Junin Mineral Property: Classification of Mineral Resources

Whilst the geological and mineral continuity can be reasonably assumed for the model described above, the estimate is based on limited information. On this basis, all the resources at the Junin project are classified as inferred mineral resources.

It must be noted that due to the uncertainty which may attach to inferred mineral resources, it cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will be upgraded to an indicated or measured mineral resource as a result of continued exploration.

The estimate of the mineral resource at the Junin property is given by each of the three zones modeled in the following table.

The combined total of the Internal and External zones is given in the following table:

The total Inferred mineral resource derived from the three zones is given in the following table:

The selected cut-off grades illustrate the sensitivity of the Junin resource to changes in these parameters. Whilst the selected cut-off grades are not based on economic parameters specific to the Junin property, they are consistent with cut-off grades applied to deposits such as Los Pelambres and Collahuasi in Chile.

Responsibility for Estimation

The analysis, subsequent interpretation of the geology and mineralization, and initial 3D models is that of Ascendant, with which Micon concurs and accepts based on its review of reports and its direct field examination. Mr. Paul Gribble, C.Eng, was the Qualified Person, within the meaning of NI 43-101, responsible for the preparation of the mineral resource estimate and Mr. Gribble is independent of Ascendant. Mr. Gribble's work comprised of adjustment of the 3D model, block modelling, interpolation and reporting.

Reconciliation to CIM Standards

The mineral resource estimates comply with CIM standards.

Comparison with Historical Estimates

The estimate in the Junin Report and the historical estimate made by MMAJ differ in that the former is based on geological interpretation, whereas the latter is largely reliant on software modelling techniques. This is explained in more detail in the paragraphs that follow.

The model for the historical estimate was constrained by topography, a plane set at 1350 m a.m.s.l., a northern limit and by a 150 m search radius for grade interpolation. From the limited information describing the historical block modelling process, only the northern limit, apparently coincident with faulting, represents a geological control in the modelling process. The Ascendant model differs in that it is based on geological interpretation of the porphyry system, with the block model then representing that interpretation. This affects the grade estimation in the following manner. In the historical estimate values from the different mineralized zones are mixed, resulting in an overall lower value. In the current estimate, where discrete mineralized zones are recognized, only samples from the individual zones are used in estimation of the value of blocks within the individual zones. This results in estimation of values that reflect the nature of those zones, e.g. the shape of the Internal zone is based on a combination of geological interpretation and a grade cut-off of approximately 1.0 % Cu that results in the 1.0 % Cu plus value estimated for that zone. The use of geological zones also affects the estimate of volume. For the historical estimate, the volume estimated was governed and limited largely by the estimation search radius. For the current estimate, the estimate of volume is derived from the shape of the interpreted geological zones.

The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by metallurgical, environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political and other relevant issues. See "Risk Factors".