DATA VERIFICATION

A number of data verification programs and audits have been performed over the Project history, primarily in support of compilation of mining-related studies on the Project.

14.1 AMEC (2000)

The Kinam sampling programs were reviewed in 2000 (Simon, 2000), with the following results:

• The analysis of 289 field duplicates yielded four failures for Au (1.4%); silver and copper were not reviewed. The Au failure rate is considered acceptable for field duplicates

• The analysis of 145 pulp duplicates yielded 14 failures for Au (9.7%; this result is considered borderline, but acceptable as it is just under the 10% failure rate that AMEC considers as unacceptable

• AMEC analysed 237 CRM samples from 19 CRMs. The samples represent a total of 3.4% of the samples included in submission batches. Most of the individual bias values were acceptable (below of absolute 5% bias), with the exception of the Au132, Au192, Au61, Au67, Au69 and Au72. The overall bias for Au was -5.26%. The Kinam program did not include CRMs to control the Ag and Cu accuracy. On the basis of these results AMEC concluded that the Au accuracy at Bondar Clegg during the Kinam exploration was within acceptable ranges

• AMEC reviewed the 357 assays from coarse blank materials inserted during the Kinam campaign. Given a threshold value of five times the lower detection limit (25 ppb Au), four blanks reported greater than the threshold for Au. AMEC concluded that non-significant cross-contamination occurred during preparation at Bondar Clegg.

14.2 AMEC (2010)

AMEC performed a number of checks on the Project database in support of the feasibility study. QA/QC checks were primarily undertaken post the 2007 drill program.

14.2.1 Drill Data

AMEC reviewed cuttings from seven drill holes (0.9% of the drill holes included in the database) with special attention to lithological and mineralized units and contacts. The observations were compared with drill hole records in the database. The main lithological contacts, alteration features and sample intervals, were appropriately recorded in the database. AMEC concluded that there was good agreement between the geological interpretations, log records and digital information.

AMEC verified selected drill hole collar locations in the field using an E-TrexTM hand-held GPS. Eight drill holes, representing 1.03% of the drill hole database, were checked. Results, given the accuracy of the hand-held equipment, indicated no errors with the drill collar locations. AMEC compared drill collar elevations of the selected drill holes recorded in the database with the digital topography provided by Minera Guanaco. No discrepancies were noted.

A review of the down-hole survey data indicated no potential kinks or other indications of problematic down-hole surveys. AMEC noted that most of the drill holes tend to deviate horizontally by up to 20 m approximately at 200 m depth. The average deviations are considered reasonable because the average depth of the drill holes is 140 m (and 80% of depths do not exceed 200 m) and no significant departures of the trajectories are observed in plan.

AMEC investigated the possibility of RC downhole contamination for all RC drill holes.

This used the in-house AMEC “decay-and-cyclicity” program to assess whether downhole contamination had occurred. The analysis indicated that no significant downhole contamination had occurred during RC drilling.

14.2.2 Assay Data

The drill hole database reviewed contained 1,254 drill hole records, with 107,221 assay records. AMEC reviewed 527 assay certificates, selected 484 Au and Ag records, and compared these data with the assay database. No discrepancies were found.

14.2.3 QA/QC Review

AMEC reviewed the QA/QC results of the Minera Guanaco drill programs to end 2007.

2004

Analysis of 93 field duplicates yielded 15 failures for Au (16.1%). An acceptable level of precision is achieved if the failure rate does not exceed 10%. Therefore, AMEC

concluded that the sampling precision of Minera Guanaco for Au during 2004 drilling campaign was poor.

In total, 69 samples were sent for external control to Actlabs. The samples were assayed for Au, Ag and Cu. The sample batches did not include control samples.

Analysis indicated a good fit for Au between ALS Chemex and Actlabs. Copper and silver were not evaluated due to their low grades, most of which were below detection limits.

AMEC analysed the results of 93 CRM samples from four CRMs representing a total of 3.9% of the samples included in submission batches. The overall bias for Au was 4.99%. On the basis of these results AMEC concluded that the Au accuracy at ALS during the Minera Guanaco exploration program in 2004 was within acceptable ranges.

AMEC reviewed the 81 assays from coarse blank materials inserted during the Minera Guanaco 2004 drilling period; four blanks reported greater than threshold for Au.

AMEC concluded that no significant cross-contamination occurred during preparation at ALS during the drilling campaign.

2006

The analysis of 195 field duplicates yielded 16 failures for Au (8.21%), no failures for Ag, and four failures for Cu (2.05%). AMEC concluded that the sampling precision of Minera Guanaco for Au, Ag, and Cu during its 2006 drilling campaign was satisfactory.

In total, 1,537 samples were sent for external control to Actlabs laboratory and were assayed for Au, Ag, and Cu. The sample batches did not include control samples. An RMA analysis indicated a good fit for Au, Ag, and Cu between Geoanalítica and Actlabs.

AMEC analysed the results of 345 CRM samples from 11 CRMs, representing a total of 1.52% of the samples included in submission batches. The overall bias for Au was -1.10%. On the basis of these results, AMEC concluded that the Au accuracy at Geoanalitica during the Minera Guanaco exploration in 2006 was within acceptable ranges.

AMEC reviewed the 357 assays from coarse blank materials inserted during the Minera Guanaco drilling period. Ten blanks reported greater than threshold for Au.

AMEC concluded that non-significant cross-contamination occurred during preparation at Geoanalítica.

2007

The analysis of 399 field duplicates yielded 18 failures for Au (4.5%). There were no data for Ag and Cu.

In total, 387 samples were sent for external control to Actlabs laboratory. The samples were assayed for Au, Ag, and Cu. An RMA analysis indicated a good fit for Au, Ag, and Cu between Geoanalitica and Actlabs.

AMEC analysed the results of 252 CRM samples from seven CRMs. The overall bias for Au was -1.10%. On the basis of these results, AMEC concluded that the Au accuracy at Geoanalitica during the Minera Guanaco exploration in 2007 was within acceptable ranges.

AMEC reviewed the 60 assays from coarse blank materials inserted during the Minera Guanaco drilling period. No blanks were reported greater than the threshold for Au.