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

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 
i
 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 
ii
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 

iii
 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 
iv
 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 
v
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 
vi
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 

vii
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.

1
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

2
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.

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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.

7
 Table 3: Broken Hammer - In-pit Mineral Reserves

Tonnage Cu Ni Au Ag Pt Pd
Resource Category
(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.

8
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.

9
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

10
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:

11
Table 5: Broken Hammer - Mining Schedule

12
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

$/Tonne $/Tonne
Mine Operating Costs
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:

13
 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

14
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 Spot Prices Base Case 3-Yr avg.
Resource Report Oct. 1, 2012 PFS
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
15
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.

16
 Wallbridge Mining Co. Ltd. ‐ Broken Hammer Mine
Pre Tax NPV @ 8%
$12,000

$10,000
NPV C$ x '000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$0
‐15% ‐10% ‐5% Base 5% 10% 15%
US/C$ Pt Price Opex Capex Cu price Pd price

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.

17
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.

18
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

19
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.

20
 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.

21
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).

22
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).

23
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.

24
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 square kilometre yr year
kN/m3 kilo-Newtons per cubic metre

25
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.

26
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

27
  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.

28
Figure 1: Location Map

29
Figure 2: Property Map

30
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.

31
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.

32
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.

33
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
34
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

35
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.

36
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.

37
Figure 4: Property Geology

Figure 5: Broken Hammer Geology

38
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).

39
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).

40
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.

41
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.

42
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.

43
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.

44
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.

45
 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

46
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.

47
 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.

48
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.

49
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

50
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.

51
 Figure 7: Copper in Blank Samples

Cu Blank Samples
0.06

0.05

0.04
samples
wt.%

0.03 Avg + STD
Linear (Avg)
0.02
Linear (Avg + STD)
0.01

0
27‐Jan‐04 10‐Jun‐05 23‐Oct‐06 6‐Mar‐08 19‐Jul‐09 1‐Dec‐10

Figure 8: Nickel in Blank Samples

Ni Blank Samples
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
samples
0.05
wt.%

Avg + STD
0.04
Linear (Avg)
0.03
Linear (Avg + STD)
0.02
0.01
0
27‐Jan‐04 10‐Jun‐05 23‐Oct‐06 6‐Mar‐08 19‐Jul‐09 1‐Dec‐10

Figure 9: Palladium in Blank Samples

Pd Blank Samples
0.6

0.5

0.4
samples
ppm

0.3 Avg + STD
Linear (Avg)
0.2
Linear (Avg + STD)
0.1

0
27‐Jan‐04 10‐Jun‐05 23‐Oct‐06 6‐Mar‐08 19‐Jul‐09 1‐Dec‐10

52
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).

53
 Figure 10: Nickel Standard Assay Values

Nickel Standard
0.1

0.075
wt.%

0.05

0.025 Analyses
Standard
0
Upper 3STD
Lower 3STD

Figure 11: Palladium Standard Assay Values

Pd Standard
7

5
ppm

4 Analyses
Standard
3
Upper 3STD
2 Lower 3STD
06‐Jan‐04 06‐Jan‐05 06‐Jan‐06 06‐Jan‐07 06‐Jan‐08 06‐Jan‐09 06‐Jan‐10 06‐Jan‐11

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).

54
 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).

55
 Figure 13: Copper Duplicate Assays

Cu Duplicate Pairs
100
y = 0.9906x
R² = 0.9906
10
Cu wt.%

1
Cu value
Linear (Cu value)
0.1

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Cu wt.%

Figure 14: Platinum Duplicate Assays

Pt Duplicate Pairs
100
y = 0.5446x
R² = 0.7784
10

Pt value
0.1
Linear (Pt value)
0.01

0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

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

56
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.

57
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.

58
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

59
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.

60
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.

61
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

62
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.

63
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.

64
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/Oli
vine 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

65
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.

66
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

67
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

68
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,
69
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.

70
 Figure 20: Kinetic Curves: Combined Tests F1,F4,F5

100

90

80

70
Recovery (%)

60

50

40
Copper
30 Palladium
20 Platinum
Gold
10
Nickel
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (min)

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.

71
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.

72
 Figure 21: Locked Cycle Flotation Flowsheet (Strathcona)

A B C
Primary Grind
Scav Tails

Regrind

Po Tails F
G

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.

73
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).

74
  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:

75
 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

Weight Assays, % % Distribution

Product
% Cu Ni S Cu Ni S
Cleaner 2 Conc (Final) 1.40 29.9 2.36 30.3 80.1 31.0 77.3

Weight Assays, % % Distribution

Product
% Pt Pd Au Pt Pd Au
Cleaner 2 Conc (Final) 1.40 55.2 54.6 30.1 39.3 58.3 70.9

76
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

Wt Assay, g/t % Distribution

Test Grind
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.

77
Table 20: F14 Batch Gravity/Flotation Test Results and Summary

Weight Assays, % % Distribution

Product
% 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

Weight Assays, g/t % Distribution

Product
% 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

Wt Assays, g/t % Distribution

Test
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.

78
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

Rougher
Rougher
Rod Mill
Tails

Gravity
Concentrate

Cleaner 1
Scavenger
Pebble Mill
Cleaner Tails
Scavenger

Cleaner 2

Flotation
Concentrate

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 125m. Test
results are summarized in Table 22.

79
 Table 22: Locked Cycle Test Results
Mineral Mass Mineral Distribution
Element 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

80
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:

81
 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

82
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%

83
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.

84
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

85
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.

86
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

No. of Composite
Domain Mean Min Max 95th Percentile
Samples 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.

87
 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
2
regression against copper produced the most favourable R value. This regression was
used to generate sulphur values for any missing analytical data as seen in Figure 25
below.

88
 Figure 25: Regression for Sulphur

S vs Cu
n=646

 35.00
 30.00
 25.00
 20.00
S (%)

 15.00
 10.00 y = 0.9276x + 0.054
 5.00 R² = 0.9884

 ‐
 ‐  5.00  10.00  15.00  20.00  25.00  30.00  35.00
Cu (%)

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.

89
 Figure 26: Specific Gravity Versus Sulphur

SG Pulps vs S>2.00
 4.00
 3.50
 3.00
 2.50
SG Pulp

 2.00 y = 0.0008x2 + 0.0158x + 2.73

 1.50 R² = 0.8245
 1.00
 0.50
 ‐
 ‐  5.00  10.00  15.00  20.00  25.00
S

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).

90
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

91
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

92
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

93
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

94
Figures 29 and 30 on the following pages are cross sections showing CuEq grade
distribution.

95
Figure 29: North-South Cross Section 497,315E

96
Figure 30: North-South Cross Section 497,235E

97
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).

98
  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
Q-Q Plot - CuEq

35.00
30.00
Grade (% CuEq)

25.00
AllCmps
20.00
15.00 Regmod

10.00
5.00
0.00
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95

Quantiles

Figure 32: Swath Plot Longitudinal Section West to East

8.00 90

7.00 80

6.00 70
60
5.00
50 # of Smps
CuEq (%)

4.00 AllCmp
40 RegAllmod
3.00
30
2.00 20
1.00 10
- -

Sections

99
 Figure 33: Swath Plot Cross Section South to North

8.00 90

7.00 80

6.00 70
60
5.00
50 # of Smps
CuEq (%)

4.00 AllCmp
40 RegAllmod
3.00
30
2.00 20
1.00 10
- -

Sections

Figure 34: Swath Plot Plans at 20 Metre Elevations

7.00 180
160
6.00
140
5.00
120
4.00 100 # of Smps
CuEq (%)

AllCmp
3.00 80 RegAllmod
60
2.00
40
1.00
20
- -

Elevations

100
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.

101
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.

102
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.

103
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.

104
Figure 35: Open Pit Model

105
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.

106
Table 33: Pit Optimization Parameters

Items Units Value Comments

Platinum US$/troy oz 1600 -
Palladium US$/troy oz 750
Silver US$/troy oz 20
Metal
Gold US$/troy oz 1300
Prices
Nickel US$/lb 9
Copper US$/lb 3
Cobalt US$/lb 0
Platinum % 70.6  -
Palladium % 85.2 
Silver % 62.6 
Metal
Gold % 81.0 
Recoveries
Nickel % 58.4 
Copper % 93.0 
Cobalt % 37.3 
Platinum % 80.0  -
Palladium % 80.0 
Silver % 60.0 
Payable Metal
Gold % 80.0 
Nickel % 88.0 
Copper % 88.0 
Cobalt % 50.0 
Mining Cost - Waste $/t mined 4.0 -
Mining Cost - Ore $/t mined 8.85
Operating Crushing $/t milled 6.0
Costs 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 ‐ 
t/d 800 -
Mill Throughput
t/a 280,000 -

107
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.

108
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 6m
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)

109
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.

110
 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.

111
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.

112
 Table 36 : Mine Development Schedule

MONTH
ACTIVITY
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
                                                  

113
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

114
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.

115
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

116
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:
117
Figure 37: Pit Bench 400

Figure 38: Pit Bench 397

118
Figure 39: Pit Bench 394

Figure 40: Pit Bench 391

119
Figure 41: Pit Bench 388

Figure 42: Pit Bench 385

120
Figure 43: Pit Bench 382

Figure 44: Pit Bench 379

121
Figure 45: Pit Bench 376

Figure 46: Pit Bench 373

122
Figure 47: Pit Bench 370

Figure 48: Pit Bench 367

123
Figure 49: Pit Bench 364

Figure 50: Pit Bench 361

124
Figure 51: Pit Bench 358

Figure 52: Pit Bench 355

125
Figure 53: Pit Bench 352

Figure 54: Pit Bench 349

126
Figure 55: Pit Bench 346

Figure 56: Pit Bench 343

127
Figure 57: Pit Bench 340

Figure 58: Pit Bench 337

128
Figure 59: Pit Bench 334

Figure 60: Pit Bench 331

129
Figure 61: Pit Bench 328

Figure 62: Pit Bench 325

130
Figure 63: Pit Bench 322

Figure 64: Pit Bench 319

131
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 16,800

2 South Dike & New Roadway to Pit 12,778 20,444 37,244
3 North Dike Access Road 8,438 13,500 50,744
4 North Dike 6,119 9,791 60,535
5 10% Up Ramp to top of hill 15,806 25,290 85,825
6 Crushing/Sampling Area 15,486 24,778 110,603
7 10% (Max) Down Ramp 28,603 45,765 156,368
8 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

132
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:

133
  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.

134
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.
135
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

136
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

137
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 Recovery
Metal
(%)
Copper 94.0
Nickel 58.0
Palladium 85.0
Platinum 71.0
Gold 81.0
Silver 63.0

138
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

139
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

140
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:

141
 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 :

142
Figure 68: Broken Hammer Project Infrastructure

143
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

144
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.

145
 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.

146
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.

147
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:

148
 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.

149
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).

150
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

151
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

152
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.

153
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

154
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
155
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)

156
  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:

157
 Table 43: Permitting Requirements Schedule
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Assessment / Approval 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

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.

158
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)

159
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.

160
 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
161
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

$/Tonne $/Tonne
Mine Operating Costs
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

$/Tonne $/Tonne
Processing Costs
Mined Milled

Milling, Smelting,
RefiningCharges & Penalties $12,227,150 $6.41 $62.19
Other $0 $0 $0
TOTAL PROCESSING COSTS $6.41 $62.19

162
Table 49: Project Operating Costs

$/Tonne $/Tonne
Project Operating Costs
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

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

163
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

164
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

1 CAD ‐> USD
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88

Source: Bank of Canada, September 2012

165
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

Copper 3‐year average price 

of Copper is $3.62
5

4.5

3.5

2.5

2
Sep‐09

Jul‐10
Sep‐10

Jul‐11
Sep‐11
Nov‐09
Jan‐10

Jul‐12
Sep‐12
Mar‐10
May‐10

Nov‐10
Jan‐11
Mar‐11
May‐11

Nov‐11
Jan‐12
Mar‐12
May‐12

Data source: Kitco Metals

166
 Figure 76: 3-year Monthly Platinum Price

3‐year average price of 
Platinum Platinum is $1,601.00
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
Sep‐09

Jan‐10
Mar‐10

Jul‐10
Sep‐10

Jan‐11
Mar‐11

Jul‐11
Sep‐11

Jan‐12
Nov‐09

Mar‐12

Jul‐12
Sep‐12
May‐10

Nov‐10

May‐11

Nov‐11

May‐12
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.

167
 Table 51: Copper & Platinum Metal Prices

Metal Units 2012 Updated Spot Prices Base Case 3-Yr avg.
Resource Report October 1, 12 PFS
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 :
168
  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 

169
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.

170
 Figure 77: Pre-Tax NPV Sensitivity Analysis

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

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000
NPV C$ x '000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$0
‐15% ‐10% ‐5% Base 5% 10% 15%

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

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:

171
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).

172
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.

173
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.

174
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..

175
23 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND
INFORMATION
No additional information or explanation is necessary to make this Technical Report
understandable and not misleading.

176
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.
177
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.

178
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.

179
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.

180
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.

181
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,

182
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

183
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.

184
 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.

185
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

186
 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.

187
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

188
 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.

189
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.

190
This October 8th , 2012

(Signed & Sealed) “Tim McBride”

Tim McBride, P.Geo.

191