Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd. I MATRIX GEOTECHNOLOGIES LTD ... · targets (1 st + 2nd priority) at 1 :5000 scale (1 plan). TDIP Raw data: Iris IP-6 format (see Appendix C) Gradient

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd .

Suite 400, 8 King Street East Toronto, ON M5C 1 B5

~ MATRIX GEOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.

-2 396 1

Assessment Report

Regarding the IPIRESISTIVITY and MAGNETIC SURVEYS at IRON MASK PROPERrr, CARTIER, ONTARIO onbehaHof CHAMPION BEAR RESOURCES LTD Calgary, Alberta

NuV ~u LOOB

GEOSCieNCE ASSESSMENT OFFICE


Matrix GeoTechnologies LId IPIResistivity Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Champion Bear Resources LId Iron Mask Property

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 4

2. GENERAL SURVEY DETAILS ...... .. ..... .. .............. .. .................. .................................................................... 5

LOCATION ... . ........... .. ... ... .... .. . ..... .. ..... ... ..... ... .. ...... . ... . .. .. .. .. . ... ... . .. ... .. .... ...... .. .. ..... .... . .... ... .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... 5

ACCESS .. ....... .... ...... ... . ....... .. ... .... . .... . .. ....... ...... .. ..... .. ... . . ... ... .... . .......... , .... .. ..... . ... .. . ... . . ..... ... .. . ... .. ... .. ...... 6

SURVEY GRID ..... ... .... .. ...... .. .. ... . ............ .. ............. .. ....... .. .... .. ........ . .. ... .... ...... .. .... .. ..... ... .. ... . ....... .. ... .. . .... 6

3. SURVEY WORK UNDERT AKEN .... ........ ............................. ... .. ... ................................................................. 7

GENERALITIES ................ .......... ... ............ . .... .. ...... . .. ..... . .. .... .. .. .... . .... . . .......... .. .................. .. ... .. ........ .... .... 7

PERSONNEL .. ......... .. . ... . ....... ... .... .... .. .... ..... .. ...... .. ..... ..... .. ... ... .. ...... . ... .... .. ... ... ... . ..... . ..... . ........ ..... .. . .... ..... 7

SPECIFICA nONS ........ . .. .. .... ... ... ....... .. ........ .. ......... .. ... .... ...... ... ...... .. .. . .. .. .. ............. .. ....... ... .... .. ........ .. ... .... 7

SURVEY COVERAGE: ... .. .. . ...... .. . ..... ... .. . . ..... ....... .... ..... .... . ........ .. . ........... .. . ....... .. . .. .. . ......... ... .... .. . ... ... .. .... . . 9

INSTRUMENTATION ... . .... . ... .. .. .... .... .... .. ............ ....... .. ...... . .................. .... ... .. ..... . .. .. ........... ... .. ..................... 9

PARAMETERS ..... .. ..... ... .... ... .. .. . .... . .... .. .. . ... . ... ...... . ....... .. .. . ....... ...... .. ........ ..... ..... ... .. .. ........ ..... .... .. .. ..... ..... 1 0

MEASUREMENT ACCURACY AND REPEATABILITY ...... . ... .... ....... .. ....... .. ......... .. .. .. ... . ............ ............ . ........... 10

DATA PRESENTATION ... .. ...... .. . .... ... .. ..... .. ... ..... ... .. .... ... .. ..... .. ... . .. .. .. .. . ... .. . ...... ... ..... .. .. .. ..... ..... ... .. .... .. ..... .. 10

4. RESULTS AND SUMMARY INTERPRETATION ..................................................................................... 12

INTRODUCTION TO GRADIENT \ PDP SURVEyS ...... ..... .. ... ..... .. . .... . ... .. . .... ...... ... .. .. ..... ...... ... .. ... .. ..... .. .......... 12

INTRODUCTION TO QUANTITATIVE SECTION ™ METHODOLOGy ..... .. ... .. .. ........... .. .. . ..... ......... ... .. ..... .. .. .... .... 13

PROPERTY GEOLOGY .. ......... . .. . .. . ..... ...... .. ......... ... ..... .. .. ... . ..... ... ... .... .. ... ... .. .... .. ... . ... ..... . .. . ....... .. .. ....... ... . 14

GRADIENT TDIP\RESISTIVITY SURVEY RESULTS .... ... ... ..... .. . .. .. ... ... ... ............ ... .. ....... .. .. .. .. ... .... .... . ............ 14

INTERPRETATION OF MAGNETIC SURVEY RESULTS .. ...... .. .. . ... ..... ....... . .. .. ........ ..... ... .. ......... ..... . . ... . . .... .. . .... 16

QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS DESCRIPTION .... .... . .. .. . . .. ... .... .. .... ... .. ... ...... .... ... ..... .... ... .. . .. ... .. ... .................. .... 19

FOLLOW-UP TARGETS ANALYSIS ............... . ........ . ... .. . .. ........ .. .... . ..... .. ..... . ............. . .. ........ ..... .. .... .. .. . .. .. ..... 21

5. CONLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... .. .. ... .. ................... ............................................... 25

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

APPENDIX B: IRIS IP6 DIGITAL FORMAT

APPENDIX C: COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF IP ANOMALIES

OS-222 - October. 2008 ii


Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd IPIResistivity Survey

APPENDIX D: THEORETICAL BASIS AND SURVEY PROCEDURES

APPENDIX E: INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS

APPENDIX F: LIST OF MAPS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Champion Bear Resources Ltd Iron Mask Property

Figure 1: General Property Location of the Iron Mask South Grid .. .... ... .... ... ... .... .. ........... .............. ... .. 5

Figure 2: Gradient Schematic Array Layout... ....... .... ..... ................ ......... .... ... ..... ................. .. .... ... .. .. .. .8

Figure 3: Pole-Dipole Schematic Array Layout. ................ ... .. .... ..... ..... ......... ... .. .. ........ ... .. ... ... .. .. ....... .. . 8

Figure 4: Magnetic Data overlying the interpretation of Induced Polarization .... ...... .. .... ...... .. .. ..... ....... 16

Figure 5: FFT Processirg of Total Field Magnetic .. ........ ...... ........ ...... ............ . ... ..... ... .......... .... ... ...... . 18

Table I: Gradient Survey Coverage .......... .. ..... ...... ....... ..... .... ....... ...... ........ ...... .. ........ .......... ... ... ............ 9

Table II: Pole-Dipole Survey Coverage ...... .. ........ ...... ................ ..... .. ... .......... .... .. .... ... .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .... . .. . 9

Table III: Recommended Targets for Follow up at Iron Mask SOuth Grid ..... ... ................. ... .... ....... .. ... 21

Table III (cant.) : Recommended Targets for Follow up at Iron Mask South Grid ....... ......... ... ..... ..... .... 22

Table III (cont.) : Recommended Targets for Follow up at Iron Mask South Grid ...... .... ..... .. ..... ........... 23

Table III (cont. ): Recommended Targets for Follow up at Iron Mask South Grid ... ... .. ......... .. ..... ... ...... 24

OS-222 - October, 2008 iii



1. INTRODUCTION


• MGT Project #: QS-222

• Project Name: Iron Mask Property

• Survey Period: October 2ND to October 21 sT, 2008

• Survey Type: Induced Polarization , Resistivity and Magnetic

Champion Bear qesources Ltd . • Client:

• Representative: Watts, Griffis and McOuat

• Client Address: Suite 400, 8 King Street East Toronto ON M5C 185

• Objectives:

1.

2.

3.

Document the physical properties of the major lithologic units and alteration patterns for compilation with the exploration database.

Generate a geological model using the Time Domain Induced Polarization \ Resistivity data.

Increase the exploration program efficiency by better directing the future exploration works and to assist in mapping of general geology, locating structural and alteration features that may favor the precious and base metals presence in the surveyed areas.

The Gradiert array was designed to investigate UP to 300 m depth range and was chosen for its high resolution and deep penetration capabilities. The Pole-Dipole arrays are used as detailing tool and were designed to investigate in the 30-150 meters depth range.

• Report Type: Assessment Report

05-222 - October, 2008 4


Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd IP\Resistivily Survey

2. GENERAL SURVEY DETAILS

LOCATION

• Province:

• Country:

• Nearest Settlement:

• UTM Coordinates:

Ontario

Canada

Cartier Twp.


UTM Coordinates (83, Zone 17N):

452,OOOE - 5,171 ,OOON Latitude ILongitude: 46°42'N I 81 °38'W

Figure 1: General Property Location of the Iron Mask South Grid

OS-222 - October, 2008 5


Matrix Geo Technologies Ltd IP\Resistivity Survey

ACCESS

• Base of Operations:

• Grid Location:

• Mode of Access:

SURVEVGRID

• Coordinate Reference System:

• Established:

• Line Separation:

• Station Interval:

• Method of Chaining:

• Datum:

08-222 - October, 2008 6


Cartier Township, Ontario

Iron Mask Grid is located 75 km NW of Sudbury

The surveyed grid area is accessible by truck and ATV.

UTM (Map Datum NAD83)

Prior the survey execution

100 meters

25 meters

Metric-chained

NAD 1983


Matrix GeoTechnologies ltd IP\Resistivity Survey

3. SURVEY WORK UNDERTAKEN

GENERALITIES


• Surveyed By:

• Survey Dates:

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd

October 2ND to October 21 ST, 2008

• Mob/Demob Days: 2 days

• Survey Coverage: approx . 30.0 km

PERSONNEL

FIELD CREW

• Project Manager: Ludvig Kapllani (Toronto, ON)

• Field Assistants: Daniel Playford (Jameville, NS)

SPECIFICATIONS

Ted Rudderham (Point Edward, NS) Todd Var W;eren (Sudbury, ON) Gregory Stevenson (Sudbury, ON)

• Arrays: 1) Gradient (see Fig. 2) 2) Pole-Dipole (see Fig. 3)

• Transmitting dipole spacing: Gradient: C1-C2 = 2000 and 1300 meters Pole-Dipole: C--C2 = 1.2 km minimum

• Array Parameters: Gradient: MN= 25 m Pole-Dipole: n=2a, a=25m, dipole 1 to 6

• Sampling Interval: 25 meters

• Total Gradient AB Blocks: 3 blocks

• Total Pole-Dipole Lines: 4 lines

• Areal Coverage: approx 1.8 km2

08-222 - October. 2008 7




OS-222 - October, 2008

GRADIENT AR~ AB = length C1-C 2 ,. Tx

I( • MN = length Pl-P2

(6 x P.,-P2 Spread)

GRADIENT ARRAY COVERAGE AREA

Figure 2: Gradient Schematic Array Layout.

DIPOLE-POLE ROLL-ALONG ARRAY

A~~:.'~ '$ Q ~ c (COVE7 POINTS PER SPREAD

--~ Tx r-- _

~""""'L""///'/ ./ C " ...... --....--....-.....,:---,::--,~ f-"::..-----........... //// / / I \ 1 1',.2<',. "" ~~ ~~~--.. V-///// L I \ fi 2S.. '" ~ .":-... "'--. ~ ........... "---///// V V' ,.

. A '\. "" "" --.......... ~ ~

* -(( * * ~~ N=1

-(( ** * -cr* N=2

f::r f::r f::r **~ N=3

* f::r * ** f::r N=4

f:I '* f:r * '* f:r N=5

"* '*"* * "*~ N=6

NE~ t PREVIOUS SPREAD CURRENT SPREAD SPREAD

Figure 3: Pole-Dipole Schematic Array Layout.

B


Matrix Goo Technologies Ltd IP\Resistivity Survey

SURVEY COVERAGE:

1. Reconnaissance Gradient: 20,425 m (see Table I)

2. Pole-Dipole Array: 3,000 m (see Table II)

LINE START END TOTAL(m) AB=1400m

L1+00N 1425W 400W 1025 C-. .......

LO 1425W 950

L1+00S 1525W 625W 900

L2+00S 1525W 625W 900

L3+00S 1525W 625W 900 _ ..

L4+00S 1500W 625W 875

L5+00S 1250W 600W 650

L6+00S 1175W 400W 775

1125W 400W 725

1350W 400W 950

L9+00S 1525W 400W 1125

L10+00S 1500W 400W 1100

L11+00S 1525W I 400W 1125

L12+00S 1525W 400W 1125

L13+00S 1550W 325W 1225

L14+00S 1500W 325W 1175

L15+00S 1525W 275W 1250

L16+00S 1525W 275W 1250

L 17+00S 1500W 325W I 1175 I

L18+00S 1525W 300W I

1225

TOTAL I 20425

Table I: Gradient Survey Coverage


MAX EXTENT TOTAL (m) 1350W 650E 700

1100W 575E 625

1175W 500W 675

1500W 500W 1000 TOTAL 3000

Table II: Po/e-Dill.0/e Surve~ Coverage

INSTRUMENTATION

• Receiver: IRIS IP-6 (time domain /10 channels)

05-222 October, 2008 9


Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd Champion Bear Resources Ltd IPIResistivity SUlVey Iron Mask Prop'$rty

• Transmitter: IPT1-B Transmitter (max output 12 KVA)

• Power Supply: MG-1 Honda 6.5 KW Generator

PARAMETERS

• Input Waveform: 0.0625 Hz square wave at 50% duty cycle (16 seconds On/Off)

• Receiver Sampling Parameters: Semi-logarithmic windows

• Measured Parameters:

1) Chargeability in millivoltsNolt (10 time slices + total area under decay curve) 2) Primary Voltage in millivolts and Input Current in amperes for Resistivity

calculation according to the pole-dipole and gradient arrays geometry factor1.

MEASUREMENT ACCURACY AND REPEATABILITY

• Chargeability:

• Resistivity:

DATA PRESENTATION

• Maps:

Reconnaissance Plan Maps:

Pole-Dipole Pseudosections:

Quantitative Sections:

Interpretation Plan Map:

• Digital:

generally s 0.5 mVN.

less than 5% cumulative error from Primary voltage and Input current measurements.

Posted/contoured Total Chargeability and Apparent Resistivity, at 1 :5000 scale.

Posted/contoured pseudo depth section maps of combined Total Chargeability and Apparent Resistivit)1 (interpreted) at 1: 2500 scale (non-terrain corrected).

Interpreted IP\Resistivity results represented as conceptual geological model or geoelectric sections at 1 :2500 scale.

Outlining anomalies, interpreted zones of thickenedmineralization, resistivity zones + recommended drill targets (1 st + 2nd priority) at 1 :5000 scale (1 plan).

TDIP Raw data: Iris IP-6 format (see Appendix C) Gradient Processed data:

Geosoft .XYZ files using the following format: Column 1 ==> Station - Eastings, in meters Column 2 Line - Northings, in meters Column 3 ==> Total Chargeability, in mVN Column 4 ==> Apparent Resistivity, in Q-m

1 See BRGMIIRIS IP6 receiver operating manual and Appendix C.

QS-222 October, 2008 10


Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd IP\Resistivity Survey


Pole-Dipole Processed data: Geosoft .GOB files using the following format:

QS-222 October, 2008

Column 1 :=:;, Line - Northings, in meters Column 2 :=:;, Station - Eastings, in meters Column 3 :=:;, Estimated Depth in Pseudosection, in meters Column 4 to 10:=:;, Time Windows of Total Chargeability, in mVN Column 11 :=:;, Total Chargeability, in mVN Column 12 :=:;, Reading Dipole Number Column 13 :=:;, Transmitting Dipole Electrode Position, in meters Column 14 and 15:=:;, Receiving Dipole Electrode Position, in meters Column 16 :=:;, Primary Voltage, in mV Column 17 :=:;, Induced Current, in Amps Column 18 :=:;, Self-Potential Column 19 :=:;, Flag Channel using the Quality Control Column 20 ~ Type of reading (0 single reading; 1 average reading) Column 21 :=:;, Contact Resistivity, in kohm-m Column 22:=:;, Apparent Resistivity, in ohm-m Column 23:=:;, Total Chargeability, in mVN Column 24 :=:;, Reading Error Column 25 :=:;, Number of Reading Cycles

11



4. RESULTS AND SUMMARY INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION TO GRADIEN-- \ PDP SURVEYS


The gradient array survey results are relied upon as a bulk conductivity\chargeability mapping tool and large transmit dipoles employed provide significant depth of investigation in the central region of the grid and the relatively narrow receiver dipoles also offer significant lateral resolution, but are none the less subject to significant volume averaging.

Based on the array geometry chosen, gradient investigation depth approaching 300 meters were obtained - with the deepest penetration in the middle third of the array and shallower depths of investigation progressively closer to the transmit electrodes. The gradient apparent resistivity and chargeability data therefore represent a bulk average, from surface to depth, when observed in plan view. Additionally, the gradient array anomaly patterns are essentially sub-vertical (i.e . without complex , asymmetric pant-leg shapes, as in pdp and dpdp), and can be visualized in plan in the same manner as magnetic or gravity data . However, in the presence of moderate to shallow dips, the gradient array anomalies tend to be shifted down-dip relative to shallower arrays , such as pole-dipole - greater discrepancies can also occur with dipole-dipole, owing to the asymmetric array geometry, which tends to bias anomalies towards the infinity pole .

The geophysical interpretation plan presents the interpreted anomaly boxes, highlighting the strength and resistivity association of the IP anomaly to their source/alteration type:

a) High resistivity IP boxes, related to either disseminated sulphides or magnetite possibly associated with quartz-carbonate alteration or, alternatively, more felsic/less porous geology and/or bedrock/overburden topographic effects;

b) Nil (flat) resistivity and contact-type IP boxes likely correspond to possibly more weakly-altered and/or thin/buried sulphide zones and/or mineralization along geologic contacts , or magnetite/hematite; and

c) Low (conductive) resistivity IP boxes, most likely representing the key target signature relating to possible massive to stringer sulphides, mineralized shear zones or, alternatively, faulted or clay-altered disseminated sulphides, magnetite/hematite.

Clearly , while all anomaly types (high p / low p / nil p), could potentially represent equally valid exploration targets, the low resistivity/increased chargeabil ity signatures best represent the key geophysical targets; however the resistive IP signatures , whici"' are indicators of disseminated mineralization might represent key exploration targets .

The line-to-line correlation of anomalies is based primarily on the resistivity association (i.e . resistive and conductive anomalies never aligned along the same axis dJe to likely dissimilar mineralogy / alteration / ongin) - thereby providing some measure of geologic/geophysical control to the interpretation. In addition, fault structures have also been interpreted based on evidence from the TDIP results , generally represented by lower resistivity and lower chargeability.

Generally, geophysical parameters and especially total chargeability suffer by anisotropy, unequal physical properties along different axes and the parameter is highly affected by the surveying direction. For that reason , the authors recommend drilling along the line to achieve better results and compare the interpretation with exploration results obtain in the line or adjacent to the line.

OS-222 - October, 2008 12



INTRODUCTION TO QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ METHODOLOGy2


Structures or ore bodies are a product of their geological environment, and traditionally we make poor use of our exploration data in constructing interpretative geological models that will give exploration decisions. The connection between ground geophysics and a geological model is done through prior experience, physical\mathematical IP\Resistivity modeling and expensive DDH programs. To date geologic-geophysical models developed from Induced Polarization \ Apparent Resistivity obtained from geoelectric methods, are created by qualitative estimations and verified by phYSical and mathematical modeling. These models are always limited to final qualitative estimation of geoelectric and geometric parameters.

QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ METHODOLOGY provides much better understanding of the relationship between resistivity parameter and chargeability parameter, favoring the resistivity parameter as direct indicator of structures, which is undervalued in the interpretation of geoelectric data. The contrast in specific resistivity (the most representative resistivity of a layer \ unit or group layers \ units) and layers' boundaries are derived from interpretation of resistivity data regardless of geoelectric array used. This is the base of the conceptual geologic-geoelectric model. Geoelectric contacts, faulting system, layers and structures are presented, in geoelectric cross-section format. When enough geological information is available, lithologic statements are made. Geologic-lithologic concepts are related to geoelectric units and favorable geoelectric hosts3 are identified based on the exploration objectives.

Furthermore, interpreted induced polarization data integrated into the geoelectric cross-section, indicating the occurrence of metallic/electronic/electrode IP. This phenomenon may be observed in electrically conductive bodies and/or non-metallic/electrolytic/membrane IP, which is also found in the absence of electrically conductive bodies. Consequently, an ilP model is developed, representing the distribution of metallic and non-metallic responses.

The final step is to correlate favorable geoelectric hosts with the IP signatures generating the conceptual model. This will determine the best exploration targets based on the exploration objectives. The conceptual geological-geoelectric model can be visualized in a final geological section and can be refined and modified, integrating/overlying additional exploration data. The end product represents a final and unique integrated 20 geological model that can be shared with exploration managers and geoscientists.

Another important consideration is that QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ METHODOLOGY can be considered as multi-channel coverage survey and our proprietary interpretation procedure can give very detailed interpretation mesh proportional to the survey spacing (e.g. every 25 meters), analogous to multichannel seismic coverage concept.

It is Significant to emphasize the fact that QUANTITATIVE SeCTION ™ METHODOLOGY is not an inversion program or a simple data integration process, but is a complex methodology that requires a different

2 The following definitions assist to relate some of the used terminology to the methodology.

"QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ represents a section. derived from the interpretation of Induced PolarizationlApparent Resistivity raw data obtained from conventional and non-conventional array configuration or array combination, represented in the form of conceptual geoelectric-facial model. if geological data are not available. or in the form of conceptual geological model. otherwise,"

"A conceptual geoelectric-facial model represents a section with depths and spatial locations of various geological units\structure8. without assigning any geological significance to the Interpreted structures or units."

"A conceptual geological-geoelectric or lithofacial model represents a section with depths and spatial locations of various geological units\structures, assigning geological significance to the structures or units:

3 Favorable geoelectric host represent the interpreted resistivity signatures, which satisfy the exploration objectives in terms of resistivity association (e.g. quartz is associated with high resistivity, VMS are associated with low resistivity), the expected spatial characteristics and their relation with the other interpreted geological units.

OS-222 - October, 2008 13


Matrix Geo Technologies ltd IP\Resistivity Survey


project design, data acquisition and interpretation procedures. It might be comprehensible by now that the conceptual geological model provided by QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ METHOOOLOGY can be used as root model for the other geoscientific data, which can be easily integrated or modeled based on it. This is particularly important in areas that the geological knowledge is scarce or incomplete.

PROPERTY GEOLOGY

The IRON MASK SOUTH GRID is underlain by rocks of the Superior Province, including Early Precambrian metavolcanics, metasediments, felsic plutonic migmatic and mafic intrusive rocks, as well as Middle Precambrian Huronian Supergroup metasedimets and mafic intrusions, the Nippising Diabase and latl3 mafic dykes and intrusives related to the Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC).

The property lies in a zone of Sudbury Breccia, consisting of mineral and rock fragments derived predominantly from wallrocks supported by a fine-grained matrix, and the intrusion of "offset dykes". Two major varieties of these dykes have been recognized: radial and concentric.

The IRON MASK SOUTH GRID show apparent similarity to the general geological environment of OlympiC Dam Cu-U-Au-LREE deposit. There is also potential on the property for radial and concentric dykl:l hosted Ni-Cu-PGE related to the SIC. Offset dyke deposit in the Sudbury area consists of disseminated to massive sulphides, predominantly pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite and pentlandite within the dykes. Tht~

massive sulphide bodies are often rimmed by a halo of disseminated material and are found along the contacts of the dyke.

GRADIENT TDIP\RESISTIVITY SURVEY RESULTS

The following discussion summarizes the results of the Gradient \ Pole-Dipole TDIP \ Resistivity surveys over the IRON MASK SOUTH GRID, undertaken by MATRIX GEoTECHNOlOGIES LTD in October 2008. The present geophysical interpretation makes use of TO Induced Polarization \ Resistivity (using Gradient and Pole-Dipole arrays) parameters, with chargeability parameter able to detect and discern mineralization ranging from disseminate to massive concentrations and resistivity susceptibility characterizing the structures.

In addition, MATRIX GEoTECHNOLOGIES LTD undertook GPS survey of the grid using Garmin 60X handheld receiver. The data was processed using Garmin MapSource program and the processed data were incorporated to IP \ Resistivity data. It is important to emphasize that there is a shift in coordinates along TL700W; however the TL700W coordinates are averaged in IP\Resistivity\Magnetic plan maps.

The IP\Resistivity results over the IRON MASK SOUTH GRID successfully define the geophysical signatures potentially associated to lithological changes, structures, and chemical alteration and, most importantly, chargeability responses related to mineralization.

The total chargeability and apparent resistivity show that the property is generally characterized by high resistivity and weak chargeability type of IPfResistivity response, suggesting the predominance of low conductivity geological units, such as mafic units and felsic\qtz\carbonate alteration. Both geophysical parameters display NE-SW lineaments, but often shifted and displaced, especially apparent resistivity, suggesting highly tectonic activity. Judging by the value gradients it is quite possible the anomalous zones are sub-vertical or near vertical\slightly dipping.

The authors would like to emphasize the fact that the induced polarization phenomena, although generally less intense, is also found in the absence of electrically conductive bodies (known as non·· metallic or electrolytic IP). To explain electrolytic IP, one often considers the presence of clay particles .. whose surface would be charged negatively and hence would induce an accumulation of cations in thE;

OS-222 October. 2008 14




electrolyte. As observed IP data show, the surveyed grid shows a great number of questionable to weak IP responses that might be related to non-metallic IP, especially when associated with low resistivity.

The gradient total chargeability responses at IRON MASK SOUTH GRID are characterized by narrow range in strength, varying between weak to moderate but generally falling in the moderate\weak category (av~l. 6.6 mVN) - consistent with weak sulphide content, with the peaks corresponding to higher mineralization content at depth. It is important to emphasize the PGM are associated with weak to moderate chargeability responses, depending on associated sulphide content, and the geological work shows PGM potential of the property.

The total chargeability plan map displays a number of polarizable zones, trending NE-SW and occasionally NS, generally broken and bent, suggesting a possible post-faulting mineralization occurrence. The IP anomalous zones are relatively wide, suggesting either multiple causative bodies or scattered mineralization\halo surrounding the main causative body\ies and\or their slight dipping. In addition, the total chargeability plan map shows that the IP anomalies strengthen to the grid north and NE, most likely suggesting increase of sulphide content to the grid north and NE.

The interpretation plan map shows that although the IP zones in raw data seems to be broken, connection between zones\axis can be made, forming long IP axis that most likely are locally discontinued (see INTERPRETATION PLAN MAP). The interpretation of IP data shows the presence of several distinct chargeable zones that represent geophysical interests.

The most prominent chargeability feature(s) ZONE A is long (> 500 meters), and seems to continue to grid north (ZONE A2) and SE (ZONE A1). ZONE A is characterized by weak to moderate IP signatures along relatively long axis and associated with high\nil\contact resistivity, showing the pattern of mineralized qtz\carbonate dyke or representing mineralization along contacts\footwall.

ZONE A 1, interpreted to be offset of ZONE A, is characterized by weak\moderate chargeabilities and generally associated with resistive hosts. The zone continues, thinning and bulging, and partially disrupted by minor local faults. As mentioned, the IP signatures along zone A1 are associated with high\contact type of resistivity, making case of disseminated contacts along qtz\carbonate dykes\ contacts\footwall.

ZONE A2, interpreted to be the north continuation of ZONE A, is characterized by weak to moderate IF' signatures that form relatively long chargeable IP axis. The induced polarization signatures along zone:! A2 are mostly associated with high\contact resistivity, suggesting the presence of disseminated mineralization along qtz\carbonate\contacts\footwall; however low resistivity IP anomalies are observed as well.

ZONE A3, interpreted to be SW continuation of ZONE A is characterized by weak to moderate IF' signatures that seem to continue further to the grid SW. The zone is associated to high\nil\contact type of conductivity, suggesting more disseminated nature of mineralization.

ZONE B is relatively long (> 400 meters) and seems to continue further to the grid north. The zonl3 characterized by weak to moderate IP associated with both conductive and resistivity hosts, suggesting the presence of VMS and disseminated mineralization along distinct axis.

In addition, total chargeability plan map shows the presence of a moderate anomalous zone (ZONE C), located to the NE of survey grid. The anomalous zone seem to extend further to the grid N-NE and it is associated to high\nil\contact resistivity. The localized nature of this anomaly and the lack of geophysical information downgrade its importance.

It is important to emphasize the fact that although considered as low resistivity axis, the absolute valuf3 of apparent resistivity falls in the range of 4.0 kohm-m and more, consequently the IP anomalies associated with such axis do not represent a typical MS type response, generally expressed by much lower resistivity association. In addition, the fact that the survey grid is predominantly covered by

QS-222 - October, 2008 15




volcanics and as previously explained the gradient results are bulk responses , might as well contribute in general increase of the resistivity association at depth (so called "parameter background").

The apparent resistivity data display a wide range, varying between 450 ohmm and 180 kohmm (avg. 34 kohmm); indicative of low porosity bedrock at depth - with the average consistent with shallow buried\outcropping volcanics. The apparent resistivity data define high reSistivity NE-SW trending zones, interpreted as diabase\qtz\ dykes or mafic volcanics. Generally, the apparent resistivity plan map shows more complicated distribution of the geological units than induced polarization parameter. The very high resistivity values possibly reflect the outcropping and/or shallow occurrence of mafic volcanics or interpreted dykes. In addition, the high resistivity zones are relatively wide (25 to 50 meters) and long trending showing very good line-to-line correlation.

The high resistivity zones perfectly mimic some of the IP zones, suggesting close relation between high resistivity and mineralization, suggesting disseminated mineralization along qtz\carbonate alteration.

The FFT processing of apparent resistivity data shows the presence of several NS and NE-SW conductive lineaments, interpreted as faults and shear zones when associated with IP responses.

INTERPRETATION OF MAGNETIC SURVEY RESULTS

As per client's request, MATRIX GEoTECHNOLOGIES LTD undertook the interpretation of magnetic survey over the IRON MASK SOUTH GRID, obtained by DAN PETRIE EXPLORATION LTD. The magnetic survey was undertaken along the same lines as IP\Resistivity survey, but there is less coverage to the grid east and north (see Fig.4).

..

t

. ------.. _-----. ----• :.::=.=--:..=---

t="---.~ ---=----

---r---·· --~ ... ---- -- ---- --------_ ...

Figure 4: MagnetiC Data overlying the interpretation of Induced Polarization

OS-222 - October, 2008 16

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I



The fundamental factor influencing potential field anomalies is the mineralogy of the rocks, which control magnetic susceptibility. The magnetic field is controlled by the accessory minerals in a rock, principally magnetite and their distribution may not be uniform for various reasons: concentration in distinct layers; uneven hydrothermal alteration etc.

The ground total field magnetics results on the display relatively narrow variation in total field magnetic (TFM). The diurnally corrected and reduced contour map is dominated by disturbances most likely not related to the exploration objectives and major geological changes. The ground magnetic results do not show good correlation with IP\Resistivity parameters, suggesting either different mineralization\structure distribution at shallow depth and\or logistical field problems reflected with erratic disturbances. However, it is important to emphasize that QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS ™ show different geological set close to surface, likely contributing in inconSistency between shallow data (magnetic survey) and deeper data (gradient IP\Resistivity).

The TFM is characterized by transition from few well-defined NS, almost EW and NE-SW trends to more poorly defined/diffuse readings all over the surveyed area most of them giving the impression of alongthe-line anomalies or bulls-eye signatures. The magnetic susceptibility plan map shows the presence of an almost EW magnetic trend located in the center of the grid which was not observed in IP\Resistivity data.

Evidences of fault-fracture structures, generally indicated by well-defined offsets and disruptions of the main bands and other lineaments, are not explicitly observed either in TFM plan map or FFT processing, either suggesting the NW-SE (line direction) of the major faults or the presence of the fault along the:! highly magnetic trends flanked by low magnetic (???).

The increased TFM generally is located in the grid south, shown as a broad anomalous zone, however not well correlated with resistivity data. Furthermore, there is a wide anomalous area located in the central-western part of grid associated with low resistivity.

The ground magnetic survey, as previously mentioned show the presence of two types of magnetic Signatures: dyke-type, characterized by NS, EW and NE-SW trends and bull-eyes pattern, characterized by round and localized magnetic signatures. The interpreted dyke is expressed by weak to moderate magnetic signature, suggesting different depths of occurrence and\or magnetic constituent materials; however it is hard to trace the interpreted dyke-type signatures due to the presence of erratic magnetic: data.

The analysiS of the power spectrum (radially averages energy spectrum) shows that the most importanl part of the anomalous magnetic values are from relatively deep sources (from> 75 meters), having a wavelength that ranges from 20 to 70 meters. The deeper sources are characterized from wavelengths ranging up to 20 meters.

As final note, it is important to emphasize that the Total MagnetiC Field at IRON MASK SOUTH GRID shows relatively weak anomalous values, suggesting the low content or depletion of highly magnetic components such as IF\magnetite.

FFT PROCESSING OF MAGNETIC DATA

Vertical Derivative transforms are intended to facilitate the interpretation of magnetic maps. They are enhancement techniques which amplify the shorter wavelength features relatively to those with longer wavelengths. Vertical derivatives of any order may be prescribed. The higher the order the greater is the relative amplification of higher frequencies and greater too is the risk of accentuating noise to an unacceptable degree. For this reason vertical derivatives of order three and above are hardly ever calculated. Thus the First Vertical Derivative (FVD) and second vertical Derivative (SVD) transforms are

08-222 - October, 2008 17

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I


Champion Bear Resources LId Iron Mask Property

the only transforms of this type that are routinely generated.

Evidences of fault-fracture structures, generally indicated by well-defined offsets and disruptions of the main bands and other lineaments, are not very explicitly observed either in TMF plan map or in FFT processing.

The first vertical derivative can be used as an alternative to a residual display. The SVD or FVD are calculated using a filtered and unmasked grid of magnetic anomaly.

The following briefly discusses the FFT processing results of gridded data (the process image included in the report) :

1. High Pass First Vertical Derivative (FVD): Designed specifically to enhance the shallowest geologic sources in the data. As with other filters that enhance the high-wavenumber components of the spectrum, low-pass filters are applied to remove high-wavenumber noise. The FFT maps are different from the TMF plan map, suggesting complex geology combined with deep source of minor anomalies.

Figure 5: FFT Processing of Total Field Magnetic

f

--- - --~

--~ ---_.-----

l I

--

The First Vertical Derivative data shows the presence of several magnetic sources (peaks) that sometimes are closely associated with increased IP signatures; however it is hard to establish a correlation between magnetic and induced polarization data.

2. High Pass Second Vertical Derivative (SVD): The primary property of the SVD transform is that the ZERO CONTOUR represents the point of inflexion on the original anomaly curve which approximates the locations of edges of the causative bodies, providing that the causative bodies are

OS-222 - October, 2008 18


Matrix GeoTechnoJogies Ltd IP\Resistivity Survey


generally shallow and have vertical sides. A series of SVD processing was undertaken however the FFT result were not different from the FVD results, previously described.

QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS DESCRIPTION

The Pole-Dipole (PDP) array (n=2a, a=25 meters) was used as follow-up detailing tool over the IRON MASK SOUTH GRID gradient IP anomalies4

• The PDP results are integrated with gradient results, and at the present time are represented in four (4) QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS™ (QS), in order to educe a geological model. The PDP arrays were design to cover the most intensive gradient anomalies over L.2+00S, L.7+00S, L.11 +OOS, and L.17+00S. The absence of the topography integrated in the QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS™ might bring slight changes in the depth and angle of defined targets that must be considered prior the DH program.

The PDP survey shows the presence of several anomalous chargeabilities, generally sub-vertical; most likely extended near surface or weakly ac. The anomalies correlate very well with the gradient results.

The QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS show that the geology is predominated by SUb-vertical elements, likely continuing at greater depth. The sections are characterized by high specific resistivity values, ranging from 5 to 60 kohmm, implying the presence of low porosity units.

The interpreted strong \ very strong chargeability signatures generally follow the high\nil resistivity hosts and seem to form a polarizable vein\dyke type of response, although conductive chargeability host are present. The sub-vertical IP\conductive signatures are well defined, correlated from line-to-Iine, and characterized by weak\moderate chargeability values. The PDP and Gradient surveys shows that the interpreted mineralization might be up to 300 meters depths. The QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS emphasize the idea that the mineralization most likely surges near surface or weakly out-cropping, however some of anomalies are at depth.

QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ OVER L.2+00S: shows the predominance of high resistivity geological units constituting the section, with an east-to-west transition from highest resistivity to lower resistivity units. The interpreted structure shows vertical \ near vertical and near horizontal elements, with prevalence of subvertical dipping. The section is composed by relatively high to very high resistivity units, ranging from 5.0 kohmm to 60 kohmm.

The QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ shows the presence of very weak IP background most likely due to depletion of secondary minerals within the rocks. The section exhibits several IP signatures, ranging from weak to moderate (6.0 mVN) to moderate (10 mVN), and extending at depths.

The interpreted section shows the presence of three dyke-type prominent IP\Resistivity anomalies located to the section east (ZONE A2). The IP anomalies pinch out at mid-depth; however it is possible that the anomalies feebly out-crop. The prominent anomalies are located at st.662.5S, st.737.5S and st.837.58 and are associated with SUb-vertical, dyke-type resistivity hosts likely representing qtz\carbonate\brecciated dykes.

In addition, the section shows the presence of two subvertical IP anomalies, located to ZONE C and associated with contact\low resistivity, generally indicator of VMS type mineralization. The anomalies seem to pinch out at mid-depths and extend at greater depths; however the mineralization might weakly out-crop.

QUANTITATIVE SECTIONIM OVER L.7+00S: shows the presence of lower resistivity units (5 to 20 kohmrn) making up the section, intruded by more resistive units (30 to >50 kohmm). The section shows that hi~~h

4 Quantitative Sections ™ and Pseudosections are plotted in flat topography. Topography must be considered before the DH

program.

QS-222 - October, 2008 19

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I,

I I I



resistivity units, likely representing intrusives, are vertical and extending near or to surface. The section shows the presence of a sub-vertical, low resistivity unit, interpreted as fault \ shear zone, and centered at st.1037.5E.

The QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ shows the presence of several IP signatures, ranging from weak to moderate, that extend at greater depths. The most intensive anomalies are located in ZONE A, more specifically centered at st.837.5S and st.937.5S, associated with low, suggesting VMS\intensive argillitic alteration and high resistivity, suggesting mineralization along qtz \ carbonate \ intrusives. The anomalies occur at depth, pinching out at about 200 meters depth, clearly showing sub-vertical patterns. In addition, the western anomaly shows the characteristics of mineralized dyke-type (IP signature associated with sub-vertical high resistivity), that extends at greater depth.

Furthermore, the QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ exhibits the presence of a weak IP anomaly, located at st.712.5S and associated with relatively contact resistivity. The anomaly pinches out at 175 meters depth and seems to extend at greater depth.

QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ OVER L.11+00S: shows the presence of lower resistivity units (2 to 20 kohmm) making up the shallow and central part of the section, flanking more resistive units (30 to >50 kohmm) to the section west. Most importantly, the section shows the presence of resistive units, extended at greater depths and associated with moderate chargeabilities, more likely representing mineralized qtz\carbonate dyke.

The QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ shows the presence of several IP signatures, ranging from weak to moderate, that seem to extend at greater depths. The most intensive anomaly is centered at st.712.5VV (ZONE A 1) and it is associated with high resistivity, suggesting disseminated mineralization along qtz\carbonate alteration. The anomalous IP most likely outcrop; however the most intensive part pinches out at almost 100 meters depth and continues at greater depth.

The second induced polarization anomaly, ranging from weak to moderate, is located at st.1087.5W (ZONE A) and seems to slightly dip to the section west. The anomalous IP most likely weakly outcrops and extends at greater depths. The prominent anomaly is associated with high resistivity at depth and contact\nil type of resistivity at shallow depths.

Furthermore, the QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ exhibits the presence of two weak IP anomalies, centered st.862.5W and st.1237.5W, both associated with high\contact\nil resistivity (30 to 60 kohmm). The anomalies are relatively deep (> 150 meters», and most likely representing weak mineralization within breccias\intrusives.

qUANTITATIVE SECTION™ OVER L.17+00S: shows a complicated structural model, with several lateral resistivity transitions, with geological unit being vertical or near vertical. In addition, the interpreted resistivity exhibits the presence of two low resistivity features, extending at greater depths and interpreted as faults \ shear zones.

In terms of metallic distribution (induced polarization phenomena), the section is characterized by the presence of a weak, wide increased IP zone (south continuation of ZONE A1), located between st.1000W and st.675W. The anomalous zone is constituted by several IP causative bodies, generally associated with high resistivity host, ranging from 30 kohmm to 60 kohmm). The IP anomalies most likely continue at greater depths and pinch out at almost 200 meters depth.

In addition, the QUANTITATIVE SECTION™ shows the presence of two weak IP anomalies located to ZONE Al, and centered at st.1362.5W and st.1250W. The anomalous IP signatures seem to extend at greater depths, pinch out at almost 200 meters depth and show dyke type of resistivity signature (high\contact subvertical resistivity host).

05-222 - October, 2008 20

I I I I I 1

LINE

I r L,1+00S

I I -I

L.2+00S

I I • J

I I L,3+00S

I ~ L.4+00S

I I I

Matrix Geo Technologies Ltd IPIResistivity Survey

FOLLOW-UP TARGETS ANAL YSIS


Following an evaluation of the Gradient and QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS™ results , at least three (3) higher priority targets (Table III) have been selected based on their chargeability strength , resistivity association and their characteristics, in terms of geometry, source depth and vertical \ horizontal extent. These are interpreted to represent zones of potential increased mineralization. in plan and section, In addition, as many as thirty-eight (38) lower priority targets have been selected, which match the higher priority targets, however they most likely are of deeper\shallower nature and\or weaker magnitude and\or limited extension .

Nearly all the moderate anomalies present good geophysical-~argets, with special focus those exhibiting high and nil/contact type resistivity association (likely representing off-set mineralized dyke) - the list presented in Table III is designed to help direct follow-up and possible DOH-testing into the best portion of the major zones or QUANTITATIVE SECTION ™

STATION STRENGTH RES. ASSOC. PRIORITY DEPTH COMMENTS Moderate IP signature centered in nil\low resistivity axis , part of ZONE A2, No detailing coverage,

837,5W Moderate 'Jil\Contact 3 -- Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program, Moderate IP signature centered in nillhigh resistivity axis, part of ZONE C, Most likely mineralization along

1012,5W Moderate High 3 -- qtz veins , No detailing coverage , Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Moderate IP signature centered in nillhigh resistivity axis, part of ZONE C. Most likely mineralization along

1187,5W Moderate High 3 -- qtz veins. No detailing coverage . Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weaklmoderate IP signature centered in nillcontactllow resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A2;

662,5W Moderate Nil 2 >200m however seems to be associated with low resistivity at shallow depth. DH recommended after combining with other geoscientific data. Weaklmoderate IP signature centered in high resistivity axis , part of ZONE A2. Shows

737.5W Moderate High 1.5 >200m characteristics of off-set mineralized dyke and probably weakly outcrop. DH recommended after combining with other geoscientific data . Weak IP anomaly associated with highlnillcontact resistivity axis (ZONE A2), likely disseminated

837.5W Weak Highl Nil 2.5 >200m mineralization along qtzl carbonate alteration andlor contact. DH recommended after combining with other geoscientific data, Weaklmoderate IP signature centered in nillcontactllow resistivity at depth, part of ZONE B;

1062,5W Moderate Nil 2 -- however seems to be associated with low resistivity at shallow depth. DH recommended after combining with other geoscientific data. Moderate IP signature centered in high resistivity, ZONE A2 Most likely mineralization along qtz veins.

812.5W Moderate High 3 -- No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program.

Weak IP signature centered in nill high resistivity axis, part of ZONE A2, No detailing coverage,

812.5W Weak Nit 3 -- Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program,

Table 11//: Recommended Targets for Follow up at Iron Mask South Grid

OS-222 - October, 2008 21

I It •• LINE

Ir

I l.7+00S

1: I t L.8+00S

t

I I I I L.9+00S

I I l.10+00S

• I

• I

I

I L.11+00S

I I I


STATION STRENGTH

862.5W Weak

937.5W Weak

1087.5W Weak

762.5W Weak

912.5W Weak

1037.5W Weak

912.5W Weak

1037.5W Moderate

537.5W Weak

712.5W Moderate

912.5W Weak

712.5W Moderate

RES. ASSOC.

Nil

High

High

Nil

High

High

High

NillContact

High

Nil

High

Contactl High

PRIORITY DEPTH

3 --

2 >225m

2.5 >225m

3 --

3 --

3 --

3 --

3 >200m

3 --

3 --

3 --

1 >125m


COMMENTS Weak IP signature centered in nillhigh resistivity axis , part of ZONE A2. NO detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A; likely representing mineralization along qtz\carbonate alteration. DH recommended after combining with other geoscientific data. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth , part of ZONE A; likely representing mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration . DH recommended after combining with other geoscientific data . Weak IP anomaly associated with high\contact resistivity axis at depth (ZONE A2). DH recommended after combining with other geoscientific data. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A; likely representing mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration . No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A; likely representing mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A; likely representing mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration . No detailing coverage . Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Moderate IP signature centered in nillhigh resistivity axis, part of ZONE A. No detailing cOllerage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A 1; likely representing mineralization along qtzl carbonate alteration. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Moderate IP signature centered in nillhigh resistivity axis, part of ZONE A1. No detailing coverage. GeophYSical detailing survey stronglyrecommendedgrior to DH program . Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A; likely representing mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration. No detailing coverage . Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Moderate IP signature centered in high resistivity lone, part of ZONE A1. Shows characteristics of mineralized dyke; likely mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration. DH recommended after combining with other geoscientific data.

Table IV (cant.): Recommended Targets for Follow up at Iron Mask South Grid

QS-222 - October, 2008 22

I It I~ LINE

It 11 L.12+00S

II tt

L.13+00S

I~ ..

It II L.14+00S

If

II L.16+00S

II L.17+00S


STATION STRENGTH

1087.5W Moderate

587.5W Moderate

1087 .5W Moderate

587 .51N Weak

1087.5W Weak

575W Weak

1100W Weak

862.5W Weak

962.5W Weak

712.5W Weak

RES. ASSOC. PRIORITY

High 1.5

Contact\High 2.5

High 3

Contactli-ligh 3

High 3

Contact\High 3

High 3

Nil\Contact 3

High 3

High 2.5

DEPTH

>150m

>225m

COMMENTS


Weak\moderate IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A ; likely representing mineralization along qtz\carbonate alteration . DH recommended after combining with other geoscientific data. Weak IP signature centered in contactlhigh resistivity axis at depth , part of ZONE A 1. No detailing coverage . Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH proqram. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A; likely representing mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration. No detailing coverage . Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weak IP signature centered in contactlhigh resistivity axis at depth , part of ZONE A1 . No detailing coverage . Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A; likely representing mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration. No detailing coverage Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weak IP signature centered in contactlhigh resistivity axis at depth , part of ZONE A1. No detailing coverage . Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH jJrogram. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth, part of ZONE A. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weak IP signature centered in nil\contact resistivity axis at depth. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity at depth; likely representing mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey stronqly recommended prior to DH proqram. Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity zone. Shows characteristics of mineralized dyke; likely mineralization along qtzl carbonate alteration . DH recommended after combining

.. with other qeoscientific data.

I Weak IP signature centered in high resistivity zone. Shows characteristics of mineralized

1362 .5W Weak High 2.5 >200m dyke; likely mineralization along qtzlcarbonate alteration . DH recommended after combining

I ~ ______ ~ __________ ~ ____________ +-____________ ~ __________ +-__________ ~~w~it~h~o~t~h~e~r~qteo~s~c~ie~n~t~ifi~lc~d~a~t~a~. ~ ____ ~~~~ Weak IP signature centered in contact\high resistivity axis at depth . No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey L.18+00S

• I

-, I I

762.5W Moderate

1012.5W Weak

High

High

3

3

strongly recommended prior to Drl program. Weak IP signature centered in contact\high resistivity axis at depth . No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey stronglyrecommended prior to DH program.

Table V (cont.). Recommended Targets for Follow up at Iron Mask South Grid

OS-222 - October, 2008 23

I It I~ LINE

It I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


STATION STRENGTH

1487.5W Weak

RES. ASSOC. PRIORITY DEPTH

High 3 --

COMMENTS


Weak IP signature centered in contact\high resistivity axis at depth, part of ZONE A3. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH J~roqram.

Table VI (cont): Recommended Targets for Follow up at Iron Mask South Grid

08-222 - October, 2008 24

I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


5. CONLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The Gradient/Pole-Dipole time domain induced polarization \ resistivity surveys over the IRON MASK SOUTH GRID have identified geophysical signatures, potentially related to lithologic contacts or geochemical alteration, fault-fracture, structures and, most importantly , the presence of increased chargeability, potentially related to sulphide mineralization.

In response to the survey objectives, three (3) higher priority targets have been identified in ~he surveyed grid, which are of significant strength and depth extension to warrant DH-testing . As many as thirty-eight (38) iower priority targets have also been identified, showing similar characteristics with higher priority but lacking detailing coverage.

The authors have the opinion that the combination of gradient array with pole-dipole array aggregate a very efficient exploration tool, emphasizing the merit of pole-dipole configuration on the determination of a conceptual geological model derived from QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS ™ We strongly recommend the use three levels of gradient survey combined with pole-dipole survey in order to increase su~ey vertical resolution .

The IP\Resistivity\Gravity responses at IRON MASK SOUTH GRID can be divided, based on their associated resistivity and strength, in: disseminated mineralization type and MS type \ mineralization along sheared zone \ contact type .

• Disseminated mineralization type is characterized by increased chargeability associated to high\contact resistivity.

• MS\sulphide bearing type of signatures is characterized by increased chargeability associated to conductive host.

The IP responses in plan range from weak to moderate, suggesting either deep occurrence of causative bodies and\or low content of sulphides\PGM type in property.

The gradient survey shows the presence of several long trending IP anomalies associated with high\contact resistivity that show characteristics of dyke type signature. In addition, the gradient data show the presence of short to relatively short IP trends, mainly to the grid north, associated with low\nil resistivity, likely representing MS\sulphide bearing features.

Taking into consideration the fact that some anomalous zones are still open , additional reconnaissance IP/Resistivity program is strongly recommended to fully explain their spatial extension. We strongly recommend an IP\Resistivity survey with 100 meters or in some areas 50 meters line spacing over the IRON MASK GRID in order to better define the spatial configuration and size of most prominent zones.

The QUANTITATIVE SeCTIONs™ have provided structural\geological models, and most importantly, have also identified signatures of interest across the survey area, which may either reveal potential extensions of known mineralization or undiscovered sulphides.

The QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS ™ show that the mineralization is generally sub-vertical and at great depths; however it is quite possible to weakly outcrop or come close to surface (see Quantitative Section L 11 +OOS). In addition to the possible disseminated mineralization along qtz\carbonate alteration evidences of massive mineralization or mineralization along shear zones are present as well.

The interpreted total chargeability and apparent resistivity shows that the most prominent IP targets are located at greater depths (>250 meters), so the authors recommend additional geophysical survey at greater depths.

The author strongly recommend more detailing survey, especially in the center part of the surveyed grid, in order to better define and refine the conceptual geological model. The actual conceptual model is

OS-222 - October, 2008 25



very complicated and the interpreted sections show dissimilarities.


Magnetic survey over the IRON MASK SOUTH GRID, obtained by DAN PETRIE EXPLORATION LTD, is dominated by disturbances most likely not related to the exploration objectives or major geological changes and do not show correlation with IP\Resistivity parameters, suggesting much shallower nature of magnetic survey.

We recommend that these results and prioritized targets be combined with the existing geoscientific database, especially with the MMI data, and the results carefully evaluated prior to DOH-testing. Particular attention should be given to the probable type of mineralization and/or alteration indicated by the resistivity association in plan map (Le. high p disseminated, nil p = contact, low p = argillic or stringer-to-massive). Close comparisons against geochemistry or other geological information can provide insight on the type-mineralogy of many IP targets. Compiling these data on the IP/Resistivity maps can help discriminate mineralized targets from the geological IP signatures.

Furthermore, integrating existing drilling data to respective QUANTITATIVE SeCTIONS might help to refine the geological\structural model.

GeNC KALLFA, B.Sc., P .GEO. Senior Geophysicist

Toronto, November 15, 2008

OS-222 October, 2008 26

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

LUDVIG KAPLLANI. PH.D., AJ.P.G. Senior Geophysicist

I I I , I

" I I I I I I I I I I I I I


STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

I, Ludvig Kapllani , declare that:


1. I am a consulting geophysicist with residence in Toronto, Ontario and am presently working in this capacity with Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd . of Toronto, Ontario .

2. I obtained a Bachelor's of Science Degree, (B .Sc.), Geophysics, in spring 1976, a Masters of Science Degree, (M .Sc.), Geophysics , in June 1986, Ph.D in January 1995, Geophysics, from Polytechnic University of Tirana, Albania and Associate Professor, February 1995 (titles recognized by University of Toronto, August 1999)

3. I have practiced my profession continuously since May 1976, ir North and South America , Africa and Europe .

4. I am member of AMERICAN INSTITUTION OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS (AIPG) , membership number CPG-1138.

5. I have no interest, nor do I expect to receive any interest in the properties or securities of Champion Bear Resources Ltd.

6. I am the author of this report and the statements contained represent my professional opinion based on my consideration of the information available to me at the time of writing this report.

OS-222 - October, 2008 27

Toronto, Ontario November, 2008

Ludvig Kapllani , MSc. , Ph.D. Senior Geophysicist

Matrix Geo Technologies Ltd.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Matrix GeoTechnoJogies Ltd IP\Resistivity Survey

ENDIXA

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

I, Genc Kallfa, declare that:


1. I am a consulting geophysicist with residence in Toronto, Ontario and am presently working in this capacity with Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd. of Toronto, Ontario .

2 . I obtained a Bachelor's of Science Degree, (B.Sc.), Geophysics, from the Polytechnic University, in Tirana, Albania, in spring 1987.

3. I have practiced my profession continuously since May 1987 ir North and South America, Africa and Europe.

4 . I am member of ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL GEOSCIENTISTS OF ONTARIO (APGO), membership number 0404.

5. I have no interest, nor· do I expect to receive any interest in the oroperties or securities of Champion Bear Resources Ltd .

6. I am the author of this report and the statements contained represent my professional opinion based on my consideration of the informat:on available to me at the time of writing this report.

QS-222 - October, 2008 28

Toronto, Ontario November, 2008

Genc Kallfa, B.Sc., PGeo. (ON) Senior GeophYSicist

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I


IRIS IP6 DIGITAL FORMAT

~1388 Aug 16 2004 d ipole 4 trigger 1 Programmable wind .

12 : 58 domai n Time T wave

Grad. RCTGL arra y

V= 42 . 734 Sp= 6 1 = 540 . 00 Ro= 275 63 . 8 Ohm. m M= M 1~ 12 . ll M2= 10 . 29 ~13~

M5~ 6 . 10 M6= 5 . 09 M7~

M9= 2 . 4 9 MlO= 2 . 14

c ycl ~ 12 Time~ 4000 V D= T M1= 12 0 T M2= 12 0 T M3= - - -T M5~ 24 0 T M6 = 480 T M7= - - -T M9~ 6 40 T M10= 640 - -

Spacing c on fig . : Metric XP= - 475 . 0 Line= 800 . 0

D= - 25 . 0 AB/ 2 = 650 . 0

4 . 37 8 . 50 3 . 88

2620 180 480

Rs= 15 . 46 E= 0 . 1 M4= 7 . 12 M8= 2 . 95

f.'l D~ 12 0 -T t1 4= 240 -T M8= 640 -

~ 13 89 Aug 16 2004 d i pole 5 t r i gge r 1 Programmable wind .

12 : 58 doma i n Time T wave

Grad . RCTGL array

V= 1 40 . 057 Sp = - ll 1= 540 . 00 Ro= 97194 . 5 Ohm . m M= M1= 12 . 07 M2= 10 . 2 3 M3= M5= 5 . 78 M6= 4 . 78 M7= M9 = 2 . 26 MI0= 1. 97

cyc l~ 12 Time = 4000 V D= -T M l~ 12 0 T M2 = 120 T M3= - - -T M5= 240 T M6= 480 T M7=

- - -T M9~ 640 T MI0 = 6 40 - -Spa ci ng config . : Metric

XP= - 500 . 0 Line= 800 . 0 D= - 25 . 0 AB/2 = 65C.0


4 . 1 6 8 . 3 7 3 . 78

2620 18 0 480

Rs= 10 . 22 E= 0 . 0 M4= 6 . 87 M8 = 2 . 67

M D= 120 -T M4= 2 40 -T M8= 64 0

29


I I t , I

" I

I

• I f I I I I I

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd IPIResislivity Survey

COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF IP ANOMALIES

line Nr. Easting Northing

Line 100 451784.4 5166548.0

451722.1 5166592,0

451514 .2 5166740.0

4513609 5166850 .5

451188.3 5166978.0

451097 .0 5167045.5

450985.3 5167127.0

Line 0 451660,1 5166505.0

451460.0 5166655 ,0

451400.7 5166700.0

451252.2 5166832 ,0

451168.7 5166906 ,5

451102.4 5166965,0

Line -100 451454,5 5166565.3

451416.5 51665959

451337.9 5166658 .0

4512029 5166762.0

451148.1 5166804.0

451069.0 5166867.9

450857.1 5167032.6

Line -200 451411.0 5166476.5

451355.5 5166522.4

451280.3 5166578.6

451243.3 5166606. ~

451204.0 5166632.1

451109,0 5166708.4

451031.4 5166768,7

450991.4 5166796.0

450816,8 5166928 .7

450777.8 5166959.1

Line -300 451317,8 5166432.3

451262.3 5166481 .8

451118.8 5166585 .3


IP Strength Resistivity Association

Moderate Nil

Moderate High

Weak Nil

Moderate Nil

Moderate Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Moderate Nil

Weak High

Weak Low

Moderate Low

Weak Nil

Moderate Nil

Moderate Low

Weak Nil

Moderate Nil

Moderate High

Moderate Low

Moderate High

Weak Nil

Moderate Nil

Moderate High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak Low

Moderate Nil

Moderate Nil

Moderate Nil

Weak Hiqr

Weak Nil

Weak High

Moderate Nil

Weak Nil

30


Local Coordinates

-412.5

-487 .5

-737.5

-925 .0

-1137 .5

-1250.0

-1387.5

-487.5

-737 .5

-812.5

-1012,5

-1125.0

-1212.5

-687 .5

-737.5

-837 ,5

-1012 .5

-1087.5

-1187 .5

-1462.5

-662.5

-737,5

-837 .5

-887.5

-937.5

-1062.5

-1162.5

-1212.5

-1437.5

-1487.5

-712.5

-787.5

-975.0

I , I I I I I I I 4 t , I I I I I I I •

I I J r

•

•

I


451035.3

450959.5

450798.6

Line -400 451240.5

451183.3

451144.3

451063.8

451003.8

450917.5

450766.1

Line -500 451293.2

451161.0

451076.6

450995.3

450955.6

450914.1

Line -600 451334.0

451294.1

451234.9

451140.0

451100.0

451059.9

450941.5

450844.8

Line -700 451276.9

451238.1 ! 451141.6

451085.4

451032.3

450981.8

450904.9

450838.6

450789.8

Line -800 451225.5

451111.6

451055.1

450974.8

OS-222 October. 2008

lYle", IX \.:1eo I echnologies ltd IPIResistivity Survey

450892.6

450850.0

450749.3

r--- 450681.3

450621.8

Line -900 451140.6

451083.5

451044.4

450852.6

450786.9

4506864

5166651.4

5166707.1

5166830.5

i 5166364.4

5166407.4

5166436.9

5166494.0

5166600.5

5166707.0

5166184.8

5166290.5

5166348.8

5166403.9

5166430.0

5166458.0

5166015.4

5166043.3 •

5166086.8

15166173.31

I 5166252.0

5166336.0

5166408.6

5165941.3

5165970.6

5166046.5

5166092.4

5166134.3

5166172.4

5166230.5

5166283.8

5166323.1

5165854.5

5165938.8

5165975.3

5166032.0

5166089.3

5166117.6

5166184.3

5166229.0

5166269.4

5165782.1

5165828.4

5165860.0

5165993.9

5166038.8 l::;,1ac-t f'\r ,..

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak High

:8 Nil

Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Low

Weak Low

Weak Nil

Weak Low

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Low

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak High

Nil \I\I",,,,~ Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

31

Weak High

Weak HiQh

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Hjgh

Weak Nil

Weak HiQh

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak High


-1087.5

-1187.5

-1400.0

-737.5

-812.5

-862.5

-962.5

-1037.5

-1150.0

-1337.5

-587.5

-762.5

-862.5

-962.5

-1012.5

-1062.5

-462.5

-512.5

-587.5

-712.5

-762.5

-812.5

-962.5

-1087.5

-462.5

-512.5

-637.5

-712.5

-775.0

-837.5

-937.5

-1025.0

-1087.5

-462.5

-600.0

-662.5

-762.5

Champion Bear ReSources Ltd

rty fron Mask Prope

-862.5

-912.5

-1037.5

-1125.0

-1212.5

-487.5

-562.5

-612.5

-837.5 1\ .. t"'t ,..

I I I I I I I I 'I I , I I I I I I I I


450892.6

450850.0

4S0749.3

450681.3

450621.8

I-

Line -900 451140.6

451083.5

451044.4

450852.6

450786.9

4S0686.4

4S0626.9

450586.4

450545.6

450483.4

450384.6 ._ ... 450347.1

Line -1000 451087.0

451027.0

450987.0

450893.6

450852.1

450771.6

450731.4

450688.9 ---_. 450646.7

450585.1

450486.0

Line-1100 451010.9

450952.3

450843.4

450726.0

450686.4

450628.6

450585.6 I 450541.1

450421.8

450378.8

450319.9

QS-222 - October. 2008

i 5166089.3

5166117.6

5166184.3

5166229.0

5166269.4

5165782.1

5165828.4

5165860.0 •

5165993.9

5166038.8

516610S.5

i 5166145.5

5166175.5

5166204.0

5166240.0

5166312.3

5166337.3 I

i 5165696.4

5165739.1

5165764.6

5165839.8

5165870.8

5165928.4

5165956.1

5165984.6

5166013.0

5166053.9 i

i 5166117.1

I 5165638.8

5165679.6

5165750.4

5165835.1

5165862.4

! 5165906.6

5165935.0

• 51659630

5166039.1

5166064.6 I

. 5166105.4

Weak High

Weak High

Weak High

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak High . Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Moderate Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak High -

Weak Low

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Moderate Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Weak High

Weak •

Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Moderate Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Moderate Nil

Weak High

Moderate High

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

32

Champion Bear Resources Ltd Iron Mask PropHrty

·862.5

·912.5

-1037.S

-1125.0

-1212.5

-487.5

-562.5

-612.5

-837.S

-912.5

-1037.S

-1112.5

-1162.5

-1212.5

-1287.5

-1412.5

-1462.5

-462.5

-537.5

-587.5

-712.5

-762.5

-862.5

-912.5

-962.5

·1012.5

-1087.5

·1212.5

-487.5

-562.5

-712.5

-862.5

-912.5

-987.5

-1037.5

-1087.5

-1237.5

-1287.5

-1362.5

I I , '1 I I I t "

I I I I I , I

Matrix Geo Technologies Ltd IPIResistivity Survey

line -1200 450981.4

450888.0

450805.5

450766.5

450709.0

450588.4

450492.4

450452.6

450370.9

450329.4

450227.8

450166.3

line -1300 450926.4

450831.3

450723.6

450670.2

450587.3

450498.1

450462.6

450386.0

450325.7

450246.3

I line -1400 450856.0

450797.3

450739.5

450691.9

450643.3

I 450603.9

450543.1

450440.3

I I 450379.4

450283.1

450089.0

line -1500 450835.3

450767.1

450717.1

i 450592.3 I

450553.5

QS-222 October, 2008

5165540.8

I 5165610.9 !

5165662.6 •

5165687.4 I

5165724.8

5165808.9

5165883.5

5165908.6

5165960.5 I

5165990.5

5166063.3

5166100.8

5165438.5 I

5165505.6

5165597.3

5165640.9

5165709.0

5165770.1 I

•

5165798.6

5165850.6

5165890.0

5165945.5

5165383.5

5165426.0

5165472.1

5165513.1

5165547.1

5165573.8

5165614.3

5165688.1

5165731

5165797.6

.6

5165287.4 .

5165346.5

5165388.9

5165469.5

• 5165496.3

Weak HiQh

Moderate Nil

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak High

Moderate Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak Nil

Moderate Low

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Low

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Low

Weak High

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak HiQh

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Low

33


! -462.5

-587.5 !

-687.5

-737.5

-812.5

-962.5 !

-1087.5 ,

-1137.5

-1237.5

-1287.5

-1412.5

-1487.5

-462.5

-587.5

-725.0

-800.0

-900.0

-1012.5

-1062.5

-1162.5

-1237.5

-1337.5

-487.5

-562.5

-637.5

! -700.0

-762.5

-812.5

-887.5

-1012.5

I -1087.5

-1212.5

-1462.5

-462.5

I -550.0

-612.5

-762.5

-812.5

I I I I I I , I I I I I I t , I I I I'


450466.8

450416.1

450376.8

450337.8

450131.8

450032.4

449991.8

I Une -1600 450705.1

450584.6 I

450492.4

i 450453.9

i 450375.0

450334.8

450293.8

450232.3

45011

449995.3

Une -1700 450718.0

450621.3

450570.6

450511.5

450469.0

450390.6

450300.9

450003.8

449926,9

Line -1800 • 450766.1

450706,9

450667,8

450556.0

450459.8

450418.8

5165560.8 •

5165595.1

5165621.5 •

5165647.5

5165786.1 :

5165846.8

I 5165869.8 •

5165338.4

5165420.1

5165448.6

5165506.9 ... _-

5165536.3

5165565.3

5165608.0

.8 I

77.8

• 5165106.0

5165179.3

5165223.1

5165277.4

5165314.3

5165375.6

5165433.9

5165641,9

• 5165696.6

5164964,1

5165018.9

5165050.9

5165137.1

5165210.1

5165234.6

450299.9 , 5165315.0

4 5165343.0

450218,9 5165371.3 I

1-----450178.4 • 5165400.3

449841.5 • 5165636.0


Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak Nil

Weak ! High

Weak Nil

Moderate Nil

Weak Low

Weak Nil

Weak High

Weak High

Moderate Low

Weak Nil

Weak Low

Weak High

Weak Nil

Weak High

34

I

Champion Bear Resources Ltd Iron Mask PropElrty

-925.0

-987.5

-1037.5

-1087.5

-1337.5

-1462.5

-1512.5

-537.5

-687.5

-812.5

-862.5

-962.5

-1012.5

-1062.5

-1137.5

-1287.5 .-

-1437.5

-450.0

-575.0

-637.5

-712.5

-775.0

-875.0

-987.5

-1362.5

-1462.5

-312.5

-387,5

-437.5

-587.5

-712.5

-762.5

-912.5

-962.5

-1012.5

-1062,5

-1487.5

I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I


ENDlXD

THEORETICAL BASIS AND SURVEY PROCEDURES

GRADIENT TDIP SURVEYS


The Gradient Array measurements are unique in that they best represent a bulk average of the surrounding physical properties within a relatively focused sphere of influence, roughly equal to the width of the receiver dipole, penetrating vertically downward from surface to great depths. The resistivity is among the most variable of all geophysical parameters, with a range exceeding 106 Because most minerals are fundamentally insulators, with the exception of massive accumulations of metallic and submetallic ores (electronic conductors) which are rare occurrences, the resistivity of rocks depends primarily on their porosity, permeability and particularly the salinity of fluids contained (ionic conduction), according to Archie's Law. In contrast, the chargeability responds to the presence of polarizable minerals (metals, submetallic sulphides and oxides, and graphite), in amounts as minute as parts per hundred. Both the quantity of individual chargeable grains present, and their distribution with in subsurface current flow paths are significant in controlling the level of response. The relationship of chargeability to metallic content is straightforward, and the influence of mineral distribution can be understood in geologic terms by considering two similar, hypothetical volumes of rock in which fractures constitute the primary current flow paths. In one, sulphides occur predominantly along fracture surfaces. In the second , the same volume percent of sulphides are disseminated throughout the rock. The second example will , in general, have significantly lower intrinsic chargeability.

y-axis

+ I

Y - U +

M N

• x-axis A X B

Figure C1: Gradient Array Configuration.

Using the diagram in Figure C1 for the gradient array electrode configuration and nomenclature: 5, the gradient array

apparent resistivity is calculated : where : the origin 0 is selected at the center of AS

the geometric parameters are in addition to a = AB/2 and b = MN/2 X is the abscissa of the mid-point of MN (positive or negative) Y is the ordinate of the mid-point of MN (positive or negative)

Gradient Array Apparent Resistivity:

5 From Terraplus\BRGM, IP-6 Operating Manual, Toronto, 1987.

OS-222 - October, 2008 35

I I I I I t · I I I I I I I I


where: K

po Vp

K - ohm - metres I

2tr

(AM- J - AN-1 - BM- 1 + BN- 1)

AM=~(a+x-b)2 +y2

AN = ~(a+x+ b/ + y2

BM=~(x-b-a)2+y2

BN = ~(x+b-a)2 + y2

Using the diagram in Figure C2 for the Total Chargeability:

Measured Voltage Line

One half of Transmit Cycle ~~~--------------------------------~

"Off Time" positive ~

Vs(t) (10 slices)


vp Time Line

~ • c • ----.-td -

negative ~ • "On Time" t (0) tp

Figure C2 The measurement of the time·domain IP effect.

the total apparent chargeability is given 0y

Total Apparent Chargeability:6

1

tpVp (t) dt millivolts per volt

where ti' ti+1 are the beginning and ending times for each of the chargeability slices,

More detailed descriptions on the theory and application of the IP/Resistivity method can be found in the following reference papers:

Cogan, H., 1973, Comparison of IP electrode arrays , Geophysics, 38, p 737 - 761.

6 From Telford, et aI., Applied Geophysic2.,. Cambridge U Press, New York, 1983.

OS-222 - October, 2008 36

I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I


THEORETICAL BASIS AND SURVEY PROCEDURES

POLE-DIPOLE TDIP SURVEY


The collected data sets are reduced, using IP6 receiver, to apparent resistivity, total chargeability and metal factor as explained in the following figures and equations:

Using the following diagram (Fig. C3) for the electrode configuration and nomenclatureJ

DIPOLE-POLE ARRAY

P2 Pi Ci ----; a r- na--r .-=--_.-

111

Figure C3: Pole-Dipole Electrode Arrar

the apparent resistivity is given by:

where:

VP pa = 2n:n{n + l)a x -- ohm ~ metres

I

"a" is the MN dipole spacing (metres) "n" is the separation parameter between Cl and P1P2 "Vp" is the primary voltage measured between P1P2 (volts) "I" is the output current between C1C2 (amperes)

The Total Chargeability calculations are the same as the Gradient arrays as explained above:

The sets are then ready for plotting. profiling using the Geosoft SushiTM program. The Apparent Resistivity, Total Chargeability and Metal Factor (IP/Resistivity*1000) results of the Pole-Dipole surveys are presented in pseudo section format. All resistivities are in -metres and chargeabilities in mVN.

7 From Telford, et aI., Applied Geophysics, Cambridge U Press, New York, 1983 ..

QS-222 - October, 2008 37

I I , I I I I I I I I

I I I I I


~PENDlXE

INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS

IRIS ELREC 6 RECEIVER

Weather proof case

Dimensions: Weight:

Operating temperature:

Storage: Input channels: Input impedance: Input overvoltage protection: Input voltage range:

SP compensation:

Noise rejection:

Primary voltage resolution: accuracy:

Secondary voltage windows:

Sampling rate: Synchronization accuracy: Chargeability resolution:

accuracy:

Grounding resistance: Memory capacity: Data transfer:

QS-222 - October, 2008

31 cm x 21 cm x 21 cm 6 kg with dry cells 7.8 kg with rechargeable bat. -20oe to 700 e (-400 e to 700 e with optional screen heater) (-40oe to lO°C) 6 10 Mohm up to 1000 volts 10 V maximum on each dipole 15 V maximum sum over ch 2 to 6 automatic ± 10 V with linear drift correction up to 1 mV/s 50 to 60 Hz powerline rejection 100 dB common mode rejection (for Rs=O) automatic stacking 1 I-l V after stacking 0.3% typically; maximum 1 over whole temperature range up to 10 windows; 3 preset window specs. plus fully programmable sampling. 10 ms 10 ms, minimum 40 I-lV 0.1 mVN


typically 0.6%. maximum 2% of reading ± 1 mVN for Vp >10mV 0.1 to 467 kohm 2505 records , 1 dipole/record serial link @ 300 to 19200 baud remote control capability through serial link @ 19200 baud

38

I , ,I I,

I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I


~E


Phoenix IPT1-B Transmitter

OS-222 - October, 2008 39

Input:

Output:


80 - 90 V AC 400 Hz / 3 Phase Powered by MG1 ! MG2! MG3

75V - 1200V in 5 steps 3mA - 10A 3 KVA

Output Switching:

Size:

Weight:

Frequency Domain : DC - 4 Hz TD Seconds on/off switching 1,2,4 and 8 seconds

20cm X 40cm X 55cm

18 kg

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd I PIResistivity Survey


MG-1 GENERATOR

OS-222 - October, 2008 40

Output:


60 -100 V AC

400 Hz / 3 Phases

Generator: Motorola 25 Amp. rated

Engine: 4 HP Honda

Size: 62cm X 42cm X 37cm

Weight: 25 kg



F

LIST OF MAPS


• Posted/Contoured Plan Maps at scale of (1 :5000)

PLAN TOTAL CHARGEABILITY APPARENT RESISTIVITY P222-PLAN-CHG-1 P222-PLAN-RES-1

TOTAL 1 1

• Stacked Posted/Contoured PDP PseudoSection Maps at 1 :2500 scale:

LINE TOTAL CHARGEABILITY + APPARENT RESISTIVITY L2+00S Pseudoseclion Piol L2+00S

L7+00S Pseudoseclion Plot L7+00S

L 11+008 Pseudosection Plot L 11 +008

L 17+008 Pseudoseclior: Plot L 17 +OOS

TOTAL 4

• Interpretation Plan Map at scale of (1 :5000): DWG : P222-PLAN-INT-1

• Quantitative Sections at 1 :2500 scale:

LINE QUANTITATIVE SECTION

L2+00S P222-QS-2+00S

L7+00S P222-QS-7 +OOS L11+008 P222-Q8-11 +OOS

L 17+00S P222-QS-17+00S TOTAL 4

QS-222 - October, 2008 41

Documents

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd. I MATRIX GEOTECHNOLOGIES LTD ... · targets (1 st + 2nd priority) at 1 :5000 scale (1 plan). TDIP Raw data: Iris IP-6 format (see Appendix C) Gradient