correlation

coefficients if the data quality is good. The entire Spearman-Rank matrix is presented in Appendix

2.



Examination of the Spearman-Rank matrix indicates the commodity elements in the North Tarp

dataset are characterized by element doublets that reflect sulphide mineral assemblages (see

bolded element pairs in Table 2). Significant base and precious metal sulphide mineral-related

inter-correlations are reflected for the elements Cu, Pb, Zn, Bi, Sb, Se, Au and Ag. It is noted that

many of the Sb analyses are at or below the LLD.

Precious metal associations include the base metal and related suite given above but the only

significant correlation for Au and Ag is Cu which is indicative of a fairly specific depositional

environment and suggestive of the kind of associations that would be found in the root zone or

“pipe” of a base metal massive sulphide-type deposit. Alternatively, this association can be found

in precious metal depositional environments.

The rare earth elements are very significantly inter-correlated in the database and this confirms

the geochemical coherence expected for these elements in quality analytical data. The REE

should be highly inter-correlated if the quality of the analytical work is good. The highly inter-

correlated nature of the rare earth elements is an indirect measure of analytical quality. Hence,

the North Tarp dataset is considered to be excellent for purposes of anomaly definition. On the

basis of the analytical duplicates, absence of significant contamination in the sample analyses

and agreement with MMI reference materials (MMISRM16 and MMISRM18) the North Tarp MMI-

ME dataset is considered to be accurate and precise.

The presence of a Ca-Mg-Sr-Ni association in the data is not surprising given these elements are

similar in terms of their nuclear chemistry and have been used to infer the presence of

intermediate to mafic lithologies in the subsurface. Another lithologically-sensitive element suite

that is highly correlated in the North Tarp dataset is that of Fe-Nb-Ti. This triplet is suggestive of

the presence of magnetite either as a disseminated halo to an alteration/mineralized zone or

intrusion or of an oxide facies iron formation.

A modest correlation coefficient “r” (0.264) for the Cd-Zn doublet is indicative of the possible

geochemical signature of bedrock-hosted sphalerite mineralization. Interestingly, unlike other



MMI-ME base metals, the correlation between Zn and the REE is reduced. This implies a

significantly different geologic mode of occurrence for Zn on the property, possibly in association

with argillaceous/graphitic lithologies or mafic volcanic rocks. The mafic volcanic association

would seem to be reasonable given the significant r values between Zn and Al, Cr, Fe and Cs.

Further to this point, the absence of a significant correlation Cu (significant with Mg, Ni, Sr), Au

(significant with Ca, Mg, Sr) and Ag (significant with Ca, Mg) with the rare earth elements in the

North Tarp survey provides additional evidence for the genetic relationship between these

elements and a mafic volcanic host rock. Similar observations are made for Pb and the

association with Rb, Sc, Ti, V and Zr and Zn with Al, Cr, Cs, Nb, P, Rb and V.

Table 3: Summary of Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient matrix for commodityelements.

Summary of Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient matrix for commodityelements, North Tarp grid, Pickle Lake (n=895).

Element "r" Element "r" Element "r"

Cu:Mg 0.617 Pb:Rb 0.357 Au:Ca 0.506

Cu:Ni 0.455 Pb:Sc 0.491 Au:Mg 0.621

Cu:Sr 0.607 Pb:Th 0.42 Au:Sr 0.467

Cu:Mn 478 Pb:Ti 0.506 Au:Cu 0.521

Cu:Sb 0.397 Pb:V 0.498

Pb:Y 0.371 Ag:Ca 0.451

Zn:Al 0.448 Pb:Zr 0.556 Ag:Mg 0.557

Zn:Cr 0.483 Pb:Sn 0.376 Ag:Mn 0.448

Zn:Cs 0.375 Pb:W 0.553 Ag:Cu 0.561

Zn:Nb 0.434 Pb:Al 0.492

Zn:P 0.409 Pb:Ba 0.603

Zn:Rb 0.309 Pb:Cr 0.497

Zn:V 0.34 Pb:Cs 0.402

Zn:Sn 0.391 Pb:Fe 0.513

Zn:Ta 0.386 Pb:K 0.556

Zn:Bi 0.341 Pb:Sb 0.492

Pb:Se 0.674

Pb:As 0.674



Orientation Survey Results

The purpose of an orientation survey is first and foremost to provide the explorationist with

sampling and analytical guidelines for subsequent exploration surveys. A single line of samples

collected from hand-dug pits from stations approximately 10 m apart was undertaken over a site

selected by MetalCorp in the vicinity of the North Tarp grid. Samples were collected as vertical

channels every 10 cm from the zero datum and the 40 cm depth in the pit. Analyses were by

MMI-ME. The results are displayed for base and precious metals as well as associated pathfinder

and lithologically-significant elements. The entire orientation dataset is presented in the

Appendices as “Orientation Survey” and the sample site chosen for graphical depiction was TO-

10.

Results are presented for Ag, As, Cu, Ga, Pb, Ti, V and Zn as horizontal bar charts illustrating the

variability throughout the upper 40 cm of the soil profile (Figures 17-24). It should be noted that

no attention was paid to pedogenic profiles and nomenclature such that samples were collected

according to depth and depth alone.

Upon examination of the profiles presented below it becomes immediately apparent that the most

representative and highest contrast responses occur between 10 and 20 cm below the zero

datum. This becomes the target for sampling in order to capture the signature of bedrock-hosted

base metal mineralization. The sampling interval is increased to 10 to 25 cm to accommodate

some elevated responses in the 20 to 30 cm depth sample.

On the basis of this orientation survey the optimum sampling position in the upper 40 cm of the

soil profile is between 10 and 25 cm below the zero datum. The exploration survey was

undertaken using these guidelines.



Figure 17: Orientation Survey Results for Ag.

Figure 18: Orientation Survey Results for As.



Figure 19: Orientation Survey Results for Cu.

Figure 20: Orientation Survey Results for Ga.

Figure 21: Orientation Survey Results for Pb.



Figure 22: Orientation Survey Results for Ti.

Figure 23: Orientation Survey Results for V.

Figure 24: Orientation Survey Results for Zn.



AREAL DISTRIBUTION OF ANOMALOUS RESPONSES IN THE NORTHTARP MMI-ME SURVEY AREA

Vertical Mapper Bubble Plots

The variation in concentration and the resulting morphologies of anomalous responses in the

MMI-ME data from the North Tarp survey area are described in the following section. The data is

examined in with Vertical Mapper bubble plots and truncated equivalents. Plots reflect data with

response ratios (RR) with of greater than 100RR that are truncated at 100RR and re-plotted with

those analyses with RR>100 re-set to 100.

Base and Related Metal Responses (Cu, Pb, Se, Zn, Cd, Tl, Co)

CuRR (1-92): (Figure 25) Copper responses from the North Tarp grid are significantly elevated to

maximum values of 92 times background in four discrete areas. Two of these areas occur at the

extreme northern and southern portions of the grid and as such have not been truncated by the

current sampling program. The most significant of these anomalies occurs in the southern grid

area, extends over four grid lines and comprises consistently high-contrast Cu responses. The

four areas described here are encircled by an ovoid on the plot.



Figure 25: Results for CuRR



PbRR (1-62R): (Figure 26) A very high-contrast and focused multi-sample Pb anomaly is

coincident with the copper anomaly described above and is the only significant Pb anomaly on

the grid. The anomaly occupies the southern grid area and has maximum responses of 62 times

background. Like the copper anomaly it is also non-truncated by the current sampling program.

Figure 26: Results for PbRR.



SeRR (1-65): (Figure 27) A weakly elevated Se anomaly is present on the grid and is coincident

with both Pb and Cu anomalies. There is a single-sample high-contrast anomalous response in

the anomaly but overall it is low-contrast and multi-sample.

Figure 27: Results for SeRR.



ZnRR (1-112): (Figure 28) Zinc responses are best described as erratic, single-sample and non-

definitive of an anomaly. There is a suggestion of a northeast linearity to the data but overall the

responses are disjointed. A single-sample peak response of 112 times background is

documented from the grid. A low-contrast anomalous response is noted from the eastern

extremity of the grid and is encapsulated by an ovoid.

Figure 28: Results for ZnRR.



CdRR (1-72): (Figure 29) Cadmium responses are very similar to those for Zn and have a

maximum of 72 times background in a single sample. They are erratic and non-definitive of an

anomaly.

Figure 29: Results for CdRR.



TlRR (1-8): (Figure 30) A very low-contrast Tl anomaly is developed at the eastern extremity of

the grid where it coincides with low-contrast Zn and Cu responses. The anomaly appears to be

open to the east and likely has not been truncated by the current sampling program.

Figure 30: Results for TiRR.



CoRR (1-28): (Figure 31) Elevated cobalt responses in MMI data are interpreted to be a reflection

of iron sulphide mineralization (pyrite, pyrrhotite) and are often associated with base and precious

metal mineralization. Cobalt response ratios are moderate with maxima of 28RR. The grid is

characterized by erratic and scattered responses with a possible exception in the southern grid

area. The ovoid marks possible overlap with a Cu-Pb-Se response in the same area.

Figure 31: Results for CoRR.



Precious and Related Metal Responses (Ag, As and Au)

AgRR (1-48): (Figure 32) The Ag responses on the North Tarp grid define three moderate-

contrast anomalies in the southern, eastern and northern portions of the survey area. These

responses are coincident with previously described Cu, Pb, Se and possible Co anomalies.

Figure 32: Results for AgRR.



AsRR (1-26): (Figure 33) Arsenic responses are moderate- to low-contrast scattered responses

with a possible exception in the eastern portion of the grid. This is a multiple sample but very low-

contrast response that has no apparent association with base metals and Ag.

Figure 33: Results for AsRR.



AuRR (1-118): (Figure 34) Gold responses to 118RR are documented from the grid however in

the areas of the multi-element (Cu, Pb, Se) anomalies only background and near-background

responses are observed. There are three single sample low-, moderate- and high-contrast

responses documented from the survey and these are indicated by ovoids on the plot.

Figure 34: Results for AuRR.



Lithologically-Sensitive Element Responses (Al, Ca, Cr, Cs, Fe, Mg, Mn, Nb,Ni, P, Rb, Sc, Sr, Th, Ti, V, Zr)

AlRR (1-60): (Figure 35) A broad, linear trend of elevated Al responses occurs in the central

portion of the grid. This trend is characterized by response ratios of up to 60 times background

and forms a continuous band that transects the entire grid and extends to the northeast and

southwest. This pattern is interpreted as the geochemical signature of an aluminous lithology and

could be a sedimentary unit or an altered volcanic or intrusive rock. Additional observations from

additional lithologically-sensitive elements will be required to narrow the interpretation.

Figure 35: Results for AlRR.



CaRR (1-66): (Figure 36) Calcium responses form a northwest and southeast bracket around the

Al anomaly described above. The magnitude of these responses is moderate- to high-contrast

and forms a consistent trend on the outside edge of the Al anomaly. The Ca responses are

interpreted to be those of a distinctive lithology that is significantly different than that delineated

by elevated Al responses.

Figure 36: Results for CaRR.



CrRR (1-70): (Figure 37) A primarily low-contrast anomalous Cr response on the grid coincides

closely with the Al anomaly described earlier. The Cr-Al anomaly is flanked by elevated Ca and is

the indication of a sequence of distinctive interbedded lithologies. The maximum Cr response

occurs outside of the elevated Cr-Al response in the southern grid area.

Figure 37: Results for CrRR.



CsRR (1-72): (Figure 38) The Cs responses are primarily low- to moderate-contrast and mimic

closely those responses for Al, Cr and Ca. The maximum response for Cs occurs outside of the

lithologic boundary defined by these elements as a single sample response.

Figure 38: Results for CsRR.



FeRR (1-62): (Figure 39) All significant Fe responses occur within the lithologic boundary defined

by Al, Cr, Cs and Fe. There are localized “hotspots” within this boundary however the anomalous

response is attributed to an underlying lithology. It appears that the Fe responses are not as

sharp and clear-cut in terms of defining the lithological boundary suggesting there are Fe

responses within the relatively Ca-enriched flanking lithologies.

Figure 39: Results for FeRR



MgRR (1-68): (Figure 40) The patterns of response for Mg are sympathetic to those of Ca and

antithetic to Al, Cr, Cs and Fe. The lithologies flanking the central or core unit have maximum RR

to 68 times background and the pattern of response is well-developed and consistent with other

lithologically-sensitive element responses.

Figure 40: Results for MgRR.



MnRR (1-100): (Figure 41) The pattern of response is possibly more “ragged” than previous

patterns produced by the lithologically-sensitive suite of elements. There are localized Mn

“hotspots” developed within the central lithology that make the overall pattern somewhat difficult

to visualize. Nevertheless, the pattern of a northwest-trending core lithology seems consistent

with the other “mapping” elements.

Figure 41: Results for MnRR.



NbRR (1-295): (Figure 42 and 43) Niobium responses on the grid are very high-contrast with

maxima of 295 times background and their pattern of response confirms the presence of a core

lithology flanked by lithologies with distinct bulk chemical compositions. The pattern of response

for Nb is markedly improved when the data is truncated at 100RR and re-plotted. The pattern of

response and lithologic boundaries is sharply defined. Truncated data also indicates the

southeast limit of the central or core lithology appears slightly different with a broader southeast

boundary.

Figure 42: Results for NbRR.



Figure 43: Results for NbRR Truncated.



NiRR (1-33): (Figure 44) Nickel responses on the North Tarp grid are limited to a number of

scattered single sample responses of moderate-contrast. In comparison with previous patterns

delineated by the lithologically-sensitive elements the Ni responses would fall outside of the

central lithologic domain. The paucity of Ni responses precludes using these in defining the

nature of the lithologies underpinning the grid.

Figure 44: Results for NiRR.



PRR (1-536): (Figures 45 and 46) Very high-contrast P responses to a maximum of 536 times

background are documented from the North Tarp grid. These data define the central lithologic

unit with sharply defined boundaries in both truncated and non-truncated data although the

pattern of response is much clearer in truncated data. Outside of the boundaries of this central

unit there are almost no responses above background.

Figure 45: Results for PRR.



Figure 46: Results for PRR Truncated.



RbRR (1-44): (Figure 47) Moderate-contrast Rb responses define the central lithologic unit along

with Al, Cr, Cs, Fe, Nb and P. As in the case of P there are almost no responses above

background outside the boundaries of this central unit.

Figure 47: Results for RbRR.



ScRR (1-54): (Figure 48) The Sc responses are also effective in delineating the central lithologic

unit with sharply defined boundaries. The southeastern boundary is somewhat different than that

defined by other elements but coincident with the response pattern for Nb. The ScRR are for the

most part moderate-contrast.

Figure 48: Results for ScRR.



SrRR (1-21): (Figure 49) Predominantly low-contrast Sr responses typify the North Tarp grid

however it is the lack of Sr or perhaps a depleted central zone of Sr that defines the central

lithologic unit. The areas of low-contrast Sr response are spotty and erratic. The elevated Sr

coincides with elevated Ca, Mg and Mn.

Figure 49: Results for SrRR.



ThRR (1-28): (Figure 50) The grid is characterized by erratic and non-definitive low- to moderate-

contrast Th responses. One possible anomalous response exists in the eastern grid area where

multiple adjacent moderate-contrast responses are present. The Th anomaly is coincident with

elevated Cu, Zn, Tl, Nb and Sc responses. This area is encircled by an ovoid.

Figure 50: Results for ThRR.



TiRR (1-1760): (Figures 51 and 52) The Ti responses are extremely high-contrast with maximum

RR of 1760 times background. Both non-truncated and truncated data define the boundaries of

the central lithologic unit although these boundaries are much clearer when truncated data is

utilized. In non-truncated data there are no elevated TiRR outside of the lithologic boundary.

Figure 51: Results for TiRR.



Figure 52: Results for TiRR Truncated.



VRR (1-100): (Figure 53) The pattern of response for V on the grid is somewhat erratic although

there is a central zone of enrichment defined by “ragged” boundaries. These are moderate- to

high-contrast responses, most of which are present within the boundaries of the central lithologic

unit.

Figure 53: Results for VRR.



ZrRR (1-36): (Figure 54) The Zr responses on the North Tarp grid are non-definitive of the

interlayered lithologies as defined by distinctive MMI geochemical responses. There is a weakly

elevated zone of Zr situated in the eastern portion of the grid where elevated Cu, Zn, Tl, Nb, Sc

and Th have been documented. This area is encapsulated by an ovoid in the plot below.

Figure 54: Results for ZrRR.



Rare Earth Elements (Ce, Eu, Yb)

CeRR (1-140): (Figure 55) The central lithologic unit is well-defined by the light rare earth Ce with

moderate- to high-contrast (to 140 times background) responses. The overall shape of the central

unit is somewhat different than that defined by previous lithologically-sensitive element responses

although there is general agreement. A in previous cases the anomaly extends both to the

northeast and southwest.

Figure 55: Results for CeRR.



EuRR (1-60): (Figure 56) The Eu responses on the grid are very similar to those for Ce and this

reflects the geochemical coherence of the rare earth elements. The maximum EuRR are

somewhat lower than those for CeRR at 60 times background and this likely reflects the relative

abundances between the two elements.

Figure 56: Results for EuRR.



YbRR (1-70): (Figure 57) The heavier rare earth element Yb does not reflect the lithologic

boundaries defined by the light and intermediate rare earth elements Ce and Eu nor the patterns

given by the numerous other lithologically-sensitive elements described above. despite maximum

responses of up to 70 times background the resulting pattern is one of several single sample

anomalies that are non-definitive of an anomaly.

Figure 57: Results for YbRR.



Granophile Elements (Sn, Ta)

SnRR (1-38): (Figure 58) The low- to moderate-contrast responses for the Granophile element

Sn define the central lithologic unit boundaries albeit with very faint boundaries. There appears to

be no elevated Sn responses outside of the boundary of the central; lithologic unit.

Figure 58: Results for SnRR.



TaRR (1-14): Despite very low-contrast response ratios Ta, like the other Granophile element Sn,

clearly defines the limits of the central lithologic unit. Maximum responses are only 14 times

background.

Figure 59: Results for TaRR.



OBSERVATIONS and DISCUSSION

The North Tarp MMI-ME survey has documented a number of areas of multi-sample and multi-

commodity element anomalies. The constituent elements in these anomalies are summarized in

Table 3.

Table 4: Summary of MMI-M Responses-North Tarp Property

CommodityAnomalies

Constituent Elements Morphology/Comments

Base Metals

Cu, Pb, Zn, Se, Tl +/- Co Four sites of base metal anomalousresponses

Precious Metals

Ag, Au Ag anomalies correspond with base metalanomalies; Au responses are three singlesample anomalies

LithologicAnomalies

Constituent Elements Morphology/Comments

Central Lithology Al, Cr, Cs, Fe, Nb, P, Rb, Sc, Ti, V, Ce,Eu, Sn, Ta

Mafic to ultramafic volcanic/volcaniclasticunit with associated granitic/felsic (Sn,Ta/Ce) lithologies

North and SouthFlanking

Ca, Mg, Mn, Sr Basalt

The commodity element anomalies delineated by the MMI-ME survey are well developed multi-

sample responses and comprise a typical sulphide element assemblage including Cu, Pb and Zn

as well as the commonly associated pathfinder suite of Tl, Se and Co. Of some concern is the

limited coincidence between Zn and Cd which is normally considered a required correlation if the

Zn responses are attributed to bedrock-hosted mineralization. The Zn anomaly, however, is both

restricted in areal extent and in the magnitude of the responses on the grid. Many of the base

metal responses appear to be open and non-truncated by the current sampling program. The

extent of these anomalous responses could be delineated by additional MMI-ME surveys

however this should only go forward subsequent to a review of geophysical information from the



North Tarp grid area. Airborne and/or ground EM and magnetic surveys may be able to trace any

conductive sources associated with these anomalies.

There is an excellent association of Ag with base metal responses on the grid suggesting Ag is

tied up in sulphide minerals rather than having a close association with Au in an Au-Ag system.

The Au anomalous responses are single sample in character but with response ratios up to 118

times background. The immediate area around the Au responses could be sampled on a detailed

grid to ascertain whether these individual responses have additional responses adjacent to the

response. Alternatively an excavator could expose bedrock in these areas to search for

mineralized bedrock, assuming overburden thickness is not prohibitive.

Of much interest is the recognition of at least three lithologic units on the North Tarp grid as

defined by lithologically-sensitive element responses. The “central lithologic unit” or “CLU” is very

well defined by a large number of MMI-ME elements and it is flanked to the north and south by

lithologies that have very similar character that is enrichment in Ca, Mg, Sr and Mn. This

suggests either the geochemically distinctive central lithologic unit intrudes the Ca, Mg, Sr and

Mn-enriched lithology (basalt/andesite/volcanic/volcaniclastic) or deformation is repeating the

flanking units with the core of a fold occupied by the CLU. Alternatively and more simply the

lithologies delineated by the MMI-ME survey represent “layer cake” stratigraphy with a distinctive

CLU flanked by units of similar bulk chemical composition.

The presence of Sn and Ta anomalies coincident with the lithological boundaries of the central

lithologic unit is interesting given that the trace element assemblage is more akin to a mafic or

ultramafic lithology. It is possible the bedrock underpinning the entirety of the North Tarp grid is

felsic in composition although the MMI-ME signatures suggest a more mafic character to the

bedrock.

One important observation regarding the location of the base metal responses and those for Ag is

that three of the four anomalies with the highest response ratios occur outside of the CLU but at

or close to the contact between the CLU and the flanking lithologies. This is a significant point in



that localization of base metal anomalies at lithologic contacts is a common feature in VMS-type

scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions are evident from this MMI-ME exploration survey on the North

Tarp property:

1. The survey has successfully demonstrated that MMI-ME partial extractions on soil samples

collected from terrain characterized by significant organic overburden can isolate MMI-ME

precious and base metal anomalies and lithologically-sensitive anomalies.

2. An orientation survey undertaken on the grid indicates that the optimum depth for the

collection of a soil sample to be analyzed by MMI-ME extraction is between 10 cm and 20 cm

below the zero datum. The depth is increased by 5 cm to 25 cm to acquire some of the higher

responses noted between 20 cm and 30 cm.

3. There are four base metal commodity element responses on the grid. These include the

elements Cu, Pb, Zn, Tl, Se and Co. Three of the four occur at or near an interpreted

lithologic contact.

4. Silver is closely associated with the base metal responses.

5. Gold responses on the grid are limited to three discrete and areally separate single sample

responses but with maximum response ratios of up to 118 times background.

6. Lithologically-sensitive elements have defined at least two distinctive lithologies, each

fingerprinted with a diagnostic suite of MMI-ME elements. The pattern of these responses

suggests either a layer cake stratigraphy, a central lithologic unit intruded into flanking

lithologies with similar bulk chemical compositions, or the CLU cores a fold with the flanking

lithologies on each side. Tin and Ta anomalies suggest the presence of felsic lithologies on

the grid.

7. Variability in duplicate field samples is minimal and insignificant in terms of anomaly

definition.



8. Sampling materials collected for MMI-ME analysis are effective and appropriate sample

media for an MMI-ME survey.

9. The analyses generated by the MMI-ME extraction are accurate and precise and are effective

for the detection of low- to high-contrast anomalies.

The recommendations that flow from this survey are as follows:

1. The MMI process does not indicate the grade of mineralization responsible for the production

of an MMI anomaly nor does it indicate the depth of the source region for the anomaly.

Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that an attempt at modeling the geological setting of

the target mineralization based on their geophysical responses with emphasis on depth to

source be undertaken prior to a diamond drill program. This exercise can greatly assist the

drilling when attempting to provide explanations for the geological context of geophysical and

MMI anomalies. The attitude of the target can be effectively delineated in this manner.

2. Prior to diamond drill testing, the MMI-ME dataset should be integrated with all available

geophysical and geological survey data so that multivariate drill targets can be determined.

3. Any anomalies not truncated by the current survey should be assessed by additional MMI-ME

soil surveys utilizing the same sampling and analytical protocols as those established by the

current study. This will permit truncation of the anomaly and identification of local “hot spots”

that may have been missed.

October 26, 2010

Mark FedikowMount Morgan Resources Ltd.Winnipeg, Manitoba



CERTIFICATE of AUTHOR

Mark A.F. Fedikow, HB.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., P. Eng. P.Geo. C.P.G.Consulting Geologist and Geochemist

Mount Morgan Resources Ltd.

50 Dobals Road North

P.O. Box 629Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba R0E 1A0

Tel: 204-284-6869Cell: 204-998-0271

Email: [email protected]

I, Mark A.F. Fedikow, HB.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., P.Eng., P.Geo., C.P.G. do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently a self-employed Consulting Geologist/Geochemist with a field office at:

50 Dobals Road North

P.O. Box 629Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba R0E 1A0

2. I graduated with a degree in Honors Geology (B.Sc.) from the University of Windsor(Windsor, Ont.) in 1975. In addition, I earned an M.Sc. in geophysics and geochemistry fromthe University of Windsor and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in exploration geochemistryfrom the School of Applied Geology, University of New South Wales (Sydney) in 1982.

3. I am a Member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba.I am also a Fellow of the Association of Applied Geochemists, and a Member of theProspectors and Developers Association of Canada. I hold valid Prospectors licenses inManitoba and Ontario. I am registered as a Certified Professional Geologist with theAmerican Institute of Professional Geologists (Colorado, U.S.A.).

4. I have worked as a geologist for a total of thirty-five years since my graduation fromuniversity; as a graduate student, as an employee of major and junior mining companies, theManitoba Geological Survey and as an independent consultant.

5. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (asdefined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a“qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.

6. I am responsible for the preparation of the technical report titled “Results of Orientation andExploration Mobile Metal Ions Process (MMI-ME) Soil Geochemical Surveys on the NorthTarp Grid, Pickle Lake Area, Ontario.

7. I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter ofthe Technical Report that is not reflected in the Technical Report, the omission to disclosewhich makes the Technical Report misleading.

8. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in National Instrument 43-101.



9. I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchanges or other regulatoryauthority and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public companyfiles on the web sites accessible by the public, of the Technical Report.

Dated this 26th Day of October, 2010

________________________.Signature of Qualified Person

“M.A.F. Fedikow” .Print name of Qualified Person

Original Signed by Mark Fedikow



Appendix 1: Analytical data from SGS Laboratories (and certificates) (on DVD)

Appendix 2: Analytical data from analytical duplicates, replicate analyses of referencematerial and lab blanks (on DVD)

Appendix 3: Report graphics (on DVD)

results of orientation and exploration mobile metal ions ...these statistical approaches have been...

Documents