PRE-FEASIBILITY REPORT ON THE BROKEN HAMMER PROJECT, SUDBURY, ONTARIO,

CANADA

PREPARED FOR WALLBRIDGE MINING COMPANY LIMITED

Report for NI 43-101

Ref.: 1870 / 121-16220-00

Prepared by:

Rod Doran, P. Eng., Senior Mining Engineer, GENIVAR Inc.

Bruce C. Churchill, P. Geo., RPA Inc.

Jason J. Cox, Principal Mining Engineer, RPA Inc.

Tim McBride, P. Geo., Hydrogeologist, AMEC

Report Date: October 8, 2012

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. 1 1.1  Property and Ownership .................................................................................. 2 1.2  Geology, Deposit Type, Mineralization ............................................................ 2 1.3  History and Exploration ................................................................................... 3 1.4  Drilling.............................................................................................................. 4 1.5  Data Verification and Site Visit ........................................................................ 4 1.6  Metallurgical Testwork ..................................................................................... 5 1.7  Resource Estimation ....................................................................................... 5 1.8  Mineral Reserves and Mining .......................................................................... 6 

1.8.1  Pit Location and Design ............................................................................. 8 1.8.2  Mining Operation ....................................................................................... 8 1.8.3  Mine Production Schedule ......................................................................... 9 

1.9  Materials Handling and Processing ............................................................... 11 1.10  Environmental Considerations ....................................................................... 11 1.11  Project Permitting .......................................................................................... 11 1.12  Mine Operating Costs .................................................................................... 13 1.13  Estimated Capital Costs ................................................................................ 13 1.14  Financial Analysis .......................................................................................... 14 

1.14.1  Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................. 16 1.15  Risks and Opportunities ................................................................................ 17 

1.15.1  Risk and Uncertainties ......................................................................... 17 1.15.2  Opportunities ....................................................................................... 19 

1.16  Interpretation and Conclusions ...................................................................... 19 1.17  Recommendations ......................................................................................... 20 

2  INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 22 2.1  Sources of Information .................................................................................. 23 2.2  List of abbreviations....................................................................................... 25 

3  RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ........................................................................... 26 

4  PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................... 27 

5  ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 31 

5.1  Accessibility ................................................................................................... 31 5.2  Climate .......................................................................................................... 31 5.3  Local Resources ............................................................................................ 31 5.4  Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 32 5.5  Physiography ................................................................................................. 32 

6  HISTORY .................................................................................................................. 33 

7  GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION .................................................. 34 

ii

7.1  Regional Geology .......................................................................................... 34 7.2  Local Geology................................................................................................ 36 7.3  Broken Hammer Geology .............................................................................. 37 7.4  Mineralization ................................................................................................ 39 

8  DEPOSIT TYPES ...................................................................................................... 40 8.1  Contact-Style Mineralization .......................................................................... 40 8.2  Offset-Style Mineralization ............................................................................. 40 8.3  Footwall-Style Mineralization ......................................................................... 41 8.4  Structurally Remobilized Mineralization ......................................................... 41 

9  EXPLORATION ......................................................................................................... 42 9.1  Broken Hammer Bulk Sampling Program ...................................................... 43 9.2  Grade Control Sampling Procedures ............................................................. 44 9.3  Material Processing ....................................................................................... 44 9.4  Results........................................................................................................... 45 

10  DRILLING ............................................................................................................ 47 10.1  Broken Hammer ............................................................................................ 47 

11  SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY .................................. 49 11.1  Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples .................................................. 51 11.2  Blanks ............................................................................................................ 51 11.3  Standards ...................................................................................................... 53 11.4  Duplicates ...................................................................................................... 55 

12  DATA VERIFICATION ......................................................................................... 58 12.1  Independent Sampling by RPA ..................................................................... 58 

13  MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ........................... 59 13.1  Introduction .................................................................................................... 59 13.2  Mineralogical Study ....................................................................................... 60 

13.2.1  Procedure ............................................................................................ 61 13.2.2  Mineralogical Results ........................................................................... 64 

13.2.2.1  Bulk Modal Mineralogy .................................................................. 64 13.2.2.2  PGE Mineralogy ............................................................................ 64 13.2.2.3  PGM Deportment .......................................................................... 66 

13.3  SGS Report 10982-001, September 30th, 2005 ........................................... 69 13.3.1  Sample Determination ......................................................................... 69 13.3.2  Bond Work Index Determination .......................................................... 69 13.3.3  Mineralogical Analysis ......................................................................... 69 13.3.4  Flotation Tests ..................................................................................... 70 13.3.5  Locked Cycle Flotation Tests ............................................................... 72 13.3.6  Gravity Testing..................................................................................... 75 

13.4  SGS Report No. 10982-003, November 20th, 2006 ....................................... 75 13.4.1  Sample Head Grade ............................................................................ 75 13.4.2  Simple Flotation Circuit Testing ........................................................... 76 13.4.3  Gravity Testwork .................................................................................. 77 13.4.4  Locked Cycle Flowsheet Testwork ...................................................... 79 

13.5  2011 Bulk Sample Custom Milling Arrangement ........................................... 82 13.5.1  Metallurgical recoveries ....................................................................... 83 

iii

14  MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE .................................................................... 84 14.1  Summary ....................................................................................................... 84 14.2  Resource Database ....................................................................................... 84 14.3  Geological Interpretation and 3d Solids ......................................................... 85 14.4  Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 85 14.5  Grade Capping .............................................................................................. 86 14.6  Composite Length Analysis ........................................................................... 87 14.7  Composited and Capped Assay Statistics ..................................................... 87 14.8  Missing Sulphur Values ................................................................................. 88 14.9  Specific Gravity Versus Sulphur .................................................................... 89 14.10  Variography, Interpolation Parameters, And Block Models ......................... 90 14.11  NSR Calculation .......................................................................................... 93 14.12  NSR Cut-off ................................................................................................. 93 14.13  Classification of The Mineral Resource ....................................................... 94 14.14  Summary of Mineral Resource Estimate ..................................................... 98 14.15  Mineral Resource Validation ........................................................................ 98 14.16  Mineral Resource Reconciliation ............................................................... 101 

15  MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE ..................................................................... 102 15.1  Mineral Reserves ......................................................................................... 102 

16  MINING METHOD ............................................................................................. 103 16.1  Basic Mine Plan ........................................................................................... 103 

16.1.1  Model Coordinate System ................................................................. 106 16.1.2  Open Pit Optimization ........................................................................ 106 16.1.3  Density ............................................................................................... 108 16.1.4  Mill Cut-off Grade............................................................................... 108 

16.2  Detailed Mine Design .................................................................................. 109 16.2.1  Geotechnical Parameters .................................................................. 109 

16.3  Designed Pit ................................................................................................ 111 16.3.1  Dilution and Loss Factors .................................................................. 111 

16.4  Mining Equipment ........................................................................................ 112 16.5  Mine Development Schedule ....................................................................... 112 16.6  Mine Production Schedule ........................................................................... 114 16.7  Waste Material Management ....................................................................... 132 16.8  Waste Pile Design ....................................................................................... 132 16.9  Mine Operation ............................................................................................ 134 

16.9.1  Loading and Hauling .......................................................................... 134 16.9.2  Other Support Equipment .................................................................. 135 16.9.3  Equipment – Fleet Requirements ...................................................... 135 16.9.4  Manpower Requirements................................................................... 136 

17  PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................ 139 17.1  Mine Access Road....................................................................................... 141 17.2  Mine Staging Area Infrastructure ................................................................. 141 17.3  Mine Drainage Basin Infrastructure ............................................................. 142 

17.3.1  Waste Rock Stockpile ........................................................................ 144 17.3.2  Low-grade Stockpile Area .................................................................. 145 

iv

17.3.3  Overburden Stockpile Area ................................................................ 145 17.3.4  Crushing and Sampling Area ............................................................. 145 17.3.5  New Pit Access Roadway .................................................................. 147 17.3.6  Mine Water Settling Pond .................................................................. 147 

18  MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ........................................................... 150 18.1  Market Studies ............................................................................................. 150 

18.1.1  Platinum and Palladium ..................................................................... 150 18.1.2  Copper ............................................................................................... 151 

19  ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT ......................................................................................................................... 154 

19.1  Baseline Environmental Studies .................................................................. 154 19.2  Mine Permitting Requirements .................................................................... 156 

19.2.1  Provincial ........................................................................................... 156 19.2.2  Federal .............................................................................................. 157 

20  CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ............................................................... 158 20.1  Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) ...................................................................... 158 20.2  Contractor Capital Cost (Contractor CAPEX) .............................................. 159 

20.2.1  Wallbridge Capital Expenditures (Wallbridge CAPEX) ...................... 159 20.2.2  Broken Hammer Project Capital Costs (CAPEX) .............................. 161 

20.3  Mine Operating Costs (OPEX) .................................................................... 162 

21  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 164 21.1  ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................... 165 

21.1.1  Exchange Rate .................................................................................. 165 21.1.2  Discount Factor.................................................................................. 166 21.1.3  Forecasted Metal Prices .................................................................... 166 21.1.4  Taxation Regime ................................................................................ 168 21.1.5  Royalty ............................................................................................... 168 

21.2  TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................... 168 21.3  Annual Projected EBITDA ........................................................................... 169 21.4  Pre-Tax Net Present Value .......................................................................... 170 21.5  Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................................... 170 21.6  Risks and Opportunities .............................................................................. 171 

21.6.1  Risk and Uncertainties ....................................................................... 172 21.6.2  Opportunities ..................................................................................... 173 

22  ADJACENT PROPERTIES ............................................................................... 175 

23  OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ............................................ 176 

24  INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................... 177 

25  RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 179 

26  REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 180 

27  DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE ....................................................................... 183 

28  CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS .................................................... 184 28.1  Bruce C. Churchill ........................................................................................ 184 28.2  J. R. (Rod) Doran ........................................................................................ 186 28.3  Jason J. Cox ................................................................................................ 188 

v

28.4  Tim McBride ................................................................................................ 190 

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1: Summary of Mineral Resources – JULY 27, 2012 ............................................. 6 Table 2: Pit General Characteristics ................................................................................ 7 Table 3: Broken Hammer - In-pit Mineral Reserves ......................................................... 8 Table 4: Broken Hammer - Mining Schedule ................................................................. 10 Table 5: Broken Hammer - Mining Schedule ................................................................. 12 Table 6: Mine Operating Costs ...................................................................................... 13 Table 7: Capital Expenditures ........................................................................................ 14 Table 8: Broken Hammer Projected Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) .................................................................................................... 15 Table 9: Bulk Sample Reconciliation ............................................................................... 46 Table 10: Assays for Individual Size Fractions ............................................................... 62 Table 11: Mineral Distribution data obtained by QemSCAN ........................................... 65 Table 12: Average Head Assays ..................................................................................... 69 Table 13: Bond Work Index Summary ............................................................................ 69 Table 14: Locked Cycle Summary Results ..................................................................... 72 Table 15: Locked Cycle Test Results .............................................................................. 74 Table 16: Gravity Test Results ........................................................................................ 75 Table 17: Sample Head Grades ...................................................................................... 76 Table 18: F9 Test Results ............................................................................................... 76 Table 19: Gravity Concentration Summary Results ........................................................ 77 Table 20: F14 Batch Gravity/Flotation Test Results and Summary ................................ 78 Table 21: Batch Gravity/Flotation Test Summary ........................................................... 78 Table 22: Locked Cycle Test Results .............................................................................. 80 Table 23 : Metallurgical Recoveries ................................................................................ 83 Table 24: Summary of Mineral Resources – July 27, 2012 ............................................ 84 Table 25: Assay Statistics ............................................................................................... 85 Table 26: Summary of Assay Grade Capping ................................................................. 87 Table 27: Analysis of Sample Lengths ............................................................................ 87 Table 28: Analysis of Composited and Capped Assay Statistics .................................... 88 Table 29: Variography Parameters ................................................................................. 91 Table 30: NSR Parameters ............................................................................................. 93 Table 31: Summary of Mineral Resources – July 27, 2012 ............................................ 98 Table 32: Probable Mineral Reserves ........................................................................... 102 Table 33: Pit Optimization Parameters ......................................................................... 107 Table 34: Pit Optimization Results ................................................................................ 108 Table 35: Detailed Mine Design Parameters ................................................................ 109 Table 36 : Mine Development Schedule ....................................................................... 113 Table 37: Production Schedule ..................................................................................... 116 Table 38: Broken Hammer Pit Bench Tonnages ........................................................... 117 Table 39: Waste Rock Required for Mine Infrastructure Construction .......................... 132 Table 40: Monthly Mine Equipment Requirements ....................................................... 136 Table 41: Monthly Personnel Requirements ................................................................. 137 

vi

Table 42: Bulk Sample Recoveries ............................................................................... 138 Table 43: Permitting Requirements Schedule ............................................................... 158 Table 44: Contractor CAPEX ........................................................................................ 159 Table 45: Wallbridge CAPEX ........................................................................................ 161 Table 46: Project CAPEX .............................................................................................. 161 Table 47: Mine Operating Costs ................................................................................... 162 Table 48: Processing Costs .......................................................................................... 162 Table 49: Project Operating Costs ................................................................................ 163 Table 50: Key Economic Parameters ............................................................................ 164 Table 51: Copper & Platinum Metal Prices ................................................................... 168 Table 52: Projected EBITDA ......................................................................................... 169 Table 53: Summary of Mineral Resources - July 27, 2012 ........................................... 177 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location Map .................................................................................................. 29 Figure 2: Property Map .................................................................................................. 30 Figure 3: Regional Geology ........................................................................................... 35 Figure 4: Property Geology ............................................................................................ 38 Figure 5: Broken Hammer Geology ............................................................................... 38 Figure 6: Drill Hole Location Map ................................................................................... 48 Figure 7: Copper in Blank Samples ............................................................................... 52 Figure 8: Nickel in Blank Samples ................................................................................. 52 Figure 9: Palladium in Blank Samples ........................................................................... 52 Figure 10: Nickel Standard Assay Values ....................................................................... 54 Figure 11: Palladium Standard Assay Values ................................................................. 54 Figure 12: Palladium Standard Assay Values ................................................................. 55 Figure 13: Copper Duplicate Assays ............................................................................... 56 Figure 14: Platinum Duplicate Assays ............................................................................ 56 Figure 15: Mineral Distribution data ranked in decreasing upgrade factor to the sinks fractions ........................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 16: Two rounded inclusions of Ag-Telluride/Bi-Selenide included in chalcopyrite. Pt-Tellurides occupy the core of both inclusions ............................................................. 67 Figure 17: A very large Pt-Telluride inclusion in liberated chalcopyrite ........................... 67 Figure 18: A very coarse sperrylite particle (>100um). Remaining particles are almost all magnetite ........................................................................................................................ 68 Figure 19: Photomicrograph taken at lower magnification to illustrate the abundance of PGM's within the gravity concentrate. The bright particles include sperrylite and galena ........................................................................................................................................ 68 Figure 20: Kinetic Curves: Combined Tests F1,F4,F5 .................................................... 71 Figure 21: Locked Cycle Flotation Flowsheet (Strathcona) ............................................ 73 Figure 22: Locked Cycle Flowsheet ................................................................................ 79 Figure 23: Recovery Balance by Element ....................................................................... 82 Figure 24: Screen Capture of 3D Solids Looking North .................................................. 86 Figure 25: Regression for Sulphur .................................................................................. 89 Figure 26: Specific Gravity Versus Sulphur .................................................................... 90 Figure 27: Comparison of Estimation Methods ............................................................... 92 

vii

Figure 28: Distribution of Drill Hole Spacing ................................................................... 94 Figure 29: North-South Cross Section 497,315E ............................................................ 96 Figure 30: North-South Cross Section 497,235E ............................................................ 97 Figure 31: Q-Q-Plot Regularized Block Model and Composited Drill Hole File .............. 99 Figure 32: Swath Plot Longitudinal Section West to East ............................................... 99 Figure 33: Swath Plot Cross Section South to North .................................................... 100 Figure 34: Swath Plot Plans at 20 Metre Elevations ..................................................... 100 Figure 35: Open Pit Model ............................................................................................ 105 Figure 36: Planned Open Pit - 3D ................................................................................. 111 Figure 37: Pit Bench 400 ............................................................................................... 118 Figure 38: Pit Bench 397 ............................................................................................... 118 Figure 39: Pit Bench 394 ............................................................................................... 119 Figure 40: Pit Bench 391 ............................................................................................... 119 Figure 41: Pit Bench 388 ............................................................................................... 120 Figure 42: Pit Bench 385 ............................................................................................... 120 Figure 43: Pit Bench 382 ............................................................................................... 121 Figure 44: Pit Bench 379 ............................................................................................... 121 Figure 45: Pit Bench 376 ............................................................................................... 122 Figure 46: Pit Bench 373 ............................................................................................... 122 Figure 47: Pit Bench 370 ............................................................................................... 123 Figure 48: Pit Bench 367 ............................................................................................... 123 Figure 49: Pit Bench 364 ............................................................................................... 124 Figure 50: Pit Bench 361 ............................................................................................... 124 Figure 51: Pit Bench 358 ............................................................................................... 125 Figure 52: Pit Bench 355 ............................................................................................... 125 Figure 53: Pit Bench 352 ............................................................................................... 126 Figure 54: Pit Bench 349 ............................................................................................... 126 Figure 55: Pit Bench 346 ............................................................................................... 127 Figure 56: Pit Bench 343 ............................................................................................... 127 Figure 57: Pit Bench 340 ............................................................................................... 128 Figure 58: Pit Bench 337 ............................................................................................... 128 Figure 59: Pit Bench 334 ............................................................................................... 129 Figure 60: Pit Bench 331 ............................................................................................... 129 Figure 61: Pit Bench 328 ............................................................................................... 130 Figure 62: Pit Bench 325 ............................................................................................... 130 Figure 63: Pit Bench 322 ............................................................................................... 131 Figure 64: Pit Bench 319 ............................................................................................... 131 Figure 65: Broken Hammer Schematic Crushing and Sampling Flowchart .................. 138 Figure 66: Location of the Broken Hammer Project ...................................................... 139 Figure 67: Mine Staging Area ....................................................................................... 142 Figure 68: Broken Hammer Project Infrastructure ........................................................ 143 Figure 69: Section Through the Waste Rock Stockpile ................................................. 144 Figure 70: Broken Hammer Crushing & Sampling Area ............................................... 146 Figure 71: Broken Hammer Mine Infrastructure ............................................................ 148 Figure 72: South Dike Construction Details .................................................................. 149 Figure 73: China Copper Consumption Index ............................................................... 152 Figure 74: 3-Year CAD to USD ..................................................................................... 165 Figure 75: 3-year Monthly Copper Price ....................................................................... 166 Figure 76: 3-year Monthly Platinum Price ..................................................................... 167 Figure 77: Pre-Tax NPV Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................ 171 

1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Wallbridge is a junior mining company involved in the discovery and development of

mineral resources. Wallbridge specializes in platinum, palladium, copper, and nickel

projects in North America, with a focus on Sudbury, Ontario. Wallbridge has a large

number of exploration to pre-feasibility stage mineral projects including joint ventures

with partners Lonmin Plc, Impala Platinum Holdings Limited, Xstrata Nickel, and a

number of junior mining companies. The company also holds equity interests in Duluth

Metals Limited (TSX:DM) and Miocene Metals Limited (TSXV:MII).

Exploration work on the Broken Hammer Zone has identified a zone of copper-nickel-

palladium-platinum-gold mineralization, which is typical of footwall-hosted mineralization

in the Sudbury area.

Genivar Inc. (GENIVAR) was retained by Wallbridge Mining Company Limited

(Wallbridge) as lead consultant to prepare an Independent NI 43-101 Pre-Feasibility

Report (PFS) on the Broken Hammer project located near Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

This pre-feasibility report is based on the updated mineral resource on the Broken

Hammer property prepared by Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA) “Technical Report

on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 27, 2012” following

additional diamond drilling and the extraction of a 30,000 tonne bulk sample in 2011.

In addition to the mineral resource estimate, a pit design and optimization were

completed by RPA for the purpose of this report. This Technical Report conforms to NI

43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

The data presented in this report is for the exploitation of the currently identified

indicated resource. The deposit remains open to depth and down plunge to the west.

Additional drilling is warranted in this area to attempt to define a deeper underground

resource.

2

Unless otherwise specified all values reported in this Technical report are in Canadian

dollars and metric units are the reference.

1.1 Property and Ownership

The Broken Hammer Project is located in Wisner and Bowel Townships approximately

30 km north of Sudbury, Ontario (Figure 1). The property contains two mining leases

(108106 and 108508) in Wisner Township (Figure 2) covering an area of 223 ha, that

are held 100% in the name of Wallbridge. Lease 108106 is subject to an agreement

with Xstrata Nickel whereby Xstrata Nickel retains 1.5% interest in the property and

certain other rights.

1.2 Geology, Deposit Type, Mineralization

The Sudbury Structure is host to one of the most prolific nickel-copper mining districts in

the world. The principal feature of the geology of the region is the Sudbury Intrusive

Complex (SIC). The structure has been divided into three geographical areas termed

the North, South, and East ranges. The Broken Hammer property is situated in the

North Range approximately one kilometre to two kilometres north of the sublayer in the

footwall of the Wisner embayment. Distributed throughout the entire property are

irregular bodies of Sudbury Breccia, which are the main host environments for footwall-

style Ni-Cu-PGE mineralization, as is also the case at the Broken Hammer deposit.

Trenching and overburden stripping has exposed Sudbury Breccia in gneissic quartz

monzonite with meta-sedimentary, diabase, and amphibolite mega-breccia clasts and

xenoliths. Gabbro and pyroxenite outcrops in the western portion of the stripped area.

PGE-Cu-Ni-Au mineralization occurs at Broken Hammer as veins and irregular masses

in Sudbury Breccia matrix as well as sulphide disseminations, clots, and veinlets in

quartz monzonite gneiss. Sulphide mineralization occurs as massive chalcopyrite with

minor accessory pyrite, pyrrhotite, and millerite. Platinum group minerals include

sperrylite, michenerite, merenskyite, and malyshevite. Sperrylite occurs frequently as

coarse-grained crystals up to 1.3 cm in size. The mineralization is accompanied by

3

strong hydrothermal alteration with assemblages dominated by hydrous silicates (e.g.,

epidote, actinolite, chlorite) and quartz.

1.3 History and Exploration

Only limited exploration work was carried out on the property prior to exploration work by

Wallbridge. Inco Limited (Inco), now known as Vale, carried out work south of the

property, which resulted in the discovery of nickel-copper-platinum group element (Ni-

Cu-PGE) deposits (WD-13 and WD-16).

Falconbridge Limited carried out regional exploration work throughout the North and

East ranges of the Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC) in the late 1980s. This work

included regional airborne magnetometer and electromagnetic (EM) surveys, an IP

survey, as well as reconnaissance soil and humus sampling. Soil and humus sampling

was done at 200 m centres over the Broken Hammer Property, and was followed up in

1989 by soil sampling on 50 m centres.

Exploration work on the property by Wallbridge commenced in 1999 with airborne

GEOTEM surveys over the entire Wisner claim block. The GEOTEM was followed up in

2000 and 2001 with reconnaissance mapping and sampling, which confirmed the

presence of recrystallized, thermally metamorphosed Sudbury Breccias, although no

significant assays were found. Prospecting and sampling continued in 2003, leading to

the discovery of the Broken Hammer Zone Cu-Ni-PGE sulphide mineralization

associated with a 250 m long induced polarization (IP)/resistivity anomaly. The entire

property has been geologically mapped at a scale of 1:1500 and the stripped areas in

the Broken Hammer Zone have been mapped at 1:250.

Wallbridge extracted a 30,000 tonne bulk sample from the Broken Hammer Zone in the

first quarter of 2011. The purpose of the bulk sample was to confirm the grades and

metallurgical recoveries of the Broken Hammer sulphide mineralization. The bulk

sampling was successful establishing that the continuity of the mineralization was such

that it could be mined selectively using a 3m mining bench and a blasting pattern of two

metre by two metre blast holes for grade control.

4

The 30,000 tonne bulk sample program in 2011 demonstrated the continuity of the

mineralization at a scale amenable to mining with effective grade control practices and

confirmed that metallurgical recoveries can be expected to be similar to or better than

typical Sudbury Basin copper-nickel-palladium-platinum-gold footwall-type deposits. A

total of 29,791 tonnes of mined material was processed.

The mineralized portion of this material totalled 26,324 tonnes grading 1.61% Cu, 0.12%

Ni, 2.16 g/t Pt, 2.28 g/t Pd, and 0.74 g/t Au.

The excavated material totalled 50,842 tonnes. Based on the volume of the material

within the ore outlines, the mineralized material consisted of 26,324 dry tonnes and the

material crushed and delivered to the Strathcona mill was 29,791 dry tonnes, which

indicates about 13% dilution.

A reconciliation of the material shipped from blast hole grades versus the 2005 RPA

resource estimate indicated a 75% increase in the in-situ contained metal value relative

to the 2005 resource model for the volume excavated, with a 7% increase in tonnage,

and a 64% increase in grade. This is not an unexpected result considering that the 2005

RPA resource estimate was an Inferred Resource based on less drill information and

topcut precious metal values.

1.4 Drilling

To date, 113 diamond drill holes, totalling 14,285 m, have been completed on the

Broken Hammer Property out of which 110 tested the Broken Hammer Zone area. All

110 diamond drill holes have been used to estimate the update resource estimate in

2012.

1.5 Data Verification and Site Visit

The Property was visited by a number of experts during the past two years to view the

bulk sample mining progress, the mineralization present in the pit location and the

5

general topography. Among others the property was visited by Mr. Rod Doran, P. Eng.,

Qualified Person (“QP”) from GENIVAR on April 11, 2012 and on two more occasions;

July 24 and on August 15, 2012. On these occasions site inspections were made to gain

a better understanding of the Broken Hammer mine site. Numerous discussions have

been held with Wallbridge officials verifying data that is presented in this report.

Mr. Churchill, QP for RPA, visited the Project site on March 19 and 20, 2012. While at

the site, a surface tour was completed to inspect the site of the bulk sample, drill core,

drill collars, surface geology, sampling facilities plus various plans and cross sections.

1.6 Metallurgical Testwork

SGS Minerals Services (Lakefield) have completed two metallurgical studies and one

Mineralogical Study of mineralized samples from the Broken Hammer project. This work

is detailed in Section 13 of this report.

The 30,000 tonne bulk sample that Wallbridge mined from the Broken Hammer Zone in

the first quarter of 2011 confirmed that the metallurgical recoveries of the Broken

Hammer sulphide mineralization is typical of Sudbury footwall-Style ore.

1.7 Resource Estimation

RPA prepared a mineral resource estimate for the Broken Hammer deposit using digital

drill hole data provided by Wallbridge. Wireframe solids were prepared by RPA and

checked by Wallbridge geologists to ensure interpretational validity. Pertinent statistics

and variograms were determined for the deposit and grades were interpolated into the

blocks using Ordinary Kriging methodology. Mineral resources containing copper,

nickel, gold, platinum, palladium, and silver were estimated.

Based on the assumption that there is potential to establish a mining operation using a

custom mill facility, reasonable parameters were used to fit a preliminary pit to the

Broken Hammer deposit. Generally due to the small remnant tonnages, the

mineralization continuing beyond the pit walls was considered not to be economic using

6

reasonable underground mining costs. Near-surface resources potentially mined by

open pit methods are reported in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Mineral Resources – JULY 27, 2012

BROKEN HAMMER MINERAL RESOURCE

Category Tonnes Cu (%) Ni (%) Pt (g/t) Pd (g/t) Au (g/t) Ag (g/t)

Indicated 231,100 0.92 0.10 2.01 1.90 0.71 6.35

Notes:

1. CIM definitions were followed for Mineral Resources. 2. Mineral Resources are estimated at a pit discard cut-off value of $11/tonne net smelter return

(NSR) value. 3. NSR values considered metal prices, metallurgical recoveries, and all off-site payments and

charges (including processing). 4. Mineral Resources are estimated using long-term metal prices of US$3.00/lb Cu, US$9.00/lb Ni,

US$750/oz Pd, US$1,600/oz Pt, US$1,300/oz Au, US$20.00/oz Ag, and a US$/C$ exchange rate of 1:1.

5. No minimum mining width was used.

1.8 Mineral Reserves and Mining

The resource estimate and mining plan as prepared and presented in this report has

formed the basis of pit optimization and the determination of the mineral reserves for the

Broken Hammer Project. In accordance with the guidelines of the National Instrument NI

43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects and the Canadian Institute of Mine

Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral

Reserves adopted on November 27, 2010, the open-pit optimization has used all

material classified in the indicated category.

The mining of Wallbridge's Broken Hammer deposit will follow the standard practice of a

contractor mined small scale open-pit excavator/truck operation with all of the mine

operations and development functions contracted to an experienced mining contractor.

The mining plan in this Technical report is similar to the mining plan for the 30,000 tonne

of bulk sample that was mined in 2011. The Broken Hammer mine will operate in a load

and haul cycle, using trucks and excavators, and supported by a fleet of auxiliary

equipment. The run-of-mine (RoM) mined ore will be loaded by hydraulic excavators and

delivered by trucks to the primary jaw crusher. The crushed ore will be transferred to a

7

screening plant where the plus 1 inch material will be reduced in size by a cone crusher

that will operate in a closed loop with the screening plant. The amount of minus 1 inch

material will be conveyed to a sample tower where a representative small amount of the

total ore will be further reduced in size and amount to provide representative samples for

metal accounting. The minus 1 inch ore will be conveyed to a stacker for temporary

storage prior to being loaded and transported to a custom mill for processing. Waste

rock will be hauled to the waste rock storage pile. That portion of the mineralized

resource that is judged to be below mine cut-off grade but capable of paying for the

crushing, transportation and processing costs will be stored adjacent to the east end of

the pit. If this material is judged to be sub-economic in mine closure it will be dozed into

the pit to prevent further oxidation and metal leaching concerns.

The mining study is based on Wallbridge contracting out all of the mining, crushing and

transportation functions. Wallbridge personnel would direct the mining operations and

perform the sampling and grade control functions at the mine. The final engineered pit

geometry was adjusted to include the following parameters:

Table 2: Pit General Characteristics Ramp Width for 2-lane traffic 13.7 (m) Ramp Width for 1-lane traffic 10.2 (m) Maximum Ramp Grade 12 (%) Inter-Ramp Angle 57 (degree) Overall Slope Angle 55 (degree) Bench Face Angle 83 (degree) Benching Arrangement 6 (m) Berm Width As required (m)

Gemcom Whittle software was used to model the mineable tonnage from the probable

ore. The in-pit reserves are sufficient to cover a mine life of 12 months based on the

production rate of approximately 800tpd of ore. Total waste material in the pit design

amounts to approximately 1.7Mt of waste for a stripping ratio of 8.7 tonnes of waste per

tonne of ore. Table 3 presents a summary of the mineable in-pit reserve for the Broken

Hammer project.

8

Table 3: Broken Hammer - In-pit Mineral Reserves

Resource Category Tonnage Cu Ni Au Ag Pt Pd

(t) (%) (%) gpt gpt gpt gpt

Broken Hammer Pit Design:

Probable Ore 196,600 0.92 0.10 0.64 6.02 1.92 1.82

Waste Rock 1,710,770

Stripping Ratio 8.7

1.8.1 Pit Location and Design

Based on the assumption that there is potential to establish a mining operation using a

custom mill facility, reasonable parameters were used to fit a preliminary pit to the

Broken Hammer deposit. Due to the small remnant tonnages, the mineralization

continuing beyond the pit walls was generally considered not to be economic using

reasonable underground mining costs.

1.8.2 Mining Operation

Mining plans at the Broken Hammer project are based on the available mineral reserves

as shown in Table 3 above. In order to optimize production scheduling a continuous 7

day per week operation based on the successful 2011bulk sample is planned. Mining at

the rate of approximately 5,800 tpd with allowance for start-up and reduced production

rates in the last two months of the schedule results in a 12 month mining plan.

The computer-designed 90m deep open pit plan outlines 3m pit benches from the 409m

elevation to 319m elevations that will be developed by a 12% ramp located primarily on

the east side of the open pit.

Overburden that covers some of the material to the west of the Chisel Creek fault as well

as the overburden within the depression caused by the Chisel Creek fault that separates

the west and east ends of the pit for the first few benches is estimated to total

approximately 6,500 cubic metres.

9

1.8.3 Mine Production Schedule

The mine production schedule includes priority scheduling of the mining on the west end

of the pit where the first few benches are almost all waste rock. Waste rock from this

work will be used to construct the infrastructure roadway system, the settling pond

dykes, and the crushing and sampling area. Mining rates during the last two months of

the 12-month schedule were reduced due to the smaller pit benches that can lead to

equipment congestion if mining rates are set too high.

The crushing and sampling plant is scheduled to be operational in the third month of the

schedule.

Table 4 summarizes the mine production schedule.

10

Table 4: Broken Hammer - Mining Schedule

Months

Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

days 30 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 358

Capitalized:

Overburden tonnes 0 0 0 6,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,500 Operating:

Mined Waste tonnes 0 75,366 78,037 178,680 218,319 226,335 226,679 216,133 196,169 195,248 70,684 29,123 1,710,771 Mined Ore tonnes 0 0 0 29,672 14,322 9,306 9,293 25,713 41,372 43,035 16,324 7,568 196,605 Total Mined tonnes 0 75,366 78,037 208,352 232,641 235,641 235,971 241,846 237,541 238,282 87,008 36,691 1,907,376

Mined Waste

Waste tonnes 0 75,366 78,037 178,680 218,319 226,335 226,679 216,133 196,169 195,248 70,684 29,123 1,710,771 Total Waste tonnes 0 75,366 78,037 178,680 218,319 226,335 226,679 216,133 196,169 195,248 70,684 29,123 1,710,771

Mined Ore

INDICATED tonnes 0 0 0 29,672 14,322 9,306 9,293 25,713 41,372 43,035 16,324 7,568 196,605 Cu % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.01 1.10 1.60 1.09 1.06 0.76 0.37 0.22 0.92 Ni % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.10 Au g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.475 0.616 0.714 0.650 0.827 0.806 0.579 0.385 0.559 0.639 Ag g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.431 7.062 8.356 5.391 5.095 5.021 5.297 5.204 6.855 6.016 Pt g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.528 2.272 2.729 1.777 1.189 1.155 2.192 3.484 3.761 1.922 Pd g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.535 2.039 2.420 2.501 1.868 1.948 1.804 1.380 2.190 1.861

Mill Feed INDICATED tonnes 0 0 0 29,672 14,322 9,306 9,293 25,713 41,372 43,035 16,324 7,568 196,605

Cu % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.01 1.10 1.60 1.09 1.06 0.76 0.37 0.22 0.92 Ni % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.10 Au g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.475 0.616 0.714 0.650 0.827 0.806 0.579 0.385 0.559 0.639 Ag g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.431 7.062 8.356 5.391 5.095 5.021 5.297 5.204 6.855 6.016 Pt g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.528 2.272 2.729 1.777 1.189 1.155 2.192 3.484 3.761 1.922 Pd g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.535 2.039 2.420 2.501 1.868 1.948 1.804 1.380 2.190 1.861

11

1.9 Materials Handling and Processing

Depending on the selected custom mill and the timing of the site development in relation

to the half-load shipping restrictions, pit production during the first few months of mining

may be stockpiled on site to provide a continuous flow of crushed resource to the custom

miller. In this scenario, on site storage needs may approach 40,000 tonnes. To allow for

such a scenario developing the crushing and sampling area has been designed to

provide sufficient room to store approximately 40,000 tonnes of crushed ore.

1.10 Environmental Considerations

Environmental sampling and closure concerns will be kept to a minimum by keeping all

of the mine waste rock within a single drainage area that can be monitored from one

sampling point.

Federal permitting procedures should not be triggered since the only standing water on

site, a small beaver pond, has been declared free of fish by the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans, and no on site explosive storage facilities are planned which would trigger

a Natural Resources Canada Federal approval process.

1.11 Project Permitting

Wallbridge has a Closure Plan in place for its bulk sample project and has posted a

reclamation bond in the amount of $130,350.

Project environmental sampling and permitting has been assigned to AMEC Inc.

Preparations to submit the required permits have been ongoing since mid-July. Table 5

summarizes the Broken Hammer permitting activities:

12

Table 5: Broken Hammer - Mining Schedule

13

1.12 Mine Operating Costs

Operating costs are based on the 30,000 tonne 2011 bulk sample cost structure and

include contract mining and custom milling and are summarized in the following table:

Table 6: Mine Operating Costs

Mine Operating Costs $/Tonne $/Tonne

Mined Milled

Drilling/ Blasting / Loading & Hauling $8,334,000 $4.37 $42.39

SUB-TOTAL MINING (DIRECT) $4.37 $42.39 Add: General & Administrative $1,263,000 $0.66 $6.42 Crushing & Sampling $2,162,000 $1.13 $11.00 Haulage to custom mill $1,965,000 $1.03 $10.00 SUB-TOTAL (INDIRECT) $2.82 $27.42 TOTAL MINING & TRANSPORTATION COSTS $7.19 $69.80

Milling, Smelting, Refining Costs & Charges $12,227,000 $6.41 $62.19 TOTAL PROCESSING COSTS $6.41 $62.19

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $13.60 $131.99

1.13 Estimated Capital Costs

Capital expenditures include a 15% contingency and are separated into contractor

capital expenses and Wallbridge capital expenses:

14

Table 7: Capital Expenditures

Category Total Cost

Contractor Project Capital:

Total Contractor Capital $538,000 15% Contingency $80,700

TOTAL CONTRACTOR CAPITAL COSTS $618,700

Wallbridge Project Capital:

Total Wallbridge Project Capital $1,130,000 15% Contingency $169,500

TOTAL WALLBRIDGE PROJECT CAPITAL $1,299,500

TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS $1,918,200

1.14 Financial Analysis

The objective of this report is to determine the feasibility of the proposed open pit and

processing of that material at a custom milling facility to exploit the Broken Hammer

deposit. For this analysis, the cash flow arising from the base case of the project has

been forecast, and the Net Present Value (NPV) has been estimated. The sensitivity of

this NPV to changes in the base case assumptions are then made and examined.

The parameters used in the evaluation of the Broken Hammer Project economics are as

follows:

Metal Price ($) Mill Recovery (%)

Copper 3.50/lb 94.0

Nickel 9.00/lb 58.0

Palladium 650/oz 85.0

Platinum 1,600/oz 71.0

Gold 1,700/oz 81.0

Silver 35.00/oz 63.0

15

The following table illustrates metal prices for the project's most important metals

(Copper & Platinum) used for the 2012 updated resource, the metal prices used for this

report as well as spot prices and 3-year average prices for the same metals as at

October 1, 2012.

Metal Units 2012 Updated

Resource Report

Spot Prices

Oct. 1, 2012

Base Case

PFS

3-Yr avg.

Copper US$/lb. 3.00 3.75 3.50 3.62

Platinum US$/oz. 1,600 1,675 1,600 1,601

All figures in this study are based on 2012 Canadian dollars.

Table 8: Broken Hammer Projected Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA)

         Tota l Cost  Per Tonne 

   Ore Mined 

Smelter Revenue:    

Copper        $11,562,603 $58.81

Nickel        1,932,450 9.83

Platinum        10,969,070 55.79

Palladium        5,214,256 26.52

Gold        4,454,346 22.66

Silver        500,089 2.54

TOTAL REVENUE     $34,632,814 $176.15

     

         Costs:    

Mining        $9,791,186 $49.80

Crushing & Haulage     3,932,095 20.00

Milling, Smelting, Refining & Other charges        12,227,503 62.19

TOTAL COSTS     $25,950,785 $131.99

Profit Before Royalty  $8,682,029 $44.16

Royalty to Xstrata     $306,589 $1.56

EBITDA        $8,375,440 $42.60

16

Assuming a Project life of 12 months (operation) requiring a $1.92M initial investment,

the project generates an EBITDA of $8.4M and a pre-tax NPV of $6.03M discounted at

8%. The payback period is 8.0 months.

The sensitivity analysis on the base case pricing scenario is presented hereafter using

variations of +/- 15% from the base case in revenues for copper, platinum, and other

factors that can have a significant effect on the project including capital expenses,

operational expenses and the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar.

These variations take into account fluctuations in revenue that could potentially result

from economic cycles and illustrates variation in the major elements of the project. The

Net Present Values on the short duration project were calculated using a discount rate of

8%.

1.14.1 Sensitivity Analysis

The following chart presents the sensitivity of the project to the value of the most

important elements using a discount rate of 8 percent. The chart illustrates the

sensitivity of the project to the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the US dollar

($US/$C), the Platinum Price (Pt) in US dollars per ounce, the Operating Costs (OPEX) ,

the Capital Costs (CAPEX), the Copper Price (Cu) in US dollars per pound and the

Palladium Price (Pd) in US dollars per ounce.

17

The project is most sensitive to US/C$ exchange rate as well as project operating costs.

1.15 Risks and Opportunities

In the course of completing the Pre-Feasibility Study certain key elements of risk and

opportunity became self-evident. The study that has been carried out is preliminary in

nature and although it is based on the 30,000 tonne bulk sample that was mined at the

east end of the Broken Hammer mineralized zone in 2011, parts of the study are to

some extent based on factored estimates. The capital and operating cost estimates are

believed to be accurate within +/-20 percent; however, risks and opportunities that have

been identified that may impact the estimated costs are summarized below.

1.15.1 Risk and Uncertainties

Although Wallbridge has taken reasonable measures to ensure proper title to its

properties and mining claims, there is no guarantee that title to any of its properties or

mining claims will not be challenged or impugned.

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

‐15% ‐10% ‐5% Base 5% 10% 15%

NPV C$ x '000

Wallbridge Mining Co. Ltd. ‐ Broken Hammer MinePre Tax NPV @ 8%

US/C$ Pt Price Opex Capex Cu price Pd price

18

There can be no assurance that the mining regime currently in place in the Province of

Ontario will not be changed in a manner that could adversely affect Wallbridge, its

properties and business plans.

Consultations with Ontario First Nations can be lengthy and time consuming and may

result in changes to the operating schedule and mining plan.

Mineral Exploration is highly speculative and involves a high degree of risk, which even a

combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not be able to avoid.

These risk factors include market fluctuations, the proximity and production capacity of

custom milling facilities and processing equipment, availability of qualified personnel,

possible third party claims and government regulations, including regulations relating to

prices, royalties, allowable production, mining leases and environmental protection. The

effect of these factors cannot be accurately predicted.

Fluctuations in the market price of copper, precious metals and value of the Canadian

dollar is another element to consider in the global Project evaluation. The profitability of

the Broken Hammer mining operation is directly related to the market price of the above

factors. The market price of copper and precious metals fluctuates and is affected by

numerous factors beyond the control of Wallbridge. If the market price of copper and

precious metals should decline dramatically, or the value of the Canadian dollar

appreciate dramatically, the value of Wallbridge’s mineral properties could also decrease

dramatically and Wallbridge might not be able to justify the required investment to

proceed with the mining plan outlined in this Report. Price fluctuations, between the time

that such decisions are made and the commencement of production, can drastically

affect the economics of the operations. The Pre-Feasibility Study, through its market

analysis portion tried to define some of these effects (sensitivity analysis).

Mineralization at the Broken Hammer is hosted within veins and vein stock works within

a breccia complex and is irregular in nature. To some extent however the risks are

mitigated since the Broken Hammer mining plan considers an open pit operation thereby

allowing more mining flexibility as compared to an underground mining operation.

19

Mining costs in this study have been estimated on a first principles basis with Wallbridge

directing mining contractors. Mining costs in the forthcoming Feasibility Study will be

based on a secured mining contract in which mining costs may vary depending on

mining activity in the Sudbury area.

The project cash flow assumes that metals revenue is received at the time of delivery.

Custom milling facilities generally do not provide instantaneous payments. Similarly

contractor payment is assumed to be paid instantaneously. Realistically, payment to

contractors is not done until some period of time after work is completed. Actual timing

of cash inflow and outflow is contingent on contract payments to be negotiated after

feasibility study.

1.15.2 Opportunities

The metals recovered from the bulk sample resulted in a gain in mining in relation to the

estimated recoverable metals based on exploration diamond drilling. A reconciliation of

the tonnage shipped in the 2011 bulk sample compared to the 2012 RPA updated

resource estimate indicated a gain in gross metal value of approximately 18%.

In support of additional gains in mining, there are a number of drill hole intercepts within

the perimeter of the pit which were not included in the estimated resource due to the

irregular nature of mineralization within the Broken Hammer deposit. Due to the financial

cost of diamond drilling to a density sufficient to determine continuity, the project will

remain open to these types of possible gains in mining.

Opportunities exist to improve the project cash flow by negotiating a more favourable

processing contract than the one for the bulk sample. The bulk sample processing

contract was a much smaller tonnage that was batch processed for which a premium

was paid.

1.16 Interpretation and Conclusions

In conclusion, GENIVAR is satisfied that a sufficient body of information has been

compiled on Walbridge's Broken Hammer project to justify a recommendation to

20

continue with the next stage - a Feasibility Study of the Broken Hammer Project in

preparation for the development and operation of the Broken Hammer deposit. Much

information has been gained from the more than 110 diamond drill holes which have

been completed into the mineralized zone and the mining of a 30,000 tonne bulk

sample. The project mining procedures and processing recoveries are reasonably well

defined since they are based on the successful 2011 bulk sample that was mined from

the east end of the planned pit.

The relatively small defined resource lends the project to contract mining of the open pit

and processing the resource at a custom mill facility. These project features result in low

project capital costs, a substantial net present value and an attractive internal rate of

return.

1.17 Recommendations

GENIVAR recommends that:

Based on the robust economics of the project, that the project should proceed to

a full Feasibility Study.

That Wallbridge should continue with the permitting activities of the project.

A processing contract be secured at the feasibility study stage with a company

capable of milling the outlined resource at the Broken Hammer project.

A mining contract be secured at the feasibility study stage with a contracting

company capable of mining the outlined resource at the Broken Hammer project.

Geotechnical drill holes be drilled in the pit area to properly characterize the rock

mass and geological discontinuities within the final pit walls in order to improve

the pit slope design.

A feasibility level geotechnical study of the planned mine waste rock pile be

performed including a detailed characterization of the base material upon which

the pile will be located.

Additional mine modelling be performed by a consultant experienced in using

computer software to model small open pits with 3m benches to confirm the

optimum pit configuration using up-to-date drilling and economic considerations.

21

At a quoted cost of $600,000 the sample tower represents a capital expenditure

that justifies further consideration. An investigation should be made to see if

money can be saved either by renting an available local unit or alternately

eliminating the crushing and sampling at the mine by arranging for an alternate

method of sampling the custom mill feed that satisfies all concerns.

22

2 INTRODUCTION

Genivar Inc. (GENIVAR) was retained by Wallbridge Mining Company Limited

(Wallbridge) as lead consultant to prepare an Independent NI 43-101 Pre-Feasibility

Report (PFS) on the Broken Hammer project located near Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

This pre-feasibility report is based on the updated mineral resource on the Broken

Hammer property prepared by Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA) “Technical Report

on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 27, 2012” following

additional diamond drilling and the extraction of a 30,000 tonne bulk sample in 2011.

In addition to the mineral resource and reserve estimate, a pit design and optimization

were completed by RPA. This Technical Report conforms to NI 43-101 Standards of

Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

Wallbridge is a junior mining company involved in the discovery and development of

mineral resources. Wallbridge specializes in platinum, palladium, copper, and nickel

projects in North America, with a focus on Sudbury, Ontario. Wallbridge has a large

number of exploration to pre-feasibility stage mineral projects including joint ventures

with partners Lonmin Plc, Impala Platinum Holdings Limited, Xstrata Nickel, and a

number of junior mining companies. The company also holds equity interests in Duluth

Metals Limited (TSX:DM) and Miocene Metals Limited (TSXV:MII).

Exploration work carried out under the direction of Wallbridge has discovered footwall-

style palladium-platinum-copper-nickel-gold sulphide mineralization on the property. The

Broken Hammer deposit has been the focus of diamond drilling, trenching, and bulk

sampling. The property consists of two mining leases (108106 and 108508) in Wisner

Township that are held 100% in the name of Wallbridge. The remainder of the property

consists of contiguous claims called the Wisner Joint Venture including three claims in

Bowell Township (S984613 to S984615) and 23 claims in Wisner Township (patented

claim 73522-0115 (RJ1), plus mining claims S984625-984633, 984639-984646, 993682,

993683, 994137 and 1246144).

23

RPA previously completed an initial mineral resource estimate and a NI 43-101

Technical Report in November 2005. An updated mineral resource estimate was

commissioned by Wallbridge in 2012 after the successful bulk sample and the additional

drilling completed in 2011.

2.1 Sources of Information

This pre-feasibility report was prepared by Mr. J.R. (Rod) Doran, P. Eng., Senior Mining

Engineer of Genivar Inc. In the preparation of this report, technical documents and the

results of the bulk sample were provided by Wallbridge. The report incorporates the

results of the updated mineral resource with an effective date of July 27, 2012 as

prepared by RPA.

Mr. Rod Doran, P. Eng. from GENIVAR has prepared this report and is the Qualified

Person (QP) for the contents of the report excluding the sections of the report prepared

by other QPs.

Mr. Doran QP from GENIVAR visited the site on April 11, 2012 and on two more

occasions; July 24 and on August 15, 2012. On these occasions site inspections were

made to gain a better understanding of the Broken Hammer mine site. Numerous

discussions have been held with Wallbridge officials verifying data that is presented in

this report.

The Updated Mineral Resource as part of this report was prepared by Mr. Bruce

Churchill, P. Geo., the QP from RPA.

In preparation of the Updated Mineral Resource report, technical documents and reports

were supplied by Wallbridge. Technical documents reviewed included project reports,

assay certificates, drill logs, and cross sections. The key technical documents reviewed

by RPA for this report are “Technical Report on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury,

Ontario” dated March 15, 2012 (Soever, 2012), and “Technical Report on the Mineral

Resource Estimate for the Broken Hammer Deposit, Ontario” dated November 21, 2005

(Rennie, 2005).

24

Mr. Churchill visited the Project on March 19 and 20, 2012. While at the site, a surface

tour was completed to inspect the site of the bulk sample, drill core, drill collars, surface

geology, sampling facilities plus various plans and cross sections.

Mr. Jason Cox, P. Eng., from RPA oversaw the estimation of Mineral Reserves and

mining design for the Broken Hammer project. Mr. Cox did not visit the site.

Mr. Andre Gagnon, P. Eng. from Tetra Tech completed the geotechnical investigation for

pit slope design of Broken Hammer, “Broken Hammer Zone Project Pre-Feasibility Pit

Slope Design - April 2012”.

Discussions were held with personnel from Wallbridge:

Mr. Alar Soever, P. Geo., Executive Chairman and Director, Wallbridge Mr. Marz Kord, P. Eng., President, Wallbridge Mr. Attila Pentek, P. GEO., Project Geologist, Wallbridge

In formulating this study GENIVAR reviewed documents prepared by Tetra Tech and

passed on to Wallbridge following their disengagement with the Broken Hammer Pre-

Feasibility Study.

The documentation reviewed including the 2012 updated mineral resource estimate and

other sources of information that is listed at the end of this report in Section 27.

25

2.2 List of abbreviations Units of measurement used in this report conform to the metric system. All currency in

this report is Canadian dollars (C$) unless otherwise noted.

micron kPa kilopascal °C degree Celsius kVA kilovolt-amperes °F degree Fahrenheit kW kilowatt g microgram kWh kilowatt-hour A ampere L litre a annum L/s litres per second bbl barrels lb pound Btu British thermal units m metre C$ Canadian dollars M mega (million) cal calorie m2 square metre cfm cubic feet per minute m3 cubic metre cm centimetre m3/h cubic metres per hour cm2 square centimetre min minute d day MASL metres above sea level dia. diameter mm millimeter dmt dry metric tonne mil One thousandth of an inch dwt dead-weight ton mph miles per hour ft foot MVA megavolt-amperes ft/s feet per second MW megawatt ft2 square foot MWh megawatt-hour ft3 cubic foot opt, oz/st ounces per short ton g gram oz Troy ounce (31.1035g) G giga (billion) ppm parts per million Gal Imperial gallon psia pounds per square inch absolute g/L gram per litre psig pounds per square inch gauge g/t gram per tonne RL relative elevation gpm Imperial gallons per minute s second gr/ft3 grains per cubic foot st short ton gr/m3 grains per cubic metre stpa short tons per year hr hour stpd short tons per day ha hectare t metric tonne hp horsepower tpa metric tonnes per year in inch tpd metric tonnes per day in2 square inch US$ United States dollar J joule USg United States gallon k kilo (thousand) USgpm US gallons per minute kcal kilocalorie V volt kg kilogram W watt km kilometre wmt wet metric tonne km/h kilometres per hour yd3 cubic yard km2

kN/m3 square kilometre kilo-Newtons per cubic metre

yr year

26

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

This report has been prepared by GENIVAR for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited

(Wallbridge). The information, conclusions, opinions, and estimates contained herein

are based on:

The Updated Resource Estimate as provided by RPA with an effective date of July 27, 2012

The pit design and optimization of the Broken Hammer identified resource as completed by RPA

Pit Slope Design report as prepared by Tetra Tech in April 2012

Information available to GENIVAR at the time of preparation of this report Assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this report, and Data, reports, and other information supplied by Wallbridge and other third

party sources.

For the purpose of this report, GENIVAR has relied on ownership information provided

by Wallbridge. The client has relied on an opinion by McLean & Kerr LLP, dated July 17,

2012 entitled Wallbridge Mining Company Limited (“Wallbridge”), and this opinion is

relied on in Section 4 and the Summary of this report. Neither GENIVAR nor RPA has

researched property title or mineral rights for the Broken Hammer Project and both

Companies expressed no opinion as to the ownership status of the property.

GENIVAR and RPA have relied on Wallbridge for guidance on applicable taxes,

royalties, and other government levies or interests, applicable to revenue or income from

the Project.

Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws, any use of this report

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

27

4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The following description of the property and location is mostly taken from Soever, 2012

and Jago, 2008.

The Broken Hammer Project is located in Wisner and Bowel Townships approximately

30 km north of Sudbury, Ontario (Figure 1). The Broken Hammer property contains two

mining leases (108106 and 108508) in Wisner Township (Figure 2) covering an area of

223 ha, that are held 100% in the name of Wallbridge. Lease 108106 is subject to an

agreement with Xstrata Nickel whereby Xstrata Nickel retains 1.5% interest in the

property and certain other rights.

Wallbridge has a Closure Plan in place for its bulk sample project and has posted a

reclamation bond in the amount of $130,350. The following permits will be required to

place the property into production:

Certificate of Approval (C. of A.) air and noise for crusher operation, generator operation, and other operations related air emissions

C. of A. Industrial Sewage Works for mine water pond

Permit To Take Water for pit dewatering

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) approval as per the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) for treatment pond dam construction and spillway dam construction

MNR approval as per the LRIA, for culvert installation/water crossings (haul

road upgrades, if required)

Work permits issued by the MNR for work as per the LRIA and/or Public Lands Act (work near water, work on Crown land, clearing trees)

Approval from the Nickel District Conservation Authority for culvert related

work, if required.

Forest Resource Licence and/or work permit issuance from the MNR to clear trees (with involvement of current licence holder if applicable)

Closure Plan Amendment to support the operations phase of the project

28

MNR Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects, for work involving activities such as LRIA approvals, Crown lands, or tree clearing, if required.

Road Access agreements from Xstrata Nickel and Vale

The remainder of the property consists of contiguous claims called the Wisner Joint

Venture (Figure 2). These claims consist of three claims in Bowell Township (S984613

to S984615) totalling 48.0 ha and 23 claims in Wisner Township (patented claim 73522-

0115 (RJ1), plus mining claims S984625-984633, 984639-984646, 993681-993683,

994137 and 1246144) totalling 352.72 ha. These claims are in good standing until May

or September 2013.

Wallbridge is the operator of the Wisner Joint Venture with Xstrata for exploration on the

claims and to date has earned a 77% interest in the property. If diluted below 10%,

Xstrata retains 1.5% NSR royalty if ore from the property is processed at Xstrata

treatment facilities or 5% NSR royalty if ore from the property is processed at non-

Xstrata treatment facilities.

29

Figure 1: Location Map

30

Figure 2: Property Map

31

5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

Much of the following description of Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources,

Infrastructure and Physiography is largely taken from Soever, 2012 and Jago, 2008.

5.1 Accessibility The Broken Hammer Project is located approximately 30 km north of Sudbury, Ontario.

Road access to the area is via the Nelson Lake Road, which intersects Regional Road

96 approximately five kilometres north of the town of Hanmer, and a further 12 km along

a road maintained and gated by Vale. After the locked gate, a gravel road goes through

Vale’s WD-16 deposit onto Wallbridge’s Broken Hammer Property and on to the deposit

site.

5.2 Climate Climate is typical for northern Ontario with long, cold winters and relatively short, warm

summers. Mean daily temperatures range from a low of -13.70 C in January to a high of

18.90 C in July (http://www.worldclimate.com). Mean annual precipitation from 1954 to

1990 was 863 mm.

5.3 Local Resources Sudbury is a major regional centre with extensive transportation links and commercial

infrastructure that is strongly oriented toward the mining industry. The Xstrata and Vale

smelter complexes are both located in Sudbury, and there are several operating mines

and processing plants in the area. The community is served by primary rail and highway

links with regular air service to several centres, including Toronto.

32

5.4 Infrastructure Other than road access, there is no significant infrastructure related to the deposit. All of

the direct mining infrastructure will be located within a single drainage area. All of the

drainage from this area will be monitored from a single discharge point.

5.5 Physiography The terrain in the Broken Hammer Project area consists primarily of boreal forest, a

small beaver pond draining through a swampy and wetland area to the north. Principal

land uses are mining and mineral exploration, forestry, and recreation (hunting and

fishing). Elevations on the property are in the order of 400 MASL.

The site topography is forested rolling hills draining to a small beaver pond and low

swampy area. The local drainage flows north from the mine drainage area then east and

south towards the Vermillion River. Bedrock is poorly exposed. GENIVAR estimates

that the property is underlain by approximately 15% to 25% outcrop, 10% water and

swamp. The land area is mostly covered with less than a metre up to in some locations

in the swampy area, five metres of glacial till. The site outcrops are commonly rounded,

smooth knobs with maximum dimensions of approximately 10 m by 10 m. The small

open pit that was developed in 2011 to extract the 30,000 tonne bulk sample is located

on the east side of the drainage area and currently measures less than 3 percent of the

drainage area.

33

6 HISTORY

The following description of History is taken from Soever, 2012.

Only limited exploration work was carried out on the property prior to exploration work by

Wallbridge. Inco Limited (Inco), now known as Vale, carried out work south of the

property, along the Sudbury Igneous Complex footwall contact, which resulted in the

discovery of nickel-copper-platinum group element (Ni-Cu-PGE) deposits (WD-13 and

WD-16). In the late 1960s, Inco also sank its North Range shaft in this area to explore

the contact environment at depth.

Falconbridge Limited (Falconbridge) carried out regional exploration work throughout the

North and East ranges of the Sudbury Igneous Complex in the late 1980s. This work

included regional airborne magnetometer and electromagnetic (EM) surveys, as well as

reconnaissance soil and humus sampling. Soil and humus sampling was done at 200 m

centres over the Broken Hammer property, and was followed up in 1989 by soil sampling

on 50 m centres. In 1996, Falconbridge carried out an induced polarization (IP) survey

over the property.

Exploration work by Wallbridge commenced in 1999, and has been ongoing up to the

time of writing. A summary of this work is provided in Section 9 of this report.

34

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

The following description of Geological Setting and Mineralization is taken from Soever,

2012.

7.1 Regional Geology The Sudbury Structure is host to one of the most prolific nickel-copper mining districts in

the world (Figure 3). The principal feature of the geology of the region is the Sudbury

Igneous Complex (SIC). The SIC is a layered intrusive body exposed in an elliptical

trace measuring 60 km along a northeast-southwest trend and 28km wide at surface.

The SIC itself is 2.5km to 3.0km thick at surface. SIC igneous rocks dip about 35° to 45°

towards the centre of the basin on the north side and up to vertical on the south.

It is now widely believed that the SIC formed as a consequence of a meteorite impact,

which is variously interpreted to have either melted the substrate outright, disrupted the

crust to such a degree as to initiate an intrusive event, or some combination of both.

The original structure exceeded 150km in diameter. Geologic relationships and age

dating indicate an emplacement age of 1,850Ma. Later tectonic compression, faulting

and thrusting at the margins, and deep erosion have modified the SIC to its present

shape.

The SIC rocks comprise, from the base upwards, a xenolith-bearing norite called the

contact sublayer, mafic norites, coarse-grained felsic norites, a transition layer of quartz

gabbro, and lastly, granophyre. Large depressions, called embayments, in the contact

sublayer are host to much of the nickel-copper sulphide mineralization. Surrounding the

SIC are Archean and Proterozoic rocks which have been variably fractured, brecciated,

and partially melted by the impact event. Along the North and East Ranges, a variably

metamorphosed breccia called the Footwall Breccia or Late Granite Breccia underlies

the contact sublayer. Where the breccia is predominantly matrix-supported, it is termed

Granite Breccia, and where dominated by large clasts, it is mapped as mega-breccia.

The Sudbury impact breccia (Sudbury Breccia) consists of dikes, stringers, and irregular

bodies of pseudotachylite that is commonly developed between contacts of contrasting

35

rock types within the footwall of the SIC. These are fault-related zones which formed as

a result of friction along the shear zones. The breccia has an aphanitic matrix containing

xenoliths of local rocks, with matrix colour progressively lighter grey and bleached with

proximity to the footwall.

Lying within the basin, overtop of the SIC are sedimentary rock of the Whitewater Group.

These are synformal, Aphebian age epiclastic and sedimentary rocks comprising the

Onaping Tuff and Onwatin Slate topped by the Chelmsford Sandstone. The Whitewater

Group was deposited after the irruptive event. The tuffs, related to volcanic activity

associated with the melt sheet, were laid down and followed by erosion of the SIC and

sedimentation within the basin.

Figure 3: Regional Geology

36

7.2 Local Geology The Sudbury Structure has been divided into three geographical areas termed the North,

South, and East Range. The Broken Hammer Property resides in the North Range

approximately one kilometre to two kilometres north of the contact sublayer in the

footwall of the Wisner embayment (Figure 4). The property is dominated by Archean-

aged felsic to intermediate gneisses intruded by the Proterozoic Wisner Gabbro

belonging to the East Bull Lake suite of mafic to ultramafic rocks; all of which are

subsequently intruded by Matachewan and Nipissing diabase dyke swarms. The

Sudbury event (~1.85Ga) is recognized by the widespread occurrence of impact-type

breccias at the SIC contact (Footwall Breccia or Late Granite Breccia) and within footwall

rocks (Sudbury Breccia), as well as a contact metamorphic thermal overprint related to

the thermal erosion of impact breccia and cooling of the SIC. Distributed throughout the

entire property are irregular bodies of Sudbury Breccia, which is the main host lithology

for footwall-style Cu-Ni-PGE mineralization, as is the case at the Broken Hammer

deposit.

All rocks were regionally metamorphosed to upper amphibolite facies with retrograde

phases to greenschist facies. Contact metamorphism to albite-epidote and hornblende-

hornfels facies occurred as a result of the impact/eruptive event, and local zones of

partial to almost complete remelting are evident. Wallbridge geologists have been able

to map isotherms represented by the degree of thermal metamorphism in the Sudbury

Breccia matrices. Thermal effects range from nearly complete recrystallization (termed

sub-igneous texture) to aphanitic textures over a distance of approximately 60 m. The

Cu-Ni-PGE mineralization at Broken Hammer is contained within this zone, which

suggests that the mineralizing event was coeval with the metamorphism.

The area has been subject to polyphase ductile and brittle deformation. Early ductile

deformation (D1) related to peak pressure-temperature conditions during amphibolite

facies regional metamorphism has produced large-scale tight upright folds and

boudinage of more competent layers. The dominant foliation is S2 regional gneissic

fabric that trends northwesterly with near vertical dips. The S2 foliation is associated

with isoclinal to tight upright folding.

37

Brittle deformation occurred as a result of the impact event and later faulting. Sudbury

Breccia pseudotachylites occur throughout the area. Northwest-trending fault zones are

interpreted from lineaments and displacements in metamorphic isotherms, and faults

have been intersected in drill holes.

7.3 Broken Hammer Geology The Broken Hammer deposit is situated within a belt of Sudbury Breccia about 1.4km

north of the SIC contact. Trenching and overburden stripping have exposed Sudbury

Breccia in gneissic quartz monzonite with meta-sedimentary, diabase, and amphibolite

mega-breccia clasts and xenoliths (Figure 6) gabbro and pyroxenite outcrop in the

western portion of the stripped area. The Sudbury Breccia zone hosting the Broken

Hammer Zone developed along the contact between the Wisner Gabbro intrusion with

the Levack Gneiss.

The Chisel Creek fault is a northerly striking, shallowly east-dipping fault zone that

bisects the deposit. The trend of the Chisel Creek fault is a topographic low occupied by

a creek and a small beaver pond. Displacement across this fault is thought to be post-

mineralization, comprising a modest rotation and possibly some translation. The

orientation of veins is observed to change by about 30º across the fault plane. The

intersection of principal fracture sets plunges at 248º/-35º above the fault and 215º/-45º

below it.

38

Figure 4: Property Geology

Figure 5: Broken Hammer Geology

39

7.4 Mineralization

Cu-Ni-PGE mineralization at the Broken Hammer Zone occurs as veins and irregular

masses in Sudbury Breccia matrix as well as sulphide disseminations, clots, and veinlets

in quartz monzonite gneiss, within a zone approximately 250m long by 80m wide.

Massive sulphide veins can be up to a metre or more in thickness but more commonly

are less than 50cm. The most prominent feature is the Big Boy Vein, a decimetre- to

metre-scale massive sulphide vein striking east-southeast and dipping shallowly to

moderately to the southwest. Other narrower veins are observed to form swarms and

clusters, often branching and anastomosing. The veins are variable in orientation and

pinch and swell rapidly. Veins are tensional features and often occupy strain shadows of

mega-breccia clasts. Control of mineralization appears to be by a dextral Reidel shear

environment with the primary shear directions being oriented 040º west of the Chisel

Creek Fault and 070º east of it.

Sulphide mineralization occurs as massive chalcopyrite with minor accessory pyrite,

pyrrhotite, and millerite. Platinum-group minerals include sperrylite, michenerite,

merenskyite, and malyshevite (Péntek et al., 2008). Sperrylite occurs frequently as

coarse-grained crystals up to 1.3 cm in size.

The mineralization is accompanied by strong hydrothermal alteration with assemblages

dominated by hydrous silicates (e.g., epidote, actinolite, chlorite) and quartz (Péntek et

al., 2008).

40

8 DEPOSIT TYPES

The following description of Deposit Types is taken from Soever, 2012.

Cu-Ni-PGE-Au mineralization occurs in a variety of settings within the SIC. For context,

these are all introduced briefly below and are subdivided into 1) mineralization

associated with the basal contact of the SIC, 2) mineralization associated with the offset

quartz diorite dykes that extend outwards from the main mass of the SIC into the

footwall, 3) mineralization occurring within the footwall rocks of the Sudbury Structure,

and 4) structurally controlled remobilized mineralization. The primary exploration target

on the Broken Hammer Property is footwall-style Cu-Ni-PGE enriched mineralization.

8.1 Contact-Style Mineralization

1. Minor disseminated pyrrhotite, pentlandite, and chalcopyrite mineralization is present within the basal noritic members of the main mass of the SIC, especially where the basal norite is in contact with mineralized sublayer embayment structures.

2. Mineralization occurs as disseminated to massive accumulations within the sublayer, along the basal contact of the main mass of the SIC. These deposits are most important where the sublayer unit thickens within embayment structures and are generally characterized by iron and nickel rich assemblages of pyrrhotite, pentlandite, and chalcopyrite. The PGE content of these deposits is quite variable.

3. Mineralization occurs as blebby disseminations, fragments of sulphide, veins, stringers, and massive accumulations within zones of footwall breccia beneath the igneous sublayer embayment structures. This style of mineralization is also generally characterized by iron and nickel rich assemblages of pyrrhotite, pentlandite, and chalcopyrite and the PGE content of these deposits is generally low.

8.2 Offset-Style Mineralization Mineralization occurs as disseminated, blebby, veinlet, and massive accumulations of

pyrrhotite, pentlandite, and chalcopyrite within xenolith-rich phases of quartz-diorite

offset dykes (e.g., Copper Cliff orebodies) or within zones of Sudbury Breccia containing

irregular quartz diorite melt pockets (e.g., Frood-Stobie orebodies).

41

8.3 Footwall-Style Mineralization Mineralization occurs as vein and stockwork systems within the footwall rocks underlying

the SIC. These deposits are often constrained within thick dykes and irregular zones of

Sudbury Breccia and occur up to a kilometre from the basal contact of the SIC, such as

at the McCreedy East property on the North Range. These deposits can also be

associated with irregular quartz diorite melt pockets within belts of Sudbury Breccia, as

in the case of the immense Frood-Stobie orebodies that occur more than a kilometre into

the footwall on the South Range. These deposits consist of veins and stockwork

systems that primarily are massive chalcopyrite or cubanite that vary from millimetre

scale to greater than 10 m wide. Veins consisting of massive intergrown bornite,

chalcopyrite, and millerite characterize the distal portions of these deposits on the North

Range. Minor alteration of the host footwall rocks immediately next to the deposits

includes quartz-carbonate veining, and epidote and chlorite in seams and fractures.

These deposits are characterized by significant PGE-Au mineralization, which occurs not

only within the main sulphide veins but also in peripheral stringers and altered host

rocks.

Low-sulphide, high-PGE-Au mineralization forms a fairly new classification of

mineralization in Sudbury (Farrow et al., 2005; Péntek et al., 2008; Tuba et al., 2010;

Kjarsgaard & Ames, 2010). This type of mineralization has become an increasingly

higher profile exploration target in the Sudbury Basin and is being explored and

evaluated by Vale, Xstrata Nickel, QuadraFNX, and Wallbridge. Low-sulphide, high-

PGE-Au mineralization has been identified in three geological settings to date. It occurs

as fine-grained specks in footwall shears in the South Range of the SIC; as fine

disseminations and specks in quartz-diorite dykes, lenses, and pods; and as fine-grained

specks, disseminations, and narrow discontinuous fracture fillings in Sudbury Breccia

and adjacent wall rocks in the North Range and East Range of the SIC.

8.4 Structurally Remobilized Mineralization In some deposits, sulphide has been remobilized into shear zones and related structural

traps. Important examples of this type of deposit include those at Garson, Falconbridge,

Falconbridge East, and Creighton mines on the South Range of the SIC.

42

9 EXPLORATION

The following description of Exploration is taken from Soever, 2012 and Jago 2008.

Wallbridge commenced exploration work on the property in 1999 with airborne time-

domain EM (GEOTEM) surveys over the entire Wisner claim block. The GEOTEM was

followed up in 2000 and 2001 with reconnaissance mapping and sampling, which

confirmed the presence of recrystallized, thermally metamorphosed Sudbury Breccias,

although no significant mineralization was found.

In 2002, ground work continued with line-cutting, geological mapping, sampling, and

ground geophysics. Sulphide-bearing outcrops were mapped and sampled and four

trenches were completed in the South Zone (Figure 4). The trenching uncovered Cu-Ni-

PGE mineralization occurring in veins as well as disseminations and veinlets in Sudbury

Breccia.

Prospecting and sampling continued in 2003, leading to the discovery of the Broken

Hammer Zone Cu-Ni-PGE sulphide mineralization associated with a 250m long

IP/resistivity anomaly. Surface stripping was carried out in three trenches over a total

area of 0.95 ha. The trenching work resulted in the discovery of veined and

disseminated PGE-bearing chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite hosted in quartz monzonite

mega-breccia and Sudbury Breccia. Wallbridge channel sampled the major veins, and

took a five metre by five metre grid of “brick” samples across the entire stripped area.

The entire property was geologically mapped at a scale of 1:1500 and the stripped areas

in the Broken Hammer Zone were mapped at 1:250.

In late September 2005, two holes were drilled at the South Zone showing totalling

338m. These holes targeted one of the new beep map discoveries in the vicinity of the

South Zone.

Five pits were blasted on five new showings that were discovered during a beep

mapping program in 2005. All blast pits contained chalcopyrite and PGE mineralization.

Three of these blasted trenches were stripped, mapped, and sampled in 2006.

43

During October 2005, Wallbridge commissioned Geotech to complete 331 line km of

airborne electromagnetic survey (VTEM) over selected portions of the Wisner property in

which 272 line km were attributed to the Xstrata joint venture.

9.1 Broken Hammer Bulk Sampling Program Wallbridge extracted a 30,000 tonne bulk sample from the Broken Hammer during the

first quarter of 2011. The bulk sample mining operation started in January 2011 with

drilling, blasting, and crushing completed in March 2011. Material transportation to

Xstrata’s Strathcona mill was completed in May and batch processing of the mined

material was carried out in July.

The purpose of the bulk sample was to follow up on the recommendations made by RPA

in 2005. A 30,000 tonne bulk sample, sufficient to provide enough material for a five to

six day mill run, was excavated from a pit with surface dimensions of approximately 90m

by 30m. The pit was excavated in four three metre benches with the fourth bench

dimensions of 75m by 20m with pit slopes of 60º to 70º.

The benches were drilled on roughly two metre by two metre patterns using air track

drills and blasted using emulsion explosives. The drill hole cuttings were sampled (see

sampling procedures below) and waste and mineralized material were marked in the

field for excavation. The waste material was hauled to the waste pile while the

mineralized material was transported to the laydown area adjacent to the crusher. The

mineralized material was then crushed to nominal minus six inches prior to being trucked

to Xstrata Nickel’s Strathcona mill.

To attempt to minimize fines loss, the laydown area was underlain with a pad of coarse

grit sand about 60 cm thick which was excavated locally. The crushed ore material was

placed on this pad (approximately 60cm thick in a 20m by 50m area) prior to

transportation to the mill. A similar pad was built at the mill to capture any lost fines.

The pad materials from the laydown area on site, as well as the pad material at the mill

were both processed through the mill.

44

9.2 Grade Control Sampling Procedures A representative sample of drill cuttings averaging four kilograms in weight was collected

from each blast hole by Wallbridge's technical staff and transported daily to Wallbridge's

office in Lively, Ontario. The samples were then placed in a 60cm by 48cm by 15cm

container and gridded into six segments. A crucible containing 20g of material was

collected from each segment and analyzed with a portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF)

analyzer. The average of the six analyses was used to determine the provisional copper

and nickel grades for each individual blast hole sample. These provisional values were

used to determine the boundaries of the mineralization above the 0.29% Cu or 0.04% Ni

cut-off grade, and were used to determine which material was to be blasted as ore.

Each entire sample from within the ore outlines and the waste samples from the first

bench was then re-bagged and shipped to ALS Chemex Ltd. (ALS Chemex) laboratories

in Sudbury for sample preparation, with the prepared pulps sent on to ALS Chemex's

analytical facilities in Vancouver for analysis for nickel, copper, platinum, palladium, gold,

and silver by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and atomic

emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) methods. The ALS Chemex analytical values were

used in calculating the final grade of the material mined and sent to the mill.

9.3 Material Processing The excavated material was trucked to Xstrata’s Strathcona mill for batch processing.

Upon arrival at the mill the material was weighed in on the scales, and then placed on a

dedicated pad.

Batch processing was carried out using milling protocols similar to those typically used

for other Sudbury footwall ores. Sampling was carried out using protocols developed by

Xstrata Process Support (XPS) personnel and the assay results were provided by XPS

Laboratories in Sudbury, Ontario. Samples were collected at the rod mill discharge and

of the concentrate produced and the tailings. The assay results were used to calculate a

material balance for the material processed. Exact mill performance is considered

proprietary, but the metallurgical performance was favourable with metal recoveries

similar to or better than typical Sudbury footwall-type deposits.

45

9.4 Results The excavated material (including a ramp) totalled 18,158m3 or 50,842 tonnes (using an

average specific gravity (SG) of 2.8). Based on the volume of the material within the ore

outlines, the mineralized material consisted of 26,324 dry tonnes (using an SG of 2.8).

Material crushed and delivered to the Strathcona mill was 30,507 wet or 29,791 dry

metric tonnes (calculated using 2.403% moisture content), which indicates about 13%

dilution. The Waste stockpile at the site is approximately 21,051 tonnes, which was

calculated as the difference of the total excavated and the delivered material.

A reconciliation of the material shipped versus the 2005 RPA resource estimate (Table

9) indicated a 75% increase in the in-situ contained metal value relative to the resource

model for the volume excavated, with a seven percent increase in tonnage, and a 64%

increase in grade (Table 11). This is not an unexpected result considering that the 2005

RPA resource estimate was an Inferred Resource based on less drill information and

topcut precious metal values.

The bulk sample assay results and mapping of pit walls offered valuable information

regarding the spatial distribution and structural controls of sulphide mineralization.

These data were incorporated into 3D modelling of the deposit to create the wireframe

used for resource estimation. The better understanding of the mineralization also

enabled Wallbridge to create a high-grade wireframe outlining the location of main

sulphide vein sets.

46

Table 9: Bulk Sample Reconciliation

Bench Tonnes TPM (g/t) Pt (g/t) Pd (g/t) Au g/t) Cu (%) Ni (%)

Blast Hole Assay Grade

404 7,241 2.43 0.86 1.15 0.42 0.92 0.07

401 6,065 4.70 1.80 2.23 0.67 1.63 0.10

398 6,880 9.52 4.41 3.80 1.31 2.82 0.19

395 6,138 4.04 1.54 1.95 0.55 1.04 0.12

Total 26,324 5.18 2.16 2.28 0.74 1.61 0.12

RPA 2005 Resource Model

404 2,371 2.46 1.30 0.89 0.27 0.57 0.05

401 4,487 2.68 1.17 1.15 0.36 0.92 0.07

398 8,486 2.97 1.33 1.28 0.36 1.06 0.12

395 9,268 3.10 1.43 1.31 0.36 1.11 0.12

Total 24,611 2.92 1.34 1.23 0.35 1.01 0.10

Estimated Grade and Tonnage Variance (%)

404 205 -1 -33 29 55 60 35

401 35 75 54 93 85 77 59

398 -19 220 230 197 265 164 60

395 -34 30 7 49 52 -7 -2

Total 7 77 62 85 111 59 16

47

10 DRILLING

The following description of Drilling is mostly taken from Soever, 2012.

10.1 Broken Hammer Diamond drilling was initiated in this area late in 2003, with the completion of seven

holes totalling 895 m, and was continued through 2004 and into 2005. In 2004,

Wallbridge drilled 33 holes for a total of 4,014m on the property. Fourteen of these holes

were drilled on the Big Boy Vein on a 20m pattern. The other 11 holes were drilled to

test the down-plunge extension of mineralization to the west of the Chisel Creek fault.

The drill results confirmed and expanded the known mineralization.

To date, 113 diamond drill holes totalling 14,285m have been completed on the Broken

Hammer Property, of which 110 holes tested the Broken Hammer Zone. All core is NQ-

size (47.6mm diameter) or BQTK-size (40.7 mm diameter) and is stored at the

Wallbridge office facility in Lively, Ontario. Drill hole locations for the Broken Hammer

deposit are shown in Figure 6.

RPA’s 2005 resource estimate for the Broken Hammer Zone utilized the 66 drill holes

which were completed at that time. Since then an additional 44 drill holes have been

completed. These drill holes were mainly designed to test mineralized trends outside of

the existing resource, but some in-fill drilling was also done especially in the Western

part of the deposit. The drilling completed since 2005 delineated additional sulphide

mineralization and extended the mineralization to the north, west, and east.

As part of the 2011 drill program, Wallbridge carried out SG measurements on core

samples. A total of 60 SG values were collected for various rock types and copper

grades to be used in new resource estimates. In preparation of this resource estimate,

SG determinations were also performed on 300 sample pulps.

48

Figure 6: Drill Hole Location Map

In 2006, 16 diamond drill holes totalling 3,194m were targeted in three areas. Twelve

holes were drilled at the Southwest showing, three at the South Zone showing, and one

hole targeted an IP anomaly. A total of 1,093 core samples were sent for assay and ICP

analysis.

Ten of the 2006 holes were probed using Crone Geophysics and Exploration Ltd.’s

Pulse EM borehole system, two by Lamontagne Geophysics Ltd.’s BHUTEM downhole

system, and three with IP using JVX Ltd. JVX also performed a mise-a-la-masse survey

over the Southwest showing.

In 2007, one new diamond drill hole was completed, and one hole deepened for a total

of 1,933m. The most significant assay results came from hole WIS-094, which returned

0.55 g/t TPM (Au + Pt + Pd) over 9.55m.

Two diamond drill holes (1,554 m) were completed in 2008 and another drill hole (401 m)

was completed in 2010. No significant results were returned.

49

11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

The following description of Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security is summarized

from Soever, 2012.

Surface samples (and their corresponding representative samples) are described,

bagged, and assigned a sample number in the field, brought to the Wallbridge office in

Lively, Ontario, and then the portion ascribed for analysis is transported to the ALS

Chemex sample preparation laboratory in Sudbury, Ontario. Representative samples

are stored for future reference.

During the drilling program, core samples are transported from the field to the Wallbridge

head office by company personnel. Core is logged and sample intervals are marked by

Wallbridge geologists. Core is halved using a water cooled diamond saw, which is

cleaned regularly to avoid sample to sample contamination. Half the sample interval is

submitted to the laboratory for analysis and the other half is retained on outdoor, roofed

core racks at the Wallbridge head office.

All samples for shipment are sealed in individual, labelled plastic bags with a sample tag.

Blind standards (LDI-3 STD) and blanks are submitted at least every twentieth sample to

ensure that each batch processed in the laboratory includes one blank and one standard

sample.

Since January 2005, samples have been sent to ALS Chemex sample preparation

laboratory in Sudbury (ISO 9001:2000) for geochemical analyses. Before that samples

were shipped to the ALS Chemex sample preparation facility in Toronto by an

independent trucking company.

At ALS Chemex, samples are checked against requisition documents prior to being

dried, weighed, crushed, and split into 200g fractions using a Jones riffle and milled to

90% to 95% passing 200 mesh. The processed 200g samples are sent to ALS

Chemex’s analytical facilities in Vancouver, British Columbia, for geochemical analysis.

50

All samples are analyzed for gold, platinum, and palladium by standard lead collection

fire assay fusion followed by a combination of ICP-MS and ICP-AES. Samples are also

analyzed for 47 base metals and trace elements using a four acid (HNO3-HCIO4-HF and

HCI) near total digestion and a combination of ICP-MS and ICP-AES. ICP over-limit

samples are re-analyzed using sodium peroxide fusion acid dissolution followed by ICP-

AES.

Selected samples of Sudbury Breccia are analyzed for chlorine and fluorine using fusion

specific ion electrode (ELE81A) and neutron activation (NAA-06) procedures. Selected

samples are subjected to whole rock and rare earth element (REE) analysis. These

samples are subjected to lithium metaborate fusion with ICP-AES for whole rock analysis

with accompanying LECO titration to ascertain carbon and sulphur values, and lithium

borate fusion with ICP-MS for trace and REE evaluation. Volatiles were analyzed with

aqua regia digestion ICP-MS.

Assay results are downloaded from the ALS Chemex web site by the Wallbridge

Logistics Manager, and sent to the project geologist via email.

Prior to the 2005 exploration season, core and grab samples were analyzed by SGS

Mineral Services (SGS), an ISO 9000 certified geochemical exploration and research

analysis facility, which maintains a sample preparation laboratory in Sudbury, Ontario.

Samples were routinely dried, crushed, riffle split, and pulverized to produce 250g 85%

passing -75 micron assay grade pulps. These pulps were subsequently transported to

SGS analytical facilities in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, for PGE analyses by fire assay, and

to Toronto for ICP-MS multi-element geochemical analysis.

SGS analyzed the submitted samples for PGEs using a nominal 30g trace level fire

assay lead collection procedure with an ICP finish. Over-limit samples were subjected to

an ore grade fire assay gravimetric analysis method. Base metal analysis was done

using a combination of multi-acid digestion (ICP-40B) and ICP-MS methods to produce a

32 element suite of base metal and trace elements. Over-limit samples from the

ICM40B method for copper, nickel, and cobalt were treated to dedicated analysis using a

sodium peroxide fusion ICP - resource definition procedure. Silver and sulphur values

51

were determined by aqua regia digestion with an atomic absorption finish, and LECO

titration methods.

11.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples Wallbridge personnel introduced blanks and standards to the sample stream at a rate of

approximately one for every 20 samples. No program of field duplication of samples was

employed during drill programs, but duplicate samples were inserted along with

standards and blanks during the 2011 bulk sampling. The principal laboratory (SGS)

prior to 2004, now ALS-Chemex) also routinely carried out blank, standard, and

duplicate analyses with each batch.

11.2 Blanks In 2005, RPA extracted the blank sample records from the database and noted that

there were a total of 249 from a data set containing 5,873 samples. This number of

blanks corresponds reasonably well with the reported rate of one blank for every 20

samples. In RPA’s opinion, at the time, the results demonstrated that there was a

likelihood that contamination of some samples had occurred. However, it did not appear

as though this was a particularly common occurrence.

Wallbridge reviewed a total of 393 blank samples analyzed during drill programs up to

the end of 2011 (Figures 7 to 9). The blank data up to May/June 2005 is quite noisy,

when samples were sent to SGS (instead of ALS Chemex) and felsic norite was used as

a blank in many cases. Some samples were also mislabelled standards. The data after

2005 is quite uniform and does not show significant errors. In the case of copper, nickel,

gold, and palladium, only few (one, zero, five, and one, respectively) samples plot above

average grade plus one standard deviation (Avg + STD), whereas slightly more (seven)

are above this value for platinum. In RPA’s opinion, the number of outliers since 2005 is

well within acceptable limits and the results demonstrate that no significant

contamination of samples occurred.

52

Figure 7: Copper in Blank Samples

Figure 8: Nickel in Blank Samples

Figure 9: Palladium in Blank Samples

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

27‐Jan‐04 10‐Jun‐05 23‐Oct‐06 6‐Mar‐08 19‐Jul‐09 1‐Dec‐10

wt.%

Cu Blank Samples

samples

Avg + STD

Linear (Avg)

Linear (Avg + STD)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

27‐Jan‐04 10‐Jun‐05 23‐Oct‐06 6‐Mar‐08 19‐Jul‐09 1‐Dec‐10

wt.%

Ni Blank Samples

samples

Avg + STD

Linear (Avg)

Linear (Avg + STD)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

27‐Jan‐04 10‐Jun‐05 23‐Oct‐06 6‐Mar‐08 19‐Jul‐09 1‐Dec‐10

ppm

Pd Blank Samples

samples

Avg + STD

Linear (Avg)

Linear (Avg + STD)

53

There were 49 blank samples inserted during the 2011 bulk sampling. One of the

samples showed high values (above the average grade plus two STDs) for copper,

platinum, palladium, and gold, clearly demonstrating that this sample was contaminated.

Because the standards inserted in the same sample batches do not show any errors,

Wallbridge believes that the problems recognized in the blank sample data do represent

contamination of the blank samples rather than analytical error in the laboratory. This

problem was since addressed, and Wallbridge personnel take every possible effort to

ensure that the blank material is kept clean.

11.3 Standards In 2005, RPA extracted 225 records that were identified as a standard. There were two

standards used, one prepared at the Lac des Isle mine, and the other a commercial

standard prepared by Geoscience Laboratories. The standards analyses for gold,

copper, cobalt, nickel, palladium, and platinum were observed to be within a reasonable

range except for several analyses reported on February 4, 2004, and a nickel and a

cobalt assay on January 27, 2004. Palladium displayed a somewhat broad dispersion in

the range of 4g/t to 6g/t.

Wallbridge has reviewed a total of 366 standard samples submitted during drill programs

up to the end of 2011. The analyses for copper, nickel, platinum, palladium, and gold

are observed to be within three STD of the expected standard value with the exception

of a few samples from 2004 and 2005, which were already noted by RPA. In the data

since then, there is only one nickel analysis that plots outside of the ±3 STD range

(Figure 10). The broad dispersion of palladium in the range of 4g/t to 6g/t noted by RPA

is still present in samples from 2006 and 2007, but the data from 2010 and 2011 is much

more uniform (Figure 11).

54

Figure 10: Nickel Standard Assay Values

Figure 11: Palladium Standard Assay Values

The 49 standard samples inserted during the 2011 bulk sampling show also good

results. With the exception of one copper analysis, all metal values of all samples plot

within three STD of the expected standard value. They show a typical sinuous pattern

following the average value (Figure 12).

0

0.025

0.05

0.075

0.1

wt.%

Nickel Standard

Analyses

Standard

Upper 3STD

Lower 3STD

2

3

4

5

6

7

06‐Jan‐04 06‐Jan‐05 06‐Jan‐06 06‐Jan‐07 06‐Jan‐08 06‐Jan‐09 06‐Jan‐10 06‐Jan‐11

ppm

Pd Standard

Analyses

Standard

Upper 3STD

Lower 3STD

55

Figure 12: Palladium Standard Assay Values

11.4 Duplicates During the 2011 bulk sampling, Wallbridge submitted a total of 38 duplicate samples

along with the standards and blanks. In the case of nickel, copper, palladium, and gold,

the duplicate pairs show excellent linear correlation with R2 values of 0.99, 0.99, 0.96,

and 0.98, respectively (Figure 13). As expected from the nuggety nature of platinum

distribution caused by heterogeneous occurrence of coarse-grained sperrylite crystals,

the R2 value in the case of the platinum pairs is lower, only 0.78 (Figure 14).

56

Figure 13: Copper Duplicate Assays

Figure 14: Platinum Duplicate Assays

As in 2005, RPA recommends that the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

protocols be revised to include taking duplicate samples in a systematic manner. This

y = 0.9906xR² = 0.9906

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu wt.%

Cu wt.%

Cu Duplicate Pairs

Cu value

Linear (Cu value)

y = 0.5446xR² = 0.7784

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Pt Duplicate Pairs

Pt value

Linear (Pt value)

57

would include duplicates of the crushed reject and at least five percent of the original

pulp samples should be sent to another laboratory, as a check of the primary laboratory.

In RPA’s opinion, the database is acceptable for use in Mineral Resource estimation,

although the QA/QC program could be improved.

RPA is of the opinion that the sample preparation, security, and assay procedures at the

Broken Hammer Project are adequate and in keeping with industry standards.

58

12 DATA VERIFICATION

The drill data has been compiled into a Datamine database. This database contains

tables for assays (both fire assay and ICP), lithology, alteration, mineralization, structure,

and QA/QC results.

RPA carried out validation exercises on the database which consisted of using the

Datamine built-in validation utilities and visual verification of a selection of the laboratory

certificate data. As well, erroneous data identified during regression analysis, were

resolved by Wallbridge personnel prior to completing the estimation. RPA found the

Broken Hammer database to be free of significant errors, although there were a few

minor ones. None of the errors encountered would impact on the Mineral Resource

estimates, and so they are classed as minor. A total of 43% of the analyses used in the

estimate were checked against the original records from the laboratory.

Based on our review of the database and primary records, plus discussions with

Wallbridge personnel, RPA is of the opinion that data collection and entry, and database

verification procedures for the Broken Hammer Project comply with industry standards

and are suitable for the estimation of Mineral Resources.

12.1 Independent Sampling by RPA Considering the independent sampling completed in the past, the visible sulphide

mineralization in the core and open pit, plus the positive results of the 30,000 tonne bulk

sample, RPA did not collect another set of mineralized samples during the site visit.

59

13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

13.1 Introduction

Approximately 150 kilograms of drill core from the Broken Hammer project was received

in six pails from Wallbridge at the SGS Minerals Services (Lakefield) on February 21,

2005. The core samples were taken from drill holes WIS-015, WIS-016, WIS-017 and

WIS-023 which were all drilled to the north in the upper part of a relatively small area of

the Broken Hammer Deposit.

The principal objectives of this sample were:

mineralogical, chemical and physical characterization,

a basic program of flotation testing based on the Strathcona Mill flowsheet, and

a preliminary investigation into possible concentration of PGM's by gravity

methods.

It should be noted that no effort was made to ensure that the sample provided spatial

representativity. Hole numbers 015 through 017 were drilled using NQ core size whereas

hole number 023 was drilled using AQ core. Upon receipt the samples were placed in a

walk-in freezer to eliminate any further chemical reactions. The average head assays are

shown in Section 13.3.1.

This sample was used in the following studies two studies that were conducted at

Lakefield and are summarized in the following sections:

A mineralogical study (Sept/05 - revised version issued Jan/06) - summarized

in Section 13.2,

A metallurgical study that tested the response to Xstrata’s Strathcona flowsheet

(Sept/05) - summarized in Section 13.3

A second sample of approximately 175 kilograms of crushed sample from the deposit

was received in six pails from Wallbridge at Lakefield on February 21, 2006. These

60

samples were selected to provide excellent spatial representatively and represent the

overall grade of the deposit. This sample was used to conduct a follow-up

metallurgical study examining the effects of a simple gravity circuit within a single-

stage milling process to recover a significantly larger proportion of contained platinum

(Nov/06). A summary of this work is shown in Section 13.4.

The last part of this section (Section 13.5) details the metals recoveries and payments

from custom milling the 30,000 tonne bulk sample that was mined in 2011 and shipped

to Xstrata's Strathcona mill for processing.

13.2 Mineralogical Study

A composite head feed sample from the Broken Hammer project was submitted to SGS

Lakefield Limited on February 21, 2005 with the request that mineralogical

characteristics pertinent to mineral processing be established.

As a result of this request SGS undertook a mineralogical characterization study with the

following objectives of determining:

The bulk mineralogical composition and a brief account of potential size-

dependence of mineralogy on processing.

Liberation characteristics of sulphide minerals and chalcopyrite in particular (Ni

grades are low and average 0.13%Ni vs. 0.72%Cu)

The identity and liberation/locking characteristics of PGM potentially affecting the

recovery characteristics.

Characterization of the sample was performed utilizing a combination of techniques

ranging from density separation to upgrade sulphides for liberation analysis to

conventional and QemSCAN mineralogical analysis. PGM's were sought and

characterized by QemSCAN analysis.

QemSCAN is the name for an integrated automated mineralogy and petrography

solution providing quantitative analysis of minerals, rocks and man-made materials.

61

QEMSCAN is an abbreviation standing for Quantitative Evaluation of Minerals by

SCANning electron microscopy. The integrated system comprises a Scanning Electron

Microscope (SEM) with a large specimen chamber, up to four light-element Energy-

dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) detectors, and a proprietary software controlling

the automated data acquisition.

13.2.1 Procedure Bulk modal mineralogy measurements on this ore were based on a crushed sample

which was subjected to heavy liquids separation. This procedure includes de-sliming,

screening at 53µm and separation using methylene iodide at 3.1g/cc. Mineral mass and

distribution data are summarized in Table 12.

The crushed sample was submitted to screening at 53 micrometers to create a retained

and passing fraction. This procedure includes de-sliming (passing 10 micrometers).

Each fraction was submitted to heavy liquid separation using methylene iodide at a

specific gravity split point of 3.1g/cc.

Each fraction was submitted for whole rock analysis and metal balances for each size

fraction were calculated based upon the initial fraction assays.

Polished sections of each fraction were prepared and analysed microscopically by

optimal, SEM and QemSCAN techniques.

62

Table 10 details selected grades for individual size fractions. The data shows a positive

correlation between Cu and Pt.

Table 10: Assays for Individual Size Fractions

Product Mass % Cu Ni S Au Pt

+53 Sink 1.4 10.5 0.8 10.6 4.26 50.2

+53 Float 56.2 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.17 0.41

+10 Sink 1.1 6.87 0.53 6.79 3.79 29.3

+10 Float 24.2 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.1 0.12

-10 Head 17.1 0.24 0.31 0.25 na na

63

Figure 15: Mineral Distribution data ranked in decreasing upgrade factor to the sinks fractions

From Figure 15 above, the following points are noteworthy:

Over 80% of copper mineralization reports to the sinks and fines, which suggests

amenability to dense media separation.

Nickel and iron sulphides tend to slime more readily than the copper sulphides.

The sinks fraction is dominated by chalcopyrite, magnetite and other iron

sulphides.

The majority of "concentrate" dilution is the feldspars, micas and chlorites found

in the fines fraction.

64

13.2.2 Mineralogical Results

13.2.2.1 Bulk Modal Mineralogy The bulk modal mineralogy of the fractions and calculated head is provided in Table 13

from which the following points are significant:

Calculated chemical compositions agree well with assay data, indicating

accuracy in the modal data.

Float fractions are dominated by feldspar, quartz and mica, while sink fractions

are characterized by high chalcopyrite and magnetite and other iron sulphides.

Silicate minerals reporting to the sinks fractions include serpentine and

amphibole. An association of serpentine with sulphide middling in this sink

fraction indicates that serpentine may pose a problem regarding creation and

behavior of floatable slimes after regrinding and contribute to concentrate Mg

levels.

Including the 10 micrometer fraction, the distribution of various minerals between

the various fractions is presented in Figure 16. Minerals are ranked in order of

decreasing upgrade factor, followed by decreasing proportions of passing 10

micrometer material.

The relative proportion of chalcopyrite slime (passing 10 micron) is lower than

slime associated with iron and nickel sulphides.

13.2.2.2 PGE Mineralogy

PGE mineralogy to date has been qualitative - the SGS QEMSCAN study describes

tellurides, bismuthides and arsenides but it should be noted that this data is not

representative as it is only based on six to ten measurements.

65

A more extensive qualitative mineralogical study was carried by Péntek et al. (2008)

based on scanning electron microscope (SEM) and electron microprobe analyses. This

study showed that the most dominant platinum-mineral is millimetre-scale sperrylite

(PtAs2), whereas palladium mostly occurs in merenskyite (PdTe2), malyshevite

(CuPdBiS3), michenerite (PdBiTe), sopcheite (Ag4Pd3Te4), and kotulskite (PdTe). Silver

is hosted by hessite (Ag2Te), gold-silver alloy, and sopcheite. The gold-silver alloy has a

composition of Au65Ag35.

Table 11 shows the mineral distribution data obtained by QemSCAN: Table 11: Mineral Distribution data obtained by QemSCAN

Mineral Mass Mineral Distribution

Float Sink Fines Float Sink Fines

+53 -53/+10 +53 -53/+10 -10 +53 -53/+10 +53 -53/+10 -10

Ni Sulphides 0.2 0.2 1.7 1.1 0.7 35.6 16.5 7.5 3.6 36.7

Chalcopyrite 0.2 0.3 29.4 17.1 0.7 12.6 6.8 47.5 20.2 12.9

Fe Sulphides 0.0 0.1 2.0 2.1 0.3 11.7 12.0 23.2 18.1 34.9 Other Sulphides 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.1 28.6 4.9 28.2 35.2

Magnetite 0.4 0.8 16.2 20.1 0.5 24.9 20.4 24.1 21.9 8.7

Quartz 12.9 12.2 1.2 3.9 10.8 59.7 24.5 0.1 0.3 15.3

Ca-Pyriboles 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.8 48.9 30.0 0.5 0.4 20.1

Mg-Pyriboles 9.7 6.8 3.0 2.1 8.3 63.5 19.2 0.5 0.3 16.6

Talc 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.3 1.6 52.3 25.7 0.3 0.3 21.5

Feldspars 52.6 52.1 12.4 26.1 46.1 60.1 24.0 0.3 0.5 15.0

Amphibole 1.6 1.3 11.7 10.6 1.6 50.5 17.5 9.7 6.5 15.9

Chlorite 3.4 5.7 1.4 2.1 10.1 37.7 27.4 0.4 0.4 34.0

Mica 10.2 12.7 3.1 3.6 14.8 50.2 26.9 0.4 0.3 22.2

Carbonates 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 30.6 29.9 1.0 1.2 37.3

Ti Fe Oxides 0.2 0.3 8.8 3.8 0.2 24.6 18.9 34.8 11.1 10.7

Epidote 2.1 2.9 0.7 1.1 1.0 56.5 34.1 0.5 0.5 8.3 Serpentine/Olivine 0.7 1.9 5.6 3.4 0.9 35.2 40.6 7.2 3.2 13.7

Other 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.4 1.0 7.1 1.8 36.0 32.2 23.0

Total 100 99.9 99.4 99.3 99.8 55.1 23.8 2.2 1.8 17.1

Note: The passing 10 micrometer data has been added to complete the mineralogy

inventory

66

The following salient mineralogical features were observed:

Most sulphides were effectively liberated at ten mesh – an indication that fine

primary grinds will not be necessary.

Significant amounts of serpentine/olivine are present as gangue minerals. These

minerals often impart a deleterious influence on the flotation process.

Chlorite, mica and talc report preferentially to the -10m fraction which suggests

that deleterious influence associated with these minerals would increase with

increasing fineness of grind.

The bulk of the sulphide content is chalcopyrite, with millerite, cubanite and

pyrrhotite forming the next most abundant phases. Minor/trace amounts of

covellite, chalcocite, bornite, cobaltite and pentlandite were also observed.

Nickel deportment includes pyrrhotite, millerite and pentlandite, but also silicate

species such as chlorite and amphiboles. As the latter is significant, nickel

recovery is expected to be poor.

From a limited number of observations, palladium minerals were observed to be

bismuth selenides and silver tellurides. These minerals were all closely

associated with chalcopyrite.

Platinum minerals tended to be more discrete and were found to be platinum

arsenides (sperrylite) and tellurides.

PGM's are strongly associated with Cu-sulphides, supporting a strong

metallurgical Cu/PT correlation.

13.2.2.3 PGM Deportment Figures 16 and 17 illustrate some of the particles described in this study. Figures 18 and

19 illustrate PGM's within a gravity concentrate.

67

Figure 16: Two rounded inclusions of Ag-Telluride/Bi-Selenide included in chalcopyrite. Pt-Tellurides occupy the core of both inclusions

Figure 17: A very large Pt-Telluride inclusion in liberated chalcopyrite

68

Figure 18: A very coarse sperrylite particle (>100um). Remaining particles are almost all magnetite

Figure 19: Photomicrograph taken at lower magnification to illustrate the abundance of PGM's within the gravity concentrate. The bright particles include sperrylite and galena

69

13.3 SGS Report 10982-001, September 30th, 2005 This metallurgical report utilized the composite head feed sample from the Broken

Hammer project submitted to SGS Lakefield Limited on February 21, 2005.

13.3.1 Sample Determination Table 12 lists the average head assays measured to represent the material in this test

program. It should be noted that due to the nuggeting nature of the platinum a

significant variability in PGE assay was noted throughout this program, and confidence

around supplied metallurgical balance suffers accordingly.

Table 12: Average Head Assays

Element % Cu % Ni % Fe % S g/t Pt g/t Pd g/t Au

Grade 0.63 0.12 5.23 0.67 1.75 1.38 0.43

13.3.2 Bond Work Index Determination The sample Bond rod and ball mill work index results are listed as follows:

Table 13: Bond Work Index Summary

Test Work Index (kWh/t) Bond Rod Mill Index (RWI) 20.0 (Metric) Bond Ball Mill Index (BWI) 21.2 (Metric)

13.3.3 Mineralogical Analysis A mineralogical analysis of the sample showed that the bulk of the sulphide content to

be chalcopyrite (~60%), with millerite, cubanite and pyrrhotite forming the next most

abundant sulphides (~10%). Minor/trace amounts of covellite, chalcocite, bornite,

70

cobaltite and pentlandite were also observed. Nickel is found in pyrrhotite, millerite and

pentlandite. Nickel is also found in non-recoverable gangue species such as chlorite and

amphiboles indicating that concentrate recoveries are expected to be low.

Platinum group elements (PGE's) were observed to be chalcopyrite-dominant but also

associated with bismuth-selenides and silver-tellurides. This implies reasonable flotation

characteristics with adequate liberation.

13.3.4 Flotation Tests The flotation testing of this ore showed reasonable rougher kinetics for all metals but

nickel. Platinum is clearly slower than other metals, which supports the mineralogical

observations that palladium and gold have closer associations with chalcopyrite than

does platinum. The poor nickel response observed here is entirely due to the

deportment of this element to the silicate species. Overall recovery is good, indicating

adequate liberation of most minerals (possibly excluding gold) at the Strathcona primary

grind of 80% passing 150µm.

71

Figure 20: Kinetic Curves: Combined Tests F1,F4,F5

As shown in Figure 20 above, nickel recovery was poor, likely the result of poor

liberation and the significant association of nickel with gangue minerals.

Copper, gold and palladium recovery profiles were similar in shape suggesting either

mineralogical association or a well-liberated fraction of 70-90%. The copper

(chalcopyrite) was fast floating and recovered early in the process - with 90% recovery in

three minutes.

The overall recovery of platinum was good indicating adequate liberation. The

association of platinum with other elements was not apparent although the relatively

slow response of this mineral early in the process may indicate early liberation from the

chalcopyrite.

Palladium grade/recovery shares a similar profile to copper, suggesting the association

of this metal with chalcopyrite. Palladium and gold recoveries are likely affected by the

relatively coarse grind.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (min)

Rec

over

y (%

)

Copper

Palladium

Platinum

Gold

Nickel

72

Additional testing involving finer grinds and co-collectors was conducted to investigate

the possibility of increased palladium and gold recovery. These tests confirmed the merit

of further testing of finer grinds and co-collectors to improve the palladium response;

neither of these tests appeared to increase gold recoveries

13.3.5 Locked Cycle Flotation Tests The flotation program concluded with a locked cycle test, which allowed generation of

products for chemical characterization. The locked cycle test results are detailed in

Table 14; the flowsheet is shown in Figure 21.

Locked cycle testing of a simplified Strathcona flowsheet yielded the following results:

Table 14: Locked Cycle Summary Results

Cu Ni S Pt Pd Au

Copper Concentrate:

Grade 20.6% 1.31% 21.3% 74.2 g/t 39.9 g/t 11.7 g/t

Recovery 90.4% 31.6% 89.3% 61.2% 81.5% 74.3%

Nickel Concentrate:

Grade 2.8% 0.31% 3.0% 63.4 g/t 8.6 g/t 3.1 g/t

Recovery 4.4% 2.6% 4.5% 18.6% 6.2% 7.1%

Bulk Concentrate:

Grade 15.9% 1.05% 16.5% 71.4 g/t 31.7 g/t 9.4 g/t

Recovery 94.8% 34.2% 93.8% 79.8% 87.7% 81.4%

The following diagram illustrates the flowsheet that was used in the locked cycle flotation

tests. The rougher cleaner (E) concentrate and pyrrhotite rejection rougher (F)

concentrate was added to the copper/nickel separation circuit. The pyrrhotite rejection

rougher scavenger (G) concentrate was re-cycled back to the regrind mill.

73

Figure 21: Locked Cycle Flotation Flowsheet (Strathcona)

In the flowsheet, the primary rougher (A) should produce a high grade copper/nickel

concentrate. Secondary rougher (B) concentrate carries copper/nickel particles with a

greater degree of locking and is thus subjected to an intermediate cleaning stage (E).

The Scavenger (C) concentrate is designed to capture flame pentlandite locked within

pyrrhotite and this concentrate carries a high concentration of the latter mineral.

Pyrrhotite/pentlandite selectivity is adjusted throughout the rougher/scavenger flotation

process using lime and sulphuric acid.

A pyrrhotite rejection circuit employing a regrind mill and two flotation stages (F and G) is

used to liberate fine pentlandite from coarser pyrrhotite and the latter mineral is then

rejected through pulp pH/Eh adjustment (using lime). In practice, the pyrrhotite tails

stream is concentrated in sulphur and must be disposed of in an especially

environmentally-conscious fashion.

Primary Grind

Regrind

A B C

D

E

F

G

Scav Tails

Po Tails

74

Rougher cleaner (E) concentrate and pyrrhotite rejection rougher (F) concentrate is

directed to the copper/nickel separation circuit whereupon lime and cyanide are added to

discourage flotation of all species but chalcopyrite.

It should be noted that the Strathcona flowsheet has not been designed to treat ores

such as Broken Hammer, although in practice, similar ores are blended with contact-type

nickel ores to give a relatively stable Cu/Ni ratio in the mill feed. If treated separately,

Broken Hammer ore would be processed using simpler bulk sulphide flotation which

does not rely on pH/Eh adjustment to control mineral selectivity

Table 15 below illustrates in detail the results of the locked cycle test results:

Table 15: Locked Cycle Test Results

Product Weight Assays, %, g/t % Distribution

g % Cu Ni S Pt Pd Au Cu Ni S Pt Pd Au Copper Conc. 267.7 2.7 20.6 1.31 21.3 74.2 39.9 11.7 90.4 31.6 89.3 61.2 81.5 74.3

Nickel Conc. 95 1.0 2.8 0.31 3.02 63.4 8.6 3.1 4.4 2.6 4.5 18.6 6.2 7.1 Pyrrhotite

Rej Tail 271.7 2.7 0.13 0.13 0.19 18.1 0.5 0.2 0.6 3.3 0.8 15.2 1.1 1.5

Scav Tail 9359.3 93.7 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.17 0.2 0.1 4.6 62.5 5.4 5.0 11.2 17.1

Head (calc) 9993.5 100 0.61 0.11 0.64 3.24 1.31 0.42 100 100 100 100 100 100

Head (direct) 10000 99.9 0.63 0.12 0.68 1.75 1.38 0.43 97.4 94.3 94.4 185.4 95.0 97.8

Bulk Conc. 362.5 3.6 15.9 1.05 16.5 74.4 31.7 9.4 94.8 34.2 93.8 79.8 87.7 81.4

Overall (bulk concentrate) recoveries are not poor, although because of silicate nickel,

recovery of this element is very low. The following points are noteworthy:

Copper recovery to copper concentrate is good, although in practice, this would

drop slightly to achieve a higher copper grade (>25% Cu) and lower nickel grade

(<1.0%).

The majority of PGE’s are carried into the copper concentrate. In terms of

downstream processing, credits for PGE units are generally lower in the copper

circuit (Kidd Creek) than the nickel circuit (Sudbury Smelter -> Nikkelverk).

75

A significant proportion (>15%) of the platinum is lost to the pyrrhotite tails –

either as a result of insufficient flotation time in the cleaner circuit, or the difficult

flotation conditions imposed by the addition of lime.

13.3.6 Gravity Testing Preliminary gravity circuit testing of mill feed material illustrated the amenability of this

ore to such processes. Most encouraging at this point was the generation of a high

grade (with reasonable recovery) concentrate using a Knelson concentrator and Mozley

Table. A scavenger test provided a lower grade concentrate at higher recoveries. All

other metals did not respond as favourably to this process and the GRPGE testing was

inconclusive.

Table 16: Gravity Test Results

Knelson/Mozley Knelson Scav. GRPGE Pt grade (g/t)/Recovery (%) 108.0/61.0 12.5/81.3 39.9/69.2 Pd grade (g/t)/Recovery (%) 37.7/26.2 5.9/52.5 23.8/36.7 Au grade (g/t)/Recovery (%) 22.7/40.9 2.9/63.7 9.8/53.0

13.4 SGS Report No. 10982-003, November 20th, 2006 This test program focused on delivering an alternative (simpler) flowsheet that would

provide at least equivalent results to the Strathcona flowsheet. Gravity testing was

explored in more detail and alternative reagents were tested in the flotation process.

13.4.1 Sample Head Grade For this program of work, a significant improvement in sample representatively was

made, with 69 individual samples collected from 25 drill holes to total 175kg. Measured

average head assays of this test program are compared to the 2005 program:

76

Table 17: Sample Head Grades

Element % Cu % Ni % Co % S g/t Pt g/t Pd g/t Au g/t Ag

2005 Sample 0.63 0.12 - 0.67 1.75 1.38 0.43 -

2006 Sample 0.56 0.11 0.02 0.61 1.97 1.34 0.61 4.0 Past analysis of this mineralization has shown extreme variability in the platinum grade

thought to be due to the presence of coarse sperrylite. For this program extra-ordinary

sample blending techniques were employed in an attempt to lower variability in PGE

grade, as this effect affected metallurgical accountability in earlier work. Platinum

variability dropped somewhat, but gold remains high with >30% relative standard

deviation on head assay. Additional tests showed a solids density of 2.80g/cc.

13.4.2 Simple Flotation Circuit Testing The testwork showed that a simple flotation circuit (without a regrind) is effective at

recovering chalcopyrite and some of the remaining precious metals but they clearly

showed the need for a rougher concentrate regrind circuit to achieve a better than 20%

copper grade in the final concentrate and reasonable PGE recoveries.

Flotation testing conducted on the sample material showed that a simple flotation circuit

at natural pH was a reasonable and effective alternative to the Strathcona flowsheet

tested previously. The results of this work are shown in the flotation test F9 results as

summarized in the following table:

Table 18: F9 Test Results

Product Weight Assays, % % Distribution

% Cu Ni S Cu Ni S Cleaner 2 Conc (Final) 1.40 29.9 2.36 30.3 80.1 31.0 77.3

Product Weight Assays, % % Distribution

% Pt Pd Au Pt Pd Au Cleaner 2 Conc (Final) 1.40 55.2 54.6 30.1 39.3 58.3 70.9

77

As has been observed previously, nickel mineralogy does not support good recovery

since a significant portion of the nickel is associated with unrecoverable gangue

minerals.

13.4.3 Gravity Testwork The tests confirmed the previous preliminary results and showed that a gravity circuit in

the mill flowsheet will improve the recovery of platinum group elements, especially

platinum.

Table 19 summarizes the results achieved by a simple gravity circuit ahead of flotation.

Table 19: Gravity Concentration Summary Results

Test Grind Wt Assay, g/t % Distribution

g Pt Pd Au Pt Pd Au F10 10 min 0.42 8002 285 862 62.6 4.3 23.9 F11 10 min 0.81 1965 111 313 48.2 3.6 22.8 F12 25 min 0.55 2162 222.4 438 44.5 4.8 22.1 F13 25 min 0.52 3018 186 882 44.4 3.7 32.5 F14 25 min 0.38 6220 669 1165 66.2 10.7 37 F15 25 min 0.65 2359 366 1083 57 9.6 52 F16 25 min 0.72 2445 263 1335 58.7 7 54

Platinum response to gravity concentration was positive showing that recoveries

averaging 55% and concentrate grades of up to 8,000g/t can be achieved. The tests

showed that palladium did not respond well to gravity concentration (recoveries

averaged <10%) and gold showed a variable response (22 to 54% recovery).

Flotation testing was conducted on the gravity circuit tailings slurry in an effort to recover

the non-gravity recoverable products (primarily iron sulphides, palladium and gold). The

simple flotation circuit tested previously in this program proved effective, with overall

batch results comparable to the Strathcona testwork.

78

Table 20: F14 Batch Gravity/Flotation Test Results and Summary

Product Weight Assays, % % Distribution

% Cu Ni S Cu Ni S Gravity Conc 0.02 10.5 2.83 14.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 Flotation Conc 2.17 20.4 1.39 20.6 87.8 32.9 87.2

Combined Conc 2.19 20.3 1.40 20.5 88.2 33.5 87.8

Product Weight Assays, g/t % Distribution

% Pt Pd Au Pt PD Au Gravity Conc 0.02 6220 669 1165 66.2 10.7 37.0 Flotation Conc 2.17 10.8 33.8 11.1 12.8 60.2 39.4

Combined Conc 2.19 65.9 39.4 21.3 79.0 70.9 76.4

Batch gravity/flotation test F14 represents a mid-range test. Successive tests (F15 and

F16) were run with the object of increasing the flotation circuit recovery through a

combination of residence time and/or increased collector addition. The results of this

work is shown in Table that follows:

Table 21: Batch Gravity/Flotation Test Summary

Test Wt Assays, g/t % Distribution g Pt Pd Au Pt Pd Au

F12 1.52 51.3 54.1 27.6 58.3 64.4 76.9 F13 1.42 70.7 51.8 36.2 56.5 56.2 72.2 F14 2.19 65.9 39.4 21.3 79.0 70.9 76.4 F15 2.99 37.2 33.2 20.2 81.5 78.9 88.2 F16 3.18 39.9 34.3 25.2 84.4 80.2 89.9

Excellent PGE recoveries were achieved in test F16 but the flotation concentrate

assayed only 16% copper.

It was noted that these tests show a reasonable range of achievable grade and

recovery.

79

13.4.4 Locked Cycle Flowsheet Testwork A locked cycle test was conducted to assess the effects of circulating solids and

reagents. The locked cycle flowsheet is shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Locked Cycle Flowsheet

As the Broken Hammer ore contains little pyrrhotite, the rougher flotation stage is a

simple bulk sulphide process, employing MIBC as a frother and PAX (potassium amyl-

xanthate) as a collector. Primary grind for this test was approximately 125m. Test

results are summarized in Table 22.

Rougher

Cleaner 1

Cleaner 2

Cleaner Scavenger

Gravity Concentrate

Pebble Mill

Rod Mill

Flotation Concentrate

RougherTails

ScavengerTails

80

Table 22: Locked Cycle Test Results

Element Mineral Mass Mineral Distribution

Float Sink Fines Float Sink Fines +53 -53/+10 +53 -53/+10 -10 +53 -53/+10 +53 -53/+10 -10

Ni Sulphides 0.2 0.2 1.7 1.1 0.7 35.6 16.5 7.5 3.6 36.7

Chalcopyrite 0.2 0.3 29.4 17.1 0.7 12.6 6.8 47.5 20.2 12.9

Fe Sulphides 0.0 0.1 2.0 2.1 0.3 11.7 12.0 23.2 18.1 34.9

Other Sulphides 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.1 28.6 4.9 28.2 35.2

Magnetite 0.4 0.8 16.2 20.1 0.5 24.9 20.4 24.1 21.9 8.7

Quartz 12.9 12.2 1.2 3.9 10.8 59.7 24.5 0.1 0.3 15.3

Ca-Pyriboles 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.8 48.9 30.0 0.5 0.4 20.1

Mg-Pyriboles 9.7 6.8 3.0 2.1 8.3 63.5 19.2 0.5 0.3 16.6

Talc 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.3 1.6 52.3 25.7 0.3 0.3 21.5

Feldspars 56.2 52.1 12.4 26.1 46.1 60.1 24.0 0.3 0.5 15.0

Amphibole 1.6 1.3 11.7 10.6 1.6 50.5 17.5 9.7 6.5 15.9

Chlorite 3.4 5.7 1.4 2.1 10.1 37.7 27.4 0.4 0.4 34.0

Mica 10.2 12.7 3.1 3.6 14.8 50.2 26.9 0.4 0.3 22.2

Carbonates 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 30.6 29.9 1.0 1.2 37.3

Ti Fe Oxides 0.2 0.3 8.8 3.8 0.2 24.6 18.9 34.8 11.1 10.7

Epidote 2.1 2.9 0.7 1.1 1.0 56.5 34.1 0.5 0.5 8.3

Serpentine/Olivine 0.7 1.9 5.6 3.4 0.9 35.2 40.6 7.2 3.2 13.7

Other 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.4 1.0 7.1 1.8 36.0 32.2 23.0

Total 100.0 99.9 99.4 99.3 99.8 55.1 23.8 2.2 1.8 17.1

81

Locked cycle test results were good. Copper grade was maintained over 20% while PGE

losses to the cleaner tails stream were relatively low. A total of six flotation cycles were

run after a bulk gravity concentrate was removed. The final three cycles were shown to

be stable and were used to produce the numbers in the above chart. A very salable

gravity concentrate was produced with over 3,700g/t of PGE's that contained over 60%

of the total platinum. An additional 22% platinum was recovered in the flotation

concentrate that also contained 21.6% copper and 1.35% nickel. Recovery of PGE's to

the flotation concentrate was variable, with 22% platinum, 68.4% palladium and 44.9%

of the gold. The flotation concentrate contained an overall PGE grade of more than

70g/t.

The report summed up the test work by saying, "This program of work has demonstrated

the amenability of Broken Hammer mineralization to a simple gravity/flotation circuit. The

complex Strathcona circuit used in previous testwork did not provide better metallurgical

results. Although variability in PGE grade was experienced throughout this program, the

locked cycle balance was robust and provides a good prediction of performance."

The balance of recovery between gravity concentrate and flotation concentrate in this

testwork is illustrated graphically in Figure 23 below:

82

Figure 23: Recovery Balance by Element

13.5 2011 Bulk Sample Custom Milling Arrangement

An agreement between Wallbridge and Xstrata Nickel was formed which defined the

payment terms for Xstrata Nickel’s purchase of Wallbridge material from Broken

Hammer property, near Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Wallbridge’s accountable metals are

defined based on the metallurgical recoveries of Broken Hammer metrial during the bulk

sample as processed by Xstrata Nickel. These results are considered proprietary by

Xstrata Nickel, but the Broken Hammer ore recoveries were typical of offset-style

deposits in the Sudbury camp and as such the results were successful. Final

accountabilities reflect Xstrata Nickel mill, smelting and refining recoveries to which

processing costs were applied in addition to the metal prices used at the time of

payment.

Wallbridge delivered approximately 30,000 tonnes of material from their Broken Hammer

project in July of 2011 as part of their 2011 bulk sample. The metallurgical performance

83

was favourable with metal recoveries similar to typical Sudbury basin offset-style Cu-Ni

PGE deposits. The assay results were provided by XPS Laboratories in Sudbury,

Ontario, Canada.

13.5.1 Metallurgical recoveries

Based on all metallurgical test work carried out to date for the Broken Hammer material

as well as the results of the 2011 bulk sample, Table 23 illustrates the metallurgical

recoveries predicted for the economic calculation of this report.

Table 23 : Metallurgical Recoveries

Metal Metal Recovery

Cu 94%

Ni 58%

Au 81%

Ag 63%

Pt 71%

Pd 85%

84

14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

14.1 Summary RPA has prepared an updated mineral resource estimate, “Technical Report on the

Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 27, 2012” for the Broken

Hammer Property using digital drill hole data provided by Wallbridge. Wireframe solids

were prepared by RPA and checked by Wallbridge geologists to ensure interpretational

validity. Pertinent statistics and variograms were determined for the deposit and grades

were interpolated into the blocks using Ordinary Kriging (OK) methodology. Mineral

Resources containing copper, nickel, gold, platinum, palladium, and silver were

estimated.

Table 24: Summary of Mineral Resources – July 27, 2012

Category Tonnes Cu (%) Ni (%) Pt (g/t) Pd (g/t) Au (g/t) Ag (g/t)

Indicated 231,100 0.92 0.10 2.01 1.90 0.71 6.35

Notes:

1. CIM definitions were followed for Mineral Resources. 2. Mineral Resources are estimated at a pit discard cut-off value of $11/tonne net smelter return

(NSR) value. 3. NSR values considered metal prices, metallurgical recoveries, and all off-site payments and

charges (including processing). 4. Mineral Resources are estimated using long-term metal prices of US$3.00/lb Cu, US$9.00/lb Ni,

US$750/oz Pd, US$1,600/oz Pt, US$1,300/oz Au, US$20.00/oz Ag, and a US$/C$ exchange rate of 1:1.

5. No minimum mining width was used.

14.2 Resource Database RPA received header, survey, assay, and lithology digital data from Wallbridge. This

data comprised 156 diamond drill holes for all of the Wisner area drilling totalling

26,172.06 m for an average drill hole length of 167.77 m. Analytical results were

available for 9,983 samples. For the area comprising the estimation, 68 of the 110 drill

holes intersected the 3D solids, containing 687 samples.

85

14.3 Geological Interpretation and 3d Solids Drill hole data, at a nominal spacing of 20m and including all assay data, provided the

basis for the geological interpretation and estimation of grades of resource blocks.

Strings were constructed, at 10m spaced north-south cross-sections, around

mineralization grouping assay data greater than 1.00% copper equivalent (CuEq). The

CuEq incorporated copper, nickel, gold, platinum, palladium, and silver values, relative to

copper and forecast metal prices. No recoveries were included in the CuEq formula.

These strings were then swept together to create 3D solids, using Datamine software.

Length-weighted specific gravity compositing of %CuEq was employed to determine

inclusion of assay intervals in the various grade groupings. Figure 24 provides a view of

the Broken Hammer solids and the four estimation domains (ULG, LLG, NESW,

UNESW).

14.4 Data Analysis

Assay statistics are provided in Table 25.

Table 25: Assay Statistics

Variable Number Mean St. Dev. Min. Max. CV

% Cu 757 1.87 4.84 0.002 33.19 2.58

% Ni 757 0.19 0.93 0.001 20.27 4.84

g/t Au 757 0.87 3.49 0.001 71.78 4.01

g/t Pt 757 4.81 44.61 0.001 912.00 9.27

g/t Pd 757 2.94 5.16 0.001 35.60 1.75

g/t Ag 757 7.18 12.43 0.014 146.00 1.73

86

Figure 24: Screen Capture of 3D Solids Looking North

14.5 Grade Capping The grade distribution of each estimated variable, in each deposit, was reviewed and

found to be log normal. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated, and if the CV

was above 1.0, then top-cutting was considered. Next, the Sichel’s mean was

calculated. If the Sichel’s mean was greater than the mean of the composited drill hole

file, then no action was taken. If the Sichel’s mean was less than the mean of the

composited drill hole file, iterations were run whereby top values were replaced by a top-

cut number. When the replacement of the top values by the chosen top-cut number

produced a mean that was equal to the Sichel’s mean, the appropriate top-cut number

was identified for that variable. Primarily copper and nickel values, with two platinum

values, were identified as needing to be cut and the top cut values for each domain are

listed in Table 26.

87

Table 26: Summary of Assay Grade Capping

Domain Metal Capping Value Percentile No. of Samples % of Samples

ULG Cu 16.4927 97.3862 8 2.85

Ni 2.0209 98.4110 5 1.78

LLG Cu 26.0942 98.4270 5 1.82

Ni 3.8535 99.9600 1 0.36

NESW Cu  10.0083 97.9728 3 2.31

Ni  0.8457 96.0540 6 4.62

Pt 532.6192 98.9926 2 1.54

UNESW Ni 1.5955 98.6670 1 1.41

14.6 Composite Length Analysis Table 27 summarizes the data on sample lengths and identifies the composite length

chosen. Composites were generated using Datamine Mode 1, which ensures that all

samples are included in a composite with no residuals.

Table 27: Analysis of Sample Lengths

Domain No. of

Samples Mean Min Max 95th Percentile

Composite Length

ULG 281 0.82 0.05 2.62 1.50 1.50

LLG 275 0.78 0.01 1.80 1.50 1.50

NESW 130 0.85 0.02 1.72 1.50 1.50

UNESW 71 0.69 0.02 1.50 1.30 1.30

14.7 Composited and Capped Assay Statistics The effects of capping a few higher copper and nickel grades across the domains are

seen in Table 28. Most of the CVs for the various metals are in a reasonable range

considering the type of mineralization (footwall veins). Exceptions are platinum in the

ULG domain and gold in the LLG, NESW, and UNESW domains which are known to

have erratic distributions in the veining throughout the footwall of the SIC.

88

Table 28: Analysis of Composited and Capped Assay Statistics

Domain Variable Number Mean St. Dev. Min Max CV

ULG Cu 156 1.15 2.05 0.01 13.55 1.78

Ni 156 0.13 0.20 0.13 1.77 1.59

Au 156 0.52 0.62 0.01 3.93 1.19

Pt 156 2.61 6.42 0.003 52.20 2.46

Pd 156 2.19 3.36 0.003 21.25 1.53

Ag 156 9.20 16.53 0.34 146.00 1.80

LLG Cu 145 1.10 1.97 0.01 15.32 1.80

Ni 145 0.09 0.13 0.002 1.05 1.42

Au 145 0.80 2.59 0.001 27.32 3.24

Pt 145 1.30 1.51 0.003 10.60 1.16

Pd 145 2.07 2.97 0.001 22.37 1.43

Ag 145 5.10 5.44 0.34 29.58 1.07

NESW Cu 72 0.70 1.51 0.02 10.01 2.14

Ni 72 0.07 0.11 0.005 0.62 1.57

Au 72 0.86 2.24 0.007 17.39 2.60

Pt 72 3.63 6.04 0.003 38.61 1.66

Pd 72 2.74 3.50 0.041 20.07 1.28

Ag 72 6.60 7.20 0.15 45.14 1.09

UNESW Cu 39 0.68 0.55 0.13 2.89 0.82

Ni 39 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.52 1.22

Au 39 0.60 1.48 0.02 9.46 2.46

Pt 39 1.39 2.18 0.05 13.77 1.57

Pd 39 1.54 1.09 0.15 5.23 0.71

Ag 39 5.30 5.05 0.68 26.58 0.95

14.8 Missing Sulphur Values There are 111 samples in the database with missing sulphur determinations. A

regression against copper produced the most favourable R2 value. This regression was

used to generate sulphur values for any missing analytical data as seen in Figure 25

below.

89

Figure 25: Regression for Sulphur

14.9 Specific Gravity Versus Sulphur Specific gravity determinations were performed by ALS Chemex on a total of 300 sample

pulps. Regressions against the major elements were attempted. The regression of

specific gravity versus sulphur greater than 2.00% generated an acceptable R2 value as

seen in Figure 26 below.

y = 0.9276x + 0.054R² = 0.9884

 ‐

 5.00

 10.00

 15.00

 20.00

 25.00

 30.00

 35.00

 ‐  5.00  10.00  15.00  20.00  25.00  30.00  35.00

S (%

)

Cu (%)

S vs Cun=646

90

Figure 26: Specific Gravity Versus Sulphur

14.10 Variography, Interpolation Parameters, And Block Models

Directionless variograms were generated, which provided a nugget and a sill. The

search ellipse was then modified to accommodate the geometry of the domains.

Variograms were generated for each of the estimated variables in each of the four

domains (Table 29).

y = 0.0008x2 + 0.0158x + 2.73R² = 0.8245

 ‐

 0.50

 1.00

 1.50

 2.00

 2.50

 3.00

 3.50

 4.00

 ‐  5.00  10.00  15.00  20.00  25.00

SG Pulp

S

SG Pulps vs S>2.00

91

Table 29: Variography Parameters

ULG Structure Nugget X Range Y Range Z Range

Cu Spherical 1.607 19 19 6

Ni Spherical 0.004 21 21 7

Au Spherical 0.246 5 5 2

Pt Spherical 9.884 13 13 4

Pd Spherical 1.737 23 23 8

Ag Spherical 27.5 27 27 9

SG Spherical 0.004 13 13 4

LLG Structure Nugget X Range Y Range Z Range

Cu Spherical 1.144 16 16 5

Ni Spherical 0.005 17 17 6

Au Spherical 3.616 11 11 4

Pt Spherical 0.59 13 13 4

Pd Spherical 3.395 12 12 4

Ag Spherical 15.498 17 17 6

SG Spherical 0.001 23 23 8

NESW Structure Nugget X Range Y Range Z Range

Cu Spherical 0.598 13 13 4

Ni Spherical 0.004 13 13 4

Au Spherical 2 12 12 4

Pt Spherical 16 12 12 4

Pd Spherical 3.184 13 13 4

Ag Spherical 21.587 12 12 4

SG Spherical 0.004 12 12 4

UNESW Structure Nugget X Range Y Range Z Range

Cu Spherical 0.111 18 18 6

Ni Spherical 0.004 10 10 3

Au Spherical 0.672 12 12 4

Pt Spherical 1.292 9 9 3

Pd Spherical 0.277 14 14 5

Ag Spherical 5.904 16 16 5

SG Spherical 0.001 12 12 4

92

Individual block models, with blocks measuring 5m x 5m x 5m, with level 3 sub-celling,

were created for each 3D solid. Each 3D solid had unique assay data, top-cutting, and

composite length. These individual block models were then combined to produce a

combined block model. This approach ensured there were no cross-contamination of

grades and allowed review and validation of the geometry of the grade groupings.

The estimation strategy consisted of three passes, with the orientation of the search

ellipsoid fit to the wireframe (as with the variogram ellipses) and with the search distance

of the first two passes equal to the range of the variogram. A minimum of four

composites and a maximum of 12 composites were required within the search ellipsoid

to estimate a grade. In the first pass, if the required composites were not found, the

block was not estimated. The second pass used 1.5 times the search distances to

estimate grades. If the minimum number of composites was not found, then no grades

were estimated for the block. The third pass used eight times the ranges of the first

pass. No octant search or maximum number of composites per drill hole was used.

Interpolation of variables into the blocks was completed using OK. An estimate was also

generated using inverse distance squared (ID2) and nearest neighbour (NN)

methodologies. This was done to expose any major errors in the kriging parameters.

Results were as expected (Figure 27) and confirmed that OK is an appropriate

estimation method.

Figure 27: Comparison of Estimation Methods

93

14.11 NSR Calculation It is currently assumed that values for nickel, copper, and PGEs will contribute to the

economics of the deposit. An NSR was calculated for each block based on the

estimated metal grades, reasonable long term metal prices, estimated recoveries for

each metal, and treatment terms for processing raw ore to saleable metal. These

parameters are listed in Table 30 below.

Table 30: NSR Parameters Metal Price ($) Mill Recovery (%)

Copper 3.00/lb 94.0

Nickel 9.00/lb 58.0

Palladium 750/oz 85.0

Platinum 1,600/oz 71.0

Gold 1,300/oz 81.0

Silver 20.00/oz 63.0

The NSR factors also include:

Milling and concentration charges for raw ore Smelter treatment charges for a bulk nickel-copper concentrate Refining charges for each metal Payable percentages

The resulting NSR calculation is as follows:

NSR= (Cu % x 26.70) + (Ni % x 59.14) + (Pd g/t x 10.53) + (Pt g/t x 18.82) + (Au g/t x

17.44 + (Ag g/t x 0.133)

It should be noted that the details of the treatment charges are based on a confidential

agreement with Xstrata for the processing of the previous bulk sample. Terms for the

project will be subject to future negotiations and may differ from those used for the

resource estimate.

14.12 NSR Cut-off The NSR cut-off grade of $11/t was defined as the minimum NSR value to cover the

estimated crushing and G&A cost at Broken Hammer. The ore transport from the mine to

94

the mill processing facilities and the milling cost are included in the NSR factors

presented in the NSR Calculation section. The metal prices are presented on Table 30

and they are based on consensus, long term forecasts from banks and financial

institutions.

14.13 Classification of The Mineral Resource The Broken Hammer deposit has been drilled at an average spacing of 20m. This

spacing and the consistency of geometric shape, combined with the confidence resulting

from the bulk sample, resulted in a classification as an Indicated Resource. Figure 28

shows the distribution of drill hole spacing.

Figure 28: Distribution of Drill Hole Spacing

95

Figures 29 and 30 on the following pages are cross sections showing CuEq grade

distribution.

96

Figure 29: North-South Cross Section 497,315E

97

Figure 30: North-South Cross Section 497,235E

98

14.14 Summary of Mineral Resource Estimate Based on the assumption that there is potential to establish a mining operation using a

custom mill facility, reasonable parameters were used to fit a preliminary pit to the

Broken Hammer deposit. Generally due to the small remnant tonnages, the

mineralization continuing beyond the pit walls was considered not to be economic using

reasonable underground mining costs. Near-surface resources potentially mined by

open pit methods are reported. The following open pit parameters were used:

Open pit mining costs of $6.85/tonne of ore and $4.00 per tonne of waste moved

Crushing costs of $6.00/tonne

General and Administration costs of $5.73/tonne mined

Metal prices of US$3.00/lb Cu, US$9.00/lb Ni, US$750/oz Pd, US$1,600/oz Pt, US$1,300/oz Au, and US$20.00/oz Ag

Table 31 below lists the Mineral Resources in the Broken Hammer deposit.

Table 31: Summary of Mineral Resources – July 27, 2012

Category Tonnes Cu (%) Ni (%) Pt (g/t) Pd (g/t) Au (g/t) Ag (g/t)

Indicated 231,100 0.92 0.10 2.01 1.90 0.71 6.35

Notes:

1. CIM definitions were followed for Mineral Resources. 2. Mineral Resources are estimated at a pit discard cut-off value of $11/tonne NSR value. 3. NSR values considered metal prices, metallurgical recoveries, and all off-site payments and

charges (including processing). 4. Mineral Resources are estimated using long-term metal prices of US$3.00/lb Cu, US$9.00/lb Ni,

US$750/oz Pd, US$1,600/oz Pt, US$1,300/oz Au, US$20.00/oz Ag, and a US$/C$ exchange rate of 1:1.

5. No minimum mining width was used.

14.15 Mineral Resource Validation Validation of the Mineral Resources was completed using the following methods:

Visual verification of block grades and drill hole assays and composites, on cross-sections.

Q-Q Plots comparing the regularized block model copper equivalent grades to the composited drill hole CuEq grades (Figure 31).

99

Comparing histograms of CuEq grades for the regularized block model with the

composited drill hole file. Swath plots in plan, west to east sections, and south to north sections at 20 m

intervals (Figures 32, 33, and 34).

Figure 31: Q-Q-Plot Regularized Block Model and Composited Drill Hole File

Figure 32: Swath Plot Longitudinal Section West to East

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95

Gra

de

(% C

uE

q)

Quantiles

Q-Q Plot - CuEq

AllCmps

Regmod

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Cu

Eq

(%

)

Sections

# of SmpsAllCmpRegAllmod

100

Figure 33: Swath Plot Cross Section South to North

Figure 34: Swath Plot Plans at 20 Metre Elevations

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Cu

Eq

(%

)

Sections

# of SmpsAllCmpRegAllmod

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

CuE

q (%

)

Elevations

# of SmpsAllCmpRegAllmod

101

14.16 Mineral Resource Reconciliation The mineralized portion of the bulk sample pit material totalled 26,324 tonnes grading

1.61% Cu, 0.12% Ni, 2.16 g/t Pt, 2.28 g/t Pd, and 0.74 g/t Au. The 2012 resource model

returned a total of 24,003 tonnes grading 1.56% Cu, 0.10% Ni, 1.97g/t Pt, 2.81g/t Pd and

0.51g/t Au for the same volume of mineralization.

RPA is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic,

marketing, political, or other relevant factors which may materially affect the Mineral

Resource estimate. RPA is also not aware of any mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, or

other relevant factor that would materially affect the Mineral Resource estimate.

102

15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE

15.1 Mineral Reserves

Mineral Reserves, as per the mine production schedule, are reported in Table 32.

Mineral Reserves are based on Indicated Mineral Resources only, as there are no

Measured Resources in the model, and Inferred Resources are too geologically

speculative to be used as a basis for Mineral Reserves. There are no Inferred

Resources within the final pit limits.

Table 32: Probable Mineral Reserves

Category Tonnes Cu (%) Ni (%) Pt (g/t) Pd (g/t) Au (g/t) Ag (g/t)

Probable 196,605 0.92 0.10 1.92 1.83 0.64 6.02

Notes:

1. CIM definitions were followed for Mineral Reserves. 2. Mineral Reserves are estimated at a NSR cut-off grades of 53.21 $/t. 3. Mineral Reserves are estimated using an average price of US$1,600 per ounce for Platinum,

US$750 per ounce for Palladium, US$20 per ounce for Silver, US$9.00 per pound for Nickel and US$3.00 per pound for Copper.

4. Mineral Reserves include 95.0% mining recovery and 5.0% mining dilution.

The pit design limits are in the area where Wallbridge Mining extracted a 30,000 tonne

bulk sample. The bulk sample pit was based on three-metre benches drilled on a 2m x

2m pattern. The mining production schedule was also based on a three-metre bench

height, with design criteria considering the same mining equipment used on the bulk

sample pit.

The footprint of the final pit is under 3.0ha, 170m by 250m, the maximum length east-

west. The bottom bench is 319 MASL and the main ramp accesses the pit at 397 MASL.

Further details on the generation of the Mineral Reserve pit design are contained in the

following section of this Report.

103

16 MINING METHOD

The mining of Wallbridge's Broken Hammer deposit will follow the standard practice of a

small drill/blast open pit with mucking operations utilizing a fleet of mine trucks loaded by

excavators. The mining methods and the open pit mining rate will be similar to that

employed in the 2011 bulk sample (~800 tonnes of ore per day). Since the overall size of

the open pit will be considerably larger, the waste rock mining rate of ~5,200 tonnes per

day will be considerably larger than the 2,200 tonne per day waste rock mining rate

employed during mining of the bulk sample. The Broken Hammer mine will operate on a

continuous single shift basis for an approximate twelve month duration.

16.1 Basic Mine Plan The mine plan was based on creation of a simple pit design with a maximum of 55

degrees overall pit slope including access ramps. Tetra Tech was retained by Wallbridge

to complete a prefeasibility level geotechnical investigation of the open pit slopes, the

report “Broken Hammer Zone Project Pre-Feasibility Pit Slope Design - April 2012”

contains the pit slope recommendations applied on the pit design.

The mining operations will be performed by a mining contractor using conventional open

pit mining methods (truck and shovel), using a 6m bench height. Wallbridge plans to

pattern the mining plan after the selective mining that was performed during the bulk

sample. When mining in the ore, to allow selective mining and minimize waste rock

dilution, Wallbridge will be developing the 6m bench height in two 3m sub-benches.

Waste rock mining in zones free of mineralization will employ a 6m bench height. Mining

grade control measures will include geological mapping of each bench, sampling and

analyzing the drill cuttings of each blast hole by an XRF instrument and separating the

resource from the waste rock in each bench blast.

The mine plan will be in effect for 12 months of operation, mining from the 400m

elevation down to the 319m elevation.

104

The bulk sample pit was mined in the east end of the deposit down to the 398m

elevation. The current pit plan expands the 400m elevation first bench in the east end of

the pit to an area almost twice the size of the bulk sample pit and opens an area of near

equal size area in the west shown in Figure 35. Mining, which begins in the second

month of the schedule averages approximately 5,800 tonnes per day and peaks in the

eighth month at the rate of approximately 8,000 tpd. The mining rate trails off near the

end of the schedule with 3,800tpd scheduled in the eleventh month and 1,600tpd in the

twelfth and final month.

Mining in the mineralized zone will employ a 3m bench height. The current mining plan

has the bottom bench set at 319m, which equates to a maximum pit depth of 90m in

relation to the highest point on the pit perimeter which is located at the extreme east end

of the pit.

105

Figure 35: Open Pit Model

106

16.1.1 Model Coordinate System The model coordinate system used in the pit design is UTM NAD 27.

16.1.2 Open Pit Optimization

In accordance with the guidelines of the National Instruments NI 43-101 on Standards of

Disclosure for Mineral Projects and the Canadian Institute of Mine Metallurgy and

Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, blocks

classified in the indicated resource category are suitable for use in estimating probable

mineral reserves.

Whittle® 4.4 software, based on the Lerchs-Grossman (LG) optimization algorithm, was

used to evaluate the economic pit shell for the deposit. The assumptions used as inputs

into the Pit Optimization are summarized in Table 33. The nested pits were derived

applying increasing revenue factors on the products prices; the revenue factor of 1.0

represents the pit shell at the evaluation prices presented on Table 33.

107

Table 33: Pit Optimization Parameters

Items Units Value Comments

Metal Prices

Platinum US$/troy oz 1600 -

Palladium US$/troy oz 750

Silver US$/troy oz 20

Gold US$/troy oz 1300

Nickel US$/lb 9

Copper US$/lb 3

Cobalt US$/lb 0

Metal Recoveries

Platinum % 70.6  -

Palladium % 85.2 

Silver % 62.6 

Gold % 81.0 

Nickel % 58.4 

Copper % 93.0 

Cobalt % 37.3 

Payable Metal

Platinum % 80.0  -

Palladium % 80.0 

Silver % 60.0 

Gold % 80.0 

Nickel % 88.0 

Copper % 88.0 

Cobalt % 50.0 

Operating Costs

Mining Cost - Waste $/t mined 4.0 -

Mining Cost - Ore $/t mined 8.85

Crushing $/t milled 6.0

G&A $/t milled 5.0

Ore transport to Mill $/wmt milled 9.0 4% Ore Moisture

Ore Mill $/t milled 30.0 -

Selling Costs Treatment $/t conc. 285.0

Refining Platinum $/oz 15.0

Refining Palladium $/oz 15.0

Refining Silver $/oz 0.65

Refining Gold $/oz 15.0

Refining Nickel $/lb 0.75

Refining Copper $/lb 0.55

Refining Cobalt $/lb 2.5

Nickel Price Participation % 6.0 7.0 $/lb Base Price

Royalty % 1.5

Mining Recovery % 95 ‐ 

Mining Dilution % 5 ‐ 

Overall Slope Angle Degrees 55 -

Concentrate Cu Grade % 20 ‐ 

Concentrate Moisture % 7 ‐ 

Mill Throughput t/d 800 -

t/a 280,000 -

108

The pit geometry selection was based on the revenue factor of 1.0, additionally a

revenue factor of 1.1 was analyzed to explore the pit potential at higher prices, but the

stripping ratio is higher for the nested pit at 1.1 revenue factor, adding about 386

thousand tonnes of waste and only 16 thousand tonnes of ore. Pit optimization results

are shown in Table 34.

Table 34: Pit Optimization Results Total Mill Feed Unit Revenue Factor 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 tonnes 126,281 168,515 187,999 197,056 213,348

Pd g/t 2.149 1.955 1.874 1.841 1.832 Pt g/t 2.175 2.057 1.990 1.949 1.945

Au g/t 0.762 0.678 0.650 0.638 0.691 Ag g/t 6.670 6.224 6.174 6.105 6.110 Ni % 0.121 0.107 0.101 0.099 0.096

Cu % 1.150 1.011 0.949 0.927 0.887 Co %

Waste tonnes 848,344 1,132,516 1,245,401 1,299,633 1,685,145 Strip Ratio 6.72 6.72 6.62 6.60 7.90

TOTAL Mined tonnes 974,625

1,301,031 1,433,400 1,496,689 1,898,493

16.1.3 Density A density of 2.73 was used for the waste and the geologic block model density of 2.76

was used for ore.

16.1.4 Mill Cut-off Grade

The NSR cutoff grade calculation was based on parameters shown in Table 32 including

a 5 percent dilution factor. The minimum NSR ore value applied was $50/t, consisting of

costs for incremental ore mining, crushing, G&A, ore transport, and milling. This cut-off

value represents a pit discard value, valid only within the pit generated using those

inputs.

109

16.2 Detailed Mine Design

The conservative mine design used in this study was completed using conventional mine

planning software, Vulcan® 8.1.4. The general parameters used in the pit design are

described in Table 35.

Table 35: Detailed Mine Design Parameters

Parameter Value

Mining Bench Height 6 m Catch Bench Width @ 21m 12.1 m

Bench Face Slope 83°

Overall Pit Slope 55°

Ramp Width (2-lane main ramp) 13.7 m

Ramp Width (1-lane secondary) 10.2 m

Main Ramp Slope 12%

The width of the in-pit haulage ramp is 13.7m to accommodate the 35 tonne articulated

off-highway trucks, with allocation for safety berms and a drainage ditch. This ramp will

provide sufficient room for two-way traffic to minimize the truck cycle time and maximize

productivities. Ramps of 10.2m widths (single lane) will be used in the lower benches at

the bottom of the pit. The main pit ramp has been restricted to a 12% grade.

16.2.1 Geotechnical Parameters Tetra Tech was retained by Wallbridge Broken Hammer to complete a prefeasibility level

geotechnical investigation and subsequent design of the open pit slopes for the Project

in January 2012. A geotechnical investigation program was completed by Tetra Tech at

the Broken Hammer Zone property between January 3 and 8, 2012.

The current geotechnical model incorporates two major geological domains: Sudbury

Breccia and the Archean Levack Gneiss Complex. The intact rock strengths were found

to be generally strong for all rock types encountered. Combining the intact rock

properties and characteristics of the observed discontinuities allowed the rock mass

quality to be classified as FAIR and GOOD according to the Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

110

classification system (Bieniawski, 1989). The groundwater level was measured in

existing open exploration drillholes and was located near ground surface.

The open pit slope design criteria incorporates geological information provided by

Wallbridge in combination with geotechnical, structural, and hydrogeological data

collected by Tetra Tech from three previously drilled exploration drillholes. The

geotechnical assessment consisted of detailed geotechnical core logging and laboratory

testing of lithological units located throughout the deposit area.

The scoping to Pre-Feasibility level pit slope design is based on the currently available

geotechnical data collected by Tetra Tech from the three previous exploration drillholes

and geological information provided by Wallbridge. Additional data collection is required

to advance this design to the Feasibility level. No drillholes have been completed in the

open pit area specifically for geotechnical or hydrogeological purposes. Geotechnical

drillholes are required in this area to properly characterize the rock mass and geological

discontinuities within the final pit walls.

The overall slope angle for the current scoping to Pre-Feasibility study is recommended

to be 55 degrees in each pit design sector due to the limited amount of geotechnical and

hydrogeological data within the proposed pit area. Through the collection of additional

geotechnical and hydrogeological site data, there is potential to increase the overall

slope angle in the next design stage.

111

Figure 36: Planned Open Pit - 3D

16.3 Designed Pit

The mineral reserves outlined in the designed pit total 196,605 tonnes of ore. The

average grade is estimated to be 1.83g/t Palladium, 1.92g/t Platinum, 0.64g/t Gold,

6.02g/t Silver, 0.10% Nickel and 0.92% Copper. Mineral reserves are sufficient for 12

months of mine operation.

The total waste material amounts to 1.7 million tonnes of waste rock resulting in a

stripping ratio of 8.7. The pit optimization results on Table 33 shows a stripping ratio of

6.6 at a revenue factor of 1.0, the waste increase of about 400 thousand tonnes is

related to design criteria adopted to maximize the ore extraction, ramps and minimum

mining width.

16.3.1 Dilution and Loss Factors

A global mining recovery of 95% and a dilution of 5% were applied. Dilution was

estimated at zero grade.

112

16.4 Mining Equipment Wallbridge Mining extracted a 30,000 tonne bulk sample from the Broken Hammer Zone

in the first quarter of 2011. It is proposed that the operation will be carried out using the

similar equipment type operated by the contractor during the bulk sample, with an

equipment fleet comprising 75mm production blast drills, 3.2m3 hydraulic backhoe

excavators for ore and waste loading and a fleet of 35t articulated haul trucks for both

ore and waste haulage.

16.5 Mine Development Schedule

The mine development schedule illustrates timing of the early priority activities such as

setup of the staging area infrastructure, construction of the mine water settling pond and

crushing/sampling area facilities.

Ore mining is scheduled to commence two months following the waste rock stripping

operations that begin at the west end of the ore zone.

Although the ore mining schedule in month twelve is reduced due to ore access

constraints in the bottom of the pit, a small amount of ore is scheduled for shipment

offsite in the month following completion of mining activities.

Mine closure activities will commence as mining activities wind down in the latter months

of the mining schedule. Mine water sampling will be required after site closure activities

to confirm water quality stability.

Table 36 illustrates the mine development schedule activities.

113

Table 36 : Mine Development Schedule

ACTIVITY MONTH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

     

Mine Access Road Improvements      

     

Setup Staging Area Infrastructure      

     

Site Roadway Construction      

     

Crushing/Sampling Area Construction      

     

Settling Pond Construction      

     

Pit De-watering      

     

Crushing Plant Installation      

     

Sample Tower Installation      

     

Waste Rock Mining      

     

Overburden Stripping      

     

Ore Mining      

     

Shipments to Custom Mill      

     

Mine Closure Activities                               Water sampling continues as required                                                   

114

16.6 Mine Production Schedule

Using the designed ultimate pit and economic cut-off grade, a detailed production

schedule was completed. The schedule was constructed around a 600t/d crusher feed.

Operational constraints were considered in the mining sequence opening a maximum of

two benches per month. Scheduling was conducted by month.

The mine production schedule for the pit is based on early overburden and waste rock

stripping of the extreme west end of the pit that will utilize a temporary road that was

used by the diamond drill and geotechnical drillers. This early stripping program of more

than 150,000 tonnes will provide sufficient waste rock to construct much of the

infrastructure planned to support the mine operation. This early waste rock stripping

program will occur concurrently with the mine infrastructure development program.

The mine production schedule includes priority scheduling of the mine water settling

pond, the crushing and sampling area and the new mine access road that will allow

construction of the large on-site waste rock pile. Following construction completion of the

mine water settling pond, the bulk sample pit will be dewatered to allow mine

development in the east end of the pit.

Crushing and sampling is scheduled to begin in month three with approximately 30,000

tonnes of mineralized material mined from the east end of the pit. During the half-loading

period (approximately late April through early June) shipping will be suspended and the

crushed/sampled material will be stockpiled on site. Depending on which custom mill is

chosen, most of the production during the first half of the schedule may be stockpiled on-

site to provide a constant mill delivery rate through the remaining half of the mine

schedule.

Since much of the area is exposed bedrock the amount of overburden stripping has

been estimated to be only 6,500 cubic metres. During the second month of the schedule

115

approximately 7,200 tonnes of rockwork is planned to provide sufficient width for the new

mine access road at the top of the hill.

The mine production schedule is based on mining crews working 10 hours per day on a

5 on 5 off schedule that averages 35 hours per week over a ten week period. Table 37

shows the summary of the mine production schedule.

Table 38 illustrates the ore and waste rock that has been estimated for each 3m mining

bench.

116

Table 37: Production Schedule

Months

Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Capitalized:

Overburden tonnes 0 0 0 6,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,500 Operating:

Mined Waste tonnes 0 75,366 78,037 178,680 218,319 226,335 226,679 216,133 196,169 195,248 70,684 29,123 1,710,771 Mined Ore tonnes 0 0 0 29,672 14,322 9,306 9,293 25,713 41,372 43,035 16,324 7,568 196,605 Total Mined tonnes 0 75,366 78,037 208,352 232,641 235,641 235,971 241,846 237,541 238,282 87,008 36,691 1,907,376

Mined Waste

Waste tonnes 0 75,366 78,037 178,680 218,319 226,335 226,679 216,133 196,169 195,248 70,684 29,123 1,710,771 Total

Waste tonnes 0 75,366 78,037 178,680 218,319 226,335 226,679 216,133 196,169 195,248 70,684 29,123 1,710,771

Mined Ore

INDICATED tonnes 0 0 0 29,672 14,322 9,306 9,293 25,713 41,372 43,035 16,324 7,568 196,605 Cu % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.01 1.10 1.60 1.09 1.06 0.76 0.37 0.22 0.92 Ni % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.10 Au g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.475 0.616 0.714 0.650 0.827 0.806 0.579 0.385 0.559 0.639 Ag g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.431 7.062 8.356 5.391 5.095 5.021 5.297 5.204 6.855 6.016 Pt g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.528 2.272 2.729 1.777 1.189 1.155 2.192 3.484 3.761 1.922 Pd g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.535 2.039 2.420 2.501 1.868 1.948 1.804 1.380 2.190 1.861

Mill Feed INDICATED tonnes 0 0 0 29,672 14,322 9,306 9,293 25,713 41,372 43,035 16,324 7,568 196,605

Cu % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.01 1.10 1.60 1.09 1.06 0.76 0.37 0.22 0.92 Ni % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.10 Au g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.475 0.616 0.714 0.650 0.827 0.806 0.579 0.385 0.559 0.639 Ag g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.431 7.062 8.356 5.391 5.095 5.021 5.297 5.204 6.855 6.016 Pt g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.528 2.272 2.729 1.777 1.189 1.155 2.192 3.484 3.761 1.922 Pd g/t 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.535 2.039 2.420 2.501 1.868 1.948 1.804 1.380 2.190 1.861

117

Table 38: Broken Hammer Pit Bench Tonnages

Bench  Indicated Ore   Waste Rock  TOTAL 

Elevation  Tonnes 

409  46  509  555 

406  518  3,983  4,501 

403  1,017  11,464  12,481 

400  3,575  30,642  34,216 

397  5,784  69,237  75,021 

394  6,675  90,846  97,520 

391  13,397  139,336  152,732 

388  10,189  146,552  156,741 

385  6,984  144,584  151,568 

382  5,115  139,585  144,700 

379  3,235  128,641  131,876 

376  6,057  98,038  104,095 

373  7,633  92,231  99,864 

370  9,049  86,553  95,602 

367  15,051  62,250  77,301 

364  11,421  61,627  73,048 

361  11,330  57,481  68,812 

358  12,601  52,160  64,761 

355  8,838  52,289  61,127 

352  8,488  49,208  57,696 

349  9,556  44,930  54,486 

346  10,342  30,787  41,129 

343  8,301  25,763  34,064 

340  5,868  25,020  30,887 

337  4,334  21,573  25,906 

334  3,633  16,362  19,995 

331  2,658  13,920  16,578 

328  2,453  8,014  10,467 

325  1,891  5,379  7,269 

322  514  1,459  1,974 

319  52  351  403 

TOTALS  196,605  1,710,771  1,907,376 

The individual pit benches of the pit design are illustrated in figures 37 to 64 as follows:

118

Figure 37: Pit Bench 400

Figure 38: Pit Bench 397

119

Figure 39: Pit Bench 394

Figure 40: Pit Bench 391

120

Figure 41: Pit Bench 388

Figure 42: Pit Bench 385

121

Figure 43: Pit Bench 382

Figure 44: Pit Bench 379

122

Figure 45: Pit Bench 376

Figure 46: Pit Bench 373

123

Figure 47: Pit Bench 370

Figure 48: Pit Bench 367

124

Figure 49: Pit Bench 364

Figure 50: Pit Bench 361

125

Figure 51: Pit Bench 358

Figure 52: Pit Bench 355

126

Figure 53: Pit Bench 352

Figure 54: Pit Bench 349

127

Figure 55: Pit Bench 346

Figure 56: Pit Bench 343

128

Figure 57: Pit Bench 340

Figure 58: Pit Bench 337

129

Figure 59: Pit Bench 334

Figure 60: Pit Bench 331

130

Figure 61: Pit Bench 328

Figure 62: Pit Bench 325

131

Figure 63: Pit Bench 322

Figure 64: Pit Bench 319

132

16.7 Waste Material Management During the first three months of mining approximately 160,000t of waste rock will be

produced during early mine development. This waste rock will be used to construct the

new mine access road, the mine water settling pond dikes and the crushing/sampling

area. Beginning in the fourth month the mine waste rock developed from mining

operations will be disposed of in the mine waste rock pile located to the south of the

open pit. For the prefeasibility study no allowance was made for removal of the

overburden in the waste rock pile area as the overburden covering the bedrock was

estimated to average less than one metre in thickness and be composed mainly of

competent sand and gravel. For the feasibility study a detailed geotechnical investigation

is recommended to confirm the stability of the soils beneath the planned waste rock pile.

Table 39: Waste Rock Required for Mine Infrastructure Construction

Priority Location Cu M Tonnes Cumulative 1 Upgrade Access Road to Pit 10,500 16,800 16,8002 South Dike & New Roadway to Pit 12,778 20,444 37,2443 North Dike Access Road 8,438 13,500 50,7444 North Dike 6,119 9,791 60,5355 10% Up Ramp to top of hill 15,806 25,290 85,8256 Crushing/Sampling Area 15,486 24,778 110,6037 10% (Max) Down Ramp 28,603 45,765 156,3688 10% Up Ramp to Waste Stockpile 5,740 9,184 165,552

TOTAL WASTE ROCK REQUIREMENTS 103,470 165,552

16.8 Waste Pile Design A total of approximately 985,600 cubic metres of waste rock (1.6M tonnes) will be mined

from the Broken Hammer open pit and disposed of on the mine waste rock pile. The

northern slope of the waste rock pile has been designed to extend within 6m of the pit

crest and have an overall slope of 36 degrees. The southern side of the pile is designed

to extend to the watershed boundary and retain the slope of 36 degrees. A 10% ramp

133

will be constructed on the east side of the pile and extend from the open pit to the top of

the pile.

The waste rock pile has the following design parameters: - Face angle: 36 degrees - Pile height (maximum dimension): 41.0m - Storage capacity (as designed): 985,600m3 - Area Base of pile: 53,800m2 - Area top of pile: 12,300m2 Genivar assessed the general stability of the waste rock slopes using a 2-D Limit

Equilibrium Method (Bishops Method). The slope was modeled in CLARA/W software

(O. Hungr Research 2001), and the following parameters were assumed for the waste

rock material:

- unit weight 18kN/m3,

- angle of internal friction 42 degrees,

- peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) for seismic loadings of 0.15 times gravity.

Modeling results indicated a factor of safety (FoS) of 1.39 for the static condition and

1.05 for the seismic (pseudo-static) condition. For this study the slope was considered to

be at a maximum to optimize dump volume and it was assumed that the waste rock

slope and sandy foundation soil overlying the bedrock will remain well drained. In these

conditions static liquefaction is not expected to be a concern for the foundation material.

Genivar qualified the assessment by adding: Evidence of the waste rock pile creep,

tension cracks or other movement should be monitored frequently during placement and

during all stages of mining in the pit. If necessary the waste rock slopes should be

flattened and/or benched if signs of instability are observed.

The following recommendation has been added to Section 25 of this pre-feasibility

report:

134

A feasibility level geotechnical study of the planned mine waste rock pile be

performed including a detailed characterization of the base material upon which

the pile will be located.

16.9 Mine Operation Wallbridge's Broken Hammer project will be mined in a similar manner as the 2011

30,000 tonne bulk sample - excavators loading articulated trucks - a small open pit

mining operation utilizing 3m benches. All of the mining equipment will be diesel

powered.

The mining fleet requirement was calculated based on the production schedule

presented in Table 36. All equipment is assumed to be owned, operated and maintained

by independent mining contractors. The mine will operate on a 10 hour per day

production schedule. Two crews, each working a continuous 5 day, on/off schedule, will

provide the necessary coverage to allow continuous dayshift mining operations for 12

months to develop and mine the 196,600 tonnes of ore that has been identified by RPA.

The selection of the mining fleet is based on the production rate, mechanical availability

and utility factors of the equipment, as well as the average cycle time estimates based

on annual haulage profiles.

16.9.1 Loading and Hauling The equipment planned for loading and hauling is similar to what was used during the

successful 2011 bulk sample. Cat 725 (35 tonne) articulated trucks were selected. These

units are four wheel drive and capable of navigating steep temporary ramps in winter

conditions. The number of trucks operating at any given time is dependent upon the

monthly production rate and varies over the course of the mine.

Cat 345 excavators with 3.2m3 buckets were selected to perform the digging and truck

loading operations involved in the overburden removal and broken ore and waste rock

created in the mining operations. These units are capable of working the 6m bench

heights that will used in optimum waste rock stripping operations.

135

16.9.2 Other Support Equipment A Cat 140K grader will be used to maintain the mine access roadway, mine ramp and

local access roads.

Mine dozing requirements will be performed by a Cat D6 dozer.

When required a tanker water truck will be used to apply water to the gravel roadways to

prevent dusting conditions.

A pan feeder will be used to allow the mine trucks to dump directly on the feeder

conveying the trucked mine ore to the primary crusher.

Cat 966 wheel loaders will be used for cleanup around the crushing operation, loading

the crushed ore into the highway haulers and pushing waste rock piles on the waste rock

storage pile.

Other mine support facilities will be composed of:

- A mobile equipment fueling station

- A pit dewatering system and pipeline to the mine water settling pond

16.9.3 Equipment – Fleet Requirements Equipment requirements were based on the specifications and productivity guidelines as

provided in the Caterpillar Performance Handbook. Included in these calculations were

factors that included equipment availability, operator skill/efficiency, general operational

efficiency and an allowance for blasting delays.

Auxiliary support equipment requirements were determined primarily based on the

location and scale of the operation. Other factors considered included the size of the

waste rock pile and length of the haulage roads requiring maintenance.

136

A complete list of the major mine and auxiliary support equipment is listed in Table 40.

Table 40: Monthly Mine Equipment Requirements

16.9.4 Manpower Requirements Wallbridge manpower requirements for the mine operation include staff working to

support the operations and includes a four member geology group whose primary

function will be grade control. Other support staff include security/first aid, mine

samplers, assayers and a surveyor.

Contractor personnel required to operate the crushing, sampling operations and mine

production equipment on each crew during the peak production month include three

excavator operators, up to seven mine haulage truck operators, two loader operators

and one operator for each of the dozing, grading and water tanker dust control functions.

Production drilling during the peak month will require up to three drills. A two person

crew will perform the blasting function.

Genivar estimates that during the peak production month manpower at the Broken

Hammer mine will total 53 people.

Since the mining equipment costs have been estimated on an operated cost per hour

basis (including maintenance) no allowance for maintenance personnel has been

included in the estimates. Numerous well equipped mobile equipment maintenance

137

shops are located in the City of Greater Sudbury. This fact supports the assumption that

all of the major equipment maintenance will be performed offsite.

The number of operators required for the major mining equipment (excavators and haul

trucks) was determined according to the number of operating units. Manpower

requirements as shown in Table 41, are based on a two crew rotation, each working a

five day on - five day off continuous dayshift schedule of 10 hours per day to support the

7 day per week mining operation.

Table 41: Monthly Personnel Requirements

Recovery Methods The pre-feasibility report is based on the Broken Hammer ore to be processed at a

custom milling facility. The custom milling facility is considered to be an existing plant.

The mined material from Broken Hammer will be crushed on site to -1 inch. The 1”

material is then sampled at a sample tower on the Broken Hammer property to assess

138

its grade prior to delivery to a custom mill facility. The crushing and sampling flowchart is

shown below:

Figure 65: Broken Hammer Schematic Crushing and Sampling Flowchart

The predicted recoveries used in this study are based on previous metallurgical tests as

well as the 2011 bulk sample results.

The overall metal recoveries realized from the 2011 bulk sample are listed as follows:

Table 42: Bulk Sample Recoveries

Metal Metal Recovery

(%) Copper 94.0

Nickel 58.0

Palladium 85.0

Platinum 71.0

Gold 81.0

Silver 63.0

139

17 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE

The City of Greater Sudbury area is a large metropolitan mining industrial area

supporting a population of more than 150,000 people. Two large mining companies,

Xstrata plc and Vale S.A., each maintain smelters in Sudbury that are supported by

mines and central mills. Large industrial fabricators and most major mine equipment

suppliers have established businesses within the City. Since downtown Sudbury is less

than 50 kilometres from the Broken Hammer mine, infrastructure support in the area is

judged to be very good. The following figure illustrates the location of the Broken

Hammer project that is situated within the boundaries of the City of Greater Sudbury:

Figure 66: Location of the Broken Hammer Project

140

Open pit mining of the Broken Hammer deposit is planned at the rate of approximately

5,800 tonnes per operating day (crushing, sampling and shipping approximately 800

tonnes per day to a custom mill and stockpiling within the mine site drainage basin 5,200

tonnes per day of broken waste rock).

The following infrastructure is designed to support the approximate 12 month duration

Broken Hammer open pit mining operation as shown in Figure 67:

1. An upgraded mine access road

2. Infrastructure at the Mine Staging Area

mine security trailer, engineering/geology office and sampling trailers

inventory and temporary storage containers

portable fueling depot

3. Mine Drainage Basin Infrastructure

a waste rock stockpile

a temporary mineralized/low-grade stockpile area

an overburden stockpile

a crushing and sampling area

a mine water settling pond

141

17.1 Mine Access Road

The Broken Hammer project is located in Lot 9, Concession 4, in Wisner Township,

approximately 50km north of the City of Greater Sudbury. The site is accessed via

Regional Road 80, north of Sudbury through the community of Val Therese; north on

Demarais Road, west on Nelson Lake Road, north on North Range Mine Road, and

through a gated, private all season road that terminates at the Broken Hammer mine.

The mine access roadway requires a minimal amount of upgrading (estimated at less

than $100,000) to support the planned 12 month open pit mining operation. Included in

this work is road widening a short stretch (estimated at 100m) located south of Rapid

River culverts. The remaining sections of the road will require initial grading and some

addition of gravel to bring it up to operating standards.

17.2 Mine Staging Area Infrastructure

The cleared area that previously hosted the crushing and temporary storage of crushed

product during the bulk sample operation will be utilized to locate the security, portable

office trailers and storage containers required to support the mining operation. A double

walled portable fueling tank will be located along the mine access road in the staging

area where portable mine equipment will be fueled. Figure 67 shows the planned Broken

Hammer mine infrastructure located at the mine staging area:

142

Figure 67: Mine Staging Area

17.3 Mine Drainage Basin Infrastructure

Initial construction of the new mine site roadway system, settling pond dikes and a

crushing and sampling area will require approximately 165,000 tonnes of broken mine

waste rock. This rock will be supplied from the initial pit stripping operations. Figure 68

below shows the planned Broken Hammer mine infrastructure that is entirely located

within the mine drainage basin :

143

Figure 68: Broken Hammer Project Infrastructure

144

17.3.1 Waste Rock Stockpile

A waste rock stockpile, containing approximately 1.7 million tonnes of broken waste

rock, will be constructed in a storage pile within the mine watershed using a dedicated

waste haulage ramp. The waste rock pile is designed to reach a maximum height of 41m

above the lowest location within the rock storage area and will be sloped at 36 degrees

for long term stability. The mine rock area will drain to the open pit where the drainage

water will be pumped to the mine water settling pond for treatment before being

discharged to the environment. The following figure shows a section through the planned

waste rock stockpile;

Figure 69: Section Through the Waste Rock Stockpile

145

17.3.2 Low-grade Stockpile Area

Initial pit mining in the east end of the open pit will produce a relatively narrow east/west

cut down to elevation 385m. A low-grade stockpile area will be developed to the north of

this cut, as shown in Figure 68, consisting of material that would otherwise be hauled to

the waste rock pile. In the event of an appreciation in the metal prices or economics of

processing whereby this material can be treated economically it can readily be recovered

from this area. In the event that there is no appreciation in the value of this material it

will be pushed into the pit and flooded in mine closure thereby resolving any acid mine

drainage concerns associated with the mineralized material.

17.3.3 Overburden Stockpile Area

An area adjacent to the current mine waste rock storage area will be cleared of trees to

provide sufficient room to construct an overburden stockpile location as shown in Figure

68. The footprint of the pile will expand the current watershed as the pile will be located

along the east boundary of the watershed and drain into the pit drainage basin. The

maximum height of the stockpile will be approximately 5m with slopes of approximately

3H:1V for long term stability.

17.3.4 Crushing and Sampling Area

A crushing and sampling area will be constructed part way up the ramp from the open pit

using broken mine waste rock from the initial pit stripping operations. This crushing and

sampling area, at elevation 312.5m, will be constructed using approximately 15,500

cubic metres of mine development waste rock. Figure 70 details development plans at

the crushing and sampling area.

146

Figure 70: Broken Hammer Crushing & Sampling Area

The crushing/sampling area will be accessed by a ramp from the open pit to the staging

area which will become the main mine access road that will be constructed to replace

the current mine access that falls within the footprint of the waste rock stockpile..

Using a 8% ramp mine trucks will dump directly into a hopper over the pan feeder that

will feed the jaw crusher. The crushed material will be conveyed to a portable screening

plant. The screening plant minus 1 inch material will be conveyed directly to the sample

tower. The plus 1 inch material will be directed in a closed loop to a gyratory crusher

where the gyratory crusher product will be returned to the screening plant for sizing.

147

A sample tower will receive all of the minus 1 inch material and progressively reduce in

size a representative sample that will be transported to a local lab for detailed analysis.

The crushed and sampled material will be directed to a radial stacker capable of

constructing an onsite storage pile containing approximately 40,000 tonnes. All of this

infrastructure will be located in the large laydown area within the crushing/sampling area.

Load restrictions imposed to prevent pavement damage on regional roads during the

annual spring thaw could temporarily halt transport of “ore” material by the haul trucks.

This possibility necessitates the design of the large lay down area for crushed material to

avoid production delays in the open pit operation.

17.3.5 New Pit Access Roadway

Since construction of the waste rock stockpile will encompass the existing pit access

road a new pit access roadway system will be required. Development of the roadway will

include drilling and blasting approximately 7,200 tonnes of bedrock to reduce the height

of the bedrock at the hill top by 3m. The broken rock from this project will be used to

augment site levelling activities.

17.3.6 Mine Water Settling Pond

A large mine water settling pond will result when two dikes are constructed

approximately 120m apart in the swampy area north of the open pit. The location of the

mine water settling pond is shown in Figure 71.

148

Figure 71: Broken Hammer Mine Infrastructure

The mine water pond will receive all of the water that will be pumped from the open pit

workings as well as drainage water from the crushing and sampling area located to the

west of the pond and drainage water from the hillside located to the east.

Dike construction activities will include removal of the organic peat layer followed by

dumping of the mine waste rock to form the base of each structure. Prior to the addition

of sand on the upstream face of each structure a geotextile will be installed over the

mine rock to prevent sand migration into the mine rock below. A one metre layer of sand

will then be added to the upstream face of each dike before installing a water tight 60 mil

Enviroliner. A 0.6m wide trench will then be excavated some 15m from the upstream toe

of each dike and filled with a bentonite based slurry mixture. To minimize seepage

beneath the two dike structures from water within the mine water settling pond the

enviroliner will cover the bottom of the pond between each dike and its adjacent

bentonite slurry trench. Figure 72 details the south dike construction:

149

Figure 72: South Dike Construction Details

Normal discharge from the mine water settling pond will be conducted using a siphon

pipe(s) arrangement that will empty the active portion of the pond water during a seven

day dewatering campaign. The siphon pipe(s) will discharge into a downstream mixing

box where CO2 can be added to the water in the event that pH reduction is required.

The mixing box will overflow into a structure where the water level overflowing a

calibrated weir will be continuously recorded. To guard against extreme precipitation

events a spillway will be constructed on the north dike that will conduct the overflow

water directly into the downstream mixing box.

The mine water settling pond will have a capacity of approximately 20,300 cubic metres

sufficient to provide a normal residence time of 48 days. Even under the twenty-five year

storm conditions, where the pit would be dewatered over a nine day period, the large

settling pond will provide a residence time of 6 days. The active capacity of the pond

using the siphon discharge system is estimated to be approximately 19,000 cubic metres

which provides an active residence time of 45 days.

Settling Pond discharge monitoring will include flow measurements, chemical analysis

and toxicity testing.

150

18 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS

18.1 Market Studies

18.1.1 Platinum and Palladium

TD Securities looks for palladium to surpass $925 an ounce sometime in the second

quarter of 2013 and for platinum to top $1,825. Analysts cite the ongoing labor strife

disrupting supplies from South African mines. Further, they cite hopes that the

European Central Bank’s bond-buying program and Eurozone rescue fund will

stabilize Europe, as well as expectations for expansionary policies in the U.S. and

China. “The South African mining sector woes, which in our opinion will likely deepen

in the near term, are prompting TDS along with other analysts to reduce platinum and

palladium production estimates for 2013/14, especially platinum,” the firm says. “South

Africa accounts for some 75% of primary Platinum output and 39% of Palladium

output. This, combined with a somewhat more positive demand outlook is convincing

investors that supply/demand fundamentals will tighten up materially.” In fact, TDS

says, a platinum physical market deficit is a “very real possibility as early as 2013,”

especially if exchange-traded-fund purchases continue. ( Kitco - Sept 13/12)

GMP Precious Metal Price Review published on February 1, 2012, indicates the

Gold price assumption remains unchanged at $1575 per ounce. They also note that

“gold averaged $1572/oz in 2011. While gold prices have recently rallied back up

through $1700, we will await the establishment of new support levels before making

any changes to our assumption.

For silver, GMP’s adjusted price assumption is $35.00, lowered from $37.50/oz

previously. Their revised silver price assumption reflects a 45:1 gold to silver ratio

(previously used a 42:1 ratio).

151

GMP has also lowered their assumptions for the platinum group metals, now using

$1,600/oz for platinum ($1,800/oz previously), and $700/oz for palladium ($750/oz

previously), with both assumptions now much closer to spot prices ($1640/oz and

$665/oz respectively).

The outlook for gold & precious metals given the recent promise of near-zero

interest rates through 2014, sovereign debt risks in Europe (rising potential for easing

monetary policies there) remains positive, amid strong physical demand for the metal

(recent ETF additions), and continuing central bank buying.

18.1.2 Copper India’s annual per capita consumption of copper has increased from 0.23 kg in 2000 to

0.5 kg in 2011, yet it compares poorly with China’s per capita consumption of 5.9 kg.

“Over the medium term, India’s per capita consumption growth is not expected to mirror

the strong growth trend evident in China.” (Dilip Kumar Jha & Rutam Vora / Mumbai,

Business Standard September 23, 2012.)

According to Beijing Antaike Information Development Co. copper consumption in China,

the world's biggest user, is expected to expand this year at the slowest rate since 1997

as economic growth cools. . Antaike's latest forecast was cut from an initial estimate of

6.4 percent, made at the end of last year.

Antaike's outlook for copper-demand growth compares with an estimate of 4.2 percent

from China International Capital Corp., according to an Aug. 22 report. China's

consumption may increase 6.6 percent to 8.28 million tons this year, Barclays Plc said in

an Aug. 16 report, forecasting a global copper deficit.

Refined imports in the first seven months surged 67 percent to 2.14 million tons

compared with a year earlier, customs data showed. According to Goldman copper will

rise to $8,000 in three months and $9,000 in six months, which forecast a pickup in

China's economy in the second half.

The vast majority of the copper used in China goes to power infrastructure – it makes up

47% of the nation’s copper demand. Year-To-Date power cable production has shown

152

36% growth Year-over-Year, and high voltage switch production is up 25% Year-over-

Year.

The auto industry accounts for 10% of Chinese copper demand. Passenger vehicles

sales YTD have totaled 8.51mn units, up 9.0% Year-over-Year.

Figure 73: China Copper Consumption Index

Morgan Stanley, on May 30, 2012, predicts that copper prices are expected to remain

high because of supply side difficulties. Prices will continue to remain high until the

153

global inventory pipeline is replenished most likely after 2014. They expect the average

price of copper in 2013 to be at $9,000 per Tonne ($4.08/lb.)

The forecasted metal prices used in this study are in line with the analysts’ forecasts for

Copper, Nickel and Precious metals.

154

19 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT

19.1 Baseline Environmental Studies

Environmental site investigations were first conducted in 2005 (AMEC, 2005) and

incorporated the following areas of study:

Surface water quantity and quality;

Sediment quality;

Fisheries;

Invertebrates;

Aquatic habitat;

Terrestrial vegetation;

Birds;

Climate; and,

Soils and geology.

Additional supplemental studies were conducted in 2006 (AMEC, 2007d) to include an

aquatic study in water bodies adjacent to the previous study areas and to confirm earlier

findings. A hydrogeology study was also conducted to provide preliminary estimates of

the rock aquifer properties needed to assess the open pit dewatering requirements, and

to characterize the local groundwater quality. The details of the study are presented in

the Hydrogeological Study Report (AMEC, 2007c), and a summary of findings is

presented in Section 19.6.1.

The groundwater quality data collected during the baseline assessment (AMEC, 2007d)

indicates that several sporadic exceedances of the Ontario Drinking Water Standards

(ODWS) exist across the site. As the groundwater in the area is not presently used as a

drinking water source this comparison is very conservative. Exceedances of the ODWS

155

include in the groundwater included aluminum, manganese, iron, pH and dissolved

organic carbon. These exceedances represent aesthetic or operational guidelines

associated with taste, odour and ease of treatment and do not represent a health related

concern. The elevated concentrations of manganese, iron, aluminum and dissolved

organic carbon, as well as the slightly depressed pH values, are typical of shallow

aquifers in Northern Ontario and are considered to be representative of the natural

background conditions.

Surface water is generally good, although slightly acidic, with minor non-conformances

with Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) for pH, aluminium, cobalt, copper, iron,

phosphorous and zinc at some locations. Sediment quality was also compared to

Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines criteria with arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,

nickel and zinc showing elevated values. As there are no sources of contamination to

the watershed, these values, while outside the PWQO guidelines, are considered to be

representative of natural background conditions.

None of the regionally present species at risk have been recorded within Wisner

Township to date, which contains the study area in its entirety. No species at risk were

observed during the field investigations.

The primary environmental constraints in the project area are associated with fish

habitats in the adjacent watersheds: Blueberry Lake and Rapid River. The unnamed

creek does not support a fishery, and the adjacent Blueberry Lake to the east of the

project site contained only a single species of minnow. The Broken Hammer project is at

the uppermost extreme of the Blueberry Lake watershed and as such is not discharging

into a Policy 2 receiver. A Policy 2 receiver is defined by the Ministry of Environment and

Energy as “Water quality which presently does not meet the Provincial Water Quality

Objectives and shall not be further degraded and all practical measures shall be

undertaken to upgrade the water quality to the Objectives.”

The adjacent Rapid River system (immediately west of the site) is however considered a

Policy 2 receiver (the Ministry of the Environment, pers.comm.). It supports a sensitive

156

fishery (brook trout). The Joe Lake watershed to the south of the property is populated

by numerous seasonal and permanent cottages whose residents belong to the

Ratepayers Association. This association has been active in providing comments and

recommendations to potential project development. None of the above two receivers will

be affected by the Broken Hammer project.

Processing of the Broken Hammer material is to occur off site at an existing processing

facility. No environmental baseline studies have been conducted for the potential

processing site, since for the purposes of this PFS report, it is assumed that the custom

milling facility is an existing plant similar to the one used for the 2011 bulk sample. The

processing facility which will be selected for the processing of the Broken Hammer

deposit will require their own due diligence in order to determine any effects of the

Broken Hammer tailings on their facility.

19.2 Mine Permitting Requirements

Permitting requirements may involve assessment at both the provincial and federal

government levels. The likelihood of permitting within each government jurisdiction and

the anticipated permits, approvals or authorizations expected are discussed below.

19.2.1 Provincial Provincial permitting and environmental assessment requirements will occur through the

Ministries of the Environment (MOE), Natural Resources (MNR) and Northern

Development and Mines (MNDM). A list of the provincial assessments and permits likely

to be required under the existing project description are:

Class environmental assessment in support of the mine access road and/or the

Sedimentation Pond dike construction (MNR);

Work permit for the access road construction; no permit required for maintenance

work (MNR);

Authorization under Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) for Sedimentation

Pond dam construction, and/or bridge replacement over the Rapid River (MNR)

157

Permit to Take Water (PTTW) for the dewatering of the open pit (MOE);

Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for the discharge of mine water

(MOE);

ECA for air emissions associated with the on-site crusher (MOE); and,

Closure plan (MNDM).

Additional permit requirements will need to be assessed when the selection of a

processing facility is finalized and any new infrastructure is identified; however, it is

assumed at this time that the selected facility will have existing permits and approvals

which can be amended as required by the owner.

19.2.2 Federal There are two types of federal involvement possible under the current project

description. The first is an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act (CEAA). The federal assessment would be triggered if a federal

department is required to issue any permit or authorization to allow the project to

proceed. If it is determined that the unnamed creek constitutes fish habitat, and thereby

requires an authorization through the Fisheries Act, then CEAA would be triggered. A

letter was received from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (based on a review of the

baseline data) indicating that removal of the on-site beaver pond, under the proposed

footprint of the pit and water treatment facility, is not likely to result in an impact to fish or

fish habitat. Likewise, the potential requirement for the existing bridge over the Rapid

River to be replaced would trigger a federal assessment of the project, through the

Navigable Waters Protection Act. Based on the current baseline data, the existing

bridge over the Rapid River does not have to be replaced.

The second type of federal involvement would be the monitoring of mine effluent as per

the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations of the Fisheries Act. This monitoring is an

operational requirement and does not require authorization for development of the mine,

nor does it trigger an environmental assessment.

A schedule of permitting requirements is summarized in Table 43:

158

Table 43: Permitting Requirements Schedule

20 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

20.1 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) Since mining, milling, smelting and refining at the Broken Hammer project will be

contracted out capital costs for the project have been separated into two categories;

Contractor Capital Costs and Wallbridge Capital Costs. Only contractor capital costs for

mining apply as milling, smelting and refining will be performed on a toll basis.

Contractor capital expenditures have been estimated for costs associated with

mobilization and demobilization, site grading and temporary services, clearing and

grubbing, upgrading the mine access road, site capital costs and the open pit works

classified as capital (pit dewatering, overburden stripping and pre-shear blasting for long

term wall stability). Wallbridge capital costs have been estimated for costs associated

with environmental sampling and permitting (including mine closure), the cost of a new

sample tower, site capital costs including the construction costs of a mine water settling

pond and the cost of setting up the staging area diesel generator.

6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29

Class Environmental Assessment - Project Description

ECA Air and Noise

ECA Industrial Sewage - Minewater Pond Discharge

PTTW Pit Dewatering - Initial dewatering & Mtce.

LIRA & Work Permit - Mine Water Pond Dams

LRIA for Access Road Maintenance - culverts (MNR)

Work Permit for Access Road Maintenance - culverts (MNR)

Nickel District Conservation Authority Approval

Forestry Resource Licence - General Site Clearing

Closure Plan Amendment

Completion of Noise Screening Form

Geochemical Characterization of Waste Rock

Geotechnical Investigation

Revised Hydrogeological Model

Revised Hydrogeological Model - Waste Rock Pile

JulyAssessment / Approval

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

159

The production objective of the project is to mine at a rate of approximately 5,800 tonnes

per day (tpd). Included in this figure are average mining rates of 5,200tpd of waste rock

and 6000tpd of indicated resource that will be crushed to minus 2.54cm (minus one

inch) and sampled using the onsite sample tower prior to trucking to a custom mill.

All of the estimated $1.9M CAPEX, with the exception of contractor demobilization, have

been expensed in a decreasing rate over the first four months of the approximate 12

month project.

20.2 Contractor Capital Cost (Contractor CAPEX) Contractor capital costs are the project capital costs that will be performed by the

contractor. These costs include contractor performed site services, site access road

upgrading, open pit stripping, pit dewatering and final wall pre-shearing costs. These

costs are illustrated in detail in the following table:

Table 44: Contractor CAPEX

Category Total Cost

Site Services $117,000

Roads & Bridge Upgrades $220,000

Open Pit Infrastructure:

Overburden Removal $21,000

Pit Dewatering $35,000

Pit Pre-Shear $145,000

Total Open Pit Infrastructure $201,000

Sub-total Contractor CAPEX $538,000

15% Contingency $80,700

TOTAL CONTRACTOR CAPEX $618,700

20.2.1 Wallbridge Capital Expenditures (Wallbridge CAPEX)

160

Capital cost associated with Wallbridge for the Broken Hammer project include

environmental sampling and permitting, the cost of constructing the mine water settling

pond, the purchase price of a new sample tower (as quoted by a Timmins area

contracting company), the costs associated with setting up the office complex in the

staging area which includes a 300kw generator and the mine closure costs in the form of

a letter of credit held by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

161

Table 45: Wallbridge CAPEX

Category Number Unit Cost Total Cost

Wallbridge Capital: Mine Water Settling Pond 1 $200,000 $200,000

Sample Tower & Cladding 1 $600,000 $600,000 Site & Temporary Services 1 $80,000 $80,000

Mine Closure Costs 1 $250,000 $250,000

Total Wallbridge Capital $1,130,000 15% Contingency $169,500

TOTAL WALLBRIDGE CAPEX $1,299,500

20.2.2 Broken Hammer Project Capital Costs (CAPEX) Total all-in capital costs for the Broken Hammer project include both contractor and

company capital costs. This cost is shown in the following table:

Table 46: Project CAPEX

Category Total Cost

Contractor Project Capital:

Total Contractor Capital $538,000 15% Contingency $80,700

TOTAL CONTRACTOR CAPEX $618,700

Wallbridge Project Capital:

Total Wallbridge Project Capital $1,130,000 15% Contingency $169,500

TOTAL WALLBRIDGE PROJECT CAPEX $1,299,500

TOTAL PROJECT CAPEX $1,918,200

Assumptions

All mining will be done using experienced contractors

All processing of the mined resource is completed by a custom miller

No major mining or construction projects commence in the Sudbury camp in the

next 12 months that could potentially increase the contracting costs

162

20.3 Mine Operating Costs (OPEX) The mine operating costs (OPEX) for the Broken Hammer mine have been estimated as

shown in the following table:

Table 47: Mine Operating Costs

Mine Operating Costs $/Tonne $/Tonne

Mined Milled

Drilling Costs $1,384,000 $0.72 $7.04 Blasting Costs $1,789,000 $0.94 $9.10

Loading & Hauling $5,162,000 $2.71 $26.26

TOTAL MINING (DIRECT) $4.37 $42.39

Add:

General & Administrative $1,229,833 $0.64 $6.26

Crushing & Sampling $2,162,050 $1.13 $11.00

Haulage to custom mill $1,966,050 $1.03 $10.00

SUB- TOTAL $2.81 $27.25

TOTAL MINE OPERATING COSTS $7.18 $69.64

The processing costs for the material shipped to a custom mill have been estimated as

follows:

Table 48: Processing Costs

Processing Costs $/Tonne $/Tonne

Mined Milled

Milling, Smelting, RefiningCharges & Penalties $12,227,150 $6.41 $62.19 Other $0 $0 $0

TOTAL PROCESSING COSTS $6.41 $62.19

163

Table 49: Project Operating Costs

A summary of the total operating costs for the project are illustrated as show in the

above table.

Assumptions

Mining will be completed by experienced mining contractors

No major mining or construction projects will commence within the next 12

months in or around Sudbury to affect mining or equipment costs

The Milling terms (recoveries and payabilities) will be improved or remain the

same as the bulk sample terms

Project Operating Costs $/Tonne $/Tonne

Mined Milled

Mine Operating Costs $13,723,281 $7.19 $69.80

Processing Costs $12,227,503 $6.41 $62.19

SUB-TOTAL $13.60 $131.99

Add:

Royalty Costs $306,589 $0.16 $1.56

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $13.76 $133.55

164

21 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

GENIVAR has prepared its assessment of the Broken Hammer project based on a

discounted cash flow model, from which Net Present Value (“NPV”), Internal Rate of

Return (“IRR”), payback and other measures of the project feasibility are determined.

The above assessments are generally accepted for the evaluation of mining projects as

representing the economic value of a project after consideration of the initial capital

investment in the project.

The objective of this report is to determine the feasibility of the proposed open pit and

processing of that material at a custom milling facility to exploit the Broken Hammer

deposit. For this analysis, the cash flow arising from the base case of the project has

been forecast, allowing for the calculation of the NPV. The sensitivity of this NPV to

changes in the base case assumptions are then made and examined.

The parameters used in the evaluation of the Broken Hammer Project economics are as

follows:

Table 50: Key Economic Parameters

Metal Price ($) Mill Recovery (%)

Copper 3.50/lb 94.0

Nickel 9.00/lb 58.0

Palladium 650/oz 85.0

Platinum 1,600/oz 71.0

Gold 1,700/oz 81.0

Silver 35.00/oz 63.0

The sensitivity analysis on the base case pricing scenario is presented hereafter using

variations of +/- 15% from the base case in revenues for copper, platinum, and other

factors that can have a significant effect on the project including capital expenses,

operational expenses and the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar.

These variations take into account potential fluctuations in revenue that could result from

165

economic cycles and covers the variation in the above factors. The Net Present Value on

the project were calculated using a discount rate of 8%.

21.1 ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS

21.1.1 Exchange Rate

All results are expressed in Canadian dollars. Cost estimates and other inputs to the

cash flow model for the Broken Hammer project have been prepared using constant

2012 dollars.

The USD/CAD exchange rate selected for the base case is (USD 1.00 per CAD) since

the three-year average to October 1, 2012, as shown in Figure 74, is close to parity.

Figure 74: 3-Year CAD to USD

Source: Bank of Canada, September 2012

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

1.02

1.04

1.06

1 CAD ‐> USD

166

21.1.2 Discount Factor

In calculating the NPV of the cash flow forecast of the project, a base case discount

factor must be used which represents the average cost of capital imposed on the project

by the capital markets. The cash flow projections used for the project have been

prepared based on the assumption that the project proceeds on an all-equity basis;

therefore the discount factor would include the market cost of equity plus the project risk

factor.

The 3-year return on Canadian bond taken as a proxy for risk-free interest rate is

approximately 1.5% from the data provided from Bank of Canada. The historical risk

premium for equity has been estimated at around 6%. As such, GENIVAR has selected

the discount rate of 8% to represent the Broken Hammer cost of equity.

21.1.3 Forecasted Metal Prices

The two main elements in the Broken Hammer ore where the revenue contribution is

most are Copper and Platinum.

Figure 75: 3-year Monthly Copper Price

Data source: Kitco Metals

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Sep‐09

Nov‐09

Jan‐10

Mar‐10

May‐10

Jul‐10

Sep‐10

Nov‐10

Jan‐11

Mar‐11

May‐11

Jul‐11

Sep‐11

Nov‐11

Jan‐12

Mar‐12

May‐12

Jul‐12

Sep‐12

Copper 3‐year average price of Copper is $3.62

167

Figure 76: 3-year Monthly Platinum Price

Data source: Kitco Metals

The 3-year average metal prices for Copper and Platinum were reviewed and prices of

$3.50 per lb. and $1,600 per oz. were selected for Copper and Platinum respectively to

be used in the economic analysis of the base case. The 2012 updated resource which

was commissioned in 2011 used long-term forecasted metal prices. This selection was

based on the fact that the timing and duration of the project start-up was unknown at the

time.

For comparison, Table 51 below presents the two most contributing metal prices

(Copper & Platinum) used for the 2012 updated resource, the metal prices used for this

report as well as spot prices and 3-year average prices for the same metals as at

October 1, 2012.

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

Sep‐09

Nov‐09

Jan‐10

Mar‐10

May‐10

Jul‐10

Sep‐10

Nov‐10

Jan‐11

Mar‐11

May‐11

Jul‐11

Sep‐11

Nov‐11

Jan‐12

Mar‐12

May‐12

Jul‐12

Sep‐12

Platinum 3‐year average price of Platinum is $1,601.00

168

Table 51: Copper & Platinum Metal Prices

Metal Units 2012 Updated

Resource Report

Spot Prices

October 1, 12

Base Case

PFS

3-Yr avg.

Copper US$/lb. 3.00 3.75 3.50 3.62

Platinum US$/oz. 1,600 1,675 1,600 1,601

21.1.4 Taxation Regime Canadian federal and Ontario provincial corporate income and mining taxes have not

been considered in this study. Given the anticipated non-capital losses and CEE pools

available, no income taxes will be payable based on the expected taxable income for the

twelve month period referenced in the report.

The Company has applied for registration for Ontario Mining Tax and anticipates that it

will be able to use the tax exemption for a new mine to a maximum of the first $10 million

of profit in the 36 months commencing commercial production (based on the timeframe

in this report). In addition, the Company has Ontario exploration and development

expenditures available which can be carried forward and deducted from future profits. As

such the Company does not anticipate any Ontario Mining Tax payable on the income

generated in the 12-month period referenced in this report.

21.1.5 Royalty

The only royalty on the project is a 1.5% NSR to Xstrata Nickel as part of prior

arrangement for the Broken Hammer project. This Royalty has been taken into account

in the economic calculation of the project.

21.2 TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

Mining and custom milling 196,605 tonnes of the Broken Hammer indicated resource

over a production period of 12 months is projected to produce the following amounts of

metal :

169

6,856 ozs of platinum worth an estimated $11.0 million dollars,

3.3 million pounds of copper worth an estimated $11.5 million dollars,

8,022 ozs of palladium worth an estimated $5.2 million dollars,

2,620 ozs of gold worth an estimated $4.45 million dollars,

214 thousand pounds of nickel worth an estimated $1.9 million dollars and

14,288 ozs of silver worth an estimated $500 thousand dollars.

The recoveries used in these calculations are similar to that experienced from the

custom milling, smelting and refining the metals contained in the 30,000 tonne bulk

sample in 2011.

21.3 Annual Projected EBITDA

Table 52: Projected EBITDA          Total  Per Tonne 

      Ore Mined 

Revenue:    

Copper        $11,562,603 $58.81 

Nickel        1,932,450 9.83 

Platinum        10,969,070 55.79 

Paladium        5,214,256 26.52 

Gold        4,454,346 22.66 

Silver        500,089 2.54 

TOTAL REVENUE     $34,632,814 $176.15 

     

Costs:    

Mining        $9,791,186 $49.80 

Crushing & Haulage     3,932,095 20.00 

Milling        5,898,143 30.00 

Smelting & Refining     6,329,360 32.19 

TOTAL COSTS     $25,950,785 $131.99 

Profit Before Royalty  $8,682,029 $44.16 

Royalty to Xstrata     $306,589 $1.56 

EBITDA        $8,375,440 $42.60 

170

The above table shows that the total expected revenue from the Broken Hammer open

pit equates to $176.15 per tonne of indicated resource. After paying the Xstrata 1.5%

royalty the operation is expected to earn $42.60 per tonne of indicated resource before

income taxes, depreciation and amortization.

21.4 Pre-Tax Net Present Value The pre-feasibility report results in a Project life of 12 months (operation) requiring a

$1.9M initial investment. The project generates an EBITDA of $8.4 M and a pre-tax Net

Present Value (NPV) of $4.1 M. The payback period would be 8 months.

21.5 Sensitivity Analysis The following chart presents the sensitivity of the project to the value of the most

important elements using a discount rate of 8 percent. The chart illustrates the

sensitivity of the project to the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the US dollar

($US/$C), the Platinum Price (Pt) in US dollars per ounce, the OPEX (project operating

costs), the CAPEX (project capital costs), the Copper Price (Cu) in US dollars per pound

and the Palladium Price (Pd) in US dollars per ounce.

171

Figure 77: Pre-Tax NPV Sensitivity Analysis

The project is mostly sensitive to the exchange rate of US/C$ as well as mine operating costs (OPEX).

21.6 Risks and Opportunities

In the course of completing the Pre-Feasibility Study certain key elements of risk and

opportunity became self-evident. The study that has been carried out is preliminary in

nature and although it is based on the 30,000 tonne bulk sample that was mined at the

east end of the Broken Hammer mineralized zone in 2011, parts of the study are to

some extent based on factored estimates. The capital and operating cost estimates are

believed to be accurate within +/-20 percent; however, risks and opportunities that have

been identified that may impact the estimated costs are summarized below:

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

‐15% ‐10% ‐5% Base 5% 10% 15%

NPV C$ x '000

Wallbridge Mining Co. Ltd. ‐ Broken Hammer MinePre Tax NPV @ 8%

US/C$ Pt Price Opex Capex Cu price Pd price

172

21.6.1 Risk and Uncertainties

Although Wallbridge has taken reasonable measures to ensure proper title to its

properties and mining claims, there is no guarantee that title to any of its properties or

mining claims will not be challenged or impugned.

There can be no assurance that the mining regime currently in place in the Province of

Ontario will not be changed in a manner that could adversely affect Wallbridge, its

properties and business plans.

Consultations with Ontario First Nations can be lengthy and time consuming and may

result in changes to the operating schedule and mining plan.

Mineral Exploration is highly speculative and involves a high degree of risk, which even a

combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not be able to avoid.

These risk factors include market fluctuations, the proximity and production capacity of

custom milling facilities and processing equipment, availability of qualified personnel,

possible third party claims and government regulations, including regulations relating to

prices, royalties, allowable production, mining leases and environmental protection. The

effect of these factors cannot be accurately predicted.

Fluctuations in the market price of copper, precious metals and value of the Canadian

dollar is another element to consider in the global Project evaluation. The profitability of

the Broken Hammer mining operation is directly related to the market price of the above

factors. The market price of copper and precious metals fluctuates and is affected by

numerous factors beyond the control of Wallbridge. If the market price of copper and

precious metals should decline dramatically, or the value of the Canadian dollar

appreciate dramatically, the value of Wallbridge’s mineral properties could also decrease

dramatically and Wallbridge might not be able to justify the required investment to

proceed with the mining plan outlined in this Report. Price fluctuations, between the time

that such decisions are made and the commencement of production, can drastically

affect the economics of the operations. The Pre-Feasibility Study, through its market

analysis portion tried to define some of these effects (sensitivity analysis).

173

Mineralization at the Broken Hammer is hosted within veins and vein stock works within

a breccia complex and is irregular in nature. To some extent however the risks are

mitigated since Broken Hammer mining plan considers an open pit operation thereby

allowing more mining flexibility as compared to an underground mining operation.

Mining costs in this study have been estimated on a first principles basis with Wallbridge

directing mining contractors. Mining costs in the forthcoming Feasibility Study will be

based on secured mining contract in which mining costs may vary depending on mining

activity in the Sudbury area.

The project cash flow assumes that metals revenue is received at the time of delivery.

Custom milling facilities generally do not provide instantaneous payments. Similarly

contractor payment is assumed to be paid instantaneously. Realistically, payment to

contractors is not done until some period of time after work is completed. Precise timing

of cash inflow and outflow is contingent on contract payments to be negotiated after

feasibility study.

21.6.2 Opportunities

The metals recovered from the bulk sample resulted in a gain in mining in relation to the

estimated recoverable metals based on exploration diamond drilling. A reconciliation of

the tonnage shipped in the 2011 bulk sample compared to the 2012 RPA updated

resource estimate indicated a gain in gross metal value of approximately 18%.

In addition, there are a number of drill hole intercepts within the perimeter of the pit

which were not included in the estimated resource due to the irregular nature of

mineralization within the Broken Hammer deposit. Due to the financial cost of diamond

drilling to a density sufficient to determine continuity the project will remain open to these

types of possible gains in mining.

174

Opportunities exist to improve the project cash flow by negotiating a more favourable

processing contract than the one which was in place for the bulk sample which was a

much smaller tonnage that was batched for which a premium was paid.

175

22 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

The following description on Adjacent Properties is taken from Soever, 2012. The author

is unable to verify information regarding adjacent properties. Information on adjacent

properties is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the Wallbridge property.

The North Range district is being actively explored by a number of companies. The

Broken Hammer property is part of a larger Wisner land package on which Wallbridge is

exploring actively in part as a joint venture with Xstrata. On the adjacent Wisner Xstrata

Joint Venture property, two zones of footwall-style Cu-Ni-PGE mineralization (South and

Southwest zones) occur in Sudbury breccia zones. The ground immediately south of the

Broken Hammer property is held by Xstrata and Vale. Vale‘s claims encompass two

nearby contact deposits, the WD16 and WD13. Inco Limited (now Vale) also sank a

shaft in the 1960s to access the contact sublayer some two kilometres south of the

Wallbridge claims. A portion of the Vale lands are subject to a joint venture agreement

between Vale and Lonmin PLC. Xstrata owns the Rapid River deposit located

approximately 0.5 km south of Wallbridge-Xstrata Joint Venture’s South Zone. The

ground immediately north of Wallbridge’s claims is held by Quadra FNX Mining

Company Inc. On 06 December 2011, KGHM International Ltd. acquired Quadra FNX

Mining Company Inc..

176

23 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

No additional information or explanation is necessary to make this Technical Report

understandable and not misleading.

177

24 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Exploration work on the Broken Hammer Zone has identified a zone of copper-nickel-

platinum-palladium-gold mineralization, which is typical of footwall-hosted mineralization

in the Sudbury area.

Table 48 lists the Mineral Resources in the Broken Hammer deposit.

Table 53: Summary of Mineral Resources - July 27, 2012

Category Tonnes Cu (%) Ni (%) Pt (g/t) Pd (g/t) Au (g/t) Ag (g/t)

Indicated 231,100 0.92 0.10 2.01 1.90 0.71 6.35

Notes:

1. CIM definitions were followed for Mineral Resources. 2. Mineral Resources are estimated at a pit discard cut-off value of $11/tonne net smelter return

(NSR) value. 3. NSR values considered metal prices, metallurgical recoveries, and all off-site payments and

charges (including processing). 4. Mineral Resources are estimated using long-term metal prices of US$3.00/lb Cu, US$9.00/lb Ni,

US$750/oz Pd, US$1,600/oz Pt, US$1,300/oz Au, US$20.00/oz Ag, and a US$/C$ exchange rate of 1:1.

5. No minimum mining width was used.

In conclusion, GENIVAR is satisfied that a sufficient body of information has been

compiled on Walbridge's Broken Hammer project to justify a recommendation to

continue with the next stage - a Feasibility Study of the Broken Hammer Project in

preparation for the development and operation of the Broken Hammer deposit. Much

information have been gained from the more than 110 diamond drill holes which have

been completed into the mineralized zone and the mining of a 30,000 tonne bulk

sample. The project mining procedures and processing recoveries are reasonably well

defined since they are based on the successful 30,000 tonne bulk sample that was

mined from the east end of the indicated resource in 2011.

Walbridge's Broken Hammer project presents an economically attractive mining project.

The overall project should be classified as relatively low risk since the mining and metal

recoveries are based on the successful 30,000 tonne bulk sample.

178

A reconciliation of the tonnage shipped in the 2011 bulk sample compared to the 2012

RPA Update resource estimate indicates an 18% increase in the overall metals revenue

for the same volume of material mined.

If the favourable metal recovery balance experienced during bulk sample repeats for this

open pit, the NPV projections may prove to be conservative.

The deposit remains open to depth down plunge to the west. Additional drilling is

warranted in this area to attempt to define a deeper underground resource.

Although RPA states that the mineralization continuing beyond the pit walls was

considered not to be economic using reasonable underground mining costs, zones of

high grade mineralization near the pit bottom may prove to be tempting development

targets for a mining contractor with narrow vein underground mining experience.

179

25 RECOMMENDATIONS

GENIVAR recommends that:

Based on the robust economics of the project, it is recommended that the project

proceed to the next stage of Feasibility Study.

It is recommended that Wallbridge continue with permitting activities required to

bring the project to production status.

Processing contract should be secured at the feasibility study stage with a

company capable of milling the outlined resource at the Broken Hammer project.

Mining contract should be secured at the feasibility study stage with a contracting

company capable of mining the outlined resource at the Broken Hammer project.

Geotechnical drill holes are recommended in the pit area to properly characterize

the rock mass and geological discontinuities within the final pit walls to

investigate improvements in the pit slope design.

Additional mine modelling be performed by a consultant experienced in using

computer software to model small open pits with 3 metre benches to confirm the

optimum pit configuration using up-to-date drilling and economic considerations.

A feasibility level geotechnical study of the planned mine waste rock pile be

performed including a detailed characterization of the base material upon which

the pile will be located.

At a quoted cost of $600,000 the sample tower represents a capital expenditure

that justifies further consideration. An investigation should be made to see if

money can be saved either by renting an available local unit or alternately

eliminating the crushing and sampling at the mine by arranging for an alternate

method of sampling the custom mill feed that satisfies all concerns.

180

26 REFERENCES

AMEC, 2005. Environmental Baseline Study for the Broken Hammer Advanced

Exploration Project. Report submitted to Northern Development and Mines, Mines and

Minerals Division, Sudbury, Ontario. AMEC Reference # TC51407.

AMEC, 2007a. Tailings Impoundment Site Selection, Broken Hammer Project Pre-

Feasibility Study. Memorandum submitted to Wallbridge Mining Company Limited,

Sudbury, Ontario. AMEC Reference # TC63915-1000.

AMEC, 2007b. Hydrogeological Investigation and Analysis. Report submitted to

Wallbridge Mining Company Limited, Sudbury, Ontario. AMEC Reference # TC63915-

3000.

AMEC, 2007c. Summary of Geochemical Results. Letter report submitted to Wallbridge

Mining Company Limited, Sudbury, Ontario. AMEC Reference # TC63915-4000.

AMEC, 2007d. Supplemental Baseline Study. Letter report pending submission to

Wallbridge Mining Company Limited, Sudbury, Ontario. AMEC Reference # TC63915-

2000.

Caterpillar Performance Handbook, 40th Edition, a Caterpillar publication by Caterpillar

Inc., Peoria, Illinois, U.S.A.

Churchill, B.C., 2012. Technical Report on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury,

Ontario, Canada, prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Ltd. by Roscoe Postle

Associates Inc., July 27, 2012.

DalTech, 2005. QHM 3.1, Technical Notes, DalTech.

181

Farrow, C.E.G., Everest, J.O., King, D.M., and Jolette, C., 2005, Sudbury Cu (-Ni)-PGE

systems, Refining the Classification using McCreedy West Mine and Podolsky Project

case studies, Mineralogical Association of Canada, Short Course 35, pp. 163-180.

Jago, B.C., 2008, Technical Report on the Wisner Property, Sudbury, Ontario, prepared

for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited, December 31, 2008.

Kjarsgaard, I., and Ames, D.E., 2010, Ore Mineralogy of Cu-Ni-PGE Deposits in the

North Range Footwall Environment, Sudbury, Canada, 11th International Platinum

Symposium abstracts, Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release–Data 269.

Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) 2002, Schedule 4, Authorized Limits of

Deleterious Substances. Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 136, No. 13. Pg.1428.

SOR/DORS.2002-222.

Péntek, A., Molnár, F., Watkinson, D.H., and Jones, P.C., 2008, Footwall-type Cu–Ni–

PGE mineralization in the Broken Hammer area, Wisner Township, North Range,

Sudbury Structure, Economic Geology, v. 103, pp. 1005–1028.

Price, W.A. 1997. DRAFT Guidelines and recommended methods for prediction of metal

leaching and acid rock drainage at mine sites in British Columbia. Reclamation Section,

Energy and Minerals Division. Ministry of Employment and Investment. Smithers, B.C.

Rennie, D.W., 2005, Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Broken

Hammer Deposit, Ontario, prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Ltd. by Roscoe

Postle Associates Inc., November 21, 2005.

SCS, 1972. National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology. Soil Conservation

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Soever, A., 2012, Technical Report on the Broken Hammer Deposit, Sudbury, Ontario,

prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited, March 15, 2012.

182

SGS Lakefield Research Limited, 2005, Metallurgical Testing of Mineralization from the

Broken Hammer Zone of the Wisner Property, prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company

Limited, September 30, 2005.

SGS Lakefield Research Limited, 2006, Metallurgical Testing of Mineralization from the

Broken Hammer Zone of the Wisner Property, prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company

Limited, November 20, 2006.

Tuba, Gy., Molnár, F., Watkinson, D.H., Jones, P.C., and Mogessie, A., 2010,

Hydrothermal Vein and Alteration Assemblages associated with Low Sulfide Footwall

Cu-Ni-PGE Mineralization and Regional Hydrothermal processes, North and East

Ranges, Sudbury structure, Canada, Society of Economic Geologists, Special

Publication 15, v. 2, pp. 573-598.

Andre C. Gagnon, Broken Hammer Zone Project Pre-Feasibility Pit Slope Design,

prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited by Tetra Tech, Toronto, April 2012,

183

27 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

This report titled “Pre-Feasibility Report on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury,

Ontario, Canada” and dated October 8, 2012, was prepared and signed by the following

author:

(Signed & Sealed) “Rod Doran” Dated Sudbury, ON J. R. Doran, P. Eng. October 8, 2012 Senior Mining Engineer, GENIVAR Dated Toronto, ON Jason J. Cox, P.Eng. October 8, 2012 Principal Mining Engineer, RPA Dated Toronto, ON Bruce C. Churchill, P.Geo. October 8, 2012 Associate Consulting Resources Geologist RPA Dated Toronto, ON Tim McBride, P.Geo. October 8, 2012 Hydrogeologist, AMEC

184

28 CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS

28.1 Bruce C. Churchill I, Bruce C. Churchill, P. Geo., as an author of this report titled “Prefeasibility Report on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada” prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited and dated October 8, 2012, do hereby certify that:

1. I am an Associate Consulting Resource Geologist with Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. of Suite 501, 55 University Ave Toronto, ON, M5J 2H7.

2. I am a graduate of Queen’s University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada in 1969 with

a Bachelor of Arts degree in Chemistry and Geology.

3. I am registered as a Professional Geoscientist in the Province of Ontario (Reg. # 0152). I have worked as a geologist for over 40 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is: Mineral Resource and Reserve estimation, feasibility studies and due

diligence in Sudbury, Ontario, Raglan in northern Quebec and the Kabanga Nickel project in Tanzania.

Various mine geology positions at five different Sudbury, Ontario nickel mines.

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

5. I visited the Broken Hammer Project on March 19 and 20, 2012.

6. I am responsible for Sections 4 to 12 and 14 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have previously prepared a Technical Report on the updated Mineral Resource estimate for the Broken Hammer Project, dated July 27, 2012.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

185

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

This October 8th , 2012 (Signed & Sealed) “Bruce C. Churchill” Bruce C. Churchill, P.Geo.

186

28.2 J. R. (Rod) Doran I, Rod Doran, P. Eng., as an author of this report titled “Technical Report on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury, Ontario” prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited and dated September 30, 2012, do hereby certify that:

1. I reside at 1722 Latimer Crescent, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 2V7.

2. I am contract employed by and carried out this assignment for GENIVAR Inc. 888 Regent Street, Suite 202 Sudbury, On, Canada P3E 6C6 Email: rod.doran@genivar.com

3. I hold the following academic qualifications;

Diploma Technologist, Haileybury School of Mines;

B.S. Mining Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology;

B.S. Engineering Administration, Michigan Technological University;

4. I am a registered member, in good standing, of the Professional Engineers of Ontario (reg. 11936010), as well, I hold registered membership in good standing with the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) and the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc. (SME).

5. I have worked as a mining engineer in the mineral industry for over 40 years.

6. I have read the definition of “Qualified Person”, set out in the National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Project (NI 43-101), and certify that, by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association, and past relevant work experience among others as mine and metallurgical engineering and management in numerous underground and open pit mine operations, I fulfill the requirements to be an independent qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101.

7. I am responsible for the coordination of the complete Technical Report and for the preparation of Sections 1-3, 13, 17-26 of this report.

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

9. I visited the project mine site on April 11 and on July 24, 2012.

10. I state that, as of the date of this certificate, and to the best of my qualified knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and

187

technical information that is required to be disclosed to not make the Technical Report misleading.

11. I have no personal knowledge, as of the date of this certificate, of any material

fact or change, which is not reflected in this report.

12. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

13. Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, own directly or indirectly, nor expect to receive, any interest in the properties or securities of Wallbridge, or any associated or affiliated companies.

14. Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, have earned the majority of our income

during the preceding three years from Wallbridge, or any associated or affiliated companies.

15. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and have prepared the technical report

in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1; and have prepared the report in conformity with the generally accepted Canadian Mining Industry practice and, as of the date of the 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 not make the technical report misleading.

This October 8th , 2012, (Signed & Sealed) “J.R. Doran”

J.R. Doran, P.Eng.

188

28.3 Jason J. Cox

I, Jason J. Cox, P.Eng., as an author of this report entitled “Prefeasibility Report on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada” prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited and dated October 8 2012, do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Principal Mining Engineer with Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. of Suite 501, 55 University Ave Toronto, ON, M5J 2H7.

2. I am a graduate of the Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, in 1996

with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mining Engineering.

3. I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario (Reg. #90487158). I have worked as a Mining Engineer for a total of 16 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

• Review and report as a consultant on many mining operations and projects around the world for due diligence and regulatory requirements

• Feasibility Study project work on several mining projects, including five North American mines

• Operational experience as Planning Engineer and Senior Mine Engineer at three North American mines

• Contract Co-ordinator for underground construction at an American mine 4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-

101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I have not visited the Broken Hammer Project. 6. I am responsible for Sections 15 and 16 of the Technical Report, with the

exception of those parts identified as carried out by others. 7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-

101. 8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the

Technical Report. 9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in

compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1. 10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical

189

information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

This October 8th , 2012 (Signed & Sealed) “Jason J. Cox” Jason J. Cox, P.Eng.

190

28.4 Tim McBride I, Tim McBride, P.Geo., as an author of this report entitled “Prefeasibility Report on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada” prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited and dated October 8 2012, do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Hydrogeologist and Assistant Unit Manager with AMEC of 131 Fielding Road, Lively, Ontario P3Y 1L7.

2. I am a graduate of the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, in

1997 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Earth Sciences.

3. I am registered as a Professional Geoscientist in the Province of Ontario (Reg. #0493). I have worked as a Hydrogeologist for more than 15 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

• Review and report as a consultant on many mining operations and projects around the world for due diligence and regulatory requirements

• Hydrogeological project work on several mining projects, including five North American mines.

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-

101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I have visited the Broken Hammer Project many times and accompanied Rod

Doran on his visits on April 11 and July 24, 2012. 6. I am responsible for Section 19 of the Technical Report. 7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-

101. 8. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical

Report since 2006 during which time I have investigated the hydrogeological and environmental issues that affect the Broken Hammer project. .

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in

compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1. 10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

191

This October 8th , 2012 (Signed & Sealed) “Tim McBride” Tim McBride, P.Geo.