Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report ...

Mawson Gold Limited
Location: Ylitornio — Rovaniemi, Finland
In accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 43-101 “Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects” of the Canadian Securities Administrators
Qualified Persons
AFRY Project Number: 101015822-001
Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report, Rajapalot Property, Finland for Mawson Gold Limited
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 ii 01621 Vantaa Finland
CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORS
I Eemeli Rantala, P.Geo, do hereby certify that:
1. I am currently employed as a Senior Geologist at AFRY. Frösundaleden 2A, 169 99 Stockholm, Sweden.
2. This certificate is to accompany the report “Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report — Rajapalot Property” for Mawson Gold Limited with an effective date of 26th August, 2021.
3. I am a graduate from the University of Turku with a B.Sc. Degree (2009) and M.Sc (2011) in Geology. I have been professionally active since 2009.
4. I am a Professional Geoscientist (#169691) registered with APEGBC (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia.
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 purpose of NI 43-101.
6. I visited Mawson Gold Limited’s Rajapalot property in Finland between the 29th June 2021 and 2nd July 2021.
7. I am responsible for Sections 1-12, 15-16 and 18-27 in the report titled “Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report — Rajapalot Property” for Mawson Gold Limited with an effective date of 26th August, 2021.
8. I am independent of Mawson Gold Limited applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of NI 43- 101.
9. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
10. As of the date of the technical report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the technical report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
Dated this 26th day of August 2021
“Original Signed”
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 iii 01621 Vantaa Finland
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON – VILLE-MATTI SEPPÄ, EURGEOL.
I Ville-Matti J. Seppä, EurGeol., do hereby certify that:
1. I am currently employed as a Section Manager of Geology & Mine Design at AFRY Finland Oy. Jaakonkatu 3, FI-01621 Vantaa, Finland.
2. I am a graduate from the University of Turku with a M.Sc. Degree in 2009 and have been professionally active since my graduation.
3. I am a European Geologist (#1286) licensed by the European Federation of Geologists.
4. 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 purpose of NI 43-101.
5. I have not visited Mawson Gold Limited’s Rajapalot property in Finland.
6. I am responsible for Section 14 in the report titled “Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report — Rajapalot Property” for Mawson Gold Limited with an effective date of 26th August, 2021.
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 iv 01621 Vantaa Finland
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON – CRAIG BROWN, FAUSIMM
I Craig Brown, FAusIMM., do hereby certify that:
1. I am currently a Senior Associate with Mining Associates Pty Ltd, 445 Upper Edward St, Brisbane, Australia.
3. I am a graduate from the University of NSW, Sydney, Australia with a B.E. Degree in 1976 and have been professionally active since my graduation.
4. I am a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
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 purpose of NI 43-101.
6. I have not visited Mawson Gold Limited’s Rajapalot property in Finland.
7. I am responsible for Sections 13 and 17 in the report titled “Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report — Rajapalot Property” ” for Mawson Gold Limited with an effective date of 26th August, 2021.
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 v 01621 Vantaa Finland
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents v
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xii
1.8 Mineral Resource Estimate ............................................................................................... 3
1.9 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 5
2. Introduction 6
2.2 Notes, Abbreviations and Definitions ................................................................................. 7
3. Reliance on Other Experts 9
4. Property Description and Location 10
4.1 Location ........................................................................................................................ 10
5.1 Location and Access ...................................................................................................... 14
5.2 Physiography ................................................................................................................. 15
5.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 15
6. History 17
7.1 Regional Geology ........................................................................................................... 18
7.1.2 Regional Mineralization and Age Data ...................................................................... 20
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 vi 01621 Vantaa Finland
7.2 Local Geology ............................................................................................................... 22
7.2.2 Mineralization ......................................................................................................... 24
9.2 Geophysics ................................................................................................................... 29
10.2 Drilling Procedure and Progression ................................................................................. 30
10.3 Core Recovery............................................................................................................... 33
10.4.1 Drill hole collar coordinates ..................................................................................... 34
10.4.2 Drill hole surveying ................................................................................................. 34
10.4.3 Drill collar maintenance ........................................................................................... 34
10.4.4 Logging notes, turn-around times ............................................................................ 34
10.4.5 Drill hole prospect maps ......................................................................................... 34
10.5 Drilling Discussion .......................................................................................................... 38
11.1 Core and Sample Logging and Preparation for Assay....................................................... 39
11.2 Security of Drill Core and Shipping .................................................................................. 39
11.3 Certified Standards, Blanks and Duplicates ..................................................................... 39
11.4 Laboratory Procedures and Analytical Methods ............................................................... 40
11.5 Quality Control Data....................................................................................................... 44
11.5.3 Quality control data November 2019-2021 drilling .................................................... 55
11.5.3 Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................ 60
12. Data Verification 61
13.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 62
13.1.1 Gold ...................................................................................................................... 62
13.1.2 Cobalt .................................................................................................................... 62
13.2.1 Whole-rock chemical assay results .......................................................................... 63
13.2.2 Modal mineralogy and cobalt deportment ................................................................ 64
13.2.3 Mineral associations and liberation .......................................................................... 65
13.2.4 Geometallurgical mineralization type classification .................................................... 65
13.3 Metallurgical Testing – SGS and BATCircle ..................................................................... 66
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 vii 01621 Vantaa Finland
13.3.1 SGS Minerals UK — 2014 ....................................................................................... 66
13.3.2 GTK Metallurgical Testing ....................................................................................... 66
13.3.3 Gravity Concentration ............................................................................................. 67
14. Mineral Resources 70
14.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 70
14.2 Data Used in the Formulation of Mineral Resources, Wireframing Methods and Domains ... 72
14.3 Sample Statistics ........................................................................................................... 78
14.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 82
14.4.4 Raja prospect ......................................................................................................... 86
14.4.5 Hut prospect .......................................................................................................... 87
14.4.6 Joki prospect ......................................................................................................... 88
14.5.1 Block model parameters ......................................................................................... 90
14.5.2 Variography ........................................................................................................... 93
14.7 Pit Optimization ........................................................................................................... 100
14.9.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 106
14.9.4 Revenue Factor 1 Model Inferred Mineral Resource estimate .................................. 108
14.9.5 OC-UG Model Inferred Mineral Resource estimate ................................................. 109
14.9.6 All Underground Model Inferred Mineral Resource estimate .................................... 109
14.9.7 Recommendations – Reasonable Prospect of Eventual Economic Extraction............ 110
14.9.8 Other metals (As, Cu, FeO, Ni, S, U, W) determined in secondary evaluations ......... 110
14.10 Validation .................................................................................................................... 112
14.11 Grade Tonnage Data ................................................................................................... 123
14.11.1 Grade tonnage graphs and data for the OC-UG pit optimization model – by prospect123
14.11.2 Summary of combined grade tonnage data ............................................................ 132
15. Mineral Reserve Estimates 134
16. Mining Methods 134
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 viii 01621 Vantaa Finland
17. Recovery Methods 135
18. Project Infrastructure 136
20. Environment 137
22. Economic Analysis 140
23. Adjacent Properties 141
25. Interpretation and Conclusions 143
26. Recommendations 144
Appendix 1 Drill collar coordinate data 148
Appendix 2 Summary of drill intersections at Rajapalot 156
Appendix 3 Rajapalot project area mineral formulae 162
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 ix 01621 Vantaa Finland
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Location of the Rajapalot project area ..................................................................................... 10
Figure 4.2 Mawson exploration permit status as 20th of August 2021 ........................................................ 12
Figure 5.1 Location map of the property ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 7.1 Fennoscandian Shield bedrock map and Rajapalot Au-Co project location................................. 18
Figure 7.2 Lithostratigraphy of the Peräpohja belt .................................................................................... 19
Figure 7.3 Paleoproterozoic belts, Au and Au-Co mineralization ............................................................... 21
Figure 7.4 Geochronology of gold deposition in northern Finland .............................................................. 21
Figure 7.5 Ground magnetic map (RTP) of the Rajapalot area .................................................................. 23
Figure 7.6 Oblique view of the Rajapalot project area showing mineralized wireframes ............................... 24
Figure 8.1 Global gold production versus age of the deposition ................................................................ 27
Figure 8.2 Global Paleoproterozoic gold mineralization ............................................................................ 27
Figure 10.1 Map of Rajapalot project over LIDAR image with drill traces ...................................................... 31
Figure 10.2 Example of marked drill core tray prior to cutting ..................................................................... 32
Figure 10.3 Graph of recovery versus AuEq, indicating lack of correlation against recovery .......................... 33
Figure 10.4 Graph of recovery versus z-coordinate of sample .................................................................... 34
Figure 10.5 Drill hole map for Palokas prospect, with traces and gold above 0.3 g/t ..................................... 35
Figure 10.6 Drill hole map for South Palokas prospect, with traces and gold above 0.3 g/t ............................ 35
Figure 10.7 Drill hole map for Hut prospect, with traces and gold above 0.3 g/t ........................................... 36
Figure 10.8 Drill hole map for Rumajärvi, Terrys Hammer and Uusisaari prospects ....................................... 36
Figure 10.9 Drill hole map for Raja prospect, with traces and gold above 0.3 g/t .......................................... 37
Figure 10.10 Drill hole map for Joki East prospect, with traces and gold above 0.3 g/t ................................... 37
Figure 11.1 Mawson sampling procedures ................................................................................................ 40
Figure 11.2 PAL1000 method, blanks and standards ................................................................................. 41
Figure 11.3 Multi-element work, check assays, round robins and tails. ........................................................ 41
Figure 11.4 Details of PAL1000 technique provided by CRS....................................................................... 42
Figure 11.5 Details of detection limit versus sample mass in PAL1000 method ............................................ 43
Figure 11.6 Mawson notes on preparation for standards for PAL1000 method............................................. 44
Figure 11.7 Weight of submitted blanks plus standard versus received weight ............................................. 45
Figure 11.8 Assay results versus expected values for fire assay method AU-ICP22 ...................................... 45
Figure 11.9 Assay results versus expected values for PAL1000 with DiBK ................................................... 46
Figure 11.10 Assay results versus expected values for PAL1000 .................................................................. 46
Figure 11.11 Data on blanks during the drilling prgorams from PRAJ0070-0120 to PAL0008-0200 ................. 47
Figure 11.12 Data on analysis of standards during drilling programs PRAJ0070-0120 to PAL0008-0200 ......... 48
Figure 11.13 Data on anaysis of blanks, drill programs PAL0001-0158, PRAJ0004-0117, LD series ............... 48
Figure 11.14 Coarse crush and pulp duplicates for drill programs PRAJ and PAL0001-0082 .......................... 49
Figure 11.15 Details of Figure 11.14, near lower Au range ........................................................................... 50
Figure 11.16 Comparison of 1/4 core duplicates using PAL1000 method ...................................................... 50
Figure 11.17 Statistical data on reference standards used; determination of values that exceed 2SD .............. 51
Figure 11.18 Certified reference standard OREAS 201 Data ........................................................................ 52
Figure 11.21 Certified reference standard OREAS H3 Data.......................................................................... 53
Figure 11.22 Data on OREAS blanks 22c and 22d results ............................................................................ 54
Figure 11.23 Data on olivine diorite blank samples results ............................................................................ 55
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 x 01621 Vantaa Finland
Figure 11.24 Cobolt blank data .................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 11.25 Plot of weight received by laboratory on Y versus weight measured in spike preparation ............. 56
Figure 11.26 Log-log plot of expected gold concentrations vs measured gold................................................ 56
Figure 11.27 OREAS 520 cobalt standards results ...................................................................................... 57
Figure 11.28 OREAS 521 cobalt standards results ...................................................................................... 57
Figure 11.29 OREAS 523 cobalt standard resuts ........................................................................................ 58
Figure 11.30 Oreas 524 cobalt standard results .......................................................................................... 58
Figure 11.31 Inter-laboratory round robin cobalt results ............................................................................... 59
Figure 11.32 Inter-laboratory round robin gold results .................................................................................. 59
Figure 13.1 Average bulk modal mineralogy by mineralization type ............................................................. 64
Figure 13.2 Cobalt mineralogical deportment by mineralization type ........................................................... 64
Figure 13.3 Overview of the Rajapalot mineralization mineralogical properties ............................................. 66
Figure 14.1 Mineralized Wireframes at Rajapalot ....................................................................................... 74
Figure 14.2 Gold and cobalt wireframes at Palokas prospect...................................................................... 74
Figure 14.3 Gold and cobalt wireframes at South Palokas prospect ............................................................ 75
Figure 14.4 Gold and cobalt wireframes at Raja prospect........................................................................... 75
Figure 14.5 Gold and cobalt wireframes at Joki prospect ........................................................................... 76
Figure 14.6 Gold and cobalt wireframes at Hut prospect ............................................................................ 76
Figure 14.7 Gold and cobalt wireframes at Rumajärvi prospect................................................................... 77
Figure 14.8 Palokas prospect main gold wireframe histogram of gold .......................................................... 79
Figure 14.9 Raja prospect main gold wireframe histogram of gold ............................................................... 79
Figure 14.10 Palokas prospect main cobalt wireframe histogram of cobolt .................................................... 81
Figure 14.11 Raja prospect main cobalt wireframe histogram of cobolt ......................................................... 81
Figure 14.12 Histogram of density measurements for Rajapalot mineralized rocks ......................................... 82
Figure 14.13 Linear relationship evident between density and FeO % ........................................................... 83
Figure 14.14 Palokas prospect density histogram for samples over 0.3 g/t Au ............................................... 84
Figure 14.15 Palokas prospect density versus FeO ..................................................................................... 84
Figure 14.16 South Palokas prospect density histogram for samples over 0.3 g/t Au ...................................... 85
Figure 14.17 South Palokas prospect density versus FeO ............................................................................ 85
Figure 14.18 Raja prospect density histogram for samples over 0.3 g/t Au .................................................... 86
Figure 14.19 Raja prospect density versus FeO .......................................................................................... 86
Figure 14.20 Hut prospect density histogram for samples over 0.3 g/t Au...................................................... 87
Figure 14.21 Hut prospect density versus FeO............................................................................................ 87
Figure 14.22 Joki prospect density histogram for samples over 0.3 g/t Au ..................................................... 88
Figure 14.23 Joki prospect density versus FeO ........................................................................................... 88
Figure 14.24 Rumajärvi prospect density histogram for samples over 0.3 g/t Au ............................................ 89
Figure 14.25 Rumajärvi prospect density versus FeO .................................................................................. 89
Figure 14.26 Details of Palokas sub-blockmodel with plan view of outline of block model ................................ 90
Figure 14.27 Details of Raja sub-blockmodel with plan view of outline of block model ..................................... 91
Figure 14.28 Details of Joki East sub-blockmodel with plan view of outline of block model .............................. 91
Figure 14.29 Details of Rumajärvi sub-blockmodel with plan view of outline of block model ............................. 92
Figure 14.30 Details of Hut sub-blockmodel with plan view of outline of block model ...................................... 92
Figure 14.31 Major, intermediate and minor axis variograms for the main gold wireframe at Palokas ............... 93
Figure 14.32 Example of density calculations used in block models .............................................................. 99
Figure 14.33 Example of calculations made to determine block position in models ......................................... 99
Figure 14.34 Palokas prospect, section showing continuity of grade with pit outline ..................................... 101
Figure 14.35 South Palokas prospect, section showing increase of grade at depth ...................................... 102
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 xi 01621 Vantaa Finland
Figure 14.36 Raja prospect, section showing grade trend .......................................................................... 103
Figure 14.37 Joki prospect, section showing mineralization lenses ............................................................. 104
Figure 14.38 Rumajärvi prospect, section showing block models ................................................................ 104
Figure 14.39 The Hut prospect, section showing block models ................................................................... 105
Figure 14.40 Oblique view of Rajapalot project with Reveneu Factor 1 pits .................................................. 106
Figure 14.41 Plot of average distance between drill holes in Raja ................................................................ 112
Figure 14.42 Slope of Regression (SoR) analysis in Raja ............................................................................ 113
Figure 14.43 Kriging Variance (KV) at Raja ............................................................................................... 114
Figure 14.44 Drill hole spacing at Palokas................................................................................................. 115
Figure 14.45 Slope of Regression (SoR) analysis of Palokas prospect ......................................................... 115
Figure 14.46 Kriging Variance (KV) of Palokas block model ........................................................................ 116
Figure 14.47 Palokas swath plot in X axis ................................................................................................. 116
Figure 14.48 Palokas swath plot in Y axis ................................................................................................. 117
Figure 14.49 Palokas swath plot in Z axis ................................................................................................. 117
Figure 14.50 South Palokas swath plot in X axis ........................................................................................ 118
Figure 14.51 South Palokas swath plot in Y axis ........................................................................................ 118
Figure 14.52 South Palokas swath plot in Z axis ........................................................................................ 119
Figure 14.53 Hut swath plot in X axis........................................................................................................ 119
Figure 14.54 Hut swath plot in Y axis........................................................................................................ 120
Figure 14.55 Hut swath plot in Z axis ........................................................................................................ 120
Figure 14.56 Raja swath plot in X axis ...................................................................................................... 121
Figure 14.57 Raja swath plot in Y axis ...................................................................................................... 121
Figure 14.58 Raja swath plot in Z axis ...................................................................................................... 122
Figure 14.59 Grade tonnage graph for Palokas opencut model (OC-UG optimized model) ........................... 123
Figure 14.60 Grade tonnage graph for Palokas underground option (OC-UG optimized model) .................... 124
Figure 14.61 Grade tonnage graph for Raja opencut option (OC-UG optimized model) ................................ 125
Figure 14.62 Grade tonnage graph for Raja underground option (OC-UG optimized model) ......................... 126
Figure 14.63 Grade tonnage graph for Joki underground option (OC-UG optimized model) .......................... 127
Figure 14.64 Grade tonnage graph for the Hut opencut option (OC-UG optimized model) ............................ 128
Figure 14.65 Grade tonnage graph for the Hut underground option (OC-UG optimized model) ..................... 129
Figure 14.66 Grade tonnage graph for the Rumajärvi opencut option (OC-UG optimized model)................... 130
Figure 14.67 Grade tonnage graph for the Rumajärvi underground option (OC-UG optimized model) ............ 131
Figure 14.68 Combined table and graphic data for the combined pits (OC-UG model) at Rajapalot .............. 132
Figure 14.69 Combined table and graphic data for the underground component (OC-UG model) at Rajapalot ........................................................................................................................... 132
Figure 14.70 Combined table and graphic data for the “All underground” model at Rajapalot ....................... 133
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 xii 01621 Vantaa Finland
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Criteria used for pit optimization models ....................................................................................... 4
Table 1.2 Inferred Mineral Resource estimation as at 26 August 2021 ........................................................... 4
Table 2.1 Persons preparing this Technical Report ...................................................................................... 6
Table 4.1 Exploration permit status........................................................................................................... 12
Table 10.1 Total Rajapalot drill programs 30 June 2021 ............................................................................... 30
Table 10.2 Resource definition drill progress ............................................................................................... 31
Table 13.1 Au-Co fire assay analyses of the three mineralization types performed in triplicate ......................... 63
Table 13.2 Quantitative modal mineralogy obtained by QXRD ...................................................................... 63
Table 13.3 Main properties for the three geometallurgical mineralization-types of the Rajapalot project ............ 65
Table 13.4 Example of gravity recovery test using Knelson Concentrator....................................................... 67
Table 13.5 Example of magnetic separation test on a feed sample ................................................................ 67
Table 13.6 Example of magnetic separation test on a flotation concentrate.................................................... 68
Table 13.7 Example of flotation test result – high pyrrhotite feed ................................................................... 68
Table 14.1 Criteria used for pit optimization models ..................................................................................... 71
Table 14.2 Inferred Mineral Resource estimation as at 26 August 2021 ......................................................... 71
Table 14.3 Details of the wireframes used as domains in the estimation of the Inferred Mineral Resource ......... 72
Table 14.4 Randomly sub-sampled set of AuEq assay data, depth profiles .................................................... 78
Table 14.5 Gold domain statistics (24 wireframes) top cut to 50 g/t Au ......................................................... 78
Table 14.6 Cobalt domain statistics (24 wireframes) .................................................................................... 80
Table 14.7 Domain variography data for gold and cobalt .............................................................................. 94
Table 14.8 Domained estimation names and discretization inputs ................................................................. 96
Table 14.9 Domain details for search and minimum and maximum sample numbers used in estimation ........... 97
Table 14.10 Criteria used for pit optimization models ................................................................................... 100
Table 14.11 Revenue Factor 1 Model Inferred Mineral Resource estimate ..................................................... 108
Table 14.12 OC-UG Model Inferred Mineral Resource estimate .................................................................... 109
Table 14.13 All Underground Model Inferred Mineral Resource estimate ....................................................... 109
Table 14.14 Average grades estimated for As, Cu, FeO, Ni, S, U and W for OC-UG pit model ........................ 110
Table 14.15 Metal contents estimated for As, Cu, FeO, Ni, S, U and W for OC-UG pit model .......................... 111
Table 14.16 Grade tonnage data for Palokas opencut model (OC-UG optimised model) ................................ 123
Table 14.17 Grade tonnage data for Palokas underground option (OC-UG optimised model) ......................... 124
Table 14.18 Grade tonnage data for Raja opencut option (OC-UG optimised model) ..................................... 125
Table 14.19 Grade tonnage data for Raja underground option (OC-UG optimised model) .............................. 126
Table 14.20 Grade tonnage data for Joki underground option (OC-UG optimised model) ............................... 127
Table 14.21 Grade tonnage data for the Hut opencut option (OC-UG optimised model) ................................. 128
Table 14.22 Grade tonnage data for the Hut underground option (OC-UG optimised model) .......................... 129
Table 14.23 Grade tonnage data for Rumajärvi opencut option (OC-UG optimised model) ............................. 130
Table 14.24 Grade tonnage data for the Rumajärvi underground option (OC-UG optimised model) ................. 131
AFRY Finland Oy Jaakonkatu 3 PL 500 1 01621 Vantaa Finland
1. SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
AFRY Finland Oy was commissioned by Mawson Gold Limited (“Mawson”) to report on the results of a Mineral Resource Estimate on the Rajapalot Property in Lapland, Finland. Gold and cobalt are the primary elements of concern.
This Mineral Resource has been completed according to the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (CIM) Definition Standards 2014 and this Technical Report is written in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) “Standards for Disclosure for Mineral Projects” of the Canadian Securities Administrators.
This is the third Rajapalot Property Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report following the first dated 14 December 2018 and the second dated 14 September 2020. The first two NI 43-101 Technical Reports were completed by AMC Consultants Pty Ltd (AMC).
A site visit was carried out by Eemeli Rantala (QP) 29 June 2021 to 2 July 2021 who is acting as the Qualified Person for the reporting of the Mineral Resource estimate.
This report contains conclusions, opinions, estimates and information based on the following:
Reports, data, plans, maps, 3D computer models and other information provided by Mawson;
Information made available to and gathered by AFRY for preparation of this report;
Qualifications, assumptions and conditions as detailed in this report.
1.2 TENEMENTS
The Rompas-Rajapalot property consists of 5 granted exploration permits for 5,725 hectares and 8 exploration permit applications for a combined total of 17,989 hectares. Exploration permits are granted for up to 15 years with standard two or three yearly renewals. The Rajapalot resource reported here occurs within two granted tenements (Kairamaat 2/3 and Hirvimaa).
1.3 LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP
The property is located in the northern Finland region known as Lapland, close to the Arctic Circle (25.0°E and 66.6°N). In the Finnish metric grid (EPSG:2393, KKJ), the Rajapalot project is centred on 3408700mE and 7373200mN.
The Property is located approximately 35 kilometres (km) west-southwest of the city of Rovaniemi in southern Lapland, Finland. Access to site is by standard vehicle on tar sealed roads and well- maintained gravel roads.
The topography is gently rolling to almost flat, heavily glaciated and inundated with numerous post-glacial lakes, till, eskers, lacustrine and fluvial deposits with a mean elevation of approximately 170 metres.
On 30 April 2010, Mawson entered into an agreement with AREVA Finland (AREVA) whereby the Company acquired 100 % of AREVA’s mineral properties and exploration database in exchange for €1 million. Mawson continues to own 100 % of the property.
There are no underlying royalties (except a statutory Finnish mining royalty of 0.15 % of the value of the exploited mineral / metal payable to the landowner), back-in rights or other underlying agreements or encumbrances over the property.
1.4 GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION
The host sequence comprises a polydeformed, isoclinally folded package of amphibolite facies metamorphosed Paleoproterozoic supracrustal rocks of the Peräpohja belt. The Paleoproterozoic of northern Finland are highly prospective for gold and cobalt, and include the Europe’s largest gold mine, Kittilä, operated by Agnico Eagle Finland Oy.
At the project scale Mawson recognizes two host rock packages; firstly, a siliciclastic, dolomitic carbonate and albite-altered metasedimentary sequence interpreted as forming in a platformal to continental margin setting (Kivalo Group). The second metasedimentary sequence comprises pelitic turbidites, arkosic sands, carbonates, impure and pure quartzitic sandstones and sulphidic bituminous rocks corresponds to the Paakkola Group. Mafic volcanics and intrusives and post- tectonic granitoids are locally abundant.
Stratabound gold-cobalt mineralization occurs near the boundary of the Kivalo and Paakkola groups with two contrasting host rocks, either iron-magnesium or potassic-iron types. Multi-stage development of the mineralization is evident, with early-formed cobalt and a post-tectonic hydrothermal gold event.
1.5 EXPLORATION DRILLING
Drill core recoveries are excellent, averaging over 99.9 % across the Rajapalot Resource estimate. All core is photographed with sampling details evident prior to cutting at the GTK core facility in Rovaniemi. Core orientation occurs on all core of NQ size and above (PAL series of drill holes – 96 % of diamond drilling). Core orientation lines are marked on base of hole and the orientation line is kept in the core tray for verification purposes which also ensures the same half of the drill core is always used for assay. Fabric determinations are conducted using standard alpha/beta measurements or an oriented core holder.
1.6 ASSAY DATA
The bulk of gold assays are conducted using the certified PAL1000 technique through CRS Laboratories in Kempele, Finland. Coarse crush samples, generally of 1 kg, are loaded into steel pots with abrasive media in the presence of cyanide. They are rolled for a standard period and then the gold in solution is determined by flame AAS. Lowest detection limits of this method with 1 kg of sample is 0.01 g/t Au. Fire assay methods using standard procedures to lower detection limits have been used as required.
Inter-laboratory testing of the PAL1000 technique using fire assaying at ALS laboratories has validated the technique.
On-site verification and on-line inspection of the assay data by the QP has found no internal or external laboratory issues of concern and finds that the methods employed by Mawson make the assay database suitable for estimation and reporting of the Mineral Resource estimates.
1.7 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
As part of Finland’s BATCircle project, a program of geometallurgical characterisation work was undertaken on three Rajapalot project samples by the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK).
The report presented the main findings of the geometallurgical characterization work performed on three distinct mineralization types from the Rajapalot project, namely PAL1 (Palokas Fe-Mg type), AY (albite-hosted pyrrhotite type) and MP (mica-pyrrhotite type). The three mineralization types selected were based on their significant distinct geological signature and were characterised using various geochemical and mineralogical analyses, including Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical-Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES) and Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS), Electron Microprobe Analyser (EPMA), Quantitative X-Ray diffraction (QXRD), and automated
mineralogy (QEMSCAN).
Overall, the results suggest that the three geological mineralization types have the potential to be considered as separate geometallurgical mineralization types owing to their distinct mineralogical properties and Au-Co grades, that will likely influence their processing behaviour — especially for cobalt recovery. Notably, cobalt minerals vary significantly between the mineralization types, with cobaltite as the main Co-bearing mineral in types AY and MP, and linnaeite as the main host for cobalt in type PAL1.
A comparison between QXRD and QEMSCAN for mineralization-type classification in the micas+quartz-plagioclase-amphibole system showed a clear distinction between the types, suggesting that QXRD can be used for type classification.
Preliminary evaluation of downstream processing and flowsheet options was made based on the characterisation results and basic mineral property information for target and gangue minerals. Gravity concentration, cyanide leaching, magnetic separation, and flotation were identified as having potential to be used to recover both gold and cobalt. A preliminary series of ‘sighter’ tests were performed on representative samples, confirming the gold was ‘free-milling’ and high recoveries could be achieved with standard processing methods. Cobalt minerals could be effectively separated and concentrated with further standard processing.
1.8 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE
Forty-eight gold and cobalt wireframes were constructed separately in Leapfrog Geo and grade distributions independently estimated using Ordinary Kriging in Leapfrog Edge.
Gold equivalence (AuEq) was calculated on each block using long term projected prices (CIBC, June 2021) of USD$1,590 per troy ounce and USD$23.07 per pound for gold and cobalt respectively. This results in AuEq = Au (g/t) + Co/1,005 (ppm).
Optimization of the resource was conducted using Whittle software based on the criteria for pit optimization. Fixed cuts were then used as follows:
1.1 g/t AuEq outside the optimal pits, potentially to be accessed by underground methods (termed “UG”).
0.3 g/t AuEq for the deposits within each optimal pit (termed pit or “OC”).
Whittle software (version 4.7.3) was used in the optimization on Palokas, Raja, Hut, Rumajärvi and Joki deposits to define the mineralization falling within the confines of an open pit (demonstrating reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction, “RPEEE”). Mineralization falling outside these pits above the cut-off grade of 1.1 g/t AuEq was then defined as underground resources with RPEEE.
Criteria for pit optimization were based on knowledge of current and recent Finnish and European operations and are as detailed in Table 1.1.
The optimization process was conducted considering three scenarios:
The first using Whittle optimization for a pit of Revenue Factor 1 (Rev-F-1);
The second optimization utilised the changeover from open cut (OC) to underground (UG) based on the estimated differential operating expenses of OC and UG (model termed “OC- UG”);
The third was an underground scenario where a depth of 20 metres below the base of solid rock was regarded as the near-surface limit of potential mining (UG only).
These three scenarios were developed to allow consideration of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE). Without further consideration of economic viability (“reserves”), the second optimization (OC-UG) is regarded as the most reasonable (Table 1.2).
Property Details (all prices in US$)
Gold price $1,590/oz
Cobalt price $23.07/lb
Processing cost $12.00/t
Mining cost increased $0.02 per 5 m bench
Geologic model Regularized to 5 m x 5 m x 2.5 m to account for dilution
Whittle pit shells Created using 5 m benches
Overall slope angle 50°
Additional cost for mining ore $0.60/t
Estimate for underground mining $30/t
Table 1.1. Criteria used for pit optimization models
Zone Cut-off (AuEq)
Tonnes (kt) Au
(g/t) Co (ppm)
Palokas Pit 0.3 1,228 2.2 382 2.5 86 469 100,511
Palokas UG 1.1 4,878 2.7 501 3.2 428 2,443 505,841
Palokas total 6,106 2.6 477 3.1 513 2,911 606,451
Raja Pit 0.3 485 1.3 289 1.6 20 140 24,206
Raja UG 1.1 2,492 3.2 401 3.6 255 999 287,574
Raja total 2,977 2.9 383 3.2 274 1,140 310,780
East Joki (no pit)
East Joki UG 1.1 299 4.5 363 4.9 43 109 46,859
East Joki total 299 4.5 363 4.9 43 109 46,859
Hut Pit 0.3 61 0.1 874 1.0 0.2 54 1,928
Hut UG 1.1 816 1.4 411 1.8 36 336 46,682
Hut total 877 1.3 444 1.7 36 389 48,610
Rumajärvi Pit 0.3 401 0.6 496 1.1 8 199 14,467
Rumajärvi UG 1.1 246 1.5 356 1.9 12 88 14,813
Rumajärvi total
Total Pit 0.3 2,175 1.6 396 2.0 114 861 141,112
Total UG 1.1 8,732 2.7 455 3.2 774 3,974 900,868
Total 10,907 2.5 443 3.0 887 4,836 1,041,980
Table 1.2. Effective date of this Inferred Mineral Resource estimation is 26 August 2021. CIM Definition Standards (2014) were used for Mineral Resource classifications. AuEq=Au+Co/1,005 based on assumed USD prices of Co $23.07/lb and Au $1,590/oz. Rounding of grades and tonnes may introduce apparent errors in averages and contained metal totals Drilling results to 20 June 2021. These are Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
1.9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Estimation and reporting of the Mineral Resource estimate (NI 43-101 Technical Report) is considered by the QP to be based on suitable quality drill hole assay data.
Sample preparation, analytical procedures and security are adequate and follow best practice. Data quality QAQC checks are performed routinely as part of day-to-day operations by Mawson geologists.
The QP recommends continuation of the exploration and drill program with two purposes:
Improve the total resource base across the property;
Confirm the steadily improving geostatistical models for the gold trends with the goal of upgrading the resources from inferred to indicated status.
Work programs over the next two years should focus on the following matters:
A 40,000 metre diamond drill program, broadly divided according to:
20,000 metre program is recommended to search for new prospects and drill them to new inferred resource category with an aim to double the Mineral Resource;
A further 20,000 metre program to focus drilling on eventual resource to reserve conversion, extend current resources and upgrade current and any new resources from inferred to indicated. Given past experience at Rajapalot, drilling to improve estimation and therefore grade control in the resource is likely to increase the average grade.
Re-interpret the geology and geophysics across the Mawson exploration permits to apply the new understanding from recent drilling;
Drill some large diameter, near-surface drill holes for metallurgical sampling;
Metallurgical testwork with a clear focus on gold recovery and further work to develop the best cobalt processing method;
Continue to manage the Environmental, Safety and Health aspects of the project at a high standard and build on the successes of the Community Liaison work completed to date that has led to broad stakeholder support for the project to advance;
Continue with baseline environmental work, and advance the already in progress EIA and land use planning processes to define in more detail the mine development regulatory framework;
Commence early-stage internal engineering studies to understand the best development options for the project;
Bring further engineering experience to Mawson to build the broad knowledge base beyond the current exploration focus.
The two year budget to conduct these programs is approximately CDN$14.5 million of which drilling is approximately 70 %. Mineral processing and metallurgical testing will require up to CDN$600,000.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 COMMISSIONING, INSPECTIONS AND INFORMATION SOURCES
AFRY Finland Oy was commissioned by Mawson Gold Limited (“Mawson”) to report on the results of a Mineral Resource estimate on the Rajapalot Property in Lapland, Finland. Gold and cobalt are the primary elements of concern.
This Mineral Resource has been completed according to the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (CIM) Definition Standards 2104 and this Technical Report is written in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) “Standards for Disclosure for Mineral Projects” of the Canadian Securities Administrators.
This is the third Rajapalot Property Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report following the first dated 14 December 2018 and the second dated 14 September 2020. The first two NI 43-101 Technical Reports were completed by AMC Consultants Pty Ltd (AMC).
A site visit was carried out by Eemeli Rantala (QP) from 29 June to 2 July 2021. As no on-site engineering or metallurgical work is conducted, site visits by Ville-Matti Seppä and Craig Brown (Mining Associates Pty Ltd or “MA”) were not required.
Table 2.1. Persons preparing this Technical Report
The personal inspection of the property undertaken by the Qualified Person (QP) covered the following areas:
Examination of drill core from all of the prospects comprising the Mineral Resource;
Discussions and interviews at Mawson Core Facility;
Understanding of the quality control on all aspects of the drill data collection;
Detailed discussions on the geology of the Rajapalot Project based on plans, cross sections, core and field photographs;
Auditing of wireframing process for gold and cobalt mineral intersections and validation of the estimations and block modelling through joint work on site and then continuous on-line sharing of Leapfrog Edge files.
This Technical Report is based on:
Information provided by Mawson staff;
Data collected on site in Rovaniemi by AFRY staff (Ove Klaver) and the supervising AFRY QP, Eemeli Rantala;
Geological, environmental and permitting discussions with Mawson personnel in Rovaniemi;
Discussions over three months (June to August) with Nick Cook (Mawson Chief Geologist)
covering aspects of the geology, structural controls on grade distribution, orientations of mineralization and grade modelling, all validated by the QP.
Mawson, AFRY and Craig Brown of Mining Associates Pty Ltd have cooperated in the drafting of this document to ensure factual content, conformity with the brief and the requirements of reporting under the National Instrument NI 43-101.
2.2 NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
All currency used in the metal prices and modifying factors are in United States dollars (US$). There may be references to other currencies in the report, in particular Canadian dollars (CDN$) and Euros (€). The official Bank of Canada exchange rates for these currencies at 20 August, 2021 are here for reference:
CDN$1.0000 = US$1.2856 = €1.5025
Mawson Oy The Finnish entity wholly owned by the parent company Mawson Gold Limited – all entities may be referred to in this Technical Report as “Mawson”.
AFRY Finland Oy May be referred to as “AFRY”
Qualified Person Referred to as “QP” and may contain in brackets the abbreviations of the name of the relevant QP being referred to. ER = Eemeli Rantala; V-MS = Ville-Matti Seppä; CB = Craig Brown.
Rompas-Rajapalot Property area covering Rajapalot and Rompas projects. The resource descriptions in this report cover the Rajapalot project area within the broader Rompas-Rajapalot property. Exploration upside covers the broader property area.
Units of measurement All units unless otherwise stated are in metric
Ounce This refers to Troy ounces in all cases (koz is used for thousands of ounces in some tables)
ppm Parts per million
AuEq Based on the equivalence of cobalt in ppm and an ounce of gold. The equation used is AuEq=Au+Co/1,005 based on forecast long term USD prices of Co $23.07/lb and Au $1,590/oz (CIBC, June 2021).
Tonnes Metric tonnes are used throughout this report (kt is the abbreviation for thousands of tonnes)
SMU Smallest mining unit (used in the pit optimization process)
Whittle Refers to the pit optimization software used.
Leapfrog May refer to Leapfrog Edge or Leapfrog Geo, part of the geological and modelling suite owed by Seequent Limited. Version 2021.1.2 used throughout this report.
ioGAS Geochemical analysis software owned by Reflex, part of the Imdex Group
TUKES Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency (Turvallisuus- ja kemikaalivirasto) is the Finnish Government agency responsible for exploration permitting.
GTK Geological Survey of Finland (Geologian Tutkimuskeskus)
Rev-F-1 Revenue factor = 1 pit optimization model (generates the largest
Whittle optimised pit) – not used in reporting of this Resource.
OC-UG Smaller pits defined using an opencut versus underground OPEX breakeven point – the method used to create the Resource on which this report is based.
All-UG Model created to test the viability of an all underground operation (grade blocks were used where they were deeper than 20 metres below the base of the till.
SGS https://www.sgs.com/en/our-company/about-sgs
BATCircle Business Finland funded battery metal research. Finland-based Circular Ecosystem of Battery Metals, BATCircle, aims at improving the competitiveness of the Finnish battery value chain.
NEXT New Exploration Technologies. Horizon 2020 funded EU project (Grant Agreement No. 776804 — H2020-SC5-2017)
BOT Base of till drilling – small percussion drill rig with flow-through drill bit. Generally drilled to refusal through till and sample taken from top of bedrock.
Joki Used interchangeably with with Joki East and East Joki
KKJ3 Finnish metric grid system also known as KKJ. Interchangeable and equivalent known as EPSG 3901 and EPSG 2392.
Ga, Ma Abbreviations for billion year and million years respectively.
Chemical abbreviations Gold, Au; cobalt, Co; iron oxide, FeO; sulphur, S; arsenic, As; nickel, Ni; bismuth, Bi; copper, Cu; tungsten, W, uranium, U; tellurium, Te.
Mineral species See Appendix 3.
3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
The qualified persons have relied on information and opinions forming the basis for parts of this technical report in the following areas:
On-line data on permits from Finnish Government authorities (TUKES). These data are current as at July 30 and have been reviewed by an AFRY QP (ER). The portion of the report where this disclaimer applies is Section 4.
Detailed technical geological work up to August 2021 of Mawson’s Finnish geological team, supervised by their Chief Geologist, Dr Nick Cook (FAusIMM). These data have been independently verified by the AFRY QP (ER) during field visits in 2021. The portions of the report where this disclaimer applies are Sections 7-9 and 14.
Whittle pit optimization conducted during August 2021 by Mawson’s consultant and experienced Mining Engineer, Bouke van’t Riet (M.Eng). This work was verified by the AFRY QP (V-MS). This disclaimer applies to Section 14.
Reports of the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), BATCircle 1.0 and SGS were reviewed by one of the QPs (CB). The QP relied upon this information in forming an opinion on the mineral processing and metallurgical testing and this disclaimer therefore applies to Section 13.
4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
4.1 LOCATION
The property is located in the northern Finland region known as Lapland, close to the Arctic Circle (25.0°E and 66.6°N). In local Finnish grid coordinates (KKJ(3), EPSG:2393), the Rajapalot project is centred on 3408700mE and 7373200mN.
The local Finnish coordinate system is being modified to a European standard and is partially implemented by the authorities, as such, agencies such as TUKES require reporting in newer the ETRS89/TM35FIN (EPSG 3067) coordinate format. All reporting in this document by Mawson remains in the KKJ system.
Figure 4.1. Location of the Rajapalot project area
4.2 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
On 30 April 2010, Mawson entered into an agreement with AREVA Finland (AREVA) whereby the Company acquired 100 % of AREVA’s mineral properties and exploration database in exchange for €1 million and 10 % equity in Mawson. At that time the Rompas project had 30 grab samples collected while the Rajapalot area had not yet been discovered nor was part of the Areva exploration area. The Rajapalot project was a grassroots discovery by Mawson in 2012 and is located 8 kilometres east of Rompas. Currently, the Rompas-Rajapalot property consists of 5 granted exploration permits for 5,725 hectares and 8 exploration permit applications for a combined total of 17,989 hectares and is held 100% in the name of Mawson Oy, Mawson’s 100% owned Finnish subsidiary.
4.3 ENVIRONMENT
This Nature Conservation Act 1996 aims to maintain biological diversity, promote scientific research, and conserve the natural beauty of the area.
Certain areas of the Rompas-Rajapalot areas (namely claim areas Kairamaat 2-3, Uusi Rumavuoma and Rompas) are defined as European Union Natura 2000 designated areas. Natura 2000 sites cover approximately 17 % of Mawson’s current exploration permit area at Rompas- Rajapalot, 13 % of Finland and over 30 % of Northern Finland. Natura 2000 is the centrepiece of EU nature and biodiversity policy.
The Natura 2000 network is in place to conserve important biotopes and species throughout Europe. The purpose of the Natura 2000 program is to preserve nature’s diversity. Mineral exploration is an allowed activity within Natura 2000 areas.
Parts of the Rompas exploration application are subject to Finnish state-based decrees which pre-date the Nature Conservation Act 1996 (with amendments). These are the Mire Protection Decree (933/1981) and the Old Growth Forest Protection Decree (522/1992). Exploration is allowed in the areas of the decrees, with landholder or Ministry of Environment´s permission. These decree areas do not cover the Rajapalot resources defined within this Technical Report, occurring approximately 8 km to the west.
This is further elaborated in Section 20.
4.4 PERMITTING
The Rompas-Rajapalot property consists of 5 granted exploration permits for 5,725 hectares and 8 exploration permit applications for a combined total of 17,989 hectares. Exploration permits are granted for up to 15 years with standard two or three yearly renewals. The Rajapalot resource reported here occurs within two granted tenements (Kairamaat 2/3 and Hirvimaa). According to the Finnish Mining Act, after the first permit period of up to 4 years, all exploration permits in Finland can be renewed in 3-year maximum intervals, for a combined total of 15 years. Reservations are valid for 2 years. The Raja extension permit is under a statutory renewal process for a 3-year period, and expected to come in legal force in late September. According to the Finnish Mining Act exploration work cannot take place until the renewal has been accepted and completed. The 1,462 hectare Kairamaat 2/3 exploration permit is granted, but not in legal force and Mawson is permitted to explore according to an enforcement order granted by TUKES (the Finnish Mining Authority). Figure 4.2 shows the locations of the local claims described above.
Details of exploration permits were obtained from TUKES and verified on their website (last online update 20 August 2021 https://tukes.fi/karttatiedostot-rss-atomfeedina).
Figure 4.2. Mawson exploration permit status as at 20 August 2021 (source Mawson Oy).
Permit type Name Mining registry number Area (ha)
Exploration Permit* Raja ML2014:0061-01 883 Exploration Permit Männistö ML2016:0046-02 2,141 Exploration Permit Korkiakoivikko ML2012:0168-02 232 Exploration Permit# Kairamaat 2/3 ML2013:0041-02 1,462 Exploration Permit Hirvimaa ML2014:0033-02 1,007 Total 5,725 Exploration Permit Application Rompas ML2014:0060-01 265 Exploration Permit Application Kultamaat ML2015:0005-01 529 Exploration Permit Application Karsimaat Ml2014:0075-01 2,777 Exploration Permit Application Uusi Rumavuoma ML2015:0042-01 1,283 Exploration Permit Application Kaitajärvi E-M-W Ml2014:0100-01 802 Exploration Permit Application Mäntylaenokka N -S ML2015:0054-01 398 Exploration Permit Application Kuusivaara ML2014:0077-01 4,565 Exploration Permit Application Petäjävaara ML2014:0074-01 1,645 Total granted plus application permits
17,989
Table 4.1. Status and details of Mawson exploration permits in Rompas-Rajapalot property. Note: *under statutory renewal process for a 3-year period and # under enforcement Note the applicant for an exploration permit in accordance with section 34 of the Mining Act (Mining Act 621/2011) is given priority with respect to the granting of the permit
Finland has rigorous regulatory processes with strict environmental standards and Mawson is committed to work with the regional and national authorities and broader stakeholder groups to develop the project in a responsible way. Mawson has completed ten years of flora, fauna and water base line studies and nature assessments in the research and broader areas.
Mawson carries out its exploration activities in large areas, including 17 % of its permit areas
within biodiversity conservation areas (Natura 2000 in the Kairamaat 2/3 exploration permit area and Uusi Rumavuoma and Rompas application areas). The Joki East resource area was discovered outside of the Natura 2000 area. The aim of the Natura 2000 network is to assure the long-term survival of Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Natura 2000 is not a system of strict nature reserves where all human activities are excluded and forms 18 % of the EU landmass. Development in Natura is defined by clear rules and the emphasis is on ensuring that future management is sustainable, both ecologically and economically. Eighty- two percent of the project lies outside of Natura areas. Mawson is permitted to complete all exploration at Rajapalot inside and outside Natura zones. The next major permitting step required will come at mining where biodiversity offsets for Natura areas will most likely be required. There are mining projects that have been permitted and are in production in Natura 2000 areas within Europe, including Krumovgrad (gold mine Bulgaria), Prosper Haniel (coal mine in Germany) and Mechelse Heide Zuid (sand mine in Belgium). Anglo American is currently permitting the Sakatti Ni-Cu-PGE project, which is located in a Natura 2000 area, for mining in Finland.
For diamond drilling at Rajapalot, Mawson completes biological mapping of all areas where drilling took place, and has worked together with all authorities to minimize impact, including capturing all drill cuttings, reduction in total machine weight and the careful preparation of compressed snow roads for use by skidoo, Bandvagn and drill rigs. The same process takes place each winter drill season.
5. ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
5.1 LOCATION AND ACCESS
The Property is located approximately 35 kilometres (km) west-southwest of the city of Rovaniemi in southern Lapland, Finland. Access by road from Rovaniemi is via highway E75 south-westerly for 24 km to the junction of highway 930, just past the town of Muurola. Heading westerly on highway 930 (Aavasaksantie) for about 18 km, the Property is accessed via a secondary / tertiary gravel road that heads northerly. This is roughly the south-eastern boundary of the property which extends for several kilometres to the west and northwest; the project lies about 10 km south of the Arctic Circle.
The project lies across the boundary of the local municipalities Ylitornio and Rovaniemi. Sealed road access from the Swedish border to the west via Ylitornio or from the south via Tervola is also possible. Mawson’s all-year core logging, storage and office facilities are located at Ajhotie 7, Rovaniemi.
Figure 5.1. Location map of the property
5.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY
The topography is gently rolling to almost flat, heavily glaciated and inundated with numerous post-glacial lakes, till, eskers, lacustrine and fluvial deposits. The mean elevation on the property is approximately 170 m ASL, ranging between 150 m and 200 m ASL. At Rajapalot, swamps and small creeks drain east and south into the Kemi River which in turn flows into the northern Gulf of Bothnia, while waters in the western part of the project drain to the Tornio River also flowing into the northern Gulf of Bothnia.
A low divide between the catchments of the Torniojoki and the Kemijoki Rivers occurs within the Rajapalot project. All of the Inferred Mineral Resources discussed in this report lie within the catchment of the Kemijoki River.
5.3 CLIMATE AND OPERATING SEASON
With an average temperature of +0.2°C the climate is classified as sub-arctic. Annual rainfall averages 535 mm, and snow stays on the ground 183 days per year on average. The type of work performed in the area may be dictated by the seasons, but work is carried out throughout the year. Note that owing to the presence of the Gulf Stream along the Norwegian Coast (450 km to the northwest) the winter season is less harsh than equivalent latitudes in Canada.
Vehicle road access to site is possible year-round, including by standard cars. Thus, local workers tend to drive to site daily for work throughout the winter drill programs.
5.4 INFRASTRUCTURE
Rovaniemi is the largest city and provincial capital of Lapland with a population of 63,000 (July 2020). Daily flights from the all-weather sealed airport link with the Finnish capital Helsinki. Regular trains also service Rovaniemi.
Highly educated skilled labour is readily available in Rovaniemi and surrounding communities. There is adequate raw material (water, gravel, timber) and forestry roads inundate the entire area. The smaller communities along highway 930 on the southern margins of Mawson’s tenement package are serviced with electricity. As mining is an established and recognized industry in Finland, there would appear to be no hindrances to surface rights. The terrain is suitable for a mine/processing plant, dumps, tailings and storage facilities.
Forests cover more than 75 per cent of the land area of Finland. Measured by the proportional share of forest land, Finland is the most forested country in Europe. A total of 20.3 million hectares is available for wood production, 61 per cent of this is privately owned.
Forests are a renewable natural resource — a source of both economic and spiritual welfare. Forest is one of the dominating elements of Finnish nature and its diversity. Almost three million hectares of the Finnish forests are protected or under restricted use, which represents 12.6 % of the forest area. This is the highest share in Europe. Forest refers here to forest land and poorly productive forest land, including also forested peatlands. Most of the protected forest areas are in northern Finland, while in southern part of the country the share of protected forest areas is much smaller (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2020).
Lapland is one of the northernmost parts of the world with a forest cover. The forests belong to the boreal coniferous forest zone. In Lapland the coniferous forest timberline is formed by Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), in contrast to other parts of the world where the timberline usually consists of spruce and larch species (Hustich 1952).
The dominant tree species in Northern Finland is Scots pine, in southern parts of the country it is Norway spruce (Picea abies). In Finland and especially in northern part of the country there are
just few commercially important tree species. In addition to pine and spruce, only birch species, downy birch and pubescent birch, are commercially important in Lapland.
Low-lying shrubs are common, including for example juniper, blueberry, lingonberry, cloudberry, lichens and sphagnum moss blankets the forest floor throughout.
6. HISTORY
6.1 OWNERSHIP AND ACTIVITY
Commencing in the 1950s, the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) conducted molybdenum and uranium exploration to the south and west of the Rajapalot area before moving north in the 1970s in a search for copper and tungsten. Rautaruukki undertook uranium exploration approximately 15 km south of Rajapalot and discovered the Mustamaa prospect (Vanhanen, 2010).
Airborne radiometric surveys were flown by GTK and interpreted anomalies were followed up on the ground by geologists with prior GTK exploration experience. GTK drilled a fence of diamond drill holes along strike from what is now the Uusi Rumavuoma exploration permit application. Radioactivity was first discovered within Uusi Rumavuoma in the early 2000s.
Rompas, a gold-uranium discovery made by AREVA in 2007 was the first gold occurrence described in the region where there is no evidence for prior exploration, development or production.
AREVA began reconnaissance exploration in June 2007, consisting of mostly ground radiometric surveys. Further work was completed in 2008 with some follow-up work done in 2009. More than 150 new, separate occurrences of high uranium and extremely high gold content were located in bedrock with 30 grab samples taken at the time on the Rompas project. At that time, however, AREVA decided to reduce activities in Finland and started negotiations with Mawson.
Located 8 km east of Rompas, Rajapalot is a grassroots discovery made by Mawson geologists in 2012. A small outcrop a few metres across is the only surface exposure of any of the resources discussed within this Technical Report.
There are no visible signs of prior exploration activity at Rajapalot.
6.2 MINERAL RESOURCES AND PRODUCTION
No historical Mineral Resource or Mineral Reserve estimates or production have occurred on the property before Mawson commenced exploration activities.
7. GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
7.1.1 Craton, Regional and Peräpohja belt
The bedrock of Finland is defined by an Archean basement (3.5–2.5 Ga), its Paleoproterozoic sedimentary-volcanic cover (2.5–1.9 Ga) and the Svecofennian orogenic domain (1.93–1.8 Ga; Hanski, 2015; see Figure 1a). Archean crustal segments are attributed to the Kola and Karelian cratons and are separated by the Lapland Granulite Belt and the Belomorian terrain (Lahtinen et al., 2005). Throughout the Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolution (2.5–1.9 Ga), the Archean cratons underwent several stages of intracontinental extension and rifting, as well as continental margin rifting, which resulted in the formation of deep-scale structures and shallow water-basins (Lahtinen et al., 2005).
Figure 7.1. Fennoscandian Shield bedrock units (a) and enlarged area (b) of Archean and Paleoproterozoic rocks of the Peräpohja and Kuusamo belts. Figure courtesy of Rai et al. (2021 in prep.)
The depositional history of these Karelian basins coincides with the Great Oxygenation Event, which created favorable conditions for a pre-concentrations of metals (e.g. Co, Cu, Zn, Ni, Mo and Au) in sulfidic sediments, as well as the deposition of carbonaceous material (Melezhik et al. 2013). Köykkä et al. (2019) proposed five basin evolution stages (see Fig. 1c) and summarized the volcano-sedimentary successions and intrusions with the following generalized lithostratigraphy (from bottom to top): (i) basaltic mafic volcanics and minor conglomerates (ii) clastic sedimentary rocks, (iii) subaerial mafic volcanics, komatiites and carbonate rocks; (iv) greywackes, carbonaceous material and sulfur-rich pelitic rocks and (v) phyllites and greywackes. All these units were then deformed and metamorphosed during the Svecofennian Orogeny (Lahtinen et al., 2005; Fig. 1c). Such a depositional and orogenic evolution of Archean to Paleoproterozoic settings is worldwide referred to as Paleoproterozoic greenstone belts. Within the northern part of the Karelian domain, the Svecofennian orogenic gold deposits were formed in the early stages of the accretion of microcontinents between 1.92 and 1.86 Ga, which resulted in the formation of the Fennoscandia Plate, and the far field effect of the collision of Fennoscandia and Sarmatia in the SE (Svecobaltic orogeny) and Amazonia in the west (Nordic orogeny) between 1.85 and 1.79 Ga (Weihed et al., 2005; Lahtinen et al., 2005; Molnár et al., 2017, 2018). The gold mineralization is mainly located in complexly folded thrust zones where contacts between the competent and less competent host-rocks have experienced several stages of deformation and alteration (Hanski, 2015).
Figure 7.2. Paleoproterozoic lithostratigraphy of the Peräpohja belts. The Rajapalot property includes Kivalo and Paakola groups in addition to intrusive suites. Figure courtesy of Rai et al. (2021 in prep.)
One of these Paleoproterozoic rift-related basins is the Peräpohja belt (PB) in northern Finland, located between the Archean granitoid Pudasjärvi complex to the southeast and the Central Lapland granitoid complex (CLGC) to the north (Figs. 1b and 2a; Vanhanen et al., 2015; Nironen, 2017). The maximum depositional age for the PB is defined by the NE trending 2.44 Ga layered intrusions of the Torino-Näränkävaara belt (Iljina and Hanski et al., 2005), scattered along the northern boundaries of the Pudasjärvi and Lentua complexes (Fig. 1b; Ranta et al., 2015; Nironen, 2017). After emplacement, normal faulting of intrusions led to partial erosion of igneous layers, onto which the lowermost and oldest units of the PB were deposited (Sompujärvi conglomerates and Runkaus volcanic sequence, Fig. 1c; Hanski et al, 2005; Nironen, 2017). In the western part of the belt, the youngest supracrustal metasediments are cut by 1879 ± 3 Ma monzonite intrusions, which constrain the minimum age of the PB at 1.88 Ga (Lehtinen et al., 2005; Hanski et al., 2005; Ranta et al., 2015; Nironen, 2017).
Following the classification of Perttunen et al. (1995), the Kivalo group and the Pakkola group are the two major lithostratigraphic units that characterize the supracrustal rocks of the PB (see Fig. 1c): (i) the base of the Kivalo group is defined by conglomerates (Sompujärvi Formation, 2.44 Ga), which are overlain by amygdaloidal basalts (Runkaus Formation, 2.25 Ga). Concordant mafic layered sills (2.22 Ga; Perttunen and Vaasjoki, 2001) cut the quartzites of the voluminous Palokivalo Formation, which is deposited on the Runkaus Formation (Ranta et al., 2015). Mica- albite schist and dolomite of the Petäjäskoski Formation are overlain by the 2.1 Ga continental flood basalts of the Jouttiaapa Formation (Huhma et al., 1990; Hölttä et al., 2007; Kyläkoski et al., 2012). Sericitic quartzites and dolomites of the Kvartsima Formation define the upper part of the Kivalo group, while the Tikanmaa, Poikkimaa, Hisimaa, Rantamaa and Lammulehto Formations characterize intervening mafic tuffite, dolomite and phyllite (Ranta et al., 2015). (ii) Rocks of the Paakkola group comprise pillowed basalts (Väystäjä Formation, 2.05 Ga; Perttunen and Vaasjoki, 2001), mafic and felsic tuffs (Korkiavaara Formation, 1.97 Ga; Hanski et al., 2005), mica schists, black schists and metagraywackes (Martimo Formation; <1.92 Ga; Lahtinen et al., 2015).
The tectonic evolution of the PB is characterized by a polyphase deformation history (between ~1.9 and 1.8 Ga) and increasing metamorphic conditions towards the northern parts from lower- greenschist to upper amphibolite facies and local migmatization along the northeastern marginal zone (Fig. 1c; Hanski et al., 2005; Lahtinen et al., 2005; Laajoki, 2005; Hölttä and Heilimo, 2017.). A detailed description of the Svecofennian tectonic evolution of the PB and related emplacement periods of granitic intrusions is provided by Lahtinen et al. (2015) and Nironen (2017), where the authors discuss the five deformation stages that affected the PB in great detail (D1–D5; see Fig. 1c).
Note that this section above (part of 7.1 – Regional Geology) is based wholly on the work of Rai et al (2021, in prep). This is a cooperative paper in preparation co-authored by GTK and Mawson employees.
7.1.2 Regional Mineralization and Age Data
New research work of a GTK team led by Ferenc Molnár has shown a significant group of Au and Au-Co mineral deposits across the northern Finnish Paleoproterozoic rocks. It is clear from these data that early deposition of sulphides and redox sensitive metals commenced around 2.06 Ga and formation of new minerals with progressively younger closure ages continued through to approximately 1.78 Ga. The influx of Au, W, As, Bi, Te, S occurs in two periods, that is approximately 1.92 Ga and 1.78 Ga. The latter event corresponds with the ages of Rajapalot and Rompas gold. Figures 7.3 and 7.4 show abbreviated data on the Paleoproterozoic Au and Au- Co systems in northern Finland.
Figure 7.3. Mineralization in the Central Lapland Greenstone belt (CLGB), Peräpohja belt (PB) and Kuusamo belt (KB). The CLGB is dominated by gold only systems, but the PB and KB both contain significant Au-Co systems. Figure modified from Molnár & Rai.
Figure 7.4. Summary of age data on mineralization and host rock minerals from the northern Finland Paleoproterozoic. From Molnár and others, supported by New Exploration Technologies (NEXT), a Horizon 2020 project (SC5-2017).
Kuusamo
7.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY
7.2.1 Rajapalot project area
The host sequence comprises a polydeformed, isoclinally folded package of amphibolite facies metamorphosed Paleoproterozoic rocks. At a local scale Mawson has divided this package into two parts; firstly, a siliciclastic, dolomitic carbonate and albite-altered metasedimentary sequence interpreted as forming in a platformal to continental margin setting. Mawson now recognizes this as correlatives to the Kivalo Group (see Figure 7.2). The second metasedimentary sequence comprises pelitic turbidites, arkosic sands, carbonates, impure and pure quartzitic sandstones and sulphidic bituminous rocks corresponds to the Paakkola Group.
Both groups contain mafic metavolcanics, sills and dykes, but distinctive suite of high-Mg mafic volcanics or sub-volcanic intrusives occur within the Paakkola Group. These high-Mg mafic volcanics are likely komatiites and are locally highly altered to cordierite-anthophyllite schists.
An unconformity between the two sequences representing a boundary between mostly oxidised rocks of the Kivalo Group and generally reduced rocks of the Paakola Group represent the most likely interpretation, although this may also now represent a thrust surface. The mafic rocks, ranging from lava flows, volcaniclastic sediments to dykes and differentiated sills form up to 20 % of the total package. Rare, but significant mafic rock-hosted magnetite iron formations up to 20 m thick occur within the Paakkola Group within the Mawson permits.
Outcrop in the Rajapalot area is sparse, with swamps, bouldery till and lakes dominating the terrain. Outcrops where present are dominated by resistant rock types such as quartzite, albitic metasediments and amphibolite which represent more than 99 % of exposures. The boulder types reflect the same resistant rock types. A single mineralized outcrop of weathered pyrrhotite bearing Mg-amphibole chlorite rock was found to contain up to 80 g/t gold at Palokas.
Metamorphic grade is largely amphibolite facies throughout the project area, from near the greenschist-amphibolite facies boundary in the south with increasing grade towards the no

Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report ...

Documents

Transcript of Mineral Resource Estimate NI 43-101 Technical Report ...