NI 43-101 Report - focusgraphite.com · 14) I graduated with a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree...

Technical Report on the

Lac Knife Graphite Project

Submitted to:Focus Metals Inc.

Prepared by:

Guy Saucier, ing.Roche Ltd, Consulting Group

Edward Lyons, P. Geo.Tekhne Research

Florent Baril, ing.Bumigeme Inc.

NI 43-101 Report

Ref. : 061975.001-200

Effective Date : December5, 2011

Issue Date: January 18, 2012

NI 43-101 Report

Technical Report on the Lac Knife Graphite Project

Roche's Ref.: 061975.001-200

Submitted to:

Focus Metals Inc.

Prepared by:

Guy Saucier, ing. Roche Ltd, Consulting Group

Edward Lyons, P. Geo. Tekhne Research

Florent Baril, ing. Bumigeme Inc.

Effective Date: December 5, 2011

Issue Date: January 18, 2012

Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report for Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – i – Report January 2012

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................................ 7

2.1 General - Terms of Reference...................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Qualified Persons and Site Visits ................................................................................................................................. 7

2.3 Use of the Report ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Units and Abbreviation ................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.5 Notice .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ............................................................................................................. 9

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .......................................................................................... 10

4.1 Property Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Claim Titles ................................................................................................................................................................ 10

4.2.1 AGREEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................. 13

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY .................... 14

5.1 Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 Climate ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 14

5.4 Physiography ............................................................................................................................................................. 15

6.0 HISTORY ............................................................................................................................................ 16

6.1 General Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

6.2 Historical Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 17

7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ................................................................................... 18

7.1 Regional Geology ....................................................................................................................................................... 18

7.2 Local Geology ............................................................................................................................................................ 21

7.3 Mineralization ........................................................................................................................................................... 24

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPE .................................................................................................................................... 26

9.0 EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................................... 27

10.0 DRILLING ........................................................................................................................................... 28

10.1 Focus 2010-2011 Drill Program ................................................................................................................................. 28

10.2 Twin-Hole Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 29

11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ............................................................................ 33

11.1 Sample Collection ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

11.2 Sample Preparation ................................................................................................................................................... 33

11.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ..................................................................................................................... 34

11.4 Security ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40

12.0 DATA VERIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 41

12.1 Field Verification ....................................................................................................................................................... 41

12.2 Database Verification ................................................................................................................................................ 42

13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ..................................................................... 43

Table of Contents (cont'd)

Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report on the Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – ii – Report January 2012

14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ......................................................................................................... 47

14.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 47

14.2 Previous Mineral Resource Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 47

14.3 Twin Hole Drilling ...................................................................................................................................................... 48

14.4 Exploration Database ................................................................................................................................................ 48

14.4.1 DENSITY ........................................................................................................................................................ 48 14.4.2 COORDINATE SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................................... 49 14.4.3 VERTICAL SECTION ........................................................................................................................................... 50

14.5 Geological Interpretation and Definition of Zones .................................................................................................... 52

14.6 Composite ................................................................................................................................................................. 53

14.7 Statistics .................................................................................................................................................................... 53

14.7.1 BASIC STATISTICS ............................................................................................................................................ 53 14.7.2 HIGH GRADE TREATMENT ................................................................................................................................. 55 14.7.3 SPATIAL ANALYSES ........................................................................................................................................... 55

14.8 Block Model ............................................................................................................................................................... 59

14.9 Grade Interpolation ................................................................................................................................................... 59

14.10 Mineral Resource Classification ................................................................................................................................ 61

14.11 Mineral Resource Estimate ....................................................................................................................................... 61

15.0 MINERAL RESERVES ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................ 62

16.0 MINING METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 63

17.0 RECOVERY METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 64

18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................................... 65

19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ................................................................................................... 66

20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT ............................. 67

20.1 Environmental Studies .............................................................................................................................................. 67

20.1.1 ORE AND WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION .......................................................................................... 67 20.1.2 PHYSICAL ASPECTS ........................................................................................................................................... 67 20.1.3 BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS ....................................................................................................................................... 67 20.1.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS ............................................................................................................................... 68

20.2 Permitting .................................................................................................................................................................. 68

20.2.1 PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT (QUEBEC).................................................................................................................. 68 20.2.2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT .................................................................................................................................... 69

21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS....................................................................................................... 70

22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 71

23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................................... 72

24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION .................................................................................... 73

25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 74

26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 75

27.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 76


Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report on the Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – iii – Report January 2012

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 - Location Map ............................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4.2 - Claims Map .................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 7.1 - Grenville — Churchill Iron Formation Distribution ...................................................................................................... 18

Figure 7.2 - Focus Property Geology ............................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 10.1 - Twin Hole Comparison between LK-10-107 vs. LK-89-34........................................................................................... 30

Figure 10.2 - Twin Hole Comparison between LK-10-106 vs. LK-89-14........................................................................................... 31

Figure 10.3 – Focus (2011) vs. Mazarin 1989 Graphite Analysis ..................................................................................................... 32

Figure 11.1 - Graphite Correlation for 29 Sample Pairs .................................................................................................................. 35

Figure 11.2 - Sulphur Correlation for 32 Sample Pairs .................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 11.3 --IOS Duplicate vs. Original Samples for Graphite ........................................................................................................ 36

Figure 11.4 - IOS Duplicate vs. Original Samples for Sulphur .......................................................................................................... 37

Figure 11.5 - Correlation of Blank Samples ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 11.6 - IOS in-house graphite standards calculated vs. analysed .......................................................................................... 39

Figure 11.7 - IOS In-House Sulphur Standards Calculated vs. Analysed .......................................................................................... 39

Figure 13.1 – Flowsheet .................................................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 14.1 - Local Coordinate System ............................................................................................................................................ 49

Figure 14.2 - Typical Geologic Vertical-Section- Lac Knife Section 1250 ......................................................................................... 51

Figure 14.3 - Geological Solids ........................................................................................................................................................ 52

Figure 14.4 - 3 Metre Composites Histogram ................................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 14.5 - Variogram Map .......................................................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 14.6 - Omni-Directional Variogram – 3 Metres Lag Distance ............................................................................................... 57

Figure 14.7 - Omni-Directional Variogram –25 Metres Lag Distance .............................................................................................. 58

Figure 14.8 - Grade Distribution – Vertical Section 1100 Lac Knife................................................................................................. 60

Figure 23.1 - Adjacent Properties ................................................................................................................................................... 72


Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report on the Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – iv – Report January 2012

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 - Resource Estimate ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

Table 2.1 - Persons Who Prepared or Contributed to this Technical Report .................................................................................... 7

Table 2.2 - Frequently Used Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 8

Table 4.1 - Lac Knife Mineral Claim Titles ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 5.1 - Climate .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Table 6.1 – Summary of Exploration Work on the Lac Knife Property ............................................................................................ 16

Table 6.2 – Various Historical Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................... 17

Table 7.1 - Correlation of Labrador Trough and equivalent Grenville Stratigraphy ........................................................................ 20

Table 10.1 - Drillholes Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 13.1 - Commercial Graphite Concentrate Samples Characteristics ....................................................................................... 44

Table 14.1 - Historical Resource Estimate ....................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 14.2 - Basic Statistics on Assay and Composite ..................................................................................................................... 53

Table 14.3 - Omni Directional Variogram Results ........................................................................................................................... 56

Table 14.4 - Estimation Parameters – Orientation of the Search Ellipse ........................................................................................ 59

Table 14.5 - Estimation Parameters – Dimension of the Search Ellipse .......................................................................................... 59

Table 14.6 - Resource Estimate ....................................................................................................................................................... 61

Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report on the Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – v – Report January 2012

DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

This report is effective as of the 5 day of December 2011, which is the cut-off date for all scientific and technical information included in the Technical Report.

“Guy Saucier” (Signed and Seal) “Edward Lyons” (Signed and Seal)

Guy Saucier, ing. Edward Lyons, P. Geo.

Roche Ltd., Consulting Group Tekhne Research

Signed : January 18, 2012 Signed : January 18, 2012

Montréal, Québec Victoria, British Columbia

“Florent Baril” (Signed and Seal)

Florent Baril, ing.

Bumigeme Inc.

Signed : January 18, 2012

Montréal, Québec

Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report on the Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – vi – Report January 2012

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

Guy Saucier, ing. Roche Ltd., Consulting Group 630, René-Lévèsque West, Suite 1500 Montréal, QC, Canada, H3B 1S6 Phone : 514 393 9110 Fax : 514 393 1511

To Accompany the Report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Lac Knife Graphite Project” dated January 18, 2012 with effective date December 5, 2011.

I, Guy Saucier, do hereby certify that:

1) I am Vice President, Mining and Mineral Processing and carried out this assignment as author/reviewer of Roche Ltd, Consulting Group, Suite 1500, 630, René-Lévesque West, Montréal, QC, Canada, H3B 1S6 Phone : 514 393 9110, Fax : 514 393 1511, E-mail : [email protected].

2) I am a graduate of École Polytechnique, University of Montréal, located in Montréal with a B. Ing in Geological Engineering in 1983;

3) I am a Senior Geological Engineer, Member of the Ordre des Ingénieurs du Québec (#37711), and a member of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), PDAC and SME;

4) I have worked as a geological engineer in the mineral industry for 28 years;

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 by NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101;

6) I am responsible for Sections 14.0 and 20.0 this technical report;

7) I have not visited the site;

8) I have had no prior involvement with the properties that are the subject of this Technical Report.

9) I am an independent of the issuer as defined in section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

10) I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.

11) As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

12) I consent of the filing of the Technical Report with any Canadian stock exchange and consent other securities regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes of the technical report.

Montreal, January 18, 2012

"Guy Saucier"

Guy Saucier, Ing.

OIQ # 37711

Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report on the Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – vii – Report January 2012



I, Edward Lyons, P.Geo., do hereby certify that:

13) I am currently employed as a Geological Consultant for Tekhne Research Inc. with offices at 1067 Portage Road, Victoria, BC V8Z 1L1.

14) I graduated with a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree in Geology from the University of Missouri at Rolla located at Rolla, Missouri USA in 1970.

15) I am a Professional Geoscientist in the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (License #21126) and as a Géologue in the Ordre des géologues du Québec (N0. 701).

16) I have worked as a geologist for a total of 39 years since my graduation from university.

17) 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.

18) I am responsible for the preparation of all the sections of the Report except Sections 13.0, 14.0, and 20.0.

19) I visited the Lac Knife Property on 14 October 2010 and on 19 January 2011 for one day each visit plus the IOS core logging facility on 14 January 2011.

20) I have not had prior involvement with the property that is subject to the Technical Report.

21) As of the date of this certificate, 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.

22) I am independent of the issuer applying all the tests in section 1.5 of the National Instrument 43-101.


24) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites accessible to the public, of the Technical Report.

Dated this 18th

day of January 2012

"Edward Lyons"

Edward Lyons, P.Geo. [OGQ #701]

________________________________ _________________________________

P.O. Box 8520 Victoria, BC V8W 3S1 Canada Tel: (250) 479-8030 Fax: (250) 744-5046

Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report on the Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – viii – Report January 2012


Florent Baril, ing. President Bumigeme Inc. 615, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest, Bureau 750 Montréal (Québec) H3B 1P5 Phone : 514 393 9110, ext. 512 Fax : 514 393 1511


I, André Roy, do hereby certify that:

1) I am the President of Bumigeme Inc.

2) I am a graduate of Laval University, Quebec City in 1954.

3) I am a Senior Metallurgical Engineer, Member of the Ordre des Ingénieurs du Québec (#6972);

4) I have worked as a metallurgical engineer in the mineral industry since 1954;

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 by NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101;

6) I am responsible for Section 13.0 of this technical report;

7) I have not visited the site;

8) I have had no prior involvement with the properties that are the subject of this Technical Report;

9) I am an independent of the issuer as defined in section 1.5 of NI 43-101.


11) As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

12) I consent of the filing of the Technical Report with any Canadian stock exchange and consent other securities regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes of the technical report.

Montreal, January 18, 2012

"Florent Baril"

Florent Baril, ing.

OIQ # 6972

Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report for Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – 1 – Report January 2012

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Focus Metals (Focus) retained the services of Roche Ltd., Consulting Group (Roche) to prepare a Technical Report

to convert historical resources to NI 43-101 Resources for the Lac Knife property. The Lac Knife property is 100%

owned by Focus.

The purpose of this report is to validate historical resources evaluated between 1989 and 1990 by Mazarin, Inc.

The resource estimate presented in this report was done by Roche. Data used to prepare this resource estimate

was provided to Roche by Focus.

Property Location

The Lac Knife property is centered west and south of Lac Knife, located in the North Shore, Québec, Canada.

Fermont is the closest community and is located at 27 Km north-north east of the property. Road distance from

Montreal to Lac Knife is approximately 1,300km and by all season highway 389 there are 500 km between Baie-

Comeau and Fermont.

The property consists to a total of 57 mining claims covering 29,863 hectares. All claims are located in the Quebec

province.

Accessibility

The Lac Knife property is accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles. A 32-km dirt road starts south from Highway 389

about 3.2 km east of the ArcelorMittal Mont-Wright Mine entrance. Constructed in 1989 by Mazarin Inc. it gives

access directly to the deposit.

Climate

The climate in the region is typical of north-central Québec. Winters are harsh, lasting about six to seven months,

with heavy snow from December through April. Summers are generally cool and wet; however, extended day-light

enhances the summer work-day period. Early and late-winter conditions are acceptable for ground geophysical

surveys and drilling operations.

Local Resources and Infrastructure

Since the start of iron mining at Mont-Wright ~50 years ago, important infrastructure has been installed to service

the exploitation of the four iron mines in the region: Mont-Wright (ArcelorMittal Minerals Canada), Carol Mine

(Iron Ore Company of Canada IOCC), Wabush Mine and Lac Bloom Mine (Cliffs Natural Resources).

The Wabush airport is the nearest point for scheduled and charter flights from Sept-Iles, Québec, Montréal, and

Newfoundland-Labrador destinations with four scheduled airlines operating daily flights.

Two railways systems serve the region: the Quebec Cartier Railway Company, the privately-owned and operated

railroad that links. The Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Co., owned by IOC is a common-carrier railroad.

The Hydro Québec main power line to Fermont and the local mines passes less than five km east of the deposit.

History

The Lac Knife graphite showing was discovered by D.L Murphy during geological survey done by the Québec

Ministry of Energy and Resources. The showing was described as a massive strip of graphite of one meter thick.

Focus Metals Inc. Technical Report on the Lac Knife Project Rep_LacKnife_PEA-000a_20120118.doc – 2 – Report January 2012

Between 1986 and 1990, Mazarin conducted exploration work which expanded the Murphy showing. Between

1989 and 1990, Mazarin completed prefeasibility and a feasibility studies.

In August 1990, Cambior signed a joint venture for an equal partnership with Mazarin for the Lac Knife project. In

2001, interest for the property Lac Knife increased as the graphite market was emerging for hydrogen fuel cell and

other uses. Graftech Inc. did a study that demonstrated that the quality of the graphite of Lac Knife was better

than most deposits being mined at that time. In 2002 Graftech and Mazarin planned to joint venture with the goal

of starting production in 2004. However, the graphite market again declined and the project did not proceed.

During those years, IAMGOLD purchased Cambior which included the Lac Knife asset.

IAMGOLD sold its 100% interest in the Lac Knife property to Focus Metals Inc. on 5 October 2010.

Regional Geology

The graphite-rich Menihek Formation (Fm) paraschist and the Sokoman Fm iron formation of the Gagnon Group in

the Grenville Province were derived from the Paleoproterozoic Labrador Trough basin sediments.

In the Labrador Trough, the original sedimentary textures show that the iron formation units were deposited

principally as chemical sediments with high iron and silica (chert) and characteristically low aluminum in a series of

linked basins. The Menihek Formation formed from pelitic sediments filling basins.

Local Geology

The property is underlain principally by the mica-quartz-feldspar schist and paragneiss of the Menihek Formation.

Mineralogy locally includes garnet and kyanite (or sillimanite?) plus minor bands of calcsilicate. The host rock of

the graphite zones appears the same with the only significant variation being the amount of graphite and

variations in calcsilicate bands.

Murphy interpreted the Menihek Fm as infilling a complexly folded, Y-shaped syncline with one arm trending

north-northwest, the second striking west-northwest and the third striking south to south-southeast. The limit of

the syncline is marked by the contact with the underlying Sokoman Fm with variable iron-mineral facies.

Previous interpretations of the detailed drilling by Mazarin showed a number of closed folds that formed part of

their initial resource estimation in 1989. The present interpretation recognizes that the graphite zones may be

sheared en echelon along the northern trend and may, in fact, be more isolated bands. The present study

maintained a tighter constraint with less interpretation as to potential fold closures. Further drill testing will aid in

resolving the relations among the graphite bands.

Mineralization

The graphite occurs as part of the metasediments integral to the Menihek Formation. It forms as part of local

anoxic basins in the pelitic sediments. There is no indication of secondary hydrothermal or other transported, post-

metamorphic deposition or upgrading. The present distribution and crystallinity of the graphite units are due to

the Grenville metamorphic events.

The margins of the graphite lenses and bands are sharp to rapid grade changes with background graphite on the

order on <1% carbon-as-graphite (Cgr) increasing to ~5% Cgr near the lenses contacts. Grades within the lenses

range from 5-60% Cgr with thin waste bands included. The lenses form elongate lozenges with lateral continuity

from 90 to over 300 m length based on the limited geometry tested to date. The depth of the lenses ranges from

40 to over 120 metres on the dip plane, while thickness of individual lenses ranges from < 1.5 m to 35 m.


Graphite occurs as flakes ranging from 2 mm to very fine in hand sample. Commonly the coarser flakes appear to

form with Cgr grades below ~25% and finer flakes above that. The industrial term for coarse flake is 0.2 mm (200

microns), so that even “fine-grained” to the eye can still provide high quality industrial material.

Focus 2010-2011 Drill Program

The drilling program was planned by Roche with the support of Focus Metals. The drilling campaign for Focus

Metals Inc. was conducted under contract by IOS Services Géoscientifique Inc. (IOS) of Chicoutimi, QC between

December 7, 2010 and February 4, 2011.

The drilling program was planned to total 1000 m. Roche selected the historical drillholes showing the maximum

length into the graphite mineralisation. These historical drill holes were selected to collect as much graphite

possible to verify the correlation between the historical holes and the new holes. Sixteen (16) targets, including

substitutes, were selected from which 12 drillholes were completed for a total length of 1233.92 m. The other sites

were rejected due to access issues.

Twin Holes Results

The 12 twinned holes were compared with corresponding Mazarin 1989 holes. Most of the twinned holes show

significant ranges in values between the corresponding original drillhole. In the detail within a mineralised range or

composite interval, the high values will generally match high values, but the individual absolute grades can vary as

much as 75%.

The twin-hole program was reasonably successful. It would have been better if the Mazarin hole locations had

been documented better and the twinned hole location spotted at the same time. The twin-hole collars were

surveyed with DGPS instruments.

Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

Sampling was done primarily at 1.5 metre length to match the Mazarin intervals. However, when the interval of

interest was narrower or longer, or had significant lithological changes, the sample length may range with a

minimum of 0.5 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres.

Samples of adjacent unmineralised rock at the margins of the mineralisation as well as low grade intervals within

the mineralised interval were taken separately if the length was > 1-m

The marked samples were cut with a diamond blade rock saw lengthwise and perpendicular to the structural trend

of the core. Half of the core went into marked sample bags and the other half placed in the core box for reference.

A total of 634 samples were collected and sent for analysis with additional QA/QC materials inserted into the

sample stream under the IOS protocol.

Inspectorate Exploration and Mining Services Ltd., based in Richmond, British Columbia, received the samples,

verified against the client’s shipping documents, and logged into their tracking system.

Samples were analysed for graphite carbon analysis, sulphur by LECO Induction, and 30-element Inductively

Coupled Plasma (ICP) techniques.

Inspectorate duplicated 103 carbon analyses or about 13% of the whole sample set. The average paired difference

is 0.47% Cgr, with a standard deviation of 0.70%. This is about half the amount for sample duplicates introduced by

IOS. The average relative paired difference is not meaningful, due to the presence of numerous very low grade or


blank samples. The noted paired difference is then in excess of the measured grade, leading to erroneous relative

paired difference.

Field Verification

The original drill sites for the Mazarin holes were located from several locations with existing drill casing or

definitive evidence of drilling. The grid coordinates were reconstructed by IOS, and these new coordinates were

validated in the field.

The drill core was properly marked with legible metrage blocks correctly placed and core trays were legibly marked

and handled with due care by both the contractor and by IOS personnel. The core was shipped by truck transport

from Fermont to Chicoutimi for more detailed processing.

At the IOS laboratory in Chicoutimi, the core was received with a reception tracking system. The core was logged in

a systematic way with data input on computers. The logging geologist followed as much as one could the names

and divisions used in the original Mazarin logs. Samples were selected on the same lengths and contacts as was

done by Mazarin. Samples were saw-cut with half in the sample bag and the other half replaced in the core box.

Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

A series of the metallurgical testwork was conducted in the past on the Lac Knife Graphite project, by Mazarin. In

1989, a first series of metallurgical testwork were conducted at Corem using drill core and material from a 35 T

bulk sample. Grinding, flotation and gravity tests were conducted and a preliminary flowsheet was developed. Few

months after, in 1989-1990, a second series of pilot plant test work were conducted from another bulk sample.

Tests were conducted during a 39-day period with the purpose of improving the flowsheet developed in the

beginning of 1989. In 2002, through SNC-Lavalin, a three-phase program was developed by Mazarin and its partner

UCAR-Graphtec. The program was to test two samples coming from a 3500 tonnes bulk sample extracted from two

different areas of the mineralized zones. The first phase involved physical and mineralogical characterisation of the

material. The second phase involved preliminary laboratory ore testing to develop the process flow diagram prior

to pilot plant testing. The third phase was the pilot plant itself but was never conducted.

Mineral Resources Estimate

Three historical resource estimates were performed for the Lac Knife by Mazarin Inc. and its successor company,

Cambior Ltd. in the period 1990-1992.

In winter 2010-2011, Focus drilled 12 BTW diamond drillholes twinned with the original Mazarin sites in order to

confirm the historical data. These twinned holes were designed to test historical drilling. These sections and data

are included in the Resource Estimation herein for Lac Knife. The historical and twinned hole data were used in the

estimation process. Roche revised the interpretation previously done and construct a block model with revised

parameters and rules to adjust the resource classification.

Exploration Database and Interpretation

Data used to estimate the mineral resource was provided by the client in the form of a Microsoft Excel

Spreadsheet. The drillhole database contains 111 exploration diamond drillholes: 99 historical drillholes from the

Mazarin exploration campaign of 1989 and 12 drillholes from the twin-hole drilling campaign executed between

December 2010 and February 2011. In addition to the electronic format, Roche received a hard copy of the

historical database. The database consists to 8611 metres of core and 3240 assays for Cgr% (2606 historical and

634 new). Most drillholes were sampled in 1.5 metres intervals for assays inside the zone which showed

mineralization.


A total of 23 vertical sections were defined for the Lac Knife property. Those sections were defined along the

drillhole pattern with a spacing of 25m. Sections were used for the geological interpretation. The present

interpretation includes five mineralized zones. The two new zones were formed by the separation of the original

west zone into three simpler shapes separated by waste host rock. Mineralized zones were defined using a cut-off

grade of 5% Cgr. On each drillhole section, the boundary polylines were digitized for each mineralized zones.

Interpretations of the mineralized zones were mainly supported by grade continuity in strike and dip.

Diamond drillhole assay data were composited in equal lengths of 3 metres constrained by the mineralized zones

described above.

Block Model and Grade Interpolation

The 3D block model was developed using GEMS. Blocks are 5 metres long, 7 metres wide and 5 metres high. Rock

Type values were assigned to each block. The grade interpolation was completed by using 3 metres composites for

Cgr with the software GEMS. The methodology used applied was the inverse distance power square (‘’ID2”).

Mineral Resources Estimate

The mineral resource estimate presented in this report is effective as of 5 December 2011. The CIM Standards for

Mineral Estimations were used in order to complete this mineral resource estimate. Table 1.1 presents the

resources within the 5% cut-off mineralized zones using various cut-off grades.

Table 1.1 - Resource Estimate

Resource Estimate

Cut-Off (% Cgr)

No Cut-Off 5% 10%

Category Tonnes Grade (% Cgr)

Tonnes Grade (% Cgr)


Measured (M) 637,250 15.59 604,735 16.25 504,669 17.95

Indicated (I) 4,334,890 15.68 4,332,920 15.69 4,028,704 16.24

M + I 4,972,140 15.67 4,937,655 15.76 4,533,373 16.43

Inferred 3,000,225 15.58 3,000,225 15.58 2,861,228 15.92

Interpretation and Conclusions

Substantial work has been carried out in the past on the Lac Knife property. Drilling and metallurgical testwork

including pilot plant testing gave positive results in the evaluation of a graphite resource having a relatively high

graphite content compared to other graphite mineralised occurrences.

The 2010-2011 drilling program with the twinning of some of the previous holes had confirmed the validity of the

work conducted in the past.

However, the market has changed and the basis of the testworks and pilot plant completed in the 90’s to produce

products with various granulometry in the range of 92 to 96% Cgr has probably to be reconsidered in relation with

current markets. If it is the intention of Focus to produce marketable products in the range of 95% to 98% Cgr,

Roche recommends to properly evaluate the type of products which can be marketed through a market study and


to conduct in parallel laboratory testworks and eventually pilot plant testwork, in order to develop a process

flowsheet which can produce saleable graphite grades for the actual and future markets. This will provide data for

the potential market available and what could be the graphite recovery related to the production of material

associated with these markets.

A drilling program to collect a sufficient amount of samples to get a composite of the deposit for the next phase of

testwork and an infill drilling program are recommended to better understand the graphite mineralisation trend.

In parallel to these studies, a review of the economics parameters should be done to evaluate the various

scenarios required to bring the project into production. This evaluation should be summarized into a Preliminary

Economic Assessment (PEA) which will include a cost evaluation as well as a financial analysis.

Recommendations

Roche recommend pursuing the development of the project in two phases. Phase I will consist in an evaluation of

the economic parameters by conducting a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) of the project along with

metallurgical testwork and a market study.

Contingent to a positive PEA, an additional drilling program and pilot plant testwork should be conducted in order

to increase the quantity of indicated and measured resources and to also have a better understanding of the

geometry of the mineralised lenses.


2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

2.1 General - Terms of Reference

Focus Metals (Focus) retained the services of Roche Ltd., Consulting Group (Roche) to prepare a Technical Report

to convert historical resources to NI 43-101 Resources for the Lac Knife property. The Lac Knife property is 100%

owned by Focus and consists of a total of 57 claims. The property is located in Northern Québec near the

municipality of Fermont. Lac Knife is a graphite project.

The purpose of this report is to validate historical resources evaluated between 1989 and 1990 by Mazarin. The

resource estimate presented in this report was done by Roche. Data used to prepare this resource estimate was

provided to Roche by Focus. Historical data was verified and an updated resource estimate was done in

compliance with CIM standards.

In 1988-1990, Mazarin completed 99 diamond drillholes and three historical resource estimates. Mazarin reported

8.1 million metric tonnes with an average grade of 16.7% Cgr with a ‘’proven’’ resource of 3.5 million at a grade of

17.4% Cgr. The historical resource was prepared prior to the implementation of the Canadian Securities

Administrator’s National Instrument 43-101 (“NI-43-101’’) and is shown for comparison purposes only. In 2010,

Focus Metals retained the services of Roche and IOS to plan and supervise a twin hole drilling campaign to verify

the resource estimate previously done by Mazarin in 1989.

2.2 Qualified Persons and Site Visits

The names and details of persons who prepared, or on whom the Qualified Persons have relied in the preparation

of this Technical Reported are listed in Table 2.1. The Qualified Persons meet the requirements of independence as

defined in NI 43-101.

Table 2.1 - Persons Who Prepared or Contributed to this Technical Report

Qualified Persons responsible for the preparation of this Technical Report

Qualified Person Position and Employer

Professional Designation

Independent of Focus

Date of Last Site Visit

Sections of Report

Edward Lyons, P.Geo Tekhne Research

P. Geo. Yes 14 October 2010 14 January 2011 19 January 2011

All sections of the Report, except Sections 13.0, 14.0, and 20.0 of the Report.

Guy Saucier,ing Vice-President, Mining and Mineral Processing Roche Ltd., Consulting Group

Ing. Yes None Sections 14.0 and 20.0 of the Report.

Florent Baril, ing. President Bumigeme inc.

Eng. Yes None Section 13.0 of the Report.


2.3 Use of the Report

This report is intended to be used by Focus subject to the terms and conditions of its agreement with Roche. Focus

may file this report as an NI 43-101 Technical Report with the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) pursuant to

provincial securities legislation. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws, any other use of

this report, by any third party, is at that party’s sole risk.

2.4 Units and Abbreviation

All measurements in this report are presented in metres (m), metric tonnes (tonnes), and grams per tonne (g/t)

unless mentioned otherwise. Monetary units are in Canadian dollars ($CAD) unless when specified in United States

dollars ($USD). Abbreviations used in this report are listed in Table 2.1.

Table 2.2 - Frequently Used Acronyms and Abbreviations

Abbreviations Description

Cgr Carbon as graphite

ft Feet

g Grams

g/t Grams/tonne

ha Hectares

in Inches

kg Kilograms

km Kilometres

m Metres

m³ Cubic metres

NSR Net Smelter Return

ppm, ppb Parts per million, parts per billion

S Sulphur

Tonnes or t Metric tonnes

tpd Tonnes per day

2.5 Notice

This Report has been prepared by Roche at the request of Focus. The report may be used by Focus in connection

with the Lac Knife Project and shall not be used nor relied upon by any other party without the written consent of

Roche. Roche accepts no responsibility for damages if any suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made

or actions based on this report.

It should be understood that the information, conclusions, opinions and estimates contained are based on

preliminary information available to Roche at the time of preparation of this report which will change once

additional information will be available.

It should be understood that the mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated

economic viability. The mineral resources presented in this Technical Report are estimates based on available

sampling and on assumptions and parameters available to the author. The comments in this Technical Report

reflect Roche’s best judgement in light of the information available.


3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

Roche has prepared this study using the resource materials, reports and documents as noted in the text and

“References” at the end of this report.

Although, the authors have made every effort to accurately convey the content of those reports, they cannot

guarantee either the accuracy or the validity of the work described within the report.

Roche has not verified the title to the Property, nor has it verified the status of Focus’ property agreements, but

has relied on the information supplied by the Company in this regard. Roche has no reason to doubt the title

situation is other than what is reported by the Company.

The information related with the 2010-2011 drilling program have been provided by Focus and IOS Services

Géoscientifiques Inc.


4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

4.1 Property Location

The Lac Knife property is centered around, south and west Lac Knife, located in the North Shore, Québec, Canada.

Fermont is the closest community and is located at 27 Km north-north east of the property. The Lac Knife project is

situated in Esmanville township on NTS map sheet 23B11. Road distance from Montreal to Lac Knife is

approximately 1,300km and by all season highway 389 500 km from Baie-Comeau to Fermont. The property is

centred at 52°33’N and 67°11’W. The property covers 29,863 km2.

Figure 4.1 - Location Map

4.2 Claim Titles

The property consists to a total of 57 mining claims covering 29,863 hectares. All claims are located in the Quebec

province on NTS map and are registered as CDC (Claim designation sur Carte). The claims are registered under


3765351 Canada Inc. (original name of Focus Metals Inc.) as Québec claims client 18758. The data in the following

table was verified as of 8 January 2012.

Table 4.1 - Lac Knife Mineral Claim Titles

Title No. Surface area Registration Date Expiration Date Range Column

1028540 52.40 21/09/01 20/09/13 6 40

1028541 52.40 21/09/01 20/09/13 6 41

1033237 52.42 01/11/01 31/10/13 4 38

1033238 52.42 01/11/01 31/10/13 4 39

1033239 52.42 01/11/01 31/10/13 4 40

1033244 52.41 01/11/01 31/10/13 5 36

1033245 52.41 01/11/01 31/10/13 5 37

1033259 52.37 01/11/01 31/10/13 9 40

1052769 52.42 26/03/02 11/12/13 4 41

1052770 52.42 26/03/02 11/12/13 4 42

1052771 52.41 26/03/02 11/12/13 5 38

1052772 52.41 26/03/02 11/12/13 5 39

1052773 52.41 26/03/02 11/12/13 5 40

1052774 52.41 26/03/02 11/12/13 5 41

1052775 52.41 26/03/02 11/12/13 5 42

1052776 52.41 26/03/02 11/12/13 5 43

1052777 52.40 26/03/02 11/12/13 6 34

1052778 52.40 26/03/02 11/12/13 6 35

1052779 52.40 26/03/02 11/12/13 6 36

1052780 52.40 26/03/02 11/12/13 6 37

1052781 52.40 26/03/02 11/12/13 6 38

1052782 52.40 26/03/02 11/12/13 6 39

1052783 52.40 26/03/02 11/12/13 6 42

1052784 52.40 26/03/02 11/12/13 6 43

1052785 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 32

1052786 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 33

1052787 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 34

1052788 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 35

1052789 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 36

1052790 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 37

1052791 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 38

1052792 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 39

1052793 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 40

1052794 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 41

1052795 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 42

1052796 52.39 26/03/02 11/12/13 7 43

1052797 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 32

1052798 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 33

1052799 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 34

1052800 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 35


Title No. Surface area Registration Date Expiration Date Range Column

1052801 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 36

1052802 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 37

1052803 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 38

1052804 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 39

1052805 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 40

1052806 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 41

1052807 52.38 26/03/02 11/12/13 8 42

1052808 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 32

1052809 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 33

1052810 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 34

1052811 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 35

1052812 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 36

1052813 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 37

1052814 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 38

1052815 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 39

1052816 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 41

1052817 52.37 26/03/02 11/12/13 9 42


Figure 4.2 - Claims Map

The expenditure credits to date total $168,319 applied against statutory work obligations of $136,900. Taxes of

$7,011 are due on the expiration date of the claims.

4.2.1 AGREEMENTS

Focus Metals Inc. is the sole owner of the property with no option, royalty or other outstanding agreements.


5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.1 Accessibility

Route 389 is the only all-season highway that connects the towns of Fermont and Baie-Comeau, QC with Labrador

City and Wabush, NL. The Lac Knife property is accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles. A 32-km dirt road starts

south from Highway 389 about 3.2 km east of the ArcelorMittal Mont-Wright Mine entrance. Constructed in 1989

by Mazarin Inc. it gives access directly to the deposit. The road is presently accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles

and is maintained as a major snowmobile route by the snowmobile club in Fermont in the winter. Float planes can

land on Lac Knife adjacent to the deposit.

Commercial air service is available to the Wabush Airport 32 km northeast of Fermont.

5.2 Climate

The climate in the region is typical of north-central Québec. Winters are harsh, lasting about six to seven months,

with heavy snow from December through April. Summers are generally cool and wet; however, extended day-light

enhances the summer work-day period. Early and late-winter conditions are acceptable for ground geophysical

surveys and drilling operations.

Table 5.1 - Climate

Month Daily temperature (°C) Precipitation

Average Minimum Maximum Rainfall (mm) Snowfall (cm) Total (mm)

January -23.2 -29.4 -17 1.1 50.1 51.2

February -20.6 -27.4 -13.8 0.5 30.9 31.4

March -14 -20.7 -7.3 0.9 42 42.8

April -3.9 -9.8 2 13.8 26.7 40.5

May 3.1 -2.5 8.7 35.3 11.3 46.6

June 9.6 3.5 15.6 86.6 1.2 87.7

July 13.2 7.5 19 118.7 0 118.7

August 12.2 6.7 17.8 103.7 0 103.7

September 6.2 1.6 10.8 102.9 3 106

October -0.5 -4.4 3.5 43.3 23.9 67.2

November -8.7 -13 -4.4 6.8 51.8 58.6

December -18.7 -24.4 -13.1 1.5 50.7 52.2

Year -3.8 -9.4 1.8 515 291.5 806.5

5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure

Since the start of iron mining at Mont-Wright ~50 years ago, important infrastructure has been installed to service

the exploitation of the four iron mines in the region: Mont-Wright (ArcelorMittal Minerals Canada), Carol Mine

(Iron Ore Company of Canada IOCC), Wabush Mine and Lac Bloom Mine (Cliffs Natural Resources).


Fermont, QC is the closest municipality with about 3,200 inhabitants. Including Labrador City and Wabush towns in

Labrador, located 30 km away, the regional population is about 15,000. These municipalities have the

infrastructure to provide services for accommodations, community services, a skilled mining labour force, as well

as mining contractors and related services. Several truck transportation companies regularly service the region

from Baie-Comeau. The Wabush airport is the nearest point for scheduled and charter flights from Sept-Iles,

Québec, Montréal, and Newfoundland-Labrador destinations with four scheduled airlines operating daily flights.

Two railway systems serve the region: the Quebec Cartier Railway Company, the privately-owned and operated

railroad that links ArcelorMittal’s Mont-Wright facility to their Port Cartier pellet plant and port (416 km) at

approximately 15 km from the property. The Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Co., owned by IOC is a

common-carrier railroad that links Labrador City to the Port of Sept-Iles (360 km), and is located at approximately

30km from the property.

The Hydro Québec main power line to Fermont and the local mines passes less than five km east of the deposit.

5.4 Physiography

Most of the Lac Knife area lies within a rolling glacial peneplain at about 670 metres above sea level with local

relief in the order of 75 m. More specifically, the deposit is situated on the north-trending ridge about 200 metres

west of Lac Knife.

Glaciation left a veneer of silt-sand and sand-cobble-boulder moraine till covering the local bedrock. Much of the

glacial cover is lacking gravel in the region. The average overburden depth estimated from the Mazarin drillholes

and trenches is about 4 m. The glacial deposits dominate the local topography and control most of the surface

drainage. Lakes, swamps and grassy meadows fill bedrock and drift depressions.

Most of the area on the property and surrounding terrain is treed with moss and grass-cover. The intact forest

includes the typical boreal mixture of fir and tamarack, with local stands of aspen and yellow birch. Ground cover is

generally in the form of grasses, caribou moss, and shrubs, the latter typically comprising willow, arctic birch,

alders and Labrador Tea.


6.0 HISTORY

6.1 General Overview

The Lac Knife graphite showing was discovered by D.L Murphy during geological survey done by the Québec

Ministry of Energy and Resources. The showing was described as a massive strip of graphite of one meter thick.

Between 1959 and 1960 only mapping work was done (Murphy, 1960).

Interest in the discovery of a graphite deposits increased in the 1980s due to the price increase for graphite flakes.

In 1985, in the aim of discovering other metallic or industrial prospects other than iron, Mazarin, Inc. and “Le

Fonds d’Exploration Minière du Nouveau Québec’’ (Les Fonds) made an exploration agreement wherein Mazarin

retained 100% of the mineral rights and Les Fonds retained a 10% net profit royalty. Between 1986 and 1990,

Mazarin conducted exploration work summarized in Table 6.1 which expanded the Murphy showing. Between

1989 and 1990, Mazarin completed prefeasibility and a feasibility studies.

In December 1989, Mazarin and Princetown Mining Corporation signed an agreement to put the deposit in

production. At the end of February 1990, Princetown retired from the project. In August 1990, Cambior signed a

joint venture for an equal partnership with Mazarin for the Lac Knife project. Cambior retained Magloire Bérubé to

review the original Mazarin mineral resource. In 1991, Mazarin hoped to bring the deposit in production, but

economy went in recession and graphite prices declined.

In 2001, interest for the property Lac Knife increased as the graphite market was emerging for hydrogen fuel cell

and other uses. Graftech Inc. did a study that demonstrated that the quality of the graphite of Lac Knife was better

than most deposits being mined at that time. In 2002 Graftech and Mazarin planned to joint venture with the goal

of starting production in 2004. However, the graphite market again declined and the project did not proceed.

During those years IAMGOLD purchased Cambior which included the Lac Knife asset.

IAMGOLD sold its 100% interest in the Lac Knife property to Focus Metals Inc. on 5 October 2010.

Table 6.1 – Summary of Exploration Work on the Lac Knife Property

Year Company Type of work Summary Result

1959 Regional Geological Mapping D.L. Murphy found at the Lac Knife Showing

1982 Le Fonds Geophysical survey (Mag, EM-VLF)

Geological Mapping

1986 Le Fonds/Mazarin Prospection

1987 Le Fonds/Mazarin

Prospection Lac Knife showing is found again. The area is detailed prospect

Geological Mapping

Geophysical survey (Mag, EM-VLF)

Trench Trench on 5 metres with a grade of 12.8%

1988 Le Fonds/Mazarin Prospection The Lac knife showing extended on 120 metres with an average width of 8 metres. The best trench has a 16.5% Cgr on 25 m.

1989 Mazarin

Diamond drill Campaign. 99 holes for a total of 7367 metres.

Bulk samples of 25 tonnes

Historical Reserve Estimation 8.5 millions of tonnes at 16.7% Cgr.

Pre-Feasibility Study (Roche)

Feasibility Study (Roche and Davy) 8.1 millions of tonnes at 16.7%


Year Company Type of work Summary Result

1990 Mazarin/ Cambior Historical Reserve Estimation (Magloire Bérubé)

5.5 millions of tonnes at 17.1%

6.2 Historical Mineral Resources

Three historical mineral resource estimates were produced between 1989 and 1990 (summarised in Table 6.2).

The interpretation done by Mazarin in 1989 was used to estimate the three mineral resources. In May 1989,

Mazarin, under the supervision of Roche Ltd., estimated a resource of 8.5 million tonnes at 16.2% Cgr with a

proven historical resource of 1.2 million tonnes at 16.9% Cgr. In November 1989, Roche/Davy recalculated the

resources with an updated density, which decreased from 3.0 gr/cc to 2.89 gr/cc. This new estimate was done with

the same parameters as the previous one with the exception of the reduced density. The result was 8.1 million

metrics tonnes at 16.7% Cgr of total resource and a 1.2 million metrics tonnes at 16.9% of probable resource. In

November 1990, Mazarin and Cambior restricted the interpretation of the mineralized bodies and completed a

new estimates using the same parameters but using a smaller area of influence. The new area limited the depth of

the deposit to 75 vertical metres from 125 vertical metres. The resulting resource was estimated at 5.5 million

tonnes with an average grade of 17.1 % Cgr.

Table 6.2 – Various Historical Mineral Resources

Historical Criteria

Year Classification Tonnes Grade (%Cgr)

Method Density (t/m3) Evaluated Depth

(m) General Source Date

1989

Proven 3,682,700 17.40 Section (Interpretation by Mazarin). A cut off

grade of 10% was used for the interpretation

of the mineralized zone

3.00 125 No

Capping value.

Mazarin May-89

Probable 1,238,800 16.90

Proven and probable 4,921,500 17.27

Possible 3,563,700 16.00

Total 8,485,200 16.70

1989

Proven 3,510,800 17.40

Same as above 2.86 125 No

Capping value.

Roche/Davy Nov-89

Probable 1,181,000 16.90


Possible 3,397,400 16.00

Total 8,089,200 16.70

1990

Proven 3,661,000 17.50

Same as above 2.86 75 No

Capping value.

Magloire Bérubé

Nov-90

Probable 258,000 18.55


Possible 1,555,000 15.90

Total 5,474,000 17.10

The historical estimates presented above use categories other than the ones set out in NI 43-101 and have not

been prepared to the standards required by the instrument or modern estimation practices. They are provided for

comparison purposes only.


7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

7.1 Regional Geology

The graphite-rich Menihek Formation (Fm) paraschist and the Sokoman Fm iron formation of the Gagnon Group in

the Grenville Province were derived from the Paleoproterozoic Labrador Trough basin sediments.

In the Labrador Trough, the original sedimentary textures show that the iron formation units were deposited

principally as chemical sediments with high iron and silica (chert) and characteristically low aluminum in a series of

linked basins. Deposition probably was enhanced by biological activity. There is also evidence for clastics

deposition and the formation of ferruginous oolites. Global iron deposition is related to several periods of biogenic

oxygen increases in the atmosphere from 3.5 to 1.7 Ga, and the Labrador Trough and Minnesota-Michigan iron

sediments formed in the 1.88-1.7 Ga event.

Clark and Wares (2005) describe the current synthesis of the Labrador Trough lithostratigraphy. The Trough

extends some 1800 km from northern Québec south and southwest with the original” Trough being the low-

metamorphic component north of the Grenville Front and the metamorphosed equivalents southwest of the

Front. The formational nomenclature of the Labrador Trough geology is derived from the less-metamorphosed

Labrador Trough formations. These units continue across the Grenville Front and their general relationships

continue in that high metamorphic grade environment.

The Grenville orogeny (1.16 – 1.13 Ga (Emslie and Hunt, 1989)) compressed the southwestern part of the Labrador

Trough into the Gagnon Terrane in the Grenville Province (Figure 7.1). The deformation superimposed medium to

high metamorphic facies on the older deformed and metamorphosed Labrador Trough geology.

Figure 7.1 - Grenville — Churchill Iron Formation Distribution1

1 Modified from Hocq, 1994


Grenvillian rocks are subdivided into a set of allochthonous terranes arranged in the form of a southeasterly

dipping thrust stack emplaced over the southern margin of the Archean age Superior Province. Rock units within

the thrust stack range in age from Archean to late Mesoproterozoic, with older units occupying the lower levels of

the thrust stack, and the younger units the higher levels to the southeast. The first-order subdivision of the

Grenville involves recognition of:

1) an external 'Parautochthonous' belt composed of Archean, Paleoproterozoic, and Mesoproterozic rocks

representing the southern margin of Laurentia during the Mesoproterozoic;

2) an 'Allochthonous polycyclic' belt composed of transported Paleoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic rocks

rocks separated from the 'Parautochthonous belt by the 'Allochthon Boundary Thrust' (ABT); and

3) an 'Allochthonous monocyclic' belt formed of rocks largely of Mesoproterozoic age.

The Gagnon Terrane is one of three parautochthonous terranes along the northern side of the Grenville orogeny. It

has two lithostratigraphic assemblages with distinct ages (Hocq, 1994): older migmatitic paragneiss and younger

mixed-lithology metasedimentary rocks. The Archean Ashuanipi migmatitic paragneiss forms the boundary against

the Grenville Fault in the Gagnon Terrane to the base of the Ferriman Group. The younger Ferriman Group extends

from the Grenville Front to southwest of Reservoir Manicouagan. The Property lies in the south-central part of the

Gagnon Terrane (See Figure 7.1).

The Ferriman Group was metamorphosed into several formations within the Gagnon Group, which is the older

stratigraphical terms used prior to Clark & Wares’ study. The Ferriman Group includes from oldest to youngest) the

Denault reefal dolomite/ Duley marble overlain by the Wishart/Wapussakatoo arenaceous and cherty quartzite

and quartz-rich gneisses near the top. The Sokoman iron formation with its chemically derived oxide-, silicate-, and

carbonate-rich facies are the most studied component. The Menihek Formation mudstone/mica schist is derived

from later uplift and increasing detrital sedimentation in basins. The basal units include the last remnants of the

Sokoman chemical sedimentation and start of the graphite-rich basins; it becomes more uniform above the

Sokoman-Menihek contact. The Menihek Formation hosts the graphite deposits in the Gagnon Terrane above the

contact with the underlying Sokoman Formation. Interestingly, there is little record of high-carbon sediments in

the equivalent unit north of the Grenville Front (Clark, pers. comm., 2007).

The Gagnon Group stratigraphy is correlated with the Labrador Trough formations in Table 7.1. Note that the old

Gagnon Group includes elements of both Cycle 1 (Attikamagen Group) and Cycle 2 (Ferriman Group). This was the

former Knob Lake Group referred to in older literature. Since these are the same formations, the writer uses them

consistently for Labrador Trough formations.

The Gagnon Group has the following correspondences with Labrador Trough stratigraphy (youngest to oldest):


Table 7.1 - Correlation of Labrador Trough and equivalent Grenville Stratigraphy2

Labrador Trough Grenville Province

PALEOPROTEROZOIC <2.06 – 1.89 GA NEOPROTEROZOIC (1.19 – 1.12 GA)

KANIAPISKAU SUPERGROUP

Choak & Tamarack River Fms No known equivalent Grenville formations

Cycle 3 STARTS

------------------------------------------------------------------ unconformity -------------------------------------------------

FERRIMAN GROUP GAGNON GROUP

Basalt dykes/sills 1.884 Ga “Hornblende-biotite-garnet” gneiss

(intrudes & caps Menihek Fm)

Menihek Fm flysch turbidite Nault Fm quartz-biotite+garnet paragneiss + Graphite

= “Upper Paragneiss” of Clarke (1977)

Sokoman Fm iron formation 1.879 Ga Wabush Fm iron formation, various oxide-

carbonate-silicate facies (date from felsic dykes

in Lab Trough)

Ruth Fm ferruginous mudstone, chert Basal Silicate Iron Formation – in Gagnon iron deposits

Wishart Fm arenitic quartzite Wapussakatoo Fm quartzite and “dirty” quartzite

w/ variable mica and calcite

Cycle 2 STARTS

------------------------------------------------------------------ unconformity -------------------------------------------------

Cycle 1 ENDS

ATTIKAMAGEN GROUP

Denault Fm dolomite, marble < 2.06 Ga Duley Fm marble with quartz, calcsilicate

------------------------------------------------------------------ unconformity -------------------------------------------------

Archean

Ashuanipi Gneiss 2.17-2.14 Ga Katsao Fm migmatic paragneiss

2 Deposition ages of Gagnon Group units are for the Labrador Trough formation equivalents (Clark and Wares 2005)


Of the three Grenville deformation events, two major ones, the D1 and D2 deformations, dominate the folding

pattern of the formations that resulted from interference folding into several large polyphase anticlinoria

throughout the Gagnon Terrane. The D1 formed the F1 schistosity during the early part of the Grenville orogeny.

The D2 deformed the schistosity due to the high ductility at the peak or slightly post-peak of the orogeny, but did

not form a second schistosity. Van Gool et al. (2008) in their work nearby in western Labrador, showed high strain

relations that might appear to start a second foliation, but no penetrative foliation developed. Whether this was

due to stress during D2 or a later collision event is uncertain.

The older D1 deformation was compressed from the south-southeast, probably marking the onset of the Grenville

orogeny. This resulted in a sinuous belt parallel with the Allochthon Boundary Thrust (ABT) fault. It broadly

controls the Sokoman-Menihek Formation distribution. The fold pattern shows a bimodal style. The dominant

pattern has narrow, linear fold belts along the margins of broad anticlinoria (a series of anticlines and synclines

that have the general uplifted outline of an arch). The belts are tightly folded with steep dips. The width tends to

be narrow in proportion to the strike length. They extend several hundred kilometres in a generally west-southeast

trend from the Grenville Front north of Wabush, NL to the southwest side of Lac Manicouagan. The less common

style occurs in the core of the anticlinorium arch. There, it occurs as relict broad areas of shallow dipping iron

formation often with sharply folded contacts. Examples of the first type are Mont Reed, Mont Wright, Lac Bloom,

and the Carol deposits. The second type is exemplified by the Lac Jeannine, Fire Lake, and Lac Olga deposits, as

well as Peppler and Lamêlée deposits. Clarke (1977) notes that the Sokoman Formation often shows more intense

fold features than do the basement paragneiss. The same is true in the several graphite deposits as well. The

reasons may be that the Sokoman Fm and the graphite bands are more distinct ductile marker units, while the

Ashuanipi paragneiss and Denault marble lacks tracer beds that could document folds to the semi-regional scale.

The younger D2 event compressed the D1 folds from the east-northeast. They form steep, tight folds with vertical

to steeply northeast dips. The complex interference fold pattern is expressed on regional and deposit scales. On

the flanks of the anticlinoria, D2 folds are probably as deep as the D1 set. In the anticlinoria core, however, they

appear to be shallower. This is expressed by the steeply folded flanks of Lamêlée, Fire Lake, Peppler Lake, and Lac

Bloom that don’t significantly fold the centres of these open, bowl-shaped deposits. This feature may be explained

by the uplifted centres of the anticlinoria.

The interference effects of D1 and D2 are variable across the Gagnon Terrane. To the centre and west, four

separate anticlinoria dominated by D2 folding occur from the southwest edge of the Gagnon Group to the Carol

deposit in Labrador. To the east, the increased D2 compression leads to more thrust faults and steep folds (van

Gool et al., 2008) The Property is located in the western part of the easternmost anticlinorium that hosts the

Mont-Wright and Kami iron deposits. The thrust movement also appears to have local dextral transpresssional

movement as well with concomitant shearing and displacement.

Metamorphism has a significant effect on the iron formation mineralogy and likely on graphite recrystallisation,

too. The Grenville Province rocks characteristically have been subjected to amphibolite facies metamorphism in

the area of Lac Knife and Mont-Wright.

The principal economic commodity in the region is the iron oxide deposits of the Gagnon Group; metasedimentary

graphite also occurs specifically near the base of the Menihek Formation above the Sokoman iron formation.

7.2 Local Geology

The property is underlain principally by the mica-quartz-feldspar schist and paragneiss of the Menihek Formation.

Mineralogy locally includes garnet and kyanite (or sillimanite?) plus minor bands of calcsilicate. The host rock of


the graphite zones appears the same with the only significant variation being the amount of graphite (Bonneau

and Raby 1990) and variations in calcsilicate bands (Birkett, et al. (1989).

The property is underlain principally by Menihek schist and protogneiss with graphite bands scattered throughout.

The schist forms where the micas constitute a relatively high portion of the rock relative to associated quartz,

feldspar and other prismatic minerals. The incipient protogneiss texture forms with the increase in the prismatic

minerals, but it doesn’t form the full banded gneiss texture (Birkett et al, 1989). There are few outcrops based on

regional mapping by Murphy (1960) and property mapping by Mazarin (1989). Birkett noted that the gneiss had

two types: silicate and calcsilicate. The silicate version contains more Si and Al and less Ca as expressed by the

proportions of quartz, K-feldspar> Ca-feldspar, mica, garnet, and kyanite. The calcsilicate bands are marked by the

presence of lower Si (less quartz and K-feldspar) and higher Ca expressed in minerals such as scapolite, tremolite,

diopside, clinozoisite, calcite, and anorthosite plagioclase feldspar.

Murphy interpreted the Menihek Fm as infilling a complexly folded, Y-shaped syncline with one arm trending

north-northwest, the second striking west-northwest and the third striking south to south-southeast. The limit of

the syncline is marked by the contact with the underlying Sokoman Fm with variable iron-mineral facies.

The Sokoman Formation that bounds the north and west part of the Menihek appears to be quartz-Fe-carbonate

facies since it has no magnetic signature on airborne surveys. The Sokoman unit east of the property contains

some magnetite in Fe-carbonate and Fe-silicate-rich units. The third, complexly folded Sokoman Fm layer

southwest of Riviere aux Pékans is a mixture of non-oxide and oxide facies of the more typical iron formation with

the Denault Fm marble lying beneath it to the west.

The drill grid area west of Lac Knife with the resources lies on the north-trending eastern fold limb with a strike of

355° and dipping ~30° east. Prospection around the property by Mazarin discovered other graphite showings,

suggesting potential for future discoveries.

Previous interpretations of the detailed drilling by Mazarin showed a number of closed folds that formed part of

their initial resource estimation in 1989. The present interpretation recognizes that the graphite zones may be

sheared en echelon along the northern trend and may, in fact, be more isolated bands. The present study

maintained a tighter constraint with less interpretation as to potential fold closures. Further drill testing will aid in

resolving the relations among the graphite bands.

Details on the mineralization are covered below.


Figure 7.2 - Focus Property Geology


7.3 Mineralization

The graphite occurs as part of the metasediments integral to the Menihek Formation. It forms as part of local

anoxic basins in the pelitic sediments. There is no indication of secondary hydrothermal or other transported, post-

metamorphic deposition or upgrading. The present distribution and crystallinity of the graphite units are primarily

due to the Grenville metamorphic events.

Birkett et al. examined 28 core samples for petrographic, electron-microscope and chemical studies (Birkett et al.,

1989). They noted that the host rock of the tested graphite area was slightly more the calcsilicate than silicate

variety. The Mazarin geologists logged the diopside and minor calcite, but didn’t record the other pale coloured,

low-Fe calcsilicates, which can be difficult to identify visually without experience or microscope determination.

Thus the distinction of host-rock lithologies observed in the Birkett study was not reliably reflected in the core logs.

He also noted that within a given host rock, the presence/quantity of graphite was the only variable; no other

mineral proportions changed with respect to graphite presence/content.

He also noted that the total iron in the whole rock analyses was similar to the silicate rocks; the calcsilicate

mineralogy suggests that, likely during metamorphism, the iron migrated to the original sulphides, changing

pyrrhotite to pyrite, and deriving low-Fe calcsilicate minerals. Another point was that vanadium (V) was enriched in

the phlogopite mica near the graphite, which is consistent with a sedimentary origin for the carbon, since V is

commonly scavenged by carbon in other sedimentary carbon-rich deposits.

The margins of the graphite lenses and bands are sharp to rapid grade changes with background graphite on the

order on <1% Cgr increasing to ~5% Cgr near the lenses contacts. Grades within the lenses range from 5-60% Cgr

with thin waste bands included. The lenses form elongate lozenges with lateral continuity from 90 to over 300 m

length based on the limited geometry tested to date. The depth of the lenses ranges from 40 to over 120 metres

on the dip plane, while thickness of individual lenses ranges from < 1.5 m to 35 m.

Graphite occurs as flakes ranging from 2 mm to very fine in hand sample. Commonly the coarser flakes appear to

form with Cgr grades below ~25% and finer flakes above that. The industrial term for coarse flake is 0.2 mm (200

microns), so that even “fine-grained” to the eye can still provide high quality industrial material.

Birkett, et al. (1989) observed that the graphite occurs in four modes:

1. Independent grains with coarse to medium flakes > 0.7 mm. These are disseminated flakes to 2 mm and

rosette clusters to 9 mm.

2. Independent grains in fine grains (<0.7 mm) which includes the higher grade graphite with ribbons of

coarsely crystalline graphite (see sample 15124).

3. Graphite inclusions in gangue minerals as scattered fine grains, maybe relicts of the original,

unmetamorphosed graphite protected from metamorphic recrystallisation.

4. Graphite inclusion interlayered with mica, mainly muscovite.

The types (1) and (4) generally have carbon grades <25%, while type 3 is <4% Cgr. Type 2 is frequently the higher

grade form with Cgr >25%; Birkett description in sample 15124 on the scale of a thin-section conforms with the

writer’s observations of the core. He noted that the various types can occur anywhere and may be zoned only on a

small scale. The controls on the formation and placement of the various types, except for Type 3 as relict original

graphite, are unknown. This is consistent with observations at the core and outcrop level up to the scale of

graphite grade distribution within the graphite lenses.


The form of the lenses is determined by original sedimentary form modified strongly by regional structures. The

general shape of the known Lac Knife deposits appears to be formed en echelon likely resulting from

transpressional shearing during the D2 compression. Hence the lens length typically is longer than the width and

dip distances.


8.0 DEPOSIT TYPE

The graphite deposits hosted in the Menihek Formation in the Gagnon Terrane appear to have formed in local

anoxic basins as carbonaceous sediments. Low oxygen levels preserved both the organic carbon and sulphide in

pyrrhotite which were deposited together as is seen in modern anoxic basins globally. The source of the carbon

was likely the abundance of single-celled pre-algae life.

In the low-metamorphic grade Labrador Trough sediments near Schefferville, QC and south along Menihek Lake

(NL) itself, little carbonaceous facies have been noted. This may simply be an artefact of where the principal

geological surveying has been done. Recent drilling in the Schefferville area has encountered very fine-grained

carbonaceous argillite near the base of the Menihek Fm. in thin bands to 1.5 metres thick (Lyons, pers.

observation, 2011). No record of carbon-rich sediments is made in Clark & Wares 2005, and no particular

comments have made by the many authors whose works underpins that study (Clark, pers. comm., 2008).

The Menihek Fm was formed as pelitic mud sediments filling emerging basins, probably with a number of localised

anoxic basins. The general form of the metamorphic graphite deposits suggests the local scale of these basins.

The known graphite deposits in the Gagnon Terrane have been typically small outcrops with little exploration work

to develop dimensional data. The three known to the author – Lac Knife and Lac Guéret, (QC), and the Kami iron

deposit (NL) show that the graphite often occurs as widespread, thin bands (<0.5 m) commonly near the base of

the Menihek Fm above the upper non-oxide facies of the Sokoman iron formation. While the thinner graphite

lenses appear to be discontinuous, they can coalesce rapidly to form more continuous and thicker graphite lenses

over lateral distances exceeding 2 kilometres with upward of 70 m thickness.

The grades of these deposits can reach up to 65% carbon as graphite (Cgr) with trace to nil associated carbonate

minerals. The reason for the higher grade zones is unknown. Protolith Labrador Trough formations do not show

high carbon contents. The host sediments are typically quartz-mica-feldspar with associated variable garnet,

amphibole, and kyanite, so there are no minerals to leach and concentrate the graphite. One speculation was that

the graphite may have been derived from pre-metamorphic carbon concentrated by processes similar to modern

petroleum. Several small-scale examples of bitumen with sulphides have been documented in the sandstone

infilling the large Lac Mistanissi basin near Chibougamau, QC; a similar petroleum model was proposed there.


9.0 EXPLORATION

A description of the historical exploration work conducted on the property is provided in Section 6.0.

Since 1990, the only exploration conducted by Focus consisted of the limited 2010-2011 drilling campaign

described in Section 10.0.


10.0 DRILLING

10.1 Focus 2010-2011 Drill Program

The drilling program was planned by Roche with the support of Focus Metals. The drilling campaign for Focus

Metals Inc. was conducted under contract by IOS Services Géoscientifique Inc. (IOS) of Chicoutimi, QC between

December 7, 2010 and February 4, 2011. The field program was halted in mid-December until early January due to

unseasonably warm weather, which made access impossible and cut the source of local supplies, as well as the

year-end holidays. This resulted in 37 days of actual drilling in the period.

The drilling program was planned to total 1000 m. Roche selected the historical drillholes showing the maximum

length into the graphite mineralisation. These historical drill holes were selected to collect as much graphite

possible to verify the correlation between the historical holes and the new holes. Sixteen (16) targets, including

substitutes, were selected from which 12 drillholes were completed for a total length of 1233.92 m. The other sites

were rejected due to access issues. The drill data is summarised in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 - Drillholes Summary

Drillhole Easting Northing Elevation Azimuth Incline Length

(m) Twinned

with

LK-10-101 623203 5823595 687.2 76 -46 96.32 LK-89-58

LK-10-102 623215 5823538 683.2 75 -45 92.74 LK-89-65 & LK-89-67*

LK-10-103 623201 5823478 681.3 77 -46 72.12 LK-89-19

LK-10-104 623228 5823514 687.8 80 -48 87.05 LK-89-77

LK-10-105 623197 5823663 686.7 74 -46 141.00 LK-89-89

LK-10-106 623229 5823413 676.7 90 -46 126.25 LK-89-14

LK-10-107 623212 5823562 684.4 76 -45 87.31 LK-89-34

LK-10-108 623188 5823560 686.4 80 -46 107.83 LK-89-32

LK-10-109 623143 5823554 688.3 80 -50 99.30 LK-89-30

LK-10-110 623184 5823760 688.1 90 -45 111.00 LK-89-62

LK-10-111 623219 5823769 688.4 75 -45 93.00 LK-89-64

LK-10-112 623226 5823433 678.8 90 -46 120.00 LK-89-83

1,233.92

Notes:

1. Coordinate system: UTM NAD 27 zone 19 2. Collar coordinates surveyed by DGPS by Raynald Babin & Associe (RBA)of Baie-Comeau, QC, values rounded to nearest metre

for table 3. LK-10-102 is about equidistant between LK-89-65 (18m), K-89-67 (20m), and K-89-77 (22m). The others are <9 m from the

twinned hole

The Mazarin drill grid coordinates were reconstructed to UTM coordinates by IOS using several known old drill

sites marked by casing as well as likely clearings, as well as DGPS surveying by Raynald Babin & Associe of Baie-

Comeau, QC, who has experience in mining surveying in the region. The new holes were generally within 2-9

metres of the Mazarin coordinates. One holes, LK-10-102 was farther from its twin than expected for unknown

reasons.


The analytical results were incorporated into Mazarin’s 1989 database for the purposes of the Resource Estimation

in this Report.

Services de forage D.V. Inc. of St-Honoré, QC used one skid-mounted hydraulic drill rig to drill BTW core (40.7 mm

diameter). The rig was operated on two 12-hour shifts, seven days a week. Drill holes were intended to duplicate

Mazarin holes, using same collar location as much as possible with the same azimuth, inclination, and depth. The

program was supervised by Mr. Steeve Lavoie, geologist in training for IOS. The 12 drillholes were labelled LK-10-

101 to LK-10-112, sequential with Mazarin’s 1989 holes.

Hole deviation was measured with the use of a Flex-It surveying instrument measuring magnetic orientation and

inclination with readings approximately 25 metres in average. Information on the ground temperature and

magnetic intensity of the rock was collected as well.

Core was shipped by truck to the IOS facility in Chicoutimi, QC where it was received, logged and stored for logging

and sampling. The core was been logged by Mr. Jean-Paul Barrette, P.Geo, assisted by Mr. Lavoie. Logging was

done with reference to the Mazarin drill log of the drill hole being twinned for comparison. Lithological names are

based on those used in the 1989 as much as possible and coded according to a legend adapted from the Québec

Department of Natural Resources. Core angles of significant structures were measured with a core protractor.

Pictures of the core, both general and detailed view were taken with digital camera. Percentage of graphite and

sulphides were estimated on a systematic manner.

Descriptions and logs were captured in Excel spreadsheet and imported in Access database compatible with

Gemcom software. Sections were drafted using GEM’s Explorpac software, and then imported in Bentley

Microstation for editing.

10.2 Twin-Hole Results

The 12 twinned holes were compared with corresponding Mazarin 1989 holes. Two typical comparison examples

are shown in Figures 10.1 and 10.2. The statistical comparison between the corresponding intersections is shown

in Figure 10.3.


Figure 10.1 - Twin Hole Comparison between LK-10-107 vs. LK-89-34


Figure 10.2 - Twin Hole Comparison between LK-10-106 vs. LK-89-14


The comparison is influenced by several factors:

Reproducibility between laboratories, discussed in Section 11.0;

Intralab errors and reproducibility issues within one laboratory discussed in Section 12.0;

Variability in grades over short distances, as seen in the geostatistics in Section 14.0.

Figure 10.3 – Focus (2011) vs. Mazarin 1989 Graphite Analysis

Focus (2011) vs. Mazarin (1989) Graphite Analyses

R2 = 0.7734

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Focus %Cgr

Mazarin %

Cgr

Most of the twinned holes show significant ranges in values between the corresponding original drillhole. In the

detail within a mineralised range or composite interval, the high values will generally match high values, but the

individual absolute grades can vary as much as 75%. Figure 10.3 illustrates that the composite grades as used in

the resource estimation shows a systematic bias of 15% (at r²= 0.7734) higher grades in the 1989 Mazarin data

compared with the 2010 Focus data. This likely reflects differences between laboratory methods discussed in

Section 11.0.

The higher individual grades differences then also have the geological variations beyond the +15% bias. Analysis of

the block models by variograms and other tests show that the grades do not show anisotrophy, even though the

deposit lenses form distinct tabular bodies. The geological variation is often broader than the lab methods bias.

Another factor could be intralab variations. There is not sufficient data to constrain that factor at this time.

The twin-hole program was reasonably successful. It would have been better if the Mazarin hole locations had

been documented better and the twinned hole location spotted at the same time.


11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

11.1 Sample Collection

The drill crew put the core in wooden half-height boxes by the drillers with a length bloc in feet placed at the end

of each run, typically 10 ft (3.0 m). Core boxes were collected by the IOS crew and returned to the Fermont facility

where the metre blocks were verified and the recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) were measured and

recorded. The core was shipped by truck to the IOS facility at Chicoutimi, QC where it was received and logged in

digitally. The core boxes were organised on pallets until the logging process was started.

Prior to core logging, additional geotechnical data was collected, including fracture counts and types, and rock

hardness (qualitative scale). Data was entered using the Geotic software which integrates with MapInfo and

Gemcom. Core boxes are labelled with aluminum tags showing the drillhole number, box number and from-to

metres.

Logging was augmented with the Mazarin drill log of the drill hole being twinned for comparison. Lithological

names are based on those used in the 1989 as much as possible and coded according to a legend adapted from the

Québec Department of Natural Resources. The core was logged for lithology, structure, alteration, and

mineralization. Pictures of the core, both with full-box and detailed views were taken with a digital camera. Data

was entered into Geotic for integration with Access database software.

Sampling was done primarily at 1.5 metre length to match the Mazarin intervals. However, when the interval of

interest was narrower or longer, or had significant lithological changes, the sample length may range with a

minimum of 0.5 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres.

Samples of adjacent unmineralised rock at the margins of the mineralisation as well as low grade intervals within

the mineralised interval were taken separately if the length was > 1-m. Three-part uniquely and sequentially

numbered sample tags were used with one part stapled in the core box at the start of the sample interval, one in

the sample bag, and the last retained in the sample book. Data was entered into Geotic for integration with the

Access database.

The marked samples were cut with a diamond blade rock saw lengthwise and perpendicular to the structural trend

of the core. Half of the core went into marked sample bags and the other half placed in the core box for reference.

A total of 634 samples were collected and sent for analysis with additional QA/QC materials inserted into the

sample stream under the IOS protocol.

Samples were shipped by truck to Inspectorate Exploration and Mining Services Ltd., based in Richmond, British

Columbia, in consignments of one drillhole per shipment. Shipping information was recorded and entered into the

database.

Once the sampling is completed, both the sampled and unsampled core was stored sequentially on core racks

inside the secure IOS warehouse to reduce oxidation of the sulphides.

In Roche’s opinion, the core handling and sampling procedures were conducted very well with thorough

monitoring controls.

11.2 Sample Preparation

Inspectorate Exploration and Mining Services Ltd., based in Richmond, British Columbia, received the samples,

verified against the client’s shipping documents, and logged into their tracking system.


Preparation was done under code SP-PU-PULP. Every sample was dried if necessary prior to staged crushing to

P70% at -10 mesh. The sample was blended then riffle-split for a 250 g portion. The portion was pulverised to P85

of -200 mesh and placed in marked bags.

The coarse reject greater than 6 mesh material and the fine rejects were stored in labelled plastic bags. The bags

were flushed with nitrogen to inhibit oxidation of sulphides. They were stored in a refrigerated place, until the

assaying process is completed and results accepted in regard of QAQC. Pulps and rejects were shipped by truck to

IOS at Chicoutimi, QC in sealed steel drums.

Samples were analysed for graphite carbon analysis, sulphur by LECO Induction, and 30-element Inductively

Coupled Plasma (ICP) techniques. The methods are:

Graphite carbon analysis code C-GP-OR) uses the LECO furnace infrared spectrometry method with either a regular

loss on ignition (LOI) method for samples with < 40% graphite or double loss on ignition (DLOI) method on high-

grade samples. The sample is digested in HCl to remove carbonates. In the LOI method, the sample is weighed into

a ceramic crucible, ashed at 550oC to remove Organic Carbon content, leached with known amount of diluted hot

HCl solution, and washed 10 times with de-mineralized water. When complete, the sample is dried at low

temperature prior to analysis. The sample is placed in a LECO induction furnace, typically set at 1050oC, in order to

convert the graphite to CO2. The weight difference is reported.

The double lost on ignition method for samples above 40% Cgr uses the same HCl leaching of carbonate then is

heated in the LECO furnace 450oC, in order to evaporate organic carbon. The sample is weighed. This is referred as

first loss on ignition. The partly roasted sample is then heated in the furnace to 900oC and graphitic carbon is

burnt-off. The sample is weighed again; this is the second loss on ignition.

A correction is calculated from the sulphur content (LECO furnace), in order to take into account the oxidation of

iron.

Sulphur analysis by LECO (code S-LECO) uses the LECO Induction furnace to oxidise the sample. The sample is

roasted in an oxidising atmosphere and the sulphur is converted to SO2.

Trace elements (code 30-AR-TR) were used on every second sample. The ICP-AES method uses a 4-acid aqua-regia

digestion with 30 elements measured at trace levels.

11.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Inspectorate Exploration and Mining Services Ltd., based in Richmond, British Columbia, is an ISO-9001-2008

certified laboratory, but is not indicated as ISO-17025.

Inspectorate duplicated 103 carbon analyses or about 13% of the whole sample set. The average paired difference

is 0.47% Cgr, with a standard deviation of 0.70%. This is about half the amount for sample duplicates introduced by

IOS. The average relative paired difference is not meaningful, due to the presence of numerous very low grade or

blank samples. The noted paired difference is then in excess of the measured grade, leading to erroneous relative

paired difference.

Inspectorate did not disclose any analytical results in regard of carbon reference material or calibration. It is

uncertain if such material was introduced and not disclosed, or simply not analysed. Results on reference material

were disclosed for sulphur and trace elements analyses.


Figures 11.1 and 11.2 show the duplicates by Inspectorate for carbon as graphite (Cgr) and for sulphur (S). The

slope of the regression lines and the r² coefficient (degree of fit) is very close to unity which indicates very high

reproducibility.

Figure 11.1 - Graphite Correlation for 29 Sample Pairs

Cgr%

Inspectorate Duplicate vs Original Assays

y = 0.994x + 0.0459

R² = 0.9994

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

Original assay Cgr%

Du

plic

ate

ass

ay C

gr%

Figure 11.2 - Sulphur Correlation for 32 Sample Pairs

S%

Inspectorate Duplicate vs Original Assays

y = 1.0009x - 0.0126

R² = 0.998

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

Original assay S%

Du

plic

ate

ass

y S%


The data shows that the laboratory correlations for Cgr and Sulphur are very good.

IOS introduced standards, duplicates and blank samples as part of its quality assurance-quality control program.

IOS introduced 29 duplicate samples (4.5% of the population), which were quarter-cuts of the sampled half core.

The numbering of the original and duplicate quarter-cuts was non-sequential. This process aims to test the

replicability of the whole preparation and assaying process.

Figures 11.3 and 11.4 show the correlations for the duplicate samples.

Figure 11.3 --IOS Duplicate vs. Original Samples for Graphite

Cgr%

IOS Duplicate vs Original Assays

y = 1.0066x + 0.0312

R² = 0.9818

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

Original assay Cgr%

Du

plic

ate

ass

ay C

gr%


Figure 11.4 - IOS Duplicate vs. Original Samples for Sulphur

S%

IOS Duplicate vs Original Assays

y = 1.0007x + 0.0937

R² = 0.8681

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Original assay S%

Du

plic

ate

ass

y S%

Fifty-five (55) blank samples were inserted, typically as the first sample on each hole and then every 20 samples,

for a total population of 8.6%. The blank sample material was pure quartz vein pieces from the former Lac

Bouchette high purity silica quarry. This material is used as blank material by IOS. An average of 0.03% Cgp has been

measured, with a maximum of 0.24%, suggesting the absence of contamination from the laboratory. To be noticed

is the average iron content of 0.32%, suspected from attrition of the crushing and milling equipment, which is fairly

typical. Similarly, the average of 233 ppm of chromium suggest the used of alloy steel somewhere in the

preparation circuit.

Figure 11.5 shows the correlation for the blank samples. The sole outlier is a sample where the numbers were

mixed up.


Figure 11.5 - Correlation of Blank Samples

Blank samples (n=55)

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Samples

%C

gr

IOS inserted standards into the sample stream. Certified reference materials for graphitic ore are uncommon. The

only ones find for this program were from the China National Analysis Center for Iron and Steel and had values of

9.91% and 76.50% Cgr. Their certification protocols and interlaboratory testing is not available, and they are

indicated as assayed using gravimetric methods by ascarite absorption.

Certified Reference Material (CRM) NCS-DC-60120 is a silicate matrix graphitic ore certified at 9.91% Cgr with a

standard deviation of 0.08%. CO2 is also reported at 0.67% and sulphur at 2.59%. This material has been

introduced six times, with assayed values of 8.89% Cgr, ranging from 8.22% to 9.84%. The average reported value

is about 1% lower than the certified value, or 89% relative. Standard deviation is comparable to what was noted

for the twinned samples. Sulphur assayed at 2.62%, very close to the certified value.

Another CRM from the China National Analysis Center for Iron and Steel, NCS-DC-60121 has been inserted three

times. This material represents a very high grade graphitic ore, certified at 76.50% Cgr, with a standard deviation of

0.08% and a sulphur content of 0.14%. Two of the assays were made at Inspectorate, reporting 66.2% and 69.2%

Cgr, while the third was carried at ALS-Minerals and reported at 68.2%. These values underscore the certified value

by about the same relative proportion as for NCS-DC-60120.

A series of mixed certified reference material were made using various proportions of the NCS-DC-60121 certified

76.50% Cgr and NCS-DC-60119 certified at 2.91% Cgr. The mixture was done by the IOS certified chemist, in the IOS

laboratory using 0.01 gr accuracy (0.03% by weight). Two samples were also prepared using a mixture of the

aforementioned with certified reference material SX-18-01 (0.681% S) and WMS-1a (28.17% S) from Canmet,

aiming at controlling the sulphur content. It can be noted that graphitic carbon is systematically underscored by

assays, by a proportion similar to what has been obtained on pure reference material. The average relative paired

difference stands at 11.1% between the certified and assayed value. Sulphur is well replicated.


Figures 11.6 and 11.7 illustrate the comparison between the calculated Cgr and S values in the IOS samples and the

analytical results. It appears that IOS used a variety of Cgr in its blends. These have not been tested by round-robin

procedures.

Figure 11.6 - IOS in-house graphite standards calculated vs. analysed

Cgr% Standard

IOS (calculated) vs, Inspectorate (analysed)

y = 0.8984x

R² = 0.9926

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Inspectorate

IOS

Figure 11.7 - IOS In-House Sulphur Standards Calculated vs. Analysed

S% Standard

IOS (calculated) vs. Inspectorate (analysed)

y = 0.9624x

R² = 0.9998

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Inspectorate

IOS

The in-house standards provide a high correlation for best-fit (r² coefficient) regression and intercept showing a

high reproducibility


Roche would prefer to see a better validated standard with perhaps two grades within the grade range of the

deposit to augment the NCS-DC-60120 certified reference material. However, this does not change the assessment

that every effort has been made by IOS to ensure high quality QA/QC measures. The data can be confidently

evaluated for resource estimation.

11.4 Security

The core is stored inside IOS’s warehouse in Chicoutimi, QC along with the sample rejects stored in steel barrels

under a nitrogen atmosphere to reduce oxidation of the sulphides.


12.0 DATA VERIFICATION

12.1 Field Verification

Mr. Edward Lyons, géo., and qualified person, visited the several work sites of the Lac Knife Project between

October 2010 and March 2011. The initial site visit was made to the property near Fermont, QC on 14 October

2010, accompanied by Gary Economo, president of Focus Metals and André Roy, Project Manager of Roche Ltd. for

an overview of the project. On 17 January 2011, Mr. Lyons visited the IOS Services Géoscientifique (IOS) laboratory

and office facility in Chicoutimi, QC. IOS shipped all the drill cores from the project to their facility for detailed

logging, sample preparation, and selected tests, such as density. The drill core is stored there as well. On 19

January 2011, Mr. Lyons visited the property accompanied by Steeve Lavoie, the IOS project geologist, while the

drilling was underway in the final third of the twin-hole program.

The original drill sites for the Mazarin holes were located from several locations with existing drill casing or

definitive evidence of drilling, including old burlap pieces, core bits, pieces of drill pipe, etc. Most drill locations,

however, were small openings in the sparse forest. The grid coordinates in NAD 27 were reconstructed by IOS, and

these new coordinates were validated in the field. IOS personnel marked twelve sites for Focus’s twin-hole

program. The holes were carefully marked with front- and back-sight pickets and a reference picket with aluminum

tag placed. All coordinates were taken with hand-held GPS units. The finished hole was marked with a wood post

with an aluminum tag showing the drillhole number.

The writer agrees theses procedures were reasonable under the circumstances. It is recommended that the

Mazarin drill collars be more properly verified in the field during the non-snowy part of the year and that all holes

– old and new – be properly marked and surveyed with a DGPS unit competently operated. The data should be tied

into regional benchmarks.

The drill core was properly marked with legible metrage blocks correctly placed during the second field site visit.

Core trays were legibly marked and handled with due care by both the contractor and by IOS personnel. The boxes

were transported by snowmobile to a small logging shed where reconnaissance log was done by the site geologist.

The core was then covered and shipped by truck transport from Fermont to Chicoutimi for more detailed

processing.

At the IOS laboratory in Chicoutimi, the core was received with a reception tracking system and placed either on

core racks internally or carefully palletised and stored in a secured yard adjacent to the facility for later processing.

The core was logged in a systematic way with data input on computers. The logging geologist followed as much as

one could the names and divisions used in the original Mazarin logs. However, there were the normal differences

between geologist’s experience in logging and the normal variations in space between data points.

Samples were selected on the same lengths and contacts as was done by Mazarin. Samples were saw-cut with half

in the sample bag and the other half replaced in the core box. Sample tags were secured in the core box. The

samples were tagged with three-part sequentially numbered tags, and then shipped to the laboratory by truck

transport. IOS kept serial documentation of the samples in their care.

The processed core was palletised and stored at the IOS secured yard at their facility at Chicoutimi, QC.

The writer observed these elements in his several site visits and found the works to be satisfactory.

Roche is of the opinion that the core was properly handled and tracked and that the sampling was done to a

reasonable standard of care.


Roche did not collect check samples during the visits.

12.2 Database Verification

Database verification is discussed in Section 14.0 Mineral Resource Estimates.


13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

A summary of the metallurgical test work conducted in the past on the Lac Knife Graphite project is presented in

this section. Most of the works were conducted by Mazarin at Centre Recherche Minérale (CRM) which became

Corem in Quebec City.

1989 – A first series of metallurgical test work were conducted at CRM using drill core and material from a 35t bulk

sample coming from three different pits. The first tests were conducted on drill core composite with a sample

average of 16.4%Cgr and 9.2%S. The bulk sample had an average of 18.5% Cgr and 9.4% S. Grinding, flotation and

gravity tests were conducted and a preliminary flowsheet was developed.

1989-1990 – A second series of pilot plant testwork were conducted in 1989-1990 from material extracted from

two pits located in the southern part of the Lac Knife mineralisation. Tests were conducted during a 39-days period

with the purpose of improving the flowsheet developed in the beginning of 1989 (Table 13.1).

A pilot test conducted on May 1990 at CRM in Quebec City to produce commercial concentrate samples on a bulk

sample from Lac Knife, has given the following results in Table 13.1.

Those results are below the specifications asked by the market. The plus 200 mesh fractions can be sold at lower

prices but 53% (52.96%) of this graphite has no commercial values.

According to actual market specifications the graphite content in the concentrates has to be increased around

+96% Cgr.

2002- Through SNC-Lavalin, a three-phase program was developed by Mazarin and its partner UCAR-Graphtec. The

program was to test two samples coming from a 3500 tonnes bulk sample extracted from two different areas of

the mineralized zones. The first sample had a head grade of 18.1% Cgr and 9% S and the second one was showing

19.7% Cgr and 7.3% S. The purpose was to demonstrate the possibility of producing graphite concentrate higher

than 96% using the process flowsheet and testing conditions developed in 1989. The first phase involved physical

and mineralogical characterisation of the material. The second phase involved preliminary laboratory ore testing to

develop the process flow diagram prior to pilot plant testing. The third phase was the pilot plant itself but was

never conducted. Figure 13.1 presents the flowsheet tested at CRM in 1990.


Table 13.1 - Commercial Graphite Concentrate Samples Characteristics3

3 Source: Dessureaux Silien, Centre de Recherche Minérale, Classification de concentrés de graphite produits en usine pilote #2, May 29, 1990

kg % %Cgr kg % %Cgr kg % %Cgr kg % %Cgr kg % %Cgr kg % %Cgr kg % %Cgr kg % %Cgr kg % %Cgr

+35 Mesh 39 3.94% 93.2% 23 2% 92.7% 42 4% 91.6% 33 4% 90.7% 14.5 3% 94.3% 29 3% 94.1% 20 3% 94.9% 22 3% 92.8% 222.5 3.36% 92.8%

+ 48 mesh 47.5 4.80% 92.2% 41.5 4% 94.6% 51.5 5% 94.1% 42.5 5% 94.0% 21.5 5% 94.5% 40 4% 95.5% 29.5 5% 95.6% 45 6% 94.2% 319 4.82% 94.2%

+80 mesh 126 12.73% 95.9% 130.5 14% 95.7% 155 14% 97.0% 106.5 12% 94.2% 52 12% 94.7% 120.5 13% 96.2% 77 13% 95.6% 106 14% 94.1% 873.5 13.20% 95.6%

+100 mesh 70 7.07% 95.4% 75 8% 96.2% 84 7% 95.6% 62.5 7% 94.3% 30 7% 93.3% 67.5 7% 95.8% 45 8% 95.5% 52 7% 94.7% 486 7.34% 95.3%

+200 mesh 169 17.08% 94.9% 167 18% 95.0% 213.5 19% 95.4% 150 17% 92.8% 67 16% 91.6% 170.5 18% 94.6% 106 18% 93.3% 169 22% 93.7% 1212 18.31% 94.2%

-200 Mesh 538 54.37% 84.7% 492.5 53% 86.7% 575 51% 84.9% 469.5 54% 79.7% 238 56% 78.1% 505 54% 84.3% 298 52% 81.9% 389 50% 81.7% 3505 52.96% 83.3%

total 989.5 1 89.3% 929.5 1 90.7% 1121 1 90.0% 864 1 85.9% 423 1 84.7% 932.5 1 89.3% 575.5 1 88.1% 783 1 87.9% 6618 100.0% 88.6%

Dixon

Commercial Samples

Weight Weight

Total Weight

Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight

280 283 285 592 594 595 596


Figure 13.1 – Flowsheet4

4 Mazarin – Roche Graphite Concentration Figures p 1 Pilot Plant – Flowsheet, Feb 1990


On the basis of the testwork completed to produce products with various granulometry in the range of 92 to 96%

Cgr and on the intention of Focus to produce marketable products in the range of 95% to 98% Cgr, Roche

recommends to properly evaluate the type of products which can be marketed through a market study and to

conduct in parallel laboratory testworks and eventually pilot plant testwork, in order to develop a process

flowsheet which can produce saleable graphite grades for the actual and future markets.


14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

14.1 Introduction

Three historical resource estimates were performed for the Lac Knife by Mazarin Inc. and its successor company,

Cambior Ltd. in the period 1990-1992. These are summarized in Table 14.1 for historical purposes only.

In winter 2010-2011, Focus drilled 12 BTW diamond drillholes twinned with the original Mazarin sites in order to

confirm the historical data. These twinned holes were designed to test historical drilling. These sections and data

are included in the Resource Estimation herein for Lac Knife. The historical and twinned hole data were used in the

estimation process. Roche revised the interpretation previously done and construct a block model with revised

parameters and rules to adjust the resource classification to the present report.

Table 14.1 - Historical Resource Estimate

Historical Resource Estimate

Date Classification Tonnes Grade (%Cgr) Source

May-89

Proven 3,682,700 17.40

Mazarin

Probable 1,238,800 16.90

Proven and Probable 4,921,500 17.27

Possible 3,563,700 16.00

Total 8,485,200 16.70

Nov-89

Proven 3,510,800 17.40

Roche/Davy

Probable 1,181,000 16.90


Possible 3,397,400 16.00

Total 8,089,200 16.70

Nov-90

Proven 3,661,000 17.50

Magloire Bérubé

Probable 258,000 18.55


Possible 1,555,000 15.90

Total 5,474,000 17.10


been prepared to the standards required by the instrument or modern estimation practices. These are provided

for comparison purposes only.

14.2 Previous Mineral Resource Estimates

Previous mineral resource estimate was performed between 1989 and 1990 by Mazarin. In total three different

estimates was performed. Those estimates were done with the same method and database.

In 1989, Mazarin estimates a mineral resource of 8.5 millions of metrics tonnes with an average grade of 16.7%.

Later in that year, the same estimate has been modified to consider new density measurement which changes

from 3.0 t/m3 to 2.86 t/m

3. So the new estimate was readjusted to 8.1 million of metrics tonnes with an average

grade of 16.7% Cgr. In 1990, a new estimates was completed with the same parameter but using a smaller area of


influence. The new area limited the depth of the deposit to 75 metres (previously 125 metres). As a result of the

resource estimated was 5.5 millions of metrics tonnes with an average grade of 17.1 % Cgr.

The historical estimates were based on the geology interpretation originally done by Mazarin. The database used is

from the drilling campaign carried out from January to April 1989. 93 drill holes were used for a total of 7360

metres. Twenty three vertical sections were created from the drilling pattern (approximately 25 * 25 metres). A cut

off grade of 10 % Cgr was used to interpret the mineralized zones. Three zones were interpreted.

The method by section was used to estimate the historical resource. No capping value was used. The historical

resource has been classified by using the following criteria:

Proven resources are defined by a radius of 12.5 metres around the drillholes in a minimum of three

sections with a spacing of 25 metres and 5 drillholes.

Probable resources are defined by a radius of 25 metres around the drillholes in a minimum of three

sections with a spacing of 25 metres and 5 drillholes.

Possible resources are defined by a radius of 37.5 metres around the drillholes.


been prepared to the standards required by the instrument or modern estimation practices.

14.3 Twin Hole Drilling

In order to verify historic drilling, Focus twinned twelve drillholes in the drilling campaign which took place

between 2010 and 2011.

Results are presented in Section 10.2.

14.4 Exploration Database

Data used to estimate the mineral resource was provided by the client in the form of a Microsoft Excel

Spreadsheet. The drillhole database contains 111 exploration diamond drillholes: 99 historical drillholes from the

Mazarin exploration campaign of 1989 and 12 drillholes from the twin-hole drilling campaign executed between

December 2010 and February 2011. In addition to the electronic format, Roche received a hard copy of the

historical database. The database consists to 8611 metres of core and 3240 assays for Cgr% (2606 historical and

634 new). Most drillholes were sampled in 1.5 metres intervals for assays inside the zone which showed

mineralization.

All drill holes were imported with the Gemcom GEMS© software. A total of 105 drillholes were used to estimate

the resource. Historical and actual drill holes were used for the calculation.

14.4.1 DENSITY

Historical density data compiled by Roche (1991) showed three composite made of 32 samples from 32 drillholes

which represented 1054.6 m of core. Beckman pycnometer measurements on the three sample pulps (fines)

returned 2.886. The number and method of the pycnometer analyses is not available. The density for core

measured in air/water (typical method) was not detailed as to source, quantity and composites, if any. The air

density was cited as 2.851. The relationship between bulk density measured in air vs. the pcynometer method

would have the latter equal or be less than the former, since the fines can have significant reduction of natural

porosity.


IOS measured 28 core samples from the Focus drilling using the air-water displacement method in its laboratory.

The average density was 2.87.

Roche used 2.87 as the density for the resource estimation.

14.4.2 COORDINATE SYSTEM

Data was furnished in UTM NAD 27, zone 19 and in Mazarin’s local project grid system. Coordinate in local system

were attributed in function of the historical drilling pattern. As the origin of this system was in the middle of the

property, more than the half of the property has negative value (Figure 14.1).

For this study, Roche added a value of 1750 in x and 1300 in y to avoid negative value in the coordinate. The same

elevation value was kept.

Figure 14.1 - Local Coordinate System


14.4.3 VERTICAL SECTION

Historical sections done by Mazarin were digitised in GEMS. A total of 23 vertical sections were defined for the Lac

Knife property. Those sections were defined along the drillhole pattern with a spacing of 25m. Sections were used

for the geological interpretation. A typical section is represented in Figure 14.2.


Figure 14.2 - Typical Geologic Vertical-Section- Lac Knife Section 1250


14.5 Geological Interpretation and Definition of Zones

Roche revised the previous Mazarin (1989) geological model based on the historical mineralized zones

interpretation. The Mazarin sectional interpretations were digitized in GEMS by using the same parameters.

Originally, Mazarin defined three mineralized zones: East Zone, Central Zone and West Zone. Their interpretation

appears to have been based on a simple multiple folding sequence of one graphite layer. Roche revised the

interpretation to include new observations done on the 2010-2011 drilling campaign. The fold hinges were

eliminated due to the lack of data in Mazarin and Focus logs.

The present interpretation includes five mineralized zones. The two new zones were formed by the separation of

the original west zone into three simpler shapes separated by waste host rock. Mineralized zones were defined

using a cut-off grade of 5% Cgr. On each drillhole section, the boundary polylines were digitized for each

mineralized zones. Interpretations of the mineralized zones were mainly supported by grade continuity in strike

and dip. The sections were spaced at 25 metres. Interpretations were done by hand on the sections then rectified

to create 3D wireframe forms in Gems.

All terminal sections were extrapolated 12.5 metres on trend. This represents half section spacing. When the

mineralized zone showed a good continuity over three sections in strike and dip, an additional 12.5m or 25m were

added to the extension in all directions to a maximum of 37.5m). No extrapolation was carried below 120m from

the surface. Extensions were taken into consideration during the classification of the mineral resource.

Closed polylines were connected on the sections to define a geological solid (Figure 14.3). The five solids were

visually checked in plan and vertical section to ensure the accuracy with the drillholes used for the interpretations.

No triangulation errors were generated during the creation of the mineralized zones. Solids used in this estimation

have been trimmed with the rock surface.

Figure 14.3 - Geological Solids


14.6 Composite

Diamond drillhole assay data were composited in equal lengths of 3 metres constrained by the mineralized zones

described above. The composite database was created by the mining software GEMS. Composites were generated

from the raw Cgr assays and were calculated inside the mineralized zone from the start to the end of the intercept

with the wireframe. The length of the last composite was adjusted to fit inside the mineralized solid. The value of

zero was attributed to non-assayed intervals.

14.7 Statistics

14.7.1 BASIC STATISTICS

Basic statistics were run on the composited data. As show on Table 14.2, the result on the 3 metres composited is

similar to the basics statistics on the raw assay. Raw assay data were extracted from assay data inside geological

solid in order to compare the same population. A coefficient, as observed on the 3 metres composite population,

of variation under 0.5 is likely to demonstrate a set of data with a normal distribution. The histogram (Figure 14.4)

visually confirmed that the 3 metres population is a normal distribution. Geology inside different solids as the

grade is similar between each other. These results justify the use of all from mineralized zone together population

data for statistics.

Table 14.2 - Basic Statistics on Assay and Composite

Basic Statistics Inside Mineralized Zones

Original Assay

3 Metre Composite

Number of Samples 2404 1276

Minimum (Cgr) 0.14 0.71

Maximum (Cgr) 53.15 42.59

Mean (Cgr) 15.83 15.28

Median (Cgr) 15.72 15.04

Standard Deviation 8.94 7.47

Variance 79.97 55.78

Coefficient of Variation 0.56 0.49


Figure 14.4 - 3 Metre Composites Histogram


14.7.2 HIGH GRADE TREATMENT

The population shows a log-normal distribution with no outliers or secondary populations. Thus, no grade capping

was used in the present estimation.

14.7.3 SPATIAL ANALYSES

14.7.3.1 Variography

Variography was run on the 3 metres composites. The spatial study were completed with Gemcom GEMS©

software. 3D variography was performed on the dataset. The variography map (Figure 14.5) presents the results of

the study. The variography map presented the value of gamma in relation with the orientation. This map will allow

the selection of the best orientation to perform the variography analysis. The smaller gamma is showed by cooler

colours, which means smaller difference is observed between each data. In this case, the variograms map showed

similar gamma values in any direction. This was consistent in the all the variograms in all directions. They uniformly

showed a high nugget effect and reached the sill value rapidly. Thus, 3d variography did not yield a best-fit result.

Figure 14.5 - Variogram Map

14.7.3.2 Omni-Directional Analyze

The omni-directional variogram analysis was run to find the best variogram result. Omni-directional variogram was

done for two different lags: 3 metres and 25 metres. The 3 metre lag (Figure 14.6) was done to analyze the

variation of the grade along the hole with the neighbour composites. The 25 metre lag analyzes (Figure 14.7) was

done to cover the grade inside the drilling pattern initially done. The results of both analyses are summarized in

Table 14.3. The variogram analysis of both lags shows a high nugget effect, which is shown through the drilling as a

highly variable grade for the graphite in the same mineralized zone. This relationship was also observed in the twin


holes. The 3 metre lags variograms have a range value of 10 metres which means that only the neighbour

composite shows continuity. Similar tendencies between composites are observed through the 25 metre lags

variogram with a range value of 34 metres (as the drill spacing is approximately 25 metres). The variography

analysis shows that the grade is highly variable through the ore zone.

Table 14.3 - Omni Directional Variogram Results

Omni-Directional Variogram

3 Metre Lags 25 Metre Lags

Number of structures 1 1

Nugget 14.39 34.31

Sill 37.14 19.34

Range 11.08 33.98


Figure 14.6 - Omni-Directional Variogram – 3 Metres Lag Distance


Figure 14.7 - Omni-Directional Variogram –25 Metres Lag Distance


14.8 Block Model

The 3D block model was developed using GEMS. Blocks are 5 metres long, 7 metres wide and 5 metres high. The

3D model contained 120 columns, 120 rows and 40 levels. The origin in local coordinate is for: 1000 for x, 940 for y

and 750 for z. Rock Type values were assigned to each block by using firstly rock surface and topographic surface. A

percentage model for the mineralized zone was applied to all blocks below rock surface. Percent block model is

used to give a value of the proportion for each block included inside the mineralized zone during the estimations.

Rock type (mineralized zones) are associated to every block inside the wireframe by method called a ‘’needling’’

technique develop by Gemcom. Rock types are use in the grade interpolation as boundaries. In the present

estimation the boundaries are defined as “hard’’.

14.9 Grade Interpolation

The grade interpolation was completed by using 3 metres composites for Cgr with the software GEMS. The

methodology used applied was the inverse distance power square (‘’ID2”). Grade was interpolated in each block

inside the mineralized zone using three different passes. Estimation parameters (Table 14.4 and Table 14.5) were

based mainly on the geometry of the mineralized zones. As a result, search ellipse has the same dimension for

each category, but different orientation for each mineralized zone. Figure 14.8 shows a typical vertical section with

the interpolated grade. Categories were applied during the grade interpolation.

Table 14.4 - Estimation Parameters – Orientation of the Search Ellipse

Measured Indicated and Inferred

Major Azimut

Dip Minor Azimut

Ore

Zo

ne

West Zone 1 no rotation 270 -45 360

West Zone 2 no rotation 270 -50 360

West Zone 3 N/A 270 -40 360

Central Zone no rotation 270 -60 350

East Zone N/A 270 -70 350

Table 14.5 - Estimation Parameters – Dimension of the Search Ellipse

Measured Indicated Inferred

Anisotropy X 5 m 37.5 m 75 m

Anisotropy Y 7 m 30 m 80 m

Anisotropy Z 5 m 12.5 m 37.5 m


Figure 14.8 - Grade Distribution – Vertical Section 1100 Lac Knife


14.10 Mineral Resource Classification

This Mineral Estimate was classified into measured, indicated and inferred categories. The CIM Definition

Standards for Mineral Estimations were used in order to complete this mineral resource estimate. The categories

are based on the density of data, the variability of the grade and the spatial continuity. Search ellipses described in

the section above were to assign the category for each block. The classification was done automatically by the

three different passes and visually checks.

The automatic method used the value given by the search ellipse. The smallest search ellipse corresponds to the

highest degree of confidence and the biggest search ellipse correspond the lowest degree of confidence. The first

pass and the second pass, described above, were only applied to mineralized zones defined by a regular 25 by 25

metre drilling pattern. Only the West Zone 1, West Zone 2 and Central Zone have blocks with measured and

indicated categories.

14.11 Mineral Resource Estimate

The mineral resource estimate presented in this report is effective as of 5 December 2011. The following

classifications were used: Measured, Indicated, and Inferred. Inferred, Indicated, and Measured categories of

Mineral Resources are recognized in order of increasing geological confidence. Mineral Resources are not

equivalent to Mineral Reserves as no economic viability has been demonstrated. In addition, there can be no

assurance that Mineral Resources in a lower category may be converted to a higher category, or that Mineral

Resources may be converted to Mineral Reserves.

All mineralized zones were used in this estimate. Table 14.6 shows the resources within the 5% cut-off mineralized

zones using various cut-off grades.

Table 14.6 - Resource Estimate

Resource Estimate

Cut-Off (% Cgr)

No Cut-Off 5% 10%

Category Tonnes Grade (% Cgr)



Measured (M) 637,250 15.59 604,735 16.25 504,669 17.95

Indicated (I) 4,334,890 15.68 4,332,920 15.69 4,028,704 16.24

M + I 4,972,140 15.67 4,937,655 15.76 4,533,373 16.43

Inferred 3,000,225 15.58 3,000,225 15.58 2,861,228 15.92

To ensure a “reasonable prospect of economic extraction”, a Whittle optimized mining scenario was performed by

Roche assuming an overall pit slope of 45°, an operating cost of $42.20 US per tonne milled (including mining and

milling costs), a 95% mining recovery, a 5% mining dilution and a conservative selling price of $1,600 US/tonne of

concentrate. By comparing this Whittle shell to the report resource, less than 2% of the tonnage fell outside of the

“Base Case” pit shell.


15.0 MINERAL RESERVES ESTIMATES

No mineral reserves are declared in this Technical Report.


16.0 MINING METHODS

With the exception for the Whittle optimized mining scenario as described in Section 14.11 to ensure “a

reasonable prospect of economic extraction”, no mining methods or parameters have been developed in the

current resource estimation.


17.0 RECOVERY METHODS

This section is not used.


18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE



19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS



20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT

20.1 Environmental Studies

A very preliminary baseline study on the Lac Knife was carried out by Roche Ltd in 1989. An environmental audit

was conducted by Roche Ltd in 2010.

20.1.1 ORE AND WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION

Ore samples analysed in 1990 showed high sulphur contents and acid generation potential. Québec’s Department

of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks (MDDEP) will require specific mitigation measures for ore and

tailings management.

No waste samples have been characterised. Comprehensive characterization of ore, waste (and, if available,

tailings) samples must be carried out.

20.1.2 PHYSICAL ASPECTS

The region is characterized by a hilly topography (about 50-100 m high). Valleys are usually covered by small creeks

and peatlands.

Soil samples collected near graphite outcrops during the 2010 environmental audit showed sulphur content

exceeding Level C criteria of the Soil Protection and Contaminated Lands Rehabilitation Policy issued by MDDEP.

Waters sampled collected in 1989 in the study area were mainly neutral, very soft, had a low suspended solids

content, and were poorly mineralized (low conductivity, low ion content and low dissolved solids levels). Metal

contents were also low (except for iron and zinc). Water samples collected during the 2010 environmental audit

showed low pH for stations located downstream form graphite deposits and outcrops, but near neutral pH for

upstream stations.

During the environmental audit, no organoleptic signs (odours, stains, iridescence) of contamination on the surface

of the property (camp and mineralized outcrops) or in the surrounding area have been observed. Barrels of

petroleum hydrocarbons (diesel fuel and other hydrocarbons) present at various locations on the property in the

early 2000s were not seen during the visit. Since the site was reclaimed in summer 2009, the barrels were quite

likely disposed of appropriately (transported to Fermont) as part of the rehabilitation of the property once the

exploration work was complete. Although no traces of these barrels were detected, it is possible that they may

have been buried on site because we have no proof of them having been transported to Fermont for disposal.

IAMGold may be able document the 2009 reclamation.

20.1.3 BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS

The study area is located in the Boreal Zone, more particularly at the transition between the Spruce-Moss Forest

Domain and the Lichen Woodland Domain. Portions of the area are barrens which are essentially covered by

lichens. This forest does not have an important economic value.

Large mammals in the region are represented by woodland caribou, moose and black bear. The woodland caribou

is considered as threatened in Canada (Species at Risk Act) and vulnerable in Québec (Loi sur les espèces menacées

ou vulnérables; L.R.Q., c. E-12.01).


20.1.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

The Lac Knife property is located in the regional municipality county (MRC) of Caniapiscau which is located north to

the 55th parallel and extends to the provincial border with Labrador to the East. There are two main cities

(Fermont and Schefferville) and four unorganized territories. The Lac Knife Project is located north of the 49th

parallel and therefore is within the area of the Plan Nord announced by the Québec Government, on June 9th

,

2011.

The area is unpopulated but it is located within the Québec Innu traditional hunting territory. The aboriginal

community of Uashat mak Mani-Utenam (ITUM) is divided into two bands the Uashat and the Mani-Utenam. Both

are located in the Sept-Îles area, about 300 km south of Fermont. The sustainable use of the forests and, more

precisely, the wildlife are important values within the Innu culture. In the beginning, the use resources were used

for survival. Later resources became an exchange good, for the fur market, for example. The decline of the fur

trade market has had a significant impact on the traditional way of life. Today, the land is still used by the Innu for

hunting, trapping and fishing.

According to the zoning legislation of the Caniapiscau MRC, all activities are allowed in the territory covered by the

Lac Knife Project, including mining. The Moisie River planned aquatic reserve is located west and south to the

property at relatively short distance along the Riviere aux Pékans.

The Project area is accessible by an access road connecting to highway 389. The access road to the property is also

used as snowmobile trail in the winter.

The Fermont region receives its electricity from the Normand station, a 315 kV power line coming from the

Montagnais station. Also, Hydro-Québec projects the construction of a new power line of 315 kV (Montagnais-

Normand). There is also the Hart-Jaune power station along highway 389.

20.2 Permitting

20.2.1 PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT (QUEBEC)

20.2.1.1 Regulation falling under the responsibility of the Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks (MDDEP)

The Lac Knife Project will not be subjected to «environmental impact assessment and review procedure» (section

31.1 of the Environment Quality Act (EQA) because the ore mining and processing rate are lower than 7,000 metric

tons per day. Certificates of authorization in accordance with section 22 of the EQA must be obtained from the

Regional Office of the MDDEP. The application for authorization must include plans and specifications of project,

precise location and the quantity or concentration of contaminants expected to be emitted, deposited, issued or

discharged into the environment.

The certificate of authorization for the power line is normally assumed by Hydro-Québec.

Others specific certificates of authorizations that must be obtained include: Section 32 (sewage treatment and

waterworks), Section 48 (equipment to control atmospheric emissions), and Section 54 (solid waste management

system).

20.2.1.2 Regulations under the responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife (MRNF)

In order to operate a mine, the Company must obtain a mining lease through Ministry of Natural Resources

(Québec) (MRN).


A Rehabilitation Plan must be produced before the beginning of operation in conformity with the Mining Act

requirements. The rehabilitation plan must include a description of the guarantee serving to ensure performance

of the work required by the plan. The amount of the guarantee corresponds to 70% of the evaluation of the

expected costs of rehabilitation work on accumulation areas (tailings, waste dumps, overburden dumps).

Condemnation studies must also be carried out in order to ensure that no mineral resource will be negatively

affected by the presence of mill, overburden dumps, waste dumps and tailings area.

Finally, according to the Forest Act, no one may, in Crown forests, carry out a forest development activity (mainly

forest cutting) unless he holds a forest intervention permit delivered by the MRNF. Forest development includes,

among other activities, cutting and harvesting work and the implementation and maintenance of infrastructures.

20.2.2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

According to Section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), one of the following conditions is

required for the application of the federal procedure:

A federal authority is the proponent of the project;

A federal authority "has the administration of federal lands and sells, leases or otherwise disposes of

those lands or any interests in those lands", or;

A federal authority provides a financial support;

A federal authority issues a permit or licence, grants an approval or takes any other action for the purpose

of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in part.

From our understanding of the project, the last condition is the only potential trigger. Regarding the Lac Knife

Project, the more important Act and Regulation is the Fisheries Act.

The section 35 of the Fisheries Act specifies: (1) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the

harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. and (2) No person contravenes subsection (1) by

causing the alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat by any means or under any conditions authorized by

the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act.”

A targeted project is subject to a screening (non-extensive) or to a comprehensive study (extensive). The list of the

project subject to a comprehensive environmental study is presented in the CEAA. 16. Since the Lac Knife project is

not a metal, gold, coal potash mine, a screening study would be required. However, the CEAA recently required a

comprehensive study for diamond and apatite projects because of the extraction of 200,000 m3 or more of ground

water (mine water).

The Metal Mining Effluent Regulations will not apply to the project.


21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS



22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS



23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

The Lac Knife property is bordered to the west by the Moisie River Protected Area along Riviere aux Pékans and by

the Sainte-Marguerite Hydro-Electric Area to the South. These lands are restricted for exploration. Corporation

Ressources Nevado holds an extensive property, being explored for iron, along the east limit of the Lac Knife

claims. North of the property, two private prospectors, Charles Dearin and Glenn Grisbach, hold small land

positions. Bertrand Brassard, another private prospector, has a claim to the southeast. No indication of additional

graphite was found nearby beyond the property. There are no other significant properties in the area surrounding

the Lac Knife property.

Figure 23.1 - Adjacent Properties


24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

There is no additional data or information to include.


25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Substantial works have been carried out in the past on the Lac Knife property. Drilling and metallurgical testwork

including piloting gave positive results in the definition of a graphite resource having a relatively high graphite

content compared to other graphite mineralised occurrences.

The 2010-2011 drilling program with the twinning of some of the previous holes had confirmed the validity of the

work conducted in the past.

However the market has changed and the basis of the testworks and pilot plant completed in the 1990’s to

produce products with various granulometry in the range of 92 to 96% Cgr probably has to be reconsidered in

relation with current markets. If it is the intention of Focus to produce marketable products in the range of 95% to

98% Cgr, Roche recommends to properly evaluate the type of products which can be marketed through a market

study and to conduct in parallel laboratory testworks and eventually pilot plant testwork, in order to develop a

process flowsheet which can produce saleable graphite grades for the actual and future markets. This will provide

data for the potential market available and what could be the graphite recovery related to the production of

material associated with these markets.

A drilling program to collect a sufficient amount of samples to get a composite of the deposit for the next phase of

testwork and an infill drilling program are recommended to better understand the graphite mineralisation trend.

In parallel to these studies, a review of the economics parameters should be done to evaluate the various

scenarios required to bring the project into production. This evaluation should be summarized into a Preliminary

Economic Assessment (PEA) which will include a capital and operating cost evaluation as well as a financial

analysis.


26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The review of the work conducted on the Lake Knife Graphite project since its discovery demonstrated the

presence of an important graphite resource with a potential to develop it into a producing operation. Based on

that, Roche recommend pursuing the development of the project in two phases. Phase I will consist in an

evaluation of the economic parameters by conducting a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) of the project.

During that PEA, it is also recommended to perform additional metallurgical testwork in laboratory including

(mineralogy, grinding, dry screening, flotation and gravimetric separation). A market study should also be

conducted to properly identify what is the market which should be targeted and what production levels could be

considered.

Contingent to a positive PEA, an additional drilling program should be conducted in order to increase the quantity

of indicated and measured resources and to also have a better understanding of the geometry of the mineralised

lenses. It is recommended to use HQ core in order to obtain appropriate material for metallurgical testwork

It is also recommended to have more density measurements by air/water (typical) technique with checks using gas

pycnometer method on coarse rejects made from the same sample. These tests should be done on a range of rock

types including waste. Environmental characterisation of the various rock types should also be done.

A bulk sampling program should also be conducted at the same time in order to provide sufficient material for a

larger metallurgical program including pilot plant testing. This part is considered as Phase II.

Phase I – Preliminary Economic Assessment

The following tables present the costs associated with the Phase I.

Metallurgical Testworks $200,000

Market Study $50,000

Preliminary Economic Assessment $300,000

Total Phase I $550,000

Phase II – In-Fill Drilling and Pilot Plant Testing

The following tables present the costs associated with the Phase II.

In-fill – Drilling (6000m) $2,200,000

Bulk Sample collection and shipping $100,000

Environmental Characterisation $100,000

Pilot Plant Testwork $1,500,000

Total Phase II $3,900,000

Roche also recommends that properly surveyed DGPS coordinates should be acquired in summer/fall conditions to

locate the Focus and Mazarin drillholes to validate the present data. High quality survey control will be needed for

any future exploration and development works as well.


27.0 REFERENCES

Bernier Claude géologue, Société d’exploration minière Mazarin Inc., Propriété du Lac Knife, estimation des

réserves, Cahier 4 de 7, May 1989

Bérubé Magloire, Calcul de réserve, Nov. 1990

Birkett Tyson, Géologie et minéralurgie au Lac Knife Québec Géosciences Center, June-89

Birkett Tyson Eng., Godue Robert and Marchildon Nathalie, 1989. The Knife lake graphite deposit, geology,

mineralogy and mineral textures 1989 field and laboratory investigations, Québec Géosciences Center

Bonneau, J. and R. Raby, 1990. The Lac Knife Graphite Deposit, Mining Mag., June 1990, p 13-19.

Cambior, Feasability study Mazarin, March 1991

Cambior Mazarin, Projet Lac Knife Etude de Rentabilité Version Finale, March 15, 1991

Clark, T. and R. Wares, 2005. Lithotectonic and metallogenic synthesis of the New Québec orogen (Labrador

Trough), QC-MRNFP, MM 2005-01, 227 p.

Clément J Derochers, Concentration en usine pilote du minerai graphitique du gisement du Lac Knife, Fermont, et

Ass, Oct. 17 1989

Dessureaux Silien, CRM Rapport final Classification de concentrés de graphite produits en usine pilote # 2, May 29,

1990

Emslie, R. F. and P.A. Hunt, 1989. The Grenville event: magmatism and high grade metamorphism: in Current

Research, Part C, Geol. Surv. Can., Paper 89-1C, p.11-17.

Explograph, Rapport sur la campagne d'Exploration de l’hiver 1989 (volume 3), April 1990

Explograph, Rapport sur la campagne d'Exploration de l’hiver 1989 (volume 4), April 1990

Hoqc, M., 1994. Introduction and La Province de Grenville in: Géologie du Québec, Gouvernment de Québec, MM

94-10, p. 1-6 and p. 75-94.

Mazarin, Journeaux de sondage (1-50), Jan 1989

Mazarin, Journeaux de sondage (51-100), Jan 1989

Mazarin – Roche Graphite Concentration Figures p 1 Pilot Plant – Flowsheet, Feb 1990

Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP). 2005. Directive 019 sur

l’industrie minière. 101 p.

Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP). 1998. Politique de protection des

sols et de réhabilitation des terrains contaminés.

Murphy, D.L., 1960. Preliminary Report on the Carheil and Le Gentilhomme Lakes Area, Saguenay Electoral District,

PR 412 (anglais), QC Dept. of Mines, Geol. Surv. Branch, 11 p + map.

Roche, Plan de restauration de la propriété du Lac Knife Roche July 2001

Roche Ltd. 1990. Étude environnementale de la mise en production d’un gisement de graphite au Lac Knife.

Roche Ltd. 2010. Lac Knife – Summary of the Environmental Findings. 5 p.

NI 43-101 Report - focusgraphite.com · 14) I graduated with a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree...

Documents

Transcript of NI 43-101 Report - focusgraphite.com · 14) I graduated with a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree...