# EDGAR Filing Document

**Accession Number:** 0001538847
**File Stem:** 0001437749-23-004847
**Filing Date:** 2023-2
**Character Count:** 774662
**Document Hash:** 633f9100c18a24e08df0deb40eae590d
**Contains OCR:** False
**Source Format:** 

## Filing Content

## Filing Summary
**0001437749-23-004847.hdr.sgml**: 20230228

**ACCESSION NUMBER**: 0001437749-23-004847

**CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE**: 6-K

**PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT**: 278

**CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT**: 20230228

**FILED AS OF DATE**: 20230228

**DATE AS OF CHANGE**: 20230228

**FILER**: 

**COMPANY DATA:**
- **COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:** GoldMining Inc.
- **CENTRAL INDEX KEY:** 0001538847
- **STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION:** GOLD & SILVER ORES [1040]
- **IRS NUMBER:** 000000000
- **STATE OF INCORPORATION:** A1
- **FISCAL YEAR END:** 1130

**FILING VALUES:**
- **FORM TYPE:** 6-K
- **SEC ACT:** 1934 Act
- **SEC FILE NUMBER:** 001-39566
- **FILM NUMBER:** 23679371

**BUSINESS ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 1030 WEST GEORGIA STREET, SUITE 1830
- **CITY:** VANCOUVER
- **STATE:** A1
- **ZIP:** V6E 2Y3
- **BUSINESS PHONE:** (604) 630-1000

**MAIL ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 1030 WEST GEORGIA STREET, SUITE 1830
- **CITY:** VANCOUVER
- **STATE:** A1
- **ZIP:** V6E 2Y3

**FORMER COMPANY:**
- **FORMER CONFORMED NAME:** Brazil Resources Inc.
- **DATE OF NAME CHANGE:** 20120105

------

------

**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON, DC 20549**

------

**Form 6-K**

------

**REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER**

**PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF THE**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**For the month of February 2023**

**Commission File Number: 001-39566**

**GOLDMINING INC.**

(Translation of registrant's name into English)

**Suite 1830, 1030 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada**

------

(Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F:

Form 20-F ☒ Form 40-F ☐

------

**INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE**

EACH OF EXHIBIT 99.1 AND EXHIBIT 99.2 INCLUDED WITH THIS REPORT IS HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE REGISTRANT'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM F-10 (FILE NO. 333-255705), AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED, AND TO BE A PART THEREOF FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED, TO THE EXTENT NOT SUPERSEDED BY DOCUMENTS OR REPORTS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED OR FURNISHED.

**EXHIBIT INDEX**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Exhibit**<br> **Number** | **Description of Exhibit** |
| 99.1 | [NI 43-101 Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment for the La Mina Project Antioquia, Republic of Colombia, dated February 24, 2023, for GoldMining Inc.](ex_480744.htm) |
| 99.2 | [NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate for the Whistler Project dated January 23, 2023.](ex_481714.htm) |

---

------

**SIGNATURES**

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **GOLDMINING INC.** | **GOLDMINING INC.** |
| Date: February 28, 2023 | By: | */s/ Pat Obara*  |
|  | Name: | Pat Obara |
|  | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |

---

## Exhibit 99.1

**Exhibit 99.1**

**NI 43-101**

**TECHNICAL REPORT AND PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT** 

**FOR THE LA MINA PROJECT**

**ANTIOQUIA, REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA**

**REPORT DATE FEBRUARY 24, 2023**

**EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2022**

**PREPARED FOR:**

**GOLDMINING INC.**

**PREPARED BY:**

Scott Wilson, C.P.G. Resource Development Associates, Inc. Highlands Ranch, Colorado, USA Paul Hosford, P.Eng. PMet Services Maple Ridge, BC, Canada

Michael Cole, SME<br> Mine Planners of Roanoke<br> Roanoke, Virginia, USA<br>

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page I</u>

**DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE**

GoldMining Inc., Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment for the La Mina Project, Antioquia, Republic of Colombia.

Technical Report Effective Date: December 20, 2022

February 24, 2023

<u> ["*Signed and Sealed*"] </u> <u> Scott E. Wilson </u> <br> Scott E. Wilson, C.P.G. <br> Geologist

<u> ["*Signed and Sealed*"] Paul Hosford </u> <br> Paul Hosford, P. Eng. Metallurgical Engineer

<u> ["*Signed and Sealed*"] Michael Cole </u> <br> Michael Cole, SME Registered Member Mining Engineer

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page II</u>

**AUTHOR**'**S CERTIFICATE, SCOTT E. WILSON**

I, Scott E. Wilson, CPG, SME-RM, of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, United States as an author of the technical report entitled "Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment for the La Mina Project, Antioquia, Republic of Colombia" (the "Technical Report") with an effective date of December 20, 2022 prepared for GoldMining Inc. (the "Issuer") do hereby certify:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. I am currently employed as President by Resource Development Associates Inc., Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80126.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geology from the California State University, Sacramento in 1989.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. I am a Certified Professional Geologist and member of the American Institute of Professional Geologists (CPG #10965) and a Registered Member (#4025107) of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. I have been employed as both a geologist and a mining engineer continuously for 34 years. My experience included resource estimation, mine planning, geological modeling, geostatistical evaluations, project development, and authorship of numerous technical reports and preliminary economic assessments of various projects throughout North America, South America and Europe. I have employed and mentored mining engineers and geologists continuously since 2003.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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 (as defined 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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. I visited the Project and surrounding area October 12 and 13, 2022.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. I am responsible for all parts of Section 1 through Section 12, Section 14 and 15, Section 18 through Section 20 and Sections 23 through Section 27.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. I am independent of the Issuer as independence is described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. I have been involved with the property as a qualified person since 2012.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and this Technical Report was prepared in compliance with NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. As of the effective date of this Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible not misleading.

Dated: February 24, 2023

<u> ["*Signed and Sealed*"] </u> <br> Scott E. Wilson, C.P.G.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page III</u>

**AUTHOR**'**S CERTIFICATE, PAUL HOSFORD**

I, Paul Hosford, P.Eng., of Maple Ridge, BC, Canada, as an author of the technical report entitled "NI 43-101 Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment, GoldMining Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment for the La Mina Project, Antioquia, Republic of Colombia" (the "Technical Report") with an effective date of December 20, 2022 prepared for GoldMining Inc. (the "Issuer") do hereby certify:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. I am currently employed as Principal, PMet Services, BC, Canada.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Sciences degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland in 1982.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. I am a Professional Engineer registered member of the Engineers and Geoscientists of BC, and a member of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. I have been employed as both a metallurgical engineer and project manager continuously for a total of 35 years. My experience included metallurgical test work planning and management, process plant design, project development and implementation, and authorship of numerous technical reports and preliminary economic assessments of various projects throughout North America, South America and Africa.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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 (as defined 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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. I have not visited the Project site.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. I am responsible for Sections 13, 17, Section 21.1.2 and Section 21.4 of the Technical Report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. I am independent of the Issuer as independence is described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Prior to being retained by the Issuer, I have not had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and this Technical Report was prepared in compliance with NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. As of the effective date of this Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible not misleading.

Dated: February 24, 2023

<u> ["*Signed and Sealed*"] </u> <br> Paul Hosford P. Eng.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page IV</u>

**AUTHOR**'**S CERTIFICATE, MICHAEL COLE**

I, Michael Cole, SME-Registered Member, of Roanoke, Virginia, United States as an author of the technical report entitled "Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment for the La Mina Project, Antioquia, Republic of Colombia" (the "Technical Report") with an effective of December 20, 2022, prepared for GoldMining Inc. (the "Issuer") do hereby certify:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. I am currently employed as Principal Mining Engineer by Mine Planners of Roanoke, Virginia.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mining and Minerals Engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2005.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. I am a Registered Member (#4130807) of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. I have been employed as a mining engineer continuously for a total of 17 years. My experiences include resource estimation, mine planning, cash-flow analysis and pit optimizations for numerous technical reports and preliminary economic assessments of various projects throughout North America and South America. I have been involved with mine supervision and management in several open pit mining operations, mining equipment purchases and mine construction projects. I have prepared operational mine plans and budgets that have performed as designed. I have held positions of Senior Mining Engineer, Chief Mining Engineer, Mine Planning Manager, Mine Manager and Principal Mining Engineer.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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 (as defined 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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. I visited the Project and surrounding area on March 30, 2022.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. I am responsible for Section 16, all parts of Section 21 except for Section 21.1.2 and Section 21.4 and Section 22 of the Technical Report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. I am independent of the Issuer as independence is described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Prior to being retained by the Issuer, I have had prior involvement with the property working for Bellhaven Copper and Gold, the prior issuers on the Property.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and this Technical Report was prepared in compliance with NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. As of the effective date of this Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible not misleading.

Dated: February 24, 2023

<u> ["*Signed and Sealed*"] </u> <br> Michael Cole, SME Registered Member

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page V</u>

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| 1 |  | Summary | Summary | Summary | 1 |
|  | 1.1 | 1.1 | La Mina Mineral Resource Estimate | La Mina Mineral Resource Estimate | 1 |
|  | 1.2 | 1.2 | Preliminary Economic Assessment | Preliminary Economic Assessment | 2 |
|  | 1.3 | 1.3 | Mineralization | Mineralization | 4 |
|  | 1.4 | 1.4 | Metallurgy | Metallurgy | 4 |
|  | 1.5 | 1.5 | Conclusions and Recommendations | Conclusions and Recommendations | 5 |
| 2 |  | Introduction | Introduction | Introduction | 7 |
|  | 2.1 | 2.1 | Purpose of Technical Report | Purpose of Technical Report | 7 |
|  |  | 2.1.1 | 2.1.1 | Personal Inspection | 7 |
|  |  | 2.1.1.1 | 2.1.1.1 | Units of Measure - Abbreviations | 7 |
|  |  | 2.1.1.2 | 2.1.1.2 | Acronyms and Symbols | 8 |
| 3 |  | Reliance on Other Experts | Reliance on Other Experts | Reliance on Other Experts | 9 |
| 4 |  | Property Description and Location | Property Description and Location | Property Description and Location | 10 |
|  | 4.1 | 4.1 | Area and Location | Area and Location | 10 |
|  | 4.2 | 4.2 | Mineral Tenure | Mineral Tenure | 13 |
|  | 4.3 | 4.3 | SurFace Rights Agreements | SurFace Rights Agreements | 14 |
|  | 4.4 | 4.4 | General | General | 15 |
| 5 |  | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography | 16 |
|  | 5.1 | 5.1 | Access and Infrastructure | Access and Infrastructure | 16 |
|  | 5.2 | 5.2 | Physiography | Physiography | 16 |
|  | 5.3 | 5.3 | Climate | Climate | 16 |
| 6 |  | History | History | History | 17 |
|  | 6.1 | 6.1 | Exploration Prior to 2002 | Exploration Prior to 2002 | 17 |
|  | 6.2 | 6.2 | Exploration 2002-2008 | Exploration 2002-2008 | 17 |
|  | 6.3 | 6.3 | AGA Drilling | AGA Drilling | 19 |
| 7 |  | Geological Setting and Mineralization | Geological Setting and Mineralization | Geological Setting and Mineralization | 20 |
|  | 7.1 |  | Regional Geology | Regional Geology | 20 |
|  | 7.2 |  | Property Geology | Property Geology | 23 |
|  | 7.3 |  | Intrusive Rocks | Intrusive Rocks | 24 |
|  |  | 7.3.1 |  | X2 Porphyry (X2) | 26 |
|  |  | 7.3.2 |  | X1 Porphyry (X1) | 26 |
|  |  | 7.3.3 |  | X3 Porphyry (x3) | 27 |
|  |  | 7.3.4 |  | La Cantera Porphyry (C1) | 27 |
|  |  | 7.3.5 |  | El Limon Porphyry (L1) | 27 |
|  |  | 7.3.6 |  | El Limon Porphyry (L2) | 28 |
|  |  | 7.3.7 |  | El limon Porhyry (L3) | 28 |
|  |  | 7.3.8 |  | G1 Porphyry (G1) | 28 |
|  |  | 7.3.9 |  | G2 Porphyry (G2) | 28 |
|  |  | 7.3.10 |  | G4 Porphyry (G4) | 29 |
|  |  | 7.3.11 |  | Intrusive Breccias | 29 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page VI</u>

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | 7.4 | Volcanic Rocks | 30 |
|  | 7.5 | Structure | 30 |
|  | 7.6 | La Cantera Prospect Geology | 31 |
|  | 7.7 | La Cantera Prospect Alteration | 33 |
|  | 7.8 | La Cantera Prospect Mineralization | 36 |
|  | 7.9 | Middle Zone Prospect Geology | 37 |
|  | 7.10 | Middle Zone Prospect Alteration | 39 |
|  | 7.11 | Middle Zone Propsect Mineralization | 40 |
|  | 7.12 | La Garrucha Prospect Geology | 42 |
|  | 7.13 | La Garrucha Prospect Alteration | 47 |
|  | 7.14 | La Garrucha Prospect Mineralization | 48 |
|  | 7.15 | El Limon PROSPECT Geology | 48 |
|  | 7.16 | El Limon Propsect Alteration | 49 |
|  | 7.17 | El Limon Prospect Mineralization | 49 |
| 8.0 |  | Deposit Types | 50 |
| 9.0 |  | Exploration | 51 |
| 10.0 |  | Drilling | 55 |

---

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | 10.1 |  | La Cantera Drilling | 55 |
|  | 10.2 |  | Middle Zone Drilling | 58 |
|  | 10.3 |  | La Garrucha Drilling | 60 |
|  | 10.4 |  | El Limon Drilling | 62 |
|  | 10.5 |  | Trenching | 63 |
|  | 10.6 |  | Rock Sampling and Soil Geochemistry | 63 |
| 11.0 |  | Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security | Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security | 64 |
|  | 11.1 |  | Sample preparation Prior to 2022 | 64 |
|  | 11.2 |  | 2022 Sample Preparation Procedures | 65 |
|  | 11.3 |  | Standard, Blank, and Duplicate Samples | 66 |
|  |  | 11.3.1 | Standard, Blank, and Duplicate Samples Prior to 2022 | 66 |
|  |  | 11.3.2 | Standard Results Subsequent to LMDDH-010 | 67 |
|  |  | 11.3.3 | Blank results Prior to 2022 | 80 |
|  |  | 11.3.4 | Duplicate Types and results Prior to 2022 | 86 |
|  |  | 11.3.4.1 | Independent Check Assay Program | 89 |
|  | 11.4 |  | Goldmining Standard, Blank and Duplicate Samples | 92 |
|  |  | 11.4.1 | Goldmining Standard Results | 93 |
|  |  | 11.4.2 | GoldMining Blank Results | 96 |
|  |  | 11.4.3 | GoldMining Duplicate Types and results | 98 |
|  | 11.5 |  | GoldMining Independent Check Assay Program | 101 |
|  | 11.6 |  | Summary of QA/QC Program | 103 |
| 12.0 |  | Data Verification | Data Verification | 106 |
|  | 12.1 |  | Current Inspection and Data Validation | 106 |
|  | 12.2 |  | Verification Check Samples | 106 |
| 13.0 |  | Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing | Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing | 117 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page VII</u>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | 13.1 |  | Summary | 117 |
|  | 13.2 |  | Metallurgical Introduction | 117 |
|  |  | 13.2.1 | Metallurgical Test Work | 118 |
|  |  | 13.2.2 | Sample Preparation and Characterization | 118 |
|  | 13.3 |  | In-Place Bulk Densities | 119 |
|  | 13.4 |  | Ball Mill Work Indicies | 121 |
|  | 13.5 |  | Grind Studies | 121 |
|  | 13.6 |  | Gravity Tests | 121 |
|  | 13.7 |  | Whole Ore Cyanidation Leach tests | 121 |
|  | 13.8 |  | Flotation Tests | 123 |
|  | 13.9 |  | Further Metallurgical Studies, 2016 | 129 |
|  | 13.10 |  | Metallurgical Conclusions | 129 |
| 14 |  | Mineral Resource Estimates | Mineral Resource Estimates | 131 |
|  | 14.1 |  | La Cantera Mineral Resource Estimate | 131 |
|  |  | 14.1.1 | Database for Geologic Model | 131 |
|  |  | 14.1.2 | Geologic Model | 135 |
|  |  | 14.1.3 | Topography | 141 |
|  |  | 14.1.4 | Block Model | 141 |
|  |  | 14.1.5 | Grade Estimation | 144 |
|  |  | 14.1.6 | Block Model Validation | 148 |
|  |  | 14.1.7 | Density | 148 |
|  |  | 14.1.8 | Inferred and Indicated Mineral Resources | 148 |
|  | 14.2 |  | Middle Zone Mineral Resource Estimate | 150 |
|  |  | 14.2.1 | Database for Geologic Model | 150 |
|  |  | 14.2.2 | Geologic Model | 155 |
|  |  | 14.2.3 | Topography | 163 |
|  |  | 14.2.4 | Block Model | 163 |
|  |  | 14.2.5 | Grade Estimation | 165 |
|  |  | 14.2.6 | Density | 168 |
|  |  | 14.2.7 | Pit Constraining Optimization Criteria | 168 |
|  |  | 14.2.8 | Inferred and Indicated Mineral resources | 168 |
|  | 14.3 |  | La Garrucha Mineral Resource Estimate | 170 |
|  |  | 14.3.1 | Database | 170 |
|  |  | 14.3.2 | Data Analysis | 170 |
|  |  | 14.3.3 | Grade Capping – Handling of Outliers | 173 |
|  |  | 14.3.4 | Compositing | 176 |
|  |  | 14.3.5 | Cell Declustering | 179 |
|  |  | 14.3.6 | Contact Profile Analysis | 182 |
|  |  | 14.3.7 | Anisotropy | 185 |
|  |  | 14.3.8 | Block Model | 185 |
|  |  | 14.3.9 | Grade Estimation | 186 |
|  |  | 14.3.10 | Model Validation | 186 |
|  |  | 14.3.11 | Density | 189 |
|  |  | 14.3.12 | Pit Constraining Optimization Criteria | 189 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page VIII</u>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | 14.3.13 | Inferred and Indicated Mineral resources | 189 |
|  | 14.4 |  | La Mina Mineral Resources | 190 |
| 15 |  | Mineral Reserve Estimates | Mineral Reserve Estimates | 192 |
| 16 |  | Mining Methods | Mining Methods | 193 |
|  | 16.1 |  | Geotechnical and Hydrological Considerations | 193 |
|  | 16.2 |  | Mine Optimization | 193 |
|  | 16.3 |  | Pre-Stripping Requirements | 194 |
|  | 16.4 |  | Mine Production Schedule | 194 |
|  | 16.5 |  | Mine Configuration | 196 |
|  | 16.6 |  | Mining Fleet | 197 |
|  |  | 16.6.1 | Drilling and Blasting | 197 |
|  |  | 16.6.2 | Loading and Hauling | 198 |
|  |  | 16.6.3 | Support Equipment | 198 |
| 17 |  | Recovery Methods | Recovery Methods | 199 |
|  | 17.1 |  | Process Plant | 199 |
|  | 17.2 |  | Operating Schedule and Availability | 200 |
|  | 17.3 |  | Processing Facilities | 200 |
|  |  | 17.3.1 | Primary Crushing and coarse ore stockpile | 200 |
|  |  | 17.3.2 | Grinding Circuit | 200 |
|  |  | 17.3.3 | Flotation and Regrind | 200 |
|  |  | 17.3.4 | Copper Concentrate Thickening, Filtration and Handling | 201 |
|  | 17.4 |  | Process plant Tails | 201 |
|  | 17.5 |  | Reagent Handling and Storage | 201 |
|  | 17.6 |  | Process Plant Service Systems | 202 |
| 18 |  | Project Infrastructure | Project Infrastructure | 203 |
|  | 18.1 |  | Access | 203 |
|  | 18.2 |  | Power | 203 |
|  | 18.3 |  | Labor | 203 |
|  | 18.4 |  | Water | 203 |
|  | 18.5 |  | Security | 204 |
|  | 18.6 |  | Waste Rock Disposal | 204 |
|  | 18.7 |  | Tailings Disposal | 204 |
| 19 |  | Market Studies and Contracts | Market Studies and Contracts | 205 |
| 20 |  | Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community | Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community | 206 |
| 21 |  | Capital and Operating Costs | Capital and Operating Costs | 207 |
|  | 21.1 |  | Initial Capital Cost Estimate | 207 |
|  |  | 21.1.1 | Pre-Stripping | 207 |
|  |  | 21.1.2 | Processing Plant Initial Capital | 208 |
|  | 21.2 |  | Sustaining Capital Cost Estimate | 209 |
|  | 21.3 |  | Mining Operating Cost | 211 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page IX</u>

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | 21.4 | Processing Operating Cost | 212 |
|  | 21.5 | G&A Costs | 212 |
| 22 |  | Economic Analysis | 213 |
|  | 22.1 | Key Performance Parameters | 213 |
|  | 22.2 | Taxes, royalties and Other Interests | 214 |
|  | 22.3 | Cash Flow | 214 |
|  | 22.4 | Sensitivity | 216 |
|  | 22.5 | Cash Costs | 218 |
| 23 |  | Adjacent Properties | 219 |
| 24 |  | Other Relevant Data and Information | 220 |
| 25 |  | Interpretation and Conclusions | 221 |
|  | 25.1 | Preliminary Economic Assessment | 221 |
|  | 25.2 | Metallurgy | 221 |
|  | 25.3 | Mining | 222 |
| 26 |  | Recommendations | 223 |
|  | 26.1 | Resource Development | 223 |
|  | 26.2 | Metallurgical Testing | 223 |
| 27 |  | References | 225 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page X</u>

**LIST OF TABLES**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 1-1 La Mina Mineral Resource Estimate (Effective Date December 20, 2022. Qualified Person: Scott Wilson CPG. Cutoff Grade 0.30g/t Au) | 2 |
| Table 1-2 PEA Financial Summary | 3 |
| Table 1-3 PEA Technical Summary | 3 |
| Table 1-4 PEA Production and Payable Metal Summary | 3 |
| Table 1-5 Proposed Phase 1 Work Program to advance La Mina | 6 |
| Table 4-1 La Mina Property Ownership | 13 |
| Table 6-1 AGA Drill Results | 19 |
| Table 7-1 Lithological Descriptions | 26 |
| Table 9-1 Drilling Completed by Bellhaven at La Mina | 51 |
| Table 10-1 La Cantera Drilling - All Holes | 57 |
| Table 10-2 La Cantera Deposit Significant Intercepts Through February 2012 | 57 |
| Table 10-3 Middle Zone Collar Surveys | 58 |
| Table 10-4 Middle Zone deposit Drilling Subsequent to the 2012 Resource | 60 |
| Table 10-5 La Garrucha Drill Holes Location and Depth | 60 |
| Table 10-6 La Garrucha Significant Drill Core Intercepts | 61 |
| Table 10-7 El Limon Drill Holes and Locations | 62 |
| Table 10-8 El Limon Significant Drill Intercepts | 63 |
| Table 11-1 Certified Reference Material | 93 |
| Table 12-1 2022 Site Visit Data Verification Samples | 106 |
| Table 13-1 Description of Composite Samples | 118 |
| Table 13-2 Head Analysis of Bellhaven Samples | 118 |
| Table 13-3 Proportion of Different Forms of Copper in the Bellhaven Samples | 118 |
| Table 13-4 ICP Analyses of Composite Samples | 119 |
| Table 13-5 Bulk Densities | 120 |
| Table 13-6 Bond's Ball Mill Work Index @ 150 µm. | 121 |
| Table 13-7 Cyanidation Leach Test Results (P<sub>80</sub> = 75 µm) | 122 |
| Table 13-8 Carbon-in-Leach (CIL) Test Results | 122 |
| Table 13-9 Flotation Process Test Parameters | 124 |
| Table 13-10 Flotation Test Results for Composite No. 1 | 125 |
| Table 13-11 Flotation Test Results for Composite No. 2 | 126 |
| Table 13-12 Flotation Test Results for Composite No. 3 | 127 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

<u> GoldMining Inc. NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page XI</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 13-13 Flotation Test Results for Composite No. 4 | 128 |
| Table 14-1 La Mina Block Model Details | 142 |
| Table 14-2 Parameters for Ordinary Kriging Based on Nested Variography | 144 |
| Table 14-3 Cut Off grade and Pit Constraining Parameters | 149 |
| Table 14-4 Pit Constrained Mineral Resources for La Cantera | 149 |
| Table 14-5 Mineral Resources at 0.30 g/t Cut-off for La Cantera. Effective Date December 20, 2022, Qualified Person Scott Wilson | 150 |
| Table 14-6 Total Project Drill Holes | 150 |
| Table 14-7 La Mina Block Parameters | 163 |
| Table 14-8 Middle Zone Capping Criteria | 165 |
| Table 14-9 Pit Constrained Resources for Middle Zone | 169 |
| Table 14-10 Total Resources with 0.30g/t Cutoff for Middle Zone. Effective Date December 20, 2022, Qualified Person Scott Wilson | 169 |
| Table 14-11 Total Project Drill Holes | 170 |
| Table 14-12 Mineralized assay statistics for La Garrucha | 170 |
| Table 14-13 La Garrucha Assay Capping Statistics | 173 |
| Table 14-14 Model extents | 185 |
| Table 14-15 Comparison of NN estimates to IDW estimates for the 2023 MRE. | 187 |
| Table 14-16 Pit Metal sensitivities for La Garrucha | 190 |
| Table 14-17 Mineral Resources at a 0.30g/t Cutoff for the La Garrucha MRE. Effective Date December 20, 2022, Qualified Person Scott Wilson | 190 |
| Table 14-18 Pit Constrained Sensitivity Estimates for the La Mina Project (La Cantera, Middle Zone and La Garrucha Combined) | 191 |
| Table 14-19 Total Indicated and Inferred Resources for La Mina Project (Cut-off Grade 0.30g/t Au) Effective Date December 20, 2022, Qualified Person Scott Wilson | 191 |
| Table 16-1 Whittle Parameters | 193 |
| Table 16-2 Mine Schedule | 195 |
| Table 16-3 Mill Feed | 195 |
| Table 16-4 Mining Fleet Requirements | 197 |
| Table 16-5 Drill and Blast Parameters | 198 |
| Table 16-6 Drill and Blast Parameters | 198 |
| Table 21-1 Initial Capital Costs | 207 |
| Table 21-2 Pre-Stripping Initial Capital Costs | 208 |
| Table 21-3 Processing Plant Initial Capital | 209 |
| Table 21-4 Total Sustaining Capital | 209 |

---

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

Resource Development Associates IncEffective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page XII</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 21-5 Mining Equipment Capital Costs | 210 |
| Table 21-6 Mining Operational Sustaining Capital Costs | 211 |
| Table 21-7 Mining Peak Labor Headcount and Average LOM Operating Cost Summary | 211 |
| Table 21-8 Process Plant Manpower and Operating Cost Summary | 212 |
| Table 22-1 La Mina Project Key Parameters and Assumptions | 213 |
| Table 22-2 Project Royalties | 214 |
| Table 22-3 Annual Material Movement, Metal Production and Gross Revenue | 215 |
| Table 22-4 Annual Cash Flow | 215 |
| Table 22-5 Economic Results | 216 |
| Table 22-6 Sensitivity of Estimated NPV and IRR (After-Tax) to Variation in Gold Price | 216 |
| Table 22-7 Cash Costs | 218 |
| Table 25-1 NPV and IRR Sensitivity to Gold Price, After-Tax | 221 |
| Table 26-1 Proposed Phase 1 Work Program to advance La Mina | 223 |
| Table 26-2 Future Metallurgical Test Work Cost Estimate | 224 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u> NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project </u> <u>Page XIII</u>

**LIST OF FIGURES**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 4-1 La Mina Property, Colombia | 11 |
| Figure 4-2 La Mina Project Location and Access Map | 12 |
| Figure 4-3 Claim Map Showing Location of La Mina Porphyry Bodies in Relation to Concession Boundaries | 13 |
| Figure 6-1 Portion of Aerial Magnetics, Avasca Joint Venture 2007. Illustrates the prominent magnetic features interpreted from aerial geophysics flown by the Avasca Joint venture in 2007. Identified clearly is the high magnetic response of the La Cantera porphyry stock at the southern end of the red rectangular block | 18 |
| Figure 7-1 Geomorphological Regions of Colombia Showing the Approximate Location of La Mina | 20 |
| Figure 7-2 Tectonic Map of Colombia | 22 |
| Figure 7-3 Generalized Geologic Map of the La Mina Project Area | 24 |
| Figure 7-4 Surface Geology of the La Cantera Prospect Showing the Location of the Drill Holes | 32 |
| Figure 7-5 North-South Cross Section (Looking West) of Geology through the La Cantera Deposit | 33 |
| Figure 7-6 LMDDH-008-288m. C1 Porphyry with Pervasive Biotite-Magnetite Alteration of the Matrix and Actinolite Alteration of Primary Magmatic Mafic Phenocrysts | 34 |
| Figure 7-7 LMDDH-016 392.5m. C1 Breccia with Potassic Alteration (Magnetite-k-Feldspar +/- Actinolite) Cut by Sheeted Magnetite Veins, Quartz Magnetite Stockwork Veins and Late Pyrite-filled Fractures | 35 |
| Figure 7-8 Drill Hole Intercepts with >0.5g/t Au in the La Cantera Prospect | 37 |
| Figure 7-9 Surface Geology and Drill Holes Used in Resource Estimate at Middle Zone Prospect | 39 |
| Figure 7-10 NE-SW Cross Section through Middle Zone, Showing Significant Intercepts. Labels A and B Refer to the Two Distinct Mineralization Types | 41 |
| Figure 7-11 Surface Geology of Drill Holes at La Garrucha | 43 |
| Figure 7-12 NE-SW La Garrucha Cross Section | 44 |
| Figure 7-13 NE-SW La Garrucha Cross Section | 46 |
| Figure 7-14 El Limon Prospect Geology | 49 |
| Figure 9-1 Exploration Targets at La Mina Project | 52 |
| Figure 9-2 Magnetic Susceptibility Model at 100 m Depth. The Area of the Ground Magnetic Survey is shown in the Red Box in Figure 6.1 | 54 |
| Figure 10-1 La Mina Drill Collar Monuments | 56 |
| Figure 11-1 Reference Material CU156 Performance for Au | 68 |
| Figure 11-2 Reference Material CU157 Performance for Au | 68 |
| Figure 11-3 Reference Material CU158 Performance for Au | 69 |
| Figure 11-4 Reference Material CU159 Performance for Au | 69 |
| Figure 11-5 Reference Material CU164 Performance for Au | 70 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page XIV</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 11-6 Reference Material CU175 Performance for Au | 70 |
| Figure 11-7 Reference Material CU184 Performance for Au | 71 |
| Figure 11-8 Reference Material CM13 Performance for Au | 71 |
| Figure 11-9 Reference Material CM14 Performance for Au | 72 |
| Figure 11-10 Reference Material CGS27 Performance for Au | 72 |
| Figure 11-11 Reference Material PM434 Performance for Au | 73 |
| Figure 11-12 Reference Material PM436 Performance for Au | 73 |
| Figure 11-13 Reference Material PM438 Performance for Au | 74 |
| Figure 11-14 Reference Material PM446 Performance for Au | 74 |
| Figure 11-15 Reference Material PM447 Performance for Au | 75 |
| Figure 11-16 Reference Material CU156 Performance for Cu | 75 |
| Figure 11-17 Reference Material CU157 for Cu | 76 |
| Figure 11-18 Reference Material CU158 Performance for Cu | 76 |
| Figure 11-19 Reference Material CU159 Performance for Cu | 77 |
| Figure 11-20 Reference Material CU164 Performance for Cu | 77 |
| Figure 11-21 Reference Material CU175 Performance for Cu | 78 |
| Figure 11-22 Reference Material CU184 Performance for Cu | 78 |
| Figure 11-23 Reference Material CM13 Performance for Cu | 79 |
| Figure 11-24 Reference Material CM14 Performance for Cu | 79 |
| Figure 11-25 Reference Material CGS27 Performance for Cu | 80 |
| Figure 11-26 Reference Material - Blank BL110 Performance for Au | 81 |
| Figure 11-27 Reference Material - Blank BL111 Performance for Au | 81 |
| Figure 11-28 Reference Material - Blank BL112 Performance for Au | 82 |
| Figure 11-29 Reference Material - Blank BL113 Performance for Au | 82 |
| Figure 11-30 Reference Material - Blank BL115 Performance for Au | 83 |
| Figure 11-31 Reference Material - Blank BL110 Performance for Cu | 83 |
| Figure 11-32 Reference Material - Blank BL111 Performance for Cu | 84 |
| Figure 11-33 Reference Material - Blank BL112 Performance for Cu | 84 |
| Figure 11-34 Reference Material - Blank BL113 Performance for Cu | 85 |
| Figure 11-35 Reference Material - Blank BL115 Performance for Cu | 85 |
| Figure 11-36 Au Analyses (FA AA) for Preparation Duplicate Samples | 86 |
| Figure 11-37 Au Analyses (FA AA) for Preparation Duplicate Samples | 87 |
| Figure 11-38 Au Analyses (FA AA) for Preparation Duplicate Samples | 87 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page XV</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 11-39 Cu Analyses (ICP-AES) for Preparation Duplicate Samples | 88 |
| Figure 11-40 Cu Analyses (ICP-AES) for Preparation Duplicate Samples | 88 |
| Figure 11-41 Cu Analyses (ICP-AES) for Preparation Duplicate Samples | 89 |
| Figure 11-42 Original vs Check Sample Comparison for Middle Zone - Au The Blue Dotted lines are +/- 10% from the Mean | 90 |
| Figure 11-43 Original vs Check Sample Comparison for Middle Zone - Cu The Blue Dotted Lines are +/- 10% from the Mean | 91 |
| Figure 11-44 Original Assays vs Rechecks - with Outliers Rejected | 92 |
| Figure 11-45 Reference Material BH12002X Performance for Au | 94 |
| Figure 11-46 Reference Material BH12002X Performance for Cu | 94 |
| Figure 11-47 Reference Material BH12003X Performance for Au | 95 |
| Figure 11-48 Reference Material BH12003X Performance for Cu | 95 |
| Figure 11-49 Reference Material BH12004X Performance for Au | 96 |
| Figure 11-50 Reference Material BH12004X Performance for Cu | 96 |
| Figure 11-51 Reference Material - Blank BH12001X Performance for Au | 97 |
| Figure 11-52 Reference Material - Blank BH12001X Performance for Cu | 97 |
| Figure 11-53 Core Blank Performance for Au | 98 |
| Figure 11-54 Core Blank Performance for Cu | 98 |
| Figure 11-55 Au Analyses (FA AA) for GMI Field Duplicate Samples | 99 |
| Figure 11-56 Cu Analyses (ICP) for GMI Field Duplicate Samples | 99 |
| Figure 11-57 Au Analyses (FA AA) for GMI Preparation Coarse Duplicate Samples | 100 |
| Figure 11-58 Cu Analyses (ICP) for GMI Preparation Coarse Duplicate Samples | 100 |
| Figure 11-59 Au Analyses (FA AA) for GMI Preparation Pulp Duplicate Samples | 101 |
| Figure 11-60 Cu Analyses (ICP) for GMI Preparation Pulp Duplicate Samples | 101 |
| Figure 11-61 Original vs Independent Check Assay Comparison for GMI drilling at La Garrucha – Au | 102 |
| Figure 11-62 Original vs Independent Check Sample Comparison for GMI drilling at La Garrucha – Cu | 102 |
| Figure 11-63 Changes in the Magnitude of Difference between Standards and Blanks for Copper Plotted against Date of Analysis | 105 |
| Figure 12-1 Gravel road from Fredonia town to La Mina Project. | 107 |
| Figure 12-2 Gate at the entrance of the facilities provides security to the drill cores, and other reliable information. | 108 |
| Figure 12-3 Geology office and accommodation house. | 108 |
| Figure 12-4 Electricity supply by regional grid interconnection. | 109 |
| Figure 12-5 Warehouse drill-core storage. | 110 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page XVI</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 12-6 Pulp rejects storage | 111 |
| Figure 12-7 Core shed for core logging and sampling. | 112 |
| Figure 12-8 Technician demonstrating core cutting procedures. | 113 |
| Figure 12-9 Core logging facilities. | 114 |
| Figure 12-10 Figure 12-11 Geology and model review by plan view and systematic sections – La Mina, Fredonia | 114 |
| Figure 12-12 Well organized core trays storage. | 115 |
| Figure 12-13 ¼-core for duplicate checks ready for sampling as prepared under the supervision of the QP during the current site visit. | 116 |
| Figure 14-1 Distribution of Lithology | 132 |
| Figure 14-2 Distribution of Major Lithologies at La Cantera | 132 |
| Figure 14-3 Incremental Histogram for La Cantera Gold Data | 133 |
| Figure 14-4 Incremental Histogram for La Cantera Silver Data | 134 |
| Figure 14-5 Incremental Histogram for La Cantera Copper Data | 135 |
| Figure 14-6 Bellhaven Geologic Interpretation Section LC419105 | 137 |
| Figure 14-7 Bellhaven Sections with Geologic Interpretation for La Cantera | 138 |
| Figure 14-8 Bench Section Profiles of C and X in Vulcan | 139 |
| Figure 14-9 Bench Section Profiles Including Volcanic Buffer | 140 |
| Figure 14-10 Wireframes of C, X and Volcanic Boundaries | 141 |
| Figure 14-11 Block Model Showing Lithology of La Cantera | 143 |
| Figure 14-12 La Cantera Ellipsoids | 145 |
| Figure 14-13 La Cantera Block Model Slice Showing Pit Constrained Au Estimated Grades | 146 |
| Figure 14-14 La Cantera Block Slice Showing Pit Constrained Cu Estimated Grades | 147 |
| Figure 14-15 Plan View of Middle Zone Drilling | 151 |
| Figure 14-16 Isometric View of Middle Zone Drilling | 152 |
| Figure 14-17 Distribution of Lithology - Middle Zone | 153 |
| Figure 14-18 Distribution of Major Lithologies - Middle Zone | 153 |
| Figure 14-19 Histogram for Middle Zone Gold Data | 154 |
| Figure 14-20 Histogram of Silver Data - Middle Zone | 154 |
| Figure 14-21 Cu Histogram Distribution | 155 |
| Figure 14-22 Bellhaven Geologic Interpretation Section MZ_315_J | 157 |
| Figure 14-23 Middle Zone Sections with Geologic Interpretation | 158 |
| Figure 14-24 Bench Section Profiles of X1, X2 and X3 | 159 |
| Figure 14-25 Bench Section Profiles including L1 and Volcanic Lithologies | 160 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page XVII</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 14-26 Wireframes of X1, X2 and X3 Boundaries | 161 |
| Figure 14-27 Wireframes of L1, Volc, X3 and X1 Boundaries | 162 |
| Figure 14-28 Block Model showing Lithology of Middle Zone | 164 |
| Figure 14-29 Middle Zone Block Model Slice showing Pit Constrained Au Estimated Grades | 166 |
| Figure 14-30 Middle Zone Block Model Slice Showing Pit Constrained Cu Estimated Grades | 167 |
| Figure 14-31 Uncapped gold grade distribution by lithologic unit. | 171 |
| Figure 14-32 Uncapped copper grade distribution by lithologic unit. | 172 |
| Figure 14-33 Uncapped silver grade distribution by lithologic unit. | 173 |
| Figure 14-34 Capped Au Assay Box Plot Statistics | 174 |
| Figure 14-35 Capped Cu Assay Box Plot Statistics | 175 |
| Figure 14-36 Capped Ag Assay Box Plot Statistics | 176 |
| Figure 14-37 Composite Au Box Plot Statistics | 177 |
| Figure 14-38 Composite Cu Box Plot Statistics | 178 |
| Figure 14-39 Composite Ag Box Plot Statistics | 179 |
| Figure 14-40 La Garrucha Au declustering results | 180 |
| Figure 14-41 La Garrucha Au declustering results | 181 |
| Figure 14-42 La Garrucha Au declustering results | 182 |
| Figure 14-43 Gold Contact profile between G1 and G2 | 183 |
| Figure 14-44 Gold Contact between G2 and G4 | 183 |
| Figure 14-45 Copper Contact profile between G1 and G2 | 184 |
| Figure 14-46 Copper Contact between G2 and G4 | 184 |
| Figure 14-47 La Garrucha Anisotropy | 185 |
| Figure 14-48 Visual comparison of composite database with estimated Au grades for La Garrucha | 187 |
| Figure 14-49 Scattergram comparing global estimated Au grade to composite database Au values | 189 |
| Figure 14-50 Scattergram comparing global estimated Cu grade to composite database Cu values | 189 |
| Figure 14-51 Scattergram comparing global estimated Ag grade to composite database Ag values | 190 |
| Figure 16-1 Pit Locations and Conceptual Site Layout | 197 |
| Figure 17-1 Process Flow Schematic | 200 |
| Figure 22-1 Sensitivity of Estimated NPV @ 5% After-Tax for Changes in Costs and Metal Prices | 219 |
| Figure 22-2 Sensitivity of Estimated IRR After-Tax for Changes in Costs and Metal Prices | 219 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 1</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **1** | **SUMMARY** |

---

The La Mina property consists of two concession contracts and two concession contract applications located in the Department of Antioquia, Republic of Colombia, South America. GoldMining Inc. ("GoldMining") owns the property through its wholly owned subsidiary, Bellhaven Copper & Gold Inc. ("Bellhaven") which in turn owns the property through its wholly-owned Colombian subsidiaries Bellhaven Exploraciones Sucursal Colombia ("Bellhaven Exploraciones") and La Mina Fredonia S.A.S. (formerly Aurum Exploration Inc. Colombia). GoldMining announced on May 30, 2017 that it completed the acquisition of Bellhaven by way of a plan of arrangement pursuant to an arrangement agreement between the parties dated April 11, 2017.

Bellhaven acquired its first exploration license by entering into an earn-in agreement in mid-2010 to acquire 80% of the mineral rights of a 1,794-hectare license over a four-year period with the option to acquire the remaining 20% on the basis of an ounces-in-reserve formula defined by the earn-in agreement. The option agreement has been since modified several times by mutual consent and Bellhaven currently owns 100% of the La Mina Concession. This exploration license turned into a concession contract on August 5, 2020. The second concession contract, called the La Garrucha concession, is 1,416 hectares in size and occurs immediately to the east and north of the La Mina concession. It was acquired in 2013 from the wholly-owned Colombian subsidiary of AngloGold Ashanti Corporation, AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A. through an earn-in agreement based on total expenditures over a three-year period. This agreement was later renegotiated in March 2015, resulting in Bellhaven acquiring the La Garrucha concession for cash payments summing to US$290,000.

The La Mina project area forms a contiguous irregular shaped 3,210 hectares block centered at 5°55'19"N and 75°44'42"W. Geographically, the mineral title is located within the Municipalities of Venecia and Fredonia, Department of Antioquia, 51 km SW of the Colombian city of Medellin.

La Mina is located overlooking the Cauca River valley, along the western margin of Colombia's physiographic Central Cordillera. The topography of the region is mountainous, characterized by high-relief, vegetated mountains, and steeply incised active drainages. The geological evolution of the region is complex, and is characterized by compressional Meso-Cenozoic tectonics associated with Northern Andean Block assembly along the Cauca-Romeral fault and suture system. The accretion of various allochthonous terranes in western Colombia during the Miocene resulted in deformation, uplift, magmatism and erosion. Mineralization at La Mina is genetically linked to the emplacement of a cluster of Miocene-aged hypabyssal porphyry stocks. Magmatic-hydrothermal Au-(Cu) and Au-Ag (Pb, Zn, Cu) deposit types are spatially and temporally associated with the hydrothermal evolution of the porphyry stocks.

In 2022 GoldMining completed a 3,485-metre diamond core drilling program on the La Garrucha prospect with the objective to explore to the southeast along strike for extensions to the porphyry mineralization previously identified by Bellhaven. This report includes the 2022 drilling in an updated mineral resource estimate.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.1** **LA MINA MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE** 

A cut-off grade of 0.30 g/t Au gold was used to derive the mineral resources for La Mina. The Company and previous operators have maintained a strong quality assurance and quality control program, which has validated the accuracy and precision of the assay data. Bellhaven also advanced its knowledge of the metallurgical characteristics of the La Mina mineralization, as reported in November 2011 and 2013, subsequent to the maiden Inferred Resource, and in September 2016.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 2</u>

A portion of La Mina mineralization has been categorized as Indicated Mineral Resources. The drill density and the confidence in the mineralization has allowed for a portion of the La Cantera, Middle Zone and La Garrucha mineral resources to be classified in the Indicated category. Indicated Mineral Resources for the La Mina project are reported in Table 1-1. Inferred Mineral Resources for the La Mina Project are reported in Table 1-2. These Mineral Resources conform to the definitions in the 2014 *CIM Definition Standards* – *for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves*. No reserves conforming to CIM standards have been estimated for this report, as GoldMining Inc. has not advanced the evaluation work to a point of developing mine plans, production schedules, and economic analysis.

Mineral resource estimates are pit constrained using Whittle© Software. Parameters used to estimate the pit constrained resources are as follows: metal selling prices of US$1,700/oz gold, US$21.00/oz silver, and US$3.50/lb copper, G&A of US$1.00 per tonne, open-pit mining costs of US$1.80 per tonne, processing costs of US$7.44 per tonne, metallurgical recoveries of 90% for gold, 30% for silver and 91% for copper, an average pit-slope of 50 degrees and a 6% NSR royalty.

Table 1-1 summarizes the December 20, 2022 mineral resource estimate for La Mina at a cut-off grade of 0.30 g/t Au.

**Table 1**-**1 La Mina Mineral Resource Estimate (Effective Date December 20, 2022. Qualified Person: Scott Wilson CPG. Cutoff Grade 0.30g/t Au)**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** |
| **Deposit** | <br>**Metric**<br> **Tonnes**<br> **(**'**000)** | **Au** <br> **(g/t)** | **Ag**<br> **(g/t)** | **Cu (%)** | **AuEq** <br> **(g/t)** | **Au**<br> **(oz)** | **Ag**<br> **(oz)** | **Cu**<br> **(lbs,** <br> '**000)** | **AuEq**<br> **(oz)** |
| ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** |
| La Cantera | 17614 | 0.86 | 2.03 | 0.31 | 1.33 | 487009 | 1149569 | 120460 | 753166 |
| La Garrucha | 7358 | 0.65 | 3.14 | 0.11 | 0.85 | 153764 | 742797 | 17762 | 201076 |
| Middle Zone | 8800 | 0.54 | 1.28 | 0.11 | 0.71 | 152777 | 362138 | 21185 | 200873 |
| **Total** | **33772** | **0.73** | **2.08** | **0.21** | **1.06** | **793550** | **2254504** | **159407** | **1149591** |
| ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** |
| La Cantera | 11175 | 0.71 | 1.85 | 0.30 | 1.15 | 255086 | 664661 | 72709 | 413168 |
| La Garrucha | 44107 | 0.55 | 2.46 | 0.10 | 0.72 | 779922 | 3488379 | 96846 | 1020989 |
| Middle Zone | 949 | 0.47 | 1.15 | 0.09 | 0.62 | 14340 | 35087 | 1873 | 18916 |
| **Total** | **56231** | **0.58** | **2.32** | **0.14** | **0.80** | **1049348** | **4188126** | **171429** | **1454025** |

---

Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resources will be converted into mineral reserves. Gold-equivalent grades were calculated using the following formula: AuEq = Au (g/t) + [Cu(%)} x {%Recoverable Cu / %Recoverable Au} x {Cu Price/Au Price} x 22.0462 x 31.1035] + [Ag (g/t) x {Ag Price/Au Price}]. Metal prices for calculating gold equivalency are gold (US$1,700/oz), silver (US$21.00), and copper (US$3.50). Metal prices are not constant and are subject to change. All quantities are rounded to the appropriate number of significant figures; consequently, sums may not add up due to rounding.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.2** **PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT** 

The PEA for the Project considers mining and milling of mineralization from La Cantera and Middle Zone and remains unchanged from January 2022. The PEA currently does not include the new La Garrucha mineral resource estimate. The Project assumes of processing 37.8 million tonnes of mineralized material over a 10-year life of mine (LoM) to produce 165 million pounds of copper, 687,000 ounces of gold, and 608,000 ounces of silver. Conventional open pit mining methods using loaders and off-highway trucks were assumed to extract mineralized and rejected materials from two adjacent open pit mines; La Cantera Pit and Middle Zone Pit. The strip ratio of the combined pits is 3.60:1 (rejected material:mineralized material). Peak mining rates were 60,000 tonnes per day. Mineralized material would be delivered to a 10,000 tonne per day processing plant to produce a copper concentrate. Mill feed grades are 0.24% copper, 0.69 g/t gold and 1.67 g/t silver.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 3</u>

Initial capital costs are estimated at US$299.5 million and sustaining capital costs are estimated at US$71.4 million plus US$17.4 million for mine closure.

The Project PEA estimates a pre-tax net present value ("NPV") of US$399.8 million using a 5% discount rate. The post-tax estimated NPV is US$231.5 million using a 5% discount rate. The Internal Rate of Return ("IRR") is 18.1% pre-tax and 14.5% after-tax.

The following tables summarize the key PEA financial, technical and metal production of the Project.

**Table 1**-**2 PEA Financial Summary**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** |  | **Units** | **Values** |
| Net Present Value (5%) | Pre-Tax | $ Million | 339.76 |
|  | After-Tax | $ Million | 231.47 |
| Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | Pre-Tax | % | 18.1 |
|  | After-Tax | % | 14.5 |
| After-Tax Payback |  | Years | 7.0 |
| Pre-production Capital  |  | $ Million | 299.50 |
| Sustaining Capital  |  | $ Million | 71.37 + 17.38 (closure) |
| Life-of-Mine (LoM) Cash Unit Cost |  | $/oz | 497.4 |
| LOM All-In Sustaining Unit Cost |  | $/oz | 697.8 |
| Metal Prices |  |  |  |
| Copper<br> Gold<br> Silver |  | $/lb<br> $/oz<br> $/oz | 3.39<br> 1600<br> 21 |

---

**Table 1**-**3 PEA Technical Summary**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | **Units** | **Values** |
| Mine Life | Years | 10.4 |
| Mined Mineralized Material | Million Tonnes | 37.8 |
| Process Plant Production Rate | Tonnes/day | 10000 |
| Process Plant Feed Grade<br> Copper<br> Gold<br> Silver<br> Gold Equivalent | <br> %<br> g/t<br> g/t<br> g/t | <br> 0.24<br> 0.69<br> 1.67<br> 1.06 |
| Strip Ratio (Rejected Material : Mineralized Material) | Ratio | 3.60 |
| Operating Unit Cost | $/t process | $15.58 |

---

**Table 1**-**4 PEA Production and Payable Metal Summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Copper** | **Gold** | **Silver** | **Gold Equivalent** |
| Metallurgical Recovery | 84% | 82% | 30% |  |
| Production | 165.11 Mlbs | 687.2 koz | 608.5 koz | 1,045 koz |
| Payable | 160.15 Mlbs | 666.6 koz | 559.8 koz | 1,013 koz |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 4</u>

**The preliminary economic assessment is preliminary in nature, and there is no certainty that the reported results will be realized. The Mineral Resource estimate used for the PEA includes Inferred Mineral Resources which are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that the projected economic performance will be realized. The purpose of the PEA is to demonstrate the economic viability of the La Mina Project, and the results are only intended as an initial, first-pass review of the Project economics based on preliminary information. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.3** **MINERALIZATION** 

La Cantera and Middle Zone constitute two of the four drill-tested mineralized porphyry intrusive and breccia bodies on the La Mina property. In both deposits, the intrusive centers are characterized by a series of porphyry stocks and related breccias that together make up porphyry copper-gold deposits. In the case of La Cantera, the core of the deposit is cut out by a late, barren porphyritic stock resulting in a "doughnut" pattern (plan view) whereby the copper- and gold-bearing rocks form a concentric pattern around the late, barren porphyritic stock. In the case of Middle Zone, the barren core is an amorphous feature that appears to have intruded preferentially along pre-existing planes of weakness. Various intrusive/breccias phases were involved in development of the porphyry deposits along with multi-phase alteration-mineralization events, as most-often expressed by pronounced densities of veinlets crosscutting the diamond drill core. Hydrothermal magnetite is an important gangue mineral associated with gold and copper, and potassic alteration is an important alteration type associated with gold and copper.

The La Cantera deposit is slightly elliptical in plan-view (long axis NW-SE), measuring approximately 200 m by 190 m in plan-view on surface with a depth extent of 350-600 m based on the results from 26 drill holes. Average grades are close to 0.9 g/t Au with 0.3% Cu and 1.7 g/t Ag.

The Middle Zone deposit lies approximately 400 m north of La Cantera and consists of a more pronounced elliptical body in plan-view (long axis NE-SW), which remains open at depths of over 600 m, based on the results of 54 drill holes. Faults appear to have offset the western and eastern lobes of mineralization. Faults also appear to delimit the western edge. Mineralization here is of two types. The first is characterized by a high copper-gold ratio, similar to what is observed at La Cantera. The second is characterized by high gold with relatively low copper. Overall, the grades are lower than La Cantera, close to 0.5 g/t Au with 0.1-0.2% Cu, over true widths of up to 100 m.

Mineralization in the La Garrucha porphyry intrusive complex is similar to that described for La Cantera and Middle Zone prospects comprising a calcic-potassic core, grading out to sodic-calcic, and an outer argillic zone. Magnetite alteration is ubiquitous throughout all of the porphyry phases. Highest grade gold and copper is accompanied by strong potassic alteration, characterized by secondary potassium feldspar and biotite, disseminated and vein magnetite, quartz stockwork veining and both vein-hosted and disseminated sulphides that include pyrite, chalcopyrite and lesser bornite and covellite.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.4** **METALLURGY** 

A scoping level program of metallurgical test work for the project was completed and reported in 2011. Bellhaven Exploraciones contracted Resource Development Inc. (RDi) to undertake the scoping level metallurgical study for La Mina porphyry gold and copper prospect in Colombia (RDI, Report #2).

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 5</u>

RDi received four composite samples for the metallurgical study. There were three samples from the La Cantera prospect consisting of average grade, low grade and high grade and one sample from the Middle Zone prospect. The combined samples assayed 0.306% to 0.476% Cu and 0.727 g/t to 1.454 g/t Au. Sequential copper analysis indicated that two of the four composites contained significant amounts of oxide and secondary copper.

The metallurgical test work undertaken included sample preparation and characterization, Bond's ball millwork index determinations, in-place bulk density measurements, gravity tests, direct cyanidation and carbon-in-leach tests and rougher and cleaner flotation tests.

The samples had a Bond's ball mill work index of 10.2 to 14.0, which is typically within the range of porphyry copper ores.

Gravity concentration tests indicated that it was unlikely that a high-grade amendable to direct smelting could be produced, and that the quantity of coarse free gold was not significant.

Whole ore cyanide leach tests extracted over 80% of the gold from three of the four composites. The cyanide consumption was high because of co-leaching copper minerals along with gold.

A series of open-circuit, batch flotation tests were conducted using a simple reagent suite consisting of potassium amyl xanthate (PAX), Aeropromotor 404 and methyl isobutyl carbonyl. Generally, recoveries ranged between 74% to 90% for both gold and copper in the rougher concentrate across a primary grind size range of 150-74 µm. Regrinding of rougher concentrate followed by two stages of cleaner flotation in open-circuit tests produced a concentrate assaying over 26% Cu and ±50 g/t Au for three of the four composite samples. There appears to be some sensitivity of rougher recovery to primary grind, with higher metal recoveries apparent in the finer sizes tested, but it's inconclusive at this stage. No data on concentrate grades was presented, but the relatively low levels of some of the major potential deleterious elements in the ICP analysis of the composites (As<10ppm, Bi<10ppm, Hg, Se not measured), suggest that a clean concentrate should be achievable.

An overall base case recovery for gold and copper is projected at 82% and 84% respectively. It is reasonable to assume that further test work and optimization work around primary grind size, flotation reagents, mass pull and concentrate regrind could further improve gold and copper recoveries. Further analysis of the test data to determine the possible range of metal recoveries shows the potential for gold and copper recoveries to 87% and 87% respectively. Therefore, additional test work on representative samples, mineralogy and a program of open and locked cycle flotation testing is required to improve confidence in the metallurgical response and optimization of the recovery process.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.5** **CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS** 

Based on the assumptions of this PEA, the report suggests that the Project could be put into production and return capital investments within 7 years of startup.

Mining production estimates included Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. Thus, this PEA is preliminary in nature and is based on technical and economic assumptions that should be evaluated in more advanced studies.

The geology of the La Cantera and Middle Zone deposits is well understood and well represented in the models presented. RDA believes there is opportunity to further expand the La Cantera resource and evaluate possible connections to the Middle Zone at depth. In addition, the new mineral resource estimate for La Garrucha presents an opportunity to update the economic analysis for La Mina. Further in-fill drilling should be evaluated and conducted to upgrade mineral resources to mineral reserves. Several additional porphyry-style intrusions are interpreted from existing geophysical datasets throughout the La Mina concessions. It is recommended the Company undertake a systematic exploration program to further test these targets for discovery of new porphyry -tyle gold-copper mineralization.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 6</u>

Preliminary metallurgical tests indicate that La Mina mineralization is amenable to standard flotation for copper and gold recovery and to cyanide leaching for gold recovery. Further analysis of the test data to review the possible range of metal recoveries, show the potential for higher gold and copper recoveries in the order of 87% and 87% respectively. It is reasonable to assume that further test work and optimization work around primary grind size, flotation reagents, mass pull and concentrate regrind could improve gold and copper recoveries and provide confidence in the metallurgical response and optimization of the recovery process. Additional in-depth metallurgical test work needs to be conducted to enhance the understanding of the metallurgy to support future development studies for the project.

**Table 1**-**5 Proposed Phase 1 Work Program to advance La Mina**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Activity** | **Amount (US$ M)** |
| Property exploration to test additional porphyry targets | 1.0 |
| Drilling Program focusing on resource expansion | 1.7 |
| Drill technical services and assaying | 0.2 |
| Updated Mineral Resource Estimate | 0.1 |
| Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment | 0.2 |
| Metallurgical Testing | 0.3 |
| **Total** | **3.5** |

---

The authors have not recommended successive phases of work for the advancement of the Project.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 7</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **2** | **INTRODUCTION** |

---

Scott Wilson ("Mr. Wilson") and Michael Cole ("Mr. Cole") of Resource Development Associates Inc. ("RDA"), Paul Hosford of PMet Services ("Mr. Hosford"), collectively ("the Authors") prepared a National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the La Mina Project ("La Mina" or "the Property" or "the Project") located in the Department of Antioquia, Republic of Colombia, South America.

The Authors were retained by GoldMining ("the Company"), a Canadian company trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).

The report has been prepared according to the guidelines of the Canadian Securities Administrators' National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, while the PEA reported herein has been prepared in conformity with generally accepted CIM "Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines."

The preliminary economic assessment is preliminary in nature, it includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the preliminary economic assessment will be realized. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.1** **PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL REPORT** 

The purpose of the Technical Report is to provide GoldMining with a mineral resource estimate which includes the La Garrucha deposit. The Technical Report also presents the previously disclosed PEA for the Project (see "NI 43-101 Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment, La Mina Project, Antioquia, Republic of Colombia" with an effective date of January 12, 2022) which comprised:

● A resource estimate for only La Cantera and Middle Zones.

● An economic evaluation of the Project costs and revenues.

● An independent opinion as to the technical merits of the Project and the appropriate manner to proceed with continuing exploration and project development.

● It is intended that this report may be submitted to those Canadian stock exchanges and regulatory agencies that may require it. It is further intended that GoldMining may use the report for any lawful purpose to which it is suited.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.1.1** **PERSONAL INSPECTION** 

The current inspection for the Project was carried out on October 12-13, 2022 by Scott Wilson who visited the property located in the village of La Mina, municipality of Fredonia in the department of Antioquia, Colombia. Mr. Wilson met with the geological team and technicians to review geological maps and sections, inspect drill core, review the digital database, observe the location of drill collars and collect a number of core samples to validate and confirm existing information.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.1.1.1** **UNITS OF MEASURE - ABBREVIATIONS** 

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Unit** | **Description** |
| % | Percent |
| °C | Degrees Celsius |
| cm | Centimeter (Centimetre) |
| m | Meter (Metre) |
| bcm | Bank Cubic Metres |
| g | Grams |
| g/t | grams per tonne |
| ha | Hectare (10,000 M<sup>2</sup>) |
| kg | Kilogram |
| km | Kilometer (Kilometre) |
| KW or kW | Kilowatt |
| mm | Millimeters (Millimetres) |
| opt | Ounces Per Ton |
| ppm | Parts Per Million |
| SG | Specific Gravity |
| μm | Microns |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 8</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.1.1.2** **ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS** 

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Term** | **Description** |
| Ag | Silver |
| Au | Gold |
| CIM | Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum |
| Company | GoldMining |
| Cu | Copper |
| ICP | Inductively Coupled Plasma |
| Ma | Million Years |
| Masl | Meters above sea level |
| MMC | Metal Mining Consultants Inc |
| NSR | Net Smelter Return |
| Pb | Lead |
| Property | La Mina Project |
| QA | Quality Assurance |
| QA/QC | Quality Assurance/Quality Control |
| QC | Quality Control |
| QP(s) | Qualified Person(s) |
| RC or RVC | Reverse Circulation |
| Rdi | Resource Development Inc |
| RDA | Resource Development Associates Inc. |
| RQD | Rock Quality Designation |
| tpd | Tonnes per day |
| US | United States |
| Zn | Zinc |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 9</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **3** | **RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS** |

---

The authors have not relied on information from other experts except in connection with certain legal matters relating to title, including information related to the concessions and their titles as described below.

The authors were provided with and reviewed documents relating to the mineral concessions including certificates of mineral registration, and certificates of good standing from GoldMining's legal counsel (Camila Restrepo Uribe). Such documents included," Good Standing Legal Opinion Colombian mining title No. 6355B (HHMM-04)" and "Good Standing Legal Opinion Colombian mining title No. L5263005", both documents prepared by Camila Restrepo Uribe, and both dated June 15, 2021, GoldMining Inc provided the authors with updated copies of mineral concessions and an updated map of the concessions and two additional applications in process. This included Certificates of Mining Registration (Certificado de Registro Minero) from the National Mining Agency (Agencia Nacional de Minería) for mining title No. 6355B (HHMM-04) and mining title No. L5263005, both certificates dated June 15, 2021. While it appears that all titles (concessions) are in force and free of any liens and encumbrances, the authors are not qualified to express a legal opinion with respect to the property titles and current ownership and possible encumbrance status, and therefore, we have relied on the Company for providing this information and disclaim direct responsibility for such legal title information.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 10</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **4** | **PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.1** **AREA AND LOCATION** 

The La Mina project consists of two properties: 1) the 1,794 hectare La Mina Colombian concession contract identified as concession contract L5263005 ("concession") held by La Mina Fredonia S.A.S. and 2) the 1,416 hectare La Garrucha with concession contract No. HHMM04 held by Bellhaven Exploraciones, as well as two concession contract applications currently under evaluation 1) LEA-16281 with 146 hectares requested and 2) TL5-08011 with 687 hectares requested. GoldMining Inc. ("GoldMining") owns 100% of the Property through its wholly owned subsidiary, Bellhaven which in turn owns the property through its wholly owned Colombian subsidiaries Bellhaven Exploraciones (formerly Aurum Exploration Inc. Colombia) and La Mina Fredonia S.A.S. GoldMining announced on May 30, 2017 that it had completed the acquisition of Bellhaven by way of a plan of arrangement pursuant to an arrangement agreement between the parties dated April 11, 2017.

The concessions are located near Medellin in the Department of Antioquia, Colombia approximately 500 km north-west of the Colombia's federal capital of Bogota. This region has a long history of gold mining extending back several centuries. Now several parts of Antioquia are among the most active gold exploration regions in Colombia.

The closest settlement, La Mina, lies immediately adjacent to the La Mina Project. The larger town of Venecia, approximately 11 km from the project, provides a source of supplies and logistical support for the project, rural farming activities, and for several small underground coal- mining operations in the near area. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show the location of the mineral claim in relation to surrounding geography.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 11</u>

![ex_480463img001.jpg](ex_480463img001.jpg)

**Figure 4**-**1 La Mina Property, Colombia**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 12</u>

![ex_480463img002.jpg](ex_480463img002.jpg)

**Figure 4**-**2 La Mina Project Location and Access Map**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 13</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.2** **MINERAL TENURE** 

The La Mina project property consists of two concession contracts totaling 3,210 hectares. Namely the 1798 hectare La Mina license with concession contract No. 5263 and the La Garrucha license with concession contract No. 6355B. The location and details regarding the claim block are outlined in Table 4-1 and are shown in Figure 4-3.

Exploration license No. 5263 (La Mina concession) was granted by the Instituto Colombiano de Geología y Minería ("INGEOMINAS") to Alejandro Montoya-Palacios ("Montoya") in early 2000 as an Exploration Concession under the mining code of the country which grants the operator the right to explore over a three-year renewable period under certain conditions for an additional two years including submission of a work plan known as a "Plan de Trabajo de Inversión", or PTI. This was turned into a concession contract on August 5, 2020.

**Table 4**-**1 La Mina Property Ownership**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Concession Contract Number** | **Size Hectares** | **Registered Title Holder** |
| L5263005 | 1,794 | La Mina Fredonia SAS |
| HHMM04 | 1,416 | Bellhaven Exploraciones Inc. Sucursal Colombia |

---

![ex_480463img003.jpg](ex_480463img003.jpg)

**Figure 4**-**3 Claim Map Showing Location of La Mina Porphyry Bodies in Relation to Concession Boundaries** 

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 14</u>

GoldMining's indirect Colombian subsidiary, Bellhaven Exploraciones (formerly Aurum Exploration Inc. Colombia) signed an option agreement with Mr. Montoya to initially acquire 80% of the concession. The property was held jointly by both parties through Mina Fredonia S.A.S. ("Fredonia") with GoldMining currently indirectly owning 100% of the La Mina concession

La Garrucha exploration contract, No. 6355B, now owned by Bellhaven Exploraciones Inc Sucursal Colombia but originally owned by AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A., was optioned by Bellhaven in 2013 to explore an Au-Cu porphyry deposit indicated by the surface and drilling exploration in 2011 and 2012 respectively. This contract was renegotiated on March 7, 2015. As a result, GoldMining, through its ownership of Bellhaven Exploraciones and La Mina Fredonia S.A.S. owns 100% of this mining concession with Bellhaven to pay AngloGold Ashanti US$1 per reserve ounce declared in a bankable Feasibility Study, or present at the start of mining whichever comes first.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.3** **SURFACE RIGHTS AGREEMENTS** 

Bellhaven signed an additional agreement with B2 Gold regarding purchase of the surface rights over 60 hectares around the exploration camp site and immediate project area; this allowed Aurum to acquire these surface rights for a total of US$470,000 over a three-year period. During 2011, Bellhaven completed the payments under this agreement and now owns 100% of the surface rights governed by the agreement with B2Gold.

During 2012, Bellhaven also acquired additional surface rights over the El Limon target. In April, the Company contracted with a private vendor for the purchase of 100% interest in a surface property encompassing 9.75 hectares to the north of the Middle Zone (the El Limon property). The property acquisition closed in Q3 of 2012 for a total purchase price of US $15,315 in cash.

Surface rights over a portion of the La Garrucha concession contract is subject to a surface rights lease agreement and an option agreement as outlined below:

Pursuant to a surface rights lease agreement dated July 6, 2016 and amended August 19, 2016, April 4, 2017, November 5, 2018, and July 10, 2020, Bellhaven can lease the surface rights over a portion of the La Garrucha concession contract by making the following payments:

● US$75,000 in May 2017 (paid);

● US$75,000 in November 2017 (paid);

● US$75,000 in May 2018 (paid);

● US$75,000 in November 2018 (paid);

● US$25,000 in June 2019 (paid);

● US$25,000 in December 2019 (paid);

● US$25,000 in June 2020 (paid);

● US$25,000 in December 2020 (paid);

● US$25,000 in June 2021 (paid);

● US$25,000 in December 2021 (paid);

● US$25,000 in June 2022 (paid) and

● US$55,000 in December 2022 (paid).

In addition, pursuant to an option agreement entered into by Bellhaven on November 18, 2016, amended April 4, 2017, November 5, 2018, and July 10, 2020, Bellhaven can purchase the La Garrucha concession by making an optional payment of US$650,000 on December 7, 2022.

The project is subject to a 2% net smelter return royalty (NSR) payable to Gold Royalty Corp.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 15</u>

As well, a gross revenue royalty (GRR) of 4.0% on the precious metals and 5.0% on base metals are both imposed by the Colombian National Mining Agency.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.4** **GENERAL** 

The authors know of no other known royalties, back in rights, payments or any other agreements to which the property is subject outside of the existing Colombian mining code. There are no known environmental liabilities to the La Mina project. There are no known factors or risks that affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 16</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **5** | **ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.1** **ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE** 

Access and infrastructure surrounding the La Mina project are good. The area is surrounded by gravel roads which connect a rural farming population to various nearby population centers, including Medellin which is a large cosmopolitan city (Figure 4-2). Various small towns, including Bolombolo and La Pintada are located within a two-hour drive of the project area.

La Mina is accessed on a paved highway 30 km southwest of Medellin to the junction with a gravel road that leads 11 km to the property. Total travel time by road from Medellin is approximately 2.0 – 2.5 hours depending on road conditions and traffic around Medellin. Access to the area is available year-round.

The economy surrounding La Mina is based on rural activities. Agricultural activities dominated by coffee and mixed- crop farming are the principal sources of land use and income.

While GoldMining, through its wholly owned subsidiaries Bellhaven Exploraciones and La Mina Fredonia S.A.S. owns a considerable area of surface rights over the La Cantera and Middle Zone deposits, the Company has also secured surface access agreements with other property owners in the La Garrucha area of planned exploration and drilling. Additional surface rights may be necessary for the establishment of a commercial mining project.

Water, power, and labor are readily available at the project site. Local labor is not trained in modern exploration and mining methods, indicating the need to provide training and import qualified personnel. All requirements (personnel, equipment, contractors) for project exploration and development are available in Medellin. Heavy equipment and diamond drills are readily available throughout Colombia.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.2** **PHYSIOGRAPHY** 

The project area is located on the eastern slopes leading up from the Cauca River. It is a major physiographic feature marking the limit between the Western and Central physiographic regions where the La Mina Property is located.

The topography in the property area can be described as "tropical mountainous", with sharp positive and negative changes in relief from an average elevation of approximately 1,700 m with ridges cresting at approximately 2,000 m.

The property is essentially 100% vegetated by Andean Forest, dense secondary scrub growth, agricultural crops, and grassy cattle pastureland.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.3** **CLIMATE** 

The climate, characterized by tropical weather in this district can vary abruptly with elevation: below an elevation of ~1,000 m (in the Cauca River valley) the climate is warm (>24°C) whereas higher up it tends to be temperate (18°C to 24°C) between 1,000 m and 2,000 m, and then becomes cool above 2,000 m (12°C to 18°C). Annual rainfall is approximately 2,000 mm with the wettest months being from March to May, and then again from September to December.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 17</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **6** | **HISTORY** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**6.1** **EXPLORATION PRIOR TO 2002** 

The Antioquia district of Colombia where the La Mina Property is located has been a source of gold mining that goes back several centuries to pre-Colombian times. Small-scale artisanal mining, some from hard-rock sources and some from alluvial deposits, were common throughout the district and so "barequero" prospectors were likely active throughout the Central Cordillera district on either flank of the Cauca River.

The general area around La Mina has been noted in early regional survey work by the Colombian mines department, INGEOMINAS and this led to the staking of ground by the original and still current owner, Mr. Alejandro Montoya in 2000.

Historical research by the Company has revealed local knowledge of several adits that targeted gold in the vicinity of the Middle Zone prospect. At one point, these mines were reportedly managed by a small-scale mining company from England. Artisanal miners exploited several streams originating from the resource areas in the past, a very small number of which are still active today. No records of production are known to exist, though different sources corroborate that mining activity goes back to at least the 1920's. The amount of artisanal mining production is believed to be very small.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**6.2** **EXPLORATION 2002-2008** 

In the early 2000s, AngloGold Ashanti (AGA) carried out broad-scale geochemical and other exploration programs throughout this district of Colombia and was responsible for the initial discovery of copper-gold mineralization on surface at the La Cantera outcrop. In 2006, AGA drilled six holes into the La Cantera target, four of which successfully intercepted the gold-copper porphyry stock with mineralized intercepts of 50-100 m.

In 2007, AGA formed the Avasca Joint Venture with Bema Gold (subsequently transferred to B2Gold) who continued with further surface geochemistry and geophysics north and south from the La Cantera discovery, as well as further west over a prominent N-S trending magnetic ridge feature identified from aerial geophysics flown by the Avasca JV in 2007.

The early exploration work at La Mina by AGA beginning in 2002 and later in 2005-08 by the Avasca Joint Venture (Avasca) focused on the principal La Cantera Zone. These programs consisted of:

● Regional mapping, 1:20,000 scale

● Property-scale geological mapping: 1:10,000 scale

● Geochemical sampling, soils and rock

● Trenching

● Geophysical surveys: aerial magnetic and radiometrics

● Drilling: six, core holes totaling 1,453 m (mid-2006) – AGA

● At the end of 2007, a regional airborne magnetic/radiometric survey was completed over the Property and neighboring ground (Avasca)

● In early 2008, the aerial geophysics was followed by additional auger soil and rock geochemical sampling programs over the anomalies (Avasca).

● Various sampling methods have been used to explore the La Mina Property, as follows:

● Regional-scale soil and rock/trench sampling carried out by AGA in 2002 which led to the discovery of the porphyry mineralization at the La Cantera zone.

● In 2007/08, additional soil sampling was completed by the Avasca joint venture over the aero-magnetic anomalies identified from their aerial geophysics (2007). This soil sampling was completed on an irregular grid, widely spaced over the entire 1,794 ha Property area (123 samples), but principally focused on the area around the La Cantera prospect and immediate vicinity (~1 km by 1 km). A later rock sampling program in 2008 collected 857 samples on a 100 m standard grid, and focused on La Cantera and some nearby magnetic anomalies.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 18</u>

![ex_480463img004.jpg](ex_480463img004.jpg)

**Figure 6**-**1 Portion of Aerial Magnetics, Avasca Joint Venture 2007. Illustrates the prominent magnetic features interpreted from aerial geophysics flown by the Avasca Joint venture in 2007. Identified clearly is the high magnetic response of the La Cantera porphyry stock at the southern end of the red rectangular block**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 19</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**6.3** **AGA DRILLING** 

Six AGA drill holes were completed in and around the La Mina porphyry (later re-named the La Cantera Stock), with Holes 2 and 5 yielding 90-m plus intercepts of greater than 1 g/t Au and good copper grades at shallow depths. Drillholes 4 and 6 also contained significant values located near the surface; however, Holes 1 and 3 were drilled off target to the west and did not encounter any mineralization of interest (Table 6-1).

**Table 6**-**1 AGA Drill Results**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Drill Hole** | **Dip** | | **Significant Intercepts** | **Significant Intercepts** |
| **Name** | **Degree** | **Total Depth**<br>**m** | **Thickness (m)** | **Grades**<br> **(Au g/t/Cu %)** |
| LM-01 | -60.5 | 258 | No Significant Intercepts | No Significant Intercepts |
| LM-02 | -58.5 | 189 | 152 | 0.82/0.26 |
| LM-03 | -60.5 | 201 | No Significant Intercepts | No Significant Intercepts |
| LM-04 | -60 | 250 | 106 | 0.32/0.21 |
| LM-05 | -60 | 252 | 106 | 1.11/0.40 |
| LM-06 | -60 | 304 | 122 | 0.40/0.24 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 20</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **7** | **GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.1** **REGIONAL GEOLOGY** 

Colombia can be divided into four distinct geomorphological regions and can be seen in Figure 7-1.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The Guyana Shield

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. The Andean System

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. The Caribbean Region

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. The Pacific Coast Region

The La Mina property is located along the eastern margin of the western Cordillera in the Andean System (Figure 7-1).

![f01.jpg](f01.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**1 Geomorphological Regions of Colombia Showing the** <br> **Approximate Location of La Mina**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 21</u>

The La Mina region lies within the Romeral terrane, an oceanic mélange comprised of metamorphosed mafic to ultramafic complexes, ophiolite sequences, and oceanic sedimentary rocks of probable Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous age (Cediel & Cáceres, 2000; Cediel et al., 2003). This terrane was accreted to the continental margin along the Romeral Fault, which lies east of the River Cauca, in the Aptian (125 to 110 Ma). Movement on the Romeral Fault was dextral indicating that terrane accretion was highly oblique from the southwest. The Romeral Fault zone is marked by dismembered ophiolitic rocks, including glaucophane schist, in a tectonic mélange and is interpreted as a terrane suture marking an old subduction zone. The resulting suture zone and mélange-related rocks can be traced for over 1,000 km along the northern Andes. The Romeral terrane is bounded on the west side by the Cauca Fault. Further west, additional oceanic and island arc terranes were subsequently accreted to the Western Cordillera in the Paleogene and Neogene periods, culminating in the on-going collision of the Choco (or Panamá) arc since the late Miocene. This reactivated the Cauca and Romeral faults with left lateral and reverse movements (Cediel & Cáceres, 2000; Cediel et al., 2003). The original structure of the Romeral fault system has been modified by various post-Romeral tectonic events.

Following accretion, the Romeral terrane was overlain unconformably by siliciclastic, continentally derived sediments of the Oligocene to Lower Miocene Amagá Formation. The Amagá Formation, comprises basal conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, shales, and local coal seams (Durán et al., 2005). These sedimentary rocks are overlain by a thick sequence of volcanic and sedimentary rocks of the Late Miocene Combia Formation. The Combia Formation is divided into a Lower Member of basalt and andesite lava flows, agglomerates, and tuffs, and an Upper Member of conglomerates, sandstones, and crystal and lithic tuffs (Durán et al., 2005). The Combia Formation volcanic rocks were associated with at least one Middle to Late Miocene volcanic arc emplaced into the Romeral terrane basement rocks during this time period. Also associated with latest stages of arc formation was the syntectonic emplacement of a series of shallow-level intrusive rocks, including poly-phase hypabyssal stocks, dikes and sills of dioritic, granodioritic, and monzonitic composition. These intrusive rocks cut all of the aforementioned sedimentary and volcanic units of the Amaga and Combia Formations. K-Ar whole-rock ages for the intrusive rocks range from 8 to 6 Ma (Cediel et al., 2003). The Combia Formation and accompanying hypabyssal intrusive rocks are well represented along a 100 km by 20 km N-S trending belt extending from Anserma in the south to Jericó, Fredonia and Titiribí, located to the north of the La Mina Project (Figure 7-2).

Following the early accretionary events, the region was subjected to compressional deformation during the Early-Middle Miocene and Middle-Late Miocene. In both cases the deformation was related to additional accretionary tectonic events taking place to the west along the active Pacific margin. The structural architecture of the Romeral fault and mélange system is essentially that of a 10+ km wide series of N-S striking, vertically dipping, and dextral transcurrent faults. Virtually all lithologic contacts within the Romeral basement rocks are structural in nature and are characterized by abundant shearing, mylonitization, and the formation of clay-rich fault gouge. Structural reactivation during the Miocene resulted in orthogonal compression accompanied by mostly west-directed (back) thrusting and high- angle reverse fault development in the basement rocks. The Amaga Formation was deformed primarily into generally open, upright folds; local tilting and near isoclinal folds were associated with the west-directed thrust faults. The Combia Formation records both tilting and open folding. Both the Amaga and Combia Formations exhibit moderate to strong diapiric doming through the emplacement of Miocene intrusive rocks. N-S, NE-SW, NW-SE and E-W striking conjugate shearing and dilational fracturing affect all of the above geologic units.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 22</u>

![ex_480463img005.jpg](ex_480463img005.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**2 Tectonic Map of Colombia**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Note: | Litho-tectonic and morpho-structural map of Colombia and northwestern South America, after Cediel et al. (2003). RO = Romeral terrane; Rm = Romeral melange; CA-VA = Cajamarca-Valdivia terrane; sl = San Lucas block; ib = Ibague block;; DAP = Dagua- Pinon terrane; CG = Canas Gordas terrane; BAU Baudo terrane SP = Santander massif - Serranfa de Perija; GS = Guiana Shield; GA = Garzon massif; ME = Sierra de Merida; SM = Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta; EC = Eastern Cordillera; CO = Carora basin; CR = Cordillera Real; GOR = Gorgona terrane; PA = Panama terrane; SJ = San Jacinto terrane; SN = Sinu terrane; GU-FA = Guajira- Falcon terrane; CAM = Caribbean Mountain terrane; fab = fore arc basin; ac = accretionary prism; tf = trench fill; pd = piedmonte; 1 = Atrato (Choco) basin; 2 = Tumaco basin; 3 = Manabf basin; 4 = Cauca-Patfa basin; 5 = Upper Magdalena basin; 6 = Middle Magdalena basin; 7 = Lower Magdalena basin; 8 = Cesar-Rancherfa basin; 9 = Maracaibo basin; 10 = Guajira basin; 11 = Falcon basin; 12 = Guarico basin; 13 = Barinas basin; 14 = Llanos basin; 15 = Putumayo-Napo basin; Additional Symbols: PALESTINA = fault\suture system; red dot = Plio-Pleistocene volcano; Bogota = town or city. |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 23</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.2** **PROPERTY GEOLOGY** 

The La Mina Project lies within the Middle Cauca Belt of Miocene-age volcano-plutonic rocks of central Colombia. This belt hosts several significant porphyry gold or copper-gold disseminated deposits such as La Colosa, Titiribí, Quebradona, and Quinchia, as well as large epithermal gold districts such as Marmato.

The immediate area around the La Mina Project is underlain by country rocks consisting of a series of basaltic volcanic rocks (Barroso Formation – oceanic tholeiitic basalts, dolerites, tuffs, etc.), sedimentary rocks of the Amagá Formation, and an upper Combia Formation of basalts and andesitic basalts inter-layered with volcaniclastic rocks and coarse-grained sedimentary rocks (conglomerates, arenites).

At the project scale, the key host rocks for the porphyry-related gold, copper, and silver mineralization are the intermediate composition volcanic rocks of the Combia Formation and the sub-volcanic breccias and related shallow level, porphyries which have intruded the Combia Formation. The Combia Formation developed within a Late Miocene magmatic arc that is interpreted to have included an early quiescent stage of volcanism and a later explosive event of wider extent.

Localized intrusive centers (e.g., La Cantera, Middle Zone, El Limon, and La Garrucha) comprise a series of intermediate composition porphyries and related intrusive (emplacement) breccias (Figure 7-3). The structural controls for these intrusive centers appear to have been provided by N-S, NE-SW and/or NW-SE trending, high-angle fault systems associated with the major Cauca River structure to the west of La Mina.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 24</u>

![ex_480463img006.jpg](ex_480463img006.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**3 Generalized Geologic Map of the La Mina Project Area**

The following broad groupings of geological unites have been interpreted and recognized from surface mapping and the drill core logging to date:

● Lithic and Crystal Tuffs (Combia Formation)

● Basalt-Andesite Lavas and Flows (Combia Formation)

● The La Cantera Porphyry and intrusive breccia

● The Middle Zone Porphyries and intrusive breccias

● The La Garrucha Porphyries and intrusive breccias

● The El Limon Porphyry

● Porphyry – undifferentiated

● Hydrothermal Breccia(s)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3** **INTRUSIVE ROCKS** 

A good understanding of the intrusive rocks is key to understanding the porphyry-related Au-Cu mineralization. Intrusive rocks at La Mina consist of porphyries of probable intermediate composition. At least four different porphyries have been identified in the La Mina Project area and are distinguished by their mineralogy and texture. Other potential targets exist on the property, as distinguished from magnetic and geochemical anomalies. None of these additional targets have been drill tested to date. To standardize the naming conventions for the porphyry-related, intrusive lithologies used in logging and mapping, a generic lithology naming scheme was adopted. Modifiers such as "early" and "late" were dropped and rocks were named primarily based on the original mineralogy and texture and, in some cases, the absence or presence of and type of alteration.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 25</u>

As with other porphyry deposits worldwide, there is considerable overlap of the original mineralogy and texture of the different intrusive lithologies at La Mina. To date, four different centers of porphyry-related alteration and mineralization have been recognized: 1) La Cantera, 2) Middle Zone, 3) El Limon, and 4) La Garrucha. The phenocryst-to-matrix ratio of the intrusive lithologies varies from 50:50 to 80:20. The intrusive lithologies in all four intrusive centers contain essential plagioclase and amphibole phenocrysts, some lithologies contain minor but important amounts of magmatic biotite, and quartz phenocrysts or "eyes" are sparse. The dominant accessory mineral is magnetite; sphene, where observed, appears to be an alteration product of magmatic biotite or amphibole.

The porphyry "families" were named very simply for the geographic location of where they were first encountered (C – La Cantera, L – El Limon and G – La Garrucha) or in the case of the X family, because the origin and significance of these porphyries were uncertain. The numerical modifiers reflect the order in which the different members of a family (when more than one has been identified) were identified and not the relative age of the members of a family. For example, in the X family of Middle Zone, X1 was the first X porphyry identified but it was later determined to be younger than X3 and older than X2. These relative ages are based on clearly defined contact relations between different members of the same family. In previous press releases and the initial NI 43-101 technical report describing the geology of the La Cantera area (May 2011), the C1 Porphyry and C1 Breccia were referred to as the "early inter-mineral porphyry" and "early inter-mineral breccia" and the X1 Porphyry and X1 Breccia were referred to as the "late inter-mineral porphyry" and "late inter-mineral breccia". The intrusive rocks of the El Limon area follow the nomenclature of Middle Zone. The relative ages of the different intrusive rocks and breccias in the various intrusive centers are given in Table 7-1.

The relative ages of the different intrusive phases are well known within each intrusive center; however, to date, cross-cutting or contact relationships between C1 phases and L1 phases and X3 phases have not been observed. Hence, the relative ages of these lithologies cannot be determined definitively. Similarly, the relative ages of the intrusive phases in the La Garrucha area as compared with the other areas are not known. The porphyries and breccia at La Garrucha have only been mapped at surface and in limited drilling. The relative age relationships although becoming clear at La Garrucha are not clear with respect to the other porphyries, elsewhere in the project area.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 26</u>

**Table 7**-**1 Lithological Descriptions**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **La Cantera** | **La Cantera** | **Middle Zone** | **Middle Zone** | **La Garrucha** | **La Garrucha** |
|  |  | X2 Porphyry | Youngest |  |  |
|  |  | X1 Breccia | ![pic2.jpg](pic2.jpg) | G4 Breccia | Youngest |
| X2 Porphyry | Youngest | X1 Porphyry | ![pic2.jpg](pic2.jpg) | G4 Porphyry | ![pic3.jpg](pic3.jpg) |
| X1 Breccia | ![pic1.jpg](pic1.jpg) | X3 Breccia | ![pic2.jpg](pic2.jpg) | G2 Breccia | ![pic3.jpg](pic3.jpg) |
| X1 Porphyry | ![pic1.jpg](pic1.jpg) | X3 Porphyry | ![pic2.jpg](pic2.jpg) | G2 Porphyry | ![pic3.jpg](pic3.jpg) |
| C1 Breccia | ![pic1.jpg](pic1.jpg) | L1 Breccia | ![pic2.jpg](pic2.jpg) | G1 Breccia | ![pic3.jpg](pic3.jpg) |
| C1 Porphyry | ![pic1.jpg](pic1.jpg) | L1 Porphyry | ![pic2.jpg](pic2.jpg) | G1 Porphyry | ![pic3.jpg](pic3.jpg) |
| Volcanic Rocks | Oldest | Volcanic Rocks | Oldest | Volcanic Rocks | Oldest |

---

While there have been limited thin section studies of the Cantera and Middle Zone rocks, the detailed petrographic and mineralogical reports are pending at the time of this writing. The following lithological descriptions are derived from hand and drill-core specimens exhibiting weak to intense alteration and should therefore only be considered as field terms. Associated with the porphyries are breccias which includes auto-breccia and contact breccia. An auto-breccia is described as an intrusive breccia with clasts and matrix of the same intrusive phase. Contact breccias occur at contacts of porphyries with older volcanic rocks of the Combia Formation or with older porphyries. The porphyries are described below from youngest to oldest.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.1** **X2 PORPHYRY (X2)** 

The X2 Porphyry is observed at the Cantera and Middle Zone prospects. This porphyry is believed to be one of the youngest porphyries at La Mina and as such is typically not mineralized or strongly altered. X2 Porphyry is composed of 70% phenocrysts and 30% fine-grained matrix. Phenocrysts are comprised of 45% plagioclase, 17% amphibole (hornblende?) and 7% biotite. Quartz phenocrysts are absent. Plagioclase phenocrysts are subhedral to euhedral tabular crystals ranging from 1.5 x 1.0 mm to 1.0 x 1.0 mm. Amphiboles occur as euhedral to subhedral crystals with bimodal sizes of 1.0 x 0.5 mm and 3.0 x 2.0 mm. Biotite is euhedral at 0.3 X 0.3 mm size. Accessory minerals consist of 1% fine-grained disseminated magnetite.

Alteration of the X2 porphyry where present is weak and typically propylitic to intermediate argillic with chlorite-carbonate and chlorite-clay respectively, chlorite partially replacing amphiboles. Locally where X2 is altered, trace to 1% disseminated pyrite is common.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.2** **X1 PORPHYRY (X1)** 

The X1 is a name applied to a different intrusive at La Cantera than at Middle Zone. It was recognized first at La Cantera as a post-mineralizing intrusive at the core of the deposit. It was originally described as a "late intra-mineral porphyry" because it is only weakly and locally mineralized. X1 Porphyry has a porphyritic texture with 65-70% phenocrysts and 30-35% very fine-grained matrix. Phenocrysts are comprised of 45% plagioclase, 15-17% amphibole (hornblende) and 3-5% biotite. Quartz phenocrysts are absent. Plagioclase phenocrysts are typically subhedral to euhedral tabular crystals of two sizes, 1.5 x 1.0 mm and 1.0 x 1.0 mm. Amphiboles occur as euhedral –subhedral crystals of bimodal size of 0.4 x 0.2 mm and 0.8 x 0.2 mm. Biotite is euhedral at 0.3 x 0.3 mm size. Accessory minerals consist of 1% fine-grained disseminated magnetite.

The X1 at Middle Zone is a mineralizing intrusive that has a similar petrography to the X1 of La Cantera. However, in this case it exhibits strong to intense potassic alteration with secondary biotite and magnetite within and proximal to gold and copper mineralized zones. In well mineralized portions it shows a high Cu/Au ratio. Pervasive replacement of the fine-grained feldspar matrix with potassium feldspar imparts a light pinkish buff color. In areas distal to mineralization, a condition met predominantly in Middle Zone, the unit displays argillic to propylitic alteration.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 27</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.3** **X3 PORPHYRY (X3)** 

The X3 porphyry is observed only at the Middle Zone prospect. Contact relationships indicate that it is younger than El Limon Porphyry but older than X1 and X2 Porphyries. The X3 Porphyry is a bimodal feldspar porphyry with a phenocryst: matrix ratio of 70:30. Phenocrysts consist of 45-50% plagioclase, 10-12% amphibole (hornblende) and 2-3% biotite. Quartz phenocrysts are absent. Plagioclase is typically bimodal with finer phenocrysts of 0.4x0.2 mm and coarser phenocrysts at 0.4x0.8 mm. The coarser-grained plagioclase is euhedral to subhedral and usually zoned and occurs occasionally as agglomerated pairs. The content of coarse plagioclase is variable from 0 to 5%. Amphiboles are typically euhedral to subhedral and also bimodal in nature with >50% coarse grained at 3 x 1 mm and the balance of finer crystals having axes of 1 x 0.5 mm. Accessory minerals consist of 1% fine-grained disseminated magnetite.

Alteration is variable in type and intensity. Alteration ranges from moderate propylitic to pervasive, intense potassic (biotite-magnetite with local potassium feldspar replacement of earlier biotite). Argillic or argillic/phyllic alteration is localized along the contacts and margins of late fractures and faults.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.4** **LA CANTERA PORPHYRY (C1)** 

The La Cantera porphyry is the mineralizing intrusive at the La Cantera prospect. The La Cantera porphyry is a medium- to fine-grained porphyry. The porphyry is very "crowded" with a phenocryst: matrix ratio of approximately 70:30. The groundmass comprises both micro- phenocrysts and fine-grained crystalline quartzo-feldspathic (?) material (<20% of the matrix is aphanitic). Phenocrysts include plagioclase, amphibole, and biotite. Subhedral to euhedral plagioclase phenocrysts range in size from 0.4 x 0.2 mm to 0.8 x 0.5 mm, with occasional coarser-grained phenocrysts having axes of 1.0 x 1.5 mm in length. Subhedral to euhedral amphibole (10-12%) ranges in size from 0.2 x 0.4 mm to 0.4 x 0.8 mm. Biotite phenocrysts (5-8%) are dominantly 0.3 x 0.3 mm euhedral. Quartz phenocrysts are absent. Accessory minerals consist of 1-2% fine-grained disseminated magnetite.

Alteration of the La Cantera porphyry is dominantly potassic, having secondary biotite and potassium feldspar-bearing assemblages (± magnetite ± actinolite). The potassic alteration occurs as both pervasive replacement of phenocrysts and matrix and in veins and along vein selvages. Potassium feldspar alteration, when present, is generally pervasive with total replacement of plagioclase by potassium feldspar, as well as frequent veins and vein selvages of potassium feldspar. Zones of banded quartz and quartz-magnetite veins are common and locally may comprise >25% of the rock volume. Closely spaced sheeted quartz veins are common in the upper portions of the porphyry. Elsewhere quartz veins do not exhibit a preferred orientation.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.5** **EL LIMON PORPHYRY (L1)** 

The El Limon L1 Porphyry has been observed in the El Limon, Filo de Oro and Middle Zone prospects immediately to the north of the La Cantera gold-copper prospect. It is exposed over an area of several square kilometers. The El Limon porphyry is composed of 60% phenocrysts and 40% matrix. Phenocrysts are comprised of 40% subhedral to euhedral plagioclase (occasionally as agglomerated pairs) that range in size from 1 x 1.5 mm to 3 x 5 mm, 15% subhedral amphibole that is commonly 0.5 x 5.5 mm in size, and 5% subhedral biotite, which is typically 1 x 2 mm in size. Quartz phenocrysts are absent. Accessory minerals consist of 1% very fine-grained magnetite. The El Limon Porphyry is characterized by coarse grained plagioclase phenocrysts which makes it visibly distinct from the C1, X1 and X2 Porphyries. When strongly altered, it can be difficult to distinguish L1 Porphyry from X3 Porphyry.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 28</u>

Alteration of the El Limon Porphyry is most commonly structurally-controlled argillic to intermediate argillic. Potassic alteration ranges from intense secondary biotite, commonly without magnetite, to moderate secondary biotite-magnetite. The latter occurs typically near contacts with potassically-altered X1 Porphyry or X3 Porphyry or their related intrusive breccias. Local weak potassic alteration in the form of secondary biotite and occasional potassium feldspar occurs in veins or selvages along quartz-magnetite veins.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.6** **EL LIMON PORPHYRY (L2)** 

The L2 porphyry is observed in drill core at the El Limon prospect centered approximately 300 m NNW of the center of the Middle Zone. L2 porphyry is composed of 45% phenocrysts and 55% fine grained, near aphanitic, matrix. Phenocrysts are comprised of 40% subhedral to euhedral plagioclase in a bimodal fashion ranging in size from <1 mm to 1.5 mm long and from 2 to 2.5 mm long, 2-5% subhedral amphibole is commonly 0.5 x 2 mm in size. The matrix is composed of a 50:50 mix of very fine-grained plagioclase crystals and too fine to identify aphanitic felsic material (feldspar and amphibole). Accessory minerals consist of magnetite. The L2 porphyry at El Limon is a mineralizing porphyry typically cut by an open quartz and quartz-magnetite vein stockwork and local fine-grained disseminated chalcopyrite.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.7** **EL LIMON PORHYRY (L3)** 

The El Limon L3 Porphyry occurs within the El Limon prospect. It is almost identical to the L1 porphyry except that it has 3-5% medium grained brown secondary biotite evenly distributed throughout. Like the L1 porphyry it is for the most part argillically altered as well. No other alteration other than the clay and biotite is evident and it typically is un-mineralized with detection limit Au values.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.8** **G1 PORPHYRY (G1)** 

The La Garrucha intrusive center occurs in an area named La Garrucha approximately 650 m east of the La Cantera deposit. The possible importance of the intrusive center was realized in mid-2011 by Bellhaven geologists during routine reconnaissance geological mapping and sampling. Geologists encountered potassic altered (biotite-magnetite) porphyry with quartz-chalcopyrite veins in some of the sparse outcrops in the area.

The G1 Porphyry has a crowded porphyritic appearance with a phenocryst to matrix ratio of 60% to 40%. Phenocrysts are comprised of 55% plagioclase and 5% amphibole (hornblende?). Quartz and biotite phenocrysts are absent. Euhedral plagioclase phenocrysts range in size from 0.5 x 1 mm to 2 x 3 mm with sparse, larger phenocrysts 3 x 5 mm in size. Amphibole occurs as 0.5 x 2 mm to 2 x 4 mm euhedral phenocrysts. Accessory minerals consist of 1-3% fine-grained disseminated magnetite.

Most commonly the G1 Porphyry exhibits moderate to strong argillic alteration which largely masks the possible presence of earlier propylitic or potassic alteration. Locally weak to moderate potassic alteration is observed as secondary biotite, magnetite and actinolite with only weak potassium feldspar development.

G1 porphyry appears to be the earliest porphyry developed at La Garrucha and is in contact with Combia Formation volcanic rocks along its outer margins. Biotite hornfels superimposed on the volcanic rocks occurs along the G1-volcanic contact.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.9** **G2 PORPHYRY (G2)** 

The G2 porphyry intrudes and brecciates the G1 Porphyry. These contact relationships have been seen at the surface and in drill core. The G2 Porphyry is texturally distinct from G1 and is characterized by a phenocryst: matrix ratio of30:70 and a hiatal texture. As such, G2 has a less crowded appearance in hand specimen due to the great percentage of fine-grained matrix. Phenocrysts are comprised of 25% plagioclase and 5% amphibole (hornblende?). Subhedral plagioclase is typically 1 x 1.5 mm in size whereas subhedral to euhedral amphiboles range in size from 0.3 x 2 mm to 0.5 x 2 mm. Accessory minerals consist of 1% fine-grained disseminated magnetite.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 29</u>

The G2 Porphyry is characterized by potassic alteration that includes both biotite and potassium feldspar-bearing assemblages. Magnetite and actinolite (?) occur with the biotite and potassium feldspar and also occur as a common alteration assemblage without significant secondary biotite.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.10** **G4 PORPHYRY (G4)** 

The G4 Porphyry has only been encountered in drill core. It has a phenocryst: matrix ratio of 70:30 and is characterized by 35-50% subhedral to euhedral plagioclase phenocrysts that define a seriate texture and range in size from 0.2 x 0.4 mm to 3 x 4 mm. Approximately 5-10% amphibole phenocrysts are subhedral to euhedral and range in size from 0.2 x 0.5 mm to 0.5 x 2 mm.

Alteration in the G4 Porphyry includes strong to intense pervasive potassium feldspar and magnetite with actinolite-magnetite, propylitic, sericite, and argillic overprinting assemblages. Argillic overprinting is structurally controlled along fault zones. The potassium feldspar alteration which distinguishes G4 from G2 results in growth of feldspar phenocrysts, coarsening the crystal texture, and reduces the amount of fine-grained matrix (fine-grained matrix is more visibly crystalline). The potassium feldspar also imparts a distinct pink color cast to the rock making it more readily distinguishable from G2 porphyry.

Although G4 porphyry appears to be the core of the la Garrucha porphyry complex, it is in contact with Combia Formation volcanic rocks along its outer margins. Biotite hornfels superimposed on the volcanic rocks occurs also along the G4-volcanic contact.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.11** **INTRUSIVE BRECCIAS** 

Numerous breccias are associated with the emplacement of all of the porphyries. The breccias appear to be of two main types: auto-breccia and contact breccia. Auto breccias form along the margins of and within individual intrusive bodies where portions of the intrusive has partially cooled and solidified but comes in contact with unsolidified magma of the same intrusive. Contact breccia is created in several environments: a) at the contact with enclosing brittle host rocks such as the Combia Formation volcanic rocks at La Cantera, or b) with the El Limon porphyry in the Middle Zone, or c) at the contact with the younger non-mineralized G1 porphyry at La Garrucha, or d) along the contact of the Limon porphyry with the host Combia Formation. In addition to these breccias, in some parts of the deposits, there are localized zones that appear to represent the mixing of two magmas (e.g., when both were still molten or very plastic). Pebble dikes have also been encountered cutting the intrusive rocks at the La Mina Project.

Breccias at La Mina can be simple, complex or any variation in between. Alteration can impact on the ability to identify the origin of clasts and/or matrix. Breccias may be matrix or clast supported; the breccia clasts can be monolithic or heterolithic. The breccia clasts range in shape from angular to rounded and exhibit a wide range of alteration and mineralization in the clast population. Potassic altered clasts, sometimes cut by quartz-sulfide veinlets, can occur in a porphyry exhibiting significantly less alteration than the clasts indicating that there was an alteration and mineralization event that pre-dated the brecciation.

The X2 porphyry at Middle Zone, discussed above, has an associated breccia now called the White Breccia (WBx). This unit is almost invariably found in contact with the X2, and appears to form a halo around it. It constitutes an intensely altered, structural boundary zone that formed as a result of the X2 intrusive phase. It contains fragments of X1 and X3, the two porphyries that were intruded by the X2 unit.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 30</u>

The intrusive breccias at La Mina have been named based on the composition of the intrusive that forms the breccia matrix. Thus, the X3 Breccia can contain a wide range of clasts (e.g., composition, alteration, mineralization, shape, etc.) but the common thread linking all of the X3 Breccias is the fact that the breccia matrix is X3 Porphyry.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.4** **VOLCANIC ROCKS** 

The volcanic rocks in the immediate project area (e.g., La Cantera, the Middle Zone, El Limon, and La Garrucha) comprise a lower sequence of mafic lavas (basaltic to andesitic composition) and an upper sequence of lithic, crystal and crystal-lithic tuffs of presumed more felsic compositions. The technical team has not yet conducted any detailed work on the volcanic stratigraphy has been done to date. In the field, the volcanic rocks occur in sparse, isolated outcrops and are commonly pervasively argillized and oxidized (supergene) making rock identification difficult.

During the drilling of the La Cantera deposit, once the drill passed from the porphyry into the volcanic wall rocks, drilling typically continued for only another 30-50 m before termination (as a function of alteration and mineralization). Accordingly, little was learned about the volcanic rocks from logging the drill core.

The alteration in the volcanic rocks is largely similar to the alteration in the intrusive rocks, comprising propylitic, potassic, and argillic assemblages. However, most of the volcanic rock form strong to intense biotite hornfels along this contact.

At the El Limon prospect and on the northeast margin of the Middle Zone occur what appears to be explosive diatreme or subvolcanic pebble breccia. This breccia is characterized by polymictic well-rounded clasts in a highly milled matrix. At the El Limon prospect it is conceivable that this explosive breccia removed much of the better grade mineralization leaving only narrow marginal zones of weak Au-Cu mineralized L2 porphyry.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.5** **STRUCTURE** 

The structural history at La Mina is gradually becoming clear as a result of three main factors: 1) evidence visible from airborne and ground geophysics, 2) mapping of surface features and inferences based on geomorphologic patterns, and 3) Middle Zone drilling, including the first oriented core holes.

There are several regional lineaments that cross the project area and these can be seen in the aerial magnetometry. The most important of these large-scale features is a prominent N-S trending lineament that parallels the N-S trending zone of anomalous magnetometry that bisects the project area. Two N30W trending regional lineaments are also present in the project area. The eastern-most of these is parallel to a zone of less well-defined zones of anomalous magnetometry, anchored by the La Garrucha prospect at its southeastern-most extent.

There are some faults mapped in the project area (Figure 7.3). These faults exhibit NE, NW, and EW strikes. Dips on all of the mapped faults are generally sub-vertical. The abundant vein and fracture-controlled alteration and mineralization generally lack a dominant orientation. When veins and fractures do exhibit a preferred orientation, it is commonly EW. In some areas of the property, stream cuts and ridgelines are clearly related to structural features; and this has been confirmed by drilling in the case of Middle Zone. These patterns show primarily NE and NW trends.

Middle Zone drilling reveals a number of significant structures, which have been tentatively grouped as intercepts of several structural planes. The most important of these planes strikes NW though the central part of Middle Zone, and down drops both the later lithologic units and high Au-Cu mineralization on the west side. The two lobes of the Middle Zone magnetic anomaly shown in some versions of the data can be explained by offset along this NW trending fault zone.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 31</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.6** **LA CANTERA PROSPECT GEOLOGY** 

The La Cantera prospect was mapped initially by Anglo Gold Ashanti geologists at La Mina in 2002, with initial drilling in 2006. The geology was subsequently re-mapped by Bellhaven Copper and Gold geologists in 2010 and 2011 and is shown in Figure 7-4. The resource estimate discussed in this report (released as the La Mina Technical Report dated August 29, 2011) is based on 6,579 m drilled in the La Cantera resource area: 1,452 m contained in six holes drilled by AngloGold Ashanti/Bema Gold in 2006 and 4,953 m contained in 13 holes drilled by Bellhaven in 2010 and 2011. The La Cantera drilling was conducted on two N-S lines, three NW-SE lines, and two NE-SW lines to an approximate depth of 550 m.

Porphyry-related alteration and mineralization at the La Cantera prospect outcrops on the surface. The surface projection of the intrusive center measures approximately 200 m EW by 200 m NS. The porphyry-related alteration and mineralization has been traced from surface to a depth of 550 m and is open at depth. The La Cantera prospect geology is relatively well understood. The volcanic rocks of the Combia Formation were intruded by the C1 Porphyry with both contact and auto breccias forming at the margins of the C1 Porphyry. Subsequently the C1 Porphyry, C1 Breccia, and the Combia Formation volcanic rocks were intruded by the X1 Porphyry and auto breccias formed at the contact of X1 Porphyry with the C1 Porphyry and C1 breccia (Figure 7-5). Small amounts of X2 Porphyry subsequently intruded the X1 Porphyry.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 32</u>

![img32.jpg](img32.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**4 Surface Geology of the La Cantera Prospect Showing the Location of the Drill Holes**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 33</u>

![f75.jpg](f75.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**5 North-South Cross Section (Looking West) of Geology through the La Cantera Deposit**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.7** **LA CANTERA PROSPECT ALTERATION** 

The observed alteration at La Cantera is typical of a gold-copper porphyry deposit: a potassic (calcic) core and an outer propylitic zone. Sericitic and intermediate argillic alteration assemblages are typically structurally controlled and can be observed overprinting the potassic and propylitic zones.

Potassic alteration is present as both biotite- and potassium-feldspar-bearing assemblages. Much of the potassic alteration is vein and fracture controlled. Common vein and fracture types include: 1) potassium feldspar "A" veins, 2) quartz veins with potassium feldspar selvages, 3) quartz-magnetite veins 4) hairline, anastomosing biotite fractures and 5) magnetite veins. The pervasive biotite alteration appears to have formed as a reaction between the hydrothermal fluids and primary magmatic mafic minerals. Much of the C1 Porphyry and C1 Breccia are pervasively altered to a biotite-magnetite assemblage wherein the mafic phenocrysts and porphyry matrix are replaced by biotite-magnetite. Volcanic rocks of the Combia Formation are also altered to biotite- and potassium feldspar-bearing assemblages near contacts with C1 Porphyry and C1 Breccia. As a result, the gold-bearing rocks are highly magnetic which creates a sharp contrast with the barren and weakly magnetic intermediate argillic altered rocks as well as the non-magnetic sericite-altered rocks surrounding the potassic core. Potassium feldspar-bearing alteration is locally widespread and pervasive but more commonly exists as irregularly shaped patches as a partial to total replacement of earlier biotite-bearing alteration assemblages. An example of pervasive biotite-magnetite-actinolite alteration in C1 Porphyry is shown in Figure 7-6.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 34</u>

![ex_480463img008.jpg](ex_480463img008.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**6 LMDDH-008-288m. C1 Porphyry with Pervasive Biotite-Magnetite Alteration of the Matrix and Actinolite Alteration of Primary Magmatic Mafic Phenocrysts**

Calcic alteration is represented by actinolite amphibole-bearing alteration. This amphibole is dark green in color and although not verified by thin-section petrography, it is interpreted as actinolite by analogy to other copper-gold porphyry deposits in the Middle Cauca Belt (e.g., Quebradona and La Colosa) where it has been identified as actinolite. The actinolite occurs in three different vein and fracture types: 1) potassium feldspar-actinolite ± actinolite vein selvages, 2) magnetite veins with actinolite halos and 3)-actinolite ± chalcopyrite ± bornite veins and fractures. The actinolite amphibole also occurs as selective replacement of earlier secondary biotite which itself had originally replaced igneous amphibole or biotite phenocrysts. The presence of actinolite in the alteration assemblage is typically a good indicator of gold and copper mineralization.

At least four different phases of vein and fracture-controlled potassic and calcic alteration and mineralization have been recognized and, in order of their paragenetic sequence, include:

● Early hairline biotite fractures in zones of intense potassic alteration

● Magnetite-actinolite±chalcopyrite±bornite veins and fractures which can reach a vein density of 30 per meter

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 35</u>

● Quartz-magnetite-actinolite±chalcopyrite±bornite veins and fractures which cut the magnetite-actinolite veins and fractures and which can reach a vein density of approximately 10 per meter. These veins and fractures are the principal source of mineralization in the La Cantera prospect

● Quartz-magnetite veins are commonly banded in appearance and do not carry significant mineralization.

An example of the superposition of multiple episodes of vein and fracture-controlled alteration and mineralization is shown in Figure 7-7.

![ex_480463img009.jpg](ex_480463img009.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**7 LMDDH-016 392.5m. C1 Breccia with Potassic Alteration (Magnetite-k-Feldspar +/- Actinolite) Cut by Sheeted Magnetite Veins, Quartz Magnetite Stockwork Veins and Late Pyrite-filled Fractures**

Sericitic alteration is represented by the mineral assemblage quartz-sericite-pyrite and is observed to a greater or lesser extent away from the potassic core but also replacing earlier potassic alteration. Sericitic alteration can be pervasive but much of the sericitic alteration is associated with quartz-pyrite veins with sericite selvages, the so-called "D" veins observed at El Salvador, Chile (Gustafson and Hunt, 1975).

Propylitic alteration is represented by two different mineral assemblages: 1) a "proximal" epidote- chlorite-illite-calcite assemblage and 2) a more widespread, "distal" chlorite-illite-calcite assemblage. Mafic phenocrysts are replaced by chlorite and calcite; plagioclase phenocrysts are partially to totally replaced by both epidote-calcite and illite-calcite. Propylitic alteration is found mostly in the Combia Formation volcanic rocks and X1 Porphyry and X1 Breccia. Propylitic alteration, if originally present in C1 Porphyry and C1 Breccia, has largely been overprinted by the potassic alteration.

Argillic alteration, both hypogene and supergene, is structurally controlled and is associated with faults, breccias and fractures and includes both chlorite- and "clay"-bearing assemblages. Argillic alteration is the youngest alteration event preserved at La Cantera.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 36</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.8** **LA CANTERA PROSPECT MINERALIZATION** 

The principal minerals associated with the Au-Cu porphyry mineralization at La Mina are chalcopyrite and lesser bornite, both with associated gold mineralization. Secondary copper minerals (chalcocite, azurite, malachite and chrysocolla) do occur locally in the upper portions of the La Cantera prospect. Overall gold mineralization greater than 0.3 g/t Au is sulfide-poor and typically contains less than 1% total sulfides. In this type of mineralization chalcopyrite ± bornite are more abundant than pyrite.

Minor silver, lead, and zinc mineralization is associated with calcite±quartz-tetrahedrite-sphalerite veins that cut earlier potassic alteration. These veins may be related to argillic alteration, which is commonly present where these veins are found.

The most sulfide-rich with alteration and mineralization at La Cantera are the sericitic and argillic assemblages that commonly contain more than 3% total sulfides. However, this mineralization typically contains less than 0.3 g/t Au and is not economically important.

The typical habit of the ore minerals can be summarized as follows:

● Chalcopyrite occurs in veinlets or as disseminated grains with secondary biotite, potassium feldspar and/or actinolite. Locally chalcopyrite occurs as clots with or without pyrite and it can be associated with bornite. In the C1 Porphyry and C1 Breccia chalcopyrite occurs in quartz-pyrite and potassium feldspar-actinolite "A" veins. Chalcopyrite, with and without bornite, also occurs in sulfide veins and fractures with pyrite and in veins with anhydrite and in veins with gypsum.

● Bornite is less abundant than chalcopyrite but it occurs in the same habits as, and virtually always with, chalcopyrite. Additionally, it occurs as anhedral crystals, often displaying exsolution patterns, associated with chalcopyrite or occurring as a replacement of chalcopyrite.

● Gold is usually associated with chalcopyrite and bornite and to a lesser extent with tetrahedrite and filling fractures in chalcopyrite grains.

● In addition to the calcite ± quartz - sphalerite veins described previously, tetrahedrite also locally forms subhedral crystals or grains associated with chalcopyrite or bornite.

● In addition to the calcite ± quartz - tetrahedrite veins described previously, sphalerite can be found occurring as anhedral grains with chalcopyrite ± bornite ± pyrite.

● In general, the mineralogy of the La Cantera system appears "clean" in that there are few minerals or elements that would negatively impact favorable response to standard metallurgical processes.

● An example of the distribution of and lithological controls on gold mineralization at the La Cantera deposit is shown in Figure 7-8. Note the sharp breaks of the >0.5 g/t Au mineralization at contacts between C1 Porphyry and Breccia with X1 Porphyry and Breccia. In general, the >0.5 g/t Au mineralization does not extend significantly into the post-mineralizing X1 Porphyry or Breccia.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 37</u>

![f78.jpg](f78.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**8 Drill Hole Intercepts with >0.5g/t Au in the La Cantera Prospect**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.9** **MIDDLE ZONE PROSPECT GEOLOGY** 

The Middle Zone prospect was mapped and drilled during work by Bellhaven geologists starting in 2010. The surface geology of the Middle Zone prospect is shown in Figure 7-9. In total, 54 holes were drilled at the Middle Zone prospect. The resource estimate discussed in this report is based on all 54 drill holes totaling 18,944 m of diamond core drilling. The Middle Zone drilling was conducted on one N-S line, six NW-SE lines, and four NE-SW lines to a maximum depth of 680 m below surface.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 38</u>

Porphyry-related alteration and mineralization at the Middle Zone prospect outcrops in some areas, and the elongate surface projection of the intrusive center measures approximately 300 m NW-SE by 400 m NE-SW. The porphyry-related alteration and mineralization has been traced from surface to a depth of 680 m and is open at depth. All intrusive units, regardless of their relationship to the mineralizing events, show similar rock types, and also show great similarity to those at La Cantera. The volcanic rocks of the Combia Formation were first intruded by the extensive, pre-mineralization L1 porphyry with marginal contact breccias. Subsequently both the L1 porphyry and volcanic rocks were intruded by the mineralizing X3 porphyry and breccia units (low copper/gold ratio), and later by the mineralizing X1 porphyry and breccia units (high copper/gold ratio). Mineralization occurring during these phases affected pre-existing units. For example, the L1 porphyry (normally barren) is mineralized in some locations near the X3 unit, and mineralization in the X3 unit has been augmented in some areas close to the later X1 unit. There are also areas of un-mineralized X3 and X1 distal to the center of the Middle Zone. This phenomenon has been observed in drilling to the north and northeast. The post-mineralizing X2 unit (which is analogous to the X1 unit at La Cantera) forms an alternating pod- or dike-like body that has intruded opportunistically along zones of weakness into the Middle Zone. Gold and copper values in this unit are very low, an order of magnitude less than in the surrounding L1 porphyry and volcanic units. However, the X2 intrusive is associated with the White Breccia, a strongly fractured and altered unit that often forms a halo around the X2. The White Breccia is mineralized according to the density and nature of X3 and/or X1 fragments.

The Middle Zone exhibits a structural influence not seen at La Cantera. The mineralizing intrusive units are fault bound on the southwestern side by a feature striking NW. Another major feature runs through the center of Middle Zone, also striking NW, which appears to have down dropped the western half of the deposit. This displacement is most apparent along the X1 and X2 units, and is clear from the distribution of higher copper grades within the X1. A series of other faults with approximate NS trends occur throughout the Middle Zone, which do not provide clear evidence for displacement.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 39</u>

![ex_480463img010.jpg](ex_480463img010.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**9 Surface Geology and Drill Holes Used in Resource Estimate at Middle Zone Prospect**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.10** **MIDDLE ZONE PROSPECT ALTERATION** 

The observed alteration at Middle Zone is typical of a gold-copper porphyry deposit, thus very similar to that described for La Cantera prospect in Section 7.6: a potassic (calcic) core and an outer propylitic zone. Sericitic and intermediate argillic alteration assemblages are typically structurally controlled and can be observed overprinting the potassic and propylitic alteration.

Some alteration features particular to Middle Zone that are not observed at La Cantera are as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. A strong halo of argillic alteration on the north and northeast sides of the deposit. This alteration penetrates the X1 and X3 units, and in some cases may have overprinted pre- existing mineralization (e.g., pyrite replacing magnetite in veins). This halo of argillic alteration is devoid of significant gold and copper. As with La Cantera, the argillic alteration appears to be a later event.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. An intense clay alteration is characteristic of the WBx (White Breccia) unit that is often found at the boundaries of the post-mineralizing X2 unit.

In addition, veining at Middle Zone exhibits a distinct paragenetic sequence, for the most part observed in the following order:

● Early sinuous quartz veins and hairline magnetite-actinolite-chalcopyrite veins

● Several styles of quartz veins with magnetite at the vein boundaries

● Banded quartz veins and sinuous quartz-magnetite-actinolite-chalcopyrite veins

● Quartz veins with pyrite and chalcopyrite along the centerlines

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 40</u>

● Anhydrite-pyrite-chalcopyrite-bornite veins (bornite rare), pyrite-calcite-magnetite veins

● Quartz-calcite-pyrite-sphalerite-galena veins

● Quartz-gypsum and quartz-gypsum-pyrite veins

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.11** **MIDDLE ZONE PROPSECT MINERALIZATION** 

The principal ore minerals associated with the Au-Cu porphyry mineralization at Middle Zone consist of chalcopyrite, pyrite, and, in very rare cases, bornite. Secondary copper minerals (chalcocite, cuprite, malachite and chrysocolla) do occur locally in the shallow portions at Middle Zone prospect; they represent supergene alteration of primary hypogene copper mineralization. Generally, gold mineralization greater than 0.3 g/t Au occurs with sulfides, but total sulfide content is normally less than 3% (with pyrite > chalcopyrite).

Unlike La Cantera, Middle Zone mineralization falls into two distinct classes. The first is Au-rich, relatively Cu poor mineralization occurring in the X3 and X3 Breccia. It occurs at relatively shallow levels, primarily where the X3 unit drapes over the X1 Porphyry. In Figure 7-10, examples of this mineralization type are marked in ellipses labeled 'A'. The second mineralization type is Cu-rich with variable Au, and predominates in the X1 Porphyry and X1 Breccia units. In Figure 7.10, examples of this type are shown in the ellipse labeled 'B'. The deepest drilling in Middle Zone terminates in this second mineralization type.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 41</u>

![f710.jpg](f710.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**10 NE-SW Cross Section through Middle Zone, Showing Significant Intercepts. Labels A and B Refer to the Two Distinct Mineralization Types**

Minor silver, lead, and zinc mineralization is associated with cross-cutting calcite ± quartz- sphalerite-galena veins (late in the paragenetic sequence, as listed in the previous section). These veins are more common in the pervasive argillic alteration zone peripheral to the deposit. They also occur in contact margins between early and late porphyries. In the latter case, sub- epithermal veins occur predominantly in fault zones.

The most sulfide-rich zones at Middle Zone are the pyrite-rich argillic assemblages, where it is thought the sulfide has replaced magnetite during overprinting of potassic alteration. Pyrite content can exceed 6%. However, this mineralization invariably contains less than 0.3 g/t Au and is not economically important.

The typical habits of mineralization can be summarized as follows:

● Chalcopyrite occurs mainly in veinlets, or as disseminated grains with secondary biotite, potassium feldspar and/or actinolite. In the X3 Porphyry and X3 Breccia, chalcopyrite occurs in pink quartz-pyrite "A-type" veins; it may also occur as disseminations in fine matrix breccia with or without grey silica clasts.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 42</u>

● Chalcopyrite and magnetite also occur as very thin, hair-like veinlets, at borders or in the centerlines of pink quartz veins. This is common when the porphyry units show actinolite–magnetite alteration.

● Chalcopyrite associated with pyrite in veins and fractures, and in veins with gypsum, which cut all veins and structures described previously.

● In calcite ± quartz – sphalerite - galena veins, chalcopyrite also locally forms subhedral crystals or grains associated with pyrite.

As with La Cantera, the mineralized mineralogy at Middle Zone appears "clean" in that there are few minerals or elements that could negatively impact favorable response to standard metallurgical processes.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.12** **LA GARRUCHA PROSPECT GEOLOGY** 

The La Garrucha prospect is a current exploration target for GoldMining at the La Mina Project. Routine surface mapping and sampling in 2011 indicated the presence of porphyritic intrusive rocks containing Au values up to 1.5 g/t Au in outcrop. Initial diamond drilling commenced in July 2011 with 6 drill holes (LME-1037, LME-1039, LME-1040, LME-1042, LME-1044 and LME-1047) completed. At the time drill holes were stopped before crossing the boundary of the adjacent AngloGold Ashanti Corporation license area to the east of the La Mina concession. The 2011 drilling indicated the presence of significant porphyry-style alteration and mineralization. A second drilling campaign of 4 drill holes (LME-1095, LME-1096, LME-1097 and LME-1098) in 2012 successfully intersected high-grade porphyry-style mineralization in hole LME-1096 and an intensely altered new (G4) porphyry, within the last 10-m of drill core averaging 1.09 g/t Au and 0.20% Cu.

Upon finalization of the acquisition of the AGAC license systematic soil sampling, surface mapping, and rock-channel sampling further defined the most prospective area of porphyry mineralization to guide diamond drilling. Diamond drilling at La Garrucha resumed in May 2013 and 7 holes were completed (LME-1100, LME-1101, LME-1102, LME-1103, LME-1104, LME-1105 and LME-1106).

In March 2022, an additional 5 holes were drilled (LME-1107, LME-1108, LME-1109, LME-1110 and LME-1111).

Porphyry-related alteration and mineralization at the La Garrucha prospect outcrops in some areas along stream beds and areas of steep topographic relief. Results from diamond drilling to date suggests that the elongate (330<sup>o</sup> azimuth) core of the airborne magnetic anomaly outlines the surface projection of the area containing mineralized G2 and G4 porphyries. Porphyry-related alteration and mineralization has been traced from surface to a depth of 500 m over a width of some 200 m and is open at depth.

The porphyry complex at La Garrucha consists of at least 3 distinct porphyry events consisting of G1, G2 and G4 and their respective intrusive and contact breccias. The earliest porphyry, G1, intruded Combia Formation volcanic rocks. G1 event breccias occur near the volcanic contact and contains clasts of volcanic rock and G1 porphyry. Local zones of G1 auto breccia occur within the G1 porphyry. G2 porphyry intrudes the G1 and G1 breccias. G1 occurs as well crystallized porphyry, dykes, auto breccia and contact breccia with G1 porphyry. The G4 porphyry is believed to be the core of the porphyry complex at La Garrucha and hosts much of the Au-Cu mineralization. Similar to G2 porphyry, G4 breccias form within and along the margins of the G4 porphyry. Core logging suggests there is a late porphyry event represented by minor dikes of andesitic composition cutting the previous events The G4 porphyry have come in contact with the volcanic Combia rocks in the southeast part of the complex

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 43</u>

La Garrucha appears thus far to be more structurally similar to La Cantera in that does not appear to be broken up by post-mineral cross faults like the Middle Zone. However, throughout the porphyry complex there are numerous steep angle fault zones often exhibiting clay gouge over several meters either side of the fault. Occasionally however the faults exhibit intensely crushed and fractured rock rather than gouge over several meters. Faults are frequently observed along lithologic contacts particularly between porphyries and breccia. No significant fault offsets are known to date.

![ex_480463img011.jpg](ex_480463img011.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**11 Surface Geology of Drill Holes at La Garrucha**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 44</u>

![ex_480463img012.jpg](ex_480463img012.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**12 NE-SW La Garrucha Cross Section**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 45</u>

![ex_480463img013.jpg](ex_480463img013.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**13 NE-SW La Garrucha Cross Section** 

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 46</u>

![ex_480463img014.jpg](ex_480463img014.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**13 NE-SW La Garrucha Cross Section**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 47</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.13** **LA GARRUCHA PROSPECT ALTERATION** 

The observed alteration at La Garrucha is typical of a gold-copper porphyry deposit, thus very similar to that described for La Cantera and Middle Zone prospects in Section 7.6.1: a calcic-potassic core, grading out to sodic-calcic, and an outer argillic zone. Magnetite alteration is ubiquitous throughout all of the porphyry phases and intensifies where porphyries or their breccias come in contact. Typically, the magnetite is destroyed and replaced by pyrite in sericitic alteration zones and argillized fault zones. Sericitic alteration in the form of quartz-sericite-pyrite (QSP) appears to be structurally controlled and is observed overprinting the potassic, sodic-calcic, and local areas of propylitic alteration. A particular type of late-stage quartz - sulphide +/-carbonate vein set, up to several cm wide, invariably is enveloped by varying widths of QSP alteration, typically over intervals less than one meter but can be over 10s of meters where numerous veins occur at regular intervals over a number of meters.

Typically, from the outer margin of G1 porphyry, we encounter weak to moderate argillic (clay) alteration overprinting an inner sodic-calcic alteration zone of actinolite-magnetite. More proximal to the later G2 porphyry, moderate to intense secondary biotite and biotite magnetite alteration prevails within G1 porphyry and breccia. Later alteration associated with emplacement of G4 comprises moderate potassic alteration in the form of biotite distal to G4, and potassium feldspar proximal to the G4 porphyry. Typically, where G2 is within several meters of G4 porphyry G2, porphyry is strongly potassium feldspar flooded, exhibited by an increase in the potassium feldspar in the groundmass and an increase in the quantity of potassium feldspar selvedges along fractures and quartz veins. Late-stage overprinting of both potassic and sodic-calcic alteration comprises local-to-pervasive weak propylitic alteration consisting of chlorite, epidote and calcium carbonate.

The G4 porphyry is intensely potassium feldspar-altered. To the naked eye, it is readily distinguished from G2 by its coarse crystalline texture and marked pink color, while G2 is typically darker and has a hiatal porphyritic texture. Where alteration is most intense G4 porphyry has almost no crystalline texture visible and is almost totally composed of massive potassium feldspar magnetite. Although this is not extensive, it is locally common in 10-30cm patches. Later sodic-calcic alteration (actinolite-magnetite) overprints the potassic alteration giving the porphyry a dark greenish-pink cast. Preliminary observations suggest these areas contain somewhat higher Au-Cu values.

In conjunction with wall-rock alteration the La Garrucha porphyries are cut by a variety of porphyry style veins in varying amounts. The veins are typically composed of various combinations of quartz, magnetite, magnetite-sulphide, quartz-magnetite, quartz-magnetite-sulphide, quartz-sulphide and quartz-carbonate-sulphide. Preliminary paragenesis of these veins based on observations from 13 drill holes is as follows:

● Early magnetite veins, often hairline in size, cut by all other vein types

● Quartz-chalcopyrite ± bornite centerline veins with <1 mm centerline of chalcopyrite in semi-otherwise translucent quartz; typically, several close spaced generations of this vein type as often times these cut similar quartz-chalcopyrite ± bornite centerline veins.

● Quartz-magnetite ± chalcopyrite ± bornite veins with magnetite along inside margin of quartz vein

● Quartz-magnetite ± chalcopyrite ± bornite centerline veins (magnetite along centerline)

● Quartz-pyrite veins with sericite envelopes

● Quartz-carbonate ± pyrite ± sphalerite ± stibnite

● Carbonate veins

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 48</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.14** **LA GARRUCHA PROSPECT MINERALIZATION** 

The principal ore minerals associated with the Au-Cu porphyry mineralization at La Garrucha consist of chalcopyrite and lesser amounts of bornite and covellite. Secondary copper minerals (chalcocite, cuprite, malachite and chrysocolla) do occur locally in the shallow portions at La Garrucha but are rare and do not account for significant Au-Cu values volumetrically. Pyrite mineralization for the most part is low at La Garrucha except where secondary QSP alteration has overprinted magnetite. Typically, the total sulphide content of the gold-copper zone at La Garrucha is less than 2% whereas the magnetite content averages approximately 3-5%.

Chalcopyrite is much more common than bornite. Bornite typically occurs in trace amounts and usually indicates higher Au values. Chalcopyrite occurs as disseminations and in various veins types as disseminations, patches and ribbons. In a typical moderately-to-well mineralized zone at La Garrucha the chalcopyrite will rarely exceed 1 vol% and typically averages 0.3 to 0.4 vol%. Chalcopyrite in veins however can make up to 20% by volume but these veins are typically less than 1-2 mm wide.

For the most part the tenor of the Au-Cu mineralization at La Garrucha is reflected in the presence of quartz veins and hydrothermal magnetite. However, in some instances there is little difference in Au-Cu grades between rocks containing 5 vol% quartz veins and rocks containing 25 vol% quartz veins. For lithologies exhibiting identical alteration intensities the Au-Cu content will be low (typically less than 0.30 g/t Au) where quartz veins are absent.

Minor silver, lead, and zinc mineralization is associated with cross-cutting quartz-calcite-sphalerite-galena veins (late in the paragenetic sequence, as listed in the previous section). These veins are more common at La Garrucha than Middle Zone and La Cantera. At La Garrucha they are more common in G1 porphyry and breccia than G2 porphyry and breccia and much less common in the G4 porphyry and breccia.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.15** **EL LIMON PROSPECT GEOLOGY** 

The Limon complex measures approximately 800 m in diameter of a sub-circular shape in plan-view. The Limon porphyry complex partially encircles the Middle Zone to the north, west and south. Within the complex are two known mineralizing porphyry systems, the Middle Zone prospect and the El Limon prospect. Argillic and propylitic alternation assemblages occur high in the system at the El Limon prospect. A possible explosive diatreme at El Limon suggests that the El Limon prospect porphyry is situated high vertically in the porphyry system. This may account for why the El Limon prospect is weakly mineralized. It may well be that higher grades of gold and copper occur at depth where a possible potassic alteration zone occurs associated with an undiscovered porphyry stock.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 49</u>

![ex_480463img015.jpg](ex_480463img015.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**14 El Limon Prospect Geology**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.16** **EL LIMON PROPSECT ALTERATION** 

Alteration at the El Limon prospect is variable as at the other prospects. The L1 porphyry is for the most part, strongly overprinted by argillic alteration assemblages. Near its contact with the X3 porphyry it can exhibit weak-to-moderate biotite-magnetite alteration. Breccia clasts of L1 within the X3 porphyry typically exhibit moderate to strong relic biotite alteration. In the area of drill holes LMDDH-021 and -030, at considerable depth secondary potassium feldspar and magnetite and/or biotite are prevalent.

The L2 porphyry is moderately to strongly overprinted by propylitic assemblages with the development of considerable epidote-calcite patches and partial vein infill. Amphiboles are partially-to-completely replaced by a mix of epidote-calcite-magnetite. Where propylitic alteration is weak the original alteration of actinolite-magnetite prevails.

Secondary biotite alteration defines the L3 porphyry. The biotite is typically medium grained (1-2 mm length) euhedral, and evenly distributed throughout the porphyry.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.17** **EL LIMON PROSPECT MINERALIZATION** 

Gold-copper mineralization at El Limon is sporadic and associated with the L2 porphyry event and the strong potassic alteration (potassium feldspar-magnetite and biotite-magnetite) event cutting the L1 porphyry at depth in drill holes LMDDH-021 and 030. Mineralization in the potassic zones of LMDDH-021 and 030 is comprised of chalcopyrite disseminations in weakly developed quartz and quartz-magnetite veins. Mineralization in the L2 porphyry and associated L2 breccia of small amounts of chalcopyrite within quartz veins, quartz-magnetite veins, magnetite veins and fine-grained disseminations in the porphyry. Unfortunately, the L2 porphyry is small in extent and the Au-Cu grades observed are even much lower than the grades of the Middle Zone, typically in the 0.20 g/t Au range with less than 0.10% Cu. As a result, further exploration of the El Limon prospect is of low priority.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 50</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **8** | **DEPOSIT TYPES** |

---

The La Mina Property hosts copper-gold mineralization associated with sub-volcanic porphyry stocks intruding a late Miocene-age volcanic-sedimentary sequence of the Combia Formation. These rocks are related to an extensive magmatic arc that developed along the northern South American plate margin (the Chocó block margin).

Past and current exploration in and around the La Mina district has been aimed at Au-Cu porphyry, and/or epithermal Au styles of mineralization. In the specific cases of La Cantera Middle Zone, and La Garrucha the principal style of mineralization can be classified as Au-Cu porphyry.

Porphyry deposits are typically large low- or medium-grade deposits usually associated with a combination of gold, copper, plus other base metals. Porphyry deposits occur in a variety of tectonic settings; along the South American Andes Mountains they can be related to the roots of andesitic stratovolcanoes along subduction zones as well as continental-island arc settings. While some older examples of porphyries are known, most are associated with young, Tertiary-aged volcanic-igneous rocks. However, mineralization can extend into the surrounding sedimentary or volcanic host rocks.

Mineralization can occur in various styles and many combinations of disseminations, veins, stockwork, fractures, and breccias. As in the case of La Mina, multi-phase intrusions and inter-mineral phases are important factors in assessing porphyries, along with their wall-rock conditions, host rocks, structural conduits, and various chemical parameters (pH, water content, etc.).

A particular characteristic of porphyry deposits is the extent of their alteration halos as a result of abundant hydrothermal activity streaming from depth; these features in turn drive the applicable exploration methods for "vectoring" towards the center of this type of deposit. Therefore, geochemical surveys are a useful tool to map the large dispersion halos around the core porphyry center using stream sediments, soil sampling, or rock-chip sampling for the principal economic elements of interest or various pathfinder elements.

The dispersed nature of sulfide distribution is also conducive to the application of various geophysical methods, either ground-based or using fixed-wing or helicopter-borne instruments. Magnetics, Induced Polarization, and radiometric geophysical surveys can be successfully used to outline alteration dispersion patterns and have all been applied to varying degrees in exploring the La Mina Property.

Therefore, exploration at La Mina is focused on discovering porphyry-style mineralization using a wide set of exploration techniques for this style of deposit.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 51</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **9** | **EXPLORATION**  |

---

Since acquiring an option on the Property in mid-2010 and until 2016, Bellhaven advanced exploration by conducting detailed mapping and trenching at La Cantera and Middle Zone, mapping and channel sampling at La Garrucha, mapping, rock-chip sampling and trenching throughout the project area, various ground geophysical surveys, and re-logging and re-interpretation of drill core from previous drilling campaigns. Furthermore, two airborne magnetic surveys have been flown over the La Mina Project at no cost to Bellhaven. AngloGold Ashanti flew the first survey and Colombia Crest flew the second in 2011. Ground magnetic follow-up surveys of geologically favorable areas was completed in mid-2012 and an airborne ZTEM survey was flown over much of the La Mina and La Garrucha licenses in late 2012. All of these data have been incorporated into the geophysical evaluation. Through July 2016, Bellhaven had completed a total of 106 drill holes for a total of 36,694 m. This drilling is summarized in Table 9-1. GoldMining has not conducted any additional exploration since acquiring Bellhaven in 2017.

Within the La Mina Project, there are a total of six zones of interest for copper-gold mineralization outlined in yellow in Figure 9.1. Three of these zones are at least partially drill tested and have combined geological, geochemical and geophysical attributes that suggest that they have potential to host economic gold-copper mineralization (La Cantera, Middle Zone, and La Garrucha). Another zone (El Limon) has been cut by 8 drill holes. Results of El Limon reported limited low-grade Au-Cu mineralization but not of the size and tenor to warrant additional exploration. Two other prospects (El Oso and Media Luna) exhibit amenable geophysical and geochemical characteristics (Figure 9-1) and are also considered to be highly prospective.

**Table 9**-**1 Drilling Completed by Bellhaven at La Mina**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Area** | **Drill Holes** | **Meters** |
| La Cantera | 26 | 8,327 |
| Middle Zone | 54 | 18,803 |
| El Limon | 9 | 2,923 |
| La Garrucha | 22 | 10,191 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 52</u>

![ex_480463img016.jpg](ex_480463img016.jpg)

**Figure 9**-**1 Exploration Targets at La Mina Project**

Bellhaven's drilling programs have been carried out by Kluane Colombia SA, a subsidiary of the Canadian drill contractor Kluane Drilling Ltd. and for a short period of time in 2012 by Andina de Perforaciones S.A. also based in Colombia.

Prior to initiating its drill programs in 2010, Bellhaven completed channel sampling in trenches at Middle Zone where two surface exposures returned results of 19 m grading 0.73 g/t Au and 24 m grading 0.74 g/t Au (0.4 g/t Au cut off) separated by a zone of 40 m of unsampled trench.

In early 2012, a ground-based survey was conducted over the entire eastern half of La Mina. This program consisted of approximately 114-line kilometers of magnetic surveying and was carried out by KTTM Geophysics Limited, an independent geophysical contractor based in Medellin, Colombia.

Principal observations from correlation of the 2010 ground geophysics with geochemistry and geological features were:

● Anomalously high radiometrics (potassium) likely represents K-silicate (potassic) altered rocks. The high potassium values occur over a distance of 900 m along an approximately north-south trending corridor defined by the La Cantera-Middle Zone targets. High values also occur to the north at El Limon along an approximately east-west belt that is 500-m long.

● High-chargeability zones fringing the drilled zones at La Cantera and Middle Zone can be attributed to rocks containing high quantities (typically 5-10 vol%) of pyrite. High-chargeability features are observed at La Cantera and Middle Zone.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 53</u>

● The La Cantera stock spatially coincides with a strong resistivity "low" whereas the Middle Zone is characterized by a weakly defined "low". Another prominent area characterized by a strong resistivity "low" occurs between the El Limon and Middle Zone targets.

In summary, exploration of the La Mina Property has been carried out using a systematic combination of geology, geochemistry, and geophysics which has identified several anomalous zones of interest. To date four of these targets have been drilled: La Cantera, the Middle Zone, El Limon, and La Garrucha with 111 drill holes for 40,269 metres completed through to September 2022. The last drill program was conducted by GoldMining at La Garrucha in 2022.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 54</u>

![ex_480463img017.jpg](ex_480463img017.jpg)

**Figure 9**-**2 Magnetic Susceptibility Model at 100 m Depth. The Area of the Ground Magnetic Survey is shown in the Red Box in Figure 6.1**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 55</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **10** | **DRILLING** |

---

Drilling programs by AngloGold Ashanti (2005) and Bellhaven in (2010- 2013) used HQ, HTW, NTW and BTW core, depending on the drill-hole depth, drill-hole inclination, drill machine availability and ground conditions. The author's observations at site and review of core logs and assay certificates indicates that the core sampling has been carried out in a professional manner and that there are no biases in recovery or sampling error evident.

Core samples are collected on a nominal 2-m interval, except where occasional structures, core recovery, or lithological breaks are needed. Bellhaven completed a program of re-logging the early AGA holes. Re-logging of its own holes is ongoing as the current geological understanding evolves to acquire a more complete and accurate understanding of the geological lithologies and mineralization controls. Bellhaven's logging procedure is thorough and includes recording of the following information:

● Sample Number, From – To.

● Alteration Minerals: quartz, biotite, potassium feldspar, actinolite, albite, epidote, chlorite, sericite, calcite and clay.

● Mineralization, volume %: chalcopyrite, bornite, chalcocite,pyrite, magnetite, limonite and goethite.

● Vein Mineralization, volume %: quartz, quartz-magnetite, pyrite, magnetite-actinolite, anhydrite, and age relationships, etc.

● Graphic Log of Alteration, Mineralization, Lithology, Structure, etc.

● Alpha-numeric codes for lithology, structure and alteration (early, late and other)

● Comments and short description of principal alteration associations, etc.

A separate geotechnical log records fracture frequency, core recovery, Rock Quality Designation (RQD), and descriptions of fracture types and characteristics. A magnetic susceptibility meter has been in use throughout much of the program; the drill-core technicians collect a nominal three magnetic susceptibility readings per sample interval. The average value is recorded on the log form.

Beginning with drill hole LMDDH-019, core densities are determined approximately every 30 meters using a standard weight in air/weight in water technique. These readings are recorded on a separate log sheet and are entered into the database.

Core is photographed (2 boxes/photograph) in the condition that it is received from the drill site and then it is photographed again after the core has been logged, marked for sampling and cut.

A total of 111 diamond core holes totaling 40,244 m have been drilled on the La Mina Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.1** **LA CANTERA DRILLING** 

The La Cantera deposit is intersected by a total of 26 diamond drill holes, the first six of which were drilled previous to Bellhaven's efforts. Table 10-1below summarizes the drilling locations and depths. For the La Cantera area, a total of 8,327m have been drilled with an average of 320 m per hole. All drill hole collar locations are surveyed by GPS and identified with well-defined monuments (Figure 10-1). A summary of significant intercepts in drilling completed at La Cantera by Bellhaven (2010 through February 2012) is included in Table 10-2.

All drilling on the project by Bellhaven and previous owners has been done with man-portable, diamond drill-core machines. Drill-hole locations are initially located in the field with a hand-held GPS unit or a total station theodolite. Bellhaven's full-time survey crew surveyed the coordinates of the final drill-hole collars using a total-station theodolite.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 56</u>

At the Middle Zone and La Cantera prospects drill holes have been drilled at azimuths of N45E, N45W and NS with inclinations of -55 to -90 degrees. In the case of La Cantera drilling was completed on a wide-spaced scissor pattern (50- to 100-m spacing) providing complete 3-dimensional coverage of the extent of mineralization that extends to a vertical depth of some 250-500 m (around the low-grade central core); see Figure 7-4and Figure 7-5 in Section 7.

At La Cantera drill holes were drilled at azimuths of E-W (90<sup>o</sup>), W-E (270<sup>o</sup>), N45E and S45W with inclinations of -50 to -78 degrees. Core recovery observed has been very good, in excess of 90%, except in some discrete fault-gouge zones of a few meters in length (core length).

In the case of La Cantera, the drilling programs confirmed the ellipsoidal outline of the porphyry complex on surface (coincident with the magnetic signature), its steep vertical attitude, and the occurrence of mineralized porphyry and breccia zones draped around a central low-grade core.

![f101.jpg](f101.jpg)

**Figure 10**-**1 La Mina Drill Collar Monuments**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 57</u>

**Table 10**-**1 La Cantera Drilling - All Holes**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole ID** | **East (UTM)** | **North (UTM)** | **Elevation** | **Azimuth** | **Dip** | **EOH** |
| LMDDH-001 | 418982.4 | 654669.3 | 1804.9 | 0 | -60 | 258.2 |
| LMDDH-002 | 419111.3 | 654529.9 | 1749.1 | 177 | -59 | 188.6 |
| LMDDH-003 | 418977.6 | 654548.4 | 1771.5 | 0 | -61 | 200.2 |
| LMDDH-004 | 419111.3 | 654530.3 | 1749.0 | 127 | -60 | 250.0 |
| LMDDH-005 | 419088.2 | 654673.0 | 1761.2 | 184 | -60 | 251.6 |
| LMDDH-006 | 419087.2 | 654674.4 | 1761.5 | 135 | -60 | 303.9 |
| LMDDH-007 | 419078.2 | 654460.4 | 1730.2 | 180 | -60 | 125.0 |
| LMDDH-008 | 419105.6 | 654601.6 | 1753.4 | 180 | -60 | 297.2 |
| LMDDH-009 | 419101.0 | 654750.0 | 1781.6 | 180 | -60 | 434.3 |
| LMDDH-014 | 418974.7 | 654680.1 | 1802.1 | 135 | -50 | 511.7 |
| LMDDH-015 | 418866.5 | 654780.1 | 1773.0 | 135 | -55 | 639.8 |
| LMDDH-016 | 418995.6 | 654465.4 | 1757.8 | 45 | -58 | 517.0 |
| LMDDH-018 | 419204.2 | 654738.3 | 1783.3 | 326 | .62 | 213.4 |
| LMDDH-019 | 419063.6 | 654542.6 | 1780.2 | 45 | -57 | 320.0 |
| LMDDH-022 | 418996.6 | 654547.2 | 1780.8 | 132 | -59 | 286.7 |
| LMDDH-023 | 418953.4 | 654594.3 | 1774.3 | 135 | -65 | 365.8 |
| LMDDH-024 | 419045.4 | 654430.6 | 1730.8 | 45 | -55 | 436.8 |
| LMDDH-025 | 419140.5 | 654412.3 | 1738.0 | 315 | -55 | 305.4 |
| LMDDH-026 | 419099.7 | 654489.1 | 1743.0 | 45 | -55 | 294.1 |
| LMDDH-027 | 419200.4 | 654586.6 | 1751.4 | 225 | -60 | 419.1 |
| LME-1049 | 419376.2 | 654600.0 | 1786.3 | 225 | -55 | 501.8 |
| LME-1054 | 419224.5 | 654320.5 | 1783.2 | 25 | -55 | 483.4 |
| LME-1056 | 419112.6 | 654529.4 | 1749.0 | 180 | -60 | 163.4 |
| LME-1058 | 418975.1 | 654679.5 | 1802.5 | 135 | -50 | 68.0 |
| LME-1059 | 418975.3 | 654680.1 | 1802.5 | 135 | -50 | 196.6 |
| LME-1099 | 419449.6 | 653513.8 | 1683.3 | 0 | -90 | 295.35 |

---

**Table 10**-**2 La Cantera Deposit Significant Intercepts Through February 2012**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole Number** | **From (m)** | **To (m)** | **Intercept (m)** | **Au (g/t)** | **Cu (%)** | **AuEq (g/t)** |
| LMDDH-07 | 7.6 | 27.9 | 20.3 | 0.74 | 0.40 | 1.43 |
| LMDDH-08 | 0.7 | 88.0 | 87.3 | 1.07 | 0.30 | 1.59 |
| LMDDH-08 | 197.1 | 269.7 | 72.7 | 0.88 | 0.39 | 1.55 |
| LMDDH-09 | 194.8 | 337.2 | 142.4 | 0.70 | 0.29 | 1.20 |
| LMDDH-14 | 100.0 | 246.0 | 146.0 | 0.93 | 0.33 | 1.51 |
| LMDDH-14 | 392.0 | 454.0 | 62.0 | 0.75 | 0.38 | 1.40 |
| LM-DDH-15 | 511.0 | 601.0 | 90.0 | 0.57 | 0.34 | 1.15 |
| LMDDH-15 | 626.0 | 634.0 | 8.5 | 0.48 | 0.23 | 0.87 |
| LMDDH-16 | 12.0 | 217.3 | 205.3 | 0.91 | 0.31 | 1.45 |
| LMDDH-16 | 402.0 | 470.0 | 68.0 | 0.60 | 0.34 | 1.19 |
| LMDDH-19 | 0.0 | 230.0 | 230.0 | 0.99 | 0.30 | 1.50 |
| LMDDH-22 | 8.0 | 244.0 | 236.0 | 1.04 | 0.45 | 1.80 |
| LMDDH-23 | 211.0 | 289.0 | 78.0 | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.47 |
| LMDDH-23 | 311.9 | 322.0 | 10.1 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.57 |
| LMDDH-24 | 87.0 | 181.1 | 94.1 | 1.53 | 0.52 | 2.43 |
| LMDDH-24 | 328.0 | 420.0 | 92.0 | 0.46 | 0.24 | 0.86 |
| LMDDH-25 | 17.0 | 274.0 | 257.0 | 0.45 | 0.23 | 0.84 |
| LMDDH-26 | 4.6 | 47.0 | 42.4 | 1.02 | 0.28 | 1.49 |
| LMDDH-26 | 129.2 | 275.0 | 145.8 | 0.46 | 0.29 | 1.13 |
| LMDDH-27 | 29.0 | 141.6 | 112.7 | 0.74 | 0.32 | 1.29 |
| LMDDH-27 | 219.0 | 313.0 | 94.0 | 0.69 | 0.27 | 1.15 |
| LME-1056 | 40.0 | 158.0 | 118.0 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 1.54 |
| LME-1059 | 88.1 | 196.6 | 108.5 | 0.75 | 0.33 | 1.32 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 58</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.2** **MIDDLE ZONE DRILLING** 

The Middle Zone deposit resource is based on the intersections from a total of 54 diamond drill holes, all by Bellhaven. For the Middle Zone area, there have been a total of 18,803 m drilled with an average of 348 m per hole. This report is to update the resource model to include the 14 additional holes drilled after the previous report. Table 10-3 below gives the collar locations and starting azimuth and dip for each of these holes.

At the Middle Zone, 54 holes have been drilled to date within a generally elongated zone (N45E) in plan that is bounded on the western flank by interpreted faults. The Middle Zone remains open to the southwest, southeast, and at depth. The fault offsets and open targets on the south suggest a possible connection with La Cantera at depth. A summary of the significant intercepts in drilling completed in Middle Zone by Bellhaven which are used to update the resource estimate in this report, are given below in Table 10-4

**Table 10**-**3 Middle Zone Collar Surveys**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole ID** | **East (UTM)** | **North (UTM)** | **Elevation** | **Azimuth** | **Dip** | **EOH** |
| LMDDH-010 | 418985.0 | 655150.8 | 1940.1 | 180 | -60 | 178.30 |
| LMDDH-011 | 418995.0 | 654950.0 | 1869.7 | 0 | -62 | 541.02 |
| LMDDH-012 | 418999.2 | 655099.3 | 1907.7 | 45 | -61 | 493.78 |
| LMDDH-013 | 419098.0 | 655198.9 | 1928.0 | 45 | -60 | 335.28 |
| LMDDH-017 | 418797.1 | 654897.2 | 1772.9 | 45 | -62 | 312.42 |
| LMDDH-020 | 419101.1 | 655300.0 | 1958.2 | 179 | -57 | 260.60 |
| LMDDH-028 | 419238.3 | 655187.1 | 1971.2 | 180 | -70 | 228.30 |
| LMDDH-029 | 419241.9 | 655285.5 | 1998.7 | 180 | -70 | 297.18 |
| LMDDH-031 | 418989.1 | 655056.9 | 1887.5 | 0 | -90 | 530.35 |
| LME-1034 | 418990.1 | 655057.4 | 1887.6 | 45 | -79 | 681.23 |
| LME-1035 | 418990.2 | 655057.4 | 1887.6 | 45 | -70 | 689.19 |
| LME-1036 | 419352.6 | 655155.9 | 1913.1 | 225 | -85 | 353.56 |
| LME-1038 | 418985.5 | 655152.3 | 1940.3 | 135 | -70 | 650.74 |
| LME-1041 | 418986.4 | 655154.5 | 1940.7 | 45 | -60 | 504.44 |
| LME-1043 | 419048.8 | 655240.0 | 1932.1 | 45 | -60 | 375.82 |
| LME-1045 | 419047.4 | 655241.5 | 1932.5 | 315 | -60 | 391.66 |
| LME-1046 | 419047.6 | 655241.6 | 1932.5 | 0 | -90 | 473.96 |
| LME-1048 | 419049.5 | 655239.5 | 1932.0 | 135 | -60 | 501.35 |
| LME-1050 | 418931.5 | 654963.5 | 1815.1 | 45 | -50 | 600.45 |
| LME-1051 | 418798.7 | 654898.7 | 1773.0 | 45 | -55 | 539.15 |
| LME-1052 | 418986.9 | 655058.2 | 1887.5 | 315 | -70 | 355.09 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 59</u>

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole ID** | **East (UTM)** | **North (UTM)** | **Elevation** | **Azimuth** | **Dip** | **EOH** |

---

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| LME-1053 | 418798.5 | 654898.5 | 1773.0 | 45 | -70 | 680.60 |
| LME-1055 | 418988.7 | 655056.6 | 1887.5 | 135 | -60 | 427.50 |
| LME-1057 | 418996.6 | 655096.9 | 1909.3 | 225 | -60 | 199.30 |
| LME-1060 | 419096.7 | 655195.7 | 1926.1 | 225 | -53 | 195.40 |
| LME-1061 | 418923.3 | 655102.0 | 1881.7 | 45 | -60 | 199.64 |
| LME-1062 | 419096.9 | 655199.1 | 1926.2 | 315 | -55 | 198.00 |
| LME-1063 | 419237.4 | 655192.6 | 1971.1 | 315 | -60 | 250.24 |
| LME-1064 | 419100.1 | 655196.0 | 1926.3 | 135 | -55 | 198.50 |
| LME-1065 | 419239.9 | 655190.2 | 1971.2 | 135 | -52 | 251.46 |
| LME-1066 | 419241.1 | 655192.9 | 1971.4 | 45 | -60 | 190.50 |
| LME-1067 | 419102.2 | 655299.8 | 1958.3 | 135 | -60 | 260.30 |
| LME-1068 | 419191.8 | 655174.3 | 1931.4 | 315 | -70 | 204.21 |
| LME-1069 | 419101.4 | 655302.9 | 1958.8 | 315 | -60 | 235.30 |
| LME-1070 | 419193.7 | 655172.3 | 1931.4 | 135 | -52 | 245.36 |
| LME-1071 | 419099.2 | 655302.2 | 1959.5 | 45 | -55 | 293.10 |
| LME-1072 | 419108.6 | 655126.9 | 1894.9 | 325 | -45 | 225.55 |
| LME-1073 | 418985.5 | 655224.8 | 1952.6 | 135 | -52 | 307.20 |
| LME-1074 | 419110.9 | 655124.0 | 1895.1 | 135 | -70 | 303.27 |
| LME-1075 | 418982.3 | 655151.7 | 1940.2 | 225 | -50 | 236.10 |
| LME-1076 | 419110.0 | 655125.7 | 1894.9 | 225 | -50 | 39.62 |
| LME-1077 | 419110.2 | 655125.8 | 1895.0 | 225 | -65 | 153.92 |
| LME-1078 | 419193.0 | 655173.4 | 1931.7 | 225 | -50 | 422.09 |
| LME-1079 | 418922.5 | 655101.4 | 1880.5 | 315 | -50 | 147.82 |
| LME-1080 | 418995.3 | 654991.7 | 1868.1 | 335 | -60 | 188.36 |
| LME-1081 | 418998.9 | 655098.6 | 1906.9 | 135 | -50 | 292.60 |
| LME-1082 | 419248.7 | 655100.0 | 1939.2 | 315 | -50 | 322.78 |
| LME-1083 | 419273.9 | 655231.9 | 1973.8 | 135 | -50 | 208.78 |
| LME-1089 | 418694.0 | 655043.5 | 1793.8 | 135 | -51 | 297.18 |
| LME-1090 | 418797.4 | 654904.1 | 1774.2 | 45 | -64 | 596.79 |
| LME-1091 | 418798.0 | 654902.3 | 1773.4 | 135 | -50 | 548.94 |
| LME-1092 | 418796.7 | 654905.4 | 1773.6 | 0 | -48 | 446.53 |
| LME-1093 | 418975.7 | 654683.3 | 1801.6 | 45 | -51 | 400.81 |
| LME-1094 | 419318.3 | 654805.1 | 1856.2 | 45 | -65 | 341.07 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 60</u>

**Table 10**-**4 Middle Zone deposit Drilling Subsequent to the 2012 Resource**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole Number** | **From (m)** | **To (m)** | **Intercept (m)** | **Au (g/t)** | **Cu (%)** | **AuEq (g/t)** |
| LME-1075 | 95.60 | 109.90 | 14.30 | 0.51 | 0.15 | 0.76 |
| LME-1075 | 120.40 | 126.10 | 5.70 | 0.95 | 0.18 | 1.27 |
| LME-1075 | 132.40 | 157.80 | 25.40 | 0.41 | 0.06 | 0.51 |
| LME-1076 | 19.50 | 24.38 | 4.88 | 0.29 | 0.07 | 0.41 |
| LME-1076 | 30.48 | 39.62 | 9.14 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.67 |
| LME-1077 | 12.19 | 65.53 | 53.34 | 0.33 | 0.21 | 0.69 |
| LME-1078 | 16.76 | 27.43 | 10.67 | 0.73 | 0.06 | 0.84 |
| LME-1079 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |
| LME-1080 | 66.75 | 101.19 | 34.44 | 0.69 | 0.10 | 0.86 |
|  | 136.55 | 179.26 | 42.71 | 0.72 | 0.08 | 0.85 |
| LME-1081 | 48.76 | 64.00 | 15.24 | 0.39 | 0.11 | 0.58 |
| LME-1082 | 107.43 | 129.54 | 22.11 | 0.72 | 0.08 | 0.85 |
| and | 138.68 | 254.50 | 115.82 | 1.01 | 0.08 | 1.15 |
| including | 138.68 | 202.00 | 63.32 | 1.48 | 0.09 | 1.63 |
| LME-1083 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |
| LME-1089 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |
| LME-1090 | 530.58 | 548.70 | 18.12 | 0.34 | 0.30 | 0.81 |
| LME-1091 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |
| LME-1092 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |
| LME-1093 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.3** **LA GARRUCHA DRILLING** 

The La Garrucha deposit resource is delimited by 22 diamond drill holes. There has been a total of 10,191m drilled with an average of 460m per hole. Table 10-5 is a summary of these holes and their location. A summary of the significant drill-core intercepts for La Garrucha prospect is provided in Table 10-6.

**Table 10**-**5 La Garrucha Drill Holes Location and Depth**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole ID** | **East (UTM)** | **North (UTM)** | **Elevation** | **Azimuth** | **Dip** | **EOH** |
| LME-1037 | 419822.24 | 654598.62 | 2008.49 | 90 | -70 | 380.08 |
| LME-1039 | 419822.39 | 654598.45 | 2008.76 | 0 | -90 | 509.93 |
| LME-1040 | 419833.15 | 654703.30 | 2013.51 | 90 | -70 | 355.09 |
| LME-1042 | 419833.33 | 654703.11 | 2013.54 | 0 | -90 | 391.66 |
| LME-1044 | 419832.58 | 654702.80 | 2013.41 | 45 | -70 | 502.92 |
| LME-1047 | 419833.73 | 654703.22 | 2011.88 | 90 | -60 | 242.31 |
| LME-1095 | 419840.83 | 654507.20 | 1994.24 | 45 | -51 | 280.11 |
| LME-1096 | 419830.11 | 654667.60 | 2007.10 | 0 | -90 | 349.81 |
| LME-1097 | 419830.11 | 654667.56 | 2007.17 | 90 | -65 | 349.81 |
| LME-1098 | 419829.85 | 654415.93 | 1981.45 | 90 | -70 | 360.27 |
| LME-1100 | 419873.03 | 654308.13 | 1980.78 | 45 | -65 | 297.18 |
| LME-1101 | 420026.27 | 654714.28 | 1961.06 | 225 | -75 | 414.52 |
| LME-1102 | 420026.62 | 654716.92 | 1961.05 | 270 | -76 | 422.45 |
| LME-1103 | 420026.34 | 654715.66 | 1961.15 | 225 | -60 | 320.04 |
| LME-1104 | 419940.21 | 654620.09 | 1990.95 | 45 | -75 | 565.40 |
| LME-1105 | 420194.53 | 654811.87 | 2004.27 | 225 | -55 | 614.17 |
| LME-1106 | 420004.19 | 654621.40 | 1954.82 | 225 | -68 | 285.59 |
| LME1107 | 420207 | 654691 | 1999.5 | 225° | -50° | 500.49 |
| LME1108 | 420207 | 654691 | 1999.5 | 225° | -70° | 914.70 |
| LME1109 | 420356 | 654723 | 2088.0 | 221° | -50° | 818.12 |
| LME1110 | 420356 | 654723 | 2088.0 | 221° | -40° | 701.37 |
| LME1111 | 420207 | 654691 | 1999.5 | 250° | -45° | 550.17 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 61</u>

**Table 10**-**6 La Garrucha Significant Drill Core Intercepts**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole Number** | **From (m)** | **To (m)** | **Intercept** <br> **(m)** | **Au (g/t)** | **Cu (%)** | **AuEq (g/t)** |
| LME-1037 | 359.00 | 374.10 | 15.10 | 0.49 | 0.08 | 0.62 |
| LME-1039 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |
| LME-1040 | 161.00 | 169.00 | 8.00 | 0.30 | 0.18 | 0.60 |
|  | 192.00 | 210.50 | 18.50 | 0.35 | 0.17 | 0.64 |
|  | 258.00 | 355.09 | 97.09 | 0.35 | 0.14 | 0.60 |
| LME-1042 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |
| LME-1044 | 269.10 | 281.94 | 12.84 | 12.84 | 0.09 | 0.99 |
| LME-1047 | 119.50 | 1239.54 | 10.04 | 0.55 | 0.31 | 1.08 |
|  | 154.00 | 172.40 | 18.40 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 0.57 |
|  | 178.25 | 242.31 | 64.06 | 0.55 | 0.15 | 0.80 |
| LME-1095 | 248.20 | 280.11 | 31.91 | 0.47 | 0.09 | 0.81 |
| LME-1096 | 199.64 | 282.00 | 82.36 | 0.48 | 0.17 | 0.76 |
| LME-1096 | 322.96 | 349.81 | 26.85 | 0.64 | 0.13 | 0.85 |
| LME-1097 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |
| LME-1098 | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results | No Significant Results |
| LME-1100 | 99.06 | 107.28 | 8.22 | 0.51 | 0.08 | 0.62 |
|  | 143.00 | 359.80 | 216.80 | 1.31 | 0.15 | 1.55 |
|  | 379.00 | 397.76 | 18.76 | 0.59 | 0.09 | 0.74 |
| LME-1101 | 94.87 | 174.95 | 80.08 | 0.49 | 0.06 | 0.57 |
|  | 216.71 | 253.59 | 36.88 | 0.45 | 0.03 | 0.49 |
|  | 278.58 | 374.50 | 95.92 | 0.50 | 0.13 | 0.73 |
| LME-1102 | 7.62 | 13.71 | 6.09 | 0.71 | 0.03 | 0.76 |
|  | 19.81 | 25.90 | 6.09 | 0.53 | 0.03 | 0.57 |
|  | 52.30 | 60.40 | 8.10 | 0.40 | 0.26 | 0.80 |
|  | 66.50 | 224.62 | 158.12 | 1.01 | 0.17 | 1.26 |
|  | 242.00 | 278.00 | 36.00 | 0.34 | 0.13 | 0.54 |
| LME-1103 | 66.00 | 377.00 | 311.00 | 0.84 | 0.10 | 1.00 |
|  | 392.80 | 421.20 | 28.40 | 0.34 | 0.04 | 0.41 |
|  | 436.77 | 458.30 | 21.53 | 0.41 | 0.04 | 0.48 |
|  | 476.09 | 537.80 | 61.70 | 0.56 | 0.04 | 0.62 |
| Lme-1104 | 236.50 | 268.00 | 31.50 | 0.44 | 0.11 | 0.60 |
|  | 355.00 | 426.00 | 71.00 | 1.02 | 0.14 | 1.24 |
|  | 485.65 | 592.25 | 106.60 | 0.56 | 0.11 | 0.72 |
| LME-1105 | 0.00 | 145.00 | 145.00 | 0.51 | 0.15 | 0.73 |
|  | 168.60 | 200.25 | 31.65 | 0.38 | 0.04 | 0.44 |
| LME-1106 | 38.10 | 50.29 | 12.19 | 0.43 | 0.07 | 0.54 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 62</u>

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole Number** | **From (m)** | **To (m)** | **Intercept** <br> **(m)** | **Au (g/t)** | **Cu (%)** | **AuEq (g/t)** |

---

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | 171.00 | 441.96 | 270.96 | 1.03 | 0.13 | 1.23 |
| LME1107 | 186.05 | 236.85 | 50.80 | 0.32 | 0.10 | 0.46 |
|  | 282.75 | 339.92 | 57.17 | 0.60 | 0.13 | 0.79 |
|  | 387.21 | 458.10 | 70.89 | 0.60 | 0.10 | 0.74 |
| LME1108 | 328.92 | 388.37 | 59.45 | 0.76 | 0.19 | 1.04 |
|  | 463.36 | 612.50 | 149.14 | 0.69 | 0.09 | 0.82 |
|  | 733.47 | 825.90 | 92.43 | 0.31 | 0.13 | 0.51 |
| LME1109 | 473.49 | 491.93 | 18.44 | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.42 |
|  | 526.35 | 551.00 | 24.65 | 0.23 | 0.04 | 0.29 |
|  | 572.35 | 602.00 | 29.65 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.31 |
|  | 614.32 | 625.40 | 11.08 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.33 |
|  | 727.55 | 813.20 | 85.65 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 0.20 |
| LME1110 | 368.05 | 387.95 | 19.90 | 0.21 | 0.09 | 0.34 |
|  | 557.19 | 621.11 | 63.92 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 0.29 |
|  | 642.93 | 663.22 | 20.29 | 0.18 | 0.07 | 0.28 |
| LME1111 | 188.30 | 208.04 | 19.74 | 0.87 | 0.04 | 0.93 |
|  | 220.26 | 225.55 | 5.29 | 1.28 | 0.05 | 1.35 |
|  | 266.85 | 280.40 | 13.55 | 1.32 | 0.10 | 1.47 |
|  | 297.95 | 327.75 | 29.80 | 1.10 | 0.07 | 1.20 |
|  | 339.67 | 375.16 | 35.49 | 1.03 | 0.11 | 1.19 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. AuEq calculated using metal prices of US$1,600/oz gold and US$3.39/lb copper, Results are presented as core length and assays are uncut as there are no high-grade outliers in the sample population. Results to date are insufficient to determine true width.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.4** **EL LIMON DRILLING** 

The El Limon deposit resource is known from the intersections of 9 diamond drill holes. For the El Limon area, there have been a total of 2923 m drilled with an average of 325 m per hole. Table 10-7 is a summary of these holes and their location. A summary of the significant drill-holes intercepts for the El Limon prospect are found below in Table 10-8.

**Table 10**-**7 El Limon Drill Holes and Locations**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole ID** | **East (UTM)** | **North (UTM)** | **Elevation** | **Azimuth** | **Dip** | **EOH** |
| LMDDH-021 | 419100.48 | 655474.02 | 1974.88 | 0 | -63 | 359.66 |
| LMDDH-030 | 419063.61 | 655539.21 | 1970.59 | 335 | -60 | 381.00 |
| LMDDH-032 | 418961.77 | 655585.57 | 1949.54 | 0 | -60 | 414.52 |
| LME-1033 | 418962.60 | 655585.98 | 1949.45 | 45 | -68 | 461.77 |
| LME-1084 | 419026.66 | 655487.08 | 1986.53 | 315 | -55 | 333.75 |
| LME-1085 | 419026.95 | 655593.22 | 1917.00 | 315 | -55 | 353.56 |
| LME-1086 | 418981.98 | 655450.14 | 1994.02 | 315 | -51 | 284.98 |
| LME-1087 | 418984.24 | 655447.90 | 1993.80 | 135 | -65 | 181.35 |
| LME-1088 | 418981.84 | 655448.59 | 1994.04 | 225 | -50 | 152.70 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 63</u>

**Table 10**-**8 El Limon Significant Drill Intercepts**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole Number** | **From (m)** | **To (m)** | **Intercept** <br> **(m)** | **Au (g/t)** | **Cu (%)** | **AuEq (g/t)** |
| LMDDH-021 | 283.00 | 359.66 | 76.66 | 0.24 | 0.02 | 0.28 |
| LMDDH-030 | 38.00 | 247.00 | 209.00 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.33 |
| LMDDH-032 | 4.57 | 44.26 | 39.69 | 0.19 | 0.05 | 0.27 |
| LMDDH-033 | 9.14 | 365.00 | 355.86 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.22 |
| LME-1084 | 117.34 | 196.29 | 78.95 | 0.31 | 0.10 | 0.47 |
|  | 234.39 | 283.46 | 49.07 | 0.36 | 0.11 | 0.53 |
| LME-1085 | 18.28 | 60.65 | 42.37 | 0.24 | 0.12 | 0.43 |
| LME-1086 | 154.22 | 175.80 | 21.58 | 0.31 | Nil | 0.32 |
| LME-1087 | No Significant Values | No Significant Values | No Significant Values | No Significant Values | No Significant Values | No Significant Values |
| LME-1088 | No Significant Values | No Significant Values | No Significant Values | No Significant Values | No Significant Values | No Significant Values |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.5** **TRENCHING** 

Since acquiring the Property in 2010, Bellhaven completed several continuous trenches over the La Cantera and Middle Zone targets. Samples were collected as channels from surface outcrop using hammer and maul, or hand-held pneumatic hammer. Trenches vary in length from 20 m to 50+ m and are generally oriented E-W. 256 trench samples were provided. These samples averaged 0.22 g/t Au and had 58 samples that were valued above 0.3 g/t Au. None of these trenches in the Middle Zone has been incorporated into the resource estimate but are used in determination of new exploration targets.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.6** **ROCK SAMPLING AND SOIL GEOCHEMISTRY** 

Bellhaven also augmented and significantly extended the original soil and rock-chip sampling done by AGA. Ending July 2012, Bellhaven took a total of 491 rock-chip samples and 4779 soil samples. The rock-chip samples had an average of 0.03 g/t Au with 14 samples of higher than 0.3 g/t Au assays. The soil samples had an average of 0.02 g/t Au with 35 samples of higher that 0.3 g/t Au assays. None of the rock-chip samples or the soil samples were used in the mineral resource estimation.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 64</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **11** | **SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY**  |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.1** **SAMPLE PREPARATION PRIOR TO 2022** 

Sample preparation is described in the following sections for previous drilling programs and for the GoldMining 2022 drilling program. At the La Mina Project site, a field office and employee housing complex are located within walking distance of the La Cantera and Middle Zone prospects. All core from the Project drill program is stored on site. A new core shed was constructed in 2011 which has a two-tier core rack system. The pulps, splits, and rejects of prepared samples were transferred directly from the preparation labs to a warehouse located at La Mina Project.

The core sample procedure begins with checking of driller-placed core blocks for accuracy followed by photographs of consecutive pairs of core boxes. The core then undergoes detailed geotechnical and geological logging. Data recorded in geotechnical and geological logs are entered into the project database using a two-person parallel input protocol. Technicians identify the nominal 2-m sample intervals with wooden core blocks and mark the length of the core with a "cut line" to guide the core cutting. The technicians take care not to mix intervals of significantly different core recovery in the same sample, resulting in some sample intervals that are shorter than the nominal length. All core boxes (metal) are clearly tagged with hole ID and from/to information.

Core marked for sampling was cut or split by technicians (under geological supervision) using a standard electric masonry core saw mounted on a secure steel stand or by a manual Longyear core splitter. Standard safety equipment (hard hat, ear plugs and eye protection) are used by the core cutters and their helpers. he half-core is placed in plastic bags and tagged with a sample number marked on the outside of the bag and a corresponding sample tag inside the bag. Each bag is securely closed. The unused cut half of the core is then placed back in its correct place in the core box and stored for later reference. Blanks (5%), standards (5-12% depending on the nature of the material), preparation duplicates (5%) and field duplicates (2%) are inserted in the sample stream during this stage.

Samples were cut (using a core saw) or split (using a core splitter). The instrument used depended on the level of clay content, in which high clay samples were split to avoid core loss from the core saw's lubricating water. The cut or split samples were stored in a secure core shed on site until they were shipped to sample preparation facilities in Bogota (through LMDDH-023) or Medellin (all samples from LMDDH-024 to present), Colombia. The samples were prepared at the ALS Minerals sample preparation facilities and then sent to the ALS Minerals regional analytical facility in Lima, Peru.

Regular drill-core samples are collected in lots of 25–76 and shipped by company vehicle to ALS Minerals for preparation and analysis. Early in the drilling program samples were dispatched to the ALS preparation laboratory in Bogota. However, in early 2011 with the addition of an ALS preparation facility in Medellin, samples are dispatched directly to ALS in Medellin for preparation and then forward by ALS to the ALS laboratory in Lima, Peru. Beginning in early 2013 (La Garrucha drill holes LME-1100 to LME-1106) core samples were dispatched to Actlabs Colombia in Rio Negro, Colombia for preparation and analysis. As noted, several QA/QC steps are included in sample preparation. At the preparation facility each sample is coarse crushed to 70% less than 2 mm size. A 1kg split of each sample is routinely pulverized to 85% passing 75 μms. A final pulp of 250-300 g is sent for analysis to the ALS Minerals laboratory in Lima.

Gold, copper, and ICP analyses at the ALS Minerals Lima lab are carried out as follows:

● Gold: Fire Assay, 50/30 g charge, Atomic Absorption finish

● Over-range (>10ppm) results for gold are analyzed by Fire Assay with a Gravimetric finish.

● Copper and other elements: 4-acid digestion and ICP-AES analysis, including Cu, Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Co, Cr, Fe, Ga, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sc, Sr, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W and Zn.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 65</u>

The ALS Minerals laboratory in Lima, Peru is registered to ISO 9001:2008 and has received ISO 17025:2005 accreditation for certain specific methods, such as fire assay/AA gold.

The Actlabs Colombia laboratory in Rio Negro, Colombia is ISO 9001 certified and provides the company with significant turn-around-time on its drill core analyses as the result of a combined preparation and analytical facility in Colombia. Analytical preparation and procedures for gold fire assay and base and trace metal ICP-AES analysis is identical to that of ALS and SGS.

Check assay samples are collected in lots of varying size and shipped by company vehicle to the SGS laboratory in Medellin for preparation, then forwarded by SGS/ALS to the analytical facility in Lima, Peru. At the preparation facility, each sample is coarse crushed to 95% less than 2 mm size. The final sample is pulverized to 95% passing 105 μms, and approximately 250 gr is sent to the analytical lab.

Gold, copper, and ICP analyses at the SGS Lima lab are carried out as follows:

● Gold: Fire Assay, 30 g charge, Atomic Absorption finish

● Over-range (>3 g/t) results for gold are analyzed by 30 g, Fire Assay with a Gravimetric finish

● Copper and other elements: 4-acid digestion and ICP-AES analysis, including Cu, Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Co, Cr, Fe, Ga, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sc, Sr, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W and Zn

The SGS laboratory in Lima, Peru, has received accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025:2006 for mineral assay procedures. The preparation laboratory in Medellin is registered to ISO 9001:2008 for storage and preparation of samples.

Samples for check assays were prepared at the SGS facility in Medellin, Colombia, and analyzed at the SGS laboratory in Lima, Peru.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.2** **2022 SAMPLE PREPARATION PROCEDURES** 

The drilling cores obtained were transported in metal boxes daily from the drilling site to the company's base camp, where the facilities of the La Mina project are located.

At the drill rig, the core was cleaned and washed, and placed in metal core boxes marked with "Start" and "Finish" and arrows pointing downhole direction. The core boxes were marked with the drill hole information and wooden core blocks were placed at the end of each run containing the depth (in metres) of the hole marked.

When the boxes were received daily at the base camp, the core was cleaned of mud, oxides, and grease left over from the drill cores. Subsequently, a verification of the information in the wooden blocks and core boxes was made checking the depths, hole information, and the recovery. In case of any inconsistency in the marking of the boxes, runs, or losses of cores, it was reported to the project geologist to require the drilling contractor and solve the problem.

Subsequently, photographs were taken of the wet core boxes with a sign indicating drill hole number, box number and depths. Once the boxes were photographed, they were laid down in the logging tables to perform the core logging. All core was logged geotechnically and lithologically in paper copies and then entered into a laptop computer

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 66</u>

After the detailed geological logging, the longitudinal cutting line is marked by the geologist, and the core is taken for cutting. Samples are nominally cut every two meters. However, the sample length will be shorter when there were changes in lithology or alterations. The drilling cores are cut into two halves using a standard fixed Freemasonry electric saw or quartered depending on the condition of the cores under the supervision of the geologist. One of the halves is left for future reference in the core box and the other half is packed in double plastic bags marked on the outside with the sample number ID and inside the bag, a tag with the sample ID was placed. Each bag was secured and stored in a restricted access site and then shipped to the laboratory for sample preparation and analysis. It is important to note that none of the cutting or logging technicians were allowed to wear jewelry to avoid contamination of the sample.

Batches of shipping samples are collected in groups of 20 to 75, including QC samples. Each batch had at least one blank and one standard, which were inserted randomly by geologists within the numbering sequence. Blanks, standards and duplicates samples were inserted in the sample stream as follows: Blanks (2%), standards (2%), preparation duplicates (2%), and field duplicates (2%). These batches were sent by a company vehicle to the ALS laboratory for preparation in Medellín and then sent for assaying and ICP analysis to ALS Peru. The samples sent to ALS followed the following preparation and analysis procedures:

Crushed to 70% less than 2-mm size. A 1kg split of each sample is routinely pulverized to 85% passing 75 μms. A final pulp of 250-300 g is sent for analysis to the ALS Minerals laboratory in Lima.<br>

- Gold: Fire Assay, 30g charge, Atomic Absorption finish (Au-AA23)

- Over-range (>10 ppm) results for gold were analyzed by Fire Assay with a Gravimetric finish (Au-GRA22)

- Copper and other elements: 4-acid digestion and ICP-AES analysis (ME-ICP61), including Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sb, Sc, Sr, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W and Zn.

- Over-range (100 ppm) results for Ag were analyzed by Fire Assay with a gravimetric finish (Ag-GRA22).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3** **STANDARD, BLANK, AND DUPLICATE SAMPLES** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.1** **STANDARD, BLANK, AND DUPLICATE SAMPLES PRIOR TO 2022** 

La Mina geologists commenced Quality Assurance – Quality Control (QA-QC) program with the first hole, LMDDH-007. The system involved regular insertion of blanks, standards, and duplicates into the sample stream. Coarse and pulp duplicates are included in the protocol. In addition, approximately 10% of all samples are sent to the SGS laboratory in Lima as part of a check assay program. Certified reference materials (CRMs), including blanks and standards, were purchased from two Canadian suppliers, WCM Minerals in Burnaby British Columbia and CDN Laboratories in Burnaby, British Columbia. These include the following CRMs: blanks numbered BL110, BL111, BL112, BL113, BL115 and standards numbered CGS27, CM13, CM14, CU156, CU157, CU158, CU159, CU164, CU175, CU185, PM434, PM436, PM438, PM446 and PM447. The standards cover low, medium, and high grades monitored within +/- 2 standard deviations around the certified mean value of each.

The results of the analyses on the CRM's are included in this report. In all cases, the charts are annotated with the name of the reference material and the certified values for the elements of interest (the copper series of reference materials) as determined by WCM/CDN shown in the yellow box. The individual analyses are noted by the blue/black markers. The certified or accepted value is the solid black/blue line. Lines indicating ±2 and ±3 standard deviations (Std. Dev.) are shown by the dashed green and red lines, respectively. The number of determinations, mean, and standard deviation for all of the analyses are shown in the top right-hand corner of the graph. The 3<sup>rd</sup> standard deviation was chosen as a limit for acceptable deviation from the certified means. This is currently the industry standard for both certified standards and blanks.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 67</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.2** **STANDARD RESULTS SUBSEQUENT TO LMDDH-010** 

Fifteen standards were used in Middle Zone drilling (Figure 11-1 through Figure 11-25), distributed randomly but with consideration for the size of assay lots. By and large, the results were consistent with expected results for both gold and copper. Out of 500 measurements for Au, only one fell outside of the allowable 3 standard deviations. Out of 300 Cu measurements, only 10 fell outside of the allowable 3 standard deviations.

Using 2 standard deviations departure from the accepted value as a benchmark, only 13 Au determinations and 34 Cu determinations were outside an acceptable range.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 68</u>

![img69.jpg](img69.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**1 Reference Material CU156 Performance for Au**

![img692.jpg](img692.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**2 Reference Material CU157 Performance for Au**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 69</u>

![img70.jpg](img70.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**3 Reference Material CU158 Performance for Au**

![img702.jpg](img702.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**4 Reference Material CU159 Performance for Au**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 70</u>

![img71.jpg](img71.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**5 Reference Material CU164 Performance for Au**

![img712.jpg](img712.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**6 Reference Material CU175 Performance for Au**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 71</u>

![img72.jpg](img72.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**7 Reference Material CU184 Performance for Au**

![img722.jpg](img722.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**8 Reference Material CM13 Performance for Au**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 72</u>

![img73.jpg](img73.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**9 Reference Material CM14 Performance for Au**

![img732.jpg](img732.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**10 Reference Material CGS27 Performance for Au**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 73</u>

![img74.jpg](img74.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**11 Reference Material PM434 Performance for Au**

![img742.jpg](img742.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**12 Reference Material PM436 Performance for Au**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 74</u>

![img75.jpg](img75.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**13 Reference Material PM438 Performance for Au**

![img752.jpg](img752.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**14 Reference Material PM446 Performance for Au**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 75</u>

![img76.jpg](img76.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**15 Reference Material PM447 Performance for Au**

![img762.jpg](img762.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**16 Reference Material CU156 Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 76</u>

![img77.jpg](img77.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**17 Reference Material CU157 for Cu**

![img772.jpg](img772.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**18 Reference Material CU158 Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 77</u>

![img78.jpg](img78.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**19 Reference Material CU159 Performance for Cu**

![img782.jpg](img782.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**20 Reference Material CU164 Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 78</u>

![img79.jpg](img79.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**21 Reference Material CU175 Performance for Cu**

![img792.jpg](img792.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**22 Reference Material CU184 Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 79</u>

![img80.jpg](img80.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**23 Reference Material CM13 Performance for Cu**

![img802.jpg](img802.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**24 Reference Material CM14 Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 80</u>

![img81.jpg](img81.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**25 Reference Material CGS27 Performance for Cu**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.3** **BLANK RESULTS PRIOR TO 2022** 

Five standard blanks were used in the Middle Zone (Figure 11-26 through Figure 11-35). The gold results were again very good, with only six samples out of a total of 258 exceeding the 3rd standard deviation line. Copper also performed well in most cases, with 38 out of 258 samples falling outside of the 3rd standard deviation. Of these failures, just under half are at levels that fall well within ten times the copper reporting limit and therefore are not significant from a statistical standpoint. There are a few cases where review is warranted; and the Company is following up on this. BL110 and BL111 have statistically significant busts (three and two successive samples, respectively), and BL115 shows a number of busts that will be reviewed. Such a failure rate for certified blank materials is well within industry norms.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 81</u>

![img82.jpg](img82.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**26 Reference Material - Blank BL110 Performance for Au**

![img822.jpg](img822.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**27 Reference Material - Blank BL111 Performance for Au**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 82</u>

![img83.jpg](img83.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**28 Reference Material - Blank BL112 Performance for Au**

![img832.jpg](img832.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**29 Reference Material - Blank BL113 Performance for Au**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 83</u>

![img84.jpg](img84.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**30 Reference Material - Blank BL115 Performance for Au**

![img842.jpg](img842.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**31 Reference Material - Blank BL110 Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 84</u>

![ex_480463img049.jpg](ex_480463img049.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**32 Reference Material - Blank BL111 Performance for Cu**

![ex_480463img050.jpg](ex_480463img050.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**33 Reference Material - Blank BL112 Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 85</u>

![ex_480463img051.jpg](ex_480463img051.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**34 Reference Material - Blank BL113 Performance for Cu**

![ex_480463img052.jpg](ex_480463img052.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**35 Reference Material - Blank BL115 Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 86</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.4** **DUPLICATE TYPES AND RESULTS PRIOR TO 2022** 

Three duplicate sample types are routinely generated during sampling of drill core at La Mina:

● Field duplicates are generated on-site at La Mina. Subsequent to sawing and packing half of the core as per normal sampling, an additional ¼ of the remaining core is cut and sent under a different sample number.

The Middle Zone coarse pulp and field duplicates were collected in the following frequency on a hole-by-hole basis: 1% globally of all sampled intervals, 1.5% of samples assaying near cutoff grades for gold (0.3 g/t), and 2.5% for all intervals assaying above gold cutoff. In total, 164 coarse duplicates, 165 pulp duplicates, and 63 field duplicates were analyzed. There is excellent agreement between the coarse and pulp duplicates, and nearly all fall within the 10% range. The results are shown graphically in Figure 11-36 through Figure 11-41below.

![ex_480463img053.jpg](ex_480463img053.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**36 Au Analyses (FA AA) for Preparation Duplicate Samples**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 87</u>

![ex_480463img054.jpg](ex_480463img054.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**37 Au Analyses (FA AA) for Preparation Duplicate Samples**

![ex_480463img055.jpg](ex_480463img055.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**38 Au Analyses (FA AA) for Preparation Duplicate Samples**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 88</u>

![ex_480463img056.jpg](ex_480463img056.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**39 Cu Analyses (ICP-AES) for Preparation Duplicate Samples**

![ex_480463img057.jpg](ex_480463img057.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**40 Cu Analyses (ICP-AES) for Preparation Duplicate Samples**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 89</u>

![ex_480463img058.jpg](ex_480463img058.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**41 Cu Analyses (ICP-AES) for Preparation Duplicate Samples**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.4.1** **INDEPENDENT CHECK ASSAY PROGRAM** 

Bellhaven conducted a check assay study for the Middle Zone resource to accompany the standards, blanks, and duplicates program. Company geologists selected a suite of samples based on geological and grade variation for assay by a fully independent laboratory in order to further validate the resource and investigate possible laboratory or method bias. The first phase of this study is complete, with the second phase pending. The initial phase involved 70 check samples sent from intervals in 13 Middle Zone drill holes, distributed through a range of grades, alteration types, and intensities of weathering. The check assay value (reported by SGS) was compared with the original value for both gold and copper (originating from ALS Laboratories). The check value is considered acceptable if it falls within 10% of the original value, according to the following formula:

*Absolute value\| (original value* – *check value) \| / (average of values) < 10%.*

Of the 70 check samples for Middle Zone completed to date, only three gold values were flagged as failing the above formula (Figure 11-42). In one case, the check value was higher than the original value. No values fell outside acceptable limits for copper (Figure 11-43). Four certified standards and blanks were inserted into the sample set, all of which fell within acceptable ranges.

For the three gold exceptions, re-check samples were sent to ALS Laboratories with different sample numbers. In each case, the two closest values were chosen and the outlier discarded. The two values were then subjected to the above formula to assure that they fell into the same compliance criteria. In all three cases acceptable values were obtained. These accepted values were then averaged and entered into the database (Figure 11-44). Two certified standards and two blanks were inserted into the sample set, all of which fell within acceptable ranges.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 90</u>

As an additional check, three to five samples from intervals close to each flagged re-check sample were re-assayed for gold. Out of 12 samples, all but one fell within acceptable check assay limits, and the one non-compliant value was greater in the re-check than the original. These are included in Figure 11-44.

![ex_480463img059.jpg](ex_480463img059.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**42 Original vs Check Sample Comparison for Middle Zone - Au**<br> **The Blue Dotted lines are +/- 10% from the Mean**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 91</u>

![ex_480463img060.jpg](ex_480463img060.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**43 Original vs Check Sample Comparison for Middle Zone - Cu**<br> **The Blue Dotted Lines are +/- 10% from the Mean**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 92</u>

![f1144.jpg](f1144.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**44 Original Assays vs Rechecks - with Outliers Rejected**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.4** **GOLDMINING STANDARD, BLANK AND DUPLICATE SAMPLES** 

GoldMining commenced its Quality Assurance – Quality Control (QA-QC) program with its first hole, LME-1107. The system involved regular insertion of blanks, standards, and duplicates into the sample stream. Coarse and pulp duplicates are included in the protocol. In addition, approximately 10% of all samples are sent to ACT Labs as part of an independent check assay program. Certified reference materials (CRMs), were purchased from Shea Clarke Smith Labs.

ALS labs use an internal QA/QC procedure including the insertion of blanks, standards, and duplicates. Each batch had at least one blank and one standard, which were inserted randomly by geologists within the numbering sequence. Blanks, standards and duplicates samples were inserted in the sample stream as follows: Blanks (2%), standards (2%), preparation duplicates (2%), and field duplicates (2%).

Assays and analytical results were reported on a batch-by-batch basis and reviewed by the project geologist. The criteria for accepting/rejecting the results were as follows:

- For reference materials, if the results were greater than three standard deviations, the batch fails.

- For reference materials, if the results of two consecutive batches were greater than two standard deviations on the same side of the mean, the batch fails.

- For field blank, if the results are over a pre-set limit, the batch fails.

Rejected batches (failed reference sample assays) were rerun by the laboratory with the same CRM and blank inserted, to ensure the reference samples passed within the tolerances set out above. Following the above criteria, all core sample batch results from the 2022 drill program were accepted.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 93</u>

The reference material inserted in the sample streams were:

BH12001X (Blank), BH12002X (Low Au, Med Cu Standard), BH12003X (Med Au, Med Cu standard), BH12004X (High Au, Med Cu standard). These reference materials were prepared by Sheaclarck Labs. The standards inserted are detailed in Table 11.1.

For the 2022 drilling program, samples for independent check assay were prepared at the ACT LABS facility in Rionegro, Antioquia, and analyzed at the ACT LABS laboratory in Zacatecas, Mexico.

The results of the analyses on the CRM's are included in this report. In all cases, the charts are annotated with the name of the reference material and the certified values for the elements of interest (the copper series of reference materials).

The information shown below is specific to the La Garrucha resource (from LME1107 - 1111).

**Table 11**-**1 Certified Reference Material**

![img94.jpg](img94.jpg)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.4.1** **GOLDMINING STANDARD RESULTS** 

Three standards were used in the La Garrucha drilling (Table 11-1) distributed randomly. The away results were consistent with expected results for both gold and copper. Out of 47 measurements, none fell outside of the allowable 3 standard deviations for Au or Cu.

Using 2 standard deviations departure from the accepted value as a benchmark, only 1 Au determination (see Figure 11-47), and nil Cu determinations, were outside an acceptable range.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 94</u>

![ex_480463img062.jpg](ex_480463img062.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**45 Reference Material BH12002X Performance for Au**

![ex_480463img063.jpg](ex_480463img063.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**46 Reference Material BH12002X Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 95</u>

![ex_480463img064.jpg](ex_480463img064.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**47 Reference Material BH12003X Performance for Au**

![ex_480463img065.jpg](ex_480463img065.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**48 Reference Material BH12003X Performance for Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 96</u>

![ex_480463img066.jpg](ex_480463img066.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**49 Reference Material BH12004X Performance for Au**

![ex_480463img067.jpg](ex_480463img067.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**50 Reference Material BH12004X Performance for Cu**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.4.2** **GOLDMINING BLANK RESULTS** 

Two blank standards were used in the GoldMining La Garrucha 2022 drilling, a certified reference material (CRM) gold blank and a second blank derived from core drilled at another GMI project.

CRM blank BH12001X was inserted 26 times across the five drillholes completed, see Figure 11-51 and Figure 11-52. The gold results were very good, with no samples exceeding the 3rd standard deviation line. Copper also performed well with no samples falling outside of the 3rd standard deviation.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 97</u>

![ex_480463img068.jpg](ex_480463img068.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**51 Reference Material - Blank BH12001X Performance for Au**

![ex_480463img069.jpg](ex_480463img069.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**52 Reference Material - Blank BH12001X Performance for Cu**

The core blank performed well for Au with only one sample exceeding the 5ppb detection limit, and the majority of samples assaying less than detection and thus recorded as 2.5ppb Au. Copper demonstrated relatively uniform performance, however as a core sample from another GMI project it has a naturally high Cu background and returned values between 60-80 ppm Cu. See Figure 11-53 and Figure 11-54.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 98</u>

![ex_480463img070.jpg](ex_480463img070.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**53 Core Blank Performance for Au**

![ex_480463img071.jpg](ex_480463img071.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**54 Core Blank Performance for Cu**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.4.3** **GOLDMINING DUPLICATE TYPES AND RESULTS** 

Three duplicate sample types are routinely generated during sampling of drill core at La Garrucha:

● Field duplicates are generated on-site at La Mina. Subsequent to sawing and packing half of the core as per normal sampling, an additional ¼ of the remaining core is cut and sent under a different sample number.

The La Garrucha coarse, pulp, and field duplicates were collected in the following frequency on a hole-by-hole basis: preparation duplicates (2%), and field duplicates (2%).

In total, 45 field duplicates were analyzed. There is generally good agreement between original and duplicate assays for Au, with most samples falling within or just outside of the ±10% range. Cu showed more scatter, however without any trend in bias. The scatter is interpreted to be natural geological variation between samples. The results are shown graphically in Figure 11-55 and Figure 11-56.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 99</u>

![ex_480463img072.jpg](ex_480463img072.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**55 Au Analyses (FA AA) for GMI Field Duplicate Samples**

![ex_480463img073.jpg](ex_480463img073.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**56 Cu Analyses (ICP) for GMI Field Duplicate Samples**

In total, 24 sample preparation coarse duplicates were analyzed. There is good agreement between original and duplicate assays for Au & Cu, with only 1 Au sample above cutoff grade (0.25g/t Au) falling outside of the ±10% range. The results are shown graphically in Figure 11-57 and Figure 11-58

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 100</u>

![ex_480463img074.jpg](ex_480463img074.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**57 Au Analyses (FA AA) for GMI Preparation Coarse Duplicate Samples**

![ex_480463img075.jpg](ex_480463img075.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**58 Cu Analyses (ICP) for GMI Preparation Coarse Duplicate Samples**

In total, 24 sample preparation pulp duplicates were analyzed. There is excellent agreement between original and duplicate assays for Au & Cu. The results are shown graphically in Figure 11-59 and Figure 11-60.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 101</u>

![ex_480463img076.jpg](ex_480463img076.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**59 Au Analyses (FA AA) for GMI Preparation Pulp Duplicate Samples**

![ex_480463img077.jpg](ex_480463img077.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**60 Cu Analyses (ICP) for GMI Preparation Pulp Duplicate Samples**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.5** **GOLDMINING INDEPENDENT CHECK ASSAY PROGRAM** 

GoldMining conducted a check assay study for the La Garrucha 2022 drilling. Company geologists selected a suite of 154 samples from the five core holes drilling, based on geological and grade variation, for assay by a fully independent laboratory in order to further validate the resource and investigate possible laboratory or method bias. The program involved insertion of 14 CRM standards to further check the veracity of the check sample assays. The check assay value (reported by ACT Labs) was compared with the original value (reported by ALS) for both gold and copper. The check value is considered acceptable if it falls within 10% of the original value.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 102</u>

Of the 154 check samples for the 2022 La Garrucha completed, the vast majority of sample values for both Au and Cu fall within or near 10% of the original value, with Cu performing particularly well. See Figure 11-61 and Figure 11-62. Three certified standards were inserted into the sample set, all of which fell within acceptable ranges.

![ex_480463img078.jpg](ex_480463img078.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**61 Original vs Independent Check Assay Comparison for GMI drilling at La Garrucha** – **Au**

![ex_480463img079.jpg](ex_480463img079.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**62 Original vs Independent Check Sample Comparison for GMI drilling at La Garrucha** – **Cu**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 103</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.6** **SUMMARY OF QA/QC PROGRAM** 

The La Mina QA/QC program consisted of certified standards, blanks, two types of lab duplicates and one type of field duplicate, as well as a check assay program involving a second analytical laboratory. The accuracy of the assays for gold and copper appears to be very good, as measured by the performance of analytical control samples. The repeatability or precision of the assay data for both copper and gold, as measured by duplicate and replicate assays, is also well within industry norms. Furthermore, the confirmation by an independent lab of gold and copper values for a selected suite of Middle Zone samples further enhances the credibility of the data. The fact that two accredited laboratories produced data that are so highly correlative is significant. Taken in its entirety, the quality assurance program from the Middle Zone deposit confirms that the data are of sufficient quality to support this resource calculation.

The methodology used to monitor the quality control during the drilling at the La Mina Project also exceeds industry norms. Company geologists routinely compare quality control data against certified values. The data and charts presented here document the follow-up assessment that occurs on the relatively rare occasions when values are returned that fall outside industry guidelines for quality. When assays for standards exceed certified values by more than 3 standard deviations, Bellhaven has investigated and addressed the concerns. Similarly, when replicates or duplicates disagree by more than 10%, one can see follow-up analyses in the database. Hence, a complete review of the quality control data and Company practices tends to boost confidence in the assay data that are the building blocks of the resource models.

The quality control data for Middle Zone gold assays is particularly strong. Standards and blanks show almost no significant outliers beyond the 3rd standard deviation from certified values (one out of 500 cases for standards, 6 out of 258 cases for blanks). Even using the more stringent 2nd standard deviation, a relatively insignificant number of values were flagged (13 out of 500 cases for standards, 9 out of 258 cases for blanks). As documented above, many of the failures on blanks occurred at concentrations less than 10x the lower reporting limit of the method. At these low levels, an analytical method is much less reliable as precision is very high. The data from standards and blanks for gold indicate acceptable accuracy and do not identify any major episodes of contamination in the lab.

Gold assays from the coarse and pulp duplicates show good correlation and nearly all fall within ±10% of a 1:1 correlation. Since Company geologists collected data on duplicates at the crushing and pulverizing stages of sample preparation, we can see from the above data that there are no major problems with sub-sampling of the Middle Zone samples for gold. This level of agreement is well beyond industry norms. This type of duplicate data suggests that the sample prep laboratory is performing well, the geological materials pose no extraordinary challenges, and the precision of the analytical data is within expectations.

As expected, the field duplicates show significantly more scatter in the gold assays than laboratory duplicates do. It is important to see an improvement in duplicate performance from field duplicates to coarse lab duplicates. GoldMining geologists should review the methodology for field duplicates in order to ensure equitable assessments of sampling error for future sampling programs. Using a +20% precision envelope, we can see that most gold duplicates group nicely. Given that this comparison is between half core (original) and quarter core (duplicate) taken at the core saw, such correlation is certainly acceptable. It is recommended that future field duplicates be of comparable mass and volume, so the geologists should select either equal quarter core splits or half core splits.

The independent lab check assay program also results in good agreement between gold in the data sets, with only three sample pairs out of 70 differing by more than 10%. Subsequent re-check samples on these three cases (with a number of surrounding samples being checked) resulted in assay pairs with acceptable precision. The confirmation of the tenor of mineralization from an independent laboratory provides added confidence. The ongoing comparison between independent labs will also provide a fallback position from which to evaluate drift or bias over time. This will become important as the resource is upgraded to potentially economic measured & indicated categories.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 104</u>

The quality control results for copper are also very good. While there may be some subtle evidence of drifting bias at low concentration ranges in the laboratory method, the overall accuracy and precision of the copper data are sufficient to support this resource calculation.

Regarding the copper results for the analytical control samples and blanks, only 10 out of 330 standard determinations fell outside the 3rd standard deviation from the accepted copper values. The copper values in most certified blanks fell below the acceptable maximum values, but there were numerous failures at low concentration ranges (less than 10x the lower reporting limit for copper). The total number of failures was 38 out of 258 samples. The failures occurred with three certified blanks (BL110, BL111, and BL115). In the first two cases, the successive failures are limited in duration and do not suggest a prolonged problem at the lab. In the case of BL115, the number of successive busts does warrant a more detailed review. Analytical failures of low-level standards or blanks could indicate contamination or some sort of drift in calibration at the low end of a method's operational range.

To evaluate this apparent systematic trend noted in the copper blanks and standards, Figure 11-45 below arranges both standard and blank failures by analysis date. The chart tracks the specific cases of failure of standards and blanks when compared against a conservative two standard deviations threshold. Percentage failure (y-axis) is defined as the percentage of the standard or blank measurement over (or under) the threshold value for that specific standard or blank. The chart excludes the majority of standards and blank measurements, since these fell within the above thresholds. Note that from the beginning of Middle Zone drilling in August 2010 to September 2011, there is a consistent positive bias to the copper results. The curve is almost bell shaped with its apex occurring in March 2011. The bias appears to neutralize or perhaps become weakly negative from September 2011 to mid-March 2012, possibly returning to a subtle positive bias thereafter.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 105</u>

![ex_480463img080.jpg](ex_480463img080.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**63 Changes in the Magnitude of Difference between Standards and Blanks for Copper Plotted against Date of Analysis**

If confirmed, this pattern could indicate some kind of drift in the copper baseline assay results. Contamination could also play a part in the positive bias, but it may be difficult to confirm that. However, it is important to point out that most of these failures occur at very low levels – well below the average grade of the Middle Zone resource. For that reason, it is unlikely that the apparent drift in low level copper values that may be in evidence here would have any material effect on these mineral resources.

As with gold, pulp and coarse duplicates for copper show good correlation, while the field duplicates show a significantly larger spread. Using the 10% precision envelope, the chart shows only one failure of a coarse duplicate at higher copper concentrations. The pulp duplicates perform even better. Again, having data for both coarse and pulp duplicates build confidence that there are no significant sub-sampling problems for copper with the Middle Zone samples.

The field duplicates do show more scatter, suggesting that sampling error increases when dealing with geological materials in the field. However, as the coefficient of correlation remains high and the scatter is largely contained with a + 20% precision envelope, the sampling variability at Middle Zone is well in line with expectations. Improved consistency may result from collecting consistent quarter core samples for field duplicates in the future.

The two independent laboratories confirm the levels of copper mineralization based on the check assay program so far. The agreement between the two labs was excellent, with no values out of 70 pairs flagged outside the + 10% precision envelope for samples containing at least 500 ppm copper.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 106</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **12** | **DATA VERIFICATION** |

---

Since taking an option on the property and until 2016, the Bellhaven sampling and assaying programs were controlled by a systematic application of certified standards and blanks, along with Bellhaven's own field duplicate and laboratory duplicate checks. The use of an independent international preparation and assay laboratory, ALS Chemex, adds additional assurance that assay results are representative of the mineralization encountered on the property.

As an additional verification and check on the overall level of copper-gold grades reported for the porphyry mineralization at La Mina, the authors, on many site visits, have collected samples independently from drill core representing the current drill programs. The samples for this report were collected by Mr. Wilson.

This verification sampling is intended only as a check of the general level of copper-gold mineralization found at La Mina, but is not intended as a comprehensive QA-QC assessment for the purposes of resource estimation.

The results of the check assays compared to the original assays are within acceptable precision. GoldMining put no limitations on the author's review of the exploration site.

During the authors' site visit, logging procedures, sample collection and preparation procedures were reviewed.

In the opinion of the qualified person, the data collected by the Company, is adequate for the estimation of mineral resource for the La Mina Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.1** **CURRENT INSPECTION AND DATA VALIDATION** 

The current inspection for the La Mina Project was carried out on October 12 and 13, 2022 by Scott Wilson. During the visit there was active work ongoing. The QP inspected the Project infrastructure including the core storage, logging areas, sample preparation areas and the office and related building infrastructure.

The visit was accompanied and supported by the Company's exploration geologist Diego Fernando Gomez, along with the support of his support team, both for geological discussions and review and for visiting and reviewing the facilities.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.2** **VERIFICATION CHECK SAMPLES** 

Three samples were collected from three different La Garrucha exploration holes. One quarter core interval was collected from each hole; LME-1107, LME-1108 and LME-1111.

Table 12-1 lists the details of the samples selected and evaluated as verification checks for La Garrucha.

**Table 12**-**1 2022 Site Visit Data Verification Samples**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Hole Id | Sample Id | From | To | Au | Cu | Resampled<br> Au | Resampled<br> Cu |
| LME-1107 | 26380 | 186.92 | 188.26 | 0.347 | 1620 | 0.329 | 917 |
| LME-1108 | 26908 | 498.6 | 499.2 | 1.055 | 762 | 1.14 | 861 |
| LME-1111 | 28148 | 383.8 | 385.8 | 0.157 | 419 | 0.13 | 442 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 107</u>

![ex_480463img081.jpg](ex_480463img081.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**1 Gravel road from Fredonia town to La Mina Project.**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 108</u>

![f122.jpg](f122.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**2 Gate at the entrance of the facilities provides security to the drill cores, and other reliable information.**

![f123.jpg](f123.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**3 Geology office and accommodation house.**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 109</u>

![f124.jpg](f124.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**4 Electricity supply by regional grid interconnection.**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 110</u>

![f125.jpg](f125.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**5 Warehouse drill-core storage.**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 111</u>

![f126.jpg](f126.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**6 Pulp rejects storage**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 112</u>

![f127.jpg](f127.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**7 Core shed for core logging and sampling.** 

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 113</u>

![f128.jpg](f128.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**8 Technician demonstrating core cutting procedures.** 

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 114</u>

![ex_480463img089.jpg](ex_480463img089.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**9 Core logging facilities.** 

During the field visit to the La Mina Project, it was possible to verify and analyze geological information from maps and geological sections of the La Mina mining project that correlate with representative drill cores.

![f1210.jpg](f1210.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**10 Figure 12**-**11 Geology and model review by plan view and systematic sections** – **La Mina, Fredonia.** 

The drill core are mainly stored in industrial aluminum metal boxes, duly labeled and organized in shelves arranged under the roof to protect them from deterioration.

The logging of some type or representative sections in the drilling cores was carried out where the existence of the host rock and zones hosting gold, silver and copper mineralization of the La Mina project could be validated. Additionally, random sections of mineralized core samples were selected, cut and sampled to validate the grades and concentrations previously reported in the La Mina project.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 115</u>

During the review of the core and the corresponding drill logs, it was possible to verify the proper labeling of the boxes, core and the sample correlation.

![f1212.jpg](f1212.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**12 Well organized core trays storage.**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 116</u>

![ex_480463img093.jpg](ex_480463img093.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**13** ¼**-core for duplicate checks ready for sampling as prepared under the supervision of the QP during the current site visit.**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 117</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **13** | **MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING** |

---

The PEA for the Project considers mining and milling of mineralization from La Cantera and Middle Zone and remains unchanged from January 2022. The PEA currently does not include the new La Garrucha mineral resource estimate.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.1** **SUMMARY** 

A scoping level program of metallurgical test work for the project was completed and reported in 2011. Bellhaven Exploraciones contracted Resource Development Inc. (RDi) to undertake a scoping level metallurgical study for La Mina porphyry gold and copper prospect in Colombia (RDi, Report #2).

RDi received four composite samples for the metallurgical study. There were three samples from the La Cantera prospect consisting of average grade, low grade and high grade and one sample from the Middle Zone prospect. The combined samples assayed 0.306% to 0.476% Cu and 0.727 g/t to 1.454 g/t Au. Sequential copper analysis indicated that two of the four composites contained a significant amount of oxide and secondary copper.

The metallurgical test work undertaken included sample preparation and characterization, Bond's ball millwork index determinations, in-place bulk density measurements, gravity tests, direct cyanidation and carbon-in-leach tests and rougher and cleaner flotation tests.

The samples had a Bond's ball mill work index of 10.2 to 14.0, which is typically within the range of porphyry copper ores.

Gravity concentration tests indicated that it was unlikely that a high-grade concentrate amenable to direct smelting could be produced, and that the quantity of coarse free gold was not significant.

Whole ore cyanide leach tests extracted over 80% of the gold from three of the four composites. The cyanide consumption was high because of co-leaching copper minerals along with gold.

A series of open-circuit, batch flotation tests were conducted using a simple reagent suite consisting of potassium amyl xanthate (PAX), Aeropromotor 404 and methyl isobutyl carbonal. Generally, recoveries ranged between 74% to 90% for both gold and copper in the rougher concentrate across a primary grind size of 150-74 µm. Regrinding of rougher concentrate followed by two stages of cleaner flotation in open-circuit tests produced a concentrate assaying over 26% Cu and ±50 g/t Au for three of the four composite samples. There appears to be some sensitivity of rougher recovery to primary grind, with higher metal recoveries apparent in the finer sizes tested, but it's inconclusive at this stage. No data on concentrate grades was presented, but the relatively low levels of some of the major potential deleterious elements in the ICP analysis of the composites (As<10ppm, Bi<10ppm, Hg, Se not measured), suggest that a clean concentrate should be achievable.

An overall base case recovery for gold and copper is projected at 82% and 84% respectively. It is reasonable to assume that further test work and optimization work around primary grind size, flotation reagents, mass pull and concentrate regrind could further improve gold and copper recoveries. Further analysis of the test data to review the possible range of metal recoveries, show potential for gold and copper recoveries to 87% and 87% respectively. Further test work on representative samples, mineralogy and a program of open and locked cycle flotation testing is required to provide confidence in the metallurgical response and optimization of the recovery process.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.2** **METALLURGICAL INTRODUCTION** 

Bellhaven Exploraciones contracted Resource Development Inc. to undertake a scoping metallurgical study to evaluate the various processing options to recover copper and gold.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 118</u>

RDi received four composite samples for the study. There were three samples from the La Cantera prospect consisting of average grade, low grade and high grade and one sample from the Middle Zone prospect.

The scoping studies undertaken included sample preparation and characterization, Bond's ball mill work index determinations, gravity tests, direct cyanidation and carbon- in-leach tests and rougher and cleaner flotation tests. This Technical Report summarizes the test procedures and results obtained in the study.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.2.1** **METALLURGICAL TEST WORK** 

Coarse drill-core rejects were supplied to RDi for the metallurgical study. These samples were composited to make four representative composite samples for the study. They are listed in Table 13-1.

**Table 13**-**1 Description of Composite Samples**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Composite No** | **Description** |
| 1 | La Cantera prospect, average grade |
| 2 | Middle Zone prospect |
| 3 | La Cantera, high grade |
| 4 | La Cantera prospect, low grade |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.2.2** **SAMPLE PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION** 

The composite samples were stage crushed to P100 of 3.35mm (6 mesh), thoroughly blended and riffle split into two parts. One part was stored in drums for later work. The other half of each composite was blended and split into 1 kg charges using a twenty-way rotary splitter. The 1 kg charges were weighed, bagged and stored in the freezer to avoid oxidation.

A 1 kg charge for each composite was pulverized to 106µm (150 mesh), blended and representative splits taken out for head analyses. The samples were submitted for gold assay using one-assay-ton fire-assay procedure, sequential copper analyses and ICP analyses.

The composite analyses results are presented in Table 13-2 to Table 13-4, and indicate the following:

● The gold content in these samples varied from 0.727 g/t to 1.454 g/t.

● The total copper content varied from 0.306% to 0.476%. Most of the copper in composite No.2 and No. 3 was primary copper whereas other two composites had significant amount of oxide and secondary copper (Table 3).

● ICP analyses indicated that the composite samples had only traces of other sulfide minerals (i.e., Zn, Pb, As, Ni, Mo, etc.).

**Table 13**-**2 Head Analysis of Bellhaven Samples**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** |
| **Element** | **1** | **2** | **3** | **4** |
| Au, g/t | 1.207 | 0.727 | 1.427 | 1.454 |
| Cu<sub>Total</sub>, ppm | 3520 | 3320 | 4760 | 3060 |
| <sup>Cu</sup>Acid sol<sup>, ppm</sup> | 1468 | 82 | 393 | 856 |
| Cu<sub>CNsol</sub>, ppm | 1092 | 65 | 299 | 425 |

---

**Table 13**-**3 Proportion of Different Forms of Copper in the Bellhaven Samples**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** |
| **Element** | **1** | **2** | **3** | **4** |
| <sup>Cu</sup>Acid sol<sup>, %</sup> | 41.7 | 2.5 | 8.3 | 28 |
| Cu<sub>CNsol</sub>, % | 31.0 | 2.0 | 6.3 | 13.9 |
| Cu<sub>CPrimary</sub>, % | 27.3 | 95.5 | 85.4 | 58.1 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 119</u>

**Table 13**-**4 ICP Analyses of Composite Samples**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** |
| **<sub>Element</sub>** | **1** | **2** | **3** | **4** |
| Al | 6.95 | 7.48 | 6.41 | 7.94 |
| Ca | 0.89 | 1.26 | 3.36 | 1.79 |
| Fe | 7.96 | 5.51 | 6.81 | 7.33 |
| K | 4.62 | 3.89 | 3.57 | 4.53 |
| Mg | 0.68 | 0.84 | 0.88 | 1.02 |
| Na | 1.99 | 2.01 | 1.89 | 2.25 |
| Ti | 0.19 | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.24 |
| **Element, ppm** |  |  |  |  |
| As | <10 | <10 | <10 | <10 |
| Ba | 837 | 1267 | 783 | 1062 |
| Bi | <10 | <10 | <10 | <10 |
| Cd | 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Co | 14 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| Cr | 30 | 36 | 30 | 30 |
| Cu | 3533 | 3233 | 4359 | 3061 |
| Mn | 520 | 502 | 741 | 595 |
| Mo | 17 | 29 | 100 | 20 |
| Ni | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 |
| Pb | 12 | 11 | <10 | 11 |
| Sr | 307 | 408 | 487 | 433 |
| V | 110 | 99 | 84 | 105 |
| W | <10 | <10 | <10 | <10 |
| Zn | 132 | 95 | 105 | 167 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3** **IN-PLACE BULK DENSITIES** 

RDi received rock samples from the various parts of the prospect for in-place bulk density measurements. We used the standard procedure of waxing the dried core samples and determining the water displacement volume to calculate the in-place bulk densities. The results for the 16 samples are given in Table 13-5. The bulk densities ranged from 2.48 to 2.98 g/cc.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 120</u>

**Table 13**-**5 Bulk Densities**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Sample**<br> **Code** | **Au Grade** | **Target** | **Hole ID** | **Depth** | **Rock** | **SG** |
| D1 | AVG Medium Grade | La Cantera | DDH-08 | 26.00 | EIB | 2.53 |
| D2 | AVG Medium Grade | La Cantera | DDH-08 | 36.90 | EIB | 2.54 |
| D3 | AVG Medium Grade | La Cantera | DDH-08 | 50.80 | EIB | 2.64 |
| D4 | High Grade | La Cantera | DDH-08 | 204.00 | EIB | 2.67 |
| D5 | High Grade | La Cantera | DDH-08 | 217.17 | EIB | 2.98 |
| D6 | Low Grade | La Cantera | DDH-08 | 49.10 | EIB | 2.51 |
| D7 | Low Grade | La Cantera | DDH-08 | 63.50 | EIB | 2.58 |
| D8 | High Grade | La Cantera | DDH-09 | 265.27 | Diorite Cantera | 2.58 |
| D 9 | High Grade | La Cantera | DDH-09 | 289.00 | Diorite Cantera | 2.63 |
| D10 | High Grade | La Cantera | DDH-09 | 294.30 | EIB | 2.75 |
| D11 | AVG Medium Grade | Middle Zone | DDH-13 | 40.80 | X3 Porphyry | 2.62 |
| D12 | AVG Medium Grade | Middle Zone | DDH-13 | 49.80 | X3 Porphyry | 2.48 |
| D13 | AVG Medium Grade | Middle Zone | DDH-13 | 54.00 | X3 Porphyry | 2.54 |
| D14 | AVG Medium Grade | Middle Zone | DDH-13 | 78.25 | X3 Porphyry Breccia | 2.56 |
| D15 | Low Grade | La Cantera | DDH-09 | 227.50 | EIB | 2.64 |
| D16 | Low Grade | La Cantera | DDH-09 | 233.60 | EIB | 2.62 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 121</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.4** **BALL MILL WORK INDICIES** 

Ball Mill work indices were determined at 150 µm (100 mesh) for the four composite samples. The test data are given in Appendix B and the results are summarized in Table 13-6

**Table 13**-**6 Bond's Ball Mill Work Index @ 150** µ**m.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Composite No.** | **Area** | **BWI** |
| 1 | La Cantera average grade | 10.22 |
| 2 | Middle Zone | 11.96 |
| 3 | La Cantera high grade | 14.00 |
| 4 | La Cantera low grade | 12.85 |

---

These results indicate that the ore hardness is within the range for the porphyry ores. The La Cantera high-grade sample had the highest work index.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.5** **GRIND STUDIES** 

A series of grind tests with 1 kg charges were performed in a laboratory rod mill at 50% solids for all the composite samples to establish the grind time-grind size relationship. Laboratory rod mill approximates a ball mill-cyclone circuit in actual operation. The ores were ground for varying times and the ground pulp was wet screened on 38um screen (400 mesh).

Both the plus 38um and the minus 38um fractions were filtered and dried and the plus 38um fraction was then dry screened. All the size fractions were weighed, and the size distributions were calculated. The grind times required to achieve the desired grind sizes for each composite were determined from the grind data.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.6** **GRAVITY TESTS** 

The objective of the gravity testing was to determine if one could recover free gold, especially coarse gold, from the ore in a concentrate which could be directly smelted.

The four composite samples (1 kg charges) were ground to P80 of 212 µm, 150 µm and 106 µm (65, 100, and 150 mesh) and subjected to gravity concentration using a laboratory Knelson concentrator. The gravity concentrate was subjected to cleaner gravity concentration using Gemini table.

The test results indicate that gravity concentrate recovered 11% to 28% of the gold in 0.4% to 2.8% of the weight. The concentrate grade ranged from 2 g/t to 115 g/t Au. Since the concentrate grade was too low to treat it separately there may not be a significant quantity of coarse gold in the deposit, indicating that a primary gravity recovery circuit is likely not appropriate for this deposit. However, the use of gravity concentration within the grinding circuit may be suitable to scalp out coarse free gold.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.7** **WHOLE ORE CYANIDATION LEACH TESTS** 

Whole ore cyanidation and carbon-in-leach tests were performed on the four composites to determine the metal extractions and reagent consumptions.

Each composite sample (1 kg charge) was ground to P80 of 75 µm (200 mesh) and slurried with water to a density of 40% solids. The slurry sample was adjusted to a pH of 11 with lime and a cyanide concentration of 1 g/l. For the carbon-in-leach tests, 20 g/l of carbon was also added to the slurry. The samples were bottle rolled for 48 hours. Kinetic samples were taken at 6, 24 and 48 hours for whole ore cyanidation tests and assayed for gold and copper. The pH and NaCN concentration were adjusted to 11 and 1 g/l respectively at 6 and 24 hours. After 48 hours, the samples were filtered and the test residues thoroughly washed and dried. The dry residues were pulverized and assayed for gold and copper.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 122</u>

The test results are summarized in Table 13-7 and Table 13-8.

The test results indicate the following:

● Gold extractions were reasonable (>80%) for composite No's. 2 to 4. The gold extraction from composite No. 1 was only 31.3%.

● The copper extractions for these samples ranged from 44% to 71%.

● The NaCN consumption was high (i.e., 1.7 to 4.4 kg/t).

There appears to be no robbing components in these ores based on direct cyanidation and CIL tests.

**Table 13**-**7 Cyanidation Leach Test Results (P<sub>80</sub> = 75** µ**m)**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** |
| **Parameter** | **1** | **1** | **2** | **2** | **3** | **3** | **4** | **4** |
| **Parameter** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au** | **Cu** |
| Extraction % |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 6 hrs. | 8.6 | 28.8 | 33.7 | 15.5 | 10.3 | 22.3 | 7.4 | 17.8 |
| 24 hrs. | 24.1 | 31.4 | 80.6 | 29.5 | 62.9 | 54.4 | 59.5 | 31.5 |
| 48 hrs. | 31.3 | 48.8 | 86.2 | 44.3 | 84.5 | 70.7 | 90.2 | 34.8 |
| Residue, g/t | 0.61 | 2120 | 0.1 | 320 | 0.21 | 402 | 0.06 | 2042 |
| Cal. Feed g/t | 0.89 | 4140 | 0.72 | 575 | 1.35 | 1372 | 0.63 | 3125 |
| NaCN Consumption, Kg/t | 4.36 | 4.36 | 1.79 | 1.79 | 3.27 | 3.27 | 2.86 | 2.86 |

---

**Table 13**-**8 Carbon-in-Leach (CIL) Test Results**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** | **Composite Number** |
| **Parameter** | **1** | **1** | **2** | **2** | **3** | **3** | **4** | **4** |
| **Parameter** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au** | **Cu** |
| Extraction % (48 hrs) | 41.3 | 49.4 | 86.8 | 42.6 | 85.7 | 72.9 | 84.9 | 34.7 |
| Carbon g/t | 12.2 | 241.2 | 21.26 | 518 | 41.06 | 4920 | 20.2 | 2184 |
| Residue, g/t | 0.54 | 2082 | 0.1 | 322 | 0.21 | 390 | 0.11 | 2050 |
| Cal. Feed g/t | 0.91 | 4115 | 0.73 | 561 | 1.49 | 1439 | 0.73 | 3139 |
| NaCN Consumption, Kg/t | 4.04 | 4.04 | 1.90 | 1.90 | 3.64 | 3.64 | 3.19 | 3.19 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 123</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.8** **FLOTATION TESTS** 

Flotation tests were undertaken with the primary objective of producing a copper- and gold-rich sulfide mineral concentrate. The process variables evaluated included grind size, collectors (potassium amyl xanthate (PAX), Aero Promotors 404 and 3418A) and sulfidization of the ore in the grinding circuit. There were six rougher flotation tests run for each of the four composites.

The process parameters for the flotation tests are given in Table 13-9. The flotation test results are summarized in Table 13-10 to Table 13-13. The test results indicated the following:

● Gold recovery of 70% to 90% can be obtained in the rougher flotation concentrate along with similar recoveries for copper.

● These recoveries were achieved with a simple reagent suite consisting of potassium amyl xanthate (PAX), Aeropromotor 404.

● Sulfidization was found to be detrimental instead of beneficial for some of these samples, although this needs further evaluation.

No mineralogical analysis was reported in the metallurgical program. Mineralogical analysis is useful to understand the mineralogical makeup of each composite e.g., content of primary and secondary copper minerals, grain size distributions of copper minerals and gold and extent of liberation from gangue minerals. This information is useful to understand metallurgical response and guide further targeted testwork. Some mineralogy is reported in the geology section of Report 1, indicating that the predominant primary copper minerals are chalcopyrite and bornite, with gold largely associated with those minerals, and the secondary minerals as chalcocite, cuprite, malachite and chrysocolla.

Composite 1, the La Cantera average grade, displayed the most variable flotation response which could be partially explained by the relatively high content of oxide copper (acid soluble) and of secondary copper minerals (cyanide soluble copper), as shown in Table 2. Details of the results show that four of the seven tests generated high Au and associated high Cu recoveries, with very low recoveries from the other tests. The samples for Composite 1 were generated from samples from relatively shallow depths ranging from 30-64 m, which could also explain the greater oxidation levels. However, Composite 4, which also has substantial proportions of oxide and secondary copper returned consistent Au and Cu recoveries, 74-86% and 74-79% respectively.

The open circuit cleaner flotation tests (1 for each composite) show that concentrate grades of approx. 26% Cu and +50 g/t Au were attainable, although at the expense of reduced overall recoveries. The report does not indicate the regrind size tested. However, it is reasonable to assume that optimization of the regrind and circuit configuration could achieve concentrate grades of this order with a cleaner recovery of about 95%.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 124</u>

**Table 13**-**9 Flotation Process Test Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Test No** | **Composite** <br> **No** | **Grind P<sub>80</sub>,** <br> **mesh** | **Reagents, g/t** | **Reagents, g/t** | **Reagents, g/t** | **Reagents, g/t** | **Reagents, g/t** |
|  |  |  | **PAX** | **AP 404** | **MIBC** | **Na<sub>2</sub>S** | **3418 A** |
| **1** | **1** | **100** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **2000** | **-** |
| **2** | **1** | **150** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **2000** | **-** |
| **3** | **1** | **200** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **2000** | **-** |
| **4** | **1** | **150** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **5** | **1** | **150** | **-** | **-** | **40** | **2000** | **100** |
| **6** | **1** | **150** | **-** | **100** | **40** | **2000** | **100** |
| **7** | **2** | **100** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **8** | **2** | **150** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **9** | **2** | **200** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **10** | **2** | **150** | **100** | **-** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **11** | **2** | **150** | **-** | **-** | **40** | **-** | **100** |
| **12** | **2** | **150** | **-** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **100** |
| **13** | **4** | **100** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **1000** | **-** |
| **14** | **4** | **150** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **1000** | **-** |
| **15** | **4** | **200** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **1000** | **-** |
| **16** | **4** | **150** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **17** | **4** | **150** | **-** | **-** | **40** | **1000** | **100** |
| **18** | **4** | **150** | **-** | **100** | **40** | **1000** | **100** |
| **19** | **3** | **100** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **20** | **3** | **150** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **21** | **3** | **200** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **22** | **3** | **150** | **100** | **-** | **40** | **-** | **-** |
| **23** | **3** | **150** | **-** | **-** | **40** | **-** | **100** |
| **24** | **3** | **150** | **-** | **100** | **40** | **-** | **100** |
| **1** | **1** | **100** | **100** | **100** | **40** | **2000** | **-** |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 125</u>

**Table 13**-**10 Flotation Test Results for Composite No. 1**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Product** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Grade** | **Concentrate Grade** |
| **Product** | **Wt** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au, g/t** | **Cu, %** |
| **Test No 1** | |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 3.9 | 13.6 | 7.3 | 3.37 | 0.7403 |
| Rougher Tails | 96.1 | 86.4 | 92.7 | 0.86 | 0.3800 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.96 | 0.3940 |
| **Test No 2** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 6.1 | 94.0 | 88.9 | 12.02 | 6.3531 |
| Rougher Tails | 93.9 | 6.0 | 11.1 | <0.10 | 0.0514 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.78 | 0.4342 |
| **Test No 3** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 6.6 | 71.8 | 91.2 | 12.22 | 5.1777 |
| Rougher Tails | 93.4 | 28.2 | 8.8 | 0.34 | 0.0352 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.13 | 0.3751 |
| **Test No 4** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 6.9 | 96.8 | 90.8 | 20.75 | 4.9856 |
| Rougher Tails | 93.1 | 3.2 | 9.2 | <0.10 | 0.0374 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.47 | 0.3779 |
| **Test No 5** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 5.7 | 33.0 | 28.9 | 5.60 | 2.0329 |
| Rougher Tails | 94.3 | 67.0 | 71.1 | 0.69 | 0.3020 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.97 | 0.4008 |
| **Test No 6** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 7.7 | 57.0 | 72.6 | 7.11 | 3.9677 |
| Rougher Tails | 92.3 | 43.0 | 27.4 | 0.45 | 0.1254 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.97 | 0.4227 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 126</u>

**Table 13**-**11 Flotation Test Results for Composite No. 2**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Product** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Grade** | **Concentrate Grade** |
| **Product** | **Wt** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au, g/t** | **Cu, %** |
| **Test No 7** | |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 8.6 | 77.0 | 87.5 | 7.45 | 3.2684 |
| Rougher Tails | 91.4 | 23.0 | 12.5 | 0.21 | 0.0442 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.83 | 0.3222 |
| **Test No 8** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 10.2 | 93.2 | 88.7 | 6.06 | 3.1202 |
| Rougher Tails | 89.8 | 6.8 | 11.3 | <0.10 | 0.0452 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.66 | 0.3592 |
| **Test No 9** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 10.5 | 79.9 | 87.0 | 5.76 | 2.9573 |
| Rougher Tails | 89.5 | 20.1 | 13.0 | 0.17 | 0.0518 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.76 | 0.3572 |
| **Test No 10** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 10.7 | 93.6 | 91.2 | 6.11 | 3.0482 |
| Rougher Tails | 89.3 | 6.4 | 8.8 | <0.10 | 0.0350 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.70 | 0.3572 |
| **Test No 11** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 10.4 | 80.9 | 90.8 | 6.16 | 3.0248 |
| Rougher Tails | 89.6 | 19.1 | 8.2 | 0.17 | 0.0356 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.80 | 0.3477 |
| **Test No 12** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 10.3 | 83.6 | 88.9 | 6.25 | 3.0045 |
| Rougher Tails | 89.7 | 16.4 | 11.1 | 0.14 | 0.0430 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.77 | 0.3467 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 127</u>

**Table 13**-**12 Flotation Test Results for Composite No. 3**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Product** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Grade** | **Concentrate Grade** |
| **Product** | **Wt** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au, g/t** | **Cu, %** |
| **Test No 19** | |  | |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 8.4 | 74.3 | 75.1 | 15.11 | 5.1047 |
| Rougher Tails | 91.6 | 25.7 | 24.9 | 0.48 | 0.1552 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.71 | 0.5715 |
| **Test No 20** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 8.1 | 75.5 | 79.9 | 16.81 | 5.4353 |
| Rougher Tails | 91.9 | 24.5 | 20.1 | 0.48 | 0.1210 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.80 | 0.5519 |
| **Test No 21** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 7.1 | 80.5 | 85.3 | 18.31 | 6.2283 |
| Rougher Tails | 92.9 | 19.5 | 14.7 | 0.34 | 0.0824 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.62 | 0.5209 |
| **Test No 22** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 7.3 | 81.1 | 84.3 | 18.37 | 5.8776 |
| Rougher Tails | 92.7 | 18.9 | 15.7 | 0.34 | 0.0870 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.66 | 0.5124 |
| **Test No 23** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 7.6 | 83.5 | 86.5 | 16.67 | 5.5137 |
| Rougher Tails | 92.4 | 16.5 | 13.5 | 0.27 | 0.0704 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.51 | 0.4835 |
| **Test No 24** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 7.9 | 83.9 | 82.3 | 16.37 | 5.4444 |
| Rougher Tails | 92.1 | 16.1 | 17.7 | 0.27 | 0.1006 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.54 | 0.5226 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 128</u>

**Table 13**-**13 Flotation Test Results for Composite No. 4**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Product** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Recovery (9 min. float time)** | **Concentrate Grade** | **Concentrate Grade** |
| **Product** | **Wt** | **Au** | **Cu** | **Au, g/t** | **Cu, %** |
| **Test No 13** | |  | |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 5.3 | 73.9 | 74.9 | 10.73 | 4.8051 |
| Rougher Tails | 94.7 | 26.1 | 25.1 | 0.21 | 0.0894 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.76 | 0.3375 |
| **Test No 14** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 6.0 | 79.0 | 78.0 | 10.12 | 4.3742 |
| Rougher Tails | 94.0 | 21.0 | 22.0 | 0.17 | 0.0782 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.76 | 0.3341 |
| **Test No 15** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 5.9 | 86.0 | 79.2 | 9.80 | 4.4733 |
| Rougher Tails | 94.1 | 14.0 | 20.8 | 0.10 | 0.0736 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.67 | 0.3327 |
| **Test No 16** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 6.8 | 80.9 | 73.6 | 4.08 | 3.6364 |
| Rougher Tails | 93.2 | 19.1 | 26.4 | 0.07 | 0.0946 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.34 | 0.3338 |
| **Test No 17** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 6.6 | 57.5 | 77.4 | 9.15 | 4.0718 |
| Rougher Tails | 93.4 | 42.5 | 22.6 | 0.48 | 0.0840 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.05 | 0.3478 |
| **Test No 18** |  |  |  |  |  |
| Rougher Conc | 6.6 | 82.0 | 78.3 | 9.04 | 4.0440 |
| Rougher Tails | 93.4 | 18.0 | 21.7 | 0.14 | 0.0794 |
| Cal. Head | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.73 | 0.3413 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 129</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.9** **FURTHER METALLURGICAL STUDIES, 2016** 

Some further desk top studies were undertaken (Interpro, 2016) to investigate the potential to enhance potential gold recoveries by:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Direct cyanide leaching of the second cleaner tails.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Ultra-fine grinding of the second cleaner tails followed by cyanide leaching.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Bioleaching of the second cleaner tails followed by cyanide leaching.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Refining of the flotation process without the use of cyanide.

The fourth option is particularly interesting because it offers the possibility for increasing both gold and copper recoveries and doing so without using cyanide. No further test work was undertaken to support these studies.

While it was determined that gold recovery could be increased through the cyanide leaching of the second cleaner tails, it was also determined that both gold and copper recoveries could be increased by including a scavenger circuit on the rougher tails, regrinding of the rougher concentrate and recycling both the cleaner tails and the scavenger concentrate to the primary concentrate regrind circuit. It was concluded that the addition of these steps to the flotation process should increase the metal recoveries by 3%. The additional recovery due to the added flotation/regrind circuit configurations are considered reasonable and are incorporated into the base case recovery projections in section 13.10.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.10** **METALLURGICAL CONCLUSIONS** 

The preliminary metallurgical tests indicate that the La Mina samples (La Cantera and the Middle Zone) are amenable to standard flotation for copper and gold recovery and to cyanide leaching for gold recovery.

Considering the available data from the reports (RDi 2011 and Interpro 2016), recognizing that this work is scoping in nature and excluding the apparent outliers (although these may be a result of mineralogy related to oxide/transition material and needs further investigation), average recoveries for gold of 80% and for copper of 83% are achieved, which incorporate 95% recovery of both metals in the cleaner flotation stage. If only the 106 µm primary grind recovery data is considered (approx. 5 of the 7 tests for each Composite), the average recovery for gold and copper is approx. 82% and 84% respectively. It is reasonable to assume that further test work and optimization work around primary grind size, flotation reagents, mass pull and concentrate regrind could further improve gold and copper recoveries. It is suggested that base case gold and copper recoveries of 82% and 84% respectively be applied for a concentrator based on this recovery process.

Further analysis of the test data to review the possible range of metal recoveries, show the potential for higher gold and copper recoveries in the order of 87% and 87% respectively. Further test work on representative samples, mineralogy and a program of open and locked cycle flotation testing is required to provide confidence in the metallurgical response and optimization of the recovery process.

No data was presented for Ag recovery, although the cashflow model carries 30% recovery, which seems reasonable considering the association with sphalerite but requires further test work.

Approximately 10-20% of the gold and copper remains in the final flotation plant tails stream. It is possible that further gold and copper recovery could be attained with further metallurgical and mineralogical study and optimization of the flotation process. It is also possible that cyanidation of either the rougher or cleaner tailings streams could also achieve additional recovery. The whole rock CIL test work data shows gold recovery around 87% at a grind size of 75 µm and with high cyanide consumption, due to the presence of copper. Further work would need to be done to evaluate the economic potential for additional gold recovery.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 130</u>

The likely presence of oxide/saprolite and transition material in the upper part of the deposit will probably reduce the flotation recoveries attained for those materials. Currently, the effect is not quantifiable and warrants further investigation.

Further in-depth metallurgical test work needs to be conducted to enhance the understanding of the metallurgy to support further development studies for the project. Fresh representative samples will be needed for future testing, since oxidation is a concern.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 131</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **14** | **MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES** |

---

Global mineral resource estimates for La Mina (the "Project") are based on a resource block model constructed using Vulcan Geomodeller® and Whittle® scientific software programs. Mineral Resources were estimated using a combination of Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) interpolation techniques. As described in Sections 7 and 8, mineralization at La Mina has been identified and quantified within a cluster if three subvertical intrusive porphyry bodies; La Cantera, Middle Zone and La Garrucha.

Three-dimensional geological interpretations were used to flag the block model with varying lithology types representative of the mineral deposits. Grade discontinuities at these lithological contacts were evaluated to determine hard and soft boundaries for the estimation of mineralization withing these varying domains of the deposits.

Mineralization for the deposit is quantified in parts per million of Cu, Au and Ag. Database audits performed by the author demonstrate the assay database values for La Mina interpret are sufficient to interpret mineral resources for the Project. Individual block grades have been used to determine the equivalent gold values for each model block. Equivalent gold grades are reported and summarized within this report. However, equivalent gold grades have not been used for any mineral resource estimates.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1** **LA CANTERA MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1.1** **DATABASE FOR GEOLOGIC MODEL** 

The drillhole database for the La Mina resource estimation was provided by GoldMining in digital format which was imported into Vulcan modeling software. The current database includes a total of 111 drill holes. Of those 111 drill holes, 26 pertain to the La Cantera deposit.

Statistical analysis has been undertaken of the La Mina data, summary statistics histograms have been calculated and the results of the analysis were compared to determine if suitable geological domains could be identified to be used in the Mineral Resource Estimation. The statistical investigations included descriptive and distribution analyses and assessments of outlier statistics. This section will discuss and review the data and details that pertain to the La Cantera deposit. Histograms and Log histograms have been plotted for sample gold, copper and silver assays. In all cases the data displays a positively skewed log normal distribution.

The 26 holes for La Cantera contain 3,913 intervals containing assays and lithology records, with an average interval length of 1.99 m. The assay table contains assays of 34 elements, and lithology table contains 12 different lithology types. Figure 14-1 and Figure 14-2 illustrate the distribution of lithology groups in the La Cantera area only.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 132</u>

![ex_480463img094.jpg](ex_480463img094.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**1 Distribution of Lithology**

![ex_480463img095.jpg](ex_480463img095.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**2 Distribution of Major Lithologies at La Cantera**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 133</u>

Histograms demonstrating lognormal distribution of AU, Ag and Cu.

![ex_480463img096.jpg](ex_480463img096.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**3 Incremental Histogram for La Cantera Gold Data**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 134</u>

![ex_480463img097.jpg](ex_480463img097.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**4 Incremental Histogram for La Cantera Silver Data**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 135</u>

![ex_480463img098.jpg](ex_480463img098.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**5 Incremental Histogram for La Cantera Copper Data**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1.2** **GEOLOGIC MODEL** 

Bellhaven created the first set of sections, a total of 12, for the La Cantera area. These sections were hand drawn on maps that had drill-hole traces plotted. The sections were a combination of North, North-East by South-West and North-West by South-East bearing sections. Figure 14-6 is a sample of one of these sections. Figure 14-7 illustrates the section layout at La Cantera, and the 12 sections that included interpreted geology.

The four main lithology types in the La Cantera area were grouped into two lithology groups for the purpose of the Vulcan geologic model. The C1 and C1Bx types were grouped together into a C group and X1 and X1Bx were group into the X group. The C1 and C1Bx types were determined to have the same mineral composition, as were the X1 and X1Bx types. A third group was created to account for mineralization in the volcanic host rock. The C group is the primary group of interest, as it is the most mineralized with the highest grades. The X and Volcanic groups are also mineralized, but not to the same extent as the C group.

In Vulcan, the C group and X group lithologies were modeled in bench sections every 50 m to a depth of 450 m. The geologic interpretation for each bench was made using the section profile intercepts at each bench, along with intercepts of diamond drilling. Based on the author's experience with porphyry mineral deposits in the Cauca Belt, it can be reasonably assumed that the porphyry flares out at depth. This interpretation of the porphyry shape increases the potential volume of mineralized C-type porphyry, but it also proportionally increases the volume of barren X-group porphyry. Current drilling shows the pipe to be open at depth, however for this model a bottom depth of 600-m, or the 1050 m elevation, was chosen as a limit to grade estimation. Anything deeper than this is too speculative for grade estimation or geological inference.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 136</u>

While there is limited sampling to support grade estimate to the depth of 650 m, the grade of copper and gold in the porphyry is robust to the bottom of the data set, and the geostatistics indicate very high vertical continuity of the porphyry mineralization. Therefore, it is reasonably assumed that mineralization can be projected to 650 m depth. Additional drilling will be required to verify the depth and extent of the pipe, the geological continuity of the rock units and the grade continuity of the porphyry. Figure 14-8 illustrates the shape of the breccia pipe and the bench polygons used to create the geologic wireframes. The outer polygons displayed in orange represent the C lithology group, while the inner polygons colored in purple represent the mostly barren X group.

Figure 14-9 includes the addition of a volcanic zone group, which is a 50 m buffer from the C type lithology. Drilling results indicate that the volcanic host rock around the breccia pipe could be mineralized within 50 m of the contact with the porphyry. Figure 14-10 illustrates the wireframes created from the bench polygons that were used to flag lithology boundaries in the block model, which will ultimately affect grade estimation parameters.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 137</u>

![ex_480463img099.jpg](ex_480463img099.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**6 Bellhaven Geologic Interpretation Section LC419105**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 138</u>

![ex_480463img100.jpg](ex_480463img100.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**7 Bellhaven Sections with Geologic Interpretation for La Cantera**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 139</u>

![f148.jpg](f148.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**8 Bench Section Profiles of C and X in Vulcan**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 140</u>

![f149.jpg](f149.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**9 Bench Section Profiles Including Volcanic Buffer**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 141</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![ex_480463img101.jpg](ex_480463img101.jpg) | ![ex_480463img102.jpg](ex_480463img102.jpg) |

---

**Figure 14**-**10 Wireframes of C, X and Volcanic Boundaries**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1.3** **TOPOGRAPHY** 

GoldMining provided 2 m contours for the La Cantera area. This was used to create a surface wireframe in Vulcan to represent the surface topography. The topography was used to limit the surface extent of the C and X group wireframes.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1.4** **BLOCK MODEL** 

A block model was created in Vulcan for the La Mina Project. LA Cantera and the other deposits fit within the frame of this block model. Table 14-1 highlights the parameters used to build the La Mina block model.

The block model includes variables to store lithology, gold grade, copper grade, silver grade, distance to nearest gold sample, number of gold samples used, number of drill holes used and depth. The lithology wireframes for the C, X and Volcanic groups were used to flag the lithology codes in the block model variable for lithology. Figure 14-11 shows two slices through the block model showing blocks colored by lithology.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 142</u>

**Table 14**-**1 La Mina Block Model Details**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | **X** | **Y** | **Z** |
| Origin | 418,600 | 654,000 | 1,150 |
| Extent | 420,600 | 655,500 | 2,100 |
| Parent Block Size | 10 | 10 | 10 |
|  | **Bearing** | **Plunge** | **Dip** |
| Rotation | 90 | 0 | 0 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 143</u>

![f1411.jpg](f1411.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**11 Block Model Showing Lithology of La Cantera**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 144</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1.5** **GRADE ESTIMATION** 

Based on variography, ordinary Kriging was used to estimate grades in the block model. Kriging yields the best unbiased estimate at each individual model block location. Three estimations were setup for each element; one for each lithology group. Gold, copper and silver grades were estimated into the block model. For each estimation run the block selection was restricted to within the respective lithology group. Hard boundaries were also set for estimations to restrict samples used; only samples matching the respective lithology group could be used for grade estimation. For all estimations, sample intervals were only used if they were greater than 1.5 m in length. The search parameters were the same for estimates of gold, silver and copper. A minimum of 3 samples was required to estimate a block, and no more than 21 samples were used per block. No more than 3 samples from a single drill hole were allowed per estimated bock. For ordinary Kriging estimation, the nugget value was set to 0.184. Table 14-2 outlines the parameters used for ordinary Kriging. Figure 14-12 shows a section through the search ellipsoid showing the strong vertical continuity and anisotropy of the mineralization.

**Table 14**-**2 Parameters for Ordinary Kriging Based on Nested Variography**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Model Type** | **Sill** <br> **Differential** | **Bearing** <br> **(Rot.** <br> **About Z)** | **Plunge** <br> **(Rot.** <br> **About Y)** | **Dip** <br> **(Rot.** <br> **About X)** | **Major Axis** | **Semi-** <br> **Major Axis** | **Minor Axis** |
| Spherical | 0.137 | 48 | 17 | -27 | 23 | 70 | 135 |
| Spherical | 0.269 | 56 | -11 | -3 | 118 | 32 | 290 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 145</u>

![ex_480463img103.jpg](ex_480463img103.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**12 La Cantera Ellipsoids**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 146</u>

![ex_480463img104.jpg](ex_480463img104.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**13 La Cantera Block Model Slice Showing Pit Constrained Au Estimated Grades**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 147</u>

![ex_480463img105.jpg](ex_480463img105.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**14 La Cantera Block Slice Showing Pit Constrained Cu Estimated Grades**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 148</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1.6** **BLOCK MODEL VALIDATION** 

The author has undertaken a thorough validation of the resultant interpolated model in order to confirm the estimation parameters, to check that the model represents the input data on both local and global scales, and to check that the estimate is not biased.

Visual validation provides a local validation of the interpolated block model on a local block scale, using visual assessments and validation plots of sample grades verses estimated block grades. A thorough visual inspection of cross-sections, long-sections and bench/level plans, comparing the sample grades with the block grades has been undertaken, which demonstrates good correlation between local block estimates and nearby samples, without excessive smoothing in the block model.

Figure 14-13 and Figure 14-14 demonstrate that Au and Cu mineralization estimates were constrained by geological shapes. At the deeper portions of the model, the distribution of the estimated grades is not propagated into the outer volcanic halo or into the mostly barren X1 core. Based on geology and geophysics, the interpretation in this district is that these near surface mineralized porphyries are apotheoses of deeper, larger intrusive bodies. The interpreted shape of the La Cantera porphyries used in this model is a reasonable representation of that interpretation. While mineralization appears to continue below the limits of this model to depth, GoldMining will need to drill several deep holes in order to support any estimation of grades below the 1,050 m level.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1.7** **DENSITY** 

A density of 2.7 tonnes per cubic meter was used for the tonnage estimates, based on daily measurements performed by Bellhaven geologists on drill-core samples (e.g., the observed global density for La Cantera is 2.714 t/cu m based on 100 determinations from drill holes LM-DDH-019 as well as LM-DDH-027).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1.8** **INFERRED AND INDICATED MINERAL RESOURCES** 

The geology, deposit type, and mineralogy at La Cantera are well understood. Indicated Mineral Resources are defined as estimated mineralization within 35 meters of a mineralized composite. An additional constraint was that the estimation within 35 m had to come from a minimum of two drill holes. The drilling density at 35 m, combined with the estimation search and number of drillholes, established continuity of identified mineralization within the deposit. Additionally, recent metallurgical testing supports the QP's confidence to classify mineralization as Indicated Mineral Resources. Table 14-3 shows the different cutoff grades and the associated tonnes, ounces and pounds for the La Cantera deposit constrained by pit designs.

A gold price of US$1,700 per ounce, a processing cost of US$8.44/ tonne, and a gold recovery of 93% was used to determine cut-off grades and pit limits. Copper was not used in the determination of the cut-off grade. Due to the uncertainty of gold prices and recovery, the author recommends that a base cut-off grade of 0.30 g/t Au is appropriate for reporting resources for the La Cantera deposit. Given the style of mineralization, the author is of the opinion that the entire mineral deposit, as currently modeled, has a reasonable likelihood of economic extraction by open pit mining the La Cantera Resource Estimates.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 149</u>

**Table 14**-**3 Cut Off grade and Pit Constraining Parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Parameter | Unit | Value |
| Metal Prices | $/oz Au<br> $/oz Ag<br> $/lb Cu | 1700<br> 21<br> 3.50 |
| Refining Cost | $/oz Au<br> $/oz Ag<br> $/lb Cu | 2.00<br> 0.21<br> 0.07 |
| Royalty\* | % | 6 |
| Metallurgical Recovery | % Au<br> % Ag<br> % Cu | 93<br> 30<br> 91 |
| Mining Unit Cost | $/t mined | 1.76 |
| Process Unit Cost | $/t process | 7.44 |
| G&A Unit Cost | $/t process | 1.00 |
| Mineral Resource Cut-Off Grade | g/t Au | 0.30 |

---

\*Consists of a 2% NSR payable to Gold Royalty Corp and a GRR (4% on precious metals, 5% on base metals) imposed by the Colombian National Mining Agency.

Mineral resources at La Cantera are sensitive to the selection of the reporting cut-off grade. To illustrate this sensitivity, the block model quantities and grade estimates within the constraining pit are presented in Table 14-4 at linear increases in the cut-off grades for Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at La Cantera. The reader is cautioned that Table 14-4 contains estimates at cutoff grades other than 0.25 g/t Au and should not be misconstrued as a mineral resource. The reported quantities and grades are only presented as a sensitivity of the resource model to the selection of cut-off grade. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrate economic viability.

**Table 14**-**4 Pit Constrained Mineral Resources for La Cantera**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Cut-off Grade** <br> **(g/t Au)** | **Metric** <br> **Tonnes** <br> **('000)** | **Pit Constrained Resources** | **Pit Constrained Resources** | **Pit Constrained Resources** | **Pit Constrained Resources** |
| **Cut-off Grade** <br> **(g/t Au)** | **Metric** <br> **Tonnes** <br> **('000)** | **Au** <br> **(g/t)** | **Ag**<br> **(g/t)** | **Cu** <br> **(%)** | **AuEq** <br> **(g/t)** |
| ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** |
| 0.20 | 21572 | 0.75 | 1.86 | 0.28 | 1.17 |
| 0.25 | 19204 | 0.81 | 1.96 | 0.30 | 1.26 |
| **0.30** | **17614** | **0.86** | **2.03** | **0.31** | **1.33** |
| 0.35 | 16093 | 0.91 | 2.10 | 0.32 | 1.39 |
| 0.40 | 14687 | 0.97 | 2.18 | 0.33 | 1.46 |
| ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** |
| 0.200 | 13563 | 0.63 | 1.70 | 0.27 | 1.03 |
| 0.250 | 12199 | 0.67 | 1.79 | 0.29 | 1.10 |
| **0.300** | **11175** | **0.71** | **1.85** | **0.30** | **1.15** |
| 0.350 | 10002 | 0.75 | 1.91 | 0.31 | 1.21 |
| 0.400 | 8852 | 0.80 | 1.99 | 0.32 | 1.27 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 150</u>

**Table 14**-**5 Mineral Resources at 0.30 g/t Cut-off for La Cantera. Effective Date December 20, 2022, Qualified Person Scott Wilson**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes** <br> **(**'**000)** | Grades | Grades | Grades | Grades | Contained Metal | Contained Metal | Contained Metal | Contained Metal |
| **Deposit** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes** <br> **(**'**000)** | Au<br> (g/t) | Ag<br> (g/t) | Cu<br> (%) | AuEq<br> (g/t) | Au<br> (oz) | Ag<br> (oz) | Cu<br> (lbs, '000) | AuEq<br> (oz) |
| ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** |
| La Cantera | 17614 | 0.86 | 2.03 | 0.31 | 1.33 | 487009 | 1149569 | 120460 | 753166 |
| ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** |
| La Cantera | 11175 | 0.71 | 1.85 | 0.30 | 1.15 | 255086 | 664661 | 72709 | 413168 |

---

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that any or all of the Mineral Resources will be converted to Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2** **MIDDLE ZONE MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2.1** **DATABASE FOR GEOLOGIC MODEL** 

The drill-hole database for the Middle Zone resource estimate was provided by GoldMining in digital format and was imported into Vulcan modeling software. The database is inclusive of all 111 drill holes, including the 54 drill holes (Figure 14-15 and Figure 14-16) that pertain to the Middle Zone deposit. Table 14-6 outlines the data in the drill-hole database provided by GoldMining.

The 54 holes for the Middle Zone contain 8,955 assay intervals and lithology records, with an average interval length of 1.99 m. The assay table contains assays of 34 elements; and the lithology table contains 16 different lithology types. Figure 14-17 through Figure 14-21 illustrate the distribution of lithology groups in the Middle Zone area only.

**Table 14**-**6 Total Project Drill Holes**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Area** | **Drill Holes** | **Meters** |
| La Cantera | 26 | 8,327 |
| Middle Zone | 54 | 18,803 |
| El Limon | 9 | 2,923 |
| La Garrucha | 22 | 6,641 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 151</u>

![ex_480463img106.jpg](ex_480463img106.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**15 Plan View of Middle Zone Drilling**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 152</u>

![ex_480463img107.jpg](ex_480463img107.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**16 Isometric View of Middle Zone Drilling**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 153</u>

![ex_480463img108.jpg](ex_480463img108.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**17 Distribution of Lithology - Middle Zone**

![ex_480463img109.jpg](ex_480463img109.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**18 Distribution of Major Lithologies - Middle Zone**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 154</u>

![ex_480463img110.jpg](ex_480463img110.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**19 Histogram for Middle Zone Gold Data**

![ex_480463img111.jpg](ex_480463img111.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**20 Histogram of Silver Data - Middle Zone**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 155</u>

![ex_480463img112.jpg](ex_480463img112.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**21 Cu Histogram Distribution**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2.2** **GEOLOGIC MODEL** 

Bellhaven created the first set of sections, a total of 15, for the Middle Zone area. These sections were hand drawn on maps that had drill-hole traces plotted. The sections were a combination of North, North-East by South-West and North-West by South-East bearing sections. Figure 14-22 is a sample of one of these sections. Bellhaven subsequently digitized each section into ArcView Software in 3D. GoldMining provided these digitized geologic sections which were then imported into Vulcan for further modeling. Figure 14-23 illustrates the section layout at Middle Zone, and the 15 sections that included interpreted geology.

Eight out of the nine lithology types in the Middle Zone area were grouped into five lithology groups for the purpose of the Vulcan geologic model. The L1 and L1Bx types were grouped together as L1; X1 and X1Bx were grouped together as X1; X2 and X2Bx were grouped together as X2; and X3 and X3bx were grouped together as X3. The L1 and L1Bx types were determined to have the same mineral composition, as were the X1 and X1Bx, X2 and X2Bx, X3 and X3Bx types. The Volcanic (Volc) lithology group represents the host rock and was modeled to account for mineralization in this lithology. The X2 group represents the non-mineralized barren core of the deposit and was modeled. The principal lithology groups (L1, X1, X3) are the primary groups of interest, as they are the most mineralized with the highest grades.

In Vulcan, all the lithologies were modeled in bench sections every 20 m to a depth of 820 m or to 1,050 masl. The geologic interpretation for each bench was made using the GoldMining section profile intercepts at each bench, along with diamond drilling intercepts. Current drilling shows the deposit to be open at depth, however for this model a bottom depth of 880 m, or 1,060 m elevation, was chosen. Further drilling will be required to determine the depth extent and boundaries of the body at depth. Figure 14-24 illustrates the shape of the porphyries and related breccias and the bench polygons used to create the geologic wireframes. The outer polygons displayed in blue represent X3, the middle polygons displayed in grey represent X1, while the inner polygons colored in magenta represent X2, the barren core.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 156</u>

Figure 14-25 includes the addition of the outer L1 and Volc lithologies. Drilling has indicated there is mineralization present in the Volc lithology; however, the bulk of mineralization is hosted in the inner core (X1, X3, L1). Figure 14-26 and Figure 14-27 illustrate the wireframes created from the bench polygons that were used to flag lithology boundaries in a block model, which will ultimately affect grade estimation parameters.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 157</u>

![ex_480463img113.jpg](ex_480463img113.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**22 Bellhaven Geologic Interpretation Section MZ_315_J**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 158</u>

![ex_480463img114.jpg](ex_480463img114.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**23 Middle Zone Sections with Geologic Interpretation**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 159</u>

![ex_480463img115.jpg](ex_480463img115.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**24 Bench Section Profiles of X1, X2 and X3**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 160</u>

![ex_480463img116.jpg](ex_480463img116.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**25 Bench Section Profiles including L1 and Volcanic Lithologies**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 161</u>

![ex_480463img117.jpg](ex_480463img117.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**26 Wireframes of X1, X2 and X3 Boundaries**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 162</u>

![ex_480463img118.jpg](ex_480463img118.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**27 Wireframes of L1, Volc, X3 and X1 Boundaries**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 163</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2.3** **TOPOGRAPHY** 

GoldMining provided 2-m contours for the entire La Mina resource area. This was used to create a surface wireframe in Vulcan to represent the surface topography. The topography was used to limit the surface extent of the X1, X2, X3, L1 and Volcanic wireframes. Drill hole collar survey information matches well with the digital topography used to constrain the model.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2.4** **BLOCK MODEL** 

A block model was created in Vulcan for La Mina which encompasses all three deposits including Middle Zone. The block model utilizes parent blocking methods to best define the geologic interpretations in the block model. The parent block size for the Middle Zone block measures 10-m cubed. Table 14-7 highlights the parameters used to build the La Mina block model.

**Table 14**-**7 La Mina Block Parameters**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | **X** | **Y** | **Z** |
| Origin | 416,800 | 654,000 | 1,150 |
| Extent | 420,600 | 655,500 | 2,100 |
| Parent Block Size | 10 | 10 | 10 |

---

The block model included variables to store lithology, gold grade, copper grade, silver grade, distance to nearest gold sample, number of gold samples used, number of drill holes used, and depth.

The wireframes for the X1, X2, X3, L1 and Volcanic lithologies were used to flag the lithology codes in the block model variable for lithology. Figure 14-28 shows a slice through the block model with blocks colored by lithology.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 164</u>

![ex_480463img119.jpg](ex_480463img119.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**28 Block Model showing Lithology of Middle Zone**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 165</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2.5** **GRADE ESTIMATION** 

Grades were estimated into the block model by using inverse distance interpolation. Variances were calculated to the 2<sup>nd</sup> power or Inverse Distance Squared. A minimum of 1 sample and a maximum of 15 samples were used for the estimation of contained metal (Au, Ag, Cu) in the deposit. For each estimation run the block selection was restricted to respect lithology groups. The search parameters were the same for each estimate for gold, silver and copper. No more than 4 samples from a single drill hole were allowed per estimated bock.

The search ellipsoid parameters were:

● Major axis Radius: 140 m

● Semi-major axis radius: 140 m

● Minor axis radius: 65 m

The ellipsoid has an orientation of

● Bearing: 45 degrees (rotation about the Z axis)

● Plunge: 0 degrees (rotation about Y' axis)

● Dip: -90 degrees (rotation about X' axis)

The following cross sections show that the search parameters modeled the geological interpretation of the ore deposit. This gives confidence that the estimation was appropriate for the Middle Zone deposit.

Mineralization grades were capped prior to compositing. Lognormal probability plots were evaluated to determine the effect of outlier mineralization grades on the global estimate. This was done to limit biased grade estimates.

**Table 14**-**8 Middle Zone Capping Criteria**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | Maximum Assay<br> Grade | Grade Cap | Average Grade<br> Prior to Capping | Average Grade<br> after Capping |
| Au | 13 ppm | 4.2 g/t | 0.232 | 0.229 |
| Ag | 448 ppm | 25.5 | 0.69 | 0.68 |
| Cu | 17,700 ppm | 3,000 ppm | 0.53 | 0.53 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 166</u>

![ex_480463img120.jpg](ex_480463img120.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**29 Middle Zone Block Model Slice showing Pit Constrained Au Estimated Grades** 

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 167</u>

![ex_480463img121.jpg](ex_480463img121.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**30 Middle Zone Block Model Slice Showing Pit Constrained Cu Estimated Grades** 

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 168</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2.6** **DENSITY** 

A density of 2.65 tonnes per cubic meter was used for the tonnage estimates, based on 536 measurements performed by Bellhaven geologists on drill-core samples.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2.7** **PIT CONSTRAINING OPTIMIZATION CRITERIA** 

The "reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" requirement generally implies that the quantity and grade estimates meet certain economic thresholds and that the mineral resources are reported at an appropriate cut-off grade that takes into account extraction scenarios and processing recoveries. The deposit gold mineralization is amenable for open-pit extraction. To determine the quantities of material offering "reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" by an open pit, the Lerch-Grossman algorithm was used, which constructs lists of related blocks that should or should not be mined. The final list defines a surface pit shell that has the highest possible total value, while honoring the required surface mine slope and economic parameters.

Economic parameters used in the analysis are based on the following general assumptions: Input parameters at US$1,700 per ounce gold price, a processing and G&A cost of $8.44/ tonne, and a recovery of 93% Au to determine cut-off grades.

The parameters define a realistic basis to estimate the Mineral Resource for the La Mina Project. The Mineral Resource has been limited to mineralized material that occurs within pit shells and that could be scheduled to be processed based on the defined cut-off grade.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2.8** **INFERRED AND INDICATED MINERAL RESOURCES** 

The geology, deposit type, and mineralogy at the Middle Zone is well understood. Nominal drill spacing in the upper portions of the deposit is approximately 50 m, but the drill density decreases below 300-m depth. There is sufficient information to classify the resources for the project into two categories of Inferred Mineral Resources and Indicated Mineral Resources. Indicated Mineral Resources are defined as estimated mineralization within 35 m of a mineralized composite. An additional constraint was that the estimation within 35 m had to come from a minimum of two drill holes. The drilling density at 35 m, combined with the estimation search and number of drill holes, established continuity of identified mineralization within the deposit. Additionally, recent metallurgical testing has allowed the QP confidence to classify mineralization as Indicated Mineral Resources.

Mineral resources at Middle Zone are sensitive to the selection of the reporting cut-off grade. To illustrate this sensitivity, the block model quantities and grade estimates within the constraining pit are presented in Table 14-9 at linear increases in the cut-off grades for Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at Middle Zone. The reader is cautioned that Table 14-9 contains estimates at cutoff grades other than 0.30 g/t Au and should not be misconstrued as a mineral resource. The reported quantities and grades are only presented as a sensitivity of the resource model to the selection of cut-off grade. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrate economic viability.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 169</u>

**Table 14**-**9 Pit Constrained Resources for Middle Zone**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Cut-off<br> Grade<br> (g/t Au) | Metric Tonnes<br> ('000) | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** |
| Cut-off<br> Grade<br> (g/t Au) | Metric Tonnes<br> ('000) | Au<br> (g/t) | Ag<br> (g/t) | Cu<br> (%) | AuEq<br> (g/t) |
| ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** |
| 0.20 | 13864 | 0.43 | 1.17 | 0.10 | 0.58 |
| 0.25 | 11030 | 0.48 | 1.23 | 0.11 | 0.65 |
| **0.30** | **8800** | **0.54** | **1.28** | **0.11** | **0.71** |
| 0.35 | 7080 | 0.59 | 1.34 | 0.12 | 0.77 |
| 0.40 | 5753 | 0.64 | 1.41 | 0.12 | 0.82 |
| ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** |
| 0.20 | 2320 | 0.34 | 1.12 | 0.08 | 0.46 |
| 0.25 | 1467 | 0.40 | 1.15 | 0.08 | 0.53 |
| **0.30** | **949** | **0.47** | **1.15** | **0.09** | **0.62** |
| 0.35 | 680 | 0.54 | 1.15 | 0.09 | 0.67 |
| 0.40 | 492 | 0.60 | 1.17 | 0.09 | 0.73 |

---

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that Mineral Resources will be converted to Mineral Reserves.

**Table 14**-**10 Total Resources with 0.30g/t Cutoff for Middle Zone. Effective Date December 20, 2022, Qualified Person Scott Wilson**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes**<br> **(**'**000)** | Grades | Grades | Grades | Grades | Contained Metal | Contained Metal | Contained Metal | Contained Metal |
| **Deposit** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes**<br> **(**'**000)** | Au<br> (g/t) | Ag<br> (g/t) | Cu<br> (%) | AuEg<br> (g/t) | Au<br> (oz) | Ag<br> (oz) | Cu<br> (lbs, '000) | AuEq<br> (oz) |
| ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** |
| Middle Zone | 8800 | 0.54 | 1.28 | 0.11 | 0.71 | 152777 | 362138 | 21185 | 200873 |
| ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** |
| Middle Zone | 949 | 0.47 | 1.15 | 0.09 | 0.62 | 14340 | 35087 | 1873 | 18916 |

---

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that Mineral Resources will be converted to Mineral Reserves.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 170</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3** **LA GARRUCHA MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.1** **DATABASE** 

The drill-hole database for La Garrucha was provided by GoldMining in digital format and was imported into Vulcan modeling software. The database is inclusive of all 111 drill holes, including the 22 drill holes that pertain to the La Garrucha deposit. Table 14-11 outlines the data in the drill-hole database.

The 22 holes for La Garrucha contain 5,802 assay intervals and lithology records, with an average interval length of 1.75 m.

**Table 14**-**11 Total Project Drill Holes**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Area** | **Drill Holes** | **Meters** |
| La Cantera | 26 | 8,327 |
| Middle Zone | 54 | 18,803 |
| El Limon | 9 | 2,923 |
| La Garrucha | 22 | 10,191 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.2** **DATA ANALYSIS** 

A statistical summary of Au, Ag and Cu above detection limits is shown in Table 14-12; the elements of concern for La Garrucha 2022 mineral resource estimate. These elements are of major interest and drive the mining, metallurgical and economic considerations for the La Mina mineral deposits with copper adding a significant gold equivalent credit to the project.

**Table 14**-**12 Mineralized assay statistics for La Garrucha**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Unit** | **N** | **Mean** | **Maximum** | **Std. Dev.** | **C.V.** |
| **Au** | ppm | 5,802 | 2.04 | 188 | 5.86 | 2.86 |
| **Ag** | ppm | 4,735 | 2.45 | 188 | 6.42 | 2.62 |
| **Cu** | ppm | 5,802 | 570.28 | 8,790 | 694.64 | 1.21 |

---

G1, G2 and G4 lithologies are the main hosts of mineralization for La Garrucha. The following statistics were evaluated for the mineral resource estimate. Each of the assay intervals were logged for lithology, alteration and mineralization. Disseminated mineralization displays varying average grades controlled by the lithology of the deposit (Figure 14-31 through Figure 14-33). Sampled assay values show a range of coefficients of variation due to some higher-grade outliers, relative to the assay values of the whole population, which may skew the mean average grades above the third quartile. Evaluation of the following graphs suggests that capping the assayed grades by lithologic type is required in order to estimate the contained metal content of the deposit.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 171</u>

![ex_480463img122.jpg](ex_480463img122.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**31 Uncapped gold grade distribution by lithologic unit.** 

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 172</u>

![ex_480463img123.jpg](ex_480463img123.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**32 Uncapped copper grade distribution by lithologic unit.**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 173</u>

![ex_480463img124.jpg](ex_480463img124.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**33 Uncapped silver grade distribution by lithologic unit.**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.3** **GRADE CAPPING** – **HANDLING OF OUTLIERS** 

Treatment of outliers is a perplexing problem. There is no generally accepted solution to handling of outliers.; however, diligence needs to be exerted with the assay database to ensure the ability to estimate the true average grade of the mineral deposit. Therefore, the accepted practice of capping grades at the 90<sup>th</sup> through 99<sup>th</sup> percentile has been employed to limit the impact of high-grade outliers for the deposit.

Table 14-13 summarizes the capping statistics. Figure 14-34 through Figure 14-36 show the resulting box plot quartile statistics after subsequent capping with the outliers reduced to the capping levels listed in Table 14-13.

**Table 14**-**13 La Garrucha Assay Capping Statistics**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Lithology** | **Uncapped Grade** <br> **(ppm)** | **Number of** <br> **Assays** | **Capping Grade**<br> **(ppm)** | **Capped Grade** <br> **(ppm)** | **Number Samples**<br> **Capped** |
| **Gold** | **Gold** | **Gold** | **Gold** | **Gold** | **Gold** |
| **G1 & G1Bx** | 0.078 | 1504 | 0.70 | 0.074 | 13 |
| **G2 & G2Bx** | 0.301 | 1999 | 1.98 | 0.292 | 20 |
| **G4 & G4Bx** | 0.550 | 1503 | 2.75 | 0.541 | 15 |
| **Copper** | **Copper** | **Copper** | **Copper** | **Copper** | **Copper** |
| **G1 & G1Bx** | 230.9 | 1507 | 2176 | 221.1 | 15 |
| **G2 & G2Bx** | 698.3 | 1999 | 3080 | 691.2 | 20 |
| **G4 & G4Bx** | 914.5 | 1504 | 3660 | 903.2 | 15 |
| **Silver** | **Silver** | **Silver** | **Silver** | **Silver** | **Silver** |
| **G1 & G1Bx** | 1.22 | 1504 | 11.80 | 1.14 | 14 |
| **G2 & G2Bx** | 2.64 | 1968 | 27.68 | 2.35 | 20 |
| **G4 & G4Bx** | 2.65 | 1504 | 24.80 | 2.28 | 14 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 174</u>

![ex_480463img125.jpg](ex_480463img125.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**34 Capped Au Assay Box Plot Statistics**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 175</u>

![ex_480463img126.jpg](ex_480463img126.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**35 Capped Cu Assay Box Plot Statistics**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 176</u>

![ex_480463img127.jpg](ex_480463img127.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**36 Capped Ag Assay Box Plot Statistics**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.4** **COMPOSITING** 

Compositing reduces the impact of short assay intervals and helps to better estimate the average grade of the deposit. Compositing incorporates a certain amount of dilution into the raw assay data prior to estimation. The mining operation envisioned for the Project, open pit, will be at a larger scale than the assays sampled for the deposit. The selective mining unit for the Project is expected to be 10m, therefore, the assays for the database have been composited to 10m. Composites are length weighted down hole composites of the capped Au, Cu and Ag values.

Figure 14-37, Figure 14-38 and Figure 14-39 detail the final composite statistics, by lithology, that have been used for the mineral resource estimate. Coefficients of variance are within acceptable ranges; high grade outliers have been accounted for and the average metal grades are within acceptable ranges. The manipulation from assays to composites has been carried out with industry accepted practices and the author recommends that the final composite database can be used for mineral resource estimation of the La Garrucha deposit.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 177</u>

![ex_480463img128.jpg](ex_480463img128.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**37 Composite Au Box Plot Statistics**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 178</u>

![ex_480463img129.jpg](ex_480463img129.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**38 Composite Cu Box Plot Statistics**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 179</u>

![ex_480463img130.jpg](ex_480463img130.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**39 Composite Ag Box Plot Statistics**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.5** **CELL DECLUSTERING** 

Cell declustering is a further step to debias a mineral resource estimate. Cell declustering was evaluated to ensure more densely drilled out portions of the deposit are not biased by a large sample set of high grades that may be localized to one area. 100x100x100 meter cell sizes were used to apply a weight to the histograms to ensure no bias was introduced to the grade estimate. With the low number of drillholes at La Garrucha bias is very small. The following three charts show a low mean grade out to 500 meters which demonstrate very low sample bias due to localized drilling densities.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 180</u>

![ex_480463img131.jpg](ex_480463img131.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**40 La Garrucha Au declustering results**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 181</u>

![ex_480463img132.jpg](ex_480463img132.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**41 La Garrucha Au declustering results**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 182</u>

![ex_480463img133.jpg](ex_480463img133.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**42 La Garrucha Au declustering results**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.6** **CONTACT PROFILE ANALYSIS** 

Gold and copper values of the three main lithologic units of the deposit were evaluated to determine if the mineralization of the units is separate and distinct from each other unit. If mineralization is continuous or convergent across lithologic contacts, then it is possible to estimate mineralization from both assay populations. The average grades of the units do not need to be similar. If the grades appeared graphically to converge at the contact, then these units were to be estimated as one unit. Mean average Au and Cu grades diverge at the contacts for G1, G2 and G4 which suggests the mineralization is distinct within each unit. Therefore, each of the three lithologies are considered distinct estimation domains. Care was taken to estimate using only assay information within each domain and not estimating grades across these hard boundaries.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 183</u>

![ex_480463img134.jpg](ex_480463img134.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**43 Gold Contact profile between G1 and G2**

![ex_480463img135.jpg](ex_480463img135.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**44 Gold Contact between G2 and G4**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 184</u>

![ex_480463img136.jpg](ex_480463img136.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**45 Copper Contact profile between G1 and G2**

![ex_480463img137.jpg](ex_480463img137.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**46 Copper Contact between G2 and G4**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 185</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.7** **ANISOTROPY** 

Anisotropy of mineralization was evaluated with Sage spatial modeling software to determine appropriate search ellipses for grade estimation. Mineralization at La Garrucha is sub-vertical just like the shape of the intrusive bodies that host the mineralization. Evaluations with spatial modeling software yield fairly large search ellipses, which suggest low variances of mineralization grades vertically. One search ellipse was chosen to estimate mineralization through all the domains for La Garrucha.

![ex_480463img138.jpg](ex_480463img138.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**47 La Garrucha Anisotropy**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.8** **BLOCK MODEL** 

The La Mina block model was expanded to encompass La Garrucha along with Middle Zone and La Cantera. Block model dimensions are shown in Table 14-14.

**Table 14**-**14 Model extents**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | Minimum (m) | Maximum (m) | Extent (m) | Block size (m) | N. of Blocks |
| East | 418,600 | 420,600 | 2,000 | 10 | 200 |
| North | 654,000 | 655,500 | 1,500 | 10 | 150 |
| Elevation | 1,150 | 2,100 | 950 | 10 | 95 |

---

The block model has been coded with several interpreted shapes that are representative of the deposit. These include topography, lithology, specific gravity, as well as metal grades.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 186</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.9** **GRADE ESTIMATION** 

Metal grades for the mineral resource are estimated using Inverse Distance Weighting. Inverse distance methods are a suite of weighted average estimation methods. These result in estimates that are smoothed versions of the original sample data. Inverse distance methods are based on calculating weights for the samples based on the distance from the samples to the centroid of a model block. This is essentially a linear estimate where sample weights are assigned to composite values for all composites used in the estimate. The calculation of the weights is based on the inverse of the distance between the composite and the center of the block being estimated. Sample weights are standardized to a sum of 1 to ensure there is not a globally biased estimate. In the mining industry there are two common exponents used, Inverse Distance squared (ID2) and Inverse Distance cubed (ID3). ID3 is used when large weights are desired for the closest composites. This is applicable when the variable being estimated is erratic and the current data spacing is large relative to the data that would be available for mineral boundary decision making. Such as with open pit gold and silver grade distributions. ID3 methodologies are widely used in the mining industry and have proven through the decades to be an acceptable and reliable methodology for the estimation of metal distributions in metallic mineral deposits. Copper mineralization is less erratic than gold and silver. A weight of 2 (ID2), inverse distance squared was the methodology used to estimate Cu mineralization for La Garrucha.

Metal grades have been interpolated throughout the block model. They are stored as a grade in each model block based on the estimation parameters decided upon for the deposit. Two individual estimation domains were run on the model for G1+G2 and G4 lithologies. Only samples and blocks matching the lithology criteria were used in each of the estimation runs. These estimations honor the hard and soft boundaries identified by the contact profile analysis.

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Estimation | Minimum<br> Samples | Maximum<br> Samples | Max Samples<br> Allowed per<br> Hole | Sample<br> Rocktype | Block Model<br> Rocktype | Number of<br> Blocks<br> Estimated |
| lgg1au | 2 | 12 | 3 | G1 & G2 | G1 & G2 | 109064 |
| lgg4au | 2 | 12 | 3 | G4 | G4 | 55142 |
| lgg1cu | 2 | 12 | 3 | G1 & G2 | G1 & G2 | 109070 |
| lgg4cu | 2 | 12 | 3 | G4 | G4 | 55142 |
| lgg1ag | 2 | 12 | 3 | G1 & G2 | G1 & G2 | 109070 |
| lgg4ag | 2 | 12 | 3 | G4 | G4 | 55142 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.10** **MODEL VALIDATION** 

Block model validation can be quantified numerically in certain aspects and in many cases is visual and sometimes subjective. Many locations throughout the mineral deposit have been checked for biased estimates. One such validation is to compare the ID3 estimate against the nearest neighbor (NN) estimation. A NN estimated should have a globally higher variance than the NN estimation. Bias can be surmised visually if high grades of mineralization have been estimated over known low grade areas of the deposit. A comparison of estimated mineralization should mimic the same visual characteristics as seen against an overlay of the composites used for the estimation as shown for Au in Figure 14-48. Another visual characteristic to ensure no bias is that there are no obvious streaks of high grade, which can be an indicator of high-grade bias in the estimate. The blocks on Section A-B demonstrate that the estimate of mineralization compares well with the La Garrucha exploration drilling data.

Table 14-15 compares the global ID3 estimate against the global NN estimate at a 0.00 g/t for each of the three estimated elements. The same conditions and criteria used for the ID3 interpolation we used for the NN interpolation. Variance, standard deviation and coefficient of variance all display higher values than the IDW estimates. These comparisons satisfy the author that there is no global bias in the 2023 MRE. An acceptable smoothing of the original assayed grades of the deposit has been achieved.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 187</u>

**Table 14**-**15 Comparison of NN estimates to IDW estimates for the 2023 MRE.**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| IDW Modeled Grade vs. NN Model Grade | Units | Au | Au Variance | Std. Dev. | C.V. |
| ID3 Global Resource Estimate | ppm | 0.238 | 0.057 | 0.239 | 1.003 |
| NN Global Resource Estimate | ppm | 0.236 | 0.080 | 0.282 | 1.201 |
| IDW Modeled Grade vs. NN Model Grade | Units | Cu | Cu Variance | Std. Dev. | C.V. |
| ID3 Global Resource Estimate | ppm | 518 | 168304 | 410 | 0.792 |
| NN Global Resource Estimate | ppm | 524 | 253882 | 503 | 0.961 |
| IDW Modeled Grade vs. NN Model Grade | Units | Ag | Ag Variance | Std. Dev. | C.V. |
| ID3 Global Resource Estimate | ppm | 1.53 | 1.42 | 1.19 | 0.78 |
| NN Global Resource Estimate | ppm | 1.49 | 2.81 | 1.68 | 1.12 |

---

![ex_480463img139.jpg](ex_480463img139.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**48 Visual comparison of composite database with estimated Au grades for La Garrucha**

Scattergrams comparing the composite Au, Cu and Ag grades to the modeled Au, Cu and Ag grades are shown in Figure 14-49, Figure 14-50 and Figure 14-51. The modelled grades are nearly the same as the composite data, which is expected. The variances are nearly identical to the composites as expected. The slopes are nearly at a 1 to 1 for all three modelled grades. The author is confident that there are no biases in the 2021 MRE for La Garrucha. The 2023 MRE can be relied upon for economic analyses.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 188</u>

![ex_480463img140.jpg](ex_480463img140.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**49 Scattergram comparing global estimated Au grade to composite database Au values**

![ex_480463img141.jpg](ex_480463img141.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**50 Scattergram comparing global estimated Cu grade to composite database Cu values**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 189</u>

![ex_480463img142.jpg](ex_480463img142.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**51 Scattergram comparing global estimated Ag grade to composite database Ag values**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.11** **DENSITY** 

A density of 2.65 tonnes per cubic meter was used for the tonnage estimates, based on 552 measurements performed by GoldMining geologists on drill-core samples.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.12** **PIT CONSTRAINING OPTIMIZATION CRITERIA** 

The "reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" requirement implies that the quantity and grade estimates meet certain economic thresholds and that the mineral resources are reported at an appropriate cut-off grade that takes into account extraction scenarios and processing recoveries. The deposit gold mineralization is amenable for open-pit extraction. To determine the quantities of material offering "reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" by an open pit, the Lerch-Grossman algorithm was used, which constructs lists of related blocks that should or should not be mined. The final list defines a surface pit shell that has the highest possible total value, while honoring the required surface mine slope and economic parameters.

Economic parameters used in the analysis are based on the following general assumptions: Input parameters at US$1,700 per ounce gold price, a processing cost and G&A of $8.44/ tonne, and a recovery of 93% Au to determine cut-off grades.

The parameters define a realistic basis to estimate the Mineral Resource for the La Mina Project including La Garrucha. Mineral Resources have been limited to mineralized material that occurs within pit shells and that could be scheduled to be processed based on the defined cut-off grade.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3.13** **INFERRED AND INDICATED MINERAL RESOURCES** 

There is sufficient information to classify the resources for the project into two categories of Inferred Mineral Resources and Indicated Mineral Resources. Indicated Mineral Resources are defined as estimated mineralization within 35 m of a mineralized composite. An additional constraint was that the estimation within 35 m had to come from a minimum of two drill holes.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 190</u>

Mineral resources at La Garrucha are sensitive to the selection of the reporting cut-off grade. To illustrate this sensitivity, the block model quantities and grade estimates within the constraining pit are presented in Table 14-16 at linear increases in the cut-off grades for Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at La Garrucha. The reader is cautioned that Table 14-16 contains estimates at cutoff grades other than 0.30 g/t Au and should not be misconstrued as a mineral resource. The reported quantities and grades are only presented as a sensitivity of the resource model to the selection of cut-off grade. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrate economic viability.

**Table 14**-**16 Pit Metal sensitivities for La Garrucha**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Cut-off<br> Grade<br> (g/t Au) | Metric Tonnes<br> ('000) | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** |
| Cut-off<br> Grade<br> (g/t Au) | Metric Tonnes<br> ('000) | Au<br> (g/t) | Ag<br> (g/t) | Cu<br> (%) | AuEq<br> (g/t) |
| ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** |
| 0.200 | 9705 | 0.56 | 2.87 | 0.10 | 0.73 |
| 0.250 | 8428 | 0.61 | 3.03 | 0.10 | 0.79 |
| **0.300** | **7358** | **0.65** | **3.14** | **0.11** | **0.85** |
| 0.350 | 6274 | 0.71 | 3.27 | 0.11 | 0.91 |
| 0.400 | 5469 | 0.76 | 3.35 | 0.12 | 0.97 |
| ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** |
| 0.200 | 59728 | 0.47 | 2.30 | 0.09 | 0.63 |
| 0.250 | 50727 | 0.52 | 2.40 | 0.10 | 0.68 |
| **0.300** | **44107** | **0.55** | **2.46** | **0.10** | **0.72** |
| 0.350 | 36948 | 0.60 | 2.53 | 0.11 | 0.78 |
| 0.400 | 30627 | 0.64 | 2.58 | 0.11 | 0.83 |

---

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that Mineral Resources will be converted to Mineral Reserves.

**Table 14**-**17 Mineral Resources at a 0.30g/t Cutoff for the La Garrucha MRE. Effective Date December 20, 2022, Qualified Person Scott Wilson**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes** <br> **(**'**000)** | Grades | Grades | Grades | Grades | Contained Metal | Contained Metal | Contained Metal | Contained Metal |
| **Deposit** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes** <br> **(**'**000)** | Au<br> (g/t) | Ag<br> (g/t) | Cu<br> (%) | AuEg<br> (g/t) | Au<br> (oz) | Ag<br> (oz) | Cu<br> (lbs,<br> '000) | AuEq<br> (oz) |
| ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** |
| La Garrucha | 7358 | 0.65 | 3.14 | 0.11 | 0.85 | 153764 | 742797 | 17762 | 201076 |
| ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** |
| La Garrucha | 44107 | 0.55 | 2.46 | 0.10 | 0.72 | 779922 | 3488379 | 96846 | 1020989 |

---

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that Mineral Resources will be converted to Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.4** **LA MINA MINERAL RESOURCES** 

Table 14-18 and Table 14-19 report the La Mina mineral resources which are combined from La Cantera, Middle Zone and La Garrucha.

Mineral resources at La Mina are sensitive to the selection of the reporting cut-off grade. To illustrate this sensitivity, the block model quantities and grade estimates within the constraining pit are presented in Table 14-18 at linear increases in the cut-off grades for Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources. The reader is cautioned that Table 14-18 contains estimates at cutoff grades other than 0.30 g/t Au and should not be misconstrued as a mineral resource. The reported quantities and grades are only presented as a sensitivity of the resource model to the selection of cut-off grade. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrate economic viability.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 191</u>

**Table 14**-**18 Pit Constrained Sensitivity Estimates for the La Mina Project (La Cantera, Middle Zone and La Garrucha Combined)**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Cut-off** <br> **Grade** <br> **(g/t Au)** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes** <br> **(**'**000)** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** |
| **Cut-off** <br> **Grade** <br> **(g/t Au)** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes** <br> **(**'**000)** | **Au** <br> **(g/t)** | **Ag**<br> **(g/t)** | **Cu** <br> **(%)** | **AuEq** <br> **(g/t)** | **Au**<br> **(oz)** | **Ag**<br> **(oz)** | **Cu**<br> **(lbs,** '**000)** | **AuEq**<br> **(oz)** |
| ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** |
| 0.20 | 45141 | 0.61 | 1.87 | 0.19 | 0.90 | 886547 | 2706971 | 186737 | 1304443 |
| 0.25 | 38662 | 0.67 | 1.98 | 0.20 | 0.98 | 835602 | 2467306 | 171994 | 1220186 |
| **0.30** | **33772** | **0.73** | **2.08** | **0.21** | **1.06** | **793550** | **2254504** | **159407** | **1149591** |
| 0.35 | 29447 | 0.79 | 2.17 | 0.23 | 1.14 | 748335 | 2051121 | 147398 | 1077139 |
| 0.40 | 25909 | 0.85 | 2.26 | 0.24 | 1.22 | 710025 | 1879185 | 136300 | 1013856 |
| ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** |
| 0.20 | 75611 | 0.49 | 2.16 | 0.12 | 0.69 | 1202592 | 5241411 | 202720 | 1684703 |
| 0.25 | 64393 | 0.55 | 2.26 | 0.13 | 0.76 | 1129692 | 4670368 | 185922 | 1570166 |
| **0.30** | **56231** | **0.58** | **2.32** | **0.14** | **0.80** | **1049348** | **4188126** | **171429** | **1454025** |
| 0.35 | 47630 | 0.63 | 2.38 | 0.15 | 0.87 | 965706 | 3644661 | 154536 | 1328890 |
| 0.40 | 39971 | 0.67 | 2.43 | 0.15 | 0.92 | 867345 | 3125262 | 136011 | 1185974 |

---

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that Mineral Resources will be converted to Mineral Reserves.

**Table 14**-**19 Total Indicated and Inferred Resources for La Mina Project**<br> **(Cut-off Grade 0.30g/t Au) Effective Date December 20, 2022, Qualified Person Scott Wilson**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes**<br> **(**'**000)** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Grades** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** |
| **Deposit** | **Metric**<br> **Tonnes**<br> **(**'**000)** | **Au** <br> **(g/t)** | **Ag**<br> **(g/t)** | **Cu** <br> **(%)** | **AuEq**<br> **(g/t)** | **Au**<br> **(oz)** | **Ag**<br> **(oz)** | **Cu**<br> **(lbs,** <br> '**000)** | **AuEq**<br> **(oz)** |
| ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** | ***Indicated Resources*** |
| La Cantera | 17614 | 0.86 | 2.03 | 0.31 | 1.33 | 487009 | 1149569 | 120460 | 753166 |
| La Garrucha | 7358 | 0.65 | 3.14 | 0.11 | 0.85 | 153764 | 742797 | 17762 | 201076 |
| Middle Zone | 8800 | 0.54 | 1.28 | 0.11 | 0.71 | 152777 | 362138 | 21185 | 200873 |
| **Total** | **33772** | **0.73** | **2.08** | **0.21** | **1.06** | **793550** | **2254504** | **159407** | **1149591** |
| ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** | ***Inferred Resources*** |
| La Cantera | 11175 | 0.71 | 1.85 | 0.30 | 1.15 | 255086 | 664661 | 72709 | 413168 |
| La Garrucha | 44107 | 0.55 | 2.46 | 0.10 | 0.72 | 779922 | 3488379 | 96846 | 1020989 |
| Middle Zone | 949 | 0.47 | 1.15 | 0.09 | 0.62 | 14340 | 35087 | 1873 | 18916 |
| **Total** | **56231** | **0.58** | **2.32** | **0.14** | **0.80** | **1049348** | **4188126** | **171429** | **1454025** |

---

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that Mineral Resources will be converted to Mineral Reserves.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 192</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **15** | **MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES** |

---

There are no mineral reserves categorized for the La Mina Project.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 193</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **16** | **MINING METHODS** |

---

The PEA for the Project considers mining and milling of mineralization from La Cantera and Middle Zone and remains unchanged from January 2022. The PEA currently does not include the new La Garrucha mineral resource estimate. This PEA evaluates conventional surface mining methods using surface drill and blast techniques with off-highway haul trucks and front-end loaders to be appropriate for the La Mina Project.

This PEA is preliminary in nature and is based on technical and economic assumptions which will be evaluated in more advanced studies. The PEA is solely focused on the La Cantera and Middle Zone resource models which both include Inferred Mineral Resource that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. Therefore, there no certainty that the PEA will be realized. The basis for the PEA is to demonstrate the economic viability of the La Mina Project. The PEA results are only intended as an initial, first pass review of the potential project economics based on preliminary information. There are no advanced studies on the project that would be impacted by the PEA. The PEA does not currently include the new La Garrucha mineral resource estimate.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.1** **GEOTECHNICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS** 

No site-specific geotechnical or hydrological studies have been undertaken at the La Mina Project. For pit shell design, an overall pit slope angle of 50 degrees was used.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.2** **MINE OPTIMIZATION** 

Pit optimization was performed with Whittle<sup>TM</sup> software which uses the Lerchs-Grossman algorithm to create a series of nested revenue factor pit shells. Table 16-1 outlines the parameters used in Whittle for the analysis. These parameters were applied to both La Cantera and Middle Zone pit areas.

**Table 16**-**1 Whittle Parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Whittle Input** | **Units** | **Value** |
| Overall Pit Slope Angle | Degrees | 50 |
| Mining Cost | $USD | 1.90 |
| Processing Cost | $USD | 8.44 |
| Royalty | % | 6 |
| G&A | $USD | 0.80 |
| Metal Prices: |  |  |
| Au | $USD/oz | 1600 |
| Ag | $USD/oz | 21.00 |
| Cu | $USD/lb | 3.39 |
| Metallurgical Recovery: |  |  |
| Au | % | 82 |
| Ag | % | 30 |
| Cu | % | 84 |
| Cut-off Grade | g/t Au | 0.25 |
| Mining Recovery | % | 95 |
| Dilution | % | 5 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 194</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.3** **PRE-STRIPPING REQUIREMENTS** 

A 24-month stripping campaign is estimated and scheduled before the mine starts producing mineralized material for the process plant. It is anticipated that these activities will be performed by third-party contractors. The initial stripping phase of the mine plan is comprised of steep terrain that will require smaller equipment and will be slower than production mining activities. No mineralized material is expected during the stripping campaign; however, any mineralized material encountered will be stockpiled near the process plant.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.4** **MINE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE** 

After the 24-month stripping campaign, production mining begins at a rate of 46k tonnes per day, delivering and sustaining 10k tonnes per day of mineralized material to the process plant for 10 years. Life-of-mine annual material movement from the La Cantera and Middle Zone pits is outlined in Table 16-2. During the first 3 years, most of the process plant feed comes from the Middle Zone pit, while enabling La Cantera to be prepared as it has a higher strip ratio. Starting in year 4, the core of the Middle Zone pit mineralized zone is exposed and becomes the primary source for process plant feed for years 4 through 9, leaving La Cantera idle until the last 2 years of mining.

The mining schedules were developed using the Geovia Whittle<sup>TM</sup> software's strategic mine planning tools which created practical push backs within each pit and optimized mineralized material delivered to the process plant from the two pits. No pit designs with haul roads were created for the PEA. Use of the Whittle scheduler is considered adequate for a PEA report to estimate the initial economic viability of the mine schedule.

Table 16-3 outlines the expected annual process plant head grades and contained metal quantities to be delivered to the process plant.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 195</u>

**Table 16**-**2 Mine Schedule**

![ex_480463img143.jpg](ex_480463img143.jpg)

**Table 16**-**3 Mill Feed**

![ex_480463img144.jpg](ex_480463img144.jpg)

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 196</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.5** **MINE CONFIGURATION** 

Figure 16-1 shows the location of the La Cantera and Middle Zone Pits and a conceptual layout of the La Mina Project facilities.

![ex_480463img145.jpg](ex_480463img145.jpg)

**Figure 16**-**1 Pit Locations and Conceptual Site Layout**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 197</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.6** **MINING FLEET** 

A complete list of mining equipment required for peak mine production is outlined Table 16-4.

**Table 16**-**4 Mining Fleet Requirements**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** | **Size** | **LOM** <br> **Quantity** |
| Front-End Wheeled Loader | 12.3 m<sup>3</sup> bucket | 2 |
| Haul Truck | 91 tonnes | 14 |
| Rotary Crawler Drill | 17 cm hole, 12.2 m rod length, 27kg pulldown, 142. 5 cmm, 350 psi compressor | 2 |
| Track Dozer | 4.9 m blade width, 70,000 kg weight | 2 |
| Motor Grader | 7.3 m blade width | 2 |
| Water Truck |  | 1 |
| Skid Steer | 975 kg lift capacity | 1 |
| Bulk ANFO Truck | Emulsion loader with 9,378 kg hopper capacity | 1 |
| Light Plants | Diesel 9.14 m tower, 13.6 Hp engine, 1,000 watt | 12 |
| Light Duty Pickup | 1 ton automatic, crew cab, heavy duty | 12 |
| Field Service Truck | 14,969 kg GVWR chassis with 3,900 kg capacity hydraulic crane with 6.1 m maximum reach | 2 |
| Field Lube Truck | 568 L diesel fuel capacity and 3 379 L oil delivery systems | 1 |
| Off-Road Tire Truck | 14,969 kg GVWR chassis | 1 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.6.1** **DRILLING AND BLASTING** 

Once the mine operation is in full production in year 1, it is estimated all material will be drilled and blasted prior to loading into haul trucks. A 5.5-meter square pattern was estimated as appropriate for the given rock type. The drill and blast parameters outlined in Table 16-5 were used to determine the size and quantity of the blast hole drills required. Two (2) rotary crawler drills were selected, each having a 12.2 meter rod length with down-the-hole hammers with a 27,216 kg pulldown rating and a 42.5 cmm compressor.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 198</u>

**Table 16**-**5 Drill and Blast Parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Parameter | Units | Value |
| Rock Density | t/m3 | 2.65 |
| Bench Height | m | 10 |
| Sub Drill | m | 0.8 |
| Hole Space (square) | m | 5.5 |
| Height of Stemming | m | 3.5 |
| Hole Diameter | cm | 17.1 |
| Powder Factor | kg/tonne | 0.17 |
| Powder Factor | kg/bcm | 0.45 |
| Drill Penetration Rate | m/hr | 45 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.6.2** **LOADING AND HAULING** 

Preliminary mining fleet requirements are based on material haul routes and cycle times. Haul distances and grades were estimated for each year and loaded into RPMGlobal's Talpac<sup>TM</sup> software to calculate haul cycle times for each year for each material type and destination. These cycle times were used against the mine production profile to determine the loading and hauling fleet required to meet the plan.

The mining fleet is expected to utilize two (2), 12.3 cubic meter front-end wheeled loaders. These will load fourteen (14) 91 tonne capacity haul trucks at the peak of mine production. As the pits deepen and haul distances extend, the number of haul trucks required will increase. In later years, as the strip ratio drops and fewer tonnes are mined, the requirement for haul trucks relaxes. Table 16-6 outlines the number of haul trucks required for each year of the mine life while producing mineralized material for the process plant.

**Table 16**-**6 Drill and Blast Parameters**

Year: <u> 1 </u> 2 <u> 3 </u> 4 <u> 5 </u> <u> 6 </u> 7 <u> 8 </u> 9 <u> 10 </u> 11 <br> <u> Haul Trucks Required </u> <u> 7 </u> <u> 10 </u> <u> 11 </u> <u> 14 </u> <u> 14 </u> <u> 14 </u> <u> 14 </u> <u> 11 </u> <u> 8 </u> <u> 6 </u> <u> 3 </u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.6.3** **SUPPORT EQUIPMENT** 

Equipment to support production mining activities is included in Table 16-4. One water truck is estimated to mitigate dust on haul roads during dry periods. Two road motor graders are estimated to maintain haul roads within the pit and throughout the operating site. One skid steer is estimated to aid in blasting operations and general use at site. Twelve light duty trucks are estimated for multi-purpose be use throughout the open pit operations and waste storage facility locations.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 199</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **17** | **RECOVERY METHODS** |

---

The PEA for the Project considers mining and milling of mineralization from La Cantera and Middle Zone and remains unchanged from January 2022. The PEA currently does not include the new La Garrucha mineral resource estimate.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.1** **PROCESS PLANT** 

It is proposed that mineralized material from the La Cantera and the Middle Zone open pits will be processed in a 10,000 tonnes per day (tpd) conventional concentrator to produce a copper concentrate with gold as a by-product. The unit processes are described as follows:

● Crushing and grinding to liberate minerals from the ore

● Froth flotation to separate most of the copper and gold bearing minerals from gangue minerals.

● Facilities to pump tailings to the tailings storage facility and to pump reclaim water from the tailings dam to the plant for the process

● Concentrate dewatering, materials handling and storage facilities

A process schematic diagram is provided in Figure 17-1 Process Flow Schematic.

![f171.jpg](f171.jpg)

**Figure 17**-**1 Process Flow Schematic**

The conceptual design is based on the limited data from the preliminary metallurgical test work in conjunction with general industry experience. No preliminary equipment sizing, except for the grinding mills has been undertaken. No general layouts of the process plant or quantity estimates have been generated.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 200</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.2** **OPERATING SCHEDULE AND AVAILABILITY** 

The processing plant is planned to operate 24 hours per day for 350 days per year, at a nominal throughput rate of 10,000 tpd and overall circuit availability of 92%.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.3** **PROCESSING FACILITIES** 

This section describes the equipment and processes typical of a conventional concentrator plant, as proposed for the La Mina process plant.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.3.1** **PRIMARY CRUSHING AND COARSE ORE STOCKPILE** 

A conventional gyratory crusher facility will be designed to crush run-of-mine (ROM) material to reduce the incoming feed material from the open pits to an appropriate feed size for the SAG mill.

Haul trucks from the mine will deposit ROM material into the ROM feed hopper, feeding the gyratory crusher, where it'll be crushed to a nominal size of 150 mm and discharged onto the crushed material stockpile.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.3.2** **GRINDING CIRCUIT** 

The grinding circuit will further reduce the size of the crushed material to the particle size required for the flotation process. The proposed grinding circuit will consist of a SAG mill followed by two ball mills in parallel configuration. The ball mills will operate in closed circuit with classifying cyclones. The grinding circuit has the following main items:

● SAG mill (8.5 m diameter x 3 m long, 3.5 MW motor)

● Ball mill (two units 4.9 m diameter × 7.3 m long, 3 MW motors)

● Pebble crusher

● Cyclone feed slurry pumps

● Classification cyclone cluster

● Vibrating screen

The SAG mill will be fed at a controlled rate from the crushed material stockpile. SAG mill product will discharge to a vibrating screen. The screen oversize will be further crushed in a pebble crusher and the product returned to the SAG feed. Screen undersize material will report to the mill discharge sump where it will be pumped to the classifying cyclone cluster. Cyclone undersize will report as feed to the two ball mills, and mill discharge will be directed into the mill discharge sump where dilution water will be added as required to adjust the slurry density according to the cyclone classification specifications.

Lime will be added as required to the mill sump to adjust the pH of the slurry in the grinding circuit prior to the flotation process. Grinding media are recharged into the SAG and ball mills to maintain the grinding efficiency.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.3.3** **FLOTATION AND REGRIND** 

The major equipment in this unit process area includes:

● Rougher flotation cells

● Rougher scavenger flotation cells

● Cleaner flotation cells

● Cleaner flotation column cells

● Regrind mill (vertical, 500 kW)

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 201</u>

Grinding cyclone overflow from the ball mills will report to the rougher flotation cells. It is envisioned that one bank of 75 m3 tank cells will provide approximately 30 minutes of residence time. Frother and collector may be added to individual cells at the first and sixth cells. Tailings from the rougher bank will report to the rougher scavenger flotation circuit and will be combined with cleaner tails for further recovery.

Rougher concentrate, approximately 8 - 12% of the flotation feed flow, will be reground to a nominal size of about 30 μm to further liberate the minerals of value from gangue. The combined concentrate from the rougher and rougher scavenger flotation banks will be pumped to cyclones. Cyclone overflow from the cluster will be pumped to the first cleaner feed distributor and cyclone underflow will be fed to a vertical regrind mill.

The reground concentrate will be cleaned in one stage of mechanical flotation cells and one stage of flotation columns. In the cleaner circuit, the pH will be elevated to reject pyrite by adding lime to the regrind mills and the first mechanical cells. Provisions will be made for adding frother and collector throughout the circuit.

The regrind cyclone overflow will be pumped to a distributor that splits the flow between a bank of 16 m3 tank cells, which constitute the first cleaners. The first cleaners will also have about 30 minutes of residence time and will be pulled moderately hard to achieve recovery in the cleaner circuit. Cleaner tails will be pumped to the rougher scavenger circuit to allow for additional time for copper and gold mineral collection.

Concentrates from the first cleaner banks will be combined and upgraded in a second bank of cleaners. The second stage of cleaning consists of a series of column cells in parallel. The second cleaner tails will be pumped together with the first cleaner tails to the rougher scavenger circuit.

The concentrate will be approximately 26% Cu with an average gold grade of approx. 60 to 90 g/t, depending on the concentration of gold in the mineralized material feed. Future metallurgical design should investigate the potential for direct flotation reactors in the cleaner circuit, for the potential to increase final concentrate grade and recoveries.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.3.4** **COPPER CONCENTRATE THICKENING, FILTRATION AND HANDLING** 

Copper concentrate from the second cleaner columns will be thickened and then filtered in a pressure filter, to generate a product at roughly 8% moisture, suitable for transport. Thickener overflow water will be returned to the process water tank for re-use in the process.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.4** **PROCESS PLANT TAILS** 

The final rougher scavenger tails will be the final plant tailings and will be pumped to the tailing storage facility.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.5** **REAGENT HANDLING AND STORAGE** 

Various chemical reagents will be added to the process in order to facilitate processing, and the subsequent settling of the solids in the thickeners. These include –

● PAX flotation reagent

● Frother

● Lime

● Flocculant

● Antiscalant

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 202</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.6** **PROCESS PLANT SERVICE SYSTEMS** 

The process service systems required will include:

● Fresh water supply

● Process water, made up largely of recycled water from the TSF and from in-plant thickeners

● Potable water

● Fire suppression water

● Compressed air, for some services and instrumentation

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 203</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **18** | **PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.1** **ACCESS** 

La Mina is well situated in terms of access to regional highways for both north and south conveyance. Highway 25 connects major transportation hubs in the north and south of the country, and nearby local roads have good access to the highway. The roughly 11 km of off- highway roads needed to access the mine site will require some expansion and drainage improvements to allow heavy machinery and equipment to reliably pass, but nothing exceptional. Road transport of goods is the primary method of delivery accounting for more than seventy percent of material transport in Colombia.

Rail service is not the prime carrier in Colombia but offers benefits in pricing. Rail only transports around twenty-five percent of all national goods. Given the rail access available from the nearest industrial city of Medellin northward to the ports of Santa Marta and Cartagena, bimodal transport may prove profitable depending on the location of the copper concentrate smelter. In the south only the city of Cali is connected to its nearby port of Buenaventura by rail. If northbound rail service from nearby the mine is desired, decommissioned railway tracks lay within 20 km and while repairs would be required, it may result in cost savings over time.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.2** **POWER** 

Favorable investment conditions have enabled electricity generation to keep up with demand and avoid any major blackouts since 1991. Despite these improvements, electricity transmission lines still do not reach some geographically isolated areas of the country. For the La Mina Project, due to its proximity to Medellin, electrical power will not be an issue. Most of the generated power is produced from hydroelectric plants with most of the rest coming from biomass oxidation. The La Mina Project lies within a few dozen kilometers of a 200 kV power substation, of which its additional output capacity is unknown. Local backup power generation would be advisable.

Colombia has some reserves of natural gas and coal which are exported. A nearby gas pipeline may be welcome for the generation of power, should auxiliary power be required. However, coal delivery may prove problematic without nearby rail service.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.3** **LABOR** 

Unskilled labor is available in the area, though with an overall unemployment rate below ten percent it may be difficult to attract higher skilled workers. Locally, there exists a reasonably large class of high school educated locals. Artisanal miners may provide a more skilled workforce with some exposure to the mining process and methods at a reasonable cost.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.4** **WATER** 

Water at the site is plentiful with access to seasonal and year-round streams. On site wells should also produce exceptionally depending on location. Normal water requirements for a typical copper concentrator are 1 cubic meter per tonne treated (this includes recycle from the tailings pond). In the project area, there are no reasons for water supply challenges but it is recommended to be studied further.

Previous and planned exploration operations have acquired water from the aqueduct that supplies water to the La Mina Project. The amount used is minimal (0.27% of the current flow rate) during the rainy season. However, the use of water from this source during the dry season may cause conflicts with the La Mina community. A complete water resources study (surface and groundwater) should be completed over several years to provide baseline information that will allow the Company to make sound judgments on water acquisition and to provide a basis for determining potential impacts and defending the project from frivolous damage claims.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 204</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.5** **SECURITY** 

Colombia, especially the Medellin area has made great strides in the protection of industry and persons since the 1980s. However, local narcotics forces still endanger commerce to some degree. Measures should be taken against non-governmental actions to avoid such inconveniences, such as disruptions to transport of concentrate and electrical power for the La Mina Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.6** **WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL** 

Overburden, soils and barren rock to be stored in close proximity to the open pits.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.7** **TAILINGS DISPOSAL** 

The conceptual plan for the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is based on a total of 37.8 million tonnes of tailings deposited at a rate of 3.65 Mt per year. This equates to 10.4 years of life. A preliminary review of the topographical map indicated a location for the TSF in the southwestern portion of the property. To contain the expected volume, the proposed containment dam will be approximately 1,100 m long with a maximum height of 160 m.

No geotechnical or hydrological testing, evaluations or design have been undertaken to date.

The containment dam would be built employing an initial starter dam with successive height increases constructed in a downstream configuration. The starter dam would be composed of local low permeability soils; the design would include a drainage system and, if appropriate, a liner on the upstream slope. The successive raises would be constructed of the coarse sand underflow portion from thickened tailings slurry compacted to a satisfactory density, provided sufficient coarse materials were generated in the processing operations. Otherwise, the additional raises could be composed of suitable mine waste rock (i.e. if the rock is not Potentially Acid Generating - PAG). If it is considered PAG, then materials, from a nearby quarry or borrow source could be used.

Foundation preparation would require the removal of vegetation, topsoil and unsuitable material excavation to expose a suitably competent foundation to support the TSF embankment and basin. Excavation depths of topsoil and unsuitable materials would be estimated based on the results of the geological and geotechnical investigations. The topsoil would be stockpiled separately for future reclamation purposes, while unsuitable materials would be disposed of in appropriate places.

A tailings deposition plan would likely consist of multiple deposition points from the crest of the TSF, with frequent rotation of the active points to build the deposit in thin layers and to locate the pond away from the embankment structure. The supernatant water recovery would be by barge pump configuration.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 205</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **19** | **MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS** |

---

No market studies have been undertaken for the La Mina Project at this time, and no contracts have been discussed for the sale of the copper concentrate with gold by-products which may be produced at the La Mina Project.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 206</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **20** | **ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY** |

---

The La Mina Project intends to comply with applicable environmental and social regulatory requirements of the Colombian and Regional regulatory agencies and with international standards as dictated by the Equator Principles, International Finance Corporation Principles, Performance Standards and Guidelines, and the World Bank Guidelines. The development of an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) will be required by the government of Colombia to acquire a mining operation permit and by Western Lenders as part of their requirements to provide support for project development.

The ESIA should include a baseline assessment of the site, expected impacts due to Project activities, mitigation actions required to prevent environmental and social impacts, and monitoring programs to determine the success of mitigations. Development and implementation of detailed environmental and social management plans will be required to address construction, operations, closure and post-closure periods of the Project. Closure and post-closure management plans should include appropriate maintenance and continued monitoring of the site, pollution emissions and potential impacts. The duration of monitoring and subsequent mitigations (if required) will be extended through the post-closure period, which should be defined on a risk basis with typical periods requiring a minimum of 5 years after closure or longer.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 207</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **21** | **CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS** |

---

The PEA for the Project considers mining and milling of mineralization from La Cantera and Middle Zone and remains unchanged from January 2022. The PEA currently does not include the new La Garrucha mineral resource estimate.

Capital and operating costs were developed using information available from CostMine cost data service for 2021 by InfoMine USA, Inc. Additionally, all available project technical data and metallurgical process related test work were considered to build up the on-site unit operating cost estimate.

Cost accuracy is estimated to be plus or minus 30% in the opinions of the Authors.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.1** **INITIAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE** 

Initial capital costs are assumed to be incurred in years -2 and -1 of the project when process facilities are constructed, the site is under development, and pre-stripping activities are underway. Initial Capital Costs are outlined in Table 21-1.

**Table 21**-**1 Initial Capital Costs**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Initial Capital Cost** <br> **(USD$ M)** |
| Pre-Stripping Contractor | 46.3 |
| Processing Plant, Direct | 112.0 |
| Processing Plant Indirect (25%) | 28.0 |
| Site Development | 65.0 |
| Tailing Storage Facility | 6.0 |
| Owner's Cost & Contingency (20%)<sup>(1)</sup> | 42.2 |
| Total Initial Capital | 299.5 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*(1) Pre-Stripping Initial Capital Costs were not included in the 20% calculation for Owner*'*s Cost and Contingency in Table 21*-*1.*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.1.1** **PRE-STRIPPING** 

The cost of the 24-month pre-stripping activities was determined by estimating the cost of operations for such activities with appropriately sized equipment and crews, including drilling, blasting, loading, hauling and support activities plus equipment maintenance. A unit cost was estimated for each pre-stripping year and a 30% premium was added to accommodate for contracting these activities, as the equipment required, and pace of activities will differ from main production mining. This is mainly attributed to the steep terrain of the initial topography of the La Cantera and Middle Zone pits.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 208</u>

**Table 21**-**2 Pre-Stripping Initial Capital Costs**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Units** | **Year -2** | **Year -1** | **Total** |
| Waste Material | Mt | 7.0 | 11.0 | 18.0 |
| Material Movement Rate | Tonnes/Day | 19k | 30k | 24.7k |
| Estimated Unit Cost | $/Tonne | $2.27 | $1.69 | $1.92 |
| Contractor Premium | % | 30% | 30% | 30% |
| Contractor Unit Cost | $/Tonnes | $2.95 | $2.20 | $2.49 |
| Mobilization | USD$ M | $1.00 | $0.50 | $1.50 |
| Total Contractor Cost | USD$ M | $21.60 | $24.70 | $46.3 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.1.2** **PROCESSING PLANT INITIAL CAPITAL** 

A capital estimate for the 10,000 tpd process plant was made based on an evaluation of the following data:

● Process flowsheet for a conventional copper concentrator, based on the flowsheet as shown in Figure 17-1.

● Estimates from other projects with similar process unit operations, scaled to reflect the capacity of La Mina and adjusted for inflation.

● Current budgetary pricing for the major grinding equipment.

● Grinding hardness data from the preliminary metallurgical test work.

No engineering, flowsheet design, complete mass balance, equipment sizing (except the mills), quantity take-offs or layout design has been done to support this estimate and it should be considered very preliminary at this stage. This estimate does not include costs for the tailings dam or ancillary infrastructure e.g., offices, warehouses etc.

The estimate is broken out into direct and indirect costs. Direct costs pertain to the permanent equipment, materials and labor associated with the physical construction of the facilities. Indirect costs encompass all other costs associated with implementation of the plant and incurred by the owner, engineer or consultants in the design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of the La Mina Project.

Total direct costs for the process plant, incorporating ore handling and crushing, grinding and classification, flotation, regrinding and copper concentrate filtration, were evaluated as a percentage of the cost of the primary grinding equipment and by applying factors derived from historical project data, for the major process areas.

Indirect costs were estimated at 32% of direct costs and an overall contingency of 20% was applied to both the total direct and indirect cost estimates.

The initial capital estimate for the process plant is summarized in Table 21-3

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 209</u>

**Table 21**-**3 Processing Plant Initial Capital**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Process Area** | **Initial Capital Cost**<br> **(USD$ M)** |
| Primary crushing and stockpile | 24.0 |
| Process plant general | 9.0 |
| Primary/secondary grinding | 35.0 |
| Regrind and flotation | 24.0 |
| Reagents and services | 6.0 |
| Concentrate dewatering/handling | 5.0 |
| Tailings/water pumps and pipelines | 3.0 |
| Total directs | 106.0 |
| Indirects (32%) | 34.0 |
| Total directs + Indirects | 140.0 |
| Contingency (20%) | 28.0 |
| Total process plant | 168.0 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.2** **SUSTAINING CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE** 

Sustaining capital cost estimates include all capital costs that would be incurred years 1 through year 11, and mine closure in year 12. Total sustaining capital cost estimates are summarized in Table 21-4.

**Table 21**-**4 Total Sustaining Capital**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Sustaining Capital Cost**<br> **(USD$ M)** |
| Mining Operations | 61.6 |
| Processing Operations | 5.0 |
| Tailing Storage Facility | 4.8 |
| Mine Closure | 17.4 |
| Total Sustaining Capital | 88.8 |

---

For mining operations, all mining equipment will be purchased new and be ready for commissioning at the beginning of year 1. Mining sustaining capital consists of all the mining equipment fleet and capital cost to maintain the fleet and mining operations. All mining equipment capital was categorized as sustaining since it is required in year 1. Detail of the capital cost for the mining equipment fleet is outlined in Table 21-5.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 210</u>

**Table 21**-**5 Mining Equipment Capital Costs**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** | **LOM Quantity** | **Total Capital Cost**<br> **(USD$ Thousands)** |
| Front-End Wheeled Loader (12.3m Bucket) | 2 | 4752 |
| Haul Truck (91 Tonne) | 14 | 20168 |
| Rotary Crawler Drill | 2 | 4360 |
| Dozer | 2 | 3350 |
| Motor Grader | 2 | 4020 |
| Water Truck | 1 | 2684 |
| Skid Steer | 1 | 58 |
| Bulk ANFO Truck | 1 | 333 |
| Light Plants | 12 | 230 |
| Light Duty Pickups | 12 | 624 |
| Field Service Truck | 2 | 151 |
| Field Lube Truck | 1 | 90 |
| Off-Road Tire Truck | 1 | 75 |
| Total |  | 40894 |
| Contingency (20%) |  | 8179 |
| Total Mining Fleet Cost with Contingency |  | 49073 |

---

The estimated mining operation sustaining cost was based on a unit cost of $0.09 USD/tonne mined starting in year 2. This is equal to USD$12.5 million over the life of the mine. Table 21-6 outlines the total mining operational sustaining costs.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 211</u>

**Table 21**-**6 Mining Operational Sustaining Capital Costs**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Sustaining Capital Cost**<br> **(USD$ M)** |
| Mining Equipment Fleet | 49.1 |
| Mining Operational Sustaining Capital | 12.5 |
| Total Mine Operations | 61.6 |

---

For the process plant, annual sustaining capital costs were estimated at $0.5M per annum to cover the cost of replacement and upgrades of equipment and control systems through the life of the project, starting in year 2 of operations. This totals USD$5 million of the life of the mine. No contingency was applied to this cost.

Mine closure costs were estimated based on $0.10 USD/tonne of material mined, including material stripping in the 24-month stripping campaign. The total for mine close came to $17.38 million and was applied in year 14 after mining activities have completed.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.3** **MINING OPERATING COST** 

Mining operating costs were built up from first principles based on the annual mine plan developed for the preliminary economic assessment. The costs considered production physicals, assumed equipment productivities, consumables and operating maintenance and associated labor for production and supporting activities. Table 22-7 outlines the life-of-mine peak labor requirements and average unit cost for each mine activity category. For financial analysis, yearly labor and unit calculated costs were used.

**Table 21**-**7 Mining Peak Labor Headcount and Average LOM Operating Cost Summary**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Mine Activity** | **Peak Labor** <br> **Headcount** | **LOM Average Unit Cost**<br> **(USD$/Tonne Mined)** |
| Drilling | 8 | 0.10 |
| Blasting | 10 | 0.34 |
| Loading | 8 | 0.10 |
| Hauling | 56 | 0.53 |
| Mine Support | 25 | 0.34 |
| Maintenance | 20 | 0.19 |
| Technical Services | 15 | 0.12 |
| Total | 142 | 1.73 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 212</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.4** **PROCESSING OPERATING COST** 

Process plant operating costs were estimated using the following cost categories: power, labor, reagents, wear parts, spare parts, and other costs. The breakdown of processing operating costs by category is summarized in Table 21-8.

In general, the process operating cost estimate is based on the following preliminary documentation: preliminary metallurgical test work report, conceptual process schematic, conceptual mass balance, list of reagents and consumables, and a staffing plan appropriate for the location and size.

The operating cost was built up based on labor levels, grinding media and reagent consumption and maintenance spares usage typical of copper porphyry process plants. Power consumption was factored from estimated grinding power and costed at an electrical power cost of 9 c/kWh. Columbian labor rates were provided by GoldMining Inc and a 30% burden was added to account for social costs and benefits.

**Table 21**-**8 Process Plant Manpower and Operating Cost Summary**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Labor** <br> **Headcount** | **Annual Cost**<br> **(USD $)** | **Unit Cost** <br> **(USD $/Tonne**<br> **Processed)** |
| Personnel |  |  |  |
| Operating Staff | 11 | 643500 | 0.18 |
| Operator Labor | 61 | 1319500 | 0.36 |
| Maintenance | 66 | 1527500 | 0.42 |
| Metallurgical Lab | 3 | 123500 | 0.03 |
| Assay Lab | 13 | 526500 | 0.14 |
| Sub-Total Manpower | 154 | 4140500 | 1.13 |
| Major Consumables |  |  |  |
| Metal Consumables |  | 8289676 | 2.27 |
| Reagent Consumables |  | 2789101 | 0.76 |
| Supplies |  |  |  |
| Maintenance Supplies |  | 3249099 | 0.89 |
| Operating Supplies |  | 638996 | 0.18 |
| Power Supply |  | 9066600 | 2.48 |
| Sub-Total Supplies, including Power |  | 24033471 | 6.58 |
| Process Total Cost |  | 28173971 | 7.72 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.5** **G&A COSTS** 

General and administrative costs were estimated at 5% the cost of mining and processing costs. The life-of-mine average G&A cost was USD$0.18 per total tonne mined, or USD$0.74 per tonne processed.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 213</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **22** | **ECONOMIC ANALYSIS** |

---

The PEA for the Project considers mining and milling of mineralization from La Cantera and Middle Zone and remains unchanged from January 2022. The PEA currently does not include the new La Garrucha mineral resource estimate.

This PEA is preliminary in nature, it includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the preliminary economic assessment will be realized. The current basis of the La Mina Project information is not sufficient to convert the in-situ Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves, and Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The PEA results are only intended as an initial, first-pass review of the project economics based on preliminary information.

The economic analysis for the La Mina Project assumed constant 2021 US dollars and was performed on an annual basis beginning at the start of year -2. Construction and pre-stripping activities were assumed to require 2 years prior to delivering mineralized material to the mill. The annual mine plan developed and outlined in Section 16 was used as the main driving force in determining the annual cost for the project. Unit costs outlined in Sections 16 and 17 for mining and processing, respectively, were used in the annual cash flow model to determine the economics of the La Mina Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.1** **KEY PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS** 

Table 22-1 details the key performance parameters and assumptions used in this PEA and the economic analysis for the La Mina Project.

**Table 22**-**1 La Mina Project Key Parameters and Assumptions**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | Units | Value |
| Mineralized Material | M Tonnes | 37.8 |
| Strip Ratio (Rejected:Mineralized Material) | # | 3.60 |
| Mine Life | Years | 10.4 |
| Process Plant Production Rate | Tonne/day | 10000 |
| Contained Metal in Mineralized Material<br> Copper<br> Gold<br> Silver<br> Gold Equivalent | M lb<br> M oz<br> M oz<br> M oz | 196.55<br> 0.84<br> 2.03<br> 1.28 |
| Process Plant Feed Grade<br> Copper<br> Gold<br> Silver<br> Gold Equivalent | %<br> g/t<br> g/t<br> g/t | 0.24<br> 0.69<br> 1.67<br> 1.06 |
| Process Plant Metal Recoveries<br> Copper<br> Gold<br> Silver | %<br> %% | 84<br> 82<br> 30 |
| Process Plant Payable Metal<br> Copper<br> Gold<br> Silver<br> Gold Equivalent | M lb<br> M oz<br> M oz<br> M oz | 160.15<br> 0.67<br> 0.56<br> 1.01 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 214</u>

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | Units | Value |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Metal Prices<br> Copper<br> Gold<br> Silver | $/lb<br> $/oz<br> $/oz | 3.39<br> 1600<br> 21 |
| Operating Unit Cost | $/t process | 15.58 |
| Preproduction Capital | USD $M | 299.50 |
| Sustaining Capital | USD $M | 88.76 |
| Total Capital Costs | USD $M | 388.26 |
| Colombian Taxes | % | 30 |
| Royalties<br> Copper<br> Gold<br> Silver | %<br> %% | 7<br> 6<br> 6 |
| Exploration Deductible | USD $M | 10 |
| Commercial and Transportation Assumptions | Commercial and Transportation Assumptions | Commercial and Transportation Assumptions |
| Payable Gold | % | 97 |
| Payable Silver | % | 92 |
| Payable Copper | % | 96 |
| Treatment Charge | USD$/t | 70 |
| Refining Charge – Au | USD $/oz | 2.00 |
| Refining Charge – Ag | % of Metal Price | 1 |
| Refining Charge – Cu | USD$/lb | 0.0699 |
| Copper Concentrate Transportation |  |  |
| Concentrate Trucking and Port | USD$/t | 29 |
| Concentrate Shipping | USD4/t | 45 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.2** **TAXES, ROYALTIES AND OTHER INTERESTS** 

Tax calculations in the financial model are based on current tax laws in Colombia which are 30%. Payable royalties for the project are outlined in Table 22-2.

**Table 22**-**2 Project Royalties**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Royalty | Colombia Government GRR | GRC | Total |
| Copper | 5% | 2% | 7% |
| Gold | 4% | 2% | 6% |
| Silver | 4% | 2% | 6% |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.3** **CASH FLOW** 

Table 22-3 details material and metal quantities on an annual basis for the project. The table also includes the gross revenue based on those results. Table 22-4 details the project annual cash flow for the project.

The key economic results for the La Mina project are outlined in Table 22-5.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 215</u>

**Table 22**-**3 Annual Material Movement, Metal Production and Gross Revenue**

![ex_480463img146.jpg](ex_480463img146.jpg)

**Table 22**-**4 Annual Cash Flow**

![ex_480463img147.jpg](ex_480463img147.jpg)

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 216</u>

**Table 22**-**5 Economic Results**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Parameters | Unis | Values |
| Pre-Tax NPV (5%) | USD $M | 339.76 |
| Post-Tax NPV (5%) | USD $M | 231.47 |
| Pre-Tax IRR | % | 18.1 |
| Post-Tax IRR | % | 14.5 |
| Payback | Years | 7 |
| Preproduction Capital | USD $M | 299.50 |
| Sustaining Capital | USD $M | 88.76 |
| Total Capital Costs | USD $M | 388.26 |
| Life-of-Mine Unit Cash Cost | $/oz | 497 |
| Life-of-Mine All-In Sustaining Unit Cost | $/oz | 698 |

---

**The preliminary economic assessment is preliminary in nature, and there is no certainty that the reported results will be realized. The Mineral Resource estimate used for the PEA includes Inferred Mineral Resources which are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that the projected economic performance will be realized. The purpose of the PEA is to demonstrate the economic viability of the La Mina Project, and the results are only intended as an initial, first-pass review of the Project economics based on preliminary information. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.4** **SENSITIVITY** 

The sensitivity of the PEA for the La Mina Project has been evaluated against key assumptions. Table 22-6 outlines the sensitivity to the after-tax NPV and IRR based on changes in just the gold price.

**Table 22**-**6 Sensitivity of Estimated NPV and IRR (After-Tax) to Variation in Gold Price**

![ex_480463img148.jpg](ex_480463img148.jpg)

Additional sensitivity analyses were evaluated on after-tax NPV and IRR shown in Figure 22-1 and Figure 22-2 respectively. For both figures, operating costs, capital costs and metal prices were adjusted individually on a percent basis from the base case assumptions. Changes in the metal prices are indicative of changes in the respective metal recoveries.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 217</u>

![ex_480463img149.jpg](ex_480463img149.jpg)

**Figure 22**-**1 Sensitivity of Estimated NPV @ 5% After-Tax for Changes in Costs and Metal Prices**

![ex_480463img150.jpg](ex_480463img150.jpg)

**Figure 22**-**2 Sensitivity of Estimated IRR After-Tax for Changes in Costs and Metal Prices**

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 218</u>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.5** **CASH COSTS** 

The average total cash cost over the life of the mine is estimated to be US$15.58 per processed tonne. Table 22-7 outlines the cash costs for the La Mina Project.

**Table 22**-**7 Cash Costs**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | Unit Costs | Unit Costs |
|  | (US$ /t process) | (US$ /oz) |
| Mining | 7.12 | 403.5 |
| Processing | 7.72 | 437.4 |
| G&A (mine site) | 0.74 | 42.0 |
| Sub-Total (on-site) | 15.58 | 882.9 |
| Transport |  | 32.0 |
| Off-Taker (TC, RC) |  | 50.5 |
| Sub-Total (off-site) |  | 82.5 |
| Royalties |  | 127.1 |
| Income Tax |  | 237.0 |
| By-Product Credits (Cu, Ag) |  | (832.1) |
| Unit Cash Cost |  | 497 |
| Corporate G&A |  | 67.3 |
| Sustaining Capital |  | 107.1 |
| Closure / Reclamation |  | 26.1 |
| All In Sustaining Unit Cost |  | 698 |

---

The unit cash cost of US$497 per ounce is the total cash operating on-site costs plus off-site costs, royalties and income taxes. By-product credits include contributions from copper and silver, which account for approximately 40% of the revenue. Adhering to the definition according to the World Gold Council, the All in Sustaining unit cost is US$698 per ounce.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 219</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **23** | **ADJACENT PROPERTIES**  |

---

There are no adjacent properties to La Mina that have published NI 43-101 technical reports.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 220</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **24** | **OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION**  |

---

The authors are not aware of any other information that would aid in the understanding of the La Mina Project or the La Cantera deposit.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 221</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **25** | **INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS**  |

---

This report was prepared by a group of independent consultants, all Qualified Persons as defined by NI 31-101, to demonstrate the economic viability of open pit mining and processing, based on the estimated Mineral Resources at the La Mina Project. This report provides a summary of the results and findings to the level that should be expected for a preliminary economic assessment. Standard industry practices and assumptions have been applied in this study.

Mineral Resources meet the reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction due two main factors; 1) cutoff grades are based on scientific data and assumptions related to the project and 2) Mineral Resources are estimated only within pit limits derived by the scientific data as well as by using generally accepted mining and processing costs. Confidence in the Mineral Estimate was used to classify Mineral Resources based upon drill hole spacing, geological knowledge of the deposits, metallurgical studies and a proper QA/QC program.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.1** **PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT** 

Estimated Mineral Resources were assumed to be conventionally mined and processed with a conventional concentrator to produce a copper and gold concentrate that would be shipped to an external refinery.

Under the base case assumption for the project, the preliminary economic assessment indicated an undiscounted pre-tax cash flow of $635 million, and a post-tax NPV at 5% of $231.5 million.

Table 25-1 shows the results of sensitivity analyses of post-tax cash flow and post-tax IRR show that the project is most sensitive to recovery and gold price while the project is least sensitive to changes in capital costs.

**Table 25**-**1 NPV and IRR Sensitivity to Gold Price, After-Tax**

![table251.jpg](table251.jpg)

The base case assumptions demonstrate that the La Mina project may produce an average of 102,520 gold equivalent ounces per year averaged over full producing years.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.2** **METALLURGY** 

The preliminary metallurgical tests indicate that the La Mina samples (La Cantera and the Middle Zone) are amenable to standard flotation for copper and gold recovery and to cyanide leaching for gold recovery.

Considering the available data from the metallurgical test work completed to date and recognizing that this work is scoping in nature, it is suggested that base case gold and copper recoveries of 82% and 84% respectively be applied for a concentrator based on this recovery process. Further analysis of the test data to review the possible range of metal recoveries, show the potential for higher gold and copper recoveries in the order of 87% and 87% respectively. It is reasonable to assume that further test work and optimization work around primary grind size, flotation reagents, mass pull and concentrate regrind could further improve gold and copper recoveries and provide confidence in the metallurgical response and optimization of the recovery process.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 222</u>

Approximately 10-20% of the gold and copper remains in the final flotation plant tails stream. It is possible that further gold and copper recovery could be attained with further metallurgical and mineralogical study and optimization of the flotation process. It is also possible that cyanidation of either the rougher or cleaner tailings streams could also achieve additional recovery. The whole rock CIL test work data shows gold recovery around 87% at a grind size of 75 µm and with high cyanide consumption, due to the presence of copper. Further work would need to be done to evaluate the economic potential for additional gold recovery.

The likely presence of oxide/saprolite and transition material in the upper part of the deposit will probably impact the flotation recoveries attained for those materials. Currently, the effect is not quantifiable and warrants further investigation.

Further in-depth metallurgical test work needs to be conducted to enhance the understanding of the metallurgy to support further development studies for the project. Fresh representative samples will be needed for future testing, since oxidation is a concern.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.3** **MINING** 

Conventional surface mining methods using surface drill and blast techniques with off highway truck and front-end loaders were assumed for this report and are standard amongst similar mines. Equipment requirements were based on typical equipment performance in similar mines. Haul truck estimates were based on estimated cycle times for each year for each pit. No detailed mined designs nor haul road designs were completed for this report, however such detail will provide better understanding of hauling requirements.

Pit slope angles were assumed to be 50 degrees for both pits. These slope angles may be aggressive and further geotechnical studies are needed to understand the stability of the pit walls. Detailed pit designs with haul roads may also contribute to flatter overall wall slope angles.

The mine production schedule was created using Gemcom's Whittle software. Nested whittle pit shells were generated and used as phases for scheduling each pit. No crest/toe pit designs with haul roads were created for interim phases nor ultimate pits. This method of mine production scheduling is adequate for a preliminary technical report to provide the initial viability of an economic mine schedule. Detailed mine designs incorporating haul roads for each phase of each pit will provide more attainable mine production schedule.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 223</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **26** | **RECOMMENDATIONS**  |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.1** **RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT** 

It is recommended that GoldMining implement the following resource development plans at La Mina:

● Evaluate the exploration opportunity to further expand the La Cantera resource and evaluate possible connections to Middle Zone at depth. Drill test resulting targets.

● Evaluate the exploration opportunity for expansion of the Middle Zone deposit, particularly at depth. Drill test resulting targets.

● Drill test the exploration opportunity at the La Garrucha target which remains open along strike to the southeast.

● Evaluate the requirements for infill drilling to upgrade the La Cantera and La Garrucha resources to M&I

● Evaluate the requirements for infill drilling to upgrade the Middle Zone resource to M&I advance the metallurgical evaluation of the La Cantera and La Garrucha mineralization for input to future engineering studies.

Several additional porphyry intrusions are interpreted from existing geophysical datasets throughout the La Mina concessions. It is recommended the Company also undertakes a systematic exploration program to further test these targets for discovery of new porphyry gold-copper mineralization.

**Table 26**-**1 Proposed Phase 1 Work Program to advance La Mina**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Activity** | **Amount (USD $M)** |
| Property exploration to test additional porphyry targets | 1.0 |
| Drilling Program focusing on resource expansion | 1.7 |
| Drill technical services and assaying | 0.2 |
| Updated Mineral Resource Estimate | 0.1 |
| Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment | 0.2 |
| Metallurgical Testing | 0.3 |
| Total | 3.5 |

---

● The author has not recommended successive phases of work for the advancement of the Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.2** **METALLURGICAL TESTING** 

Further metallurgical tests should be run on composite samples representative of the La Mina deposits. The following are some recommendations for future testing:

● All sample core for met testing should be stored to minimize oxidation between time of collection and delivery to the met laboratory e.g., in plastic sleeves with either the air removed, or nitrogen added to prevent oxidation and storage/transport in refrigerated units.

● The test work program should incorporate testing on fresh and oxide/transition material, and include testing for:

- mineralogy to understand mineral deportment, grain size distribution and liberation size.

- SAG and Ball mill grinding parameters

- Primary grind size and concentrate regrind size determination

- Tests to generate understanding of grade vs recovery

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 224</u>

- Open and lock cycle flotation tests to confirm flotation parameters, cleaner requirements and reagent scheme.

- Evaluation of sulphidization for oxide/transition flotation.

- Evaluation of cyanide leaching on the cleaner tails

- Settling tests on flotation tails

- Filtration tests on concentrate.

An estimate for the future metallurgical test work program is summarized in Table 26-2, based on three composites for the La Mina deposits.

**Table 26**-**2 Future Metallurgical Test Work Cost Estimate**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Description | Units | Cost (USD $) |
| Sample receipt, preparation, reporting |  | 30500 |
| Mineralogy: feed, concentrates | 12 | 39000 |
| Open circuit flotation tests, rougher, cleaner | 50 | 55500 |
| Locked cycle tests | 6 | 23000 |
| Concentrate generation flotation tests | 4 | 28500 |
| Concentrate analysis, assays |  | 3500 |
| Comminution tests: SMC, BWi, regrind SGE |  | 22750 |
| Concentrate filtration, tailings settling |  | 8700 |
| Geochemical characterization of tailings |  | 1600 |
| Contingency |  | 38799 |
| Total |  | 251849 |

---

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

------

GoldMining Inc.

<u>NI 43-101 Report – La Mina Project</u> <u>Page 225</u>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **27** | **REFERENCES** |

---

Aurum Exploration Inc. and Alberto Montoya-Arbelaez, Mining Rights Purchase Agreement, La Mina Project, May 14, 2010.

Aurum Exploration Inc., Montoya Option License. April 15, 2010

Cediel, F., R. P. Shaw, and C. Cáceres, (2003), Tectonic assembly of the Northern Andean Block, AAPG Memoir 79, p. 815-848.

Cediel, F., and Cáceres, C., (2000), Geologic map of Colombia, Geotec Ltd., Third Edition, Digital Format with Legend and Tectono-Stratigraphic Chart.

Durán, R., et al., (2005). Complementación Geológica, Geoquímica y Geofísica (Magnetométrica) de las Planchas 166, 167, 186 y 187, Escala 1:100,000, IGAC, Zona de Influencia del Sector Caucal-Romeral. Report by Union Temporal Dunia ATG (Dunia Consultores Ltda & Asesorias Técnicas Geológicas), Bogotá, 23 November 2005, 462 p.

Gustafson, L.B. and Hunt, J.P., (1975), The Porphyry Copper Deposit at El Salvador, Chile: Economic Geology, v. 70, p. 857-912.

InterPro Development, (2013), La Mina Gold-Copper Project Antioquia, Republic of Colombia, PEA, September 2013.

Resource Development Inc., (2011) Metallurgical Study for La Mina Porphyry Gold and Copper Prospect, Colombia, October 19, 2011, 106 p.

Resource Development Associates Inc., (2022) NI 43-101 Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment for the La Mina Project, Antioquia, Republic of Colombia, February 25, 2022, 215 p.

Wilson, S.E., (2011) NI 43-101 Technical Report, Bellhaven Copper and Gold Inc., La Mina Project, Antioquia, Republic of Colombia" Scott E. Wilson Consulting, Inc., Scott Wilson CPG, August 29, 2011, 92 p.

Wilson, S.E., (2013) NI 43-101 Technical Report, Bellhaven Copper and Gold Inc., La Mina Project, Antioquia, Republic of Colombia" Scott E. Wilson Consulting, Inc., Scott Wilson CPG, May 2013, 148 p.

Wilson, S.E., (2021) NI 43-101 Technical Report, GoldMining Inc., La Mina Project, Antioquia, Republic of Colombia" Metal Mining Consultants, Inc., Scott Wilson CPG, September 2021, 200 p.

------

Resource Development Associates Inc

Effective Date December 20, 2022

## Exhibit 99.2

**Exhibit 99.2**

**NI 43-101**

**MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE**

**FOR THE**<br> **WHISTLER PROJECT**

![w001.jpg](w001.jpg)

***South Central Alaska***

*Centred at 6,872,000 N and 520,000 E (NAD 83)*

---

| |
|:---|
| *Submitted to:* |
| **GoldMining Inc and U.S. GoldMining Inc.** |
| 1830-1030 West Georgia St. |
| Vancouver, B.C. V6E 2Y3 Canada |
| Tel: 604.630.1000 |
| **Effective Date: 22 September, 2022** |
| **Date of Issue: 23 January, 2023** |
| *Submitted by:* |
| **Moose Mountain Technical Services** |
| #210 1510-2<sup>nd</sup> St. North |
| Cranbrook, B.C. V1C 3L2 Canada |
| Tel: 250.489.1212 |
| *Author:* |
| **Sue Bird, P. Eng.** |
| Email: sueb@moosemmc.com |

---

Page 1 of 191

------

**DATE & SIGNATURE PAGES**

**Herewith, our report entitled "NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate for the Whistler Project" with an effective date of 22 September, 2022.**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| *"Signed and Sealed"* |  |
| **Signature of Sue Bird** | **Dated: January 23, 2023** |
| **M.Sc., P.Eng.** |  |
| **Moose Mountain Technical Services** |  |

---

Page 2 of 191

------

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON** – **SUE BIRD**

I, Sue Bird, P.Eng., am employed as a Geological Engineer with Moose Mountain Technical Services, with an office address of #210 1510 2nd Street North Cranbrook, BC V1C 3L2. This certificate applies to the technical report titled "NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate for the Whistler Project" that has an effective date of September 22, 2022 (the "technical report").

● I am a member of the self-regulating Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (#25007). I graduated with a Geologic Engineering degree (B.Sc.) from the Queen's University in 1989 and a M.Sc. in Mining from Queen's University in 1993.

● I have worked as an engineering geologist for over 25 years since my graduation from university. I have worked on precious metals, base metals and coal mining projects, including mine operations and evaluations. Similar resource estimate projects specifically include those done for Artemis' Blackwater gold project, Ascot's Premier Gold Project, Spanish Mountain Gold, all in BC; O3's Marban and Garrison, gold projects in Quebec and Ontario, respectively, as well as numerous due diligence gold projects in the southern US done confidentially for various clients.

● As a result of my experience and qualifications, I am a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43–101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43–101).

● I visited the property on September 14, 2022.

● I am responsible for all Sections of the technical report, including Sections 1 through 27 and the Appendix.

● I am independent of GoldMining Inc. and U.S. GoldMining Inc. as independence is described by Section 1.5 of NI 43–101.

● I have previously prepared resource estimates for the Whistler Deposit for Kiska Metals Corporation in March, 2011 which was re-issued by Brazil Resources Inc. (now GoldMining Inc.) in May, 2016. I also co-authored the 2021 NI43-101 resource estimate with an effective date of June 11, 2021 and an additional S-K 1300 updated resource estimate with an effective date of September 22, 2022 and dated 16 December, 2022.

● I have read NI 43–101 and the sections of the technical report for which I am responsible have been prepared in compliance with that Instrument.

As of the effective date of the technical report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the technical report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.

**Dated: 23 January, 2023**

*"Signed and Sealed*" 

Signature of Qualified Person

**Sue Bird, P.Eng.**

Page 3 of 191

------

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **1**  | **SUMMARY** | **SUMMARY** | **SUMMARY** | **13** |
|  | 1.1 | Introduction  | Introduction  | 13 |
|  | 1.2 | Mineral Resource Estimate  | Mineral Resource Estimate  | 13 |
|  | 1.3 | Terms of Reference  | Terms of Reference  | 14 |
|  | 1.4 | Project Setting  | Project Setting  | 14 |
|  | 1.5 | Mineral Tenure  | Mineral Tenure  | 15 |
|  |  | *1.5.1* | *Royalties and Encumbrances*  | *15* |
|  | 1.6 | Surface Rights  | Surface Rights  | 15 |
|  | 1.7 | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography  | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography  | 16 |
|  |  | *1.7.1* | *Accessibility and Climate*  | *16* |
|  |  | *1.7.2* | *Local Resources and Infrastructure*  | *16* |
|  |  | *1.7.3* | *Physiography*  | *16* |
|  | 1.8 | History  | History  | 16 |
|  | 1.9 | Geologic Setting and Mineralization  | Geologic Setting and Mineralization  | 17 |
|  | 1.10 | Exploration  | Exploration  | 18 |
|  | 1.11 | Drilling  | Drilling  | 18 |
|  | 1.12 | Sample Preparation Analysis and Security  | Sample Preparation Analysis and Security  | 18 |
|  | 1.13 | Data Verification  | Data Verification  | 19 |
|  | 1.14 | Metallurgy  | Metallurgy  | 19 |
|  | 1.15 | Permitting  | Permitting  | 19 |
|  | 1.16 | Risks and Opportunities  | Risks and Opportunities  | 19 |
|  |  | *1.16.1* | *Sampling, Preparation, Analysis and Data Risks and Opportunities*  | *19* |
|  |  | *1.16.2* | *Metallurgical Testwork Risks and Opportunities*  | *19* |
|  |  | *1.16.3* | *Resource Estimate Risks and Opportunities*  | *19* |
|  | 1.17 | Conclusions and Recommendations  | Conclusions and Recommendations  | 20 |
|  |  | *1.17.1* | *Sampling, Preparation, Analysis Conclusions*  | *20* |
|  |  | *1.17.2* | *Metallurgical Testwork Conclusions*  | *20* |
|  |  | *1.17.3* | *Resource Estimate Conclusions*  | *20* |
|  |  | *1.17.4* | *Sampling, Preparation, Analysis Recommendations*  | *20* |
|  |  | *1.17.5* | *Metallurgical Recommendations*  | *21* |
|  |  | *1.17.6* | *Resource and Exploration Recommendations*  | *21* |
| **2**  | **INTRODUCTION**  | **INTRODUCTION**  | **INTRODUCTION**  | **22** |
|  | 2.1 | Terms of Reference  | Terms of Reference  | 22 |
|  | 2.2 | Qualified Persons  | Qualified Persons  | 22 |
|  | 2.3 | Site visits and Scope of Personal Inspection  | Site visits and Scope of Personal Inspection  | 22 |
|  | 2.4 | Effective Date  | Effective Date  | 22 |
|  | 2.5 | Sources of Information  | Sources of Information  | 22 |
| **3**  | **RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS**  | **RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS**  | **RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS**  | **23** |
|  | 3.1 | Mineral Tenure and Surface Rights  | Mineral Tenure and Surface Rights  | 23 |
|  | 3.2 | Royalties and Incumbrances | Royalties and Incumbrances | 23 |
| **4**  | **PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION**  | **PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION**  | **PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION**  | **24** |
|  | 4.1 | Royalties and Encumbrances  | Royalties and Encumbrances  | 25 |
| **5**  | **ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY**  | **ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY**  | **ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY**  | **27** |
|  | 5.1 | Accessibility  | Accessibility  | 27 |

---

Page 4 of 191

------

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | 5.2 | Climate  | Climate  | 28 |
|  | 5.3 | Local Resources  | Local Resources  | 28 |
|  | 5.4 | Infrastructure  | Infrastructure  | 28 |
|  | 5.5 | Physiography  | Physiography  | 30 |
| **6**  | **HISTORY**  | **HISTORY**  | **HISTORY**  | **31** |
| **7**  | **GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION**  | **GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION**  | **GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION**  | **33** |
|  | 7.1 | Geological Setting  | Geological Setting  | 33 |
|  | 7.2 | Property Geology  | Property Geology  | 38 |
|  |  | *7.2.1* | *Whistler Corridor*  | *39* |
|  |  | *7.2.2* | *Island Mountain*  | *40* |
|  |  | *7.2.3* | *Muddy Creek*  | *43* |
|  | 7.3 | Mineralization  | Mineralization  | 45 |
|  |  | *7.3.1* | *Whistler Area and Whistler Deposit Mineralization Overview*  | *47* |
|  |  | *7.3.2* | *Mineralization: Whistler Deposit*  | *53* |
|  |  | *7.3.3* | *Mineralization: Raintree West*  | *58* |
|  |  | *7.3.4* | *Mineralization: Island Mountain*  | *61* |
|  |  | *7.3.5* | *Mineralization: Muddy Creek*  | *64* |
| **8**  | **DEPOSIT TYPES**  | **DEPOSIT TYPES**  | **DEPOSIT TYPES**  | **66** |
| **9**  | **EXPLORATION**  | **EXPLORATION**  | **EXPLORATION**  | **67** |
|  | 9.1 | Geological Mapping  | Geological Mapping  | 67 |
|  | 9.2 | Airborne Geophysics  | Airborne Geophysics  | 67 |
|  | 9.3 | Ground Geophysics  | Ground Geophysics  | 68 |
|  | 9.4 | Soil and Rock Sampling  | Soil and Rock Sampling  | 71 |
| **10**  | **DRILLING**  | **DRILLING**  | **DRILLING**  | **73** |
|  | 10.1 | Drilling by Cominco Alaska Inc.  | Drilling by Cominco Alaska Inc.  | 76 |
|  | 10.2 | Drilling by Kennecott  | Drilling by Kennecott  | 77 |
|  | 10.3 | Drilling by Geoinformatics  | Drilling by Geoinformatics  | 77 |
|  | 10.4 | Drilling by Kiska  | Drilling by Kiska  | 77 |
|  |  | *10.4.1* | *Whistler Deposit*  | *78* |
|  |  | *10.4.2* | *Raintree Deposit*  | *78* |
|  |  | *10.4.3* | *Whistler Area Exploration Drilling*  | *78* |
|  |  | *10.4.4* | *Island Mountain Drilling*  | *79* |
| **11**  | **SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY**  | **SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY**  | **SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY**  | **83** |
|  | 11.1 | Sample Preparation and Analyses  | Sample Preparation and Analyses  | 83 |
|  |  | *11.1.1* | *Sample Preparation and Analysis - Cominco*  | *83* |
|  |  | *11.1.2* | *Sample Preparation and Analysis* – *Kennecott and Geoinformatics*  | *83* |
|  |  | *11.1.3* | *Sample Preparation and Analysis* – *Kiska*  | *84* |
|  | 11.2 | Sample Security  | Sample Security  | 85 |
|  | 11.3 | QAQC Summary  | QAQC Summary  | 86 |
|  |  | *11.3.1* | *QAQC Whistler Deposit*  | *87* |
|  |  | *11.3.2* | *QAQC Raintree Deposit*  | *97* |
|  |  | *11.3.3* | *QAQC Island Mountain Deposit*  | *109* |
|  | 11.4 | Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security Conclusions and Recommendations  | Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security Conclusions and Recommendations  | 118 |
| **12**  | **DATA VERIFICATION**  | **DATA VERIFICATION**  | **DATA VERIFICATION**  | **120** |
|  | 12.1 | Site Visit  | Site Visit  | 120 |

---

Page 5 of 191

------

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | 12.2 | Data Audit  | Data Audit  | 123 |
|  |  | *12.2.1* | *Certificate Checks and Database Corrections*  | *121* |
|  |  | *12.2.2* | *Check assays*  | *122* |
|  | 12.3 | Collar Survey  | Collar Survey  | 126 |
|  | 12.4 | Data Verification Conclusions and Recommendations  | Data Verification Conclusions and Recommendations  | 126 |
| **13**  | **MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING**  | **MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING**  | **MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING**  | **127** |
|  | 13.1 | Summary of Preliminary Metallurgical Testing, Whistler Deposit (Phase One)  | Summary of Preliminary Metallurgical Testing, Whistler Deposit (Phase One)  | 127 |
|  |  | *13.1.1* | *Sample Preparation*  | *127* |
|  | 13.2 | Testing  | Testing  | 128 |
|  |  | *13.2.1* | *Results from Preliminary Testing*  | *128* |
|  |  | *13.2.2* | *Preliminary Conclusions*  | *130* |
|  | 13.3 | Summary of Preliminary Metallurgical Testing, Island Mountain Deposit (August 21, 2010) (Phase 2)  | Summary of Preliminary Metallurgical Testing, Island Mountain Deposit (August 21, 2010) (Phase 2)  | 130 |
|  |  | *13.3.1* | *Introduction*  | *130* |
|  |  | *13.3.2* | *Sample Selection*  | *130* |
|  |  | *13.3.3* | *Feed Grade*  | *131* |
|  |  | *13.3.4* | *Test Program*  | *131* |
|  |  | *13.3.5* | *Metallurgical Results*  | *132* |
|  |  | *13.3.6* | *Whole Ore Leach*  | *132* |
|  |  | *13.3.7* | *Leaching of Selective Flotation Tails* | *133* |
|  |  | *13.3.8* | *Overall Recoveries*  | *133* |
|  |  | *13.3.9* | *Conclusions*  | *133* |
|  | 13.4 | Summary of Whistler Deposit Testwork (2012) (Phase 3)  | Summary of Whistler Deposit Testwork (2012) (Phase 3)  | 134 |
|  |  | *13.4.1* | *Metallurgical Samples*  | *134* |
|  |  | *13.4.2* | *Results*  | *137* |
|  | 13.5 | Cyanidation  | Cyanidation  | 141 |
|  | 13.6 | Concentrate Specifications  | Concentrate Specifications  | 141 |
|  | 13.7 | Conclusions  | Conclusions  | 142 |
|  | 13.8 | Overall Metallurgical Observations and Comments for 2021 Resource Estimate  | Overall Metallurgical Observations and Comments for 2021 Resource Estimate  | 142 |
| **14**  | **MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE**  | **MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE**  | **MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE**  | **144** |
|  | 14.1 | Mineral Resource Estimate  | Mineral Resource Estimate  | 144 |
|  | 14.2 | Key Assumptions and Data used in the Estimate  | Key Assumptions and Data used in the Estimate  | 147 |
|  | 14.3 | Geologic Modelling  | Geologic Modelling  | 148 |
|  | 14.4 | Capping  | Capping  | 150 |
|  | 14.5 | Compositing  | Compositing  | 154 |
|  | 14.6 | Variography  | Variography  | 155 |
|  | 14.7 | Block Model Interpolations  | Block Model Interpolations  | 162 |
|  | 14.8 | Classification  | Classification  | 164 |
|  | 14.9 | Block Model Validation  | Block Model Validation  | 164 |
|  |  | *14.9.1* | *Comparison of Tonnage and Grades*  | *164* |
|  | 14.10 | Visual Validation  | Visual Validation  | 168 |
|  | 14.11 | Reasonable Prospects of Eventual Economic Extraction  | Reasonable Prospects of Eventual Economic Extraction  | 174 |
|  | 14.12 | Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate  | Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate  | 175 |
|  | 14.13 | Risk Assessment  | Risk Assessment  | 176 |
| **15**  | **MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES**  | **MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES**  | **MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES**  | **177** |
| **16**  | **MINING METHOD**  | **MINING METHOD**  | **MINING METHOD**  | **177** |
| **17**  | **RECOVERY METHODS**  | **RECOVERY METHODS**  | **RECOVERY METHODS**  | **177** |
|  | 17.1 | Process Design Parameters  | Process Design Parameters  | 177 |
|  | 17.2 | Proposed Process Flowsheet and Process Description  | Proposed Process Flowsheet and Process Description  | 178 |
|  |  | *17.2.1* | *Overall Flowsheet*  | *178* |
|  |  | *17.2.2* | *Crushing*  | *178* |
|  |  | *17.2.3* | *Primary Grinding*  | *178* |
|  |  | *17.2.4* | *Flotation*  | *179* |
|  |  | *17.2.5* | *Concentrate Dewatering*  | *179* |
|  | 17.3 | Conclusions  | Conclusions  | 179 |

---

Page 6 of 191

------

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **18**  | **PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE**  | **PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE**  | **PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE**  | **179** |
| **19**  | **MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS**  | **MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS**  | **MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS**  | **179** |
| **20**  | **ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT**  | **ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT**  | **ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT**  | **179** |
| **21**  | **CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS**  | **CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS**  | **CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS**  | **179** |
| **22**  | **ECONOMIC ANALYSIS**  | **ECONOMIC ANALYSIS**  | **ECONOMIC ANALYSIS**  | **179** |
| **23**  | **ADJACENT PROPERTIES**  | **ADJACENT PROPERTIES**  | **ADJACENT PROPERTIES**  | **179** |
| **24**  | **OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION**  | **OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION**  | **OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION**  | **179** |
| **25**  | **INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS**  | **INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS**  | **INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS**  | **180** |
|  | 25.1 | Sampling, Preparation, Analysis  | Sampling, Preparation, Analysis  | 180 |
|  | 25.2 | Data Verification  | Data Verification  | 180 |
|  | 25.3 | Metallurgical Testwork  | Metallurgical Testwork  | 180 |
|  | 25.4 | Resource Estimate  | Resource Estimate  | 180 |
|  | 25.5 | Risks and Opportunities  | Risks and Opportunities  | 180 |
|  |  | *25.5.1* | *Sampling, Preparation, Analysis and Data Risks and Opportunities*  | *180* |
|  |  | *25.5.2* | *Metallurgical Testwork Risks and Opportunities*  | *180* |
|  |  | *25.5.3* | *Resource Estimate Risks and Opportunities*  | *181* |
| **26**  | **RECOMMENDATIONS**  | **RECOMMENDATIONS**  | **RECOMMENDATIONS**  | **182** |
|  | 26.1 | Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security  | Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security  | 182 |
|  | 26.2 | Data Verification  | Data Verification  | 182 |
|  | 26.3 | Metallurgy  | Metallurgy  | 182 |
|  | 26.4 | Exploration and Resource  | Exploration and Resource  | 182 |
|  |  | *26.4.1* | *Whistler*  | *182* |
|  |  | *26.4.2* | *Raintree*  | *183* |
|  |  | *26.4.3* | *Island Mountain*  | *183* |
|  |  | *26.4.4* | *Exploration Program and Budget*  | *183* |
| **27**  | **REFERENCES**  | **REFERENCES**  | **REFERENCES**  | **184** |
| **APPENDIX A: CLAIMS LIST**  | **APPENDIX A: CLAIMS LIST**  | **APPENDIX A: CLAIMS LIST**  | **APPENDIX A: CLAIMS LIST**  | **186** |

---

Page 7 of 191

------

**LIST OF TABLES**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Table 1-1  | Mineral Resource Estimate for the Total Whistler Project  | 14 |
| Table 1-2  | List of Risks and Mitigations/Justifications  | 20 |
| Table 9-1  | Summary of Exploration on the Whistler Project  | 67 |
| Table 10-1  | Summary of Diamond Drilling on the Whistler Project  | 73 |
| Table 10-2  | Examples of Significant Drill Results North of the Island Mountain Deposit  | 82 |
| Table 11-1  | QAQC Sample Summary (All Areas and Years)  | 86 |
| Table 11-2  | Summary of Gold Assays of Blanks, Whistler Deposit  | 87 |
| Table 11-3  | Summary of Copper Assays of Blanks, Whistler Deposit  | 88 |
| Table 11-4  | Whistler Deposit CRM Summary, Gold  | 89 |
| Table 11-5  | Whistler Deposit CRM Summary, Copper  | 91 |
| Table 11-6  | Whistler Field Duplicates Simple Statistics  | 93 |
| Table 11-7  | Whistler Coarse Duplicate Simple Statistics  | 95 |
| Table 11-8  | Summary of Gold Assays of Blanks, Raintree Deposit  | 98 |
| Table 11-9  | Summary of Copper Assays of Blanks, Raintree Deposit  | 99 |
| Table 11-10  | Raintree Deposit CRM Summary, Gold  | 100 |
| Table 11-11  | Raintree Deposit CRM Summary, Copper  | 103 |
| Table 11-12  | Raintree Field Duplicates Simple Statistics  | 105 |
| Table 11-13  | Raintree Coarse Duplicates Simple Statistics  | 107 |
| Table 11-14  | Summary of Gold Assays of Blanks, Island Mountain Deposit  | 109 |
| Table 11-15  | Summary of Copper Assays of Blanks, Island Mountain Deposit  | 110 |
| Table 11-16  | Island Mountain Deposit CRM Summary, Gold  | 111 |
| Table 11-17  | Island Mountain Deposit CRM Summary, Copper  | 113 |
| Table 11-18  | Island Mountain Field Duplicate Simple Statistics  | 114 |
| Table 11-19  | Island Mountain Coarse Duplicates Simple Statistics  | 116 |
| Table 12-1  | Certificate Check Results  | 125 |
| Table 12-2  | Summary of Data Suppported by Certificate and QAQC  | 125 |
| Table 13-1  | Three Stage Cleaning Tests  | 129 |
| Table 13-2  | Summary of Analysis of Composites from IM09-001 and IM09-002  | 131 |
| Table 13-3  | Bulk Flotation Results  | 132 |
| Table 13-4  | Selective Cleaner Flotation  | 132 |
| Table 13-5  | Whole Ore Cyanidation  | 133 |
| Table 13-6  | Cyanidation of Selective Flotation Tailings  | 133 |
| Table 13-7  | Sample Head Grades  | 134 |
| Table 13-8  | Minor Element Data  | 142 |
| Table 14-1  | Mineral Resource Estimate for the Total Whistler Project  | 145 |
| Table 14-2  | Mineral Resource Estimate and Sensitivity – Whistler Deposit  | 146 |
| Table 14-3  | Mineral Resource Estimate and Sensitivity – Raintree Deposit  | 146 |
| Table 14-4  | Mineral Resource Estimate and Sensitivity – Island Mountain Deposit  | 147 |
| Table 14-5  | Summary of Whistler Project Drillhole Data within Block Models  | 147 |
| Table 14-6  | Summary of Capping and Outlier Restriction Values  | 153 |
| Table 14-7  | Capped Assay and Composite Statistics by Domain - Au  | 153 |
| Table 14-8  | Capped Assay and Composite Statistics by Domain - Cu  | 154 |
| Table 14-9  | Capped Assay and Composite Statistics by Domain – Ag  | 154 |
| Table 14-10  | Variogram Parameters - Whistler  | 156 |
| Table 14-11  | Variogram Parameters - Raintree  | 156 |
| Table 14-12  | Variogram Parameters – Island Mountain  | 157 |

---

Page 8 of 191

------

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Table 14-13  | Block Model Limits  | 162 |
| Table 14-14  | Search Rotation and Distances – Whistler  | 162 |
| Table 14-15  | Search Rotation and Distances – Raintree  | 163 |
| Table 14-16  | Search Rotation and Distances – Island Mountain  | 163 |
| Table 14-17  | Additional Search Criteria  | 164 |
| Table 14-18  | Classification Criteria  | 164 |
| Table 14-19  | Comparison of De-clustered Composite and OK Modelled Grades for Cu  | 165 |
| Table 14-20  | Comparison of De-clustered Composite and OK Modelled Grades for Au  | 165 |
| Table 14-21  | Economic Inputs and Metallurgical Recoveries  | 175 |
| Table 14-22  | List of Risks and Mitigations/Justifications  | 176 |
| Table 17-1  | Metallurgical Parameters and Design Criteria  | 178 |
| Table 17-2  | Comminution Power  | 175 |
| Table 26-1  | Proposed Exploration Budget  | 183 |

---

Page 9 of 191

------

**LIST OF FIGURES**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Figure 4-1  | Location of the Whistler Project (Source: MMTS, 2015, modified from Roberts, 2011a)  | 24 |
| Figure 4-2  | Tenement Map  | 26 |
| Figure 5-1  | Layout of Built and Proposed (and permitted) Roads in the Whistler Area  | 27 |
| Figure 5-2  | Layout of the Whiskey Bravo Camp and Facilities  | 29 |
| Figure 5-3  | Layout of the Runway relative to Camp  | 30 |
| Figure 7-1  | Regional Geological Map of South-central Alaska (Source: Trop and Ridgeway, 2007)  | 34 |
| Figure 7-2  | Regional Geology of the Whistler Project (Source: Wilson et al., 2009)  | 36 |
| Figure 7-3  | Stratigraphic column of the Whistler district and property (Source: Young, 2005 and Hames, 2014).  | 37 |
| Figure 7-4  | Geological Map of the Whistler Corridor  | 38 |
| Figure 7-5  | Whistler Project Geology  | 39 |
| Figure 7-6  | Property Geology of the Island Mountain Area  | 42 |
| Figure 7-7  | Geological Map of Muddy Creek  | 44 |
| Figure 7-8  | Prospect Areas (Source: MMTS 2015)  | 46 |
| Figure 7-9  | Photo of irregular M-veins in dark magnetite alteration of mafics (upper) and pervasive pink-black blotchy k-feldspar and magnetite alteration (lower) with wormy quartz + magnetite + chalcopyrite A-veins (Whistler Deposit)  | 48 |
| Figure 7-10  | Photo of a classic B-style quartz vein with a chalcopyrite-filled centre-line cutting an irregular, wormy A-style quartz vein (Whistler Deposit, WH 08-08, ~123.0m)  | 49 |
| Figure 7-11  | Photo or chlorite-sericite (+calcite) alteration overprinting potassic – magnetite alteration in a zone of quartz vein stockwork, subsequently cut by later Dpy veinlets with sericitic and iron-carbonate halos (Whistler Deposit)  | 50 |
| Figure 7-12  | D-style pyrite veins with well-developed phyllic halos (Whistler Deposit), that cut and off-set B-style quartz veins (lower sample). Also note the local occurrence of hematite at the intersection of both vein types (magnetite>hematite?)  | 51 |
| Figure 7-13  | Photo of quartz-carbonate vein from Raintree West (WH11-030) showing well-developed colliform banding and coarse-grained sphalerite and galena  | 52 |
| Figure 7-14  | Common vein paragenesis in all porphyry occurrences in Whistler Area: dark grey quartz vein stockwork with chalcopyrite (A- and B-style), cut by quartz-calcite-carbonate-sphalerite-galena veinlet (Dbm veins, top left down to bottom right), cut by narrow Fe-carbonate veinlets with Fe-carbonate alteration halos (Raintree West example)  | 52 |
| Figure 7-15  | Geological Map of the Whistler Deposit (Source: MMTS, 2015, modified from AMC, 2012)  | 53 |
| Figure 7-16  | Geological Cross-section (6,871,350mN) of the Whistler Deposit (Source: MMTS, 2015, modified from AMC, 2012)  | 54 |
| Figure 7-17  | Oblique view of geological domains and faults at the Whistler Deposit (the host Feldspathic Sandstone is not shown) (Source: MMTS, 2015, modified from AMC, 2012)  | 56 |
| Figure 7-18  | Plan Map of the Raintree West Prospect on a Background of greyscale airborne magnetic data, (magnetic high anomalies shown as lighter shades of grey)  | 59 |
| Figure 7-19  | Photo of monzonite-matrix intrusive breccia with patchy albite alteration, silicification and disseminated chalcopyrite  | 60 |
| Figure 7-20  | Photos of various textures of actinolite-magnetite hydrothermal breccia (BXMA), showing strong albitization in monomict breccia (left), pyrrhotite matrix in polymict breccia (right)  | 61 |
| Figure 7-21  | Schematic Model of Breccia Zone Alteration and Mineralization.  | 62 |

---

Page 10 of 191

------

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Figure 7-22  | Detail view of Biotite Monzonite Northwest of Muddy Creek, cut by sub-vertical limonite-stained fracture fillings of chalcopyrite-arsenopyrite (~1-3 per metre)  | 63 |
| Figure 9-1  | Depth slices (100m) of the chargeability (top) and resistivity (bottom) inversion model of the 3D IP data in the Whistler Area (with contours of the 400m line-spacing AMAG RTP). WD, Whistler Deposit; RTW, Raintree West; RTN, Raintree North; RTS, Raintree South, DGW, Dagwood; RMK, Rainmaker.  | 69 |
| Figure 9-2  | From the Whistler Area looking North to the Snow Ridge Area  | 71 |
| Figure 9-3  | From the Whistler Area looking South to the Rainmaker Area  | 71 |
| Figure 10-1  | Plan View of Drillholes by Year/Owner – Whistler  | 73 |
| Figure 10-2  | Plan View of Drillholes by Year/Owner – Raintree  | 74 |
| Figure 10-3  | Plan View of Drillholes by Year/Owner – Island Mountain  | 75 |
| Figure 10-4  | Whistler Area Drilling  | 78 |
| Figure 10-5  | Plan Map of Drillholes and Mineralization Style at the Breccia Zone  | 80 |
| Figure 11-1  | Sample Bags with Security Tags (Source: Roberts, 2011a)  | 84 |
| Figure 11-2  | Sample Dispatch Form (Source: Roberts, 2011a)  | 85 |
| Figure 11-3  | Sequential Plot of Gold Assays of Blanks, Whistler Deposit  | 87 |
| Figure 11-4  | Sequential Plot of Copper Assays of Blanks, Whistler Deposit  | 88 |
| Figure 11-5  | Whistler Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Gold  | 89 |
| Figure 11-6  | Process Control Chart Whistler Deposit CRM WP-MG1, Gold  | 90 |
| Figure 11-7  | Whistler Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Copper  | 91 |
| Figure 11-8  | Process Control Chart Whistler Deposit CRM WP-CO1, Copper  | 92 |
| Figure 11-9  | Whistler Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold  | 93 |
| Figure 11-10  | Whistler Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper  | 94 |
| Figure 11-11  | Whistler Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold, no outliers  | 95 |
| Figure 11-12  | Whistler Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper  | 96 |
| Figure 11-13  | Sequential Plot of Gold Assays of Blanks, Raintree Deposit  | 97 |
| Figure 11-14  | Sequential Plot of Copper Assays of Blanks, Raintree Deposit  | 98 |
| Figure 11-15  | Raintree Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Gold  | 100 |
| Figure 11-16  | Process Control Chart Raintree CRM OREAS-52c  | 101 |
| Figure 11-17  | Process Control Chart Raintree CRM OREAS-50c  | 101 |
| Figure 11-18  | Raintree Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Copper  | 102 |
| Figure 11-19  | Process Control Chart Raintree OREAS-50c, Copper  | 103 |
| Figure 11-20  | Process Control Chart Raintree OREAS-52c, Copper  | 104 |
| Figure 11-21  | Raintree Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold  | 105 |
| Figure 11-22  | Raintree Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper  | 106 |
| Figure 11-23  | Raintree Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold  | 107 |
| Figure 11-24  | Raintree Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper  | 108 |
| Figure 11-25  | Sequential Plot of Gold Assays of Blanks, Island Mountain Deposit  | 109 |
| Figure 11-26  | Sequential Plot of Copper Assays of Blanks, Island Mountain Deposit  | 110 |
| Figure 11-27  | Island Mountain Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Gold  | 111 |
| Figure 11-28  | Process Control Chart Island Mountain CRM OREAS-52c, Gold  | 111 |
| Figure 11-29  | Island Mountain Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Copper  | 112 |
| Figure 11-30  | Process Control Chart Island Mountain CRM OREAS-50c, Copper  | 113 |
| Figure 11-31  | Island Mountain Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold  | 114 |
| Figure 11-32  | Island Mountain Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper  | 115 |
| Figure 11-33  | Island Mountain Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold  | 116 |
| Figure 11-34  | Island Mountain Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper  | 117 |
| Figure 12-1  | Aerial view of Whistler Camp  | 119 |
| Figure 12-2  | Drillcore Boxes in Storage Area (Source: MMTS, 2021, 2022)  | 120 |
| Figure 12-3  | Core Logging Shed  | 121 |
| Figure 12-4  | Check Assay Results from 2022 Site Visit – Au (MMTS, 2022)  | 122 |
| Figure 12-5  | Check Assay Results from 2022 Site Visit – Cu (MMTS, 2022)  | 123 |

---

Page 11 of 191

------

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Figure 13-1  | Flotation and Cyanidation Flowsheet and Test Conditions (MMTS, 2015).  | 135 |
| Figure 13-2  | Flotation Test Results (MMTS, 2015)  | 138 |
| Figure 13-3  | Copper Grade Recovery (MMTS, 2015)  | 139 |
| Figure 13-4  | Gold Grade Recovery (MMTS, 2015)  | 139 |
| Figure 14-1  | Domains – Whistler Deposit  | 147 |
| Figure 14-2  | Domains Modeled for Raintree Deposit  | 148 |
| Figure 14-3  | Domains Modelled for Island Mountain  | 148 |
| Figure 14-4  | CPP of Au Assay Data by Domain - Whistler (Source: MMTS, 2021)  | 149 |
| Figure 14-5  | CPP of Cu Assay Data by Domain – Whistler  | 149 |
| Figure 14-6  | CPP of Au Assay Data by Domain – Raintree  | 150 |
| Figure 14-7  | CPP of Cu Assay Data by Domain – Raintree  | 150 |
| Figure 14-8  | CPP of Au Assay Data by Domain – Island Mountain  | 151 |
| Figure 14-9  | CPP of Cu Assay Data by Domain – Island Mountain  | 151 |
| Figure 14-10  | Assay Lengths  | 154 |
| Figure 14-11  | Variogram Model for Cu in Domain 1 – Major and Minor Axes – Whistler Deposit  | 157 |
| Figure 14-12  | Variogram Model for Au in Domain 1 – Major and Minor Axes – Whistler Deposit  | 158 |
| Figure 14-13  | Variogram Model for Cu in Domain 5 – Major and Minor Axes – Raintree Deposit  | 159 |
| Figure 14-14  | Variogram Model for Au in Domains 1-6 – Major and Minor Axes – Island Mountain Deposit  | 160 |
| Figure 14-15  | Tonnage-Grade Curves for Au – Comparison of Interpolation Methods – Whistler  | 164 |
| Figure 14-16  | Tonnage-Grade Curves for Cu – Comparison of Interpolation Methods - Whistler  | 165 |
| Figure 14-17  | Tonnage-Grade Curves for Au – Comparison of Interpolation Methods – Raintree  | 165 |
| Figure 14-18  | Tonnage-Grade Curves for Cu – Comparison of Interpolation Methods - Raintree  | 166 |
| Figure 14-19  | Tonnage-Grade Curves for Au – Comparison of Interpolation Methods – Island Mountain  | 166 |
| Figure 14-20  | Tonnage-Grade Curves for Cu – Comparison of Interpolation Methods - Island Mountain  | 167 |
| Figure 14-21  | E-W Section Comparing Au Grades for Block Model and Assay Data - Whistler  | 168 |
| Figure 14-22  | E-W Section Comparing Cu Grades for Block Model and Assay Data - Whistler  | 169 |
| Figure 14-23  | Section Looking SW - Comparing Au Grades for Block Model and Assay Data – Raintree  | 170 |
| Figure 14-24  | Section Looking SW - Comparing Cu Grades for Block Model and Assay Data – Raintree  | 171 |
| Figure 14-25  | E-W Section Comparing Cu Grades for Block Model and Assay Data – Island Mountain  | 172 |
| Figure 14-26  | E-W Section Comparing Cu Grades for Block Model and Assay Data – Island Mountain  | 173 |

---

Page 12 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **1** | **SUMMARY** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.1** **Introduction** 

The author has prepared an updated Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for GoldMining Inc. and U.S. GoldMining Inc. (U.S. GoldMining) of the Whistler Project located in Alaska, U.S.A. The Whistler Project resource estimate includes the Whistler, Raintree, and Island Mountain deposits. U.S. GoldMining is an indirect subsidiary of GoldMining Inc. and holds the rights to the Whistler gold-copper property located 150 km northwest of Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. GoldMining will be focused on the development and advancement of the Whistler Project. U.S. GoldMining does not have any operating revenues and does not expect to have any operating revenues in the near future.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.2** **Mineral Resource Estimate** 

The Whistler Project total Mineral Resource Estimate includes the Whistler, Raintree and Island Mountain deposits and is summarized in Table 1-1 for the base case cut-off grade. Mineral Resources were estimated using the 2019 CIM Best Practice Guidelines and are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards.

The MRE utilizes pit shells to constrain resources at the Whistler, Island Mountain, and Raintree West gold-copper deposits, as well as an underground potentially mineable shape to constrain the resource estimate for the deeper portion of the Raintree West deposit. The current estimate has been updated with new metal prices of US$1,600/oz gold price, US$3.25 copper and US$21/oz silver, updated recoveries, smelter terms, costs, as summarized in the notes to Table 1-1. Metal prices have been chosen based partially on market research by the Bank of Montreal (BMO, 2021a) for Au prices as quoted in numerous NI 43-101 reports and for Cu and Ag (BMO, 2021b) based on mean prices from 2021 through to forecast up to 2026 and long term. The metal prices chosen also considered the spot prices and the three-year trailing average prices. For all three metals, the final prices used for this resource estimate are below both the spot metal price and the three-year trailing average, which is considered an industry standard in choosing prices.

Cutoff grades for open pit mining are based on Processing costs of US$10.50/tonne processed, this is the marginal cutoff for which mining costs are not included. Cutoff grades for underground mining are based on Processing costs plus an additional US$14.50/tonne for underground bulk mining , to define the marginal cutoff NSR grade. Geologic modelling has also been updated, with drilling and exploration work completed prior to 2016. No additional work was completed on the project after 2016.

For the mineral resource cutoff grade determination a 3.0% NSR was assumed. This is derived from the sum of a 2.75% royalty to MF2 plus a 1% royalty to Gold Royalty Corp., with an assumption that U.S. GoldMining can negotiate a buy back of a 0.75% NSR, for a net 3.0% NSR, as is customary to occur for similar project developments. A sensitivity of the resource to the buyback option has been completed to reveal that increasing the royalty to 3.75% decreased the resource within the Whistler pit by 0.7% total AuEq ounces. Therefore, the effect is minimal and not material.

These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The QP is of the opinion that issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work. These factors may include environmental permitting, infrastructure, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant factors.

As a point of reference, the in-situ gold, copper and silver mineralization are inventoried and reported by intended processing method.

Page 13 of 191

------

**Table 1**-**1 Mineral Resource Estimate for the Total Whistler Project (Effective date: September 22, 2022)**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | | | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** |
| **Class**<br>| **Deposit**<br>| **Cut-off Value**<br>**(US$/t)** | **ROM**<br> **tonnage**<br>**(ktonnes)** | **NSR** <br> **(US$/t)** | **AuEqv**<br> **(gpt)** | **Au**<br> **(gpt)** | **Cu**<br> **(%)** | **Ag**<br> **(gpt)** | **AuEqv**<br> **(koz)** | **Au** <br> **(koz)** | **Cu**<br> **(klbs)** | **Ag**<br> **(koz)** |
|  | Whistler | 10.5 | 107771 | 26.44 | 0.79 | 0.50 | 0.17 | 1.95 | 2738 | 1749 | 399396 | 6757 |
|  | Raintree-Pit | 10.5 | 7756 | 20.61 | 0.67 | 0.49 | 0.09 | 4.88 | 166 | 121 | 14893 | 1216 |
| **Indicated** | **Indicated Open Pit** | **10.5** | **115527** | **26.05** | **0.78** | **0.50** | **0.16** | **2.15** | **2904** | **1871** | **414289** | **7973** |
|  | Raintree-UG | US$25 shell | 2675 | 34.02 | 1.03 | 0.79 | 0.13 | 4.18 | 89 | 68 | 7690 | 359 |
|  | Total Indicated | varies | 118202 | 26.23 | 0.79 | 0.51 | 0.16 | 2.19 | 2993 | 1939 | 421979 | 8332 |
|  | Whistler | 10.5 | 153536 | 19.17 | 0.57 | 0.35 | 0.13 | 1.48 | 2829 | 1706 | 455267 | 7306 |
|  | Island Mountain | 10.5 | 111901 | 18.99 | 0.57 | 0.47 | 0.05 | 1.06 | 2042 | 1701 | 130751 | 3814 |
|  | Raintree-Pit | 10.5 | 11774 | 24.28 | 0.77 | 0.62 | 0.07 | 4.58 | 291 | 235 | 17988 | 1732 |
| **Inferred** | **Inferred Open Pit** | **10.5** | **277211** | **19.32** | **0.58** | **0.41** | **0.10** | **1.44** | **5162** | **3642** | **604006** | **12851** |
|  | Raintree-UG | US$25 shell | 39772 | 32.65 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.12 | 2.51 | 1284 | 1027 | 107411 | 3208 |
|  | Total Inferred | varies | 316983 | 20.99 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.10 | 1.58 | 6446 | 4669 | 711417 | 16060 |

---

***Notes to Table 1-1:***

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*1.* *Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resources will be converted into mineral reserves.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*2.* *Resources are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards and were estimated using the 2019 CIM Best Practices Guidelines.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*3.* *The Mineral Resource for Whistler deposit and the upper portions of the Raintree West deposits have been confined by an open pit with "reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction" using the 150% pit case and the following assumptions:* 

● *Metal prices of US$1,600/oz Au, US$3.25/lb Cu and US$21/oz Ag;* 

● *Payable metal of 99% payable Au, 90% payable Ag and 1% deduction for Cu;* 

● *Offsite costs (refining, transport and insurance) of US$136/wmt proportionally distributed between Au, Ag and Cu;* 

● *Royalty of 3% NSR has been assumed* 

● *Pit slopes are 50 degrees;* 

● *Mining cost of US$1.80/t for waste and US$2.00/t for mineralized material; and* 

● *Processing, general and administrative costs of US$10.50/t.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*4.* *The lower portion of the Raintree West deposit has been constrained by a mineable shape with "reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction" using a US$25.00/t cut-off.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*5.* *Metallurgical recoveries are: 70% for Au, 83% for Cu, and 65% Ag for Ag grades below 10g/t. The Ag recovery is 0% for values above 10g/t for all deposits.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*6.* *The NSR equations are: below 10g/t Ag: NSR (US$/t)=(100%-3%)\*((Au\*70%\*US$49.273g/t) + (Cu\*83%\*US$2.966\*2204.62 + Ag\*65%\*US$0.574)), and above 10g/t Ag: NSR (US$/t)=(100%-3%)\*((Au\*70%\*US$49.256g/t) + (Cu\*83%\*US$2.965\*2204.62)) ;* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*7.* *The Au Equivalent equations are: below 10g/t Ag: AuEq=Au + Cu\*1.5733 +0.0108Ag, and above 10g/t Ag: AuEq=Au + Cu\*1.5733* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*8.* *The specific gravity for each deposit and domain ranges from 2.76 to 2.91 for Island Mountain, 2.60 to 2.72 for Whistler with an average value of 2.80 for Raintree West.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*9.* *Numbers may not add due to rounding.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.3** **Terms of Reference** 

The report is being completed for GoldMining Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, and U.S. GoldMining, an indirect subsidiary of GoldMining that is incorporated under the laws of Nevada, USA, in connection with the strategy to have U.S. GoldMining operated as a separate public company through an initial public offering or similar transaction and related disclosures of U.S. GoldMining.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.4** **Project Setting** 

The Whistler Project is a gold-copper exploration project located in the Yentna Mining District of Alaska, approximately 150km northwest of Anchorage.

Page 14 of 191

------

The Whistler Project comprises 304 State of Alaska mining claims covering an aggregate area of approximately 172 km<sup>2</sup>. The center of the property is located at 152.566° longitude west and 61.983° latitude north. The project is located in the drainage of the Skwentna River. Elevation varies from about 400m above sea level in the valley floors to over 5,000m in the highest peaks resulting in quite a spectacular landscape. The Whiskey Bravo gravel airstrip established adjacent to the Skwentna River is compliant for wheel-based aircraft up to DC-3s. A fifty-person camp is equipped with diesel generators, a satellite communication link, tent structures on wooden floors and several wood-frame buildings. Although chiefly used for summer field programs, the camp is winterized.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.5** **Mineral Tenure** 

Rights to the Whistler Project were acquired by GoldMining, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, BRI Alaska Corporation ("BRIA"), in August 2015 pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement (the "Asset Purchase") with Kiska Metals Corporation ("Kiska") in exchange for the issuance of 3,500,000 common shares in the capital of GoldMining Inc. as disclosed by news releases on July 21 and August 6, 2015. The project is subject to three underlying agreements, which were assigned to U.S. GoldMining under the transaction.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.5.1** **Royalties and Encumbrances** 

The first underlying agreement is a Royalty Purchase Agreement between Kiska Metals Corporation, Geoinformatics Alaska Exploration Inc. and MF2, LLC, dated December 16, 2014. This agreement grants MF2 a 2.75 percent NSR royalty over all 304 claims, and extending outside the current claims over an Area of Interest defined by the maximum historical extent of claims held on the project as indicated on Figure 4-1. There is a right, currently held by Gold Royalty Corp, to buy back 0.75 percent of the 2.75 percent NSR royalty for a payment of US$5,000,000 to MF2.

The second underlying agreement is an earlier agreement between Cominco American Incorporated and Mr. Kent Turner, (whose rights and obligations thereunder were assumed by BRIA) dated October 1, 1999. This agreement concerns a 2.0 percent net profit interest to Teck Resources, recently purchased by Sandstorm Gold, in connection with an Area of Interest specified by standard township sub-division as indicated in Figure 4-2.

The third underlying agreement is a Purchase and Sale agreement between Kent Turner, Kiska Metals Corporation and Geoinformatics Alaska Exploration Inc. (whose rights and obligations thereunder were assumed by U.S. GoldMining) dated December 16, 2014 that terminates the "Turner Agreement" (an agreement that grants Kennecott and its successors a 30-year lease on twenty-five unpatented State of Alaska Claims; see Figure 4-2) and transfers to Kiska and Geoinformatics, and their successors, an undivided 100 percent of the legal and beneficial interest in, under, to, and respecting the Turner Property free and clear of all Encumbrances arising by, through or under Turner other than the Cominco American net profit interest.

In addition to the above royalties, pursuant to a royalty agreement dated January 11, 2021, between U.S. Gold Mining and Gold Royalty U.S. Corp, Gold Royalty U.S. Corp holds a 1 percent NSR royalty covering the Whistler Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.6** **Surface Rights** 

Under AS 38.05.255, the surface uses of land or water included within a state mining location that the owners, lessees, or operators of the location may undertake by virtue of such location are (a) are limited to those necessary for the prospecting for, extraction of, or basic processing of minerals and (b) shall be subject to reasonable concurrent uses (Stoel Rives, 2021).

Page 15 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.7** **Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.7.1** **Accessibility and Climate** 

The Whistler Project is located in the Alaska Range approximately 150km northwest of Anchorage and 76km west of the township of Skwentna as illustrated in Figure 4-1. Access to the project area is by fixed wing aircraft to a gravel airstrip located adjacent to the Whistler exploration camp. The project area is between regions of maritime and continental climate and is characterized by severe winters and hot, dry summers. Annual precipitation ranges from 500 to 900mm. Winter snow accumulation usually begins in October and by mid to late May the snow has melted sufficiently to allow for fieldwork.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.7.2** **Local Resources and Infrastructure** 

The nearest public infrastructure for the Whistler Project is the town of Petersville, located approximately 100km east of Whistler; Petersville is connected to Anchorage by an all-weather road and highway. The Whistler Project is supported by a fifty person, all season camp located on the banks of the Skwentna River approximately 2.7km from the Whistler Deposit and 22km from the Island Mountain prospect. The camp is connected to the Whistler Deposit by a 6km access road.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.7.3** **Physiography** 

The project is located in the drainage of the Skwentna River that forms a large network of interconnected low-elevation U-shaped valleys cutting through the rugged terrain of the southern Alaska Range. Elevation varies from about 400m above sea level in the valley floors to over 5,000m in the highest peaks resulting in a quite spectacular landscape.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.8** **History** 

Mineral exploration in the Whistler area was initiated by Cominco Alaska Inc. in 1986, and continued through 1989. During this period, the Whistler and the Island Mountain gold-copper porphyry occurrences were discovered and partially tested by drilling. In 1990, Cominco's interest waned and all cores from the Whistler region were donated to the State of Alaska. The property was allowed to lapse.

In 1999, Kent Turner staked twenty-five State of Alaska mining claims at Whistler and leased the property to Kennecott. From 2004 through 2006 Kennecott conducted extensive exploration of Whistler region, including geological mapping, soil, rock and stream sediments sampling, ground induced polarization, the evaluation of the Whistler gold-copper occurrence with fifteen core boreholes and reconnaissance core drilling at other targets in the Whistler region totalling 12,449m Over that period Kennecott invested over USD$6.3 million in exploration.

From 2007 through 2008, Geoinformatics drilled thirteen holes for 6,027m on the Whistler Deposit and five holes for 1,597m on other exploration targets in the Whistler area. Drilling by Geoinformatics on the Whistler Deposit was done to infill the deposit to sections spaced at 75m and to test for the north and south extensions of the deposit. Exploration drilling by Geoinformatics in the Whistler area targeted geophysical anomalies in the Raintree and Rainmaker areas, using the same basic porphyry exploration model as Kennecott.

Page 16 of 191

------

Kiska was formed in 2009 by the merger of Geoinformatics Exploration Inc. and Rimfire Minerals Corporation in order to advance exploration on the Whistler Project. The rights to the property were acquired by Geoinformatics from Kennecott in 2007 subject to exploration expenditures totalling a minimum of USD$5.0 million over two years, two underlying agreements, and certain back-in rights retained by Kennecott to acquire up to sixty percent of the project. In September 2010, Kennecott's back-in right was extinguished after the completion and review of a geophysical and drilling program (the "Trigger Program") whose technical direction was guided by Kiska and Kennecott. From that time forward, Kiska continued to explore the project and completed a total of 48,498m of drilling, several large geophysical surveys, and an updated Whistler Deposit resource estimate, for a total expenditure of USD$29.4 million. Kiska's primary objective was to explore the entire project area and test porphyry targets other than the Whistler Deposit, including Raintree West and the Island Mountain Breccia Zone (hereafter referred to as the Island Mountain Deposit).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.9** **Geologic Setting and Mineralization** 

Alaskan geology consists of a collage of various terrains that were accreted to the western margin of North America as a result of complex plate interactions through most of the Phanerozoic. The southernmost Pacific margin is underlain by the Chugach–Prince William composite terrain, a Mesozoic-Cenozoic accretionary prism developed seaward from the Wrangellia composite terrain. It comprises arc batholiths and associated volcanic rocks of Jurassic, Cretaceous, and early Tertiary age.

The Alaska Range represents a long-lived continental arc characterized by multiple magmatic events ranging in age from about 70 million years ("Ma") to 30Ma and associated with a wide range of base and precious metals hydrothermal sulphide bearing mineralization. The geology of Whistler Project is characterized by a thick succession of Cretaceous to early Tertiary (ca. 97 to 65 Ma) volcano-sedimentary rocks intruded by a diverse suite of plutonic rocks of Jurassic to mid-Tertiary age.

Two main intrusive suites are important in the Whistler Project area:

1) The Whistler Igneous Suite comprises alkali-calcic basalt-andesite, diorite and monzonite intrusive rocks approximately 76Ma with restricted extrusive equivalent. These intrusions are commonly associated with gold-copper porphyry-style mineralization (Whistler Deposit).

2) The Composite Suite intrusions vary in composition from peridotite to granite and their ages span from 67 to about 64Ma. Gold-copper veinlets and pegmatitic occurrences are characteristics of the Composite plutons (e.g. the Mt. Estelle prospect, the Muddy Creek prospect).

The Whistler Project was acquired for its potential to host magmatic hydrothermal gold and copper mineralization. Magmatic hydrothermal deposits represent a wide clan of mineral deposits formed by the circulation of hydrothermal fluids into fractured rocks and associated with the intrusion of magma into the crust. Exploration work completed by Kennecott, Geoinformatics, and Kiska has discovered several gold-copper sulphide occurrences exhibiting characteristics indicative of magmatic hydrothermal processes and suggesting that the project area is generally highly prospective for porphyry gold-copper deposits.

Page 17 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.10** **Exploration** 

Kennecott completed airborne helicopter geophysical surveys during 2003 and 2004. Results from these airborne surveys were used to interpret geological contacts, fault structures and potential mineralization in the Whistler, Island Mountain, and Muddy Creek areas. In particular, the airborne magnetic data showed that the Whistler Deposit displays a strong 900m by 700m positive magnetic anomaly attributed to the magnetic Whistler Diorite intrusive complex (host to the Whistler Deposit) in addition to a contribution from secondary magnetite alteration and veining associated with Au-Cu mineralization.

Cominco acquired 8.4 line-km of 2D Induced Polarization geophysics with results used to target the deposit area with subsequent drilling. From 2004 to 2006, Kennecott completed 39.4 line-kilometres of 2D IP geophysics in the Whistler area. Subsequent lines targeted magnetic anomalies at the Round Mountain, Canyon Creek, Canyon Ridge, Canyon Mouth, Long Lake Hills, Raintree, and Rainmaker prospects. In 2007-2008, Geoinformatics completed 8.8 line-km of 2D IP from six separate reconnaissance lines in the Whistler area targeting airborne magnetic highs. Anomalous results from this survey in the Raintree area led to the Raintree West discovery. In 2009, Kiska completed 224 line-kilometres of a 3D Induced Polarization geophysical survey. This was executed on two grids (Round Mountain; Whistler Area). This survey reaffirmed that the Whistler Deposit is coincident with a discrete 3D chargeability anomaly.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.11** **Drilling** 

No drilling has been done on the Whistler Project by U.S. GoldMining. A total of 70,247m of diamond drilling in 257 holes are documented in the Whistler database for drilling on the Whistler Project by Cominco, Kennecott, Geoinformatics, and Kiska from 1986 to the end of 2011. Of these drillholes 21,132m in 52 holes have been drilled in the Whistler Deposit area, 20,479m in 94 holes have been drilled in the Raintree area, and 14,410m in 36 holes comprise the Island Mountain resource area. There are 14,226m in 75 holes in areas outside the three resource areas.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.12** **Sample Preparation Analysis and Security** 

No sampling has been done by U.S. GoldMining. Nothing is known about sampling and analysis by Cominco. Previous operators Kennecott, Geoinformatics, and Kiska used industry standard practices to collect, handle and assay soil, rock and core samples collected during the period 2004-2011. These procedures are documented in detailed reports describing pertinent aspects of the exploration data collection and management.

All assay samples were assayed at either the Alaska Assay Laboratory (2004 and 2009) in Fairbanks, Alaska, or the accredited ALS-Chemex laboratory in Vancouver, British Columbia for all other years. Sample preparation was accomplished in Alaska, either at the Alaska Assay Lab or ALS-Chemex preparation lab in Anchorage, Alaska. Samples were assayed for gold by fire assay and a suite of elements including silver and copper by aqua regia or multi-acid digestion and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. Operators Kennecott, Geoinformatics, and Kiska used industry standard quality control practices during exploration at Whistler. Analysis of the QAQC data indicates the assay data is of sufficient quantity and quality for resource estimation.

Page 18 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.13** **Data Verification** 

Sue Bird, P.Eng., of MMTS, visited the Whistler Project site on September 14, 2022. During the site visit collar locations at Whistler and Raintree were validated. The core storage at both Whiskey Bravo camp and Rainy Pass core storage site was visited. The core from each deposit was examined for mineralization with 4 samples for re-assay obtained. The buildings at the previous camp at Rainy Pass were also investigated with most of the buildings found to be in good shape to be re-vamped for future drill programs.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.14** **Metallurgy** 

The metallurgical testwork upon which the recoveries applied to Au, Ag, and Cu as stated in the Resource estimate are based involved: selection of appropriate drill core standard sample preparation of drill core sections at various metallurgical laboratories followed by batch froth flotation to recover pay metals in a copper sulphide concentrate. The laboratories used performed their testing in a competent manner within the scope of their investigations. Full details are provided in Section 13 of this report. Conceptual process plant parameters derived from test data are outlined in Section 17.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.15** **Permitting** 

U.S. GoldMining has submitted an Application for Permit to Mine in Alaska (APMA) to Alaska's Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) for the issuance of permits that will allow for future exploration work on the property. The status of the APMA is pending and U.S. GoldMining expects to receive approval in due course.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.16** **Risks and Opportunities** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.16.1** **Sampling, Preparation, Analysis and Data Risks and Opportunities** 

U.S. GoldMining has the opportunity to add QAQC data for silver and to collect and complete the missing certificate numbers in the database. This information would more completely support the assay database.

The drill core is currently stored in wood boxes that are subject to weathering on site, which as contributed to some deterioration. An opportunity exists to protect these samples from further weathering by moving them or building a dry storage facility. The risk of continued decay is that the historic core may no longer be available to future potential owners for review and verification.

A collar survey that was to have been done in 2012 does not appear to have been completed. Review of three collar locations during the site visit suggests that more accurate drillhole locations are possible.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.16.2** **Metallurgical Testwork Risks and Opportunities** 

Analyses and accounting of Ag were omitted from the metallurgical testwork, which focused on Cu and Au grades and recoveries in what was anticipated initially to be a Cu-Au resource. Future testwork which includes Ag accounting would likely result in improved estimates of silver recovery and revenue contribution.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.16.3** **Resource Estimate Risks and Opportunities** 

Risk in the geologic interpretations relating to the continuity of the mineralization exist and can be mitigated by additional geologic modelling for use in controlling the block model interpolations. A description of additional potential risk factors concerning the resource estimate is given in Table 1-2 along with either the justification for the approach taken or mitigating factors in place to reduce any risk.

Page 19 of 191

------

**Table 1**-**2 List of Risks and Mitigations/Justifications**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **#** | **Description** | **Justification/Mitigation** |
| **1** | Classification Criteria | Classification based on the Range of the Variogram and therefore the variability of the mineralization within each deposit. |
| **2** | Gold and Silver Price Assumptions | Based on three year trailing average (Kitco, 2021) |
| **3** | Capping | CPP, swath plots and grade-tonnage curves show model validates well with composite data throughout the grade distribution. |
| **4** | Processing and Mining Costs | Based on comparable projects in Alaska. |

---

Opportunities to increase the confidence in the resource through infill drilling and to expand the resource from step-out and exploration drilling are discussed in the recommendations section below.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.17** **Conclusions and Recommendations** 

The QPs make the following conclusions regarding sampling, analysis, metallurgical testwork and the resource estimate.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.17.1** **Sampling, Preparation, Analysis Conclusions** 

In the opinion of the QP, sampling preparation, analysis, and security by previous operators are consistent with industry standard practices. Review and analysis of the assay database and QAQC data shows the assay database is of sufficient quality for resource estimation.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.17.2** **Metallurgical Testwork Conclusions** 

The recoveries used for Resource estimate are reasonable for this level of study based on the metallurgical testing to date.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.17.3** **Resource Estimate Conclusions** 

In the opinion of the QP the block model resource estimate and resource classification reported herein are a reasonable representation of the global gold, copper, and silver mineral resources found in the Whistler, Raintree West, and Island Mountain deposits. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve.

The QP makes the following conclusions regarding sampling, analysis, metallurgical testwork and the resource estimate.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.17.4** **Sampling, Preparation, Analysis Recommendations** 

● QAQC for silver was not available, data for blanks and duplicates should be collected from the database. Future drilling should include CRMs for silver.

● Future programs should ensure that QAQC sample failures are identified and affected samples are re-assayed.

● Survey of 10% of collar locations be accomplished and all resurveyed as necessary.

● U.S. GoldMining continues to amend the assay database with certificate numbers and locate missing certificates as necessary.

Page 20 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.17.5** **Metallurgical Recommendations** 

● Mineralogical studies to better understand the gold associations

● Comminution testing specifically to address SAG mill power requirements and design

● Variability testing

● Confirmatory locked cycle flotation testing at the coarser primary grind size

● Testwork to include feed material containing Pb, Zn sulphide, and higher Ag grade material

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.17.6** **Resource and Exploration Recommendations** 

● Further step-out and infill drilling at Raintree West and Island Mountain to upgrade the resource classification and to potentially add new resources.

● Construction of a geological model and mineral domains at Raintree West.

● Preliminary metallurgical testwork for Raintree West.

● Additional geological modelling and mineral domain definition at the Whistler Deposit in order to further determine potential lithological and structural controls on mineralization, with potential updates to the resource estimate.

● The collection of additional specific gravity measurements from existing drillholes at all deposits to augment the database.

● Additional in-fill drilling at the Whistler Deposit to upgrade the classification of Inferred to Indicated with 50m drillhole spacing.

● Top-of-bedrock grid drilling in the Whistler area to define new targets.

● A new and full review of all exploration data, with an outlook to review, and rank all targets for further exploration drilling.

Page 21 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **2** | **INTRODUCTION** |

---

U.S. GoldMining Inc. (U.S. GoldMining) is an indirect subsidiary of GoldMining Inc. and holds the rights to the Whistler gold-copper property located 150km northwest of Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. GoldMining will be focused on the development and advancement of the Whistler Project.

Moose Mountain Technical Services (MMTS) was retained by U.S. GoldMining to produce an updated resource estimate on the Whistler Project for the Whistler, Raintree West, and Island Mountain deposits. The effective date for this estimate is September 22, 2022. MMTS was initially retained by GoldMining to conduct NI 43-101 technical reports on the project in 2016 and 2021. This report is an update to the previously filed NI 43-101 report completed in 2016 for GoldMining (Giroux, 2016). This update was previously reported by GoldMining in a NI 43-101 technical report issued by MMTS in 2021.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.1** **Terms of Reference** 

The report is being completed for GoldMining Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, and U.S. GoldMining, an indirect subsidiary of GoldMining that is incorporated under the laws of Nevada, USA, in connection with the strategy to have U.S. GoldMining operated as a separate public company through an initial public offering or similar transaction and related disclosures of U.S. GoldMining.

All measurement units used in this Report are metric, and currency is expressed in US dollars unless stated otherwise. Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves are estimated using the 2019 edition of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (CIM) Estimation of Mineral Resources & Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines (2019 CIM Best Practice Guidelines), and are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (2014 CIM Definition Standards).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.2** **Qualified Persons** 

The following serve as the qualified person (QP) for this Technical Report as defined in National Instrument 43-101, *Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects*, and in compliance with Form 43-101F1:

● Sue Bird, P.Eng., Moose Mountain Technical Services is responsible for all sections of the report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.3** **Site visits and Scope of Personal Inspection** 

Sue Bird, P.Eng., of MMTS, visited the Whistler Project site on September 14, 2022. During the site visit collar locations at Whistler and Raintree were validated. The core storage at both Whiskey Bravo camp and Rainy Pass core storage site visited. The core from each deposit was examined for mineralization with 4 samples for re-assay obtained. The buildings at the previous camp at Rainy Pass were also investigated with most of the building found to be in good shape to be re-vamped for future drill programs.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.4** **Effective Date** 

The overall Report effective date is September 22, 2022.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.5** **Sources of Information** 

Sources of information are listed in the references, Section 27 of this report, with the sources provided by U.S. GoldMining and its parent, GoldMining, regarding property ownership and environmental permitting listed in Section 3.

Page 22 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **3** | **RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS** |

---

The QP author of this Report state that they are qualified persons for those areas as identified in the "Certificate of Qualified Person" for the QP, as included in this Report. The QP has relied, and believe there is a reasonable basis for this reliance, upon the following other expert reports, which provided information regarding mineral rights, surface rights, and environmental status in sections of this Report as noted below.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**3.1** **Mineral Tenure and Surface Rights** 

The QP has not reviewed the mineral tenure, nor independently verified the legal status, ownership of the Project area or underlying property agreements. The QP has fully relied upon, and disclaim responsibility for, information supplied by U.S. GoldMining experts and experts retained by U.S. GoldMining and its parent GoldMining for this information through the following documents:

● Letter from Stoel Rives, LLP dated Aug 3, 2021 and titled: Limited Title Review for Alaska State Mining Claims.

This title information is used in Section 4.0 and 4.1 of the Report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**3.2** **Royalties and Incumbrances** 

The QPs have not reviewed the royalty agreements nor independently verified the legal status of the royalties and other potential incumbrances. The QP has fully relied upon, and disclaim responsibility for, information supplied by U.S. GoldMining experts and experts retained by U.S. GoldMining and its parent, GoldMining for this information through the following documents. This information was provided as a series of letters from U.S. GoldMining:

● Letter from Stoel Rives, LLP dated January 11, 2021 and titled: Net Smelter Return royalty Agreement

This title information is used in Section 4.1 of the Report.

Page 23 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **4** | **PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION** |

---

The Whistler Project is located in the Alaska Range approximately 150km northwest of Anchorage. The centre of the property is located at 152.57 degrees longitude west and 61.98 degrees latitude north.

![w002.jpg](w002.jpg)

**Figure 4**-**1 Location of the Whistler Project (Source: MMTS, 2015, modified from Roberts, 2011a)**

The Whistler Project comprises 304 State of Alaska mining claims covering an aggregate area of approximately 172km<sup>2</sup> in the Yentna Mining District of Alaska. All of the claims are owned by U.S. GoldMining. The property boundaries have not been legally surveyed.

An all season camp facility exists near the confluence of Portage Creek and the Skwentna River, approximately 15km southeast of the Rainy Pass Hunting Lodge. The camp is serviced with a 1,000m gravel airstrip for wheel-based aircrafts. The camp is equipped with diesel generators, a satellite communication link, tent structures on wooden floors, and several wood-framed buildings.

GoldMining, through its subsidiary U.S. GoldMining (then known as BRIA Alaska Corp.), acquired the rights to the project on August 5, 2015 pursuant to an asset purchase agreement date August 5, 2015 between GoldMining, U.S. GoldMining, Kiska Metals Corporation and Geoinformatics Alaska Exploration, Inc. in exchange for the issuance of 3,500,000 GoldMining shares as set out in GoldMining's news release of August 6, 2015.

Page 24 of 191

------

A full Claims List can be found in Appendix A at the end of this report. Annual Labor requirements:

● $400 for each quarter section MTRS claim

● $100 each for any other type of claim

Labor must be performed by September 1 of each year and the statement of annual labor must be recorded by November 30. Excess labor from previous years may be carried forward.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.1** **Royalties and Encumbrances** 

The first underlying agreement is a Royalty Purchase Agreement between Kiska Metals Corporation, Geoinformatics Alaska Exploration Inc. and MF2, LLC, dated December 16, 2014. This agreement grants MF2 a 2.75 percent NSR royalty over all 304 claims, and extending outside the current claims over an Area of Interest defined by the maximum historical extent of claims held on the project as indicated on Figure 4-1. U.S. GoldMining can buy back 0.75 percent of the 2.75 percent NSR royalty for a payment of US$5,000,000 to MF2. Pursuant to an assignment agreement dated January 11, 2021, this right was conveyed to Gold Royalty U.S. Corp.

The second underlying agreement is an earlier agreement between Cominco American Incorporated and Mr. Kent Turner (whose rights and obligations thereunder were assumed by U.S. GoldMining) dated October 1, 1999. This agreement concerns a 2.0 percent net profit interest to Teck Resources, recently purchased by Sandstorm Gold, in connection with an Area of Interest specified by standard township sub-division as indicated in Figure 4-2.

The third underlying agreement is a Purchase and Sale agreement between Kent Turner, Kiska Metals Corporation and Geoinformatics Alaska Exploration Inc. (whose rights and obligations thereunder were assumed by U.S. GoldMining) dated December 16, 2014 that terminates the "Turner Agreement" (an agreement that grants Kennecott and its successors a 30-year lease on twenty-five unpatented State of Alaska Claims; see Figure 4-2) and transfers to Kiska and Geoinformatics, and their successors, an undivided 100 percent of the legal and beneficial interest in, under, to, and respecting the Turner Property free and clear of all Encumbrances arising by, through or under Turner other than the Cominco American net profit interest.

In addition to the above royalties, pursuant to a royalty agreement dated January 11, 2021 between U.S. GoldMining and Gold Royalty U.S. Corp, Gold Royalty U.S. Corp holds a 1% NSR royalty covering the Whistler Project.

Page 25 of 191

------

![w003.jpg](w003.jpg)

**Figure 4**-**2 Tenement Map** 

Page 26 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **5** | **ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.1** **Accessibility** 

The Whistler Project is located in the Alaska Range approximately 150km northwest of Anchorage and 76km west of the township of Skwentna as illustrated in Figure 4-1. Access to the project area is by fixed wing aircraft to the Whiskey Bravo gravel airstrip located adjacent to the Whistler exploration camp. In the winter of 2011, Kiska had constructed a temporary winter trail to the Whistler Project that was then used for the inbound transportation of fuel, earth moving equipment, and bulk items for the camp and exploration programs. A 1,000m compacted gravel runway provides a nearly year round landing surface. The runway is capable of landing DC-3 class aircraft and smaller and is currently shared with the Estelle Gold Project by Nova Minerals. (Figure 5-1)

![w004.jpg](w004.jpg)

**Figure 5**-**1 Layout of Built and Proposed (and permitted) Roads in the Whistler Area** 

Page 27 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.2** **Climate** 

The project area is between regions of maritime and continental climate and is characterized by severe winters and warm, dry summers. The maritime climatic influence provides for dry, mild and temperate summers. Fog and low clouds are common in mid-summer and fall especially around higher elevation areas. Average summer temperatures range between 5° and 20° C, whereas winter temperatures range from -15° to -5° C. Occasionally, arctic cold fronts will propagate across the Alaska Range from the interior, causing cold dry air to seep into the watershed. These infrequent stationary high pressure systems can lead to clear days with temperatures dropping to a low of -35° C during the winter. Strong winds persist during the winter months. Annual precipitation ranges from 500 to 900mm. Winter snow accumulation usually begins in October and by mid to late May the snow has melted sufficiently to allow for fieldwork.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.3** **Local Resources** 

The nearest public infrastructure for the Whistler Project is the town of Petersville, located approximately 100km west of Whistler; Petersville is connected to Anchorage by an all-weather road and highway. The project is also located approximately 150km north of the Beluga coalfield project and the Tyonek gas power station on the Cook Inlet coast.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.4** **Infrastructure** 

The Whistler Project is supported by a fifty person, all season camp located on the banks of the Skwentna River approximately 2.7km from the Whistler Deposit and 22km from the Island Mountain prospect. The camp is connected to the Whistler Deposit by a 6km access road, as illustrated in Figure 5-2.

The camp is served by a 38 kilowatt generator, water well, septic system, showers and flush toilets, and a modern kitchen. A smaller 16 kilowatt backup and low peak need generator is also installed in the well/generator house. The camp has 37 sleeper tents, 3 wood frame cabins, a cook tent, a recreational tent, First Aid Tent, a wood frame well/generator house and a wood frame men's and women's shower/restroom building.

Core processing facilities consist of one insulated core cutting tent that houses two core saws. The core logging facilities consist of two 7m by 14m structures. One is an insulated tent and the other is a well-insulated, well lit, wood-frame building. All core cutting and logging facilities have decks that are designed for ease of handling large volumes of core with skid steer fork lifts. All areas around camp have graveled travel ways that connect camp facilities with runway facilities.

There is a wood-frame shop building that is for general camp maintenance and all rolling stock. The shop and core cutting facilities are supplied electricity by a separate generator building. A 20 kilowatt generator supplies power during peak months when both saws are running. A 16 kilowatt generator is available for lower peak needs and back-up.

Heavy equipment and ground transport machines at the Whistler Project include one Cat D6 bulldozer; one Cat 226B track skid-steer; one Bobcat skid-steer; one Volvo A-30 haul truck; ten snowmobiles; five ranger-style ATVs; and three 4-wheeler "Quad" ATVs.

Page 28 of 191

------

An area, the size of a sports field, has been cleared and graveled for core storage. Adjacent areas can be cleared for more storage as the project grows. There are also two wooden-deck helicopter pads with a small building for helicopter support.

![w005.jpg](w005.jpg)

**Figure 5**-**2 Layout of the Whiskey Bravo Camp and Facilities** 

The runway for the camp is illustrated in Figure 5-3. A 113,400 litre fuel storage facility is located at the north east end of the runway. All tanks are stored in separate lined containments. They are designed to contain at least 1.5 times the volume of the largest tank in the containment. All pumping is done through aircraft approved filter systems. Two buildings are located just off the runway for drilling company shop/warehouses and there is ample room for lay down areas for parts and materials storage.

Page 29 of 191

------

![w006.jpg](w006.jpg)

**Figure 5**-**3 Layout of the Runway relative to Camp** 

Communications is provided by a wireless satellite system. There is also a cell phone repeater at the satellite communications station located on Whistler Ridge. It provides fair-quality cell phone service in camp.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.5** **Physiography** 

The project is located in the drainage of the Skwentna River that forms a large network of interconnected low-elevation U-shaped valleys cutting through the rugged terrain of the southern Alaska Range. Elevation varies from about 400m above sea level in the valley floors to over 5,000m in the highest peaks resulting in a quite spectacular landscape. The Alaska Range is a continuation of the Pacific Coast Mountains extending in an arc across the northern Pacific. Mount McKinley, North America's highest peak at 6,194 m, is located approximately 130km northeast of the project area.

The vegetation in the Whistler region is quite variable. The valley floors and lower slopes are usually characterized by dense vegetation giving way above about 750m elevation to dense bushy shrubs rendering ground access difficult. At higher elevations, vegetation is absent and active glaciers with terminal and lateral moraines are present. The timber line is located at elevations varying between 800m to 1,100m. Bedrock exposures within the project area are scarce except at elevations above 1,000m and along incised drainage.

The Whistler Project mineral claims provide the area that is sufficient for the development of a potential open pit project, including tailings storage, waste disposal, potential processing plant sites and water sources. A source of power has yet to be determined and mining personnel would likely have to be housed in a camp.

Page 30 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **6** | **HISTORY** |

---

During the late 1960s, regional mapping and geochemical sampling by the United States Geological Survey ("USGS") identified several base and precious metal occurrences over a very large area in the southern Alaska Range including southern portions of the Whistler project area.

Following the results of that work, limited exploration was conducted in the area during the 1960s and 1980s. Falconbridge (or their operator St. Eugene) was involved in exploring the nearby Stoney Vein in the late 1960s. A local prospector, Arne Murto (deceased), was active in the Long Lake Hills area from at least 1964 and AMAX staked at least four claims over the Lower Discovery showing at Mount Estelle (circa 1982).

Mineral exploration in the Whistler area was initiated by Cominco Alaska in 1986 and continued through 1989. During this period, the Whistler and the Island Mountain gold-copper porphyry occurrences were discovered and partially tested by drilling. In 1990, Cominco's interest waned and all core from the Whistler region were donated to the State of Alaska. The property was allowed to lapse.

In 1999, Kent Turner staked twenty-five State of Alaska mining claims at Whistler and leased the property to Kennecott. From 2004 through 2006 Kennecott conducted extensive exploration of the Whistler region, including geological mapping, soil, rock and stream sediments sampling, ground induced polarization and they conducted an evaluation of the Whistler gold-copper occurrence with fifteen core boreholes (7,948 m) and reconnaissance core drilling at other targets in the Whistler region (4,184 m). Over that period, Kennecott invested over USD$6.3 million in exploration.

In June 2007, Geoinformatics Exploration Inc. ("Geoinformatics") announced the conditional acquisition of the Whistler Project as part of a strategic alliance with Kennecott Exploration Company ("Kennecott"). Between July and October 2007, Geoinformatics drilled seven core boreholes (3,321 m) to infill the deposit to sections spaced at seventy-five metres and to test for the north and south extensions of the deposit.

In August 2009, Geoinformatics acquired Rimfire Minerals Corporation and changed its name to Kiska Metals Corporation ("Kiska"). In 2009 and 2010, Kiska completed three phases of exploration on the property to fulfill the terms of the Standardization of Back-In Rights ("SOBIR") Agreement between Kennecott Exploration Company and Kiska Metals Corporation.

In total, Kiska completed 224 line-km of 3D induced polarization ("IP") geophysics, 40 line-km of 2D IP geophysics, 327 line-km of cut-line, geological mapping on the 3D IP grid, detailed mapping of significant Au-Cu prospects, collection of 109 rock samples and 61 soil samples, 8,660m of diamond drilling from 23 drillholes (all greater than 200m in total length), petrographic analysis of mineralization at Island Mountain, a preliminary review of metallurgy at the Whistler Resource, and metallurgical testing of mineralization from the Discovery Breccia at Island Mountain. This program was executed by Kiska geologists, independent geologists and multiple contractors, under the supervision of Kiska personnel. All aspects of the exploration program were designed and monitored by a Technical Committee comprised of two Kennecott employees and two Kiska employees. In August of 2010, Kiska delivered a Technical Report (Roberts, 2010) to Kennecott summarizing the results of the completed Trigger Program. In September of 2010, Kennecott informed Kiska that it would not exercise its back-in right on the project and hence retained a 2% Net Smelter Royalty on the property.

Page 31 of 191

------

From this point forward, Kiska continued to drill and explore the Whistler Project for the duration of the 2010 and 2011 field seasons. The majority of this work included shallow grid drilling (25m to 50m top of bedrock drilling) in the Whistler Area (also referred to as the Whistler Corridor), conventional step-out drilling from prospects in the Whistler Area, step-out drilling at the Island Mountain Breccia Zone, an airborne EM survey of the Island Mountain area, reconnaissance drilling at Muddy Creek, and minor infill drilling at the Whistler Deposit, followed by the publication of an updated NI43-101 resource estimate (MMTS, 2011).

Page 32 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **7** | **GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.1** **Geological Setting** 

The Whistler Project is situated within the Wrangellia Composite Terrane ("WCT"), one of three composite terranes accreted to the Alaskan portion of the North America Cordilleran margin in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This margin records a complex history of terrane accretion, basin formation, basin exhumation, subduction, and multiple pulses of magmatism.

In south-central Alaska, the WCT is comprised of three significant tectono-magmatic assemblages (Figure 7-1): 1) the Paleozoic-Triassic basement rocks upon which the Early to Late Jurassic Talkeetna island arc was built, including volumetrically significant plutonic rocks; 2) the Kahiltna assemblage, consisting of Jura-Cretaceous flysch sediments that formed in basins initiated by the convergence of Wrangellia with the former continental craton; and 3) voluminous Upper Cretaceous and Paleocene-Oligocene igneous rocks, dominantly plutons, that stitch the Wrangellia composite terrane with the inboard autochthonous terranes. The latter two assemblages dominate the regional geology of the Whistler area.

The Kahiltna assemblage occurs as a broad 100km by >300km belt extending across the Alaska Range. This assemblage is comprised of mostly marine sediments with fossils indicating deposition from the Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous.

Page 33 of 191

------

![w007.jpg](w007.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**1 Regional Geological Map of South-central Alaska (Source: Trop and Ridgeway, 2007)**

The black inset box shows the location of Whistler area and map extent in Figure 7-1 above.

Page 34 of 191

------

Uplift and shortening of the Kahiltna basin was followed by the construction of a continental-margin arc as defined by an extensive belt of 80-60Ma plutons extending from the Alaska Range south-eastwards into the Coast Range of Canada. In the Alaska Range, these arc rocks are dominated by plutons interpreted to be the deeper roots of subvolcanic and volcanic centres; however extrusive sections are locally preserved.

There are four intrusive suites associated with this epoch of magmatism that are recognized in the Whistler region, including (from oldest to youngest): 1) the Whistler Intrusive Suite or "WIS" (host to the Whistler Deposit); 2) the Summit Lake Suite; 3) the Composite Suite; and 4) the Crystal Creek Suite (Figure 7-1). A stratigraphic column in Figure 7-3 illustrates the timing relationship of intrusive suites in the district, and their relationship to host country rocks.

The Whistler Intrusive Suite consists of intermediate to mafic extrusive and intrusive rocks, including diorite porphyries. These diorite porphyries are host to, and genetically associated with, gold-copper porphyry mineralization on the Whistler Project area. This is the only suite where comagmatic extrusive rocks and shallow subvolcanic intrusive rocks are recognized in the region. On a district scale the intrusions generally occur as sills and less commonly as dikes and small stocks. New U-Pb age dating of zircons from the mineralized diorite porphyry in the Whistler Deposit, and other mineralized porphyries on the Whistler Project, indicate igneous ages of 76.36Ma ±0.3Ma (Hames, 2014). One of the least-altered diorite porphyry intrusions located on the Whistler Ridge has a hornblende Ar-Ar age date of 75.5 ± 0.3Ma (Young, 2005).

The Summit Lake intrusions are regionally represented by 74 to 61Ma calc-alkaline granodiorite to diorite, becoming more monzonitic and of alkali-calcic affinity in the Whistler area. East and northeast from Whistler, these intrusions are associated with local gold prospects and have been called the Kichatna plutons and more locally, the "Old Man Diorite".

The Composite Plutons include the Emerald, Mount Estelle, Stoney, and Kohlsaat plutons, and are locally associated with gold mineralization. The Composite Plutons are seen to be somewhat concentrically zoned magmatic series, with an early border phase of alkaline mafic to ultramafic rock, inwards towards less alkaline monzonites to granites. The common age range is 67 to 64 Ma.

The regional geology of the Whistler deposit area is shown in Figure 7-2. The Crystal Creek sequence, located south of Whistler, is mainly calc-alkaline granite or rhyolite and ranges in age from 61 to 56 Ma. More mafic rocks, including the 61Ma Porcupine Butte andesite and Bear Cub (diorite) pluton, may represent higher level/border phases to the Crystal Creek sequence.

Continental arc magmatism in the Latest Cretaceous is responsible for some of the most significant gold and copper-gold deposits in Alaska. These include the Pebble gold-copper porphyry deposit (89 Ma; Schrader et al., 2001), the Donlin Creek gold deposit (70 Ma, Szumigala et al, 2000), the Fort Knox gold deposit (95 – 89 Ma, Mortenson et al., 1995), and the Livengood gold deposit (Late Cretaceous).

Page 35 of 191

------

![w008.jpg](w008.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**2 Regional Geology of the Whistler Project (Source: Wilson et al., 2009)**

Page 36 of 191

------

![w009.jpg](w009.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**3 Stratigraphic column of the Whistler district and property (Source: Young, 2005 and Hames, 2014).** 

Page 37 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.2** **Property Geology** 

The property geology of the Whistler area is well documented and described in detail by Young (2005) and Franklin (2007). The property can be subdivided into three main areas based on distinctive intrusive rocks and their association with gold-copper and gold-only mineralization: 1) The Whistler Corridor; 2) Island Mountain; and 3) Muddy Creek as illustrated in Figure 7-4.

![w010.jpg](w010.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**4 Geological Map of the Whistler Corridor** 

Page 38 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.2.1** **Whistler Corridor** 

The bulk of the Whistler property is underlain by flysch sediments of the Kahiltna assemblage, while the Whistler Corridor is dominated by a largely fault bounded block of andesitic volcanic rocks, interpreted to represent a local volcanic-dominated basin as illustrated in Figure 7-5. The sedimentary and volcanic rocks are host to a variety of dioritic to monzonitic dykes, sills and stocks of the WIS. Much of the low-lying areas in this region are covered by 5 to 15m of glacial till, and hence much of the geological map is based on drilling and interpretation of geophysical data.

![w011.jpg](w011.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**5 Whistler Project Geology** 

The Whistler Deposit is hosted by a multi-phase diorite porphyry intrusive complex of the WIS nested within sediments of the flysch package, whereas prospects in the Whistler Area (Raintree, Rainmaker) are hosted by similar diorite porphyry intrusive centres within the volcanic basin. Age dating of mineralized and barren diorite porphyry units on the Whistler ridge indicates that magmatism occurred at approximately 75 to 76Ma (Young, 2005; Hames, 2011). The mineralogy and composition of the intrusive rocks and the andesitic volcanic rocks are quite similar, suggesting that they are broadly comagmatic (Young, 2005). Inversion modeling of the airborne geophysical data suggests that there is a large 5 kilometre diameter batholith possibly situated 1 kilometre below the surface and that some of the diorite porphyry intrusive centres are cupolas at the apices of the batholith.

Page 39 of 191

------

The detailed geology of the volcanic stratigraphy remains uncertain, largely due to glacial cover and the extensive amount of texturally destructive, hydrothermal alteration. Volcanic rocks are comprised of coherent andesites and volcanic breccias that define a variety of depositional facies. Based on the occurrence of common argillaceous interflow sediments Young (2005) inferred a sub-aqueous marine setting for the bulk of the volcanic rocks. In the eastern Long Lake Hills area, volcanic flows are interbedded with Feldspathic Sandstones, and Young (2005) interpreted this to represent the onset of volcanism in a shallower marine setting. In addition to these extrusive rocks, a large volume of the volcanic rocks are interpreted to be comprised of porphyritic, subvolcanic units, as either large sills or stocks. These subvolcanic units can be difficult to differentiate from coherent volcanic rocks, particularly porphyritic flows, and in areas of intense texturally-destructive phyllic alteration. The stratigraphy of the volcanic rocks are currently unresolved. The current geological map only differentiates "least-altered" from "altered" volcanic rocks based on the extrapolation of airborne magnetic data from the grid and scout drilling. All of the volcanic and subvolcanic rocks encountered in drilling are magnetic when they are least-altered, and magnetism is generally destroyed by sulphidation during phyllic alteration.

In addition to least-altered volcanic rocks, magnetic high anomalies also occur in association with northwest-elongated linear to oval-shaped diorite dykes and stocks hosted by flysch sediments and in association with zones of near-surface secondary magnetite alteration and veining, such as the Whistler Deposit, and the Rainmaker and Raintree North prospects.

The bulk of the flysch sediments on the Whistler Project area have north to northeast striking and steeply dipping bedding orientations due to compressional deformation that resulted in chevron-style folding. These folds are north-east striking, and fold limbs are typically moderate to steep or overturned (Young, 2005). A dioritic sill exposed on the Whistler Ridge is likewise folded, suggesting that a component of dioritic magmatism pre-dated regional deformation.

Several northeast-trending faults have been interpreted based on topographic linear features and the truncation and offset of magnetic features. These are considered to be the earliest structure features on the property since they are truncated by north-northwest-oriented faults with left-lateral offset, such as the Alger Peak Fault.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.2.2** **Island Mountain** 

The Island Mountain area is comprised of a suite of nested intrusions, ranging compositionally from hornblende diorite to hornblende-biotite monzonite, emplaced within flysch sediments of the Kahiltna assemblage as illustrated in Figure 7-6. Texturally, these intrusions range from equigranular to strongly porphyritic, suggesting a relatively high level of emplacement typical of the porphyry environment. Unlike the Whistler area, no coeval volcanic rocks are recognized. Based on limited whole-rock geochemistry (Young, 2005) the Monzonite at Island Mountain plots within the silica-saturated alkalic field of Lang et al. (1995) and is the intrusive equivalent of trachy-andesite on a total alkali versus silica diagram. This suite of intrusions is mapped as part of the circa 67 to 64Ma Composite Suite of intrusions, similar to the Muddy Creek area, however recent age dating suggests some complexity with dates ranging from 77Ma down to 64Ma (Gross, 2014). Compared to Muddy Creek, the intrusive rocks at Island Mountain are generally more mafic (diorite and monzonites as opposed to quartz monzonite and granites at Muddy Creek), are magnetite-bearing rather than ilmenite-bearing, are commonly more porphyritic rather than coarse equigranular, lack the strong, pervasive gold-arsenic association, and lack the evenly distributed northwest-oriented sheeted fracture set that typifies mineralized structures at Muddy Creek. For these reasons, it is likely that igneous rocks at Island Mountain represent a unique intrusive suite separate from the Composite Suite.

Page 40 of 191

------

This unique intrusive centre is broadly situated at the intersection between the regionally significant northwest-striking Timber Creek Fault, which can be traced for 10's of kilometres, and the Skwentna River valley, postulated as a possible fault zone (Young, 2005). The bulk of the nested intrusions occur on the southeast side of Island Mountain and this is where sediments in the contact metamorphic aureole of these intrusions are hornfelsed. The hornfels, especially on the southwest corner of Island Mountain, occur as irregular rafts and possibly roof pendants that appear to form a slope-parallel skin of country rock that demarks the roof zone of this intrusive complex. Sediments consist of dark mudstone, shale, thin-to-medium-bedded siltstone and dark grey sandstone and minor dirty calcareous sedimentary beds and a few local thin pebble conglomerate units. These units predominate on the northwest portion of Island Mountain.

Page 41 of 191

------

![w012.jpg](w012.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**6 Property Geology of the Island Mountain Area** 

Page 42 of 191

------

The earliest recognized intrusive phase is the Island Mountain Diorite Porphyry. This unit has been observed to be cut by all other igneous units and is the host to gold-copper porphyry mineralization associated with intrusive and hydrothermal breccias at the Island Mountain Deposit (previously referred to as the "Breccia Zone").

The next most volumetrically significant intrusive phase is a Monzonite Porphyry (IFMIP) that occurs in the northeast corner of Island Mountain, and which is generally the host of gold-copper porphyry-style mineralization at the Cirque and the Howell zones. Unlike the Diorite Porphyry, this unit contains magnetite phenocrysts and is thus well delineated by airborne magnetic survey data.

In the Breccia Zone, Diorite- and Monzonite-cemented intrusive breccias occur as sub-vertical, 100-150 metre diameter, sub-circular to irregularly shaped pipes that grade into actinolite-magnetite-cemented hydrothermal breccias with pyrrhotite-pyrite-chalcopyrite mineralization, which together define magmatic-hydrothermal conduits that host the bulk of gold-copper porphyry mineralization in this area. Not all the Intrusive Breccia bodies are altered or mineralized, suggesting that either some of these breccias post-date the main phase of mineralization, or that some pre-mineral intrusive breccias were not affected by hydrothermal fluid. Together, these intrusive and hydrothermal breccias have been the focus of the majority of the exploration drilling at Island Mountain since 2009. A series of these breccias extend discontinuously for 700m from the "Breccia Zone" on a north-northwest trend along the south-western slope of Island Mountain. The Breccia Zone also contains narrow, pencil-like bodies of Coarse Porphyritic Hornblende Diorite that are syn-to-post gold-copper mineralization.

This corridor of breccias is flanked by strong pervasive albite alteration with local zones of vein and disseminated pyrrhotite that constitutes significant Au-only mineralization within and flanking the Breccia Zone. Similar intrusive and hydrothermal breccias with peripheral sodic alteration and pyrrhotite mineralization occur in areas of gold and copper soil anomalies at the Howell Zone, suggesting the occurrence of multiple magmatic-hydrothermal centres. The Howell Zone remains untested by drilling.

The last volumetrically significant phase of magmatism is represented by a coarse grained equigranular monzonite that occurs as a northwest-striking dyke or sill exposed near the base of slope on the south-western side of Island Mountain. This unit lies adjacent and strikes parallel to the regional Timber Creek Fault, suggesting a possible regional control on the emplacement of this unit. Likewise, all of the above-mentioned units are cut by narrow, post-mineral, fine-grained mafic to intermediate dykes that generally strike to the northwest and dip steeply.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.2.3** **Muddy Creek** 

Muddy Creek is located in rugged terrain along the western edge of the Whistler Project and is comprised of several steep, north-east facing U-shaped glacial valleys separated by razor-back ridges with small remnant glaciers at the heads of each valley. This prospect is largely underlain by a monzonitic intrusive complex, part of the Composite Suite (or Estelle Suite) of intrusions that were emplaced within sediments of the Kahiltna Assemblage in the late Cretaceous (Figure 7-7). An argon-argon analysis of igneous biotite from a granodiorite on the western margin of the intrusive complex returned an age date of 67.4Ma ± 0.4Ma (Solie et al., 1991a). A steep, east-west trending contact between the intrusive complex and hornfels sediments is well-exposed in the ridgelines in the northern portion of the prospect and is comprised of a conspicuous and extensive red-brown colour anomaly. Hornfels also comprises the eastern-contact of the intrusive complex.

Page 43 of 191

------

The bulk of the geological mapping at Island Mountain was completed by Kennecott and the following descriptions are from Young (2005). The core of the intrusive complex is monzonitic, grading outwards to progressively more mafic and older intrusive phases (Crowe et al., 1991), with pendants of ultramafic rocks at the margins (Millholland, 1998). The pluton intrudes very steeply north-dipping sedimentary rocks of the middle Graywacke Sandstone subunit and Tabular Sandstone unit. Local matrix-supported pebble conglomerate and spherical concretions along Muddy Creek support a correlation with the Tabular Sandstone unit.

The majority of the Mount Estelle pluton consists of biotite-monzonite, with an increasing proportion of augite phenocrysts towards the margins. Monzonite is medium- to coarse-grained and idiomorphic granular and occurs at the central and southern portions of the mapped area at Muddy Creek. Mafics, principally biotite books (to 5 mm) and subordinate to absent stubby dark augite generally constitute 15 to 35% of the monzonite. Twinned 3mm to 1cm orthoclase phenocrysts are a fundamental component. Groundmass consists of a medium-grained equigranular mixture of feldspar and quartz. Rounded xenoliths are rare, but widespread, and consist of biotitized sediments and more strongly mafic (biotite and augite)-rich intrusive rock of earlier intrusive phases. Intrusion breccia's with rounded clasts are a very local feature as are sinuous to linear aplitic dikes.

![w013.jpg](w013.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**7 Geological Map of Muddy Creek** 

Page 44 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3** **Mineralization** 

Exploration on the Whistler Project by Kennecott, Geoinformatics and Kiska has identified three primary exploration targets for porphyry-style gold-copper mineralization. These include the Whistler Deposit, Raintree West, and the Island Mountain Breccia Zone as shown in Figure 7-8. The Whistler and Island Mountain areas also host multiple secondary porphyry-like prospects defined by drilling, anomalous soil samples, alteration, veining, surface rock samples, induced polarization chargeability/resistivity anomalies, airborne magnetic anomalies and airborne electromagnetic anomalies. These include the Raintree North, Rainmaker, Round Mountain, Puntilla, Snow Ridge, Dagwood, Super Conductor, Howell Zone and Cirque Zones. The Muddy Creek area represents an additional exploration target with the potential to host a low-grade, bulk tonnage, Intrusion-Related Gold mineralization.

Page 45 of 191

------

![w014.jpg](w014.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**8 Prospect Areas (Source: MMTS 2015)**

Page 46 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.1** **Whistler Area and Whistler Deposit Mineralization Overview** 

The Whistler Deposit and prospects in the Whistler Area (Raintree West, Raintree North and Rainmaker) display a common pattern of alteration, vein paragenesis, and mineralization styles that suggest these spatially separate porphyry centres share a common genetic association. These features are hosted by, and genetically linked to, pulses of diorite porphyry intrusive bodies that are nested in pipe-like centres. Geophysical inversion models of the airborne magnetic data suggest that these pipes may be cupolas that occur above a common batholith. That these porphyry centres are genetically associated is corroborated by common alteration assemblages, vein types, mineralization styles and paragenetic relationships. At the Whistler Deposit, the earliest Diorite Porphyry phase (Main Stage Whistler Diorite Porphyry) is associated with the main stage of gold-copper mineralization, whereas subsequent phases are less mineralized, and thus are either weak metal contributors or diluting bodies.

The earliest recognized alteration event recognized at the Whistler Deposit and the porphyry prospects in the Whistler Area, referred to as "Magnetite" alteration, occurs as patchy magnetite alteration of mafic minerals (dominantly hornblende and possibly pyroxenes) and narrow, irregular magnetite veinlets ("M-veins"). Magnetite in this event is occasionally intergrown with trace chalcopyrite. This stage may include the partial replacement of feldspars by secondary K-feldspar, particularly in the selvages to M-veins, and hence may be part of the earliest, weakest stage of Potassic alteration (see Figure 7-9 below). This stage is recognized in both the Main Stage and Intermineral Stage Diorite Porphyry generally in the core zone of mineralization at the Whistler Deposit. In addition, it has been observed to occur within andesitic volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks within 50m of similarly altered diorite intrusions in the Whistler Area, however not within the Feldspathic Sandstones that host the Whistler Deposit.

Page 47 of 191

------

![w015.jpg](w015.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**9 Photo of irregular M-veins in dark magnetite alteration of mafics (upper) and pervasive pink-black blotchy k-feldspar and magnetite alteration (lower) with wormy quartz + magnetite + chalcopyrite A-veins (Whistler Deposit)** 

The subsequent stage of alteration is "Potassic" alteration, defined by the occurrence of pinkish K-feldspar replacing plagioclase and matrix, which generally occurs as halos to, or pervasively in zones of, A-style and B-style quartz veins. Potassic alteration also includes the replacement of mafic phases by fine-grained secondary "shreddy" biotite, however this is generally difficult to observe due to overprinting Chlorite-Sericite alteration (see Figure 7-10, below). Strong Potassic alteration (pink rock) is generally accompanied by strong patchy magnetite alteration, and overall this leads to strong textural destruction such that the rock is mottled pink-black without an obvious porphyritic texture. Potassic alteration is associated with the bulk of gold-copper mineralization, which occurs as chalcopyrite and rare bornite in A- and B-style quartz veins and as fine-grained disseminations in adjacent wall rock. At the Whistler Deposit, gold occurs predominantly as electrum associated with chalcopyrite. There exists a spectrum of A- and B-style quartz veins. A-veins are millimetre wide, sugary quartz ± magnetite with wormy margins. These are generally observed to cut M-veins, however occasional M-veins have been seen to transition into A-like quartz veins. B-veins are generally comprised of slightly coarser, equigranular quartz with centre-line septa of chalcopyrite, and have straight sides. Intense zones of B-style veining form strong stockwork zones are associated with high-grade zones (>1 gpt Au, >0.5% Cu). Potassic alteration and quartz veining may include minor pyrite, yet these zones have relatively low total sulphide content (<1-2%).

Page 48 of 191

------

![w016.jpg](w016.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**10 Photo of a classic B-style quartz vein with a chalcopyrite-filled centre-line cutting an irregular, wormy A-style quartz vein (Whistler Deposit, WH 08-08, ~123.0m)** 

In general, core zones of Potassic alteration and Au-Cu mineralization are partially to completely overprinted by "Chlorite-Sericite" alteration, This "green rock" alteration is ubiquitous and the most macroscopically obvious alteration in zones of Au-Cu mineralization, even though it is a later event. As shown in figure 7-11, bright green chlorite replaces secondary biotite and any primary mafic phases remaining, and waxy green sericite replaces feldspars. Pyrite is part of this assemblage, partly replacing mafics and magnetite. Calcite or carbonate may be part of this assemblage, as well as trace epidote. Kennecott referred to this alteration assemblage as "Intermediate Argillic", which is also equivalent to SCC alteration in the porphyry literature (see Sillitoe, 2010). Kiska interpreted the Chlorite-Sericite alteration to be transitional to "Phyllic" alteration, overprinting (telescoping) and immediately peripheral to core zones of mineralization. This pervasive style of alteration is not obviously associated with any veining event, however there is a continuum of glassy quartz veins with pyrite>>chalcopyrite + molybdenite that appears to only occur in zones of Chlorite-Sericite and Phyllic alteration.

Page 49 of 191

------

![w017.jpg](w017.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**11 Photo or chlorite-sericite (+calcite) alteration overprinting potassic** – **magnetite alteration in a zone of quartz vein stockwork, subsequently cut by later Dpy veinlets with sericitic and iron-carbonate halos (Whistler Deposit)** 

Potassic and Chlorite-Sericite alteration is variably overprinted by "Phyllic" alteration. The Phyllic assemblage consists of sericite + pyrite + quartz. Moderate to strong Phyllic alteration is typically bleached grey-tan, where mafic minerals are completely to strongly replaced by sericite and pyrite, magnetite is replaced by pyrite, and feldspars are replaced by sericite (and clays). Phyllic alteration commonly occurs in halos to pyritic stringers ("Dpy") and quartz + pyrite veins ("D-veins"). In areas with intense D-style veining, phyllic halos coalesce to give pervasive Phyllic alteration, as illustrated in Figure 7-12. Strong to intense Phyllic alteration is texturally destructive, which often leads to difficulty in distinguishing intrusive from volcanic rocks. It is also suspected that intense Phyllic alteration is grade-destructive. At the Whistler Deposit and other prospects Phyllic alteration forms an outer and upper, commonly gradational halo to Chlorite-Sericite alteration, and is also preferentially developed in structural zones, including faults and hydrothermal breccias. Hydrothermal breccias commonly occur along the boundaries of different units (sediment/diorite; volcanic/diorite; diorite/diorite) and are comprised of variably milled wallrock fragments cemented by quartz-sericite-pyrite ("pyritic rock flour breccias"). These breccias occasionally contain tourmaline.

In the Whistler Area, strong Phyllic alteration and high pyrite content (10-15%) is common peripheral to individual porphyry centres extending for hundreds of metres into surrounding volcanic rocks. This has led to significant demagnetization of the volcanic stratigraphy such that the magnetic signature in the area is a function of alteration (dominantly Phyllic) rather than primary rock types. In contrast, the Phyllic halo at the Whistler Deposit only extends 50m into the surrounding Feldspathic Sandstone. In addition to pyrite, porphyry centres in the area are also large sulphur anomalies, in the form of sulphates. Anhydrite appears to span several alteration and vein types: anhydrite occurs within B-type quartz-chalcopyrite veins and within cross-cutting D-veins and Dbm veins (see below). Fine-grained anhydrite, of an uncertain alteration affiliation, also replaces feldspars at the microscopic scale. Gypsum locally replaces vein anhydrite and also occurs as very narrow and abundant hairline veinlets in zones of strong to intense and pyritic phyllic alteration.

Page 50 of 191

------

![w018.jpg](w018.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**12 D-style pyrite veins with well-developed phyllic halos (Whistler Deposit), that cut and off-set B-style quartz veins (lower sample). Also note the local occurrence of hematite at the intersection of both vein types (magnetite>hematite?)** 

At the Whistler Deposit and other prospects in the Whistler Area, the latest stage of precious and base metal mineralization is associated with quartz-carbonate (dolomite and calcite)-sphalerite-galena ± chalcopyrite veins ("Dbm" or "D-base metal veins"). These veins have been observed to cut Potassic and Chlorite Sericite alteration (including Au-Cu mineralization and A- and B-vein stockwork), Dpy and D veins, and sericite-quartz-pyrite cemented hydrothermal breccias. In the Whistler Area, these veins are commonly most abundant in the outer, intense phyllic halo within volcanic rocks within 100-200m of the diorite intrusive centres. The veins can range from narrow veins (0.5-1cm wide) up to 2-5 metre wide (generally as vein breccias). Veins minerals, including sulphides, are medium to very coarse-grained (Figure 7-13 and Figure 7-14), have local colliform banding, and vein quartz is occasionally chalcedonic. Based on their cross-cutting relationships, textures, mineralogy and spatial relationship to porphyry centres, these veins are interpreted to have formed syn-to post-Phyllic stage alteration. That these veins typically cut phyllic-stage hydrothermal breccias and have open-space fill colliform banding, suggests that these veins formed in a much different hydrologic/structural regime (hydrostatic, possible incursion of meteoric waters) relative to Magnetite through to Phyllic events. Relative to the Whistler Deposit, these veins are much more abundant in the host rocks to porphyry centres in the volcanic-hosted prospects in the Whistler Area, particularly Raintree West. This observation, in addition to the epithermal-like textures of these veins, supports the notion that porphyry centres in the Whistler Area may have formed at shallower stratigraphic levels compared to the Whistler Deposit.

Page 51 of 191

------

![w019.jpg](w019.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**13 Photo of quartz-carbonate vein from Raintree West (WH11-030) showing well-developed colliform banding and coarse-grained sphalerite and galena**![w020.jpg](w020.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**14 Common vein paragenesis in all porphyry occurrences in Whistler Area: dark grey quartz vein stockwork with chalcopyrite (A- and B-style), cut by quartz-calcite-carbonate-sphalerite-galena veinlet (Dbm veins, top left down to bottom right), cut by narrow Fe-carbonate veinlets with Fe-carbonate alteration halos (Raintree West example)** 

The most significant style of post-mineral alteration is Fe-carbonate alteration as illustrated in Figure 7-14 above. This occurs as pervasive alteration of feldspars in structural zones and as selvages to ankerite veins. Primary igneous magnetite and secondary magnetite is commonly altered to hematite in these zones. Ankerite veins, typically as brittle tension gashes, cross-cut all vein styles, including the Dbm veins. The degree and extent of this style of alteration is typically not obvious until the core has weathered for a year or more, and is therefore not well-documented in the core logs.

Page 52 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.2** **Mineralization: Whistler Deposit** 

Gold and copper mineralization at the Whistler Deposit is hosted by a Late Cretaceous, multi-phase diorite porphyry intrusive complex that intrudes the Feldspathic Sandstone unit of the Kahiltna assemblage (Figure 7-15). The Feldspathic Sandstone is comprised of sandstone with minor interbeds of mudstone, siltstone and conglomerate. Sedimentary bedding in the vicinity of the deposit primarily strikes to the northeast and dips steeply to the northwest.

![w021.jpg](w021.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**15 Geological Map of the Whistler Deposit (Source: MMTS, 2015, modified from AMC, 2012)**

The diorite porphyry intrusive complex is ovoid-shaped and vertically plunging (Figure 7-16). The long axis of the ovoid is 700m long and oriented in a northwest-southeast direction. The short axis of the ovoid is 500m wide and oriented in a northeast-southwest direction. Deep drilling indicates that the intrusive complex is open below a depth of 800m from surface.

The intrusive complex is composed of at least three diorite porphyry phases that are compositionally and texturally similar: they are comprised of 60%-80%, euhedral to subhedral blocks of plagioclase feldspar phenocrysts (0.2-3.0mm diameter), 5%-20% hornblende laths (0.2-3.0 mm) that are usually altered to sericite, chlorite, pyrite, or a combination of these, and a fine grained, granular groundmass of feldspar and minor quartz, that is usually altered to silica, chlorite, sericite, clay or potassium feldspar. In places within the deposit, three intrusive phases are recognized on the basis of cross-cutting relationships with mineralization and alteration. The oldest intrusive phase, the "main stage diorite porphyry", carries the earliest recognized veining and alteration associated with gold-copper mineralization (see below); the second phase, the "inter-mineral diorite porphyry" is recognized where it clearly cuts main stage diorite porphyry mineralization (i.e. intrusive contact cutting mineralized veins), and is itself veined and mineralized. The third and youngest phase, the "late stage diorite porphyry" is barren except for local mineralized xenoliths of main or inter-mineral porphyry.

Page 53 of 191

------

![w022.jpg](w022.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**16 Geological Cross-section (6,871,350mN) of the Whistler Deposit (Source: MMTS, 2015, modified from AMC, 2012)**

Due to the compositional and textural similarity of the main stage and inter-mineral stage porphyries and hence the difficulty in consistently identifying these stages in areas that lack clear cross-cutting relationships with mineralization or alteration, Kiska geologists modeled these phases as a single mineralized porphyry unit. For consistency these phases are therefore referred to as the "Main Stage Porphyry". Further re-logging of drill core and future in-fill drilling may be able to clearly and consistently differentiate these phases.

Page 54 of 191

------

The Main Stage Porphyry ("MSP") comprises the bulk of the volume of the intrusive complex and is cut by the Late Stage Porphyry. This latter phase clearly post-dates mineralization and truncates grade. It occurs as narrow, sub-vertical dykes and pencil-like bodies, generally 2 to 10m wide but up to 150m wide on the north and western edges of the MSP. This phase generally has strong pervasive phyllic alteration, and occasionally xenoliths or rafts of the MSP, which locally contribute grade.

Gold and copper mineralization in the Main Stage Porphyry is comprised of 1-3% chalcopyrite and trace bornite as grains within magnetite and quartz veins (see below) and as disseminations in the host porphyry generally within the halos to these veins. Petrography indicates that gold occurs predominantly as electrum associated with chalcopyrite (Petersen, 2004). This mineralogy and style of mineralization is typical of diorite-hosted gold-copper porphyry deposits (Sillitoe, 2010).

Recent, preliminary modeling has identified two zones within the MSP which should be incorporated with further resource modeling. These zones of gold-copper mineralization occur in two areas within the Main Stage Porphyry: the East Core ("ECORE") and West Core ("WCORE") domains (Figure 7-17). These domains are interpreted as discrete, near-vertical, ovoid-shaped fluid flow conduits (interconnected vein networks) that delivered and trapped the bulk of the metals in the MSP. The ECORE is defined by coincident 0.40 gpt gold and 0.20% Cu grade contours and extends approximately 500m in the north-south dimension, 250m in the east-west dimension and is 600m deep (from surface). The WCORE is defined by a 0.30 gpt gold grade shell with lower and irregular Cu grades relative to the ECORE. This domain is approximately 400m long in the north-south direction, 200m wide in the east-west orientation and is 450m deep in a vertical dimension starting from 75m below surface.

These domains have the highest gold-copper grades relative to the remainder of the MSP domain, yet the boundaries of the ECORE and WCORE domains with the MSP are geologically gradational. Outside of the ECORE and WCORE domains, the MSP lacks any volumetrically significant zones of potassic and magnetite alteration, or significant volumes of mineralized quartz veining. However, wide-spaced drilling in the northern portion of the deposit has encountered gold-copper mineralization association with magnetite and quartz veining, suggesting that further drilling may define other zones of mineralization similar to the ECORE and WCORE.

Both the ECORE and WCORE domains contain inner zones of strong potassic and magnetite alteration (see below), which are dominantly overprinted by pervasive chlorite-sericite alteration and local phyllic alteration. These domains are also defined by the consistent occurrence and highest concentration of M-veins and mineralized quartz veins (A- and B-veins). In these domains, mineralized quartz veins generally range in volume from 1 to 5%. Local high grade mineralization within these domains occurs in zones of high density quartz vein stockwork (locally >20% quartz vein volume) and quartz + magnetite + chalcopyrite cemented hydrothermal breccias. Minor 1cm to 10cm wide quartz-carbonate (ankerite and calcite)-barite-sphalerite-galena ± chalcopyrite veins (Dbm veins) cross-cut mineralized and unmineralized portions of the Main Stage Porphyry and are interpreted as intermediate sulphidation epithermal veins that have telescoped on the porphyry system. These sparse veins contain minor Au, Ag, Pb, Zn, and Cu, yet do not contribute significantly to the economic resource.

The structure of the intrusive complex is not well constrained with the widely spaced drilling. However, five faults that cross-cut the deposit are currently geologically modeled (Figure 7-17): Big Gulley Fault, Little Gulley Fault, Divide Fault, Conquer Fault and Ridge Fault. All of these faults have been modelled based on topographic features, fault textures in drill core intercepts, breaks in the airborne magnetic data (50 metre line-spacing) and breaks in the drill core magnetic susceptibility readings. These faults are generally between 0.5 and 5m wide, and display a variety of textures in drill core, included silica and/or carbonate cemented fault breccias, shear textures, clay gouge, brittle fractures and/or a combination of these features. Fault structures in the deposit are commonly associated with narrow zones of strong to intense sericite, clay, pyrite and carbonate alteration. This generally results in the conversion of magnetite to either pyrite and/or hematite, and therefore leads to demagnetization.

Page 55 of 191

------

![w023.jpg](w023.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**17 Oblique view of geological domains and faults at the Whistler Deposit (the host Feldspathic Sandstone is not shown) (Source: MMTS, 2015, modified from AMC, 2012)**

The Big and Little Gulley Faults strike to the northeast and dip steeply to the northwest. The strike of these faults is based on a prominent set of northeast-trending gulley's that traverse the northern portion of the deposit, whereas the dip of the faults is based on drill core intercepts.

Page 56 of 191

------

The Ridge Fault is a steeply northwest dipping (80° dip), curvi-planar fault that strikes sub-parallel to the Gulley Fault and is coincident with a significant northwest-dipping break-in-slope near the apex of the Whistler Ridge. The irregular strike of the fault is modelled based on a best fit between faults in drill core and an axis of demagnetization along this fault from the magnetic susceptibility data. Based on the staircase geometry of topography downwards across the Gulley and Ridge faults to the northwest, Kiska geologists interpret these faults as possible normal faults with upper plate blocks downs to the northwest. These faults do not appear to truncate Au-Cu grade, and hence they have not been modelled as hard boundaries. The actual sense of motion and amount of potential offset across this fault zone is unknown.

The Divide Fault (modelled as two strands) and the Conquer Fault are northwest-striking faults that dip steeply to the southwest (70-80° dip). These faults are modelled based on drill core intercepts and prominent breaks in the downhole magnetic susceptibility readings. These faults likely comprise strands within a fault zone. Where these faults intersect the Gulley and Ridge faults, the latter have a kinked geometry suggesting possible right-lateral offset of approximately 25-50m.

All of these faults generally show evidence that the latest movement within these faults post-dates mineralization (i.e. clay altered gouge and wallrock overprinting higher temperature alteration assemblages, carbonate-filled tension veins). However, both the ECORE and WCORE occur near the intersection of the Divide and Ridge Faults, suggesting that they may have been active prior to or during mineralization, and hence may have acted as important controls on mineralization.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.3** **Mineralization: Raintree West** 

The Raintree West prospect occurs 1500m to the east of the Whistler Deposit, just off the nose of Whistler Ridge. This prospect occurs below a thin veneer of glacial till (5 to 15 m) and hence is not exposed at surface. Outside of the Whistler Deposit, Raintree West is currently the most advanced prospect in the Whistler Area on the basis of drill metres, with a total of 8,538m since the original discovery hole drilled by Geoinformatics in 2008. The discovery drillhole, RN-08-06, targeted an airborne magnetic high anomaly that is coincident with an IP chargeability high detected on a 2D IP reconnaissance line that crossed the Whistler Area. This hole discovered a significant zone of near surface (below 5m of till cover) gold-copper porphyry mineralization (160m grading 0.59 gpt gold, 6.02 gpt silver, 0.10% copper).

Mineralization at Raintree West occurs as two main types: 1) early, porphyry-style gold-copper mineralization hosted by diorite porphyry stocks and consisting of quartz and magnetite stockwork veining, with vein and disseminated chalcopyrite associated with potassic alteration, and 2) later cross-cutting silver-gold-lead-zinc mineralization in quartz-carbonate veins (Dbm) that contain pyrite, sphalerite, galena and chalcopyrite, with occasional banded epithermal-like textures. The early gold-copper mineralization is best developed within, and controlled by, early diorite porphyry intrusions (akin to Main Stage Porphyry at the Whistler Deposit), whereas the later silver-gold-lead-zinc veins surround and locally overprint the porphyry mineralization, and are most abundant in the host volcanic rocks in zones of strong to intense phyllic alteration vertically above and adjacent to the diorite porphyries. In places, 25m to 50m wide diorite porphyry dykes cut both types of mineralization and are barren (akin to Late Stage Porphyry at the Whistler Deposit).

Current drilling at Raintree West has defined two significant zones of gold-copper porphyry mineralization: 1) a near surface zone on the east side of the Alger Peak fault; and 2) a deep zone on the west side of the fault (Figure 7-18).

Page 57 of 191

------

The near surface porphyry gold-copper mineralization is coincident with a northwest-elongate airborne magnetic high anomaly that measures 250m long and 150m wide, which pinches to the northwest and southeast. Drilling has only intersected this mineralization on two 100 metre-spaced east-west sections (6,871,350mN and 6,871,450mN). Gold-copper mineralization occurs from the top of bedrock to a maximum depth of approximately 170 m, where it is either truncated by post-mineral diorite porphyry intrusions or faulting, and has a true width of approximately 150m. Gold-copper mineralization is closed to the north, and potentially open to the south, however grade diminishes and the airborne magnetic high anomaly pinches out just south of the most southerly hole (WH10-025).

The deep zone of porphyry gold-copper mineralization on the west side of the fault has a maximum apparent width and vertical extent of 300 by 300m at its widest (6,871,650N), is open to depth, and occurs at its shallowest at 470m below surface. This deep zone of mineralization can be traced along a northwest-trending strike extent for at least 325m where it appears fault bound to the northwest and is open to depth to the southeast. The mineralization is essentially blind to the airborne magnetic data and the 3D IP due to the limited depth penetration of these techniques.

Porphyry mineralization at Raintree West is essentially similar to that at the Whistler Deposit with respect to veining and alteration, although Raintree West is mantled by intensely altered volcanic rocks with epithermal-texture quartz-carbonate veins. These veins (Dbm), interpreted to have formed in a shallow environment post-dating the main phase of porphyry gold-copper mineralization, may have developed through hydrothermal/thermal downward collapse onto to earlier formed high temperature porphyry system, contributing base and precious metals to the mantle of volcanic rocks and porphyry mineralization.

Page 58 of 191

------

![w024.jpg](w024.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**18 Plan Map of the Raintree West Prospect on a Background of greyscale airborne magnetic data, (magnetic high anomalies shown as lighter shades of grey)** 

Page 59 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.4** **Mineralization: Island Mountain** 

The Island Mountain prospect area is host to several mineralized zones interpreted to represent a cluster of individual porphyry centres within this large intrusive complex. These include the Breccia (the "Island Mountain Deposit"), Cirque and Howell Zones, and other prospects defined by surface geochemistry and geophysical anomalies that require further field assessment. Exploration activity and the majority of diamond drilling by Kiska have concentrated on mineralization associated within the Breccia Zone on the southwest slope of Island Mountain. Here, at least three styles of significant gold and copper mineralization are currently recognized: 1) gold-copper mineralization hosted by k-feldspar altered monzonitic intrusive breccia, 2) gold-copper mineralization hosted by intrusive and hydrothermal breccias associated with strong sodic-calcic alteration, and 3) gold-only mineralization associated with vein and disseminated pyrrhotite ("pyrrhotite-gold").

At the Breccia Zone, the first two styles of mineralization occur within a 300m diameter, sub-circular, sub-vertical breccia pipe, which appears to have been a conduit for inter-mingled intrusive and hydrothermal breccias hosted by the Diorite Porphyry. Gold-copper mineralization hosted by the k-feldspar altered monzonitic intrusive breccia is volumetrically smaller than the subjacent hydrothermal breccias and is interpreted as being the earliest stage of mineralization, since this breccia body is cut by actinolite veinlets. Mineralization is associated with trace to 2% disseminated chalcopyrite in the k-feldspar altered intrusive cement of the breccia, as illustrated in Figure 7-19 below.

![w025.jpg](w025.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**19 Photo of monzonite-matrix intrusive breccia with patchy albite alteration, silicification and disseminated chalcopyrite** 

The bulk of gold-copper mineralization at the Breccia Zone is hosted by intrusive and hydrothermal breccias with strong sodic-calcic alteration with pyrrhotite as the predominate sulphide and trace to 1% chalcopyrite. Chalcopyrite is most abundant in the matrix of the hydrothermal breccias and is commonly intergrown with pyrrhotite and actinolite ± magnetite. Pyrrhotite, ranging from 1 to 5%, occurs as disseminations within the breccia matrix and as large blebs cementing the matrix as illustrated in Figure 7-20. The deportment of gold in the breccia zone is not known. Weaker gold-copper mineralization extends 50-75m beyond the breccia zone and is associated with actinolite stockwork veining.

Page 60 of 191

------

![w026.jpg](w026.jpg)

![w027.jpg](w027.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**20 Photos of various textures of actinolite-magnetite hydrothermal breccia (BXMA), showing strong albitization in monomict breccia (left), pyrrhotite matrix in polymict breccia (right)** 

Gold-only mineralization in the Breccia Zone (referred to as "Pyrrhotite-Gold" mineralization) occurs 100-200m peripherally to the intrusive-hydrothermal breccia body and occurs in association with vein and disseminated pyrrhotite within the Diorite Porphyry. Pyrrhotite veins occur in irregular, possibly sheeted sets, and are typically 1-10 millimetres wide and have pyrrhotite-rich (up to 15-20%) net-textured vein selvages (i.e. replacing the igneous matrix of the Diorite Porphyry). Petrography and SEM studies indicate that gold occurs as electrum intergrown within and marginal to pyrrhotite grains. The orientation and continuity of these veins is currently undefined.

The relationship between the breccia-hosted gold-copper mineralization and the pyrrhotite-associated gold-only mineralization is not fully understood. The current working hypothesis is that the gold-copper and gold-only mineralization are associated with the same hydrothermal fluid, such that copper was precipitated in the hotter parts of the system within the hydrothermal breccia, and copper-depleted, gold-bearing fluids persisted into cooler, structural zones beyond the breccia and were subsequently precipitated as illustrated schematically in Figure 7-21 below (Rowins, 2011).

Page 61 of 191

------

![w028.jpg](w028.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**21 Schematic Model of Breccia Zone Alteration and Mineralization.** 

Page 62 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3.5** **Mineralization: Muddy Creek** 

Gold mineralization at Muddy Creek is hosted throughout the core of the plutonic complex and is controlled by northwest-striking and steeply southwest-dipping, mm- to locally cm-wide veinlets of sulfides and quartz, manifest as rusty-weathering sub-parallel fracture sets, commonly spaced a metre or more apart (Figure 7-22). These veinlets may contain any combination of chalcopyrite, arsenopyrite, pyrite, stibnite, pyrrhotite and native gold, with minor amounts of galena, sphalerite and molybdenite. Moderate sericitic alteration is typically restricted to cm-wide selvages to these veins, whereas the bulk of the interleaving rock is relatively unaltered and unmineralized. Cone sheets and circular onion skin-type joints that resemble bubbles or mariolites also carry gold mineralization, and elevated gold and copper values are also found in cm-scale pegmatites. Coarse- to very coarse-grained feldspar-quartz pegmatite with chalcopyrite and subordinate molybdenite occur along joint planes and intersections, centered in aplitic dikes and at the cores of circular joint sets or cone sheets. Lastly, massive sulfide veins occur locally along Muddy Creek in hornfelsed sedimentary wall rock. Previous workers report gold in all mineralization types to range from ppm to more than 1 oz/t in select samples (Millholland, 1998).

![w029.jpg](w029.jpg)

**Figure 7**-**22 Detail view of Biotite Monzonite Northwest of Muddy Creek, cut by sub-vertical limonite-stained fracture fillings of chalcopyrite-arsenopyrite (~1-3 per metre)** 

Accessory minerals associated with mineralization in veins include vuggy quartz and K-spar, with greatly subordinate ilmenite, tourmaline, apatite, beryl, and possibly corundum. Unlike most other mineral types of the Whistler region, magnetite is completely absent and the only measurable magnetism in hand samples is imparted by ilmenite and pyrrhotite.

Page 63 of 191

------

Previous exploration has largely been focused on areas where the vein/fracture density is highest. This includes structural zones near the top of Discovery Creek, Phoenix Creek, Prospect Creek and Muddy Creek that occur along the strike extent of a significant northwest-striking fault zone. Two diamond drillholes drilled by Kiska in 2011 focused on a high density vein/fracture zone at the top of Prospect Creek. Here drilling returned a highlight result of 0.44 gpt gold over 44.2m from 297.0 downhole (MC11-002). True widths on mineralization in this area may be approximately 80% of drilled widths, yet the full extent of mineralization down-dip or along strike is unknown due to a lack of drilling.

Page 64 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **8** | **DEPOSIT TYPES** |

---

Exploration on the Whistler Project by Kennecott, Geoinformatics and Kiska has identified three primary exploration targets for porphyry-style gold-copper deposits. These include the Whistler Deposit, Raintree, and the Island Mountain Breccia Zone. These deposits and their exploration criteria, conform to the porphyry deposit model as described in Sillitoe (2010). All of the porphyry prospects in the Whistler Area share similar styles of alteration, mineralization, veining and cross-cutting relationships that are generally typical of porphyry systems associated with relatively oxidized magma series (A- and B-type quartz vein stockwork, chalcopyrite-pyrite ore assemblage, presence of sulphates, core of potassic alteration with well-developed peripheral phyllic alteration zones). The Whistler area also hosts multiple secondary porphyry-like prospects defined by drilling, anomalous soil samples, alteration, veining, surface rock samples, Induced Polarization chargeability/resistivity anomalies and airborne magnetic anomalies. These include the Raintree North, Rainmaker, Dagwood, Round Mountain, Puntilla, Canyon Creek, and Snow Ridge prospects.

In contrast, Island Mountain has significantly different alteration, veining and sulphide assemblages associated with mineralization, principally the occurrence of pyrrhotite and to a lesser extent arsenopyrite associated with Au-Cu mineralization, Au-Cu association with strong sodic-calcic alteration, lack of significant sulphates, very minor hydrothermal quartz and weak to insignificant phyllic alteration. For these reasons, the porphyry system at Island Mountain may belong to the "reduced" subclass of porphyry copper-gold deposits (see Rowins, 2000).

The Muddy Creek area represents an additional exploration target with the potential to host a bulk tonnage, Intrusion Related Gold (IRG) deposit. Explorations by Millrock Resources Inc. on claims directly adjacent to the Muddy Creek area, which are geologically analogous, have returned encouraging preliminary results. Like Island Mountain, the Muddy Creek mineralization is distinct from the Whistler Porphyry systems and shares more similarity with IRG systems characteristic of the Tintina Gold Belt. The intrusive complex at Muddy Creek is predominantly monzonitic grading to more mafic marginal phases, yet is generally more felsic in composition relative to the diorites of the Whistler Area. Mineralization is restricted to sheeted vein zones with narrow millimetre scale veinlets and pegmatitic veinlets of quartz, feldspar, tourmaline and sulphides that include arsenopyrite, minor chalcopyrite and pyrite-pyrrhotite. Gold mineralization is largely confined to the minute veinlets whereas the intervening intrusive rocks are largely unaltered and unmineralized.

Page 65 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **9** | **EXPLORATION** |

---

A summary of all exploration work conducted by various operators from 1986 to present is summarized in Table 9-1. Cominco Alaska Inc. is attributed with the discovery of the Whistler Deposit in 1986. The only exploration activity documented by Cominco for which Kiska has records are 8.4 line-kilometres of 2D Induced Polarization geophysics over the Whistler Deposit and sixteen diamond drillholes (1,677 m) in the Whistler Deposit.

**Table 9**-**1 Summary of Exploration on the Whistler Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Operator** | **Field Seasons** | **Mapping** | **Geophysics** | **Rocks** | **Soils** | **Silts** |
| **Cominco** | 1986-1989 | n/a | ● 8.4 line-km of 2D IP over the Whistler deposit | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| **Kennecott** | 2003-2006 | Property-wide mapping | ● 39.4 line-km of 2D IP<br> ● Property-wide AM (400m line spacing)<br> ● Snow Ridge AM (79 line-km at 200m line spacing)<br> ● Whistler Area AM (1,365 line-km at 50m line spacing) | 1312 | 2446 | 103 |
| **Geoinformatics** | 2007-2008 | Prospect-scale mapping | ● 8.8 line-km of 2D IP (Whistler area) | 20 | 195 | nil |
| **Kiska** | 2009-2011 | Prospect-scale mapping | ● 40 line-km of 2D IP (Whistler area, Muddy Creek, Island Mountain)<br> ● 224 line-km of 3D IP (Whistler area)<br> ● Island Mountain EM (635 line-km at 100m line spacing) | 315 | 1425 | 46 |

---

*AM=Airborne Magnetic survey*

*EM=Airborne Electro-Magnetic survey*

*IP=Induced Polarization survey*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**9.1** **Geological Mapping** 

The bulk of the detailed geological mapping and interpretation on the property was undertaken by Kennecott and summarized in a report by Young (2006). This work laid the foundation for the geological interpretation of porphyry-style mineralization in the Whistler area (including the Whistler Deposit and the Raintree - Rainmaker prospects), the Breccia Zone at Island Mountain, and Intrusion-Related Au mineralization in the Muddy Creek area.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**9.2** **Airborne Geophysics** 

An airborne helicopter geophysical survey was commissioned from Fugro Airborne Surveys ("Fugro") by Kennecott during 2003. This survey covered the entire property with a high sensitivity cesium magnetometer and a 256-channel spectrometer.

Additional airborne magnetic data were acquired by Kennecott in 2004 over two smaller areas using a helicopter equipped by a Rio Tinto bird operated by Fugro and a Kennecott geophysicist. One area over the Snow Ridge target was investigated at 200m line spacing (79 line kilometres). The other grid was flown over the Whistler Deposit and surrounding area using fifty-metre line spacing (1,365 line kilometres).

Page 66 of 191

------

Results from these airborne surveys were used by Kennecott to interpret geological contacts, fault structures and potential mineralization in the Whistler, Island Mountain and Muddy Creek areas. In particular, the airborne magnetic data showed that the Whistler Deposit displays a strong 900m by 700m positive magnetic anomaly attributed to the magnetic Whistler Diorite intrusive complex (host to the Whistler Deposit) in addition to a contribution from secondary magnetite alteration and veining associated with Au-Cu mineralization. This observation formed that basis for exploration targeting in the Whistler area, particularly those areas covered by a thin veneer of glacial sediments, such as the Raintree and Rainmaker prospects. These surveys, in addition to 2D Induced Polarization ground geophysical surveys targeted over airborne magnetic anomalies, were instrumental in the "blind" discovery of the Rainmaker and Raintree prospects by Kennecott in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

Kiska commissioned a helicopter-borne AeroTEM survey over the Island Mountain area by Aeroquest Airborne in June 2011. The principal geophysical sensor was an AeroTEM III time domain electromagnetic system, employed in conjunction with a caesium vapour magnetometer. Navigation was provided by a real-time differential GPS navigation system, plus a radar altimeter and a video recorder mounted in the nose of the helicopter.

The survey was flown on east-west flight lines with a spacing of 100m. Control lines were flown north-south, perpendicular to the survey lines, with a spacing of 1,000m. The nominal terrain clearance of the EM bird was 30m. The magnetometer sensor was mounted in a smaller bird connected to the tow rope 33m above the EM bird and 20m below the helicopter. Nominal survey speed was 75km/hr., resulting in a geophysical reading about every 1.5 to 2.5m along the flight path. The total survey coverage, including tie lines, was 635km. Mira Geoscience was subsequently engaged to produce a 3D inversion of the data. The survey was designed to target potential zones of disseminated and net-textured pyrrhotite mineralization similar to the pyrrhotite-associated gold-only zone of mineralization on the flanks of the Breccia Zone. The survey did detect a large 1.5km long by 1.0km wide conductivity low anomaly on the southeast side of the Island Mountain area, referred to as the Super Conductor target. This anomaly was subsequently tested by three drillholes that did suggest that the conductivity anomaly may be associated with disseminated pyrrhotite mineralization with elevated gold values, yet further drilling is required to be conclusive and fully test the target.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**9.3** **Ground Geophysics** 

Cominco acquired 8.4 line-km of 2D Induced Polarization geophysics from six east-west oriented lines centred over the Whistler Deposit discovery outcrops. Anomalous results from these lines were used to target the deposit area with subsequent drilling. From 2004 to 2006, Kennecott completed 39.4 line-km of 2D IP geophysics in the Whistler area. Within this survey, two IP lines were run over the Whistler Deposit magnetic anomaly and showed that mineralization is coincident with a strong chargeability anomaly. Subsequent lines targeted magnetic anomalies at the Round Mountain, Canyon Creek, Canyon Ridge, Canyon Mouth, Long Lake Hills, Raintree and Rainmaker prospects. In 2007-2008, Geoinformatics completed 8.8 line-km of 2D IP from six separate reconnaissance lines in the Whistler area targeting airborne magnetic highs. Anomalous results from this survey in the Raintree area led to the Raintree West discovery.

Page 67 of 191

------

In 2009, Kiska undertook a significant 2D and 3D IP survey over most of the prospective areas in the Whistler, Island Mountain and Muddy Creek areas. Kiska commissioned Aurora Geoscience to complete 224 line-km of a 3D Induced Polarization geophysical survey. This was executed on two grids (Round Mountain; Whistler Area) which were comprised of grid lines ranging from 4 to 9km long with a line-spacing of 400m. From November to December, 2009, the raw data was delivered to Mira Geoscience for detail data quality control and error analysis prior to the construction of a 3D inversion model. This survey reaffirmed that the Whistler Deposit is coincident with a discrete 3D chargeability anomaly and showed that much of the Whistler area contains broad areas of anomalous chargeability (Figure 9-1). In conjunction with the airborne magnetic data, these zones of anomalous chargeability formed the basis for exploration drilling in the Whistler Area in 2010.

Page 68 of 191

------

![w030.jpg](w030.jpg)

**Figure 9**-**1 Depth slices (100m) of the chargeability (top) and resistivity (bottom) inversion model of the 3D IP data in the Whistler Area (with contours of the 400m line-spacing AMAG RTP). WD, Whistler Deposit; RTW, Raintree West; RTN, Raintree North; RTS, Raintree South, DGW, Dagwood; RMK, Rainmaker.** 

Page 69 of 191

------

In 2009 Kiska commissioned SJ Geophysics to complete 40 line-km of a 2D Induced Polarization geophysical survey. Survey lines were generally semi-straight reconnaissance-type lines over areas of interest at Alger Peak, Island Mountain and Muddy Creek. The geophysical survey was acquired with a pole – dipole 2DIP technique with 100m dipoles.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**9.4** **Soil and Rock Sampling** 

From 2004 to 2006 Kennecott collected 1,300 rock samples, close to 2,500 soil samples and 103 stream sediments samples in the Whistler, Island Mountain and Muddy Creek areas. Within this program, a soil grid over the Whistler Deposit returned anomalous Au-Cu results coincident with the magnetic high. Other reconnaissance soil lines in the Whistler area with anomalous Au-Cu results helped to define areas of interest at the Round Mountain, Canyon Creek, Canyon Ridge, Canyon Mouth, and Long Lake Hills prospects. In addition, soil reconnaissance lines at Island Mountain led to the Discovery of the Breccia Zone and broad zones of anomalous Au at Muddy Creek. In 2009 and 2010, Kiska collected 1,417 soil samples and 293 rocks samples, which largely confirmed areas of interest in the Whistler, Island Mountain, and Muddy Creek areas previously defined by Kennecott.

Rock samples consist of approximately one kilogram of rock collected over a small area surrounding each sampling site using a rock hammer. The sampling location is located using a hand held GPS unit and marked in the field with a metallic tag. Descriptive information about the geology of the sample was recorded and aggregated into the project database.

Soil samples are collected from the surface soils (generally the B-horizon) by extracting approximately one kilogram of soil into a plastic bag usually with a hand auger. Each sampling site is located using a GPS unit. Descriptive information such sampling depth and physical attributes are recorded and aggregated into the project database. Typically field duplicates are collected at a rate of one every twenty samples.

Soil samples were collected along traverses as part of multi-kilometre reconnaissance programs, generally at 100 metre spacing. In two areas (Whistler Deposit and Snow Ridge), samples were collected at a more regular 100 metre grid spacing. This area is illustrated in Figure 9-2 with the whistler-Rainmaker terrain shown in Figure 9-3.

Page 70 of 191

------

![w031.jpg](w031.jpg)

**Figure 9**-**2 From the Whistler Area looking North to the Snow Ridge Area**![w032.jpg](w032.jpg)

**Figure 9**-**3 From the Whistler Area looking South to the Rainmaker Area** 

Page 71 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **10** | **Drilling** |

---

A total of 70,247m of diamond drilling in 257 holes are documented in the Whistler database for drilling on the Whistler Project by Cominco, Kennecott, Geoinformatics, and Kiska from 1986 to the end of 2011 as shown in Table 10-1. Of these drillholes 21,132m in 52 holes have been drilled in the Whistler Deposit area, 20,479m in 94 holes have been drilled in the Raintree area, and 14,410m in 36 holes comprise the Island Mountain resource area. There are 14,226m in 75 holes in areas outside the three resource areas.

**Table 10**-**1 Summary of Diamond Drilling on the Whistler Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Operator** | **Year** | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Raintree** | **Raintree** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** | **Outside Resource Areas** | **Outside Resource Areas** | **Total** | **Total** |
|  |  | **No. Holes** | **Length (m)** | **No. Holes** | **Length (m)** | **No. Holes** | **Length (m)** | **No. Holes** | **Length (m)** | **No. Holes** | **Length (m)** |
| Cominco | 1986-1989 | 16 | 1677 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 16 | 1677 |
| Kennecott | 2004 | 5 | 1997 |  |  |  |  | 1 | 310 | 6 | 2307 |
|  | 2005 | 9 | 5251 | 1 | 213 |  |  | 8 | 1479 | 18 | 6943 |
|  | 2006 | 1 | 705 | 4 | 1115 |  |  | 6 | 1378 | 11 | 3199 |
|  | Kennecott<br> Sub-Total | 15 | 7953 | 5 | 1328 |  |  | 15 | 3168 | 35 | 12449 |
| Geoinformatics | 2007 | 7 | 3321 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 7 | 3321 |
|  | 2008 | 6 | 2707 | 2 | 622 |  |  | 3 | 975 | 11 | 4303 |
|  | Geoinformatics<br> Sub-Total | 13 | 6027 | 2 | 622 |  |  | 3 | 975 | 18 | 7624 |
| Kiska | 2009 | 1 | 228 | 1 | 479 | 1 | 387 | 2 | 424 | 5 | 1518 |
|  | 2010 | 7 | 5247 | 8 | 3.255 | 11 | 4991 | 10 | 3182 | 36 | 16674 |
|  | 2011 |  |  | 78 | 14795 | 24 | 9032 | 45 | 6478 | 147 | 30305 |
|  | Kiska Sub-Total | 8 | 5475 | 87 | 18529 | 36 | 14410 | 57 | 10084 | 188 | 48498 |
| **Total** | **Total** | **52** | **21132** | **94** | **20479** | **36** | **14410** | **75** | **14226** | **257** | **70247** |

---

Figure 10-1 through Figure 10-3 are plan views of each deposit illustrating the drillholes by Year / Owner for Whistler, Raintree and Island Mountain respectively. The resource pit outline is shown in black on all figures, with the underground resource confining shape in grey for the Raintree deposit.

Page 72 of 191

------

![w033.jpg](w033.jpg)

**Figure 10**-**1 Plan View of Drillholes by Year/Owner** – **Whistler** 

Page 73 of 191

------

![w034.jpg](w034.jpg)

**Figure 10**-**2 Plan View of Drillholes by Year/Owner** – **Raintree** 

Page 74 of 191

------

![w035.jpg](w035.jpg)

**Figure 10**-**3 Plan View of Drillholes by Year/Owner** – **Island Mountain** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.1** **Drilling by Cominco Alaska Inc.** 

Partial records documenting the sixteen shallow core boreholes (1,677 m) drilled by Cominco on the Whistler gold-copper deposit in 1988 and 1989 including descriptions of the core, drilling logs and assay results are described by Couture, 2007.

Kennecott resurveyed the locations of several holes using either a hand held GPS or with a Trimble ProXr receiver providing real-time sub-metre accuracy. Three holes were unable to be located. The core from the Cominco holes was reportedly donated to the State of Alaska in 1990 and may be stored at a core library in Eagle River, Alaska (Couture, 2007).

Page 75 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.2** **Drilling by Kennecott** 

Between 2004 and 2006, Kennecott drilled a total of thirty-five core holes (12,449 m) on the Whistler Project, with fifteen of those core holes (7,953 m) intersecting the Whistler Deposit. The Kennecott core is partly stored at the site camp with some in a secured warehouse in Wasila, Alaska. Drilling operations were conducted by NANA-Dynatec and NANA-Major drilling out of Salt Lake City, Utah using up to three drill rigs supported by helicopter. Core size was HQ-diameter in 2004 and subsequently NQ in 2005 and 2006 (Couture, 2007).

Drilling was documented by Kennecott personnel. The collar position of each borehole was laid out with a hand GPS unit, while azimuth and inclination were determined with a compass. Individual collars were subsequently surveyed using a Trimble ProXr receiver providing real-time sub-metre accuracy. Flex It Multi-shot readings at twenty foot (six metre) intervals were taken to monitor downhole deviation. Magnetic susceptibility and gravity data were also recorded. Drilling, logging and sampling were directly supervised by a suitably qualified geologist. Core retrieved from drilling was oriented using EzMark or an ACE device. All casing was pulled after drilling. Core recovery, geotechnical point load test, and rock quality determination were collected before the geologist recorded detailed information about lithology, mineralogy, alteration, vein density, and structure. All recorded descriptive data were entered into an acQuire database (Couture, 2007).

Twenty boreholes (4,746 m) were drilled by Kennecott to investigate exploration targets outside the Whistler deposit. Targets selected for drilling were typically chosen based on a combination of geology, geochemical and geophysical criteria believed to be indicative of magmatic hydrothermal processes. Selected targets were explored with vertical or angled drillholes in an effort to validate the geological model. One or more boreholes were drilled with the intent to identify the potassic core of a magmatic hydrothermal system known to be associated with better copper and gold sulphide mineralization in this area (Couture, 2007).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.3** **Drilling by Geoinformatics** 

In 2007 and 2008, Geoinformatics drilled twelve holes totalling 5,784m on the Whistler Deposit, and six holes totalling 1,841m on Raintree and other exploration targets in the Whistler project area. Geoinformatics used the same drilling contractor and drilling procedures as previously Kennecott except that oriented core was not obtained. Exploration drilling by Geoinformatics in the Whistler area targeted geophysical anomalies in the Raintree and Rainmaker areas, using the same basic porphyry exploration model as Kennecott (Roberts, 2011a).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.4** **Drilling by Kiska** 

During the 2009-2011 Kiska drilling campaigns, diamond drilling was performed by Quest America Drilling and Falcon Drilling Ltd., and supervised by geological staff from Kiska. Drilling was performed by helicopter-portable diamond drill rigs. Drillholes were collared with HQ diameter tools (6.35cm) and reduced to NQ diameter tools (4.76cm) when the rig reached the depth capacity of the HQ equipment. Collar locations were determined with hand-held GPS devices by Kiska staff. Downhole surveys for all holes were conducted by the drill contractor at 60m intervals down-hole using a Reflex EZ Shot down-hole camera (Roberts, 2011a).

During the 2009-2011 Kiska drilling campaign a total of 188 diamond drillholes were completed for a total of 48,498m. All drillholes were logged by Kiska geologists at the core logging facility at the Whistler exploration camp. Logged geological information included lithology type, alteration type and intensity, vein types, percent vein volume and vein orientations (to core axis), structures (to core axis), the percent of sulphides and oxides, and magnetic susceptibility at meter intervals. Geotechnical information logged included core recovery and rock quality designation (RQD). All logging data was entered on paper logging forms in 2009 and transcribed digitally info LogChief software in 2010 and 2011 (Roberts, 2011a).

Page 76 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.4.1** **Whistler Deposit** 

A total of 8 holes totalling 5,475m were drilled on the Whistler Deposit by Kiska. These holes were targeted to in-fill gaps from the previous drill campaigns and to test the edges and depth of the intrusive complex that hosts the deposit.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.4.2** **Raintree Deposit** 

The Raintree deposit is located 1,800m to the east of the Whistler Deposit in the area formerly called Raintree West, just off the nose of Whistler Ridge. The discovery drillhole, RN-08-06, targeted an airborne magnetic high anomaly that is coincident with an IP chargeability high anomaly detected on a 2D IP reconnaissance line that crossed the Whistler Area. This hole discovered a significant zone of near surface (below 5m to 15m of till cover) gold-copper porphyry mineralization (160m grading 0.59 gpt gold, 6.02 gpt silver, 0.10% copper). Kiska expanded on this discovery in 2009 with a scissor hole drilled on the same section as RN-08-06 (WH09-02). This was successful at duplicating the gold-copper mineralization zone in RN-08-06, and identified a second, deeper zone of porphyry mineralization on the west side of the Alger Peak fault zone. In 2010, Kiska followed up with an additional four drillholes, and in 2011 further tested the shallow zone and the deep zone with a total of eight holes for a total of 5,997m. The majority of drillholes in Raintree were drilled on east-west sections with section spacing of 100m.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.4.3** **Whistler Area Exploration Drilling** 

A total of 133 exploration holes for 27,464m of drilling in the Whistler area were completed by Kiska in 2009-2011. A majority of these holes were drilled in the area that includes much of the broad valley floor to the north, east and south of the Whistler Ridge, that includes the parts of the Raintree and Rainmaker prospect areas (Figure 10-4). Targeting for this drilling program was developed by a technical team comprised of Kiska and Kennecott geologists based on blind geophysical targets heavily weighted by the results of the 2009 3D IP survey (chargeability and resistivity anomalies), airborne magnetic anomalies, anomaly size, and proximity to areas of known mineralization or anomalous surface geochemistry. A majority of these holes intersected andesitic volcanic rocks with moderate to strong sericite-clay-pyrite alteration and occasional sphalerite- and galena-bearing quartz-carbonate veins with banded and colliform epithermal-like textures. The holes were spaced on average greater than 500m apart and alteration and veining indicate that broad areas in the Whistler Area define the upper, cooler margins of a large porphyry-related hydrothermal system or a cluster of smaller, coalescing porphyry-related hydrothermal systems. Within this broad area, drilling returned Whistler-like, porphyry-style Au-Cu mineralization with significant intercepts at the Raintree, Raintree North, and the Rainmaker prospects, and anomalous alteration and geochemistry at the Dagwood prospect.

Page 77 of 191

------

![w036.jpg](w036.jpg)

**Figure 10**-**4 Whistler Area Drilling** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.4.4** **Island Mountain Drilling** 

The 35 out of 42 holes completed by Kiska in the Island Mountain area between 2009 and 2011 targeted the Breccia Zone. The remainder targeted zones of either anomalous surface rock geochemistry and alteration (Cirque Zone) or geophysical anomalies (Super Conductor). Significant results were only returned from the Breccia Zone and are summarized below. The alteration patterns and geochemical pathfinder elements from the other areas may be useful for future drill targeting.

Page 78 of 191

------

At the Island Mountain Deposit, drilling included in the resource estimate includes 36 drillholes for 14,410m of drilling. The majority of these holes were completed on seven east-west cross-sections spaced 50m apart in a 300 square metre area from 6847600N to 6847900N (Figure 10-5). The lithologies, alteration and mineralization of the breccia-related mineralization indicate that the magmatic-hydrothermal breccia complex defines an irregular pipe-shaped body approximately 300m by 300m in plan which from the surface down 500m. Similar to the strike of the faults in the area, this breccia complex is sub-vertical and appears to trend in a northwest-southeast orientation (Roberts, 2011a).

Page 79 of 191

------

![w037.jpg](w037.jpg)

**Figure 10**-**5 Plan Map of Drillholes and Mineralization Style at the Breccia Zone** 

Page 80 of 191

------

Surface mapping, soil geochemistry and drilling has defined other distinct breccia bodies with zones of alteration, surface anomalism and significant mineralization up to 700m to the north - northwest of this breccia complex. Significant zones of mineralization are shown in Table 10-2.

**Table 10**-**2 Examples of Significant Drill Results North of the Island Mountain Deposit**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole** | **From (m)** | **To**<br> **(m)** | **Interval**<br> **(m)** | **Au**<br> **(g/t)** | **Ag**<br> **(g/t)** | **Cu**<br> **(%)** |
| IM10-015 | 74.3 | 111.0 | 36.7 | 0.27 | 0.37 | 0.01 |
| *and* | 166.8 | 212.9 | 46.1 | 1.19 | 0.53 | 0.01 |
| *Including* | 168.5 | 182.2 | 13.7 | 3.69 | 0.56 | 0.01 |
| *and* | 274.0 | 276.0 | 2.0 | 10.5 | 2.30 | 0.04 |
| IM11-030 | 20.0 | 63.0 | 43.0 | 0.32 | 1.12 | 0.03 |
| *and* | 364.1 | 438.0 | 73.9 | 0.72 | 2.24 | 0.09 |
| *including* | 364.1 | 390.0 | 25.9 | 1.79 | 5.05 | 0.09 |
| IM11-032 | 104.0 | 137.0 | 33.0 | 0.21 | 0.62 | 0.02 |
| *and* | 246.0 | 300.0 | 54.0 | 0.29 | 0.28 | 0.01 |
| IM11-033 | 2.8 | 58.0 | 55.2 | 0.41 | 1.54 | 0.03 |
| *including* | 2.8 | 42.0 | 39.2 | 0.56 | 1.18 | 0.02 |
| IM11-035 | 3.0 | 44.0 | 41.0 | 0.44 | 2.19 | 0.03 |

---

Page 81 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **11** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.1** **Sample Preparation and Analyses** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.1.1** **Sample Preparation and Analysis -Cominco** 

There is no available documentation that describe the sampling used by Cominco. The core is not available for data verification. The sample preparation and analytical procedures used by Cominco are not known. Core samples were assayed for gold, silver and copper and occasionally for a suite of eight other metals (arsenic, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, strontium and zinc) at an unknown laboratory. No certificates of these analyses are available. It is unknown if quality control samples were inserted into the sampling stream, if they were, no records of these samples were available.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.1.2** **Sample Preparation and Analysis** – **Kennecott and Geoinformatics** 

Sample preparation protocols for drilling programs on the Whistler project documenting procedures describing all aspects of the field sampling and sample description process, handling of samples, and preparation for dispatch to the assay laboratory, were initially developed by Kennecott and subsequently adopted by Geoinformatics (SRK, 2007).

All soil, rock chips, core, and stream sediments samples were organized into batches of samples of a same type for submission to Alaska Assay Laboratories Inc. in Fairbanks, Alaska (AAL) for preparation using standard preparation procedures. The AAL laboratory is part of the Alfred H. Knight group an established international independent weighing, sampling and analysis service company (SRK, 2007).

Kennecott used two primary independent laboratories for assaying samples prepared by AAL. The samples collected during 2004 were assayed at AAL, however, all prepared pulps collected in 2005 and 2006 were submitted to ALS-Chemex Laboratory in Vancouver, British Columbia for assaying. The ALS Chemex Vancouver laboratory is accredited to ISO 17025 by the Standards Council of Canada and participates in a number of international proficiency tests, such as those managed by CANMET and Geostats (SRK, 2007).

It is reported that Kennecott used two secondary laboratories for check assaying. ALS-Chemex re-assayed 191 pulp samples from the 2004 sampling programs, and Acme Analytical Laboratories Ltd. of Vancouver, British Columbia ("Acme") was used as a secondary laboratory in 2005 and 2006. Acme is also an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory (SRK, 2007).

Core samples were prepared for assaying using industry standard procedures. Splits of 500 g of coarsely crushed core samples were pulverized to ninety percent passing a -200 mesh screen. Splits of 250 g samples were pulverized to eighty-five percent passing a -150 mesh screen. In 2004, 30 g pulp samples were assayed by Alaska Assay Laboratories in Fairbanks for gold by fire assay with atomic absorption finish (AA), and for a suite of nine metals by aqua regia digestion with inductively coupled plasma (ICP). Core and rock samples collected after 2004 were assayed by ALS-Chemex for gold by fire assay with AA finish on thirty gram sub-samples and for a suite of thirty-four elements (including copper and silver) by aqua regia digestion and ICP-AES on 0.5 gram sub-samples. Elements exceeding concentration limits of ICP-AES were re-assayed by single element aqua regia digestion and atomic absorption spectrometry (SRK, 2007).

Page 82 of 191

------

Kennecott included quality control (QAQC) samples with all samples submitted for assaying. Each batch of twenty core samples submitted for assaying contained one sample blank, one of three project specific certified reference materials (CRMs), a field duplicate and a coarse crushed duplicate. These QAQC samples inserted blind to the assay laboratory except for the coarsely crushed sample duplicates that were inserted by the preparation laboratory (SRK, 2007).

Geoinformatics used the sample preparation and assaying protocols and quality control measures developed by Kennecott. All samples collected by Geoinformatics were submitted to Alaska Assay Laboratories for preparation. Pulps were submitted to ALS-Chemex by the preparation laboratory for assaying using the same tests described previously (SRK 2008).

Two sample blank materials were collected locally Kennecott. An andesite rock (OPPBLK-1) collected on outcrop (522,399m east and 6874,144m north; NAD27, zone 5) and porphyritic andesite (WP-BLK-1) intersected in borehole 04-DD-WP-01 (SRK, 2007)

For the Whistler Project, Kennecott fabricated three in house CRMs (WPCO1, WP-MG1 and WP-HG1; from coarse rejects from two boreholes drilled at Whistler (WP04-04-17 and WH04-01-17) that were used through 2010. Coarse rejects from core samples were selected to create three composite samples yielding low, medium and high copper and gold values. Each composite sample was prepared at AAL to yield homogenized pulverized samples for inclusion in the sample stream. Five samples of each standard were then submitted to five commercial laboratories for round-robin assaying. Each standard sample was assayed twice at each laboratory yielding fifty assay results that were analyzed to determine the expected values and standard deviation for QAQC analysis (Franklin, et al 2006).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.1.3** **Sample Preparation and Analysis** – **Kiska** 

Kiska geologists marked out samples for assay after logging the drill core, typically 2m to 3m in length, honoring lithological and alteration contacts. In general the drillholes were sampled top to bottom, excepting holes that were partially sampled due to a lack of significant mineralization. After the sample tags were inserted into the core boxes, the core was photographed wet and dry before being cut in half with a diamond saw. One half was submitted for assay, one half was retained (Roberts, 2011a).

In 2009, Kiska used AAL in Fairbanks as the primary assay lab, but switched to ALS-Chemex for the 2010 and 2011 drilling, both laboratories were independent of Kiska. At AAL samples were dried then crushed to 70% passing 10 mesh, a 250 g split was pulverized to 90% passing 150mesh. A 30 element suite was conducted by three-acid digestion with ICP-AES and gold was analyzed using 30 g samples by fire assay with AAS finish (Roberts, 2011a).

At ALS Chemex samples were crushed to 70% passing 2 mm, split and pulverized to 85% passing 75 µm. Gold was analyzed with a 30 g sample by fire assay with AA finish, 33 element analysis and ore grade were done with four-acid digestion on ICP-AES finish.

Kiska included QAQC samples at the rate of one CRM, one blank, and one field duplicate (quarter core) in each batch of 20 samples which were blind to the laboratory. CRMs purchased from Ore Research & Exploration and silica sand was used for blanks. A sample tag was included for a lab duplicate. (Roberts, 2011).

Page 83 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.2** **Sample Security** 

Kennecott devised a documented chain of custody procedure to monitor and track all sample shipments departing the base camp until the final delivery of the pulp to the assaying laboratory. Geoinformatics is reported to have adopted all procedures developed by Kennecott. These procedures included the use of security seals on containers used to ship samples, detailed work and shipping orders. Each transfer point was recorded on the chain of custody form up to the final delivery of the pulp to the assay laboratory (SRK, 2007).

Kiska used rice bags closed with security tags to contain the samples for submission as shown in Figure 11-1. The bags were loaded onto Regal Air flights direct to Anchorage and met by an Alaska Minerals representative who delivered them initially to Lynden transport to be shipped to the ALS preparation lab in Fairbanks, AK, or later directly to the ALS preparation lab Anchorage, AK. Prepared pulp samples were shipped from to the ALS lab in North Vancouver for assay. Chain of custody tracking was documented on the form shown in Figure 11-2 (Roberts, 2011).

![w038.jpg](w038.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**1 Sample Bags with Security Tags (Source: Roberts, 2011a)**

Page 84 of 191

------

![w039.jpg](w039.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**2 Sample Dispatch Form (Source: Roberts, 2011a)**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3** **QAQC Summary** 

The total number of assays and QAQC samples including samples identified as Certified Reference Materials (CRMs), blanks, field duplicates and coarse duplicates in the provided database is given in Table 11-1 and shows that the percent of included QAQC samples is 11.4% in Whistler, 18.7% in Raintree and 19.3% in Island Mountain. The year in which the QAQC is counted is by year of analysis, not drilling. The samples in the Whistler area are slightly lower than industry standards, the number of included samples in the Raintree and Island Mountain areas meet or exceed industry standards. QAQC data for copper and gold only have been provided and are presented here. The analysis of the QAQC samples by deposit follows.

**Table 11**-**1 QAQC Sample Summary (All Areas and Years)**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Year** | **Assay** <br> **Samples** | **CRMs** | **Blanks** | **Field** <br> **Dups** | **Coarse** <br> **Dups** | **QAQC** <br> **Samples** | **% QAQC** |
|  | 1986-1989 | 697 |  |  |  |  | 0 |  |
|  | 2004 | 918 |  | 2 |  |  | 2 | 0.2% |
|  | 2005 | 2602 | 131 | 157 |  |  | 288 | 10.0% |
|  | 2006 | 353 | 21 | 40 |  |  | 61 | 14.7% |
| Whistler | 2007 | 1347 | 50 | 74 |  | 47 | 171 | 11.3% |
|  | 2008 | 1180 | 98 | 81 |  | 35 | 214 | 15.4% |
|  | 2009 | 116 |  |  |  | 14 | 14 | 10.8% |
|  | 2010 | 1726 | 111 | 101 | 108 | 108 | 428 | 19.9% |
|  | Whistler All | 9114 | 411 | 455 | 108 | 204 | 1178 | 11.4% |
|  | 2005 | 72 | 4 | 4 |  |  | 8 | 10.0% |
|  | 2006 | 383 | 22 | 20 |  |  | 42 | 9.9% |
| Raintree | 2008 | 249 | 18 | 18 |  | 9 | 45 | 15.3% |
|  | 2009 | 262 |  |  |  | 33 | 33 | 11.2% |
|  | 2010 | 1298 | 81 | 77 | 80 | 83 | 321 | 19.8% |
|  | 2011 | 5136 | 324 | 319 | 303 | 317 | 1263 | 19.7% |
|  | Raintree All | 7463 | 449 | 438 | 383 | 442 | 1712 | 18.7% |
|  | 2009 | 194 |  |  |  | 21 | 21 | 9.8% |
| Island Mountain | 2010 | 2140 | 128 | 133 | 130 | 129 | 520 | 19.5% |
|  | 2011 | 3110 | 185 | 195 | 186 | 192 | 758 | 19.6% |
|  | Island Mountain All | 5444 | 313 | 328 | 316 | 342 | 1299 | 19.3% |
| **Total** | **Total** | **22021** | **1173** | **1221** | **807** | **988** | **4189** | **16.0%** |

---

Page 85 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.1** **QAQC Whistler Deposit** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.1.1** **Whistler Blanks** 

The summary of the gold assays of blindly included samples of blank material used to assess contamination in the Whistler deposit sample stream is given in Table 11-2. The results show an overall 2% failure rate at 10 times detection limit (DL) which is more than would normally be expected. A possible reason for this is the use of locally sourced andesite and porphyritic andesite as blank material by both Kennecott and Geoinformatics. It is seen that in the drilling by Kiska in 2010, that there are no failures when the silica sand is used for blanks.

**Table 11**-**2 Summary of Gold Assays of Blanks, Whistler Deposit**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Gold Blank Assays** | **Fails at 5\*DL** | **% Fail at 5\*DL** | **Fails at 10\*DL** | **% Fail at 10\*DL** |
| 2004 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2005 | 158 | 3 | 1.9% | 2 | 1.3% |
| 2006 | 40 | 1 | 2.5% | 1 | 2.5% |
| 2007 | 74 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2008 | 81 | 13 | 16.0% | 6 | 7.4% |
| 2010 | 101 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 455 | 17 | 3.7% | 9 | 2.0% |

---

A sequential plot of gold assays of blanks normalized by the DL is presented in Figure 11-3. The grey line indicates the year of drilling and it is clearly seen that the performance of the blank material in increased in the 2010 samples, with all results below the 5\* DL line, coincident with the use of silica sand for blank material. The 9 failures at the 10\*DL level have been assessed and they follow samples of moderate gold mineralization with the highest being 0.82g/t and in zones of 0.2 to 0.6g/t. Usually failures due to contamination are seen following gold assays of much greater magnitude, but this does not preclude that there may have been some minor contamination.

Page 86 of 191

------

![w040.jpg](w040.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**3 Sequential Plot of Gold Assays of Blanks, Whistler Deposit** 

The DL for copper assays at the Whistler deposit is either 1 or 5 ppm depending on the analysis lab and year, and applying a criteria of 5 or 10 times DL results in an extremely high failure rate. The copper assays are compared against a level of 100 ppm, or 0.01%, and results are given in Table 11-3. The highest percentages with blank sample assays greater than 100 ppm, occurs in years 2005 through 2008 when the locally sourced material was used as a blank.

**Table 11**-**3 Summary of Copper Assays of Blanks, Whistler Deposit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Copper Blank** <br> **Assays** | **Number** <br> **>100 ppm** | **%>100** <br> **ppm** |
| 2004 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2005 | 158 | 40 | 25.3% |
| 2006 | 40 | 7 | 17.5% |
| 2007 | 74 | 7 | 9.5% |
| 2008 | 81 | 26 | 32.1% |
| 2010 | 105 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 460 | 80 | 17.4% |

---

The sequential plot of copper assays of blanks in the Whistler deposit is presented in Figure 11-4. Of the 6 failures for copper blanks with assays greater than 500 ppm, one appears to be mislabeled, as the same sample number appears in the primary database, one follows an assay at DL, and 4 follow assays of similar magnitude, indicative of some possible problems with contamination and some spurious results. The overall high rate of failures in results from 2004 through 2008 is consistent with the possibility of trace copper in the locally sourced blank material.

Page 87 of 191

------

![w041.jpg](w041.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**4 Sequential Plot of Copper Assays of Blanks, Whistler Deposit** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.1.2** **Whistler CRMs** 

There are 411 samples of CRMs certified for both gold and copper included in the Whistler sample stream which are used to assess the accuracy of the laboratory assays. The results of analysis of these samples is given in Table 11-4 in order of increasing grade of the expected value (EV) and shows that the overall failure rate is 2.2%. The average percent error is -1.5%, indicating a minor negative bias to the laboratory gold assays. The CRM with the greatest percent error, has only two samples. The coefficients of variation indicate reasonably consistent results among assays of the CRMs.

**Table 11**-**4 Whistler Deposit CRM Summary, Gold**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** | **Used** | **Samples** | **Average of Au** <br> **(g/t)** | **Std Dev of Au**<br> **(g/t)** | **CV** | **EV** <br> **(g/t)** | **% Error** | **Low Fail** | **High Fails** | **% Fail** |
| OREAS-52Pb | 2010 | 2 | 0.334 | 0.011 | 3.4% | 0.307 | 8.1% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-52c | 2010 | 51 | 0.343 | 0.016 | 4.6% | 0.346 | -1.0% | 1 | 0 | 2.0% |
| WP-CO1 | 2005-2010 | 135 | 0.472 | 0.030 | 6.4% | 0.480 | -1.7% | 2 | 2 | 3.0% |
| OREAS-53Pb | 2010 | 15 | 0.620 | 0.015 | 2.4% | 0.623 | -0.4% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-50c | 2010 | 12 | 0.827 | 0.031 | 3.8% | 0.836 | -1.1% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| WP-MG1 | 2005-2008 | 98 | 1.675 | 0.080 | 4.8% | 1.715 | -2.4% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-54Pa | 2010 | 25 | 2.878 | 0.096 | 3.3% | 2.900 | -0.8% | 1 | 0 | 4.0% |
| WP-HG1 | 2005-2010 | 73 | 4.651 | 0.231 | 5.0% | 4.693 | -0.9% | 3 | 0 | 4.1% |
| Total | 2005-2010 | 411 |  |  |  |  | -1.5% | 7 | 2 | 2.2% |

---

Page 88 of 191

------

The normalized process control chart showing results for all CRMS is given in Figure 11-5 and shows the acceptable results across all CRMs. It does not appear that quality control procedures were always followed. For instance, the high failure in 2008, plotting at almost +6 SD is sample 514915 in drillhole WH-08-08, and follows an assay value of 0.902g/t. This control sample and the neighboring primary samples should have been reassayed and replaced in the database if strict control measures were in place. Although individual lapses control procedures can be identified, the overall impact of these is not considered material as the number of failures is relatively small.

![w042.jpg](w042.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**5 Whistler Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Gold** 

A process control chart for CRM WP-MG1 used from 2005 to 2008 is given in Figure 11-6 and shows the slight negative bias (2.4%) of the average of the assays and no failures.

Page 89 of 191

------

![w043.jpg](w043.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**6 Process Control Chart Whistler Deposit CRM WP-MG1, Gold** 

The summary of copper assays of the CRMs is given in Table 11-5 in order of increasing grade and shows the overall failure rate to be 2.9% and the percent error to be negligible. The CV values again are low indicating good repeatability of the assays of the standards.

**Table 11**-**5 Whistler Deposit CRM Summary, Copper**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** | **Used** | **Samples** | **Average** <br> **of Cu Pct** | **Std Dev** <br> **of Cu Pct** | **CV** | **EV Pct** | **%** <br> **Error** | **Low** <br> **Fail** | **High** <br> **Fails** | **% Fail** |
| WP-MG1 | 2005-2008 | 98 | 0.258 | 0.006 | 2.3% | 0.259 | -0.7% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| WP-CO1 | 2005-2010 | 135 | 0.279 | 0.009 | 3.2% | 0.280 | -0.5% | 5 | 2 | 5.2% |
| OREAS-52Pb | 2010 | 2 | 0.345 | 0.024 | 7.0% | 0.334 | 3.2% | 0 | 1 | 50.0% |
| OREAS-52c | 2010 | 50 | 0.352 | 0.011 | 3.1% | 0.344 | 2.3% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-53Pb | 2010 | 15 | 0.541 | 0.010 | 1.8% | 0.546 | -0.9% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| WP-HG1 | 2005-2010 | 72 | 0.617 | 0.013 | 2.1% | 0.616 | 0.1% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-50c | 2010 | 13 | 0.766 | 0.020 | 2.6% | 0.742 | 3.1% | 0 | 2 | 15.4% |
| OREAS-54Pa | 2010 | 24 | 1.511 | 0.025 | 1.6% | 1.550 | -2.5% | 2 | 0 | 8.3% |
| Total | 2005-2010 | 409 |  |  |  |  | -0.1% | 7 | 5 | 2.9% |

---

The normalized process control chart is given in Figure 11-7 in order of processing and shows the acceptable results with few failures.

Page 90 of 191

------

![w044.jpg](w044.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**7 Whistler Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Copper** 

The process control chart for WP-CO1 used from 2005 through 2010 is given in Figure 11-8 and shows the few failures and overall acceptable results with little bias. Again, the lack of strict quality control measures is evidences by sample 515893 in drillhole WH-08011 which failed with a value of 0.24%. This sample follows a sample with an assay value of 0.20 in a zone of mineralization. The control and the neighboring samples should have been submitted for re-assay, if this was done the database is not correctly updated.

Page 91 of 191

------

![w045.jpg](w045.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**8 Process Control Chart Whistler Deposit CRM WP-CO1, Copper** 

The performance of both gold and silver CRMs in the Whistler deposit indicate acceptable accuracy but highlight some potential lapses in quality control procedures.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.1.3** **Whistler Duplicates** 

The simple statistics of the field (core) duplicates in the Whistler deposit in 2010 drilling are given in Table 11-6. It is seen in the means of the gold assays that the % difference of the means is 4.6% indicating there is a small positive bias to the primary samples as compared to the duplicates. There is a negligible difference in the means of the copper assays. The percent below 10% Half Absolute Relative Difference (HARD) is 68% for gold and 72% for copper. The expectation for field duplicates is that 70% or more are below 10%, this is met for copper and nearly met for gold. The 68% is actually quite good for gold, indicating the gold mineralization in Whistler is not highly heterogenous.

**Table 11**-**6 Whistler Field Duplicates Simple Statistics**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  |  | **Average** | **Average** | **Average** | **% below**  | **Standard Deviation** | **Standard Deviation** |
| **Samples** | **Element** | **Units** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** | **%** <br> **Difference** | **10%** <br> **HARD** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** |
| 108 | Gold | g/t | 0.131 | 0.125 | -4.6% | 68 | 0.207 | 0.194 |
|  | Copper | ppm | 886.2 | 879.5 | -0.8% | 72 | 1084.1 | 1062.1 |

---

The small positive bias of gold assays in the primary samples is also observed in the scatter plot in Figure 11-9 with the slope of the best fit line below 1.0. The relative high correlation coefficient reflects the somewhat homogenous nature of the duplicate samples.

Page 92 of 191

------

![w046.jpg](w046.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**9 Whistler Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold** 

The scatter plot of copper field duplicates is given in Figure 11-10 and shows the good correlation between duplicate pairs with slope of best fit line slightly below 1.0 and high correlation coefficient.

Page 93 of 191

------

![w047.jpg](w047.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**10 Whistler Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper** 

The simple statistics of the coarse (preparation) duplicates in Whistler in 2007 through 2010 is given in Table 11-7. There are two outliers in the gold results which cause the percent difference of means of the entire set to be 5.4%, with the assays of the duplicate samples higher than primary. The means of the pairs without the two outliers have a percent difference of 0.4%. The means of the copper assays have a percent difference of 2.6%. The expectation for coarse duplicates is that 80% is less than 10% HARD which is more than met for copper and not met for gold, which is typical.

**Table 11**-**7 Whistler Coarse Duplicate Simple Statistics**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  |  | **Average** | **Average** | **Average** | **% below**  | **Standard Deviation** | **Standard Deviation** |
| **Samples** | **Element** | **Units** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** | **%** <br> **Difference** | **10%** <br> **HARD** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** |
| 204 | Gold | g/t | 0.178 | 0.188 | 5.4% | 71 | 0.294 | 0.350 |
| 202 | Gold | g/t | 0.168 | 0.169 | 0.4% | 71 | 0.259 | 0.268 |
| 204 | Copper | ppm | 944.5 | 969.5 | 2.6% | 89 | 1007.4 | 1191.9 |

---

The scatter plot of coarse duplicates for gold is given in Figure 11-11, without the outliers. The slope nearly matches 1.0 and the coefficient of correlation is high. Most of the variation in sample pairs is seen in pairs below 0.2g/t, sample above 0.2g/t are seen to be closely matched.

Page 94 of 191

------

![w048.jpg](w048.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**11 Whistler Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold, no outliers** 

The scatter plot of copper coarse duplicates is given in Figure 11-12 and shows a slope slightly above 1 and low coefficient of correlation. There are five clear outliers, with the remainder of the pairs very close to each other along the 1:1 line.

Page 95 of 191

------

![w049.jpg](w049.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**12 Whistler Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper** 

Analysis of duplicate samples in Whistler do not show evidence of selection bias at the core sampling level, indicate moderate heterogeneity of gold mineralization, and show that significant bias is not introduced at the sample preparation stage.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.2** **QAQC Raintree Deposit** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.2.1** **Raintree Blanks** 

The summary of gold assays of blanks in the Raintree sample stream is presented in Table 11-8 and show acceptable results with only 0.9% of samples failing at the 5\*DL level, and a single failure at the 5\*DL level.

Page 96 of 191

------

**Table 11**-**8 Summary of Gold Assays of Blanks, Raintree Deposit**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Gold Blank**<br> **Assays** | **Fails at 5\*DL** | **% Fail at 5\*DL** | **Fails at 10\*DL** | **% Fail at 10\*DL** |
| 2005 | 4 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2006 | 22 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2008 | 18 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2010 | 77 | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 1.3% |
| 2011 | 319 | 3 | 0.9% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 440 | 4 | 0.9% | 1 | 0.2% |

---

The sequential plot of gold assays of blanks is shown in Figure 11-4 and shows acceptable results indicating contamination is not likely to be a problem in the Raintree assay stream.

![w050.jpg](w050.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**13 Sequential Plot of Gold Assays of Blanks, Raintree Deposit** 

The summary of results of copper assays of blanks is given in Table 11-9 and shows a higher than expected failure rate of 1.4% at >100 ppm. This is mostly due to failures in 2008 and before when the locally sourced material was used for blanks.

Page 97 of 191

------

**Table 11**-**9 Summary of Copper Assays of Blanks, Raintree Deposit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Copper Blank** <br> **Assays** | **Number >100 ppm** | **%>100** <br> **ppm** |
| 2005 | 4 | 1 | 25.0% |
| 2006 | 22 | 2 | 9.1% |
| 2008 | 18 | 1 | 5.6% |
| 2010 | 81 | 1 | 1.2% |
| 2011 | 319 | 1 | 0.3% |
| Grand Total | 444 | 6 | 1.4% |

---

The sequential plot of copper assays of blanks is given in Figure 11-14 and shows the higher assay results in 2008 and earlier samples potentially to due trace copper in the blank material. The assays in 2010 and 2011 have only two failures at the 100 ppm level and are predominantly at 10 ppm and below, indicating little evidence of contamination in the majority of the sample stream in Raintree.

![w051.jpg](w051.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**14 Sequential Plot of Copper Assays of Blanks, Raintree Deposit** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.2.2** **Raintree CRMs** 

The summary of CRM gold analyses for samples included in drilling in the Raintree Deposit is given in Table 11-10. It is seen that the overall failure rate is 2.9% and there is a marginal overall negative bias of -0.3%. Three samples, OREAS-52c, WP-MG1 and OREAS-54Pa have CV values over 10% which indicates some undesirable scatter in results. Samples WP-MG1 and WP-HG-1 also have failure rates approaching significant values, but are used in only 15 and 11 instances respectively.

Page 98 of 191

------

**Table 11**-**10 Raintree Deposit CRM Summary, Gold**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** | **Used** | **Samples** | **Average of Au** <br> **(g/t)** | **Std Dev of Au** <br> **(g/t)** | **CV** | **EV (g/t)** | **% Error** | **Low Fail** | **High Fails** | **% Fail** |
| OREAS-52Pb | 2010 | 14 | 0.324 | 0.013 | 3.9% | 0.307 | 5.3% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-52c | 2010-2011 | 117 | 0.342 | 0.039 | 11.3% | 0.346 | -1.1% | 3 | 0 | 2.6% |
| WP-CO1 | 2005-2008 | 18 | 0.478 | 0.024 | 5.1% | 0.480 | -0.4% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-53Pb | 2010 | 37 | 0.625 | 0.017 | 2.7% | 0.623 | 0.4% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-50c | 2010-2011 | 183 | 0.840 | 0.034 | 4.1% | 0.836 | 0.5% | 3 | 4 | 3.8% |
| WP-MG1 | 2005-2008 | 15 | 1.624 | 0.201 | 12.4% | 1.715 | -5.6% | 1 | 0 | 6.7% |
| OREAS-54Pa | 2010-2011 | 54 | 2.860 | 0.396 | 13.8% | 2.900 | -1.4% | 1 | 0 | 1.9% |
| WP-HG1 | 2005-2008 | 11 | 4.711 | 0.267 | 5.7% | 4.693 | 0.4% | 1 | 0 | 9.1% |
| **Total** |  | **449** |  |  |  |  | **-0.3%** | **9** | **4** | **2.9%** |

---

The normalized process control chart of all gold assays of CRMs in Raintree drilling is presented in Figure 11-15 and shows the reasonable overall results.

Page 99 of 191

------

![w052.jpg](w052.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**15 Raintree Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Gold** 

The process control chart for OREAS-52c identified for the high CV value is presented in Figure 11-16 and shows that the three low failures are extreme outliers responsible for the high CV and that the remaining results are generally very good.

Page 100 of 191

------

![w053.jpg](w053.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**16 Process Control Chart Raintree CRM OREAS-52c** 

The process control chart for OREAS-50c in Raintree drilling is given in Figure 11-17 and shows the 4 high and 3 low failures with otherwise good results and little bias.

![w054.jpg](w054.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**17 Process Control Chart Raintree CRM OREAS-50c** 

Page 101 of 191

------

The results of the 451 copper analyses of CRMs in Raintree drilling are presented in Table 11-11 and show an overall failure rate of 12.4% which is significant. The failures are seen to concentrate in three CRMs, OREAS-52c, OREAS-50c and OREAS-54Pa, also the CRMs with the most entries. The overall % error is slightly negative at 0.8%.

**Table 11**-**11 Raintree Deposit CRM Summary, Copper**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** | **Used** | **Samples** | **Average of Cu Pct** | **Std Dev of Cu** <br> **Pct** | **CV** | **EV Pct** | **% Error** | **Low Fail** | **High Fails** | **% Fail** |
| WP-MG1 | 2005-2008 | 15 | 0.259 | 0.006 | 2.2% | 0.259 | -0.2% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| WP-CO1 | 2005-2008 | 18 | 0.276 | 0.005 | 1.9% | 0.280 | -1.4% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-52Pb | 2010 | 14 | 0.335 | 0.011 | 3.2% | 0.334 | 0.4% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-52c | 2010-2011 | 118 | 0.343 | 0.051 | 14.9% | 0.344 | -0.3% | 5 | 6 | 9.3% |
| OREAS-53Pb | 2010 | 38 | 0.531 | 0.016 | 3.1% | 0.546 | -2.8% | 2 | 0 | 5.3% |
| WP-HG1 | 2005-2008 | 11 | 0.615 | 0.015 | 2.5% | 0.616 | -0.1% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OREAS-50c | 2010 | 183 | 0.741 | 0.064 | 8.7% | 0.742 | -0.1% | 9 | 18 | 14.8% |
| OREAS-54Pa | 2010-2011 | 54 | 1.502 | 0.043 | 2.8% | 1.550 | -3.2% | 16 | 0 | 29.6% |
| Total |  | 451 |  |  |  |  | -0.8% | 32 | 24 | 12.4% |

---

The normalized process control chart is given in Figure 11-18 and shows the some trends with samples in the 2010 drilling giving generally lower than expected results and the changing to generally higher than expected in early 2011 with a decreasing trend.

![w055.jpg](w055.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**18 Raintree Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Copper** 

Page 102 of 191

------

Results for CRM OREAS-50c, with the most samples and highest failure rate, are given in Figure 11-19 and show that despite the significant failure rate the mean is very close to the expected value of 0.742. Similar results are seen for OREAS-52c in Figure 11-20 and therefore the results are considered acceptable.

![w056.jpg](w056.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**19 Process Control Chart Raintree OREAS-50c, Copper** 

Page 103 of 191

------

![w057.jpg](w057.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**20 Process Control Chart Raintree OREAS-52c, Copper** 

Both copper and gold CRMs in Raintree show little bias and acceptable results despite significant numbers of failures for copper CRMs. The high failure rates indicate that consistent re-assays of failed control samples is not likely to have been done.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.2.3** **Raintree Duplicates** 

The simple statistics of the field duplicates from drilling in 2010 and 2011 in the Raintree deposit are given in Table 11-12. Little difference is seen in the means of the gold assays, the copper assays show a slight bias with the primary samples being higher than the duplicates. Both sets of pairs meet the expectation for the HARD statistic.

**Table 11**-**12 Raintree Field Duplicates Simple Statistics**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  |  | **Average** | **Average** | **Average** | **% below**  | **Standard Deviation** | **Standard Deviation** |
| **Samples** | **Element** | **Units** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** | **%** <br> **Difference** | **10%** <br> **HARD** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** |
| 383 | Gold | g/t | 0.119 | 0.121 | 1.0% | 72 | 0.271 | 0.292 |
|  | Copper | ppm | 237.6 | 229.5 | -3.5% | 82 | 553.8 | 486.2 |

---

The scatter plot of duplicate pairs of gold assays is given in Figure 11-21, and does not give concern of selection bias and paired with the HARD statistic, show the gold mineralization to not be highly heterogenous.

Page 104 of 191

------

![w058.jpg](w058.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**21 Raintree Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold** 

The scatter plot of copper assays of field duplicates is given in Figure 11-22, the slope of the best fit line plots below 0.9. The slope of the line without the three samples plotting clearly below the 1:1 line above 1,000 ppm is 1.00, indicating there may be a small bias at the upper end of the copper results, but overall the results are acceptable.

Page 105 of 191

------

![w059.jpg](w059.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**22 Raintree Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper** 

The simple statistics of the coarse duplicates in the Raintree deposit from 2008 to 2011 are given in Table 11-13. The percent difference between the means of the gold and copper assays is small. The target of 80% below 10% HARD for coarse duplicates is met for copper pairs, and not for gold, which is typical.

**Table 11**-**13 Raintree Coarse Duplicates Simple Statistics**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  |  | **Average** | **Average** | **Average** | **% below**  | **Standard Deviation** | **Standard Deviation** |
| **Samples** | **Element** | **Units** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** | **%** <br> **Difference** | **10%** <br> **HARD** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** |
| 445 | Gold | g/t | 0.201 | 0.195 | -2.8% | 72 | 0.864 | 0.833 |
|  | Copper | ppm | 304.5 | 309.0 | 1.5% | 91 | 603.2 | 633.4 |

---

The scatter plot of coarse duplicate pairs for gold assays is given in Figure 11-23 and shows reasonable results with some significant scatter, but overall acceptable results.

Page 106 of 191

------

![w060.jpg](w060.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**23 Raintree Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold** 

The scatter plot of copper assays of coarse duplicates is given in Figure 11-24 and show acceptable results.

Page 107 of 191

------

![w061.jpg](w061.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**24 Raintree Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper** 

Analysis of duplicate samples in Raintree do not show evidence of selection bias at the core sampling level, indicate moderate heterogeneity of gold mineralization, and show that significant bias is not introduced at the sample preparation stage.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.3** **QAQC Island Mountain Deposit** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.3.1** **Island Mountain Blanks** 

The summary of gold assays of blanks in the Island Mountain sample stream is given in Table 11-14 and shows an overall failure rate of just over one half of one percent. These results are acceptable with little evidence of contamination.

**Table 11**-**14 Summary of Gold Assays of Blanks, Island Mountain Deposit**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Gold Blank** <br> **Assays** | **Fails at 5\*DL** | **% Fail at 5\*DL** | **Fails at 10\*DL** | **% Fail at 10\*DL** |
| 2010 | 133 | 4 | 3.0% | 2 | 1.5% |
| 2011 | 195 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 328 | 4 | 1.2% | 2 | 0.6% |

---

Page 108 of 191

------

The sequential plot of gold assays of blank material is given in Figure 11-25.

![w062.jpg](w062.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**25 Sequential Plot of Gold Assays of Blanks, Island Mountain Deposit** 

The results of copper assays of blank material in the Island Mountain sample stream is given in Table 11-15 and show acceptable results with a single failure.

**Table 11**-**15 Summary of Copper Assays of Blanks, Island Mountain Deposit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Copper Blank** <br> **Assays** | **Number** <br> **>100 ppm** | **%>100 ppm** |
| 2010 | 135 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2011 | 195 | 1 | 0.5% |
| Grand Total | 330 | 1 | 0.3% |

---

The sequential plot of copper assays of samples of blank material is given in Figure 11-26 and shows the single failure at just over 200 ppm.

Page 109 of 191

------

![w063.jpg](w063.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**26 Sequential Plot of Copper Assays of Blanks, Island Mountain Deposit** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.3.2** **Island Mountain CRMs** 

The summary of results of gold assays for CRM samples included in drilling in Island Mountain are presented in Table 11-16. The overall percent of failures is 2.2% and the error is 0.5% indicating a slight positive bias. The CV values are all below 10% indicating reasonable repeatability.

**Table 11**-**16 Island Mountain Deposit CRM Summary, Gold**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** | **Used** | **Samples** | **Average of Au** <br> **(g/t)** | **Std Dev of Au** <br> **(g/t)** | **CV** | **EV (g/t)** | **% Error** | **Low Fail** | **High Fails** | **%** <br> **Fail** |
| OREAS-52Pb | 2010 | 17 | 0.329 | 0.022 | 6.6% | 0.307 | 6.6% | 0 | 1 | 5.9% |
| OREAS-52c | 2010-2011 | 135 | 0.347 | 0.024 | 6.8% | 0.346 | 0.4% | 1 | 0 | 0.7% |
| OREAS-53Pb | 2010 | 26 | 0.617 | 0.028 | 4.6% | 0.623 | -1.0% | 2 | 0 | 7.7% |
| OREAS-50c | 2010-2011 | 105 | 0.837 | 0.043 | 5.1% | 0.836 | 0.1% | 2 | 1 | 2.9% |
| OREAS-54Pa | 2010-2011 | 30 | 2.920 | 0.093 | 3.2% | 2.900 | 0.7% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total |  | 313 |  |  |  |  | 0.5% | 5 | 2 | 2.2% |

---

The normalized process control chart of gold assays in the Island Mountain drilling is presented in Figure 11-27 showing the mean close to the expected value and the few failures.

Page 110 of 191

------

![w064.jpg](w064.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**27 Island Mountain Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Gold** 

Figure 11-28 gives the process control chart for OREAS-52c with expected value of 0.346g/t and 135 samples. It shows the overall good results with mean close to the expected value.

![w065.jpg](w065.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**28 Process Control Chart Island Mountain CRM OREAS-52c, Gold** 

Page 111 of 191

------

The summary of results of 308 copper assays of CRMs in Island Mountain is given in Table 11-17 and shows a higher than expected overall failure rate of 12.7% with overall percent error of -1.2 indicating a small negative bias to the copper assays of the CRMs.

**Table 11**-**17 Island Mountain Deposit CRM Summary, Copper**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** | **Used** | **Samples** | **Average of Cu Pct** | **Std Dev of Cu** <br> **Pct** | **CV** | **EV Pct** | **% Error** | **Low Fail** | **High Fails** | **% Fail** |
| OREAS-52Pb | 2010 | 16 | 0.336 | 0.022 | 6.5% | 0.334 | 0.7% | 0 | 2 | 12.5% |
| OREAS-52c | 2010-2011 | 133 | 0.342 | 0.054 | 15.7% | 0.344 | -0.7% | 7 | 5 | 9.0% |
| OREAS-53Pb | 2010 | 26 | 0.531 | 0.020 | 3.7% | 0.546 | -2.8% | 1 | 0 | 3.8% |
| OREAS-50c | 2010-2011 | 103 | 0.735 | 0.029 | 3.9% | 0.742 | -0.9% | 7 | 4 | 10.7% |
| OREAS-54Pa | 2010-2011 | 30 | 1.488 | 0.053 | 3.6% | 1.550 | -4.2% | 13 | 0 | 43.3% |
| Total |  | 308 |  |  |  |  | -1.2% | 28 | 11 | 12.7% |

---

The normalized process control chart is presented in Figure 11-29 and shows that most failures occurred in 2010 and the 2011 results are more consistently within the +-3 SD line.

![w066.jpg](w066.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**29 Island Mountain Deposit Normalized Process Control Chart, Copper** 

The process control chart for CRM OREAS-50c is given in Figure 11-30 and shows that despite the high failure rate of 10.7% the results are seen to indicate little bias with the mean close to the expected value.

Page 112 of 191

------

![w067.jpg](w067.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**30 Process Control Chart Island Mountain CRM OREAS-50c, Copper** 

For drilling in Island Mountain, analysis of the CRMs shows acceptable results and little indication of bias material to the resource estimate.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3.3.3** **Island Mountain Duplicates** 

The simple statistics of the gold and copper assays of the field duplicates from drilling in 2010 and 2011 in Island Mountain is given in Table 11-18. The means of the gold assays of the duplicate pairs show a 8.2% difference with the duplicates higher, while the duplicate pairs of the copper assays are slightly lower. The HARD statistic expectation of 70% is more than met for copper and only 57% for gold, indicating high heterogeneity.

**Table 11**-**18 Island Mountain Field Duplicate Simple Statistics**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  |  | **Average** | **Average** | **Average** | **% below**  | **Standard Deviation** | **Standard Deviation** |
| **Samples** | **Element** | **Units** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** | **%** <br> **Difference** | **10%** <br> **HARD** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** |
| 316 | Gold | g/t | 0.252 | 0.274 | 8.2% | 57 | 0.508 | 0.586 |
|  | Copper | ppm | 421.8 | 411.9 | -2.4% | 87 | 587.1 | 557.7 |

---

The scatter plot of field duplicate assays for gold is given in Figure 11-31 and shows the considerable scatter with low coefficient of correlation. The nearly 1:1 slope does not reflect the potential bias seen in the means.

Page 113 of 191

------

![w068.jpg](w068.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**31 Island Mountain Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold** 

The scatter plot of copper field duplicate assays is given in Figure 11-32 and shows the excellent correlation of the pairs with slight low bias of the duplicate samples.

Page 114 of 191

------

![w069.jpg](w069.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**32 Island Mountain Deposit Field Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper** 

The simple statistics of the coarse duplicate assays in Island Mountain from 2009-2011 is given in Table 11-19. There are minor differences between the primary and duplicate means. The expectation of 80% below 10% HARD is more than met for copper and the 72% is not unreasonable for gold.

**Table 11**-**19 Island Mountain Coarse Duplicates Simple Statistics**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  |  | **Average** | **Average** | **Average** | **% below**  | **Standard Deviation** | **Standard Deviation** |
| **Samples** | **Element** | **Units** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** | **%** <br> **Difference** | **10%** <br> **HARD** | **Primary** | **Duplicate** |
| 342 | Gold | g/t | 0.247 | 0.253 | 2.3% | 72 | 0.498 | 0.481 |
|  | Copper | ppm | 540.7 | 536.2 | -0.8% | 94 | 1022.3 | 982.7 |

---

The scatter plot of gold assays of coarse duplicates is given in Figure 11-33. It shows reasonable correlation between the pairs and no cause for concern.

Page 115 of 191

------

![w070.jpg](w070.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**33 Island Mountain Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Gold** 

The scatter plot of copper assays of coarse duplicate pairs is given in Figure 11-34 and shows the excellent agreement between the paired assays.

Page 116 of 191

------

![w071.jpg](w071.jpg)

**Figure 11**-**34 Island Mountain Deposit Coarse Duplicate Scatter Plot, Copper** 

Analysis of duplicate samples in Island Mountain do not show evidence of selection bias at the core sampling level, indicate higher heterogeneity of gold mineralization in comparison to the Whistler and Raintree deposits, and show that significant bias is not introduced at the sample preparation stage.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.4** **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security Conclusions and Recommendations** 

The author concludes that the sample preparation, analysis and security are of sufficient quantity and quality for resource estimation. The author further recommends that:

● For completeness, QAQC data for silver blanks and duplicates be collected from the historical database for analysis in future studies that include silver in the resource estimate. None of the CRMs used to date are certified for silver. New CRMs should be sourced and included in any future drilling. The lack of silver QAQC samples is not of material significance at this time because silver is a minor contributor to the resource estimate.

● The locally sourced material for blanks used prior to 2009 gives inconclusive results for assessing contamination as it appears to contain trace mineralization. This is particularly pronounced in the Whistler Deposit where most of the sampling was in 2008 and earlier. Future drilling should continue to use the silica sand or a commercially prepared blank material.

Page 117 of 191

------

● Individual instances of lapse in control procedures where failed samples and the neighboring primary assays samples are not seen to be re-assayed are identified. If this was indeed done, the database has not been correctly maintained. The number of failures does not appear to be of material significance at this time. Future programs should ensure that adherence to control procedures is maintained.

Page 118 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **12** | **Data Verification** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.1** **Site Visit** 

A site visit was conducted on September 14, 2022, by Sue Bird, P.Eng. of MMTS who was accompanied by TJ Oldenkamp of GoldMining. During the site visit collar locations at Whistler and Raintree were validated. The core storage at both the Whiskey Bravo and the Rainy Pass camp site was visited. The core from each deposit was examined for mineralization with 4 samples for re-assay obtained. The buildings at the previous camp at Rainy Pass were also investigated with most of the buildings found to be in good shape to be re-vamped for future drill programs. An aerial view of the camp is given in Figure 12-1. The maintenance of the unoccupied camp is currently coordinated by Mr. Oldenkamp. Core storage at Rainy Pass is illustrated in Figure 12-2. It should be noted that much of the Whistler core is also stored at a warehouse in Sterling, Alaska about 140 miles south of Anchorage.

![w072.jpg](w072.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**1 Aerial view of Whistler Camp** 

Page 119 of 191

------

The remaining core is in stacked in banded wooden boxes in various stages of weathering as shown in Figure 12-2.

![w073.jpg](w073.jpg)

![w074.jpg](w074.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**2 Drillcore Boxes in Storage Area (Source: MMTS, 2021, 2022)**

Page 120 of 191

------

The core shed at the Rainy Pass camp is in excellent condition with logging tables, water, reference rock boards, logbooks, and equipment all intact as shown in Figure 12-3.

![w075.jpg](w075.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**3 Core Logging Shed**

Page 121 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.2** **Re-Assay Results** 

Four intervals of half core were obtained for check assaying. Two sample from Island Mountain, and 1 from each of Whistler and Raintree. The samples were chosen to be of mineralized intervals, with Au grades ranging from 0.223 gpt to 7.160 gpt and Cu grades between 0.146% and 0.449%. Results of this limited check assay program done in 2022 are shown in Figure 12-4 and Figure 12-5 for Au and Cu respectively. Ag had only two samples above detection, both of which had a re-assay value higher than the original. The results indicate slightly lower grades for the higher values of Au. However, it was also noted that the OREAS standards also had lower values than the certified grades, particularly for Au. The results for both Au and Cu are reasonable when considering the outdoor storage area, the general scatter expected for Au and the low results of the CRM material.

![w076.jpg](w076.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**4 Check Assay Results from 2022 Site Visit** – **Au (MMTS, 2022)**

Page 122 of 191

------

![w077.jpg](w077.jpg)

**Figure 12**-**5 Check Assay Results from 2022 Site Visit** – **Cu (MMTS, 2022)**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.3** **Data Audit** 

The assay database was received from U.S. GoldMining on May 12, 2021. The database contains 26,957 intervals including all areas in the Whistler project. The database was checked for overlapping intervals and missing assays, no errors were noted.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.3.1** **Certificate Checks and Database Corrections** 

The assay database as received did not have certificate numbers attached to the assay intervals. The author was able to update this information for 25,459 of the assayed intervals in the database. Results of certificate checks are presented in Table 12-1. The resource areas include 20,861 assayed intervals in the database, of which 4,253 were checked for a rate of 20.4%. Of these, only one true error was found in which the Au value in the database was 452ppb instead of 468ppb for an error rate of 0.02%.

Page 123 of 191

------

The random checks led to the discovery that two corrected certificates (EL05037720 and EL05037279) from the Elko ALS laboratory in 2005 affecting 321 intervals, had not been updated in the database. The author made these correction before proceeding with resource modeling.

It is also noted that 107 assayed intervals on two certificates (FA04052589 and FA04054343) show only values for gold and copper, the silver values appearing in the database are not on the found certificates.

**Table 12**-**1 Certificate Check Results**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Assayed Intervals in Resource Areas** | **20861** |
| Intervals Checked | 4253 |
| % Checked | 20.4% |
| Errors | 1 |
| % Errors | 0.02% |
| Lab corrections not updated in database | 321 |
| Certificates missing Ag values | 107 |
| Total Findings | 435 |

---

The amount of data by interval length that is supported by certificate and QAQC data (blanks CRMs and field duplicates) is given in Table 12-2 and is reported by drilling year, not analysis as previously presented in the QAQC section. The percentage of assayed length fully supported by certificate and QAQC in Whistler is 76%, in Raintree it is 90% and in Island Mountain it is 93%. Although resource estimates are ideally supported 100% by certificates and QAQC, the author finds the percentages reported here typical or better for similar projects with several changes in ownership and the majority of drilling completed before 2010. It is recommended that U.S. GoldMining make further attempts to match up sample numbers with certificate number and locate missing certificates.

**Table 12**-**2 Summary of Data Supported by Certificate and QAQC**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Raintree** | **Raintree** | **Raintree** | **Raintree** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** |
| **Year** | **Assayed Length** <br> **(m)** | **Has** <br> **Certificate**<br> **(m)** | **Has** <br> **QAQC**<br> **(m)** | **% With Certificate**<br> **and QAQC** | **Assayed Length** <br> **(m)** | **Has** <br> **Certificate**<br> **(m)** | **Has** <br> **QAQC**<br> **(m)** | **% With Certificate**<br> **and QAQC** | **Assayed Length (m)** | **Has** <br> **Certificate**<br> **(m)** | **Has** <br> **QAQC**<br> **(m)** | **% With Certificate** <br> **and QAQC** |
| 1986-1989 | 1566 |  |  | 0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2004 | 1865 | 1777 | 1863 | 95% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2005 | 5061 | 5061 | 5061 | 100% | 208 | 208 | 208 | 100% |  |  |  |  |
| 2006 | 696 | 696 | 696 | 100% | 845 | 845 | 772 | 91% |  |  |  |  |
| 2007 | 3243 | 3243 | 3243 | 100% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2008 | 2660 | 2660 |  | 0% | 615 | 615 |  | 0% |  |  |  |  |
| 2009 | 214 |  |  | 0% | 479 |  |  | 0% | 387 |  |  | 0% |
| 2010 | 4500 | 4500 | 4209 | 94% | 3164 | 3164 | 2827 | 89% | 4956 | 4908 | 4520 | 91% |
| 2011 |  |  |  |  | 13799 | 13796 | 13351 | 97% | 8943 | 8943 | 8706 | 97% |
| **Total** | **19804** | **17936** | **15072** | **76%** | **19110** | **18628** | **17158** | **90%** | **14287** | **13852** | **13226** | **93%** |

---

Page 124 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.3.2** **Check assays** 

Check assays by Kennecott in 2004 have been documented (SRK,2007) however this data was not available to the author for review. No other third party lab verification data are reported or provided.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.4** **Collar Survey** 

In 2011, it was reported that collar locations for Island Mountain holes had been re-captured using a Trimble Geoexplorer 6000 GPS instrument (<1m accuracy) and that the intention was to re-survey the majority of the holes on the property in 2012 (Roberts, 2011a). Documentation that this was accomplished is not apparent. Spot checks of collar locations during the site visit indicate there may be some deviations from recorded locations that could be significant.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.5** **Data Verification Conclusions and Recommendations** 

The author concludes that the resource database provided is of sufficient quality for resource estimation. It is further recommended that:

● At least 10% of collar locations in each resource area, to include drilling from all years, be surveyed with GPS equipment with <1m accuracy. If significant deviations are determined from the recorded values, all collars would need resurvey.

● U.S. GoldMining continue to pursue matching of assay samples to certificates and collection of missing certificates.

● Future drilling should include third party check assays and the data should be appropriately maintained.

Page 125 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **13** | **MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING** |

---

The information contained in Section 13 regarding metallurgical testwork is intended to support and substantiate the metallurgical recoveries used in the Resource Estimate. The information provided is the best available data but may not fully optimized with respect to the current resource. The metallurgical testwork was intermittently performed by different laboratories with different primary objectives on select portions of the overall resource. Metallurgical testing for the Whistler and Island Mountain Deposits had previously been reported by MMTS in 2015 and is repeated verbatim below solely for the benefit of continuity of data.

No metallurgical testing was carried out on rocks from the Raintree West deposit, however given the similarities in geological setting, host rock, mineralization and alteration between Raintree West and the Whistler Deposit, it has been assumed that metallurgical processes and metal recoveries determined for the Whistler Deposit are a reasonable approximation for the Raintree West Deposit at this time.

Metallurgical testing has been carried out in three phases starting with the 2004/05 preliminary testing in Salt Lake City under the general supervision of Kennecott and culminating in the two phases under Kiska Metals and conducted at G&T Laboratories in Kamloops during 2010-2012. These three phases are described separately below.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.1** **Summary of Preliminary Metallurgical Testing, Whistler Deposit (Phase One)** 

Preliminary metallurgical test-work was carried out at Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories Inc. (DML) in Salt Lake City, Utah from September 2004 until early 2005 with a final report being issued in March of 2005 by George Nadasdy. (Nadasdy, 2005) The work was carried out under the direction of Rio Tinto Technical Services representing Kennecott.

Three different sample composites were tested. The samples were differentiated by sample history and particle size and also by lead/zinc content. The three designations were Original Composite, New Core Sample and Low Lead-Zinc Composite.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.1.1** **Sample Preparation** 

A total of approximately 180, coarse assay reject interval samples were received at DML on September 13, 2004 from Kennecott Exploration. All of the individual samples from the entire drillhole WH-04-05-21 (from 2.32 to 328.56 m) were received. Kennecott selected a mineralized interval (from 117.6 to 200.2 m) from this drillhole for testing.

The original composite was produced by including every other individual assay reject sample from the 117.6 to 200.2 metre mineralized interval. The original composite represented a total of 42.2m of material and weighed 88.7 kg. The composite was air dried and stage crushed to minus 10 mesh in preparation for testing. The minus 10 mesh composite was mixed in a "V" cone blender and split into batches. A 50 kg test sample was rotary table split into 2.0 kg test charges. A 37.6 kg reserve sample was also made. All samples were kept in the DML freezers to reduce sample oxidation.

Initial testwork on the original composite produced low rougher concentrate copper grades due to sulfide activation (pyrite, galena and sphalerite floating along with the chalcopyrite). On November 10, 2004, a second Whistler mineralized sample was received for testing. This second sample was the remaining ½ of Kennecott's cut core from the same drillhole (WH-04-05-21) and represented material from 140.6 to 155.3m. Some of the higher grade lead-zinc core was removed by Kennecott geologists and not included in this second sample. This core sample was designated by as the "new core sample". The new core sample weighed 20 kg; it was stage crushed to minus 10 mesh mixed in a "V" cone blender and then rotary table split into 2 kg test charges.

Page 126 of 191

------

A third Whistler mineralized sample was prepared at DML at the end of November for continued testwork and was designated by as the low lead-zinc composite. The low lead-zinc composite was made from the remaining individual coarse assay reject samples not used in the original composite (from 117.6 to 200.2 m). At the direction of Kennecott, selected high grade lead-zinc samples were omitted from this low lead-zinc composite. The low lead-zinc composite weighed 71 kg and was prepared in a similar fashion to the original composite.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.2** **Testing** 

Three (3) separate mineralized samples from the gold-copper bearing Whistler Project in Alaska were tested from September 2004 through March 2005. Preliminary metallurgical testwork included gravity concentration or flotation to recover the copper and gold. The three (3) mineralized samples were designated as: the original composite, the new core sample and the low lead-zinc composite, as previously described.

Testwork conducted on the three (3) Whistler mineralized samples included the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. **Original Composite**: DML comparative (ball mill) grind work index test; a gravity centrifugal concentration and amalgamation test; a head assay screen at a (RM) P80=140µm grind; rougher kinetic-reagent scoping tests; rougher kinetic-pH tests (pH 9.3, 10.0 and 10.8); three (3) stage cleaning tests at different primary and regrind sizes and cleaner tests at pH 9.3 or 11.0.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. **New Core Sample**: a gravity concentration and amalgamation test; a rougher kinetic grind series P80=162, 111, 80 and 66 microns and a three (3) stage cleaner test at a P80=80µm primary grind, a P80=48µm regrind size and a cleaner pH of 9.3.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. **Low Lead-Zinc Composite**: a rougher kinetic test at a P80=80µm grind; three (3) stage cleaning tests at a P80=80µm primary grind and P80=37µm regrind and a cleaner pH of 9.3 or 11.0. A cleaner test was also conducted with SO<sub>2</sub> added to the first cleaner. A final cleaner test was conducted to generate a third cleaner concentrate for a suite of assays for smelter evaluation.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.2.1** **Results from Preliminary Testing** 

The initial work on the Original Sample resulted in lower than expected rougher and cleaner grades and high levels of lead and zinc reporting to the cleaner concentrate. This was attributed to both the high lead and zinc in the feed and the fact that the composite was created from assay rejects that had potentially aged at a relatively fine crush between core preparation and metallurgical testing.

The high lead and zinc values in the Original Sample were essentially concentrated in two of the twenty-five intervals used to make up the composite. For the two subsequent composites the high lead-zinc intervals were left out of the mix. In addition, the second sample to be tested (New Core Sample) was produced from ½ section core that provided less opportunity for the deleterious effects of ageing when stored under ambient atmospheric conditions at finer sizes.

Page 127 of 191

------

In general, it was found in the early work that gravity recovered gold was in the finer size ranges with an average gold grain size of minus 400 mesh (37 microns) so this avenue was not pursued in later testwork on the assumption that liberated gold would be recovered through flotation.

In addition, it was also found that a primary grind of ~80% passing 80 microns was required for best recovery of both copper and gold.

Below is the excerpted table from the Dawson report indicating cleaning test results for the three composites (Table 13-1). The 3<sup>rd</sup> Cleaner copper grade increased from 16% to 21% to 23% for the Original, Low Pb-Zn and New Core samples respectively. Copper recoveries were 80% to 84% with gold ranging from 60% to 65%.

**Table 13**-**1 Three Stage Cleaning Tests**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** | **P** – **2825: Kennecott** – **Whistler Project**<br> **Three Stage Cleaning Test** – **pH 9.3 in Rougher and Cleaner** |
|  |  | | **Calc. Head** | **Calc. Head** | **Final Trail** | **Final Trail** | **No.3 Cleaner Concentrate** | **No.3 Cleaner Concentrate** | **No.3 Cleaner Concentrate** | **No.3 Cleaner Concentrate** | **Percent Recovery** | **Percent Recovery** |
| **Test No.** | **Sample** | **Grind**<br> **Prim/RG**<br> **P80=**µ**m** | **% Cu** | **ppm AU** | **% Cu** | **ppm AU** | **Wqt.%** | **% Cu** | **ppm Au** | **% Insol.** | **Cu** | **Au** |
| 14 | Orig. Comp. | 140/53 | 0.642 | 2.36 | 0.128 | 0.749 | 3.80 | 12.4 | 39.4 | 7.1 | 73.5 | 63.5 |
| 23 | Orig. Comp. | 80/34 | 0.635 | 2.56 | 0.087 | 0.842 | 3.20 | 16.4 | 51.9 | 7.2 | 82.6 | 64.8 |
| 21 | New Core | 80/48 | 0.804 | 3.21 | 0.087 | 0.983 | 2.99 | 22.5 | 64.4 | 4.9 | 83.5 | 60.0 |
| 30 | Low Pb-Zn | 80/37 | 0.531 | 2.54 | 0.077 | 0.942 | 2.04 | 20.8 | 74.1 | 5.5 | 79.9 | 59.4 |
| *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* | *Cytec 3477 in grind at 0.015 lb/ton and NalPX in scavenger at 0.004 lb/ton. No additional collector added to either regrind or cleaners.* |

---

The poor performance on the original composite material was attributed to the high lead and zinc content and the effects of sample size and ageing. The New Core material responded best and the results with the Low Pb-Zn were close but not up to the level of the New Core material. Thus there was a significant improvement with the exclusion of the high Pb-Zn intervals and a further improvement with the "fresh" half core. Crushed assay rejects are generally problematic for testwork with samples containing copper, lead and zinc minerals.

As per the table above, regrind sizes ranged from 34 to 53 microns. This leaves some potential for finer regrinding to improve cleaner separations if necessary in the future. In addition, there is further potential for copper cleaner enhancement with a higher pH regime in that part of the circuit as long as it does not have a significant negative effect on gold recoveries.

The DML report further indicates that in an analysis of cleaner test products the gold values tend to track closely with the deportment of the copper as opposed to following the iron.

Page 128 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.2.2** **Preliminary Conclusions** 

In any future work care must be taken to ensure the material to be tested is as fresh as possible and has been stored in such a manner as to minimize the potential for surface oxidation. The resource data must be analyzed to assess the presence, level and distribution of lead and zinc throughout the deposit and appropriate samples selected for metallurgical testing so that they reflect the nature of the resource and the likely plant feed. Care must also be taken to ensure that the copper and gold grades of the feed for any further testwork reflect the expected levels in the resource.

For first pass metallurgical testing reasonable copper and gold recoveries were achieved at less than optimum concentrate copper grades. Care and attention to sample preparation and handling (as mentioned above) along with more in depth testing should allow for improvements in both recoveries and grades. Further reagent screening should be carried out both to enhance recoveries and selectivity and to attempt to allow for processing at a coarser primary grind.

Combined cleaner and scavenger tails accounted for the loss of 29% to 35% of the contained gold and 10% to 14% of the copper. These preliminary cleaning tests all involved open circuit cleaning. In the normal course of more detailed flowsheet development (reagent and regrind optimization plus closure of the cleaning circuit) one could potentially expect to be able to improve copper recoveries to ~85% into a concentrate with a copper grade in the range of 25% to 27%. A combination of the flotation improvements and the application of additional gold recovery techniques in the cleaner circuit might potentially improve gold recovery to the 75% range.

In addition, as mentioned above, future test-work should be carried out on material with feed grades reflecting the likely grade that would be mined and sent to the plant. Lower feed grades tend to somewhat reduce metal recoveries.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3** **Summary of Preliminary Metallurgical Testing, Island Mountain Deposit (August 21, 2010) (Phase 2)** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3.1** **Introduction** 

Two holes (IM09-001 and IM09-002) were drilled at Island Mountain in 2009. These holes produced interesting gold and copper values and also what appeared to be "interesting" associations between the contained gold, copper, pyrrhotite and magnetite. It was decided to carryout preliminary metallurgical testwork on the available sample material in order to assess the mineralogical associations and the potential for effective treatment of the rock to recover gold and copper. Core logging indicated an apparent difference between the upper and lower mineralized intervals of the drillhole. The upper mineralized interval had higher copper, but lower gold values, and the lower mineralized interval tended to contain more pyrrhotite. The lower region also represented the greater tonnage potential.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3.2** **Sample Selection** 

The drill data had been assessed in terms of a gold equivalent whereby copper and silver values were added to the gold value based on assumed recoveries of 75% for Au and Ag and 80% for Cu. Assumed prices were $US550/oz, $US8/oz, $US1.50/lb respectively for the three metals. A simple gold equivalent cut-off of 0.30 gpt ($US5.30/tonne at $US550/oz) was taken. Based on this cut-off, 72 out of 81 two metre intervals were selected from the upper 162m of IM09-001 to form an Upper Composite. Similarly 75 out of 111 two metre intervals were selected to form a Lower Composite from the lower 222m of the hole. From hole IM09-002, only 20 of 99 two-metre intervals surpassed the selected cut-off. As higher grade intervals were distributed erratically throughout the length of the hole none of this material was used for the metallurgical work.

Page 129 of 191

------

Quarter core was available for composite preparation and it was shipped to G&T Metallurgical in Kamloops BC for composite assembly and the metallurgical testing.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3.3** **Feed Grade** 

Table 13-2 provides the analyses of the elements of interest in the two composites.

**Table 13**-**2 Summary of Analysis of Composites from IM09-001 and IM09-002**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Cu** | **Pb** | **Zn** | **Fe** | **S** | **Ag** | **Au** | **C** |
|  | **%** | **%** | **%** | **%** | **%** | **gpt** | **gpt** | **%** |
| Upper Comp Head - 1 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 8.50 | 2.36 | 3.20 | 0.49 | 0.10 |
| Upper Comp Head - 2 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 8.30 | 2.08 | 3.70 | 0.44 | 0.09 |
| **Average** | **0.15** | **0.06** | **0.02** | **8.40** | **2.22** | **3.45** | **0.46** | **0.09** |
| Lower Comp Head - 1 | 0.050 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 5.70 | 2.77 | 2.30 | 0.80 | 0.17 |
| Lower Comp Head - 2 | 0.048 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 5.90 | 2.82 | 1.60 | 0.90 | 0.19 |
| **Average** | **0.049** | **0.06** | **0.01** | **5.80** | **2.80** | **1.95** | **0.85** | **0.18** |

---

The copper values in the Upper Composite are on the lower side of normal feed grades whereas the copper values in the Lower Composite are well below where one would generally expect to make saleable copper concentrate grades with any significant recovery. The gold however, particularly in the Lower Composite, contributes a significant value to the feed.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3.4** **Test Program** 

Various processing options were applied to the sample material in order to assess both the association between the gold and the other minerals and to assess the potential for economic recovery of the copper and gold.

The preferred and simplest option would be to produce a saleable copper concentrate containing the bulk of the copper and also the bulk of the gold. Another possible route would be to leach the gold from the whole ore with cyanide. The leaching approach could possibly produce good gold recovery but would not recover copper values and would likely involve significant cyanide consumption due to the copper content of the feed. Hybrid approaches would involve the selective flotation of a saleable copper concentrate with some of the gold and leaching of some or all of the flotation tailings to recover un-floated gold values.

As well as recovery considerations, a significant concern in cyanide leaching arises from the consumption of cyanide by other metals and minerals in the feed material. Of particular interest are copper and pyrrhotite. Depending on the form and activity of the copper and iron minerals significant quantities of cyanide can be tied up as copper and iron cyanides.

The current test program included bulk flotation of copper and gold, selective flotation of copper, cyanidation of the feed material and cyanidation of the combined tailings from selective open circuit cleaning tests performed on each of the composites. Due to the expectation that the Lower Composite likely represented the greater portion of "minable" material testwork addressed this sample with confirmatory work then being applied to the Upper Composite.

Page 130 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3.5** **Metallurgical Results** 

***<u>Bulk Flotation</u>***

Various grinds plus some pH modification were applied to the bulk rougher flotation of both composites. In general the best copper recoveries were achieved with flotation at a grind of ~80% passing 100 microns and a pH of 10. Gold recoveries were not as sensitive to the changes. Table 13-3 shows a summary of the bulk flotation results.

**Table 13**-**3 Bulk Flotation Results**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | **Copper** |  |  | **Gold** |  |
| **Material** | **Feed** | **Conc** | **Rec** | **Feed** | **Conc** | **Rec** |
|  | **% Cu** | **% Cu** | **%** | **gpt** | **gpt** | **%** |
| Upper Composite | 0.15 | 0.90 | 79.66 | 0.50 | 2.82 | 74.41 |
| Rougher |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Lower Composite | 0.05 | 0.41 | 89.15 | 0.96 | 7.12 | 80.41 |
| Rougher |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Lower Composite | 0.05 | 0.31 | 87.94 | 0.94 | 5.41 | 81.02 |
| Rougher |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Lower Composite | 0.05 | 1.40 | 76.02 | 0.94 | 39.40 | 70.73 |
| Cleaner |  |  |  |  |  |  |

---

Copper recoveries were reasonable considering the low head grades – particularly in the case of the Lower Composite. However, given the value of gold in the feed, gold recoveries were considered to be too low. In addition, a saleable copper concentrate would require a 15 to 20 fold increase in the copper grade which would further reduce the recovery of both metals.

The low gold recoveries also indicate that there is gold associated with some other mineral that is not floating in the non-selective bulk circuit.

***<u>Selective Flotation</u>***

Reagent changes were made to try and float a cleaner copper concentrate using open circuit cleaning.

**Table 13**-**4 Selective Cleaner Flotation**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Material** | **Feed** | **Conc** | **Rec.** | **Rougher** | **Feed** | **Conc** | **Rec.** | **Rougher** |
|  | **% Cu** | **% Cu** | **Cu - %** | **Rec.** | **Au gpt** | **Au gpt** | **Au - %** | **Rec.** |
| **Upper** | 0.14 | 22.5 | 63.4 | 77.3 | 0.50 | 51.3 | 42.7 | 61.5 |
| **Lower** | 0.05 | 23.3 | 70.6 | 84.1 | 0.99 | 294 | 44.0 | 45.6 |

---

The selective flotation produced similar but somewhat lower copper rougher recoveries than those achieved in the bulk flotation circuit (Table 13-4). There is a potential to improve these with further optimization. The copper loss between roughing and cleaning was similar to that experienced in the bulk circuit. Both these aspects can be addressed by further reagent and operating condition adjustments. Further testwork with closed circuit cleaning will significantly reduce the cleaning circuit losses. Gold recovery was much lower during roughing and was significantly reduced during cleaning for the Upper Composite. This confirms the earlier suggestion that there is a significant portion of the gold that is associated with some mineral or minerals other than the copper bearing ones.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3.6** **Whole Ore Leach** 

The whole ore leach approach worked well – particularly for the Lower Composite (Table 13-5).

Page 131 of 191

------

**Table 13**-**5 Whole Ore Cyanidation**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Feed** | **Residue** | **Recovery** | **Cyanide** | **Cyanide** |
|  | **(gpt)** | **(gpt)** | **(%)** | **Strength** | **Consumption** |
|  |  |  |  | **(kgpt)** | **(kgpt)** |
| **Upper Composite** | 0.54 | 0.06 | 89.06 | 2.00 | 1.82 |
| **Lower Composite** | 0.82 | 0.08 | 90.22 | 0.50 | 0.46 |

---

For both composites ~90% of the gold was extracted in 48 hours. Higher solution strength was required for the Upper Composite and this resulted in significantly higher cyanide consumption.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3.7** **Leaching of Selective Flotation Tails** 

Based on the results of the whole ore leach and the selective cleaner flotation, the flotation tailings for both composites were leached in cyanide for 48 hours at solution strength of 0.50 kgpt (Table 13-6).

**Table 13**-**6 Cyanidation of Selective Flotation Tailings**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Feed** | **Residue** | **Recovery** | **Cyanide** | **Cyanide** | **Flotation +** |
|  | **(gpt)** | **(gpt)** | **(%)** | **Strength** | **Consumption** | **Cyanidation** |
|  |  |  |  | **(kgpt)** | **(kgpt)** | **Recovery** |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | **(%)** |
| **Upper Composite** | 0.18 | 0.08 | 56.52 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 75.08 |
| **Lower Composite** | 0.51 | 0.09 | 81.44 | 0.50 | 0.38 | 89.60 |

---

Leaching results were particularly good for the Lower Composite at 81% and the overall recovery by flotation and cyanidation was almost 90%. Similar to the results of the whole ore leach, the leaching conditions for the Upper Composite can likely be optimized to improve the extent and rate of leaching for the flotation tailings from the Upper material.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3.8** **Overall Recoveries** 

Potentially 90% of the gold in the Lower Composite can be recovered either by direct cyanidation or by flotation followed by cyanidation of the flotation tailings. Similarly almost 90% of the gold can be leached from the Upper Composite and further work should improve the overall gold recovery from this material by the combined flotation-leach approach.

More in depth work should be performed to improve flotation grades and recoveries. In addition, once an optimized flotation approach has been established the opportunities to produce a high grade copper concentrate followed by the production of a low grade gold concentrate for subsequent leaching should be investigated. This could substantially reduce the capital and environmental ramifications of whole ore or full tailings leaching.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3.9** **Conclusions** 

The preliminary testing Indicated that the Island Mountain material tested is amenable to copper recovery by flotation and that the gold is relatively free milling. This is particularly true of the greater portion of the material represented by the Lower Composite. The results indicate that in the range of 90% of the gold in the Lower Composite can be recovered by either whole ore leaching or a combination of flotation and leaching of the tailings. With further development work, copper flotation recoveries will likely rise to the 80% range for the Lower Composite.

Page 132 of 191

------

Similarly, gold recovery in the range of 90% can be achieved by whole ore leaching of the Upper Composite. Further flotation work on the Upper Composite will improve both copper and gold recoveries to concentrate.

For both materials it was concluded that further metallurgical development and assessment work would still be required to develop the best flowsheet with respect to capital and operating costs, metal recoveries and overall economics.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.4** **Summary of Whistler Deposit Testwork (2012) (Phase 3)** 

The final round of work was also carried out at G&T Metallurgical Laboratories, now part of ALS Metallurgy, there being continuity of personnel and experience with the Island Mountain testwork previously reported.

The work commenced in August 2012 and was completed by year end and the results presented in its report KM3499 of January 2013.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.4.1** **Metallurgical Samples** 

Initial work was conducted on core from the 2008 drilling campaign, on sample 08-08 which had been kept in carefully controlled conditions and was believed to be still fresh. Arrangements had been made to obtain a sample from a similar hole planned for the summer 2012 drilling campaign as a "calibration" check to validate its freshness, especially in view of the aging effects reported in the Kennecott testwork. Unfortunately the cancellation of the 2012 campaign negated this process; however, as is evident from the results presented below, there is no reason to suspect any impact of oxidation on flotation response.

What was a greater concern with respect to this sample was that, following the update to the geological model reported in AMC's letter report of November 2012, it might have been insufficiently representative of the bulk of the mineralization being predominantly in the central quartz-breccia zone, representing only 20% of the tonnage, although 30% of the metal content.

Accordingly a second sample, 10-19 from the 2010 drilling campaign, more representative of the Main Stage Porphyry, although right on the margin of the proposed ultimate pit, was selected for additional tests and in fact became the basis for setting the predicted metallurgical parameters.

Both samples had been divided into high grade, medium grade and low grade samples in accordance with gold grades, with most of the work carried on the medium grade samples, being closer to Resource grades.

Sample grades are tabulated in Table 13-7.

**Table 13**-**7 Sample Head Grades**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Sample** | **%Cu** | **%Fe** | **%S** | **Au gpt** | **%C** |
| 08-08 MG (master) | 0.12 | 5.8 | 3.6 | 0.53 | 0.76 |
| 08-08 HG | 0.50 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 1.78 | 0.67 |
| 08-08 LG | 0.08 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 0.34 | 1.30 |
| 10-19 MG | 0.22 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 0.51 | 1.09 |
| 10-19 HG | 0.17 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 0.96 | 1.42 |
| 10-19 LG | 0.22 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 0.38 | 1.24 |

---

Page 133 of 191

------

No mineralogical work was carried out. However normative mineralogy calculations show that Sample 08-08 generally has almost twice the pyrite content of Sample 10-19. Sample 08-08 was similar to Island Mountain in this respect.

The testwork program focused mainly on conventional copper flotation; however it soon became evident that improving gold recovery was key so, similar to the direction taken with Island Mountain, the program included work on cyanidation of cleaner tails and also investigation of enhancing gold recovery with pyrite concentrate production.

The flotation and cyanidation testwork flowsheets are shown in Figure 13-1 (abstracted from the ALS KM3499 report).

Page 134 of 191

------

![w078.jpg](w078.jpg)

**Figure 13**-**1 Flotation and Cyanidation Flowsheet and Test Conditions (MMTS, 2015).**

Page 135 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.4.2** **Results** 

The results of the metallurgical testwork for a conventional comminution/flotation flowsheet are summarized below.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.4.2.1** **Comminution** 

A single standard Bond ball mill work index test was carried out on 10-19MG composite towards the end of the program, and at a closing size of 106 µm.

The Bond ball mill work index (BWI) was found to be 19.9 kWh/t (compared to the Island Mountain value assumed for the initial flowsheet design of 18.5 kWh/t). This result puts Whistler in the very hard range of ball mill hardness.

No SAG mill testing (e.g.) JK Drop weight or SMC tests were included in the program, nor indeed any Bond rod mill work index tests. The QP has used some industry benchmarks and approximations in setting appropriate SAG mill design criteria (see Section 17.2.3) and recommends that these additional comminution tests be a high priority for the next stage of testwork.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.4.2.2** **Flotation** 

Key parameters in the copper flotation tests were:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Primary grind target was generally 100µm (some later tests, following the receipt of the BWI result, were done in the 150-200µm range).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Regrind target was generally 20µm (test 1 at 76µm was a procedural error).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Cytec 3418A, a specialist copper/precious metal flotation reagent, was used as the primary copper sulphide mineral collector.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• pH in the rougher and cleaner circuits was generally maintained at 10 and 11 respectively, using hydrated lime.

The key results are tabulated and graphed in Figure 13-2 (abstracted from the ALS metallurgy KM3499 report).

In summary the main findings were as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Open-circuit batch flotation testing achieved fairly consistently 80-85% copper recovery to a 25% Cu concentrate grade; however gold recovery was lower (40-50%) due to lower rougher recoveries and also low cleaner recoveries with significant deportment of gold to cleaner tailings streams.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• From the flotation results, the gold associations were inferred as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 60% with chalcopyrite

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 20% with pyrite (± chalcopyrite)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 20% with gangue minerals

The QP strongly recommended that mineralogical studies be a high priority for the next phase of testwork.

Page 136 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Some attempts were made at recovering gold to a pyrite concentrate for subsequent treatment (a possible alternative to cyanidation of cleaner tails), but overall recovery fell and later work focused on the locked cycle tests as a means of recovering gold reporting in recirculating streams that were not accounted for in simple batch tests.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Locked cycle tests on both the 08-08 and 10-19 samples proved to be the key to unlocking gold value with substantial improvements to gold recovery from the recycle of intermediate streams (short of pilot-plant testing, locked cycle tests are the best way of replicating a full scale flotation plant). Averaging the results from both and rounding numbers appropriately yielded the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 92% copper recovery to a 25% Cu concentrate grade

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 70% gold recovery

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• On receipt of the higher than expected BWI results with a significant impact on both capex and opex, some final open circuit batch flotation tests were conducted at coarser primary grinds (154 µm, 173µm and 204 µm) but retaining the same 20µm regrind size. The results were analyzed in grade-recovery terms and are presented in graphical form in Figure 13-3 and Figure 13-4. Copper grade-recovery performance was retained up to 173 µ but showed a significant deterioration at the coarsest grind, whereas gold recovery seemed largely insensitive to primary grind size. Although further work, including definitive locked cycle testing, is required to validate this, the QP believes it is reasonable to assume a primary grind size of 175µm (in round figures) as an option for capex/opex sensitivities.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Some very preliminary variability tests (four in total) were carried out on the low grade and high grade samples for each main composite. The results showed a high degree of variability in the 70-90% range for copper recovery and 20-30% Cu in final concentrates. Gold recovery was generally constant at around 50% although the 08-08 high grade sample did show a significantly higher recovery of 76%. The QP does not attach much importance to this limited number of results, their having no spatial relationship to the deposit, and would recommend that future variability work be based on spatial and mineralogical/textural parameters rather than grade.

Page 137 of 191

------

![w079.jpg](w079.jpg)

**Figure 13**-**2 Flotation Test Results (MMTS, 2015)**

Page 138 of 191

------

![w080.jpg](w080.jpg)

**Figure 13**-**3 Copper Grade Recovery (MMTS, 2015)**

![w081.jpg](w081.jpg)

**Figure 13**-**4 Gold Grade Recovery (MMTS, 2015)**

Page 139 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.5** **Cyanidation** 

The batch flotation tests had indicated a substantial amount of the gold was reporting to cleaner tails and, pending the results of the locked cycle tests, some cyanidation tests were carried out on combined cleaner tails from tests 6 and 7 on 10-19 samples where 23% of the gold was accounted for in the cleaner tails.

Forty-eight hour gold extractions were 77% to solution, thus overall gold recovery would improve from 57% to approximately 74%. However although cyanide consumption was moderate for a sulphidic stream, the absolute gold grades in cyanidation feed were still low and the marginal return versus costs at current gold and cyanide prices exactly that, marginal. Also the use of cyanide requires a different level of onsite management and therefore is more complicated in terms of its cost benefit.

Given the excellent locked cycle test results already reported, and with overall gold recoveries by flotation being only in the region of 70%, it was decided not to pursue further cyanidation testwork.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.6** **Concentrate Specifications** 

The final bulk concentrates from cycles II-V of the locked cycle tests 12 (10-19 MG) and 17 (08-08 MG) were analyzed for potentially deleterious elements and the results are shown in Table 13-8.

Concentrates from both samples are remarkably clean and would indicate that the specifications would fall well within typical smelter limits for penalty elements, with no penalty payable.

Normative mineralogy calculations, assuming a simple chalcopyrite:pyrite sulphide blend, suggest the pyrite concentrate from the 08-08 sample to be almost twice that of 10-19, i.e. similar to what was observed in the head samples.

Page 140 of 191

------

**Table 13**-**8 Minor Element Data**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Symbol** | **Units** | **Test 12 (10-19)** | **Test 17 (08-08)** |
| Aluminium | Al | % | 0.92 | 0.68 |
| Antimony | Sb | % | 0.02 | 0.17 |
| Arsenic | As | gpt | 135 | 344 |
| Bismuth | Bi | gpt | <1 | <1 |
| Cadmium | Cd | gpt | 30 | 20 |
| Calcium | Ca | % | 0.44 | 0.31 |
| Carbon | C | % | 0.33 | 0.39 |
| Cobalt | Co | gpt | 46 | 36 |
| Copper | Cu | % | 26.1 | 24.9 |
| Fluorine | F | gpt | 133 | 123 |
| Iron | Fe | % | 26.7 | 29.3 |
| Lead | Pb | % | 0.18 | 0.19 |
| Magnesium | Mg | % | 0.17 | 0.09 |
| Manganese | Mn | % | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Mercury | Hg | gpt | 1 | 4 |
| Molybdenum | Mo | % | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Nickel | Ni | gpt | 74 | 94 |
| Phosphorus | P | gpt | 118 | 143 |
| Selenium | Se | gpt | 86 | 30 |
| Silicon | Si | % | 2.73 | 2.33 |
| Sulphur | S | % | 32.2 | 35.1 |
| Silver | Ag | gpt | 108 | 134 |
| Zinc | Zn | % | 0.46 | 0.32 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.7** **Conclusions** 

From the metallurgical testwork results and subsequent analysis it appears that the Whistler Deposit is metallurgically very amenable to a conventional flotation route to produce saleable high quality copper concentrates with gold credits, despite the low head grade, and that the levels of recovery and upgrade for both copper and gold are relatively insensitive to feed grade. There are no processing factors or deleterious elements that could have significant effect of potential economic extraction.

Although some late testwork on ore hardness revealed the ore to be harder than expected with a Bond Work Index of 19.9 kWh/t, some batch flotation work also showed that the primary grind size could be increased from 100µm to 175 µm, subject to confirmation with further locked cycle tests, with net savings in comminution power.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.8** **Overall Metallurgical Observations and Comments for the Resource Estimate** 

As noted in the history of exploration of the Whistler deposit, which expanded from an initial Cu-Au porphyry deposit centered on Whistler and expanding over time to include Raintree West and Island Mountain in the Resource tonnage, as well as additional revenue potential from Ag, each phase of metallurgical testwork had focused exclusively on the exploration objectives at the time. As a result the cumulative metallurgical understanding lags the geological understanding by a considerable margin.

The data reported in Sections 13.1 to 13.7 above are an accurate record of the testwork performed at the time, and the conclusions drawn refer to those made within the scope of the specific test program. They do not, however, provide a complete picture of overall Mineral Resource with respect to pay metal grades and recoveries for a number of reasons:

Page 141 of 191

------

● To date no mineralogical work has been performed in spite of recommendations to that effect made in each phase of metallurgical testing.

● Assumptions in the various reports regarding gold recovery have noted that while higher Au recoveries than measured could possibly be achieved by combining flotation and cyanide leaching, it was noted that the low grades, high cyanide consumption and environmental control measures could render the additional gold recovery uneconomical.

● Copper toll smelters are loath to accept copper concentrates containing less than 25% Cu without imposing higher Cu deductions on payable metal. The early Whistler testwork identified difficulties in obtaining payable Cu grades even with 3 stages of cleaning and consequently made a decision to exclude ore samples containing elevated Pb and Zn from subsequent testwork (Section 13.2.1).

● No assays of silver were performed during the test programs, with the exception of Ag grades being reported in the minor element analysis of the two concentrates produced in the 2012 testwork (Table 13-8), which were however not linked to Ag head grades and yield unreliable metallurgical accounting results.

● Flotation testwork assays covered only Au, Cu, and some Fe and S assays were performed, but Pb, Zn and Ag assays were conspicuous by their absence.

● As seen in the notes in the Resource table (Table 1-1) the overall indicated resource grades are 0.79g/t Au; 0.13% Cu and 2.19g/t Ag. Note 5 states silver recovery for Ag grades below 10g/t are estimated at 65% while no Ag recovery is allowed for Ag grades above 19g/t as the resource model indicates a strong association of high Ag values with high Pb and Zn content samples, for which no metallurgical testwork has been performed except for the single Kennecott test which returned unsatisfactory Au and Cu results in terms of concentrate grades due to Pb and Zn dilution of the copper concentrate (Section 13.2.1).

● For all the above reasons the metallurgical recommendation of 70% Au recovery, 83% Cu recovery and 65% Ag recovery of ore containing less than 10g/t Ag should be used until such time as a more comprehensive metallurgical test program is performed which provides reliable grade and recovery results on material containing Pb and Zn as well as Au, Cu, and Ag.

Page 142 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **14** | **MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE** |

---

The Mineral Resource estimate for the Whistler Project has an effective date of September 22, 2022. The resource estimate was prepared by Sue Bird, P.Eng., of MMTS.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1** **Mineral Resource Estimate** 

The Whistler Project total Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) includes the Whistler, Raintree and Island Mountain deposits and is summarized in Table 14-1 for the base case cut-off grade. Mineral Resources were estimated using the 2019 CIM Best Practice Guidelines and are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards.

The MRE utilizes pit shells to constrain resources at the Whistler, Island Mountain and Raintree West gold-copper deposits, as well as an underground potentially mineable shape to constrain the resource estimate for the deeper portion of the Raintree West deposit. The current estimate has been updated with new metal prices of US$1,600/oz gold price, US$3.25 copper and US$21/oz silver, updated recoveries, smelter terms, costs, as summarized in the notes to Table 14-1. Metal prices have been chosen based partially on market research by the Bank of Montreal (BMO, 2021a) for Au prices as quoted in numerous NI43-101 reports and for Cu and Ag (BMO, 2021b) based on mean prices from 2021 and forecast up to 2026 and for long term prices. The metal prices chosen also considered the spot prices and the three-year trailing average prices. For all three metals, the final prices used for this resource estimate are below both the spot metal price and the three-year trailing average, which is considered an industry standard in choosing prices.

Cutoff grades for open pit mining are based on Processing costs of US$10.50/tonne processed, this is the marginal cutoff for which mining costs are not included. Cutoff grades for underground mining are based on Processing costs plus an additional US$14.50/tonne for underground bulk mining , to define the marginal cutoff NSR grade. Geologic modelling has also been updated, with drilling and exploration work completed prior to 2016. No additional work has been completed on the project since this date.

For the mineral resource cutoff grade, the royalty used for the NSR calculation is 3%. This is derived from the sum of a 2.75% royalty to MF2 plus a 1% royalty to Gold Royalty Corp., with an assumption that U.S. GoldMining can negotiate a buyback of 0.75%, for a net 3% NSR, as is customary to occur for similar project developments. In preparing the resource estimate herein, a sensitivity analysis has also been conducted by the author. Based on such analysis, utilizing a higher 3.75% NSR royalty rate in determining a cut-off grade would not materially impact the estimates contained herein and would be de minimis (approx. 0.7% differential of total metal in the Whistler pit on a gold equivalent basis).

These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The Qualified Person is of the opinion that issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work. These factors may include environmental permitting, infrastructure, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant factors.

The sensitivity to the resource by deposits is presented in Table 11-2 through 11-4 for the Whistler, Raintree, and Island Mountain deposits respectively. As a point of reference, the in-situ gold, copper and silver mineralization are inventoried and reported by intended processing method.

The sensitivity to the resource by deposits is presented in Table 14-2 through 14-4 for the Whistler, Raintree and Island Mountain deposits respectively.

Page 143 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**1 Mineral Resource Estimate for the Total Whistler Project (Effective date: September 22, 2022)**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | | | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** |
| **Class**<br>| **Deposit**<br>| **Cut-off**<br>**(US$/t)** | **ROM** <br> **tonnage**<br>**(Mt)** | **NSR (US$/t)** | **AuEqv (gpt)** | **Au (gpt)** | **Cu (%)** | **Ag (gpt)** | **AuEqv (Moz)** | **Au (Moz)** | **Cu (Mlbs)** | **Ag (Moz)** |
| **Indicated** | Whistler | 10.5 | 107.77 | 26.44 | 0.79 | 0.50 | 0.17 | 1.95 | 2.74 | 1.75 | 399 | 6.76 |
|  | Raintree-Pit | 10.5 | 7.76 | 20.61 | 0.67 | 0.49 | 0.09 | 4.88 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 15 | 1.22 |
|  | **Indicated Open Pit** | 10.5 | **115.53** | **26.05** | **0.78** | **0.50** | **0.16** | **2.15** | **2.90** | **1.87** | **414** | **7.97** |
|  | Raintree-UG | US$25 shell | 2.68 | 34.02 | 1.03 | 0.79 | 0.13 | 4.18 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 8 | 0.36 |
|  | Total Indicated | varies | 118.20 | 26.23 | 0.79 | 0.51 | 0.16 | 2.19 | 2.99 | 1.94 | 422 | 8.33 |
| **Inferred** | Whistler | 10.5 | 153.54 | 19.17 | 0.57 | 0.35 | 0.13 | 1.48 | 2.83 | 1.71 | 455 | 7.31 |
|  | Island Mountain | 10.5 | 111.90 | 18.99 | 0.57 | 0.47 | 0.05 | 1.06 | 2.04 | 1.70 | 131 | 3.81 |
|  | Raintree-Pit | 10.5 | 11.77 | 24.28 | 0.77 | 0.62 | 0.07 | 4.58 | 0.29 | 0.23 | 18 | 1.73 |
|  | **Inferred Open Pit** | 10.5 | **277.21** | **19.32** | **0.58** | **0.41** | **0.10** | **1.44** | **5.16** | **3.64** | **604** | **12.85** |
|  | Raintree-UG | US$25 shell | 39.77 | 32.65 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.12 | 2.51 | 1.28 | 1.03 | 107 | 3.21 |
|  | Total Inferred | varies | 316.98 | 20.99 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.10 | 1.58 | 6.45 | 4.67 | 711 | 16.06 |

---

*Notes to Tables 14-1 through 14-4:*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*1.* *Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resources will be converted into mineral reserves.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*2.* *Resources are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards and were estimated using the 2019 CIM Best Practices Guidelines.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*3.* *The Mineral Resource for Whistler, the upper portions of the Raintree West deposits have been confined by an open pit with "reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction" using the 150% pit case and the following assumptions:* 

● *Metal prices of US$1600/oz Au, US$3.25/lb Cu and US$21/oz Ag;* 

● *Payable metal of 99% payable Au, 90% payable Ag and 1% deduction for Cu;* 

● *Offsite costs (refining, transport and insurance) of US$136/wmt proportionally distributed between Au, Ag and Cu;* 

● *Royalty of 3% NSR has been assumed;* 

● *Pit slopes are 50 degrees;* 

● *Mining cost of US$1.80/t for waste and US$2.00/t for mineralized material; and* 

● *Processing, general and administrative costs of US$10.50/t.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*4.* *The lower portion of the Raintree West deposit has been constrained by a mineable shape with "reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction" using a US$25.00/t cut-off.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*5.* *Metallurgical recoveries are: 70% for Au, 83% for Cu, and 65% Ag for Ag grades below 10g/t. The Ag recovery is 0% for values above 10g/t for all deposits.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*6.* *The NSR equations are: below 10g/t Ag: NSR (US$/t)=(100%-3%)\*((Au\*70%\*US$49.273g/t) + (Cu\*83%\*US$2.966\*2204.62 + Ag\*65%\*US$0.574)), and above 10g/t Ag: NSR (US$/t)=(100%-3%)\*((Au\*70%\*US$49.256g/t) + (Cu\*83%\*US$2.965\*2204.62)) ;* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*7.* *The Au Equivalent equations are: below 10g/t Ag: AuEq=Au + Cu\*1.5733 +0.0108Ag, and above 10g/t Ag: AuEq=Au + Cu\*1.5733* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*8.* *The specific gravity for each deposit and domain ranges from 2.76 to 2.91 for Island Mountain, 2.60 to 2.72 for Whistler with an average value of 2.80 for Raintree West.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*9.* *Numbers may not add due to rounding.* 

Page 144 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**2 Mineral Resource Estimate and Sensitivity** – **Whistler Deposit**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Class** | **Cut-off** | **ROM** <br> **tonnage** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** |
|  | **(US$/t)** | **(ktonnes)** | **NSR (US$/t)** | **AuEqv (gpt)** | **Au (gpt)** | **Cu (%)** | **Ag (gpt)** | **AuEqv (Koz)** | **Au (koz)** | **Cu (Mlbs)** | **Ag (koz)** |
|  | 9 | 118213 | 24.96 | 0.746 | 0.472 | 0.162 | 1.910 | 2836 | 1793 | 421 | 7259 |
|  | 10.5 | 107771 | 26.44 | 0.790 | 0.505 | 0.168 | 1.950 | 2738 | 1749 | 399 | 6757 |
|  | 11 | 104264 | 26.97 | 0.806 | 0.517 | 0.170 | 1.970 | 2702 | 1733 | 392 | 6604 |
| **Indicated** | 12 | 97886 | 27.97 | 0.836 | 0.540 | 0.175 | 2.000 | 2631 | 1699 | 377 | 6294 |
|  | 15 | 80978 | 31.01 | 0.927 | 0.610 | 0.187 | 2.080 | 2413 | 1589 | 334 | 5415 |
|  | 20 | 59842 | 35.85 | 1.072 | 0.726 | 0.205 | 2.170 | 2062 | 1397 | 270 | 4175 |
|  | 25 | 45799 | 39.99 | 1.195 | 0.830 | 0.217 | 2.260 | 1760 | 1222 | 219 | 3328 |
|  | 30 | 34461 | 44.13 | 1.319 | 0.936 | 0.227 | 2.330 | 1461 | 1037 | 173 | 2582 |
|  | 9 | 173001 | 18.12 | 0.541 | 0.321 | 0.130 | 1.460 | 3011 | 1787 | 496 | 8121 |
|  | 10.5 | 153536 | 19.17 | 0.573 | 0.346 | 0.135 | 1.480 | 2829 | 1706 | 455 | 7306 |
|  | 11 | 147181 | 19.54 | 0.584 | 0.354 | 0.136 | 1.480 | 2763 | 1677 | 441 | 7003 |
| **Inferred** | 12 | 133303 | 20.38 | 0.609 | 0.375 | 0.139 | 1.500 | 2610 | 1605 | 408 | 6429 |
|  | 15 | 94664 | 23.21 | 0.694 | 0.445 | 0.147 | 1.550 | 2111 | 1356 | 307 | 4717 |
|  | 20 | 51791 | 28.18 | 0.842 | 0.576 | 0.158 | 1.690 | 1403 | 959 | 180 | 2814 |
|  | 25 | 27152 | 33.59 | 1.004 | 0.719 | 0.169 | 1.830 | 876 | 627 | 101 | 1598 |
|  | 30 | 14786 | 38.91 | 1.163 | 0.860 | 0.179 | 1.990 | 553 | 409 | 58 | 946 |

---

**Table 14**-**3 Mineral Resource Estimate and Sensitivity** – **Raintree Deposit**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | | | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** |
| **Class**<br>| **Source**<br>| **Cut-off**<br>**(US$/t)** | **ROM** <br> **tonnage**<br>**(ktonnes)** | **NSR (US$/t)** | **AuEqv (gpt)** | **Au (gpt)** | **Cu (%)** | **Ag (gpt)** | **AuEqv (Koz)** | **Au (koz)** | **Cu (Mlbs)** | **Ag (koz)** |
| **Indicated** | **Open Pit** | 9 | 8629 | 19.51 | 0.632 | 0.460 | 0.083 | 4.790 | 175 | 128 | 16 | 1329 |
|  |  | 10.5 | 7756 | 20.61 | 0.666 | 0.487 | 0.087 | 4.878 | 166 | 121 | 15 | 1216 |
|  |  | 11 | 7503 | 20.95 | 0.677 | 0.496 | 0.088 | 4.919 | 163 | 120 | 15 | 1187 |
|  |  | 12 | 6991 | 21.64 | 0.699 | 0.513 | 0.091 | 4.957 | 157 | 115 | 14 | 1114 |
|  |  | 15 | 5076 | 24.68 | 0.793 | 0.591 | 0.101 | 4.998 | 129 | 96 | 11 | 816 |
|  |  | 20 | 3043 | 29.63 | 0.947 | 0.724 | 0.113 | 5.243 | 93 | 71 | 8 | 513 |
|  |  | 25 | 1736 | 35.18 | 1.126 | 0.891 | 0.120 | 5.529 | 63 | 50 | 5 | 309 |
|  |  | 30 | 929 | 42.12 | 1.343 | 1.109 | 0.120 | 5.608 | 40 | 33 | 2 | 167 |
|  | **Underground** | US$25 shell | 2675 | 34.02 | 1.034 | 0.795 | 0.130 | 4.179 | 89 | 68 | 8 | 359 |
|  | **Total** | **varies** | **10431** | **24.05** | **0.760** | **0.566** | **0.098** | **4.699** | 255 | 190 | 23 | 1576 |
| **Inferred** | **Open Pit** | 9 | 13462 | 22.46 | 0.714 | 0.572 | 0.066 | 4.454 | 309 | 247 | 20 | 1928 |
|  |  | 10.5 | 11774 | 24.28 | 0.768 | 0.620 | 0.069 | 4.576 | 291 | 235 | 18 | 1732 |
|  |  | 11 | 11171 | 25.01 | 0.789 | 0.640 | 0.070 | 4.621 | 283 | 230 | 17 | 1660 |
|  |  | 12 | 10211 | 26.29 | 0.827 | 0.674 | 0.072 | 4.615 | 271 | 221 | 16 | 1515 |
|  |  | 15 | 7130 | 31.83 | 0.990 | 0.826 | 0.079 | 4.515 | 227 | 189 | 12 | 1035 |
|  |  | 20 | 4473 | 40.53 | 1.247 | 1.072 | 0.086 | 4.605 | 179 | 154 | 8 | 662 |
|  |  | 25 | 2792 | 51.43 | 1.579 | 1.382 | 0.100 | 5.061 | 142 | 124 | 6 | 454 |
|  |  | 30 | 2100 | 59.37 | 1.821 | 1.617 | 0.103 | 5.130 | 123 | 109 | 5 | 346 |
|  | **Underground** | US$25 shell | 39772 | 32.65 | 1.004 | 0.803 | 0.123 | 2.509 | 1284 | 1027 | 107 | 3208 |
|  | **Total** | **varies** | **51546** | **30.73** | **0.950** | **0.761** | **0.110** | **2.981** | 1575 | 1262 | 125 | 4940 |

---

Page 145 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**4 Mineral Resource Estimate and Sensitivity** – **Island Mountain Deposit**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Class** | **Cut-off** | **ROM** <br> **tonnage** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Grades** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** | **In situ Metal** |
|  | **(US$/t)** | **(ktonnes)** | **NSR (US$/t)** | **AuEqv (gpt)** | **Au (gpt)** | **Cu (%)** | **Ag (gpt)** | **AuEqv (Koz)** | **Au (koz)** | **Cu (Mlbs)** | **Ag (koz)** |
| **Inferred** | 9 | 136875 | 17.30 | 0.517 | 0.43 | 0.05 | 1.00 | 2276 | 1887 | 148 | 4401 |
|  | 10.5 | 111901 | 18.99 | 0.568 | 0.47 | 0.05 | 1.06 | 2042 | 1701 | 131 | 3814 |
|  | 11 | 104617 | 19.57 | 0.585 | 0.49 | 0.05 | 1.09 | 1967 | 1639 | 126 | 3666 |
|  | 12 | 91835 | 20.69 | 0.619 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 1.14 | 1826 | 1524 | 116 | 3366 |
|  | 15 | 59801 | 24.56 | 0.734 | 0.61 | 0.07 | 1.33 | 1411 | 1177 | 90 | 2557 |
|  | 20 | 31814 | 31.13 | 0.930 | 0.78 | 0.09 | 1.61 | 952 | 794 | 61 | 1647 |
|  | 25 | 19050 | 37.12 | 1.110 | 0.93 | 0.10 | 1.85 | 680 | 570 | 43 | 1133 |
|  | 30 | 12225 | 42.58 | 1.273 | 1.08 | 0.11 | 1.95 | 500 | 425 | 29 | 766 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2** **Key Assumptions and Data used in the Estimate** 

The total Whistler Project area comprises a database of 250 drillholes totaling more than 70,000m with 182 drillholes and 53,200m of assayed length within the three deposit block models.

A summary of the drillholes within each of the Whistler Project block model areas is provided in Table 14-5.

**Table 14**-**5 Summary of Whistler Project Drillhole Data within Block Models**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Raintree** | **Raintree** | **Raintree** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** | **Total Resource Areas** | **Total Resource Areas** | **Total Resource Areas** |
| <br>**Operator** | **Year** | **No.** <br> **Holes** | **Length** <br> **(m)** | **Assayed Length** <br> **(m)** | **No.** <br> **Holes** | **Length** <br> **(m)** | **Assayed Length** <br> **(m)** | **No.** <br> **Holes** | **Length** <br> **(m)** | **Assayed Length** <br> **(m)** | **No.** <br> **Holes** | **Length** <br> **(m)** | **Assayed Length** <br> **(m)** |
| Cominco | 1986-1989 | 16 | 1677 | 1566 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 16 | 1677 | 1566 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Kennecott | 2004 | 5 | 1997 | 1865 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 5 | 1997 | 1865 |
|  | 2005 | 9 | 5251 | 5061 | 1 | 213 | 208 |  |  |  | 10 | 5464 | 5269 |
|  | 2006 | 1 | 705 | 696 | 4 | 1115 | 845 |  |  |  | 5 | 1821 | 1540 |
|  | All Kennecott | 15 | 7953 | 7621 | 5 | 1328 | 1053 |  |  |  | 20 | 9281 | 8674 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Geoinformatics | 2007 | 7 | 3321 | 3243 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 7 | 3321 | 3243 |
|  | 2008 | 6 | 2707 | 2660 | 2 | 622 | 615 |  |  |  | 8 | 3329 | 3275 |
|  | All Geo. | 13 | 6027 | 5902 | 2 | 622 | 615 |  |  |  | 15 | 6649 | 6517 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Kiska | 2009 | 1 | 228 | 214 | 1 | 479 | 479 | 1 | 387 | 387 | 3 | 1094 | 1080 |
|  | 2010 | 7 | 5247 | 4500 | 8 | 3255 | 3164 | 11 | 4991 | 4956 | 26 | 13493 | 12621 |
|  | 2011 |  |  |  | 78 | 14795 | 13799 | 24 | 9032 | 8943 | 102 | 23827 | 22742 |
|  | All Kiska | 8 | 5475 | 4715 | 87 | 18529 | 17442 | 36 | 14410 | 14287 | 131 | 38413 | 36444 |
| **Total** | **Total** | **52** | **21132** | **19804** | **94** | **20479** | **19110** | **36** | **14410** | **14287** | **182** | **56021** | **53200** |

---

Page 146 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3** **Geologic Modelling** 

Three-dimensional wireframe solids based on geology have been used to constrain the grade interpolations.

At Whistler, a three dimensional solid of the diorite intrusion has been created based on the logged geology. The geology has also been used to define the Divide Fault as a major fault through the center of the deposit, dividing it into two domains. Dykes have not been modelled explicitly because they are too thin both to model and to separate when mining. Therefore, the un-mineralized assays within the solids have been included in the interpolations. A three dimensional view looking northeast of the Whistler domains is illustrated in Figure 14-1, also showing the resource pit.

Figure 14-2 illustrates the mineralized domain for Raintree, looking northeast and also plotting the resource pit and underground mineralized shape.

Figure 14-3 illustrates the domains for Island Mountain. There are six sub-vertical domains (plotted in shades of blue) that are based on lithology as various mineralized dykes. These were combined into one domain for the interpolations. Two domains surrounding the central core at a nominal cut-off of 0.1 gpt and 0.3 gpt AuEqv are used to confine the interpolation outside of the dyke boundaries (plotted in yellows). The outline of the resource pit on surface is also plotted for reference.

![w082.jpg](w082.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**1 Domains** – **Whistler Deposit** 

Page 147 of 191

------

![w083.jpg](w083.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**2 Domains Modeled for Raintree Deposit**![w084.jpg](w084.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**3 Domains Modelled for Island Mountain** 

Page 148 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.4** **Capping** 

Cumulative probability plots (CPP) are used to define capping values and potential outlier restrictions during interpolations. Figure 14-4 and Figure 14-5 show the CPP plots for Au and Cu respectively for Whistler. Figure 14-6 and Figure 14-7 show the CPP plots for Au and Cu respectively for Raintree and Figure 14-8 and Figure 14-9 are the CPPs for Island Mountain for Au and Cu respectively.

![w085.jpg](w085.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**4 CPP of Au Assay Data by Domain - Whistler (Source: MMTS, 2021)**

![w086.jpg](w086.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**5 CPP of Cu Assay Data by Domain** – **Whistler** 

Page 149 of 191

------

![w087.jpg](w087.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**6 CPP of Au Assay Data by Domain** – **Raintree**![w088.jpg](w088.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**7 CPP of Cu Assay Data by Domain** – **Raintree** 

Page 150 of 191

------

![w089.jpg](w089.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**8 CPP of Au Assay Data by Domain** – **Island Mountain**![w090.jpg](w090.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**9 CPP of Cu Assay Data by Domain** – **Island Mountain** 

Capping and Outlier values are summarized in Table 14-6 below. Values above the capping value are equal to the capping value in the assay file prior to compositing. Composite values above the Outlier value are restricted during interpolations to the Outlier value for distance greater than 5m from the composite interval.

Page 151 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**6 Summary of Capping and Outlier Restriction Values**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **ITEM** | **AREA** | **Domain** | **Domain** | **CAP** | **Outlier** |
|  |  | **From** | **To** |  |  |
|  | Whistler | 1 | 1 | 4 | na |
|  |  | 2 | 2 | 2 | na |
|  | Raintree | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 |
| Au (gpt) | Island Mountain | 1 | 6 | 10 | 5 |
|  |  | 7 | 7 | 10 | 5 |
|  |  | 8 | 8 | 3 | 5 |
|  | Whistler | 1 | 1 | 1 | na |
|  |  | 2 | 2 | 1 | na |
|  | Raintree | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0.6 |
| Cu (%) | Island Mountain | 1 | 6 | 1 | na |
|  |  | 7 | 7 | 0.6 | na |
|  |  | 8 | 8 | 0.3 | na |
|  | Whistler | 1 | 1 | 100 | 25 |
|  |  | 2 | 2 | 100 | 30 |
|  | Raintree | 1 | 1 | 100 | 80 |
| Ag (gpt) | Island Mountain | 1 | 6 | 30 | 12 |
|  |  | 7 | 7 | 20 | 7 |
|  |  | 8 | 8 | 20 | 7 |

---

The capped assay and composite statistics of each domain are summarized in the Table 14-7 through Table 14-9 for Au, Cu and Ag respectively. These table illustrate that no significant bias has been introduced during the compositing process. They also indicate that the distributions have low CV confirming the choice of linear interpolation methods are appropriate.

**Table 14**-**7 Capped Assay and Composite Statistics by Domain - Au**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Source** | **Parameters** | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Raintree** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** |
|  |  | **1** | **2** | **5** | **1-6** | **7** | **8** |
|  | Num Samples | 5393 | 3743 | 2731 | 1795 | 1999 | 767 |
|  | Num Missing | 14 | 21 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 1 |
|  | Min (gpt) | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| **Assays** | Max (gpt) | 10.667 | 4.530 | 14.150 | 10.000 | 10.000 | 2.660 |
|  | Wtd mean (gpt) | 0.374 | 0.212 | 0.260 | 0.452 | 0.253 | 0.122 |
|  | Wtd CV | 1.778 | 1.250 | 2.067 | 1.746 | 2.187 | 1.899 |
|  | Num Samples | 1952 | 1376 | 1305 | 841 | 917 | 411 |
|  | Num Missing | 3 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|  | Min (gpt) | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| **Composites** | Max (gpt) | 6.075 | 2.097 | 6.068 | 6.412 | 4.626 | 1.167 |
|  | Wtd mean (gpt) | 0.374 | 0.212 | 0.260 | 0.452 | 0.253 | 0.122 |
|  | Wtd CV | 1.578 | 1.088 | 1.562 | 1.447 | 1.570 | 1.409 |
| **Difference in Wtd. Means (%)** | **Difference in Wtd. Means (%)** | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |

---

Page 152 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**8 Capped Assay and Composite Statistics by Domain - Cu**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Source** | **Parameters** | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Raintree** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** |
|  |  | **1** | **2** | **5** | **1-6** | **7** | **8** |
|  | Num Samples | 5390 | 3741 | 2731 | 1795 | 1999 | 767 |
|  | Num Missing | 17 | 23 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 1 |
|  | Min (gpt) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| **Assays** | Max (gpt) | 2.590 | 1.305 | 0.786 | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.288 |
|  | Wtd mean (gpt) | 0.129 | 0.112 | 0.037 | 0.083 | 0.032 | 0.030 |
|  | Wtd CV | 1.185 | 0.953 | 1.623 | 1.271 | 1.160 | 0.912 |
|  | Num Samples | 1952 | 1376 | 1305 | 841 | 917 | 411 |
|  | Num Missing | 3 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|  | Min (gpt) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| **Composites** | Max (gpt) | 1.233 | 1.051 | 0.317 | 0.654 | 0.397 | 0.223 |
|  | Wtd mean (gpt) | 0.129 | 0.112 | 0.037 | 0.083 | 0.032 | 0.030 |
|  | Wtd CV | 1.041 | 0.835 | 1.489 | 1.124 | 0.998 | 0.826 |
| **Difference in Wtd. Means (%)** | **Difference in Wtd. Means (%)** | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |

---

**Table 14**-**9 Capped Assay and Composite Statistics by Domain** – **Ag**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Source** | **Parameters** | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Raintree** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** |
|  |  | **1** | **2** | **5** | **1-6** | **7** | **8** |
|  | Num Samples | 5393 | 3743 | 2731 | 1795 | 1999 | 767 |
|  | Num Missing | 14 | 21 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 1 |
|  | Min (gpt) | 0.000 | 0.050 | 0.250 | 0.250 | 0.250 | 0.250 |
| **Assays** | Max (gpt) | 151.800 | 186.000 | 200.000 | 30.000 | 20.000 | 14.700 |
|  | Wtd mean (gpt) | 1.730 | 1.568 | 3.305 | 1.649 | 0.709 | 0.627 |
|  | Wtd CV | 2.142 | 3.043 | 2.337 | 1.339 | 1.556 | 1.420 |
|  | Num Samples | 1952 | 1376 | 1305 | 841 | 917 | 411 |
|  | Num Missing | 3 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|  | Min (gpt) | 0.050 | 0.050 | 0.250 | 0.250 | 0.250 | 0.250 |
| **Composites** | Max (gpt) | 53.709 | 76.534 | 83.468 | 11.180 | 5.198 | 3.812 |
|  | Wtd mean (gpt) | 1.730 | 1.568 | 3.305 | 1.616 | 0.684 | 0.602 |
|  | Wtd CV | 1.450 | 1.958 | 1.680 | 1.028 | 0.965 | 0.868 |
| **Difference in Wtd. Means (%)** | **Difference in Wtd. Means (%)** | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | -2.1% | -3.7% | -4.3% |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.5** **Compositing** 

Compositing of Au, Ag and Cu grades have been done as 5m fixed length composites. Small intervals less than 2.5m are merged with the up hole composite if the composite length is less than 5m. The length of 5m is chosen to be half the size of the block height, and longer than the majority of assay lengths, as illustrated in Figure 14-10. Domain boundaries are honored during compositing.

Page 153 of 191

------

![w091.jpg](w091.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**10 Assay Lengths**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.6** **Variography** 

Correlograms have been created for each domain each deposit. A summary of the spherical correlogram parameters is given in Table 14-10 through Table 14-12 for Whistler, Raintree, and Island Mountain respectively.

Page 154 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**10 Variogram Parameters - Whistler**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Domain** | **Rotation** <br> **(GSLIB-MS)** | **Rotation** <br> **(GSLIB-MS)** | **Axis** | **Total** <br> **Range** <br> **(m)** | **Nugget** | **Sill1** | **Sill2** | **Sill3** | **Range 1 (m)** | **Range 2 (m)** | **Range 3 (m)** |
|  | **1** | ROT | 180 | Major | 350 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 40 | 260 | 350 |
|  |  | DIPN | -80 | Minor | 120 |  |  |  |  | 15 | 80 | 120 |
| **CU** |  | DIPE | -40 | Vert | 80 |  |  |  |  | 10 | 40 | 80 |
|  | **2** | ROT | 180 | Major | 220 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.15 | 0.4 | 15 | 70 | 220 |
|  |  | DIPN | -80 | Minor | 120 |  |  |  |  | 15 | 50 | 120 |
|  |  | DIPE | -40 | Vert | 120 |  |  |  |  | 15 | 70 | 120 |
|  | **1** | ROT | 180 | Major | 350 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 40 | 160 | 350 |
|  |  | DIPN | -80 | Minor | 250 |  |  |  |  | 25 | 45 | 250 |
| **AU** |  | DIPE | -40 | Vert | 80 |  |  |  |  | 25 | 50 | 80 |
|  | **2** | ROT | 180 | Major | 210 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.15 | 0.4 | 15 | 50 | 210 |
|  |  | DIPN | -80 | Minor | 120 |  |  |  |  | 10 | 45 | 120 |
|  |  | DIPE | -40 | Vert | 150 |  |  |  |  | 35 | 60 | 150 |
|  | **1** | ROT | 180 | Major | 180 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 |  | 50 | 180 |  |
|  |  | DIPN | -80 | Minor | 120 |  |  |  |  | 30 | 120 |  |
| **AG** |  | DIPE | -40 | Vert | 90 |  |  |  |  | 15 | 90 |  |
|  | **2** | ROT | 180 | Major | 150 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.1 |  | 20 | 150 |  |
|  |  | DIPN | -80 | Minor | 60 |  |  |  |  | 10 | 60 |  |
|  |  | DIPE | -40 | Vert | 180 |  |  |  |  | 70 | 180 |  |

---

**Table 14**-**11 Variogram Parameters - Raintree**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Domain** | **Rotation** <br> **(GSLIB-MS)** | **Rotation** <br> **(GSLIB-MS)** | **Axis** | **Total** <br> **Range** <br> **(m)** | **Nugget** | **Sill1** | **Sill2** | **Sill3** | **Range 1 (m)** | **Range 2 (m)** | **Range 3 (m)** |
|  | **5** | ROT | 90 | Major | 500 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 200 | 300 | 500 |
| **CU** |  | DIPN | 55 | Minor | 350 |  |  |  |  | 40 | 200 | 350 |
|  |  | DIPE | 0 | Vert | 300 |  |  |  |  | 80 | 200 | 300 |
|  | **5** | ROT | 90 | Major | 500 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 50 | 250 | 500 |
| **AU** |  | DIPN | 55 | Minor | 350 |  |  |  |  | 30 | 150 | 350 |
|  |  | DIPE | 0 | Vert | 150 |  |  |  |  | 20 | 80 | 150 |
|  | **5** | ROT | 90 | Major | 140 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 |  | 20 | 140 |  |
| **AG** |  | DIPN | 55 | Minor | 120 |  |  |  |  | 15 | 120 |  |
|  |  | DIPE | 0 | Vert | 120 |  |  |  |  | 15 | 120 |  |

---

Page 155 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**12 Variogram Parameters** – **Island Mountain**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Domain** | **Rotation** <br> **(GSLIB-MS)** | **Rotation** <br> **(GSLIB-MS)** | **Axis** | **Total** <br> **Range** <br> **(m)** | **Nugget** | **Sill1** | **Sill2** | **Sill3** | **Range 1 (m)** | **Range 2 (m)** | **Range 3 (m)** |
| **CU** | **1-6** | ROT | 0 | Major | 300 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 40 | 150 | 300 |
|  |  | DIPN | -90 | Minor | 150 |  |  |  |  | 60 | 100 | 150 |
|  |  | DIPE | 0 | Vert | 120 |  |  |  |  | 20 | 80 | 120 |
|  | **78** | ROT | 25 | Major | 150 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50 | 80 | 150 |
|  |  | DIPN | 0 | Minor | 150 |  |  |  |  | 30 | 80 | 150 |
|  |  | DIPE | -20 | Vert | 120 |  |  |  |  | 30 | 35 | 120 |
| **AU** | **1-6** | ROT | 0 | Major | 200 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 50 | 140 | 200 |
|  |  | DIPN | -90 | Minor | 150 |  |  |  |  | 50 | 80 | 150 |
|  |  | DIPE | 0 | Vert | 100 |  |  |  |  | 20 | 50 | 100 |
|  | **78** | ROT | 25 | Major | 100 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 50 | 80 | 100 |
|  |  | DIPN | 0 | Minor | 150 |  |  |  |  | 40 | 90 | 150 |
|  |  | DIPE | -20 | Vert | 100 |  |  |  |  | 15 | 70 | 100 |
| **AG** | **1-6** | ROT | 0 | Major | 150 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |  | 30 | 150 |  |
|  |  | DIPN | -90 | Minor | 100 |  |  |  |  | 20 | 100 |  |
|  |  | DIPE | 0 | Vert | 100 |  |  |  |  | 20 | 100 |  |
|  | **78** | ROT | 25 | Major | 150 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.3 |  | 50 | 150 |  |
|  |  | DIPN | 0 | Minor | 160 |  |  |  |  | 30 | 160 |  |
|  |  | DIPE | -20 | Vert | 75 |  |  |  |  | 15 | 75 |  |

---

An example of the Variogram Model for Cu in Domain 1 in the major and minor axes directions is illustrated in Figure 14-11 for Cu and Figure 14-12 for Au in the whistler deposit. Figure 14-13 is the variograms for Cu at Raintree in Domain 5. And Figure 14-14 illustrates the variogram for Island Mountain for the major and minor axes for Au.

Page 156 of 191

------

![w092.jpg](w092.jpg)

![w093.jpg](w093.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**11 Variogram Model for Cu in Domain 1** – **Major and Minor Axes** – **Whistler Deposit** 

Page 157 of 191

------

![w094.jpg](w094.jpg)

![w095.jpg](w095.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**12 Variogram Model for Au in Domain 1** – **Major and Minor Axes** – **Whistler Deposit** 

Page 158 of 191

------

![w096.jpg](w096.jpg)

![w097.jpg](w097.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**13 Variogram Model for Cu in Domain 5** – **Major and Minor Axes** – **Raintree Deposit** 

Page 159 of 191

------

![w098.jpg](w098.jpg)

![w099.jpg](w099.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**14 Variogram Model for Au in Domains 1-6** – **Major and Minor Axes** – **Island Mountain Deposit** 

Page 160 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.7** **Block Model Interpolations** 

The block model limits and block size for each deposit are as given in Table 14-13.

**Table 14**-**13 Block Model Limits**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Direction** | **From** | **To** | **Block size** | **# Blocks** |
| **Whistler** | East | 517200 | 519860 | 20 | 133 |
|  | North | 6870000 | 6873000 | 20 | 150 |
|  | Elevation | -50 | 1280 | 10 | 133 |
| **Raintree West** | East | 519700 | 521100 | 10 | 140 |
|  | North | 6871000 | 6872000 | 10 | 100 |
|  | Elevation | -260 | 730 | 10 | 99 |
| **Island Mountain** | East | 511500 | 513600 | 10 | 210 |
|  | North | 6847000 | 6848400 | 10 | 140 |
|  | Elevation | 490 | 1470 | 10 | 98 |

---

Interpolation of Au, Cu and Ag values is done by ordinary kriging (OK) in four passes based on the variogram parameters. Interpolations used hard boundaries, with composites and block codes required to match within each domain. Search parameters are summarized in Table 14-14 through Table 14-16 below.

**Table 14**-**14 Search Rotation and Distances** – **Whistler**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Domain** | **Rot** | **Dist1** | **Dist 2** | **Dist3** | **Dist4** |
| **CU** | **1** | 180 | 40 | 80 | 160 | 350 |
|  |  | -80 | 15 | 30 | 60 | 120 |
|  |  | -40 | 10 | 20 | 40 | 80 |
|  | **2** | 180 | 15 | 30 | 60 | 220 |
|  |  | -80 | 15 | 30 | 60 | 120 |
|  |  | -40 | 15 | 30 | 60 | 120 |
| **AU** | **1** | 180 | 40 | 80 | 160 | 350 |
|  |  | -80 | 25 | 50 | 100 | 250 |
|  |  | -40 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 |
|  | **2** | 180 | 53 | 70 | 105 | 210 |
|  |  | -80 | 30 | 40 | 60 | 120 |
|  |  | -40 | 38 | 50 | 75 | 150 |
| **AG** | **1** | 180 | 45 | 90 | 135 | 180 |
|  |  | -80 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 |
|  |  | -40 | 15 | 30 | 60 | 90 |
|  | **2** | 180 | 38 | 50 | 75 | 150 |
|  |  | -80 | 15 | 20 | 30 | 60 |
|  |  | -40 | 45 | 60 | 90 | 180 |

---

Page 161 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**15 Search Rotation and Distances** – **Raintree**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Domain** | **Rot** | **Dist1** | **Dist 2** | **Dist3** | **Dist4** |
| **CU** | **1** | 90 | 125 | 250 | 375 | 500 |
|  |  | 55 | 88 | 175 | 263 | 350 |
|  |  | 0 | 75 | 150 | 225 | 300 |
| **AU** | **1** | 90 | 125 | 250 | 375 | 500 |
|  |  | 55 | 88 | 175 | 263 | 350 |
|  |  | 0 | 38 | 75 | 113 | 150 |
| **AG** | **1** | 90 | 35 | 70 | 105 | 140 |
|  |  | 55 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 |
|  |  | 0 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 |

---

**Table 14**-**16 Search Rotation and Distances** – **Island Mountain**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Element** | **Domain** | **Rot** | **Dist1** | **Dist 2** | **Dist3** | **Dist4** |
| **CU** | **1-6** | 0 | 40 | 80 | 160 | 300 |
|  |  | -90 | 37.5 | 75 | 112.5 | 150 |
|  |  | 0 | 20 | 40 | 80 | 120 |
|  | **78** | 25 | 37.5 | 75 | 112.5 | 150 |
|  |  | 0 | 30 | 60 | 112.5 | 150 |
|  |  | -20 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 |
| **AU** | **1-6** | 0 | 50 | 100 | 150 | 200 |
|  |  | -90 | 37.5 | 75 | 112.5 | 150 |
|  |  | 0 | 20 | 40 | 75 | 100 |
|  | **78** | 25 | 25 | 50 | 75 | 100 |
|  |  | 0 | 37.5 | 75 | 112.5 | 150 |
|  |  | -20 | 15 | 30 | 60 | 100 |
| **AG** | **1-6** | 0 | 30 | 60 | 112.5 | 150 |
|  |  | -90 | 20 | 40 | 75 | 100 |
|  |  | 0 | 20 | 40 | 75 | 100 |
|  | **78** | 25 | 37.5 | 75 | 112.5 | 150 |
|  |  | 0 | 30 | 60 | 120 | 160 |
|  |  | -20 | 15 | 30 | 56.25 | 75 |

---

Additional search criteria on composite selection are summarized in Table 14-17. Search criteria are used to ensure that more than one drillhole is used for all passes, and more than one quadrant is used for the first three passes, as well as to limit smoothing of grade by limiting the maximum number of composites to be used.

Page 162 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**17 Additional Search Criteria**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Criteria** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 4** |
| Minimum # composites | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Maximum # Composites | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| Maximum / drillhole | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum / quadrant | 2 | 2 | 2 | na |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.8** **Classification** 

Classification is based on the variogram parameters, with the required average distance to the nearest two drillholes required to be less than the distance of the range at 80% of the sill (R80 value) for each domain as summarized in Table 14-18.

**Table 14**-**18 Classification Criteria**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Whistler** | **Whistler** | **Raintree** | **Raintree** | **Island Mountain** | **Island Mountain** |
| **Domain** | 1 | 2 | 5 | 99 | 1-6 | 7-8 |
| **Average Distance to 2 DHs** | 150 | 80 | 100 | 100 | 80 | 80 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.9** **Block Model Validation** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.9.1** **Comparison of Tonnage and Grades** 

Interpolations have also been completed using a Nearest neighbour method in order to essentially de-cluster the composite data for grade comparisons with the modelled grades. Table 14-19 gives a summary of the mean grades for de-clustered composites (NN interpolation), and OK grades at a 0.1% Cu cut-off. Table 14-20 gives a summary of the mean grades for de-clustered composites (NN interpolation), and OK grades at a 0.1% Cu cut-off. The tonnage, grade and metal content is variable but conservative compared to the un-capped de-clustered composites.

This comparison is illustrated more succinctly in the plots of tonnage-grade curves. Cut-off grade plots (tonnage-grade curves) are constructed for each metal to check the validity of the modelling. The NN values for Au and Cu are plotted and compared to the modelled OK values for the Whistler deposit in Figure 14-15 and Figure 14-16. For Raintree, the tonnage-grade curves for Au and Cu are presented in Figures 14-17 and 14-18. And for Island Mountain the tonnage grade curves are presented in Figure 14-19 and 14-20. The curves for Whistler and Island Mountain are within the Resource confining pit shape. For Raintree, all blocks within modelled domains are plotted due to the underground component of the resource. In each case, the distributions shows good correlation, and thus the change of support are valid.

Page 163 of 191

------

**Table 14**-**19 Comparison of De-clustered Composite and OK Modelled Grades for Cu**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | | **Modelled OK** | **Modelled OK** | **Modelled OK** | **De-clustered composites (NN)** | **De-clustered composites (NN)** | **De-clustered composites (NN)** | |
| **Cut-off**<br>**Cu (%)** | **Class**<br>| **Deposit**<br>| **ROM**<br>**Tonnage (kt)** | **Grade**<br>**Cu (%)** | **Metal**<br>**(Mlbs)** | **ROM**<br>**Tonnage (kt)** | **Grade**<br>**Cu (%)** | **Metal**<br>**(Mlbs)** | **Difference**<br>**(%)** |
| 0.1 | **Indicated** | Whistler | 97294 | 0.181 | 388.7 | 87601 | 0.2057 | 397.3 | -2.2% |
|  |  | Raintree | 2310 | 0.134 | 6.8 | 3653 | 0.1413 | 11.4 | -66.8% |
|  | **Inferred** | Whistler | 137697 | 0.146 | 442.0 | 112648 | 0.1825 | 453.2 | -2.5% |
|  |  | Raintree | 1669 | 0.138 | 5.1 | 1296 | 0.1887 | 5.4 | -6.0% |
|  |  | Island Mtn. | 15558 | 0.153 | 52.4 | 15994 | 0.1866 | 65.8 | -25.5% |

---

**Table 14**-**20 Comparison of De-clustered Composite and OK Modelled Grades for Au**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | | **Modelled OK** | **Modelled OK** | **Modelled OK** | **De-clustered composites (NN)** | **De-clustered composites (NN)** | **De-clustered composites (NN)** | |
| **Cut-off**<br>**Au (gpt)** | **Class**<br>| **Deposit**<br>| **ROM**<br>**Tonnage (kt)** | **Grade**<br>**Au (gpt)** | **Metal**<br>**(Moz)** | **ROM**<br>**Tonnage (kt)** | **Grade**<br>**Au (gpt)** | **Metal**<br>**(Moz)** | **Difference**<br>**(%)** |
| 0.1 | **Indicated** | Whistler | 121389 | 0.465 | 1814.8 | 103550 | 0.5374 | 1789.1 | 1.4% |
|  |  | Raintree | 9279 | 0.459 | 136.8 | 11293 | 0.3856 | 140.0 | -2.3% |
|  | **Inferred** | Whistler | 234991 | 0.160 | 830.5 | 200249 | 0.1926 | 850.3 | -2.4% |
|  |  | Raintree | 16013 | 0.514 | 264.6 | 20990 | 0.4211 | 284.2 | -7.4% |
|  |  | Island Mtn. | 209394 | 0.334 | 2247.2 | 157142 | 0.4727 | 2388.2 | -6.3% |

---

![w100.jpg](w100.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**15 Tonnage-Grade Curves for Au** – **Comparison of Interpolation Methods** – **Whistler** 

Page 164 of 191

------

![w101.jpg](w101.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**16 Tonnage-Grade Curves for Cu** – **Comparison of Interpolation Methods - Whistler**![w102.jpg](w102.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**17 Tonnage-Grade Curves for Au** – **Comparison of Interpolation Methods** – **Raintree** 

Page 165 of 191

------

![w103.jpg](w103.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**18 Tonnage-Grade Curves for Cu** – **Comparison of Interpolation Methods - Raintree**![w104.jpg](w104.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**19 Tonnage-Grade Curves for Au** – **Comparison of Interpolation Methods** – **Island Mountain** 

Page 166 of 191

------

![w105.jpg](w105.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**20 Tonnage-Grade Curves for Cu** – **Comparison of Interpolation Methods - Island Mountain** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.10** **Visual Validation** 

A series of E-W, N-S sections (every 20m) and plans (every 10m) have been used to inspect the ordinary kriging (OK) block model grades with the original assay data. Figure 14-21 and Figure 14-22 give examples of this comparison at Whistler for the E-W section at 6871330N, for Au and Cu grades respectively. Figure 14-23 and Figure 14-24 illustrate the grade comparisons at Raintree through the center of the deposit with looking SW at an azimuth of 135 degrees. Figure 14-25 and Figure 14-26 are plots of the Au and Cu grades respectively for Island Mountain through the center of the deposit at 6847740N.

Plots throughout the model confirmed that the block model grades corresponded well with the assayed grades.

Page 167 of 191

------

![w106.jpg](w106.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**21 E-W Section Comparing Au Grades for Block Model and Assay Data - Whistler** 

Page 168 of 191

------

![w107.jpg](w107.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**22 E-W Section Comparing Cu Grades for Block Model and Assay Data - Whistler** 

Page 169 of 191

------

![w108.jpg](w108.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**23 Section Looking SW - Comparing Au Grades for Block Model and Assay Data** – **Raintree** 

Page 170 of 191

------

![w109.jpg](w109.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**24 Section Looking SW - Comparing Cu Grades for Block Model and Assay Data** – **Raintree** 

Page 171 of 191

------

![w110.jpg](w110.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**25 E-W Section Comparing Cu Grades for Block Model and Assay Data** – **Island Mountain** 

Page 172 of 191

------

![w111.jpg](w111.jpg)

**Figure 14**-**26 E-W Section Comparing Cu Grades for Block Model and Assay Data** – **Island Mountain** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.11** **Reasonable Prospects of Eventual Economic Extraction** 

As defined by NI43-101, the resource confining pit and/or underground shapes defines a boundary for continuous mineralization with suitable grades and with a reasonable expectation that an engineered plan will produce an economic plan. The required assumptions to produce a Lerchs-Grossman (LG) pit shell using MineSight®, are summarized below.

Page 173 of 191

------

Process recoveries are based on preliminary metallurgical studies. The recoveries used to determine the Net Smelter Return (NSR) and economic inputs are summarized in Table 14-21.

**Table 14**-**21 Economic Inputs and Metallurgical Recoveries**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | **Value** | **Units** |
| Gold Price | $1600.00 | US$/Oz |
| Cu Price | $3.25 | US$/lbs |
| Silver Price | $21.00 | US$/Oz |
| Gold Payable | 99.00% | % |
| Cu payable | 99.0% | % |
| Silver Payable | 90.0% | % |
| Gold Refining | 8.00 | US$/oz |
| Cu Refining + PP | 0.05 | US$/lbs |
| Silver Refining | 0.60 | US$/oz |
| Gold Offsites | 97.41 | US$/wmt |
| Cu Offsite | 36.943 | US$/wmt |
| Silver Offsites | 1.65 | US$/wmt |
| Royalty | 3.0% | % |
| Net Smelter Gold Price | $49.27 | US$/g |
| Net Smelter Cu | $2.97 | US$/lb |
| Net Smelter Silver Price | $0.57 | US$/g |
| Gold Process Recovery | 70% | % |
| Cu Process Recovery | 83% | % |
| Silver Process recovery – above 10 gpt Ag | 0% | % |
| Silver Process recovery – below 10 gpt Ag | 65% | % |

---

*\*Indicated and Inferred resources are used for pit optimization.*

*\*Pit slope angle is considered constant at 45 degrees for all cases.* 

The pit delineated resource is given in Table 14-2 through Table 14-4 for each deposit and for a range of NSR cut-offs with the base case cut-off of US$10.50/tonne highlighted. Process recoveries, as well as mining, processing and offsite costs have been applied in order to determine that the pit resource has a reasonable prospect of economic extraction. The US$10.50/tonne cut-off (an Au Equivalent grade of approximately 0.31 gpt at the base case prices) yields an Indicated resource of 118.2 Mt at 0.51 gpt gold, 0.16% copper and 2.19 gpt silver (2.99Moz AuEqv.) and an Inferred resource of 317.0 Mt at 0.46 gpt gold, 0.10% copper and 1.58 gpt silver (6.45Moz AuEqv).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.12** **Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate** 

Areas of uncertainty that may materially impact the Mineral Resource estimate include:

● Commodity price assumptions

● Metal recovery assumptions

● Mining and processing cost assumptions

Page 174 of 191

------

There are no other known factors or issues known to the QP that materially affect the estimate other than normal risks faced by mining projects in the province in terms of environmental, permitting, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, and political factors.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.13** **Risk Assessment** 

A description of potential risk factors is given in Table 14-22 along with either the justification for the approach taken or mitigating factors in place to reduce any risk.

**Table 14**-**22 List of Risks and Mitigations/Justifications**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **#** | **Description** | **Justification/Mitigation** |
| **1** | Classification Criteria | Classification based on the Range of the Variogram and therefore the variability of the mineralization within each deposit. |
| **2** | Gold and silver Price Assumptions | Based on three year trailing average (Kitco, 2021) |
| **3** | Capping | CPP, swath plots and grade-tonnage curves show model validates well with composite data throughout the grade distribution. |
| **4** | Processing and Mining Costs | Based on comparable projects in Alaska. |

---

Page 175 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **15** | **MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES** |

---

There are no reserve estimates at this time.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **16** | **MINING METHOD** |

---

Open pit mining is being considered for the project, though no details have been developed at this time.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **17** | **RECOVERY METHODS** |

---

Based on the metallurgical testwork performed to date, current indications are that Au, Cu, and Ag would be recovered by milling to an appropriate particle grind size followed by froth flotation to produce a single copper sulphide concentrate containing the majority of the free gold and silver.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.1** **Process Design Parameters** 

Based on the results of the metallurgical testwork summarized in Section 13, the relevant metallurgical parameters and design criteria for the processing flowsheet and plant equipment are shown in Table 17-1, for a plant throughput of 11 Mtpa.

The important parameters related to comminution power are summarized in Table 17-2, where the effects of the potentially coarser grind size are evident.

**Table 17**-**1 Metallurgical Parameters and Design Criteria**

![w112.jpg](w112.jpg)

Page 176 of 191

------

**Table 17**-**2 Comminution Power**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Original** | **Original** | **Original** | **Revised** | **Revised** | **Revised** |
|  | **SAG** | **Ball** | **Regrind** | **SAG** | **Ball** | **Regrind** |
| **kW** | 12,682 | 19,973 | 4,237 | 13,643 | 13,816 | 5,271 |
| **HP** | 17,000 | 26,774 | 5,679 | 18,288 | 18,520 | 7,065 |

---

The main impact of the revised BWI parameters and considering a coarser grind is on ball mill power, 6 MW less, with a small increase in both SAG and regrind power amounting to 2 MW.

The other significant impact from a design point of view is that, whereas formerly the ball mill size was beyond what is currently possible with one mill therefore requiring two with additional circuit complexity, the revised parameters put the ball mill sizing comfortably within what is currently available as a single mill.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.2** **Proposed Process Flowsheet and Process Description** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.2.1** **Overall Flowsheet** 

The testwork results have shown that the Whistler ore is metallurgically very amenable, despite low head grades, and that saleable, high quality copper concentrates with acceptable recoveries of both copper and gold can be achieved with a conventional flowsheet comprising single stage crushing, a SAG, ball mill and pebble crushing (SABC) grinding circuit followed by rougher flotation, regrinding of rougher concentrate and finally two stages of cleaning.

The levels of recovery and upgrade for both copper and gold are relatively insensitive to feed grade, which is a very positive result of significance for a project like Whistler, where low head grades are often perceived as an obstacle to successful extraction.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.2.2** **Crushing** 

Detailed crushing circuit design has not been carried out, this not being critical to the crucial element of power consumption, and being in any case a very standard part of the flowsheet. However based on industry comparable, it is reasonable to assume that, for the throughput envisaged of 11 Mtpa, an 89" x 60" gyratory crusher with associated ancillary feeders and conveyors would be appropriate. This size selection recognizes the hardness of the Whistler ore (no crushing index data but assuming that the high BWI figure is an indicator of general hardness for comminution purposes).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.2.3** **Primary Grinding** 

The original grinding circuit design was based on the Island Mountain BWI data and a primary grind size of 100 µm. The power requirements were determined by simple Bond formulae, assuming a Rod Mill Work Index RWI (for SAG sizing) of 20% greater than the BWI (a common industry assumption for a hard competent ore), and allowing a SAG "inefficiency factor" of 1.25 (again a common industry assumption). A 20% allowance was made for losses and design margin.

The QP considers that this approach to be adequate and appropriately conservative for early studies, although SAG-specific test data like JK drop weight tests or SMC tests would have been preferred and are essential for more definitive design at the next phase of study, as already mentioned.

The grinding power requirements have been tabulated in Table 17-2.

Page 177 of 191

------

The original design consisted of the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• SAG mill of 17,000 HP

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• two ball mills of 13,500 HP each

With the Whistler-specific BWI test data and assuming a 175µm primary grind size was to be validated by further locked cycle testing, the revised design would consist of the simpler configuration:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• SAG mill of 18,000 HP

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• one ball mill of 18,500 HP

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.2.4** **Flotation** 

The flotation mass balance was based on the parameters tabulated in Table 17-1, together with upgrade ratios for the rougher and cleaner concentrates that matched with testwork results, in order to derive volumetric flow rates through the various stages of flotation and appropriate flotation cell volumes that observed industry standard convention for the minimum number of cells to avoid short-circuiting in a bank (typically five).

Accordingly it is envisage that the flotation circuit will consist of the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Rougher bank of 8 x 300 m<sup>3</sup> cells

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• First cleaner bank of 8 x 40 m<sup>3</sup> cells

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Second cleaner bank of 6 x 10 m<sup>3</sup>

Regrind circuit design still requires optimization. The testwork was based on 20µm and no attempts have been made at this stage to investigate opportunities for coarsening the regrind size whilst maintaining separation performance in the cleaner circuit.

A regrind size of 20µm probably requires vertical stirred mills to achieve this fine grind size; however only a slight coarsening to 30µm would bring this back into the range of conventional tumbling mills.

It has been assumed that some optimization is possible and that conventional tumbling mills (lower capital cost but higher power consumption) would be suitable. On this basis the regrind circuit will consist of the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• One regrind mill of 5,700 HP for the original design (revised design would require a slightly larger mill of 7,000 HP, which reflects the coarser regrind feed size).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.2.5** **Concentrate Dewatering** 

Given the fine size of the concentrate following the necessary regrinding, it has been assumed that a pressure filter (Larox or similar) would be required to achieve acceptable transportable moisture limits. The filter would be preceded by a conventional concentrate thickener.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.3** **Conclusions** 

The process plant as outlined in this section is considered adequate for providing a framework for later Economic Analyses, including initial financial estimates of surface capital and operating costs in ongoing project development.

Page 178 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **18** | **PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE** |

---

Preliminary infrastructure is discussed in Section 5, while detailed infrastructure has not been determined at this time.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **19** | **MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS** |

---

No concentrate market studies have been done at this time.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **20** | **ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT** |

---

U.S. GoldMining has submitted an Application for Permit to Mine in Alaska (APMA) to Alaska's Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) for the issuance of permits that will allow for future exploration work on the property. The status of the APMA is pending and U.S. GoldMining expects to receive approval in due course.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **21** | **CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS** |

---

Capital and operating costs have not been developed in detail at this time.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **22** | **ECONOMIC ANALYSIS** |

---

Economic analysis has not been completed at this time.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **23** | **ADJACENT PROPERTIES** |

---

The Estelle Gold Project owned by Nova Minerals Limited of Australia is currently in exploration phase and shares the Whiskey Bravo runway under agreement with U.S. GoldMining to support current drilling operations. Nova Minerals has reported 4.7Moz gold resources in a JORC 2012 compliant estimate (Nova Minerals, 2021).

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **24** | **OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION** |

---

There is no additional relevant data and information for the Whistler, Raintree West, and Island Mountain deposits.

Page 179 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **25** | **INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.1** **Sampling, Preparation, Analysis** 

The procedures documented by Kennecott, Geoinformatics and Kiska for sampling, analysis and security are deemed adequate. Analysis of the QAQC samples indicates the laboratory results are of sufficient quality for resource estimation.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.2** **Data Verification** 

The provided database did not have certificate numbers attached to the sample IDs, this was corrected to the extent possible as well as some minor errors that were uncovered during certificate checks. The amount of data fully supported by certificate and QAQC is 75% in Whistler, 90% in Raintree and 93% in Island Mountain, which is typical or better than similar projects with the majority of drilling completed before 2010, but not ideal. Measurements made during the site visit and previous reports indicate a collar survey is to be considered.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.3** **Metallurgical Testwork** 

The recoveries used for Resource estimate are reasonable for this level of study based on the metallurgical testing to date.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.4** **Resource Estimate** 

In the opinion of the QP the block model resource estimate and resource classification reported herein are a reasonable representation of the global gold, copper and silver mineral resources found in the Whistler, Raintree West and Island Mountain deposits. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.5** **Risks and Opportunities** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.5.1** **Sampling, Preparation, Analysis and Data Risks and Opportunities** 

U.S. GoldMining has the opportunity to add QAQC data for silver and to collect and complete the missing certificate numbers in the database. This information would more completely support the assay database.

The drill core is stored in wood boxes subject to weathering on site, they are beginning to fall apart. An opportunity exists to protect these samples from further weathering by moving them or building dry storage. The risk of continued decay is that the historic core may no longer be available to future potential owners for review and verification.

A collar survey that was to have been done in 2012 does not appear to have been completed. Review of three collar locations during the site visit suggests that more accurate drillhole locations are possible.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.5.2** **Metallurgical Testwork Risks and Opportunities** 

Analyses and accounting of Ag were omitted from the metallurgical testwork, which focused on Cu and Au grades and recoveries in what was anticipated initially to be a Cu-Au resource. Future testwork which includes Ag accounting would likely result in improved estimates of silver recovery and revenue contribution.

Page 180 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**25.5.3** **Resource Estimate Risks and Opportunities** 

Risk in the geologic interpretations relating to the continuity of the mineralization exist and can be mitigated by additional geologic modelling for use in controlling the block model interpolations. A description of additional potential risk factors concerning the resource estimate is given in Table 14-22 along with either the justification for the approach taken or mitigating factors in place to reduce any risk. Opportunities to increase the confidence in the resource through infill drilling and to expand the resource from step-out and exploration drilling are discussed in the recommendations section below.

Page 181 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **26** | **RECOMMENDATIONS** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.1** **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security** 

To ensure data quality is recommended that:

● QAQC data for silver blanks and duplicates be collected from the historical database for analysis in future studies that include silver in the resource estimate. None of the CRMs used to date are certified for silver. New CRMs should be sourced and included in any future drilling.

● Future drilling should continue to use the silica sand or a commercially prepared blank material.

● Individual instances of lapse in control procedures where failed samples and the neighboring primary assays samples are not seen to be re-assayed are identified. If this was indeed done, the database has not been correctly maintained. The number of failures does not appear to be of material significance at this time. Future programs should ensure that adherence to control procedures is maintained

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.2** **Data Verification** 

It is recommended that:

● At least 10% of collar locations in each resource area, to include drilling from all years, be surveyed with GPS equipment with <1m accuracy. If significant deviations are determined from the recorded values, all collars would need resurvey.

● U.S. GoldMining continue to pursue matching of assay samples to certificates and collection of missing certificates.

● Future drilling should include third party check assays and the data should be appropriately maintained.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.3** **Metallurgy** 

Metallurgical recommendations include:

● Mineralogical studies to better understand the gold associations

● Comminution testing specifically to address SAG mill power requirements and design

● Variability testing

● Confirmatory locked cycle flotation testing at the coarser primary grind size

● Testwork to include feed material containing Pb, Zn sulphide, and higher Ag grade material

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.4** **Exploration and Resource** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.4.1** **Whistler** 

At the Whistler Deposit, recommendations include:

● A better understanding of the current known faults could be an opportunity for increasing the resource at Whistler. Particularly in the south of the deposit (south of 6,971,200N). There is a paucity of drillhole data on both sides of the Divide fault in this area, resulting in blocks left un-interpolated within the diorite solid.

● Revision of the geologic model to provide a better understanding of how the three later stages of intrusion relate to the mineralization. This would involve re-logging of core with the current knowledge of the assay values. Through re-interpretation in section and plan it is the expected outcome that 3D solids of each intrusive phase could be constructed.

● Similarly, 3D solids of alteration and structural domains should be created from the re-interpretation.

● Additional specific gravity measurements should be obtained from existing drillholes to augment the current database.

● Additional in-fill drilling to upgrade the classification of Inferred to Indicated.

Page 182 of 191

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.4.2** **Raintree** 

For the Raintree Deposit, the following recommendations are made:

● Infill and step-out drilling to the north and south of the current deposit to potentially upgrade the classification of the current resource estimate and to potentially increase the resource. Specifically shallow holes (200 to 250 m) dipping east on sections 6,871,350 N and 6,871,400 N and 6,871,500 N should be drilled to increase the confidence in near surface mineralization.

● In concert with the new drilling, the previous drill core should be relogged and a robust geological model/domains should be constructed for future resource estimates.

● Further specific gravity measurements should be collected from current and future drillholes.

● Metallurgical testing should be conducted on Raintree West samples.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.4.3** **Island Mountain** 

For the Island Mountain deposit, the following recommendations are made:

● Infill and step-out drilling to the north and south of the deposit. This drilling should be done to potentially upgrade the classification of the current resource estimate and to potentially increase the resource. Drilling should aim to link the mineralized breccias drilled north of the resource area, with the main breccia complex. Deep drilling under the breccia complex is also warranted to potentially locate the causative, and potentially mineralized, intrusive driving the brecciation.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**26.4.4** **Exploration Program and Budget** 

The exploration program is divided into two phases. Phase 1 would consist of a full desktop review of all the geological, geochemical, geophysical and drilling data, concurrent with the review of drill core, in order to optimize strategic targeting in Phase 2. The specific design of Phase 2 is contingent on the results of Phase 1.

A possible Phase 2 might consist of a "top-of-bedrock" grid drilling program in the Whistler area and further surface mapping, sampling and compilation work to rank and prioritize other exploration targets on the project area (Muddy Creek, Snow Ridge, Puntilla, Round Mountain, Howell Zone, Super Conductor), with the aim to test one or more of these targets with deeper drilling (1,500 m).

The grid drilling program would penetrate the glacial cover and drill approximately 25m into bedrock to obtain geological and geochemical data. This data, in conjunction with the existing airborne magnetic data and 3D IP data, would considerably enhance exploration targeting. Drilling on 200 metre centres from fifty holes (1,250 m) would cover the most prospective areas in the Whistler area.

In addition, the Phase 2 program should consist of follow-up drilling in the Whistler area to target anomalies generated by the grid drilling program and to expand drilling at Raintree (2,500 m). Any significant mineralized intercepts from this phase of step-out drilling should be sent for metallurgical testing with particular focus on the impact of the relatively high lead-zinc concentrations.

The Phase 2 drilling should also consist of 2,500m of diamond drilling to in-fill and expand mineralization at the Breccia Zone at Island Mountain. Mineralization is open to south and north, and undrilled breccia bodies occur for 700m to the north of the Breccia Zone.

Table 26-1 shows the proposed exploration budget.

**Table 26**-**1 Proposed Exploration Budget**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Work Program** | **Units** |  | **Rate** | **Sub-total CDN $** |
| **Phase 1: Desktop Exploration Targeting and Overview Study**  | **Phase 1: Desktop Exploration Targeting and Overview Study**  | **Phase 1: Desktop Exploration Targeting and Overview Study**  | **Phase 1: Desktop Exploration Targeting and Overview Study**  | **Phase 1: Desktop Exploration Targeting and Overview Study**  |
| Wages – Geologists and Database support |  |  |  | $150000 |
|  | **Sub-total Phase 1** |  |  | **$150000** |
| **Phase 2: Drilling Program** | **Phase 2: Drilling Program** | **Phase 2: Drilling Program** | **Phase 2: Drilling Program** | **Phase 2: Drilling Program** |
| Grid Drilling | 1250 | **m** | $375 | $468750 |
| Wages - Mappers and Samplers |  |  |  | $100000 |
| Rock and Soil Assays | 500 | samples | $50 | $25000 |
| New target drilling - Whistler Area | 1500 | m | $375 | $562500 |
| Raintree West Drilling\* | 2500 | m | $375 | $937500 |
| Raintree Metallurgical Sampling |  |  |  | $50000 |
| Island Mountain Breccia Zone Drilling\* | 2500 | m | $475 | $1187500 |
| Planning and Supervision Wages |  |  |  | $300000 |
|  | **Sub-total Phase 2** |  |  | **$3631250** |
| Database Support (field season) |  |  |  | $120000 |
| Data Interpretation (post field season) |  |  |  | $120000 |
|  | **Sub-total Support** |  |  | **$240000** |
| **Sub-total** |  |  |  | $4021250 |
| Contingency |  |  | 10% | $402125 |
| Administration |  |  |  | $200000 |
| **TOTAL** |  |  |  | **$4623375**  |
| *\*all-in cost includes assays, helicopter-support, camp costs*  | *\*all-in cost includes assays, helicopter-support, camp costs*  | *\*all-in cost includes assays, helicopter-support, camp costs*  | *\*all-in cost includes assays, helicopter-support, camp costs*  | *\*all-in cost includes assays, helicopter-support, camp costs*  |

---

Page 183 of 191

------

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **27** | **REFERENCES** |

---

*AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd., 2012 712024 Kiska Letter Report Resource Update 4Dec 2012.*

*Bank of Montreal, 2021a, February. Market Research on Gold Price Forecast used for Resources and Reserves.*

*Bank of Montreal, 2021b, May. Street Consensus Silver and Copper Prices.*

*Beikman, H., 1980, Compiler. Geology of Alaska. Digital geology data obtained from the Alaska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse and modified using MapInfo Professional. (<u>http://agdc.usgs.gov/data/usgs/geology/</u>).* 

*Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), 2019, CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves* – *Best Practices Guidelines, November 2019.*

*Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (2014): CIM DEFINITION STANDARDS* – *For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions, adopted May 10, 2014.*

*Couture, JF. 2007. Independent Technical Report on the Whistler Copper-Gold Exploration Project. SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. 92 pages. Available at <u>www.sedar.com</u>.* 

*Franklin, R. 2007. Whistler Project Synopsis. Kennecott Exploration Company, unpublished internal report, 52 pages.* 

*Franklin, R., Young, L., and Boyer, L. 2006. Whistler Project* – *2005 Exploration Summary Report. Kennecott Exploration Company, unpublished internal report, 180 pages.* 

*Franklin, R. 2005. Whistler Project* – *2004 Exploration Summary Report. Kennecott Exploration Company, unpublished internal report, 29 pages.* 

*Geoinformatics News Release dated February 12, 2005 and announcing revisions to an Exploration Alliance with Kennecott.* 

*Geoinformatics News Release dated June 7, 2007 and announcing the signature of an agreement with Kennecott concerning the acquisition of the Whistler Project in Alaska.* 

*Gross T. G. 2014. Controls and distribution of Cu-Au- mineralization that developed the Island Mountain Deposit, Whistler Property, South-Central Alaska, Colorado School of Mine, Master*'*s Thesis, 157 pages.* 

*Hames, B. P. 2014. Evolution of the Late-Cretaceous Whistler Au-(Cu) Corridor and magmatic-hydrothermal system, Kahiltna Terrane, Southwestern Alaska, USA, University of British Columbia Master*'*s Thesis, 249 pages.*

*Kiska 2011, 2011 Geological, Geochemical, Geophysical and Diamond Drilling Report on the Whistler Regional Area, Whistler Property, Alaska, Internal Report, 77 pages.*

*Kitco, 2021. Historical Au and Ag charts, www.kitco.com.*

*MMTS 2011,* "*Resource Estimate Update for the Whistler Gold Copper Deposit and Results of Property wide Exploration*"*, March 17, 2011, 136 pages.* 

*MMTS 2015,*"*NI 43-101 Resource Estimate for the Whistler Project*"*, November 12, 2015, 185 pages.*

*Nadasdy, G.S., 2005. Results of Preliminary Metallurgical Test Work Conducted on Three Ore Samples from the Copper and Gold Bearing Whistler Project. Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories Inc. report to Rio Tinto Technical Services, dated March 24, 2005, 76 pages.* 

*<u>novaminerals.com.au/estelle-gold/</u>, 2021*

*Proffett, J. 2005. Report on work done on the Whistler Project, including Island Mountain and Round Mountain, unpublished report submitted to Kennecott Exploration Company, 11 pages.*

*Roberts, M., 2009. 2009-2010 Geological, geochemical, geophysical and diamond drilling report on the Whistler Property, Alaska. Kiska Metals Corporation internal report 140 pages.*

*Roberts, M., 2011a. 2011 Geological, geochemical, geophysical and diamond drilling report on the Whistler Property, Alaska: The Whistler Corridor. Kiska Metals Corporation internal report, 209 pages.*

Page 184 of 191

------

*Roberts, M., 2011b. 2011 Geological, geochemical, geophysical and diamond drilling report on the Whistler Property, Alaska: Island Mountain prospect. Kiska Metals Corporation internal report, 152 pages.*

*Roberts, M., 2011c. 2011 Geological, geochemical, geophysical and diamond drilling report on the Whistler Property, Alaska: Muddy Creek prospect. Kiska Metals Corporation internal report, 101 pages.*

*Rowins, S.M. 2000. Reduced porphyry copper-gold deposits: A new variation on an old theme. Geology, v. 28, p. 491-494.*

*Seedorf, E., Dilles, J.D., Proffett, J.M., Jr., Einaudi, M.T., Zurcher, L., Stavast, W.J.A., Johnson, D.A., and Barton, M.D., 2005, Porphyry Deposits: Characteristics and Origin of Hypogene Features, in Hedenquist, J.W., Thompson, J.F.H., Goldfarb, R.J., and Richards, J.R., eds., Economic Geology 100th Anniversary Volume: Society of Economic Geologists, Littleton, Colorado, p. 251-298.*

*Sillitoe, R.H., 2010. Porphyry Copper System, Economic Geology, v 105, no 1, p 3-41.*

*SRK 2007,* "*Technical Report on the Whistler Copper-Gold Exploration Project, Alaska Range, Alaska*"*.* 

*SRK 2008,* "*Mineral Resource Estimation Whistler Copper-Gold Project, Alaska Range, Alaska*"*.*

*Stoel Rives, LLP dated January 11, 2021 and titled: Net Smelter Return royalty Agreement*

*Stoel Rives, LLP, 2021. Aug 3, 2021 letter from Ramona L. Monroe to Alastair Still titled: Limited Title Review for Alaska Mining Claims, 9pp.*

*Young, L. 2006. Geological Framework of the Whistler Region, Alaska, 2003*-*2005. Kennecott Exploration Company, unpublished internal report, 181 pages.* 

*Young, L. 2005. Geological Setting of the Whistler Porphyry Copper Prospect, Alaska. Kennecott Exploration Company, unpublished internal report, 88 pages.* 

*Wilson, P. 2007. 2007 Whistler Drilling QA/QC Results. Geoinformatics Exploration Inc. unpublished internal report, 19 pages.* 

Page 185 of 191

------

**APPENDIX A: CLAIMS LIST**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **ADL Serial Number** | **Claim Name** | **Claim Owner** | **Reference M-T-R-S** | **Acres** |
| 633446 | PORT 2151 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 40 |
| 633447 | PORT 2152 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 40 |
| 633448 | PORT 2153 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 40 |
| 633449 | PORT 2251 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 40 |
| 633450 | PORT 2252 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 40 |
| 633451 | PORT 2253 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 40 |
| 633452 | PORT 2351 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 40 |
| 633453 | PORT 2352 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 40 |
| 633454 | PORT 2353 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 40 |
| 633455 | PORT 2354 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 633456 | PORT 2355 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 633457 | PORT 2454 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 633458 | PORT 2455 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 633459 | PORT 2456 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 633460 | PORT 2457 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 633461 | PORT 2458 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W21 | 40 |
| 633462 | PORT 2459 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W21 | 40 |
| 633463 | PORT 2555 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 633464 | PORT 2556 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 633465 | PORT 2557 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 633466 | PORT 2558 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W21 | 40 |
| 633467 | PORT 2559 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W21 | 40 |
| 633468 | PORT 2655 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 40 |
| 633469 | PORT 2656 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 40 |
| 633470 | PORT 2657 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 40 |
| 641182 | WHISPER 105 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 40 |
| 641183 | WHISPER 106 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 40 |
| 641184 | WHISPER 107 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 40 |
| 641185 | WHISPER 108 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 40 |
| 641186 | WHISPER 109 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 40 |
| 641187 | WHISPER 120 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 641188 | WHISPER 127 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 40 |
| 641189 | WHISPER 128 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 40 |
| 641190 | WHISPER 129 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 641191 | WHISPER 130 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 40 |
| 641192 | WHISPER 139 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 40 |
| 641193 | WHISPER 140 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 40 |
| 641194 | WHISPER 141 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 40 |
| 641195 | WHISPER 142 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 40 |
| 641196 | WHISPER 143 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 40 |
| 641197 | WHISPER 1 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W23 | 160 |
| 641198 | WHISPER 2 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W23 | 160 |
| 641199 | WHISPER 3 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W24 | 160 |
| 641201 | WHISPER 9 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W23 | 160 |
| 641202 | WHISPER 10 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W23 | 160 |
| 641203 | WHISPER 11 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W24 | 160 |
| 641204 | WHISPER 12 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W24 | 160 |
| 641206 | WHISPER 17 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W26 | 160 |
| 641207 | WHISPER 18 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W26 | 160 |

---

Page 186 of 191

------

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **ADL Serial Number** | **Claim Name** | **Claim Owner** | **Reference M-T-R-S** | **Acres** |
| 641208 | WHISPER 19 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W25 | 160 |
| 641209 | WHISPER 20 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W25 | 160 |
| 641212 | WHISPER 27 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W26 | 160 |
| 641213 | WHISPER 28 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W26 | 160 |
| 641214 | WHISPER 29 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W25 | 160 |
| 641215 | WHISPER 30 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W25 | 160 |
| 641218 | WHISPER 37 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W35 | 160 |
| 641219 | WHISPER 38 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W35 | 160 |
| 641220 | WHISPER 39 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W36 | 160 |
| 641221 | WHISPER 40 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W36 | 160 |
| 641227 | WHISPER 48 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W35 | 160 |
| 641228 | WHISPER 49 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W36 | 160 |
| 641229 | WHISPER 50 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W36 | 160 |
| 641241 | WHISPER 63 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W06 | 160 |
| 641242 | WHISPER 64 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W06 | 160 |
| 641247 | WHISPER 69 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W07 | 160 |
| 641248 | WHISPER 70 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W07 | 160 |
| 641249 | WHISPER 71 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W08 | 160 |
| 641250 | WHISPER 72 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W08 | 160 |
| 641251 | WHISPER 73 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W09 | 160 |
| 641252 | WHISPER 74 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W09 | 160 |
| 641257 | WHISPER 79 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W07 | 160 |
| 641258 | WHISPER 80 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W07 | 160 |
| 641259 | WHISPER 81 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W08 | 160 |
| 641260 | WHISPER 82 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W08 | 160 |
| 641261 | WHISPER 83 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W09 | 160 |
| 641262 | WHISPER 84 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W09 | 160 |
| 641263 | WHISPER 85 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W10 | 160 |
| 641267 | WHISPER 89 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W13 | 160 |
| 641268 | WHISPER 90 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W13 | 160 |
| 641269 | WHISPER 91 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W18 | 160 |
| 641270 | WHISPER 92 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W18 | 160 |
| 641271 | WHISPER 93 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 160 |
| 641272 | WHISPER 94 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W17 | 160 |
| 641273 | WHISPER 95 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W16 | 160 |
| 641274 | WHISPER 96 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W16 | 160 |
| 641275 | WHISPER 181 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W12 | 160 |
| 641276 | WHISPER 97 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W15 | 160 |
| 641280 | WHISPER 101 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W13 | 160 |
| 641281 | WHISPER 102 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W13 | 160 |
| 641282 | WHISPER 103 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W18 | 160 |
| 641283 | WHISPER 104 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W18 | 160 |
| 641284 | WHISPER 110 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W16 | 160 |
| 641285 | WHISPER 111 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W16 | 160 |
| 641286 | WHISPER 112 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W15 | 160 |
| 641287 | WHISPER 113 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W15 | 160 |
| 641291 | WHISPER 117 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W24 | 160 |
| 641292 | WHISPER 118 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 160 |
| 641293 | WHISPER 119 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W19 | 160 |

---

Page 187 of 191

------

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **ADL Serial Number** | **Claim Name** | **Claim Owner** | **Reference M-T-R-S** | **Acres** |
| 641294 | WHISPER 121 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W21 | 160 |
| 641295 | WHISPER 122 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W22 | 160 |
| 641296 | WHISPER 123 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W22 | 160 |
| 641299 | WHISPER 126 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W24 | 160 |
| 641300 | WHISPER 131 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W20 | 160 |
| 641301 | WHISPER 132 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W21 | 160 |
| 641302 | WHISPER 133 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W21 | 160 |
| 641303 | WHISPER 134 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W22 | 160 |
| 641304 | WHISPER 135 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W22 | 160 |
| 641305 | WHISPER 138 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W25 | 160 |
| 641306 | WHISPER 144 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W29 | 160 |
| 641307 | WHISPER 145 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W29 | 160 |
| 641308 | WHISPER 146 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W25 | 160 |
| 641309 | WHISPER 147 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 160 |
| 641310 | WHISPER 148 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W30 | 160 |
| 641311 | WHISPER 149 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W29 | 160 |
| 641312 | WHISPER 150 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W29 | 160 |
| 641313 | WHISPER 151 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W28 | 160 |
| 641314 | WHISPER 152 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W28 | 160 |
| 641315 | WHISPER 153 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W28 | 160 |
| 641316 | WHISPER 154 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W28 | 160 |
| 641317 | WHISPER 155 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W27 | 160 |
| 641318 | WHISPER 156 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W27 | 160 |
| 641319 | WHISPER 182 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W31 | 160 |
| 641320 | WHISPER 157 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W27 | 160 |
| 641321 | WHISPER 158 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W27 | 160 |
| 641322 | WHISPER 159 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W31 | 160 |
| 641323 | WHISPER 160 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W32 | 160 |
| 641324 | WHISPER 161 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W32 | 160 |
| 641325 | WHISPER 162 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W33 | 160 |
| 641326 | WHISPER 163 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W33 | 160 |
| 641327 | WHISPER 164 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W34 | 160 |
| 641329 | WHISPER 166 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W31 | 160 |
| 641330 | WHISPER 167 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W32 | 160 |
| 641331 | WHISPER 168 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W32 | 160 |
| 641332 | WHISPER 169 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W33 | 160 |
| 641333 | WHISPER 170 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W33 | 160 |
| 641334 | WHISPER 171 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W05 | 160 |
| 641335 | WHISPER 172 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W05 | 160 |
| 641337 | WHISPER 174 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W01 | 160 |
| 641338 | WHISPER 175 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W01 | 160 |
| 641339 | WHISPER 176 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W01 | 160 |
| 641340 | WHISPER 177 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W01 | 160 |
| 641341 | WHISPER 178 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W12 | 160 |
| 641342 | WHISPER 179 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W12 | 160 |
| 641343 | WHISPER 180 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W12 | 160 |
| 644845 | WHISPER 183 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W14 | 160 |
| 644846 | WHISPER 185 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W14 | 160 |
| 644847 | WHISPER 186 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W14 | 160 |

---

Page 188 of 191

------

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **ADL Serial Number** | **Claim Name** | **Claim Owner** | **Reference M-T-R-S** | **Acres** |
| 644848 | WHISPER 187 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W15 | 160 |
| 645698 | IM 1 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W06 | 160 |
| 645699 | IM 2 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W06 | 160 |
| 645700 | IM 3 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W05 | 160 |
| 645701 | IM 4 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W05 | 160 |
| 645702 | IM 5 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W04 | 160 |
| 645703 | IM 10 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W06 | 160 |
| 645704 | IM 11 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W06 | 160 |
| 645705 | IM 12 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W05 | 160 |
| 645706 | IM 13 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W05 | 160 |
| 645707 | IM 14 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W04 | 160 |
| 645708 | IM 15 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W04 | 160 |
| 645709 | IM 19 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W31 | 160 |
| 645710 | IM 20 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W31 | 160 |
| 645711 | IM 21 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W32 | 160 |
| 645712 | IM 22 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W32 | 160 |
| 645713 | IM 23 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W33 | 160 |
| 645714 | IM 24 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W33 | 160 |
| 645715 | IM 28 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W31 | 160 |
| 645716 | IM 29 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W31 | 160 |
| 645717 | IM 30 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W32 | 160 |
| 645718 | IM 31 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W32 | 160 |
| 645719 | IM 32 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W33 | 160 |
| 645720 | IM 33 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W33 | 160 |
| 645721 | IM 34 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W34 | 160 |
| 645723 | IM 37 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W29 | 160 |
| 645724 | IM 38 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W29 | 160 |
| 645725 | IM 39 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W28 | 160 |
| 645726 | IM 40 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W28 | 160 |
| 645727 | IM 41 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W27 | 160 |
| 645729 | IM 44 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W29 | 160 |
| 645730 | IM 45 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W29 | 160 |
| 645731 | IM 46 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W28 | 160 |
| 645732 | IM 47 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W28 | 160 |
| 645733 | IM 48 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W27 | 160 |
| 645736 | IM 52 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W20 | 160 |
| 645737 | IM 53 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W22 | 160 |
| 645740 | IM 57 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W20 | 160 |
| 646059 | IM 6 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W30 | 160 |
| 646060 | IM 7 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W30 | 160 |
| 646074 | IM 61 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W07 | 160 |
| 646075 | IM 62 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W07 | 160 |
| 646076 | IM 63 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W08 | 160 |
| 646077 | IM 64 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W08 | 160 |
| 646078 | IM 65 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W09 | 160 |

---

Page 189 of 191

------

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **ADL Serial Number** | **Claim Name** | **Claim Owner** | **Reference M-T-R-S** | **Acres** |
| 646325 | WHISPER 428 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N018W31 | 160 |
| 646327 | WHISPER 430 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W06 | 160 |
| 646328 | WHISPER 431 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W06 | 160 |
| 646330 | WHISPER 433 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W06 | 160 |
| 646331 | WHISPER 434 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W06 | 160 |
| 646338 | WHISPER 441 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W07 | 160 |
| 646339 | WHISPER 442 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W07 | 160 |
| 646343 | WHISPER 446 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W12 | 160 |
| 646344 | WHISPER 447 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W07 | 160 |
| 646350 | WHISPER 453 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W13 | 160 |
| 646351 | WHISPER 454 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N018W18 | 160 |
| 646355 | WHISPER 458 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W13 | 160 |
| 646356 | WHISPER 459 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W13 | 160 |
| 646764 | IM 71 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W06 | 160 |
| 646765 | IM 72 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W05 | 160 |
| 646766 | IM 73 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W05 | 160 |
| 646767 | IM 74 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W04 | 160 |
| 646774 | IM 81 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W05 | 160 |
| 646775 | IM 82 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W04 | 160 |
| 646783 | IM 90 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W08 | 160 |
| 646784 | IM 91 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W09 | 160 |
| 646792 | IM 99 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W08 | 160 |
| 646793 | IM 100 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W09 | 160 |
| 646801 | IM 108 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W17 | 160 |
| 646802 | IM 109 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W16 | 160 |
| 646810 | IM 117 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W17 | 160 |
| 646819 | IM 126 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W21 | 160 |
| 646820 | IM 127 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W21 | 160 |
| 646824 | WHISPER 464 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W27 | 160 |
| 646825 | WHISPER 465 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W27 | 160 |
| 646826 | WHISPER 466 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W34 | 160 |
| 646839 | WHISPER 479 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W22 | 160 |
| 646840 | WHISPER 480 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W27 | 160 |
| 646841 | WHISPER 481 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W27 | 160 |
| 646842 | WHISPER 482 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S023N019W34 | 160 |
| 646855 | WHISPER 495 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W02 | 160 |
| 646856 | WHISPER 496 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W11 | 160 |
| 646857 | WHISPER 497 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W11 | 160 |
| 646858 | WHISPER 498 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W14 | 160 |
| 646864 | WHISPER 504 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W02 | 160 |
| 646865 | WHISPER 505 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W02 | 160 |
| 646866 | WHISPER 506 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W11 | 160 |
| 646867 | WHISPER 507 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W11 | 160 |
| 646868 | WHISPER 508 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W14 | 160 |
| 646869 | WHISPER 509 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S022N019W14 | 160 |
| 646927 | WHISPER 567 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W24 | 160 |
| 646928 | WHISPER 568 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W24 | 160 |
| 646934 | WHISPER 574 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W23 | 160 |
| 646935 | WHISPER 575 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W24 | 160 |

---

Page 190 of 191

------

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **ADL Serial Number** | **Claim Name** | **Claim Owner** | **Reference M-T-R-S** | **Acres** |
| 646942 | WHISPER 582 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W26 | 160 |
| 646943 | WHISPER 583 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W26 | 160 |
| 646944 | WHISPER 584 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W25 | 160 |
| 646952 | WHISPER 592 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W26 | 160 |
| 646953 | WHISPER 593 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W26 | 160 |
| 646958 | WHISPER 598 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W33 | 160 |
| 646959 | WHISPER 599 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W33 | 160 |
| 646960 | WHISPER 600 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W34 | 160 |
| 646961 | WHISPER 601 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W34 | 160 |
| 646962 | WHISPER 602 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W35 | 160 |
| 646968 | WHISPER 608 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W33 | 160 |
| 646969 | WHISPER 609 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W33 | 160 |
| 646970 | WHISPER 610 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W34 | 160 |
| 646971 | WHISPER 611 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W34 | 160 |
| 646972 | WHISPER 612 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W35 | 160 |
| 650959 | MUD 1 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W32 | 160 |
| 650960 | MUD 2 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W32 | 160 |
| 650961 | MUD 3 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W31 | 160 |
| 650962 | MUD 4 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W31 | 160 |
| 650963 | MUD 5 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W36 | 160 |
| 650964 | MUD 6 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W36 | 160 |
| 650965 | MUD 7 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W35 | 160 |
| 650966 | MUD 8 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W35 | 160 |
| 650967 | MUD 9 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W34 | 40 |
| 650968 | MUD 10 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W34 | 40 |
| 650969 | MUD 11 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W34 | 40 |
| 650970 | MUD 12 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W34 | 40 |
| 650971 | MUD 13 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W35 | 160 |
| 650972 | MUD 14 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W35 | 40 |
| 650973 | MUD 15 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W35 | 40 |
| 650974 | MUD 16 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W35 | 40 |
| 650975 | MUD 17 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W36 | 160 |
| 650976 | MUD 18 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N020W36 | 160 |
| 650977 | MUD 19 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W31 | 160 |
| 650978 | MUD 20 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W31 | 160 |
| 650979 | MUD 21 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W32 | 160 |
| 650980 | MUD 22 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S021N019W32 | 160 |
| 650981 | MUD 23 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W06 | 160 |
| 650982 | MUD 24 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W01 | 160 |
| 650983 | MUD 25 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W01 | 160 |
| 650984 | MUD 26 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W02 | 160 |
| 650985 | MUD 27 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W02 | 160 |
| 650986 | MUD 28 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W03 | 40 |
| 650987 | MUD 29 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W03 | 40 |
| 650988 | MUD 30 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W03 | 40 |
| 650989 | MUD 31 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W03 | 40 |
| 650990 | MUD 32 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W02 | 160 |
| 650991 | MUD 33 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W02 | 160 |
| 650992 | MUD 34 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W01 | 160 |
| 650993 | MUD 35 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W01 | 160 |
| 650994 | MUD 36 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N019W06 | 160 |
| 650995 | MUD 37 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W11 | 160 |
| 650996 | MUD 38 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W11 | 160 |
| 650997 | MUD 39 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W10 | 160 |
| 650998 | MUD 40 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W03 | 40 |
| 650999 | MUD 41 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W10 | 160 |
| 651000 | MUD 42 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W11 | 160 |
| 651001 | MUD 43 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W11 | 160 |
| 656421 | MUD 44 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W12 | 160 |
| 656422 | MUD 45 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W12 | 160 |
| 656423 | MUD 46 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W12 | 160 |
| 656424 | MUD 47 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S020N020W12 | 160 |
| 667695 | BT049 | U.S. GoldMining Inc. | 2S019N019W04 | 160 |

---

Page 191 of 191