CGGGW

Technical Report on the Lindero Heap Leach Project
Salta Province, Argentina
Prepared for:
GOLDROCK MINES CORPORATION
Prepared by:
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates

7950 Security Circle
Reno, NV 89506-1995
Report Date: 31 May 2013

Effective Date of Resources: 23 January 2013
Technical Report Effective Date: 1 May 2013
Authors:
Richard J. Taylor, P.E.
Thomas L. Dyer, P.E.
David G. Thomas, P.Geo.
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Key Outcomes .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Property Description and Location .......................................................... 1-1
1.4 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography............................................................................................ 1-3
1.5 History of Exploration ............................................................................. 1-4
1.6 Geological Setting and Mineralization .................................................... 1-4
1.7 Deposit Types .......................................................................................... 1-5
1.8 Exploration ............................................................................................... 1-5
1.9 Drilling ..................................................................................................... 1-6
1.10 Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security ............................................ 1-7
1.11 Data Verification ...................................................................................... 1-8
1.12 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ........................................ 1-9
1.13 Mineral Resource Estimates .................................................................. 1-10
1.14 Mineral Reserve Estimates .................................................................... 1-12
1.15 Mining Methods ..................................................................................... 1-13
1.16 Recovery Methods ................................................................................. 1-14
1.17 Project Infrastructure ............................................................................. 1-16
1.18 Market Studies and Contracts ................................................................ 1-18
1.19 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact .. 1-18
1.20 Capital and Operating Costs .................................................................. 1-20
1.21 Economic Analysis ................................................................................ 1-22
1.22 Adjacent Properties ................................................................................ 1-25
1.23 Project Implementation .......................................................................... 1-25
1.24 Interpretation and Conclusions .............................................................. 1-26
1.25 Recommendations .................................................................................. 1-27
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Qualified Persons ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Site Visits ................................................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Effective Dates ......................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Previous Technical Reports ..................................................................... 2-3
3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS .................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Environmental .......................................................................................... 3-1
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report ii
3.2 Tenure ...................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Permitting................................................................................................. 3-2
3.4 Hydrology and Hydrogeology ................................................................. 3-3
3.5 Taxes ........................................................................................................ 3-3
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Location ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Property and Title in Argentina ............................................................... 4-2
4.3 Tenure History ......................................................................................... 4-6
4.4 Surface Rights .......................................................................................... 4-9
4.5 Royalties ................................................................................................ 4-10
4.6 Permits ................................................................................................... 4-10
4.7 Environmental ........................................................................................ 4-14
4.8 Comments on Section 4 ......................................................................... 4-15
5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE
AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Accessibility & Infrastructure .................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Climate ..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 5-2
5.4 Physiography............................................................................................ 5-4
5.5 Comments on Section 5 ........................................................................... 5-5
6.0 HISTORY ............................................................................................................ 6-1
7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ..................................... 7-1
7.1 Regional Geology .................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 District Geology ....................................................................................... 7-3
7.3 Lindero Deposit Geology ......................................................................... 7-5
7.4 Arizaro Prospect Geology ...................................................................... 7-14
7.5 Mineralization ........................................................................................ 7-22
8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES ................................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 Geological Model and Concepts .............................................................. 8-1
8.2 Exploration Concepts ............................................................................... 8-2
8.3 Comments on Section 8 ........................................................................... 8-3
9.0 EXPLORATION.................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1 Lindero Deposit ....................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Arizaro Prospect..................................................................................... 9-11
10.0 DRILLING ......................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 10-1

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report iii
10.2 Lindero Deposit ..................................................................................... 10-1

10.3 Arizaro Project ....................................................................................... 10-9
10.4 Drill Program Conclusions and Recommendations ............................. 10-15
10.5 Comments on Section 10 ..................................................................... 10-15
11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY ........................... 11-1
11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 11-1
11.2 Drill Hole Sampling Method ................................................................. 11-1
11.3 Trench Sampling Method Lindero ......................................................... 11-2
11.4 Trench and Road-cut Sampling Method Arizaro ................................... 11-3
11.5 Sample Preparation and Assaying ......................................................... 11-4
11.6 Bulk Density/Specific Gravity ............................................................... 11-7
11.7 Comments on Section 11 ....................................................................... 11-8
12.0 DATA VERIFICATION ................................................................................... 12-1
12.1 Database Audit ....................................................................................... 12-1
12.2 Collar and Down-hole Surveys .............................................................. 12-1
12.3 Drill Logs ............................................................................................... 12-3
12.4 Assays .................................................................................................... 12-3
12.5 Bulk Density/Specific Gravity ............................................................... 12-5
12.6 Core Recovery ....................................................................................... 12-5
12.7 Assay QA/QC ........................................................................................ 12-6
12.8 Recommendations Arising from 2009 AMEC Data Verification........ 12-19
13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ................. 13-1
13.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 13-1
13.2 Summary Recoveries and Leaching Parameters .................................... 13-1
13.3 Testwork Programs ................................................................................ 13-2
13.4 Sampling ................................................................................................ 13-5
13.5 Mineralogy and Petrography.................................................................. 13-1
13.6 Crushing Work Index and Abrasiveness................................................ 13-4
13.7 Paste pH, Eh and Dissolved Oxygen ..................................................... 13-5
13.8 Head Analyses ....................................................................................... 13-6
13.9 Particle size distribution ......................................................................... 13-8
13.10 Rock Density Test Work ........................................................................ 13-9
13.11 Bottle Rolls .......................................................................................... 13-10
13.12 Drain down tests, Slump data and Permeability .................................. 13-11
13.13 AllOX Puncture Test............................................................................ 13-13
13.14 Blast Testing ........................................................................................ 13-14
13.15 Cyanide Column Tests ......................................................................... 13-16

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report iv
13.16 Leaching Parameters ............................................................................ 13-18

13.17 Gold Recoveries ................................................................................... 13-25
13.18 Production Model and Curves ............................................................. 13-27
13.19 Copper Behavior and SART ................................................................ 13-29
13.20 Water Quality ....................................................................................... 13-34
13.21 Detoxification Testwork ...................................................................... 13-35
13.22 Arizaro Bottle Rolls ............................................................................. 13-37
14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES .......................................................... 14-38
14.1 Database ............................................................................................... 14-38
14.2 Geological Models ............................................................................... 14-39
14.3 Mineral Resource Classification .......................................................... 14-58
14.4 Assessment of Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction .......... 14-59
14.5 Mineral Resource Statement ................................................................ 14-62
15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES................................................................ 15-1
15.1 Pit Optimization ..................................................................................... 15-1
15.2 Pit Designs ............................................................................................. 15-6
15.3 Dilution ................................................................................................ 15-14
15.4 Reserves and Resources ....................................................................... 15-14
16.0 MINING METHODS ........................................................................................ 16-1
16.1 Material Types ....................................................................................... 16-1
16.2 Waste Material Definition...................................................................... 16-1
16.3 Ore Definition ........................................................................................ 16-1
16.4 Mining Method ...................................................................................... 16-2
16.5 Mine-Waste Facilities ............................................................................ 16-2
16.6 Mine-Production Schedule..................................................................... 16-2
16.7 Equipment Selection and Productivities ................................................ 16-7
16.8 Mine Personnel ...................................................................................... 16-8
17.0 RECOVERY METHODS .................................................................................. 17-1
17.1 Process Design Basis ............................................................................. 17-1
17.2 Processing Rate ...................................................................................... 17-2
17.3 Crushing Area ........................................................................................ 17-2
17.4 Leach Pad and Leach System ................................................................ 17-4
17.5 Solution Management ............................................................................ 17-8
17.6 ADR Plant ............................................................................................ 17-10
17.7 Process Solution & Makeup Water ...................................................... 17-12
17.8 Process Water Balance ......................................................................... 17-12
17.9 Process Reagents & Consumables ....................................................... 17-18

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report v
17.10 Additional Plant Design Considerations .............................................. 17-18

17.11 SART ................................................................................................... 17-19
18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................... 18-1
18.1 Access Roads & Site Access.................................................................. 18-2
18.2 Power Supply ......................................................................................... 18-3
18.3 Water Supply ......................................................................................... 18-5
18.4 Process Area Buildings .......................................................................... 18-9
18.5 Mine Area Buildings ............................................................................ 18-11
18.6 Camp .................................................................................................... 18-13
18.7 Diesel Fuel Delivery and Storage Systems .......................................... 18-15
18.8 Site Services ......................................................................................... 18-15
18.9 Site Fencing ......................................................................................... 18-16
19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ....................................................... 19-1
19.1 Gold Pricing ........................................................................................... 19-1
19.2 Gold Industry Trends ............................................................................. 19-1
19.3 Doré Production Rate ............................................................................. 19-2
19.4 Refinery Selection .................................................................................. 19-3
19.5 Refining Terms ...................................................................................... 19-3
19.6 Gold Production Schedule ..................................................................... 19-3
19.7 Refining and Transportation Costs ........................................................ 19-5
20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR
COMMUNITY IMPACT .................................................................................. 20-1
20.1 Environment........................................................................................... 20-1
20.2 Socio-Economic and Cultural Aspects ................................................ 20-33
20.3 Permitting............................................................................................. 20-37
20.4 Closure ................................................................................................. 20-41
20.5 Closure Cost Basis ............................................................................... 20-49
20.6 Recommendations ................................................................................ 20-51
21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ............................................................ 21-1
21.1 Capital Costs .......................................................................................... 21-2
21.2 Mining Capital Costs ............................................................................. 21-5
21.3 Processing Capital Costs ........................................................................ 21-7
21.4 Operating Costs .................................................................................... 21-17
21.5 Basis of Operating Cost Estimate ........................................................ 21-19
21.6 Mining Operating Costs ....................................................................... 21-22
21.7 Process Operating Cost ........................................................................ 21-28
21.8 General and Administrative ................................................................. 21-36
22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 22-1

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report vi
22.1 Summary ................................................................................................ 22-1

22.2 Methodology .......................................................................................... 22-3
22.3 General Assumptions ............................................................................. 22-4
22.4 Financial Model and Results .................................................................. 22-6
22.5 Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................. 22-11
23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES .............................................................................. 23-1
24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ..................................... 24-1
24.1 Hydrology .............................................................................................. 24-1
24.2 Operations Strategy ................................................................................ 24-7
24.3 Project Security ...................................................................................... 24-8
24.4 Health and Safety ................................................................................. 24-10
24.5 Risks and Opportunities ....................................................................... 24-11
24.6 Project Implementation ........................................................................ 24-14
25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 25-1
26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 26-1
26.1 Deposit Expansion and Exploration Activities ...................................... 26-1
26.2 Basic Engineering & Procurement Activities ........................................ 26-1
26.3 Detailed Engineering ............................................................................. 26-2
26.4 Test Work............................................................................................... 26-2
27.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 27-1
28.0 AUTHORS’ CERTIFICATES........................................................................... 28-1
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1 Location Map ........................................................................................... 4-1

Figure 4-2 Corporate Holding Structure .................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-3 Pertenacia Layout Map ............................................................................ 4-8
Figure 4-4 Water, Camp and Surface Rights Map .................................................. 4-10
Figure 7-1 Regional Geology .................................................................................... 7-2
Figure 7-2 District Geology ....................................................................................... 7-4
Figure 7-3 Plan of Lindero Deposit ........................................................................... 7-6
Figure 7-4 Cross-section through Lindero Deposit ................................................... 7-7
Figure 7-5 Plan View of Alteration Zones at the Lindero Deposit.......................... 7-11
Figure 7-6 Arizaro Porphyry Units .......................................................................... 7-15
Figure 7-7 Alteration Map of the Arizaro Prospect ................................................. 7-19

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report vii
Figure 7-8 Plan of Mineralized Bodies .................................................................... 7-23

Figure 8-1 Copper-Gold Porphyry Model ................................................................. 8-1
Figure 9-1 Trench Locations and Soil Grid Layout for the Lindero Project ............. 9-8
Figure 9-2 Stereographic Projection (to Upper Hemisphere) of Structures and
Veinlets .................................................................................................. 9-15
Figure 9-3 Arizaro Section 3950 ............................................................................. 9-17
Figure 10-1 Drill Hole Locations and Orientations ................................................... 10-8
Figure 10-2 Drill Location Map .............................................................................. 10-14
Figure 11-1 Photo of Drill Core before Sampling ..................................................... 11-2
Figure 11-2 Photo of Channel Sample....................................................................... 11-3
Figure 13-1 Metallurgical Testwork Sampling Locations ......................................... 13-8
Figure 13-2 Hammer Mill Particle Size Distribution of Phase III Material .............. 13-8
Figure 13-3 HPGR Particle Size Distribution of Phase V Material .......................... 13-9
Figure 13-4 Photographs of Blast Testwork ............................................................ 13-15
Figure 13-5 Crush size versus Recoveries for Phases II, III, IV ............................. 13-18
Figure 13-6 Polysius Abrasion Comparisons .......................................................... 13-19
Figure 13-7 Recovery Curves for Various Crusher Types ...................................... 13-20
Figure 13-8 Cyanide Consumptions (Laboratory) as a Function of Solution to Ore
Ratio for All Lithologies, Phases II, III, IV ......................................... 13-21
Figure 13-9 Recoveries as a function of leaching time for a 10m lift ..................... 13-24
Figure 13-10 Head grades versus Recoveries for 6.3mm and 9mm Material ........... 13-26
Figure 13-11 Field Recovery Curves for All Met Types ........................................... 13-29
Figure 14-1 Lindero Lithological Domains ............................................................. 14-42
Figure 14-2 Plan 3760–Model Gold Grade Blocks, Composites and Search Ellipses
.............................................................................................................. 14-43
Figure 14-3 North–South Section Showing Gold Grades of Blocks and Composites
.............................................................................................................. 14-44
Figure 14-4 East–West Section Showing Gold Grades of Blocks and Composites
.............................................................................................................. 14-45
Figure 14-5 Section 2623155 E, Showing Composites and OK Model Gold Grades
.............................................................................................................. 14-55
Figure 14-6 Geotechnical Pit Slope Parameters ...................................................... 14-61
Figure 14-7 Comparison of Reported Mineral Resource within Optimised Pit Shells
.............................................................................................................. 14-65
Figure 15-1 Graph of Whittle Results ....................................................................... 15-5
Figure 15-2 Lindero Ultimate Pit Design .................................................................. 15-9
Figure 15-3 Phase 1 Pit Design ............................................................................... 15-11

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report viii

Figure 16-1 Owner Mining Mine Organizational Chart ............................................ 16-9
Figure 17-1 Lindero Projected Field Heap Recovery Curves by Met Type .............. 17-7
Figure 17-2 Process Water Balance Diagram, Average Precipitation Year ............ 17-17
Figure 18-1 Project Location Map ............................................................................. 18-2
Figure 18-2 Well Test Locations ............................................................................... 18-7
Figure 20-1 Example of Air Quality Sampling Equipment ..................................... 20-11
Figure 20-2 Ecological Units ................................................................................... 20-18
Figure 20-3 Project Location in Relation to National Parks.................................... 20-19
Figure 20-4 Location of Archaeological Sites ......................................................... 20-20
Figure 20-5 Training is an Important Part of the Company’s Culture .................... 20-34
Figure 22-1 After-Tax IRR vs. Gold Price, Capital Cost, and Operating Cash Cost
.............................................................................................................. 22-12
Figure 22-2 NPV @ 0% vs. Gold Price, Capital Cost, and Operating Cash Cost ... 22-13
Figure 24-1. Water Sources Near Project Area .......................................................... 24-2
Figure 24-2 Arita, Chachas, Lindero and Emboscadero Sub-Basins ........................ 24-3
Figure 24-3 Geoelectric Profile of Chachas Sub-Basin ............................................. 24-6
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Lindero Mineral Resource Statement .................................................... 1-12

Table 1-2 Proven and Probable Reserves and Associated Waste by Phase ........... 1-13
Table 1-3 Summary of Pre-Production Capital Costs ............................................ 1-21
Table 1-4 Lindero Project Average Operating Cost ............................................... 1-22
Table 1-5 Life of Mine Economic Summary ......................................................... 1-24
Table 1-6 Sensitivity Analysis (After Tax) ............................................................ 1-25
Table 2-1 QPs, Areas of Report Responsibility, and Site Visits .............................. 2-2
Table 4-1 Tenure Boundary Co-ordinates ................................................................ 4-7
Table 4-2 Required Key Permits and Authorizations, including Agencies ........... 4-12
Table 9-1 Summary of Exploration Programs Carried Out on the Lindero Deposit
.................................................................................................................. 9-1

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report ix
Table 9-2 Trench and Road Cut Samples ................................................................. 9-3

Table 9-3 Location of 2010 drill holes ................................................................... 9-10
Table 9-4 Summary of Exploration Programs Carried Out on the Arizaro Prospect
................................................................................................................ 9-11
Table 10-1 Summary of drilling campaigns at the Lindero Deposit ........................ 10-3
Table 10-2 Summary of drilling campaigns at the Arizaro Project ....................... 10-10
Table 12-1 Summary of Collar and Down-hole Surveys ......................................... 12-2
Table 12-2 AMEC Independent Sampling Results .................................................. 12-4
Table 12-3 Summary of QA/QC Samples, Rio Tinto Campaign ............................. 12-7
Table 12-4 Summary of QA/QC Samples 2005–2006 Campaign ......................... 12-10
Table 12-5 2005–2006 ACME SRM Sample Analyses ......................................... 12-10
Table 12-6 Summary of QA/QC Samples 2006 Campaign ................................... 12-12
Table 12-7 2006 ACME SRM Sample Analyses ................................................... 12-12
Table 12-8 Summary of QA/QC Sample 2006 – 2007 Campaign ......................... 12-14
Table 12-9 2006-2007 Alex Stewart SRM Analyses ............................................. 12-15
Table 12-10 Summary of QA/QC Sample Analyses 2007–2008 Campaign ........... 12-16
Table 12-11 2007–2008 Alex Stewart SRM Analyses ............................................ 12-17
Table 12-12 Summary Statistics, Comparison of Trenches with Drill Holes .......... 12-19
Table 13-1 Project Heap Leach Recoveries ............................................................. 13-1
Table 13-2 Heap Leaching Parameter design criteria .............................................. 13-2
Table 13-3 Key for Lithology Codes and Groupings ............................................... 13-6
Table 13-4 Samples Used in Metallurgical Testwork Programs .............................. 13-7
Table 13-5 Multi-Element Analysis for Phase III material ...................................... 13-3
Table 13-6 Phase III Whole Rock Analysis ............................................................. 13-4
Table 13-7 Summary Results Hazen Comminution Tests ....................................... 13-5
Table 13-8 Summary Results. METSO Comminution Tests ................................... 13-5
Table 13-9 Results from paste pH, Eh and Dissolved oxygen testwork .................. 13-5
Table 13-10 Total Carbon, Sulphur, Mercury & Soluble Copper Analyses .............. 13-6
Table 13-11 Head analyses for the Lindero Testwork ............................................... 13-7
Table 13-12 Rock Density Results ........................................................................... 13-10
Table 13-13 Phase II and AllOX Bottle Roll Test Summaries ................................ 13-11
Table 13-14 Summary of Compacted Permeability Tests........................................ 13-13
Table 13-15 Puncture test results ............................................................................. 13-14
Table 13-16 Column Test Work Parameters for all Phases ..................................... 13-17
Table 13-17 Cyanide consumption as a function of Lithology ................................ 13-22
Table 13-18 Column Test Hydrated Lime Consumption as a Function of Lithology
.............................................................................................................. 13-23
Table 13-19 Recoveries as a Function of Lithology and Testwork Phase ............... 13-25

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report x
Table 13-20 Project Heap Leach Recoveries ........................................................... 13-26

Table 13-21 Solubility of Cu Minerals in NaCN Solution ...................................... 13-30
Table 13-22 Phase II and III Copper Head Grades and Recoveries......................... 13-31
Table 13-23 Water Quality Table ............................................................................. 13-35
Table 13-24 Summary of Detoxification Test Results – Total & WAD Cyanide ... 13-36
Table 13-25 Summary of Detoxification Test Results – Reagent Usage ................. 13-36
Table 13-26 Summary of Arizaro Bottle Rolls – Gold Extraction and Reagent Usage
.............................................................................................................. 13-37
Table 13-27 Summary of Arizaro Bottle Rolls – Silver and Copper Extraction ..... 13-37
Table 14-1 Variogram Parameters ......................................................................... 14-49
Table 14-2 Grade Interpolation Parameters ........................................................... 14-50
Table 14-3 Rock Codes for CPD1/FPD and S1 Domains and Subdomains .......... 14-51
Table 14-4 Rock Codes for Other Domains and Subdomains ............................... 14-51
Table 14-5 Specific Gravity Values Assigned to Lindero Model .......................... 14-53
Table 14-6 Global Bias Check by Rock Type ........................................................ 14-54
Table 14-7 Relative Differences in Tonnes and Grades at 0.2 g/t Au Cut-Off ...... 14-57
Table 14-8 Costs Used in Mineral Resource Estimate ........................................... 14-60
Table 14-9 Lindero Mineral Resource Statement .................................................. 14-62
Table 14-10 Sensitivity of Lindero Mineral Resource to Cut-Off Grade ................ 14-63
Table 14-11 Comparison with 2010 Mineral Resource Estimate ............................ 14-64
Table 15-1 Pit Optimization Economic Parameters ................................................. 15-2
Table 15-2 Cutoff Grades (g Au/t) ........................................................................... 15-4
Table 15-3 Whittle Pit Optimization Results ........................................................... 15-5
Table 15-4 Proven and Probable Reserves and Associated Waste by Phase ......... 15-16
Table 15-5 In-Pit Resources Between Internal and Reserve Cutoff Grades .......... 15-16
Table 15-6 In-Pit Inferred Resources ..................................................................... 15-17
Table 16-1 Annual Mine Production Schedule ........................................................ 16-4
Table 16-2 Annual Ore Delivery to the Crusher ...................................................... 16-5
Table 16-3 Annual Stockpile Balance ...................................................................... 16-6
Table 16-4 Contractor Mine Personnel Requirements (Phase 1 & 2 Mining) ....... 16-10
Table 16-5 Owner Mine Personnel Requirements ................................................. 16-10
Table 16-6 Mine Annual Personnel Costs ($000.’s USD) ..................................... 16-11
Table 17-1 Processing Design Criteria Summary .................................................... 17-1
Table 17-2 Pond Volume Requirements, m3 ............................................................ 17-9
Table 17-3 Average Year Rainfall Data in mm ..................................................... 17-13
Table 17-4 Wet Year Rainfall Data in mm, Years 1950-1990 (Hombre Muerto 1992-
2001) .................................................................................................... 17-13

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report xi
Table 17-5 Dry Year Rainfall Data in mm, Years 1950-1990 (Hombre Muerto 1992-
2001) .................................................................................................... 17-14
Table 17-6 Site-Wide Average Year Water Requirements .................................... 17-15
Table 17-7 Heap Leach Water Balance, Average Precipitation Year .................... 17-16
Table 17-8 Projected Annual Reagents and Consumables ..................................... 17-18
Table 18-1 Power Consumption by Area ................................................................. 18-4
Table 18-2 Site Water Demand ................................................................................ 18-5
Table 18-3 Summary of Well Locations and Tests .................................................. 18-6
Table 19-1 Recent Metals Prices .............................................................................. 19-1
Table 19-2 Summary of Ore Processed and Gold Produced .................................... 19-4
Table 20-1 Environment Reports Presented to the Provincial Government ............ 20-8
Table 20-2 Averaged Environmental Concentration of Particulate Matter (PM10)
.............................................................................................................. 20-11
Table 20-3 Water Quality Guideline Levels in Annex IV of Law No. 24,585 ...... 20-13
Table 20-4 Drinking Water Specifications of the Argentine Food Code ............... 20-14
Table 20-5 Taxonomical Classification ................................................................. 20-16
Table 20-6 Ecological Units ................................................................................... 20-17
Table 20-7 Required Key Permits and Authorizations, including Agencies ......... 20-39
Table 20-8 Closure Costs ....................................................................................... 20-50
Table 21-1 Lindero Pre-Production Capital Costs ................................................... 21-1
Table 21-2 Lindero Project Average Operating Cost ............................................... 21-1
Table 21-3 Summary of Pre-Production Capital Costs ............................................ 21-3
Table 21-4 Summary of Pre-Production Capital Costs by Discipline...................... 21-4
Table 21-5 Summary of Pre-Production and Future Mining Capital Costs (US$ 000’s)
................................................................................................................ 21-6
Table 21-6 Future Capital Summary ...................................................................... 21-15
Table 21-7 Lindero Project Operating Cost by Year ............................................. 21-18
Table 21-8 Labor Category and Wages .................................................................. 21-21
Table 21-9 Annual Mine Operating Costs ............................................................. 21-23
Table 21-10 Contractor Mining Costs ...................................................................... 21-25
Table 21-11 Lindero Detailed Process Operating Cost by Year .............................. 21-29
Table 21-12 Lindero Process Staffing Levels .......................................................... 21-30
Table 21-13 Process Power and Consumption ......................................................... 21-32
Table 21-14 Process Consumable Items .................................................................. 21-33
Table 21-15 Reagent Prices ...................................................................................... 21-33
Table 21-16 G&A Cost Summary ............................................................................ 21-37
Table 22-1 Life of Mine Summary........................................................................... 22-2
Table 22-2 Capital Cost Summary ........................................................................... 22-5

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report xii
Table 22-3 Key Financial Parameters ...................................................................... 22-7

Table 22-4 Cash Flow Analysis ............................................................................... 22-8
Table 22-5 Sensitivity Analysis (After Tax) .......................................................... 22-11
Table 24-1 Recharge Rates of Arita, Chachas, Lindero and Emboscadero Sub-Basins
................................................................................................................ 24-4
Table 24-2 Procurement Lead Times ..................................................................... 24-15
Table 26-1 Long Lead Items (Greater than Six Months) ......................................... 26-1

May 2013
Lindero Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report Page 1-1
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
Kappes, Cassiday and Associates (KCA), Mine Development Associates (MDA) and
AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC) were commissioned by Goldrock Mines Corp.
(Goldrock) to prepare an independent Qualified Person’s review and NI 43-101
Technical Report (the Report) for the wholly-owned Arizaro–Lindero gold project (the
Project) located in the Salta Province of Argentina. This technical report summarizes the
results of the feasibility study. The press release announcing the results of the feasibility
study was published on April 17, 2013.
1.2 Key Outcomes
The Report discloses the results of a Feasibility Study completed on the Lindero deposit
during April 2013. Key outcomes of the study were:
• Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves of 65.5 Mt grading 0.72 g/t Au

(1.52 Moz contained gold);
• Planned conventional open pit mining operation using truck and shovel
mining methods, producing 6,750,000 tonnes of ore per year over an eight-
year pit life;
• Planned conventional heap leach operation that has a 10 year life;
• Financial analysis of the base case (US$1400/oz Au and a discount rate of
5%) showing after-tax Project NPV of US$215 million, internal rate of
return (IRR) of 33.4%, average annual after-tax cash flow value of
US$54.5 million, and payback period of 24 months; and
• All-in sustaining cash costs of US$703/oz Au.
1.3 Property Description and Location
The Lindero Project is located 260 km due west of Salta City, Argentina, the main
service center of the region, at latitude 25o 06’ south and longitude 67o 45’ west. Drive
time from Salta to the Project is approximately 7-7.5 h, over a road distance of 420 km.
The nearest town to the Lindero Project is Tolar Grande (population 250), located 75 km
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 1 - Summary

May 2013
to the northeast.
Access to the project is via National Route 51, which passes through the towns of San
Antonio de Los Cobres and Olacapato, and Provincial Route 27, via Pocitos and Tolar
Grande. A 4,000 m long Project airstrip is also nearby, situated about 10 km from the
proposed Project plant site.
1.3.1 Mineral Tenure and Surface Rights
The mineral tenement holdings cover 3,500 ha, and comprise 35 pertenecias, each of 100
ha, which are constrained by Gauss Kruger Posgar co-ordinates generated by survey.
Tenure is held in the name of Mansfield Minera S.A. (Mansfield), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Goldrock. There is no expiry date on the pertenecias, providing Mansfield
meets expenditure and environmental requirements, and pays the appropriate annual
mining fees.
A 3% provincial royalty “boca mina” is payable on revenue after deduction of direct

processing, commercial and general and administrative costs. There are no royalties
payable to any other third party.
Surface rights are owned by the provincial state (Propiedad Fiscal) of Salta. There are no
reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way or easements on the Project to any third-party.
Mansfield holds a registered camp concession, and a granted and surveyed access right-
of-way. Water permits and rights of access to the Project are guaranteed through water
and access licenses granted by the Mining Court of Salta.
1.3.2 Environmental and Permitting
Specific approvals and permits are required for many aspects of the Project.
In November of 2010, the Company submitted the EIA (exploitation) report for the
Lindero Project, and in November 2011, the Company received approval of this EIA
through the issue of the Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental (DIA). The DIA is the
guiding (primary) operating permit during the life of the Project. It is also a requirement
for the granting of most sector permits for the Project.

May 2013
Since the discovery of gold mineralization at the Project in 2000, the Company has
presented more than 20 other environmental reports describing various activities such as
extraction of samples at initial stages, soil sampling, a program of geophysical surveys,
and details of access roads, drilling programs, camp installation, and runways. These
reports consist of a brief description of the environmental baseline, the project,
environmental impact, and ways to prevent and mitigate that impact. On many
occasions, the Government of Salta Province has inspected the various activities.
There are no known current environmental liabilities for this Project.
1.4 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and

Physiography
service center of the region, at latitude 25o 06’ south and longitude 67o 45’ west. Access
to the project is via National Route 51, which passes through the towns of San Antonio
de Los Cobres and Olacapato, and Provincial Route 27, via Pocitos and Tolar Grande. A
4,000 m long Project airstrip is also nearby, situated about 10 km from the proposed
Project plant site.
The Project is located in the Argentinean puna, a cool, arid zone that commences at an
elevation of approximately 3,500 to 4,000 m. The average annual rainfall is about 37 mm,
distributed irregularly throughout the year. The annual average temperature is 3.9°C. The
warmest months are January and February; the coldest month is July.
Existing Project infrastructure comprises a climate station, two man camps that can
accommodate 150 people, and an airstrip. Site access will be primarily by existing
national and provincial roads that will be used during construction and operation.
Argentina has sufficient experienced and skilled professionals to run the proposed
Lindero operation.
Power for the Project will primarily be provided by natural gas generators, based on
trade-off studies for optimum power supply performed during the pre-feasibility study.

May 2013
Fresh water supply to support the mine and process operations will be provided by two
wells located 13 km to the east and two smaller capacity wells located on the Lindero
property.
1.5 History of Exploration
Gold–copper mineralization associated with potassic alteration was first discovered by

Mansfield geologists at the Arizaro prospect in November 1999, and led to claim staking.
Work completed to date has been either by Rio Tinto, during a joint venture, or by
Mansfield staff, and consists of reconnaissance and detailed geological mapping, soil
geochemistry (talus fines), trench excavation, sampling, and mapping, ground magnetics
and induced polarization geophysical surveys, road cut sampling, core drilling, a core-
relog program, generation of a three-dimensional (3D) geological model for the Lindero
deposit, and metallurgical testwork.
1.6 Geological Setting and Mineralization
The Arizaro Volcanic Complex, which consists of two superimposed concentric volcanic
centers, the Arizaro and the Lindero cones, is located in the Arcihibarca volcanic arc at
the southern margin of the Salar de Arizaro basin. Basement rocks crop out to the north
of the Lindero deposit, and consist of coarse-grained Ordovician granites, which are
uncomformably overlain by Early Tertiary red bed sandstones. The Lindero–Arizaro
complex, a series of diorite to monzonite porphyritic stocks, intrudes these units.
The mineralized zones at the Lindero deposit form a semi-circular shape about 600 m in
diameter which extends to a depth of 600 m, consisting of four different zones at the
surface. Distribution of the gold–copper mineralization at Lindero shows a strong
relationship to lithology, stockwork veinlets, and alteration assemblages. Gold values
average 0.70 g/t and copper values are typically about 0.11%. Higher grades of gold–
copper (approximately 1 g/t Au and 0.1% Cu) are commonly associated with sigmoidal
quartz, quartz–magnetite–sulfides, biotite-magnetite– chalcopyrite, magnetite–
chalcopyrite and quartz–limonite–hematite stockworks which are strongly associated
with K-feldspar alteration. This association is very common in the east zone of the
deposit, where the highest gold grades occur. At other locations where one or more

May 2013
Linderro Project – NI
N 43-101 Tech
hnical Report Page 1--5
stock
kwork types are missing or the intenssity of fractuuring is loweer, mineralizzation tends tto
be weeaker and the grades of gold
g tends to
o be lower (aapproximateely 0.4 g/t Auu).
Gold mineralizattion at Linddero is charaacterized by free gold, w which is associated witth

chalccopyrite and//or magnetitee grains with
h rare intersttitial quartz.
The weathered
w oxidation zon
ne at Lindero
o is generallly poorly deeveloped andd averages 444
m in thickness.
The Arizaro pro ospect has styles of mineralization

m n with coppper–gold grrade stronglly
correlated with different
d alterration assem
mblages. Minneralization iis mainly asssociated witth
potasssic alteration. This occuurs generally
y in multi-diirectional veeins, vein stoockworks annd
dissemminations. Chalcopyrite
C e and bornitee are the maain copper m minerals. Goold is mainlly
assocciated with chalcopyrite,
c , quartz, and
d anhydrite vveinlets. Golld–copper grrades averagge
0.6 g//t gold and 0.15%
0 coppeer.
1.7 Depo
osit Types
The deposits
d andd prospects found
f withinn the Projectt area are coonsidered too be examplees
of po
orphyry-stylee deposits, in
n particular gold-rich
g porrphyries.
1.8 Explloration
The Lindero dep posit was discovered

d in
i 1999 as a result off a regionall program oof
explo
oration underrtaken by Goldrock. Seeveral explorration prograams have beeen conducteed
by Go
oldrock and Rio Tinto on the Linderro deposit:
• Go
oldrock Cam mpaign: Augu ust 2000–Occtober 2001, which incluuded geologiic
maapping, soil sampling,
s an
nd trench sam
mpling;
• Rio
o Tinto Cammpaign: Maay 2002–Feebruary 20003, which inncluded roaad
sam
mpling, geop
physics, and drilling (10 holes for a ttotal of 3,279m);
• Gooldrock Cam mpaign: October 20005–January 2008, whiich includeed
geo
ological maapping and modeling, ttrenching, aand a signifficant drillinng
pro
ogram (111 holes
h for a to
otal of 31,3007 m);
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Sectioon 1 - Summarry

May 2013
2
• Goldrock Campaign: August 2010–November 2010 which consisted of

additional drilling for the pre-feasibility study.
The Arizaro prospect was discovered in 1999 as a result of a regional program of

exploration undertaken by Goldrock. Since then, exploration programs have been
conducted in the area consisting of initial exploration by Goldrock during 2000–2001
(consisting of geology mapping, soil sampling, trenches) and a follow-up program by Rio
Tinto during 2002–2003 (consisting of geophysics and two initial drill holes). Three drill
programs were conducted by Goldrock during 2010 to 2012 consisting of a total of 27
holes.
1.9 Drilling
Drilling completed on the Lindero Deposit for the period 1999–2010 comprised 139 core
drill holes (38,137 m). Drilling on the Arizaro Prospect for the period 1999-2012 totals
29 core holes (8,851 m).
1.9.1 Lindero Drilling
All core holes were drilled using HQ (63.5 mm diameter) for the first 300 m, and were
subsequently reduced to NQ (47.6 mm diameter). Logging of core utilized standard
logging procedures, recording geological and geotechnical information. Drill collars are
picked up using a differential global positioning system (DGPS) instrument.
During the first exploration campaign in 2002 by Connors Drilling, and the 2005–2006
Patagonia Drilling campaign, no downhole surveys were undertaken. Downhole surveys
between 2006 and 2008 were typically taken by the drilling contractor for core holes
using a Maxibor® instrument; during 2009 Goldrock identified a survey error with these
data. Where possible, drill holes were resurveyed using a SRG Gyroscope®; the 2009
program resurveyed about 80% of the then-existing drill holes.
No core recovery data exists for the drill holes from the Rio Tinto drill campaign. Drill
core recovery measurements are collected on each hole as it is being drilled and has been
undertaken for all Goldrock diamond drilling. Drill hole recovery has averaged 92.68%.

May 2013
The average depth of the core holes is 300 m and the deepest hole reached 576 m depth.
The holes were generally orientated perpendicular to the mineralization forming a radial
pattern, except in the eastern portion where the holes are either perpendicular (azimuth
270°) or parallel (azimuth 190°) to the main mineralized body. Dips vary depending on
the target and range from -50° to -89°, averaging -70°. The spacing between drill holes is
approximately between 40–50 m on the surface; drill holes are further apart at depth.
1.9.2 Arizaro Drilling
Goldrock Mines initially tested the discovery with 16 diamond drill holes and followed
up in 2012 with a further 13 diamond drill holes (2,983 meters). A total of 29 diamond
drill holes were drilled in the deposit for a total of 8,851 meters. All were core holes
drilled using HQ (63.5 mm diameter) for the first 300 meters and were subsequently
reduced to NQ (47.6 mm diameter).
Logging of core utilized standard logging procedures, recording geological and

geotechnical information. Drill collars were picked up using a differential global
positioning system (DGPS) instrument. The drill holes were down hole surveyed using a
surface-recording gyroscopic instrument. The holes were generally orientated
perpendicular to the high grade breccia mineralization. Dips vary depending on the target
and range from -50° to -89°, averaging -70°. The spacing between drill holes is
approximately 50 m on the surface.
1.10 Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security
All Project diamond drill holes from Project inception have been sampled by sawing the
core into halves. One-half is then collected for analysis and one-half kept in the core box
for library storage at the Project site. Core sampling for the 2002 Rio Tinto program and
all Goldrock programs was carried out at 2 m intervals, irrespective of lithology.
The primary assay laboratory for the Rio Tinto campaign was ALS Chemex, Vancouver,
Canada; ALS Chemex prepared samples at its Mendoza, Argentina facility. The drill core
from the 2005-2008 Goldrock exploration campaigns was sent to ACME Laboratories in
Mendoza, Argentina, for sample preparation, and was analyzed at the ACME laboratory
in Santiago de Chile, Chile. Secondary analyses (umpire or check samples) were
performed in 2002 by Alex Stewart Laboratories in Argentina, Bondar Clegg

May 2013
Laboratories in Canada, and an un-named location of ACME Laboratories. For the 2005-
2008 Goldrock drill campaigns, the Argentinean and Chilean laboratories of Alex Stewart
and ALS Chemex were used as umpire laboratories. The primary assay laboratories for
the 2010-2013 Goldrock exploration campaigns were Alex Stewart and ACME. Check
analyses were performed at Alex Stewart, ACME and ALS Chemex.
All laboratories are, and were, independent of Rio Tinto and Goldrock, and typically held
accepted international accreditations.
Samples were typically dried, crushed, and pulverized to a nominal 95% -150 mesh (ALS
Chemex) or a nominal 95% -200 mesh (ACME). Samples were assayed for gold using
fire assay with atomic absorption (AA) finish, and for 35 elements using inductively
coupled plasma (ICP) spectrophotometry. Copper values above 1% were re-run with AA.
Rio Tinto included pulp duplicates, coarse duplicates, blanks and standard reference
materials (SRMs) in the drill sample submissions to the laboratory. A quality assurance
and quality control procedure (QA/QC) was implemented throughout the Goldrock drill
and trench sampling programs, and included submission of SRMs, blank, field duplicates
and check samples. Field duplicates were prepared from quarter core samples.
A 10 cm length core sample was collected at 10 m intervals for bulk density

measurements. These were performed by Goldrock personnel using water-displacement
methods. Goldrock also contracted ACME laboratories to check the bulk density
measurements on 148 selected core samples.
Sample security has relied upon the fact that the samples were always attended or locked
in the core facility. Chain-of-custody procedures were consistent with standard practice
of any sample shipment to the analytical laboratories.
1.11 Data Verification
A number of data verification programs and audits have been performed over the Project
history, primarily in support of compilation of technical reports on the Project. These
include reviews by independent consultants Roscoe Postle Associates (2003), American
Au Ag Associates (2004), and Golder Associates (2008). No material errors were noted
with the Project data on completion of the audits.

May 2013
AMEC performed an audit of the digital database in 2009, which consisted of Microsoft
Excel® spreadsheets and MapInfo® tables. The audit consisted of checking the
geological, survey, assay and QA/QC digital data against source documents to ensure
correct data entry as well as data integrity checks such as checking for overlapping
intervals, and data beyond total depth of hole. AMEC selected core from 13 drill holes
(representing over 10% of the total number of drill holes) during a site visit in order to
examine the lithological contacts between the different rock types defined by Goldrock.
Following the database audit, AMEC noted some deviations within the down-hole survey
data; the depth intervals of those drill holes with excessive horizontal deviations were
flagged and were subsequently incorporated as uncertainties during resource
classification. The lack of assay certificates for the drill holes from the Rio Tinto drilling
campaign was considered during resource classification. There is no evidence of a
positive bias in gold grades associated with decreasing core recoveries in the oxide zone.
No material sample biases were identified from the QA/QC programs. Analytical data
that were considered marginal were accounted for in the resource classifications.
AMEC reviewed the results of the ACME specific gravity measurements and compared
them with Goldrock‘s specific gravity measurements. A consistent low bias was observed
in the Goldrock results, and a correction factor was applied to these data.
AMEC also selected 20 quarter-core sample intervals from half-core to confirm the
presence of gold mineralization. The results of AMEC‘s independent samples agree
reasonably well with the original sample assays. The AMEC values confirm the presence
of gold mineralization at the Project, and confirm that gold grades above 1 g/t Au can be
expected.
AMEC has not completed verification of data collected in subsequent exploration

campaigns.
1.12 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing
Two major campaigns of metallurgical testwork were undertaken, first in 2002 by Rio
Tinto, and then from 2004–2010 by Goldrock. The 2004 – 2010 work was performed by
recognized international metallurgical testing facilities. The 2002 Rio Tinto testwork was
not used to support the feasibility designs.

May 2013
Metallurgical testing included petrography, gravity separation, cyanidation and flotation

tests, bottle roll leach tests, column leach tests, cyanide column leach tests, Bond
abrasion index and Bond crusher impact testing, physical testing utilizing high pressure
grinding roll (HPGR) crushers, HPGR pilot scale grinding tests, as well as jaw, cone and
impact crushing tests.
The work indicated the Lindero ores were typically abrasive, had low work indices, and
that higher recoveries were generally observed with smaller crush sizes, and lower
recoveries with larger crush sizes. Heap leach processing was considered appropriate for
the Lindero ore. Testwork indicated that the ore typically requires a long leach time to
achieve acceptable recoveries.
Based on the tonnage and recovery for each ore type as supplied by Goldrock, the
estimated field recovery for oxide ore (Met Type 2) is 73.6% and the estimated field
recoveries for hypogene ore Types 1, 3, and 4 are 67.9%, 69.3%, and 61.2% respectively.
The average life-of-mine field gold recovery is projected at 68.3% at a crush size P80 of
9mm. Field cyanide consumption is projected to be 0.45 kg/tonne ore, and lime addition
is estimated at 2.5 kg/tonne ore. A small amount of copper is present and leachable in the
Lindero ore, which is addressed by specific design features in the ADR plant along with
an included contingency for a future copper recovery system.
1.13 Mineral Resource Estimates
The 2009 Lindero Project Mineral Resource estimate and grade shells were prepared by
David G. Thomas, P.Geo., Principal Resource Geologist employed by AMEC. Goldrock
retained AMEC to complete a re-tabulation of the Mineral Resources for the Project in
2013. The block grade estimates and Mineral Resource classification have not been
changed.
AMEC used updated metal prices, mining, and processing costs provided by Goldrock to
calculate a marginal cut-off grade to compare with Goldrock’s suggested cut-off grade
and to generate an updated optimized pit shell. The updated metal prices, mining and
processing costs were reviewed by AMEC. The optimized pit shell constrains the Mineral
Resource to material with “reasonable prospects of economic extraction” as per the 2010
CIM Definition Standards Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves.
The drill hole database that supports mineral resource estimation comprises 17,753

May 2013
samples from 121 core holes (34,656.8 m) and 32 trenches (1,268 m) collected between
2002 and 2008 by Rio Tinto and Goldrock. The database was closed for estimation
purposes on 31 July 2009.
Geological models used to constrain the resource estimation comprised seven lithological
models, supplied by Mansfield. AMEC constructed a surface to represent the base of
oxidation in order to reproduce vertical trends in the gold grades.
Assay and density data were composited into 4 m down-hole intervals. Results from the
Lindero contact profiles showed that hard, soft, and firm contacts exist. Firm boundaries
were modeled by allowing composites on the other side of the boundary to be used in
estimation of blocks in the first pass but not in subsequent passes.
Raw assay data on 2 m composite lengths were examined to assess the amount of metal
that is at risk from high-grade assays. Grade caps of between 0.75 g/t Au and 3 g/t Au
were imposed on selected domains; this removed between 1% and 2% of the contained
metal in each domain. Lindero exhibits a low coefficient of variability and small-nugget
effect.
Blocks within a mineralized domain were interpolated using composites assigned to the
same domain. AMEC chose to interpolate the grades using ordinary kriging (OK), as the
grade distribution is reasonably smooth. A three-pass method was employed to assign
estimated grades. Model validation comprised construction of a gold nearest-neighbor
(NN) model to compare to the OK block model to check for bias, a detailed visual
validation of the Lindero resource model, swath plot validation, and a check on the
change of support smoothing. No major errors were noted following completion of the
checks, and the model was considered acceptable for estimation purposes.
Mineral resources are classified as Measured when a block was located within 35 m of
the nearest composite and two composites from two additional drill holes was within 45
m. Mineral resources were classified as Indicated when a block was located within 54 m
of the nearest composite and one additional composite from another drill hole was within
90 m. Mineral resources were classified as Inferred when a block was located within 70
m of the nearest composite.
To assess reasonable prospects of economic extraction, the mineralization was confined

within a Lerchs-Grossman optimization, the key parameters of which were the geological
and grade continuity of mineralization, and a gold price of US$1,450/oz (updated from

May 2013
$890/oz), a treatment and refining cost of US$6.19/oz (updated from $12/oz), a mining
cost of US$2.10/t (updated from US$1.10/t), processing and G&A costs of US$5.20/t
(updated from $3.07/t) and an average process recovery of 70% (unchanged from 2009
estimate). The mineralization within the conceptual pit that satisfies these requirements
equates to an updated cut-off grade of 0.16 g/t Au (previously 0.15 g/t Au) being used to
constrain the mineral resources, which is not a significant change from the 2009 resource
estimate. AMEC decided to maintain the original 0.15 g/t Au cut-off for the updated
resource statement.
Mineral Resources for the Project were classified under the 2005 CIM Definition
Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources are inclusive
of Mineral Reserves, and are summarized in Table 1-1. The Qualified Person for the
Mineral Resource estimate is David G. Thomas, P.Geo. Mineral resources are reported at
a gold price of US$1,450 per ounce and have an effective date of 23 January 2013.
AMEC cautions that Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability. The Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are
inclusive of those Mineral Resources modified to produce the Mineral Reserves.
Table 1-1
Lindero Mineral Resource Statement
(Effective Date 23 January 2013, David G. Thomas P.Geo.)
Resource Tonnage Gold Copper Gold
Category (Mt) (g/t) (%) (MOz)
Measured 28.5 0.76 0.11 0.70
Indicated 100.2 0.47 0.10 1.51
Measured and Indicated 128.7 0.53 0.10 2.19
Inferred 59.7 0.37 0.09 0.71
Notes: 1. Mineral Resources are reported above a 0.15 g/t Au cut-off grade.
2. Mineral Resources are reported with internal dilution appropriate for a 10 x 10 x 8m selective mining unit and
assuming cut-off grades between 0.1 g/t and 0.5 g/t Au. No external dilution is included.
3. Mineral Resources are reported using a long-term gold price of US $1,450/oz, mining costs at US $2.10 per
tonne (including G and A), with total processing and process G&A costs of US $5.20 per tonne of ore and an
average process recovery of 70%. The treatment and refining costs were estimated to be US $6.19 per ounce gold.
4. Mineral Resources are reported within a conceptual pit shell using a slope angle (52°) consistent with
geotechnical parameters from a report issued by Seegmiller in August 2012.
1.14 Mineral Reserve Estimates
MDA has used measured and indicated resources provided by AMEC to define reserves.
Reserve definition is done by first identifying ultimate pit limits using economic and
geometrical parameters with pit optimization techniques. The resulting optimized pit

May 2013
shells were then used for guidance in pit design to allow access for equipment and
personnel. Several phases of mining were defined to enhance the economics of the
project, and MDA used the phased pit designs to define the production schedule to be
used for cash-flow analysis for the feasibility study.
A cash-flow model has been developed by KCA and MDA has reviewed it and
determined it to be reasonable with respect to stating reserves for the Lindero Gold
project.
Mineral Reserves were estimated using a base case of US$1400/oz Au. For the pit
optimization, mining and process costs and process recoveries were estimated by MDA
from internal studies conducted by Goldrock and benchmark studies of similar projects.
MDA estimated mining costs at US$2.10/t and processing costs at US$4.30/t with an
average gold recovery of 68.3% (individual recoveries were applied for each
metallurgical type). G&A costs were assumed at $8.95 million per year ($1.19/t
processed). A 3% provincial royalty and 5% net smelter return were also applied.
Cut-off grades were calculated for each metallurgical type. To enhance the economics of
the Project, an elevated cutoff grade of 0.35 g Au/t was used for the reserve statement.
Table 1-2 presents the Proven and Probable Reserves.
Table 1-2
Proven and Probable Reserves and Associated Waste by Phase
Proven Probable Total Proven and Probable Waste Total Strip
Phase K Tonnes g Au/t K Ozs Au K Tonnes g Au/t K Ozs Au K Tonnes g Au/t K Ozs Au K Tonnes K Tonnes Ratio
Ph_1 7,222 0.99 230 3,887 0.93 116 11,109 0.97 346 3,181 14,290 0.29
Ph_2 3,895 0.82 102 6,300 0.75 152 10,195 0.77 254 7,041 17,235 0.69
Ph_3 4,201 0.76 103 16,462 0.60 315 20,662 0.63 417 52,871 73,533 2.56
Ph_4 8,988 0.71 206 14,591 0.63 296 23,579 0.66 502 54,475 78,054 2.31
Total 24,305 0.82 641 41,240 0.66 878 65,546 0.72 1,519 117,568 183,113 1.79
1.15 Mining Methods
The Lindero Gold project has been planned as an open-pit truck and shovel operation.
The truck and shovel method provides reasonable cost benefits and selectivity for this
type of deposit. Only open-pit mining methods are considered for mining at Lindero.
Proven and Probable reserves were used to schedule mine production, and Inferred
resources inside of the pit were considered as waste. The final production schedule uses

May 2013
trucks and shovels as required to produce the ore to be feed into the process plant and
maintain stripping requirements for each case.
Table 1-3 shows the mine-production schedule, including re-handle from stockpiles. Ore
production shown are Proven and Probable reserves mined from the pit and is broken
down into three classes by grade: High-Grade Ore is ore equal to or above a 1.00 g Au/t
cutoff; Medium-Grade Ore is ore above 0.50 but below 1.00 g Au/t cutoff grades; and
Low-Grade Ore is ore above 0.35 but below 0.75 g Au/t cutoff grades. Mineralized
waste shown is material that is above a breakeven cutoff grade, but below the reserve
cutoff grade of 0.35 g Au/t. This material has potential economic value and will be
stockpiled on top of the primary waste dump. Other waste shown includes inferred and
un-classified material along with material below the break-even economic cutoff grades.
The production schedule is based on a ramp up in process production. During the

construction and initial mining, a total of 1,263,000 tonnes of ore is mined and placed on
the pad. A large portion of this will be crushed and laid down as over-liner material. In
year one of production, the processing rate is 15,000 tonnes per day for the first six
months then it will increase to 18,750 tonnes per day.
Mined ore is hauled to either the crusher or a nearby stockpile. Stockpiles are maintained
to both smooth out the production to the crusher as well as to enhance the economics by
allowing higher-grade material to be fed before lower-grade material.
When possible, material will be direct fed into the crusher to reduce re-handle costs. Re-
handle of material will be done using the contractor equipment in the earlier years, and
then by owner-mining equipment.
1.16 Recovery Methods
The Lindero heap leach facility is designed for a nominal production rate of 18,750 t/d.
The Project is projected to have a 10 year life with a Proven and Probable reserve of 65.5
million tonnes of ore. Ore will be fine crushed to 9mm using a three-stage system
incorporating jaw, cone and HPGR crushers, and conveyor-stacked on the leach pad in 10
meter lifts.
The crushing circuit will be fed by 100 t haul trucks to a 200 t run-of-mine (ROM) bin,
followed by a vibrating grizzly in circuit with a jaw crusher (primary crushing). Primary

May 2013
crushing discharge will feed a distribution bin feeding three screens in closed circuit with
three cone crushers (secondary crushing). Secondary crushing area discharge will be
conveyed to a bin with feeder, choke feeding a HPGR crusher (tertiary crushing). Fine
ore will be delivered to the fine ore stockpile by a stacking conveyor from the HPGR
discharge at a rate of 18,750 t/d. The stockpile will be drawn down by two belt feeders to
a reclaim conveyor which transports ore to an overland conveyor and/or then to the first
of up to 30 grasshopper conveyors, and then via conveyor to a track-mounted telescoping
radial stacker. The mine plan assumes a crush size of -9 mm for all ore types.
The leach pad is divided into two areas, Phase 1 and Phase 2 to allow staging of pad
construction over the first year. The leach pad has been designed with an ultimate
compacted heap height of about 90 m (9 lifts), incorporating overall side slopes of 2.5:1.
The leach pad will be divided into eight drainage cells and will have a lined surface area
of about 700,000 m2. Heap stacking will begin at the down-slope (north) end of the pad
and progress in a retreating fashion up-slope toward the crushed ore stockpile.
The Lindero leach system was designed to allow two-stage leaching during the early
years of the operation. The advantage of two-stage leaching is that lower-grade heap off-
flow solution from the older parts of the heap is recycled to new ore to increase the
pregnant leach solution grade and reduce the size of the required recovery plant. At Year
4 the leach system is designed to transition to a single stage leach with an according
expansion of the recovery plant.
The primary and secondary leach times will be 60 days and 180 days respectively, for a
total of 240 days. The secondary leach will consist of a 1 week on, 2 week off cycle. The
solution application rate is projected at 10 L/h/m2, and the solution pumping rate for each
leach cycles is 800 m3/h for a total of 1,600 m3/h.
The Lindero heap leach system is designed as a zero discharge facility. Pond design will
comprise one pregnant solution pond with an internal splitter berm as a working pond and
one excess solution pond for containment of excess solution resulting from the design
storm event. Both ponds will be lined.
Total water makeup to the mined ore/crushing circuit and leaching, adsorption,
desorption, recovery (ADR) circuit, along with all dust control and other miscellaneous
uses, is estimated at a total of 94 m3/h.

May 2013
The adsorption circuit in the ADR plant is designed process 800 m3/hr of pregnant
solution initially (Years 1-3), and 1,600 m3/hr ultimately (Year 4+). There are two carbon
trains of five columns each in the design, expanding to three trains at Year 4.
Loaded carbon from the adsorption circuit will be stripped of gold in an elution vessel
and the resulting eluate pumped to electrolytic cells for electrowinning of gold. The gold
will be washed, filtered, and then melted into doré bullion.
Some amount of copper is anticipated to be present in the leach solution. To address

potential problems associated with copper, design features have been incorporated into
the ADR plant. Cyanide will be added to the pregnant solution in the head tanks to the
carbon columns to help keep any leached copper in solution. A circuit for a cold re-
circulated strong cyanide strip to remove excess copper from loaded carbon is also
included in the circuit design. As an added contingency a SART plant has been
preliminary designed and costed as a future capital item in the study.
1.17 Project Infrastructure
The Project is located 260 km due west of Salta City, the main service center of the
region. Drive time from Salta City to the Project is approximately 7–7.5 h, over a road
distance of 420 km.
Significant road improvements are planned for stretches of road between the Tolar
Grande and the Goldrock camp and between Pocitos and Tolar Grande (a total of 160
km). These upgrades are necessary to accommodate construction and mine activities for
the Project.
The estimated peak demand load for the processing and crushing plant, heap leach and
ancillary facilities at the Lindero project site is 10.39 MW, with an average draw of
approximately 7.62 MW.
A review of power sourcing options during the pre-feasibility study stage indicated that
natural gas-fueled generation was the most technically viable and efficient option for the
Lindero project. Natural gas is available via the Gasoducto de La Puna at a point in
Pocitos, approximately 160 km from the site. A “Virtual Pipeline” is proposed for
Lindero which consists of a mother station installed in Pocitos (at the source), a receiving
station installed on site, and a series of trailer trucks to transport the natural gas. At the

May 2013
power plant on-site, electrical power will be generated by two natural gas generators with
a total de-rated installed power of 13.2 MW.
The expected average water demand for the project is estimated at 26 L/s (94 m3/h) for
the full processing tonnage for all site facilities. Water for the Lindero Project will be
supplied by four water wells; two are located on site near the man camp and two are
located about 13 km to the east of the site in the Chachas area.
A potable water system will be installed to supply potable water to the camp area.
An anaerobic sewage treatment systems will be installed near the man camp to treat
waste water generated on the site.
A man camp will be constructed for the Lindero Project and will be used for both
construction and permanent operations housing. The worker/operator quarters will house
224 people and the supervisor quarters will house 60 people for a total of 284 beds. The
camp complex will include a dining and recreation hall.
The other on-site Project buildings are listed below.
• Administration Building
• Process Shop
• Warehouse
• Truckshop
• ADR Plant Building
• Refinery Building
• Reagents Storage Building
• Assay and Metallurgical Laboratory
• Guard Shack
Diesel fuel will be delivered to the mine site via contractor owned tanker trucks and
stored in tanks on site.
Emergency medical staff will be available at an onsite clinic located in the administration
building.

May 2013
An internet protocol (IP) telephone system will be used for off-site communications.
Cellular telephone and internet coverage will be available in the camp and mining areas.
1.18 Market Studies and Contracts
Gold and silver are sold through commercial banks and metal dealers. Sales prices are
obtained based on World spot or London fixes and are easily transacted.
The average gold price over the previous three years, 2010 to 2012 is $1,487/oz, based on
the London Bullion Price.
1.19 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community

Impact
There are no known current environmental liabilities for the Project.
presented more than 20 environmental reports describing various activities such as
environmental impact, and ways to prevent and mitigate that impact. On many
occasions, the Government of Salta Province has inspected the various activities.
In December 2007, the Company presented an extensive environmental baseline report

(EBL), completed by Vector Argentina, to the Secretariat of Mining for Salta Province.
The report included sections on geology, geomorphology, hydrology, sociology,
archaeology, local flora and fauna, soil types, and climate and air quality. The EBL was
accepted by the Mining Judge of Salta after being examined by environmental technicians
of the Secretariat of Mining and the Provincial Secretariat of Environment. Another
report was issued by the Company in May 2011 as an update the EBL issued in 2007.
The Lindero Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – Operation Stage represents a key
document required for submission to the Salta Provincial Mining Authority; its approval
represents formal approval for mine construction. Goldrock submitted this report in late

May 2013
2010 and received approval (upon granting of the principal environmental permit DIA, or
Declaration de Impacto Ambiental) from the Salta government in November 2011. DIA
requirements include submission of bi-annual activity reports, which the Company
provided in May and November of 2012.
Goldrock has defined environmental principles that will enable the development of
mining operations efficiently from a productivity standpoint and from the environmental
point of view:
• Comply with existing environmental laws and regulations;

• Establish and maintain an environmental management program to guide
operations;
• Involve the entire staff of the Company and contractors in the
Environmental Management Plan (EMP);
• Promote environmental awareness among employees and the communities
where operations occur; and
• Mitigate the potential environmental impacts that do occur and support
environmental improvement programs for common benefit.
The EMP defines the criteria, the design of specifications, and management practices that
will be applied to the Lindero Project in order to mitigate, control, and monitor changes in
the baseline conditions during construction, operations, closure, and post-closure of the
Project.
The key areas of community environmental concern are:
• Use of cyanide processes in the mine;

• Formation of acid rock drainage in the waste;
• Water use by the process plant and leach pads;
• The environmental impact on populated areas;
• Effects of blasting operations on the environment; and
• Doubts concerning the environmental and social impact of the closure and
post-closure phases.
As an integral part of Project execution, an interdisciplinary committee to monitor

potential environmental impacts and contingencies will be formed. The individuals in
this committee will meet periodically and report to the operations managers as to

May 2013
potential environmental impacts so that mechanisms can be deployed for risk mitigation.
In addition to the normal environmental monitoring required in any mining operation, a

community input monitoring plan will also be implemented regarding the activity of the
Company. This will allow the Company to hear directly from the local residents what
they expect from the Company on issues related to environment. It would also be
extremely valuable to submit the bi-annual environmental report required in the DIA (by
the Salta Mining Authority) to the enforcement authority and the community in general.
This will facilitate more open contact with the government and community.
1.20 Capital and Operating Costs
The total pre-production capital cost for the Project is estimated at US$ 170.9 million,
including VAT (which is fully reimbursable). See Table 1-3. Capital costs were estimated
by KCA with the assistance of Goldrock, MDA (mining costs), and a local engineering
firm Saxum. These costs are based on the design outlined in this study and are considered
to have an accuracy of +/-15%.
Capital costs were developed by functional areas (e.g. crushing plant, ADR plant, heap
leach, etc.) and disciplines (e.g. earthworks, concrete, steel, etc.)
All costs are in fourth quarter 2012 or first quarter 2013 US dollars (US$). No escalation
factors have been applied to any costs, present or future capital. Where prices of
equipment were supplied in Argentine Pesos, an average conversion rate of 4.7 Pesos per
US dollar was used.

May 2013
Table 1-3
Summary of Pre-Production Capital Costs
Grand Total
Plant Totals Direct Costs
US$
Area 00 - General $7,930,316
Area 03 - Camp $2,960,869
Area 08 - Mobile Equipment $3,593,335
Area 13 - Crushing $21,241,785
Area 15 - Ore Reclaim & Stacking $10,171,545
Area 22 - Heap Leach & Solution Handling $13,822,862
Area 28 - ADR $5,738,471
Area 31 - Electrowinning & Refining $2,069,303
Area 34 - Reagents $705,402
Area 60 - Power $15,961,441
Area 62 - Water Supply & Distribution $4,148,309
Area 66 - Facilities $3,757,421
Area 68 - Fuel $167,078
Area 75 - Laboratory $1,870,155
Process Plant Total Direct Costs $94,138,293
Mine Total Direct Costs $2,490,232
Contingency $11,667,273
Spare Parts $3,867,580
Total Direct Costs $112,163,377
Freight $2,149,654
Import Tax $125,180
Indirect Costs $3,609,914
Initial Fills $2,437,338
EPCM $13,150,499
Owner's Costs $8,603,267
SUBTOTAL Before Working Capital & VAT $142,239,230
Working Capital $13,140,583
TOTAL Pre-Production Capital (Excluding VAT) $155,379,812
VAT $15,530,896
TOTAL Pre-Production Capital (Including VAT) $170,910,709
Expansion (future) capital for the project includes the Phase 2 leach pad construction,
expansion of the ADR plant, and purchase of an owner-operated mining fleet. The total
future capital is estimated at US$ 64.1 million.
Operating costs were estimated by KCA with the assistance of Goldrock, MDA (mining
costs), and a local engineering firm (Saxum). Operating costs for all areas of the project
have been estimated from first principles. Labor costs are estimated using project-specific

May 2013
staffing, salary, wage, and benefit requirements. Unit consumptions of materials,

supplies, power, water, and delivered supply costs are also estimated. These costs are
considered to have an accuracy of +/-15%. Operating costs have been estimated without
any contingency allowances.
Mine operating costs were split into both contract mining occurring in the first three years
of operations (mining of Phase 1 and 2), and owner mining for part of Year 3 onward
(mining of Phase 3 and 4).
All costs are in fourth quarter 2012 or first quarter 2013 US dollars (US$). No escalation
factors have been applied to any costs, present or future capital. For labor costs, that
were supplied in Argentine Pesos, a conversion rate of 5.0 Pesos per US dollar was used.
Table 1-4 summarizes the average Project operating costs, which were averaged from a
yearly operating cost schedule developed from first principles.
Table 1-4
Lindero Project Average Operating Cost
LOM Cost
Description
(US$ / t ore)
Mine (Owner & Contract) 4.77
Process 4.18
Site G & A 1.12
Total 10.07
1.21 Economic Analysis
Based on the estimated production parameters, revenue, capital costs, and operating
costs, taxes and royalties, a cash flow model was prepared by KCA for the economic
analysis of the Lindero project.
The Lindero project economics were evaluated using a discounted cash flow (DCF)
method, which measures the Net Present Value (NPV) of future cash flow streams. The
final economic model was developed by KCA, with input from Goldrock, using the
following assumptions:

May 2013
• Period of Analysis of 15 years which includes one year of pre-production

and investment, 10 years of production, and four years for closure and
reclamation;
• Gold price of US$ 1,400/oz;
• Processing rate of 18,750 tpd ore;
• Heap leach gold recoveries of 67.9%, 73.6%, 69.3%, and 61.7% for
metallurgical ore types Met I, II, III, and IV respectively;
• Capital and operating costs used for this model as developed in Section 21
of this report;
• Closure capital costs as outlined in Section 20.
The project economics based on these criteria from the cash flow model are summarized
in Table 1-5.

May 2013
Table 1-5
Life of Mine Economic Summary
Financial Analysis
Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Pre-Tax 40.9%
Internal Rate of Return (IRR), After-Tax 33.4%
NPV @ 5% (Pre-Tax) $ 313.5 M

NPV @ 5% (After-Tax) $ 215.0 M
NPV @ 8% (Pre-Tax) $ 248.4 M

Gold Price Assumption (US$/Ounce) $1,400

Pay Back Period (Years based on After-tax) 2.0 Years
Initial Capital Costs

Pre-Production Initial Capital $ 139.8 M
Working Capital and Initial Fills $ 15.6 M
Value Added Tax (Tax) $ 15.5 M
Total Initial Capital $ 170.9 M
Future Capital (Life of Mine, Excluding VAT) $ 64.1 M
Operating Costs (Average Life of Mine)

Mining (Contract and Owner) $ 4.77/Tonne
Processing $ 4.18/Tonne
G&A $ 1.12/Tonne
Total Operating Cost/Tonne Ore $ 10.07/Tonne
Cash Operating Costs (per ounce of gold) $ 637/Ounce
Cash Operating Costs (including refining) $ 647/Ounce
Production Data
Life of Mine 10 Years
Mine Throughput (Ore) 6.75 M TPY / 18,750 TPD
Metallurgical Recovery Au (Avg) 68.3%
Average Annual Gold Production (Years 1-9) 109,000 Ounces
Average LOM Strip Ratio (waste:ore) 1.79:1
Sensitivity of project economics to key parameters including gold price, total capital cost
(including reclamation, closure and salvage) and average operating cash cost per ounce
gold has been prepared. The after-tax sensitivity analysis is presented in Table 1-6. The
project is most sensitive to revenue (gold price, ore grade and recovery), followed by

May 2013
operating costs (as expressed by average operating cash cost per ounce gold) and total
capital cost.
Table 1-6
Sensitivity Analysis (After Tax)
NPV (in US$)
Variation IRR (After-Tax) 0% 5% 8%
Gold Price (% of Base Case)
86% 1,200.00 21.7% $200,692,086 $121,073,405 $86,843,744
93% 1,300.00 27.6% $262,873,498 $168,065,462 $127,178,838
100% 1,400.00 33.4% $325,054,910 $215,043,911 $167,494,477
107% 1,500.00 39.0% $387,236,321 $262,022,359 $207,810,117
114% 1,600.00 44.5% $449,415,766 $308,898,693 $247,976,544
Total Capital Cost (% of Base Case)

80% $171,767,450 44.2% $353,284,993 $242,638,107 $194,694,556
90% $193,050,882 38.2% $339,169,951 $228,841,009 $181,094,517
100% $214,334,313 33.4% $325,054,910 $215,043,911 $167,494,477
110% $235,617,744 29.4% $310,939,868 $201,246,813 $153,894,438
120% $256,901,175 26.0% $296,824,826 $187,449,714 $140,294,399
Average Operating Cash Cost/Oz (% of Base Case)

80% $509 40.9% $408,586,754 $278,128,417 $221,586,845
90% $573 37.1% $366,820,832 $246,586,164 $194,540,661
100% $637 33.4% $325,054,910 $215,043,911 $167,494,477
110% $700 29.5% $283,288,987 $183,501,658 $140,448,293
120% $764 25.7% $241,523,065 $151,959,405 $113,402,109
1.22 Adjacent Properties
There are no immediately adjacent properties to the Lindero Project.
1.23 Project Implementation
The Lindero Project implementation is based on the following key assumptions:
• Process throughput is 6.75 million tonnes/year, and process flowsheets will

not change significantly from those presented in the feasibility study;

May 2013
• There are no permitting or licensing barriers to the start of construction;

and
• Sufficient funding will be made available to support the proposed Project
schedule.
The basic design phase is tentatively scheduled to start in June 2013. The first phase on
construction is scheduled to begin approximately six months later in December 2013, and
the estimated timing for completion of construction and first gold pour about 11 months
after the start of construction, or in November 2014.
The project will be developed in a manner similar to most other heap leach projects.
Initial design, including basic design and long lead time items procurement, will be
completed during the early stages. Detailed engineering and procurement will follow and
finally the construction phase will be completed.
It is expected that Goldrock will provide some of the construction management services,
for example for access road and some on-site earthworks, utilizing their own personnel.
A significant amount of the detailed design will be performed by local engineering firms,
under direction of the EPCM contractor (whether local or international). Procurement of
local equipment and materials will be handled by the Owner, with support from the
engineering firm(s). Procurement of imported equipment will be performed by the
EPCM contractor. A third party group will be contracted to provide quality control
services for the earthworks, concrete and installation of the pad and pond liners. It also
expected that the owner will hire an owner’s representative to work in cooperation with
the EPCM Manager.
1.24 Interpretation and Conclusions
In the opinion of the QPs, the Project that is outlined in this Report has met its objectives.
Mineral Resources have been estimated, and Mineral Reserves and a mine plan
developed. The financial analysis based on the mine plan indicates a Project that is viable
and has a 10 year mine life. This indicates the original Project objective of identifying
mineralization that could support mining operations has been achieved. Work completed
to date supports the Project proceeding to basic and detailed engineering leading to
construction of the Project.

May 2013
1.25 Recommendations
The study presents a robust project. Basic and detailed engineering should be started, and
design and costing of long lead time items finalized to meet the project development
schedule.

May 2013
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Kappes, Cassiday and Associates (KCA) was commissioned by Goldrock Mines

Corporation (Goldrock) to prepare an independent Qualified Person’s review and
NI 43-101 Technical Report (the Report) for the wholly-owned Lindero gold project (the
Project) located in the Salta Province of Argentina (Figure 4-1).
The Report discloses the results of a feasibility study completed on the Lindero deposit
during April 2013. Goldrock will be using this Report in support of disclosure in the
Goldrock press release dated 17 April 2013, entitled “Goldrock Announces Robust
Lindero Feasibility Study with 109,000 Oz Annual Production, Cash Operating Cost of
US$647, After-tax NPV and IRR of $215 Million and 33.4% at US$1,400/Oz Gold”.
Goldrock uses a wholly-owned Argentinean subsidiary, Mansfield Minera S.A.,

(Mansfield) for its holdings in the Lindero Project.
Measurement units used in this Report are primarily metric, and currency is expressed in
US dollars unless stated otherwise. The Report uses American English.
As at the effective date of the Report of 01 May 2013, the exchange rate was US$1 equal
to approximately 5.17789 Argentiniean Pesos according the Oanda currency exchange
website.
2.1 Qualified Persons
The following people served as the Qualified Persons (QPs) as defined in National
Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, and in compliance with
Form 43-101F1. The QPs responsible for the preparation of the Report are:
• Richard Taylor, P.E., Support Engineer (KCA, Reno);

• David G. Thomas, P.Geo., Principal Geologist (AMEC, Vancouver); and
• Thomas Dyer, P.E., Senior Engineer (MDA, Reno).
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 2 - Introduction

May 2013
2.2 Site Visits
QPs conducted site visits to the Project as shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
QPs, Areas of Report Responsibility, and Site Visits
Qualified Person Site Visit(s) Sections of Responsibility in Report
Richard Taylor, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
KCA October 1 to 3, 2012 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and parts of the
David G. Thomas. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
AMEC July 17 to 21, 2009 which pertain to those Sections
Sections 15, 16, 21.2, 21.6, and parts of the
Thomas Dyer, Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
MDA March 12 to 14, 2012 which pertain to those Sections
During the site visit, the scope of the personal inspection by the KCA QP comprised of
viewing the accessibility of the project area, visit the proposed infrastructure, heap leach
pad and plant areas, review metallurgical parameters and process design criteria, and visit
the proposed water wells and areas that could supply water for the project.
The MDA and AMEC QP’s visits comprised inspection of core and surface outcrops,
drill platforms and sample cutting and logging areas; discussions of geology and
mineralization with Mansfield staff; reviewing geological interpretations with staff; and
viewing of potential locations of major infrastructure.
The QPs who visited site are not aware of any material changes to the Project since the
site visit.
2.3 Effective Dates
The report has a number of effective dates, as follows:
• 23 January 2013: date of the Mineral Resource estimate

• 17 April 2013: date of the Mineral Reserve estimate
• 17 April 2013: date of the financial analysis
• 01 May 2013: date of Arizaro maiden metallurgical results

May 2013
The overall effective date of the Report, based on the supply of the financial model and
finalization of the Lindero mineral reserves and results and Arizaro metallurgical results
is 01 May 2013.
There has been no material change to the Project between the effective date of the Report,
and the signature date.
2.4 Previous Technical Reports
Goldrock has previously filed technical reports on the Project as follows:
Thomas, David et al., 2010: Lindero Project Salta Province, Argentina NI 43-101
Technical Report: Prepared by AMEC Americas Limited for Mansfield Minerals Inc.,
effective date 02 March 2010.
Godoy, M., and Palmer, K., 2008: Technical Report on the Lindero Project, Salta
Province, Argentina: unpublished technical report prepared by Golder Associates
Argentina SA for Mansfield Minerals Inc., effective date 8 August 2008.
Nimsic, T.L., 2006: Lindero Gold Porphyry Resource, Salta Province, Argentina
Metallurgical Test Results, Summary and Recommendations: unpublished technical
report prepared by American Au Ag Associates for Mansfield Minerals Inc., November
2004, revised September 2006;
Fuchter, W.A. and Rennie, D., 2003: Report on the Lindero Project, Salta Province,
Argentina: unpublished technical report prepared by Roscoe Postle Associates for
Mansfield Minerals Inc., effective date 16 October 2003;

May 2013
3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
The authors of this report, state that the information, opinions, estimates, and conclusions
contained herein are based on:
• Information available at the time of preparing this report;

• Assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this report;
• Data, reports, and other information supplied by Goldrock and other third
party sources.
The authors are not experts in legal matters, such as the assessment of the legal validity
of mining concessions, private lands, mineral rights, and property agreements in
Argentina. The authors did not conduct any investigations of the environmental or
social-economic issues associated with the Lindero Project, and the authors are not
experts with respect to these issues.
The authors rely on information provided by Goldrock as to the title of the property
comprising the Lindero Project, the terms of property agreements, the existence of
applicable royalty obligations, the hydrology and hydrogeology findings, and the
Argentina tax code and laws, as well as all information concerning permitting. KCA,
MDA, and AMEC have also relied on Goldrock to provide full information concerning
the legal status of Goldrock Mines Corporation and related companies, as well as current
legal title, material terms of all agreements, and material permitting information that
pertain to the Lindero property.
Besides the above provided by Goldrock, the authors of this report have also relied on the
following in preparation of this report.
3.1 Environmental
The QPs have relied upon, and disclaims information for, the environmental status for the
Project through the Project environmental reports prepared for Goldrock:
• Vector Argentina S.A., 2009: Estudio de Linea de Base – Estudio

Hidrológico, Proyectos Lindero y Rio Grande: unpublished report prepared
by Vector for Mansfield Minerals, 2009
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 3 – Reliance on Other Experts

May 2013

Hidrológico – Primera Etapa, Proyectos Lindero y Rio Grande:
unpublished report prepared by Vector for Mansfield Minerals, 2009
• Ausenco Vector, 2010: Environmental Impact Assessment, “Informe de

Impacto Ambiental, Capitulo 2”, October 2010.
This environmental information is used in Section 20 of the Report.
3.2 Tenure
The QP’s have relied upon and disclaims information relating to the tenure status for the
Project through the following confidential legal opinions prepared for Goldrock:
• Harridyal, L., 2010: Argex Mining, Barbados Ltd: unpublished legal

opinion letter from Harridyal Attorneys at Law, addressed to Mansfield
Minerals, 11 February 2010
• Conyers, Dill and Pearman, 2010: Mansfield Bermuda Ltd: unpublished

legal opinion letter from Conyers, Dill and Pearman, Barristers and
Attorneys, addressed to Mansfield Minerals and AMEC Americas Ltd., 10
February 2010
• Pinto, R.F.G., 2010: Lindero Project, Mansfield Minera SA: unpublished

legal opinion letter from Rodrigo Frias Garcia Pinto, Abogado, addressed
to Mansfield Minerals and AMEC Americas Ltd., 10 February 2010
This information is used in Section 4 of this report.
3.3 Permitting
The QP’s have relied upon the surface rights and permitting status for the Project trough
the following confidential legal opinion prepared for Goldrock:

May 2013
• Pinto, R.F.G., 2010: Lindero Project, Mansfield Minera SA: unpublished

legal opinion letter from Rodrigo Frias Garcia Pinto, Abogado, addressed
to Mansfield Minerals and AMEC Americas Ltd., 10 February 2010
This information is used in Section 4 of this report
3.4 Hydrology and Hydrogeology
The QP’s have relied upon the hydrology and hydrogeology status for the Project through
the following reports prepared for Goldrock:

Hidrológico, Proyectos Lindero y Rio Grande: unpublished report prepared
by Vector for Mansfield Minerals, 2009

Hidrológico – Primera Etapa, Proyectos Lindero y Rio Grande:
unpublished report prepared by Vector for Mansfield Minerals, 2009
3.5 Taxes
Taxes have been applied, with this information provided to KCA by Goldrock, through
Ernst & Young. Axemen Resource Capital Ltd. assisted in preparing the income tax
schedule for the model.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
4.0 PRO
OJECT DE
ESCRIPTIION
4.1 Loca
ation
The Lindero Pro oject is locaated 260 km m due west of Salta City, Argentiina, the maiin
2 o 06’ southh and longittude 67o 45’’ west. Drivve
servicce center off the region, at latitude 25
time from Salta to t the Projecct is approxiimately 7-7. 5 h, over a rroad distancce of 420 km
m.
The nearest
n town n to the Lind
dero Project is Tolar Graande (populaation 250), loocated 75 km
m
to thee northeast.
Figure
F 4-1
Loccation Map
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Se

Section 4 – Projject Descriptioon
May 2013
2
The project contains two known copper-gold porphyry mineralized zones. The Lindero
deposit is centered at 7,226,220 north and 2,623,090 east and the center of the Arizaro
prospect is located approximately at 7,223,910 north and 2,625,610 east. Co-ordinates
for legal land tenure in Argentina are normally expressed in the Posgar datum WSG 84.
4.2 Property and Title in Argentina
4.2.1 Mineral Title Administration
Information in this section is taken from Godoy (2007).
The Argentine Mining Code which dates back to 1886 is the legislation which deals with
mining in the country. Special regimes exist for hydrocarbons and nuclear minerals. In
the case of most minerals, the Mining Code dictates that the owner of the surface is not
the owner of the mineral rights; these are held by the State. The State is also bound by the
Code to grant to whoever discovers a new mine the rights to obtain a “mining
concession”.
Owners must comply with three conditions; payment of an annual fee, investment of a
minimum amount of capital, and the carrying out of a reasonable level of exploitation.
Failure to do so could lead to forfeiture of the property back to the State.
The administrative organization for mining-specific regulation is the Federal Ministry of

Planning, Public Works and Investment which has a Mining Department headed by the
Secretary of Mines. The Argentine Mining Law is a federally-drafted law implemented
through bi-lateral accords with the provinces that have jurisdiction over mineral rights. In
recent years several provinces have made changes to the federal law as it applies in their
jurisdictions in response to local initiatives. Salta Province, where the Project is located
has made very few changes to the current federal statute.
In 1993, Argentina implemented a new Mining Investment Law (No 24,196), a Mining
Reorganization Law (No. 24,224), a Mining Modernization Law (No 24,498), a Mining
Federal Agreement (No. 24,228), and a Financing and Devolution of IVA Law (No
24,402). Amendments were also made to update the Mining Law (Decree 456/97). These
amendments offered attractive economic incentives for exploration and mining to
foreigners, and include both financial and tax guarantees. This group of laws also creates
the basis for federal-provincial harmonization of mining rules such as import duty
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 4 – Project Description

May 2013
exemptions, unrestricted repatriation of capital and profits and a 3% cap on Provincial

royalties.
In 2001, Law 25.429 “Update of the Mining Investment Law” was passed and in March
2004 approval was reached for a key provision of the Law allowing refund of the IVA (or
value added tax) for exploration related expenses incurred by companies registered under
the Mining Investment Law.
In 1995, Law N° 24.585 Environmental Protection (Mining Code) was passed and
provides regulation for operations and environmental reporting at the exploration and
exploitation levels.
In summary, the major changes to the mining code encompass:
• Exploration areas have been increased to a maximum of 100,000 ha per

company and per province;
• Exclusive aerial prospecting areas of 20,000 km2 are also permitted;
• A guarantee of tax stability for 30 years;
• Expenditures are made in prospecting, exploring and construction of
mining installations are tax deductible and value added taxes are
recoverable;
• Imports of capital goods, equipment and raw material are exempt from
import duties;
• Royalties will not exceed 3% of the ex-mine value of the extracted mineral;
• Environmental funds to correct damage are required and are deductible
from income taxes; a National system of permanent mining environmental
monitoring is set up. Implementation at the provincial level has been
variable and in 2004-05 the San Juan province began to increase staffing
for monitoring purposes;
• Municipal taxes on mining were eliminated; and
• Systemization and digital conversion of mining property registers has been
implemented to varying degrees of success in each province and the
definition by geographic co-ordinates now establishes mining rights.

May 2013
4.2.2 Mineral Title Types
A Cateo (exploration right) is an area of land staked during the early stage of exploration.
In Argentina, this is called the “Prospecting Stage”. Cateos may be contiguous or
separate and are subject to certain restrictions on size. A Cateo is sub-divided into 500 ha
units with a defined exploration term determined by the cumulative number of units
comprised. The maximum possible term is 1,100 days for the maximum lease size of
10,000 ha commencing from the grant date. Prior to its expiry, the holder of a Cateo may
apply at any time for conversion to one or more ‘Manifestación de Descubrimiento’
(Application period for a Mining Lease) or ‘Mina’ (Mining Lease) rights within the
perimeter of the Cateo up to its full area. Minas and Manifestaciones can also be
established as the result of a discovery in open ground. A mining lease is subdivided into
a minimum of two pertenencias, which are generally 6 ha for small deposits and 100 ha
for larger, disseminated deposits.
To apply for a Manifestación or Mina, the applicant must present a representative sample
of the outcrop as the discovery and indicate its co-ordinates and the surrounding area to
be covered by the title. After about a six month period the Manifestación will be
registered and convert to a ‘Mina’ or Mining Lease. Conversions and applications are
administratively dependant and not date-dependant and are therefore not automatic.
Processing times from one provincial jurisdiction to another may vary.
4.2.3 Surface Rights
Access over surface property rights in Argentina is obtained through the Ministry of
Mines, who are required to communicate with the surface owners and ensure that they
cooperate with the activities of the exploration/mining companies. Notice can be difficult
due to delayed filing of personal property title changes and registry as well as limited
staffing and mobility of the relevant authorities.
Private property rights are secure rights in Argentina, and the likelihood of expropriation
is considered low. The Argentine legal and constitutional system grants mining properties
all the guarantees conferred on property rights, which are absolute, exclusive and
perpetual. Mining property may be freely transferred and purchased by foreign
companies.

May 2013
4.2.4 Environmental Regulations
Mining in Argentina is governed by both federal legislation and provincial laws and
decrees. The permitting process, as well as regulatory activities during development and
operations, is managed by the Province. A mine is put into operation in two phases,
starting with an Environmental Impact Assessment, and then a sector permitting phase.
Approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment allows mining development to
proceed, subject to obtaining sector permits for specific project facilities.
Law No. 24,585, which came into effect in the 1995, incorporated a complementary title
in the Mining Code relevant to the Environmental Protection for Mining Activity
regulations. It also recognized complementary regulations approved by the Federal
Mining Council (COFEMIN), completing the principles sustained in Article 41 of the
National Constitution by setting a legal regime whose premise is to preserve the right of
all inhabitants to enjoy a healthy environment through the balanced development of
economic activities and processes that support them.
Law No. 24,585 established in the Federal Mining Council the necessary instruments for
environmental administration of mining activities: the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA), whose presentation is compulsory for the mining activity holders before the
beginning of operations; and the Statement of Environmental Impact, a statement issued
by the relevant authority as an approval to the corresponding EIA.
Consequently, current environment management with regard to mining is based on the

following legal regime:
• National Constitution;
• Title XIII Section Second of the Mining Council;
• Supplementary regulations and minimum requirements;
• Provincial decrees that established the application authority of the Title
XXI Section Second of the Mining Council; and
• Implementation of Provincial Decrees of the Supplementary Regulation
and Resolutions of institutional character and of administrative internal
procedure that complete environmental mining management (Law No.
7,070 for Salta Province)

May 2013
Law No. 24,585 covers the following activities:
• Prospecting, exploration, exploitation, development, preparation,

extraction, and storage of mineral substances; and
• Crushing, milling, extraction, pelletization, sintering, briquetting, primary
manufacturing, calcination, melting, and refining; stone sawing, faceting,
cutting, and polishing processes; any other process derived from new
technologies; and the management and disposal of any kind of waste
The regulations also take into account centralized and decentralized entities, and the
national, provincial, and municipal companies that develop such activities.
Argentinean Law No. 24,585 establishes that anyone performing mining activities is
responsible for all environmental damage produced as a result of the non-fulfillment of
the regulations. It is irrelevant whether the damage is caused directly by them or
indirectly by persons under their control, or whether it is caused by the risk or vice
inherent in the activity. Likewise, the holder of a mining right is jointly responsible for
the damage caused by persons involved in mine exploitation.
Under the Environment Mining Management Procedure, prior to the commencement of

mining activities that are subject to regulation, companies must prepare and have an
environmental impact review (EIR) approved. The application authority evaluates and
approves the EIR by means of a Statement of Environmental Impact for each of the
effective implementation stages.
The Statement of Environmental Impact must be updated twice a year, and include
submission of a report that contains results of any environment protection actions that
were executed, and detailed information on the new environmental events that have
occurred. Under Law No. 25,675, industrial activities have to obtain special insurance
covering environmental risk.
4.3 Tenure History
The property was initially staked under a manifestation-of-discovery and was

subsequently covered by legally-surveyed pertenencias, which were approved by, and
registered in the Mining Court of Salta (File # 16.835) under the name of Onix Mine on
30 March 2001. The Lindero–Arizaro Property/Onix Mine was subsequently registered

May 2013
as a gold–copper mine in the name of Mansfield Minera SA, an indirectly wholly-owned

subsidiary of Goldrock. The holding structure for the Project is presented in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2
Corporate Holding Structure
BC, CANADA GOLDROCK MINES CORP.
MANSFIELD (BERMUDA) LTD.
BERMUDA
100%
ARGEX MINING
BARBADOS
BARBADOS LTD. 100%
MANSFIELD MINERA S.A.
ARGENTINA
100%
The mineral tenement holdings cover 3,500 ha, and comprise 35 pertenecias, each of 100
ha (Figure 4-3). The holdings are constrained by the Gauss Kruger Posgar co-ordinates
listed in Table 4-1. The mining area boundaries have been appropriately surveyed to
meet jurisdictional requirements. There is no expiry date on the pertenecias, providing
Goldrock meets expenditure and environmental requirements, and pays the appropriate
annual mining fees. The expenditure and environmental requirements have been met and
the annual mining fees are AR$ 28,000 (approximately US$ 5,600). The payment of
mining fees is due 30 June and 31 December each year. Such payments have been made
as required, and as at the effective date of the Report, the tenements are in good standing.
Table 4-1
Tenure Boundary Co-ordinates
Point x Co-ordinate y Co-ordinate
A 7,223,690.09 2,622,009.93
B 7,227,690.07 2,622,009.93
C 7,227,690.07 2,628,009.90
D 7,221,690.11 2,6280,09.90
E 7,221,690.11 2,622,509.93
F 7,223,690.09 2,622,509.93

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Figure
F 4-3
Pertenaccia Layout M
Map

May 2013
2
4.4 Surface Rights
Access over surface property rights in Argentina is obtained through the Ministry of
Mines, who are required to communicate with the surface owners and ensure that they
cooperate with the activities of the exploration/mining companies. Notice can be difficult
due to delayed filing of personal property title changes and registry as well as limited
staffing and mobility of the relevant authorities.
Private property rights are secure rights in Argentina, and the likelihood of expropriation
is considered low. The Argentine legal and constitutional system grants mining
properties all the guarantees conferred on property rights, which are absolute, exclusive
and perpetual. Mining property may be freely transferred and purchased by foreign
companies.
Surface rights for the Lindero Project are owned by the provincial state (Propiedad
Fiscal) of Salta. There are no reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way or easements on the
Project to any third-party. Goldrock has a registered camp concession license, filed in the
Mining Court of Salta under File 17,206, which covers the use of land for construction
and operation of camp facilities and permits the company to use the camp area.
The camp is situated off the Lindero–Arizaro Property/Onix Mine area, as shown in
Figure 4-4. Under File No. 18,387, the company has a right-of-way already granted and
surveyed.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
hnical Report Page 4-110
Figure
F 4-4
Water, Camp and Surface Rights Map
p
4.5 Roya
alties
A 3%% provinciall royalty “boca mina” is i payable oon revenue after deducttion of direcct
proceessing, commmercial and general
g and administrati ve costs.
Theree are no royaalties payablle to any other third partyy.
4.6 Perm
mits
Speciific approvalls and permiits are requirred for manyy aspects of tthe project, iincluding:
• Co
onstruction permits;
p
• On
n-site bulk fu
uel storage;
• Do
omestic and industrial
i eff
ffluents;
• Au
uthorization for
f explosives use and sttorage;
• Waater managem
ment;

May 2013
2
• Mine operations; and

• Communications.
While the application process can be initiated for many of the permits and approvals at
any time, in most cases, the actual permit or authorization will not be granted until the
project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been approved.
The Lindero EIA – Operation Stage (Proyecto Lindero Informe de Impacto Ambiental –
Etapa de Explotación), was submitted to the Salta provincial Mining Authority. Approval
of the EIA represents formal approval for mine construction, allowing excavation to
proceed. EIA approval is also a requirement for several of the above sector permits that
are required for certain installations and workings.
The Company’s DIA (Declaración de Impacto Ambiental) was approved in October

2011. This document is the guiding (primary) operating permit during the life of the
Project. It is also a requirement for the granting of most sector permits for the Project.
The obtained DIA establishes 109 conditions to put in production the mine, related to
social, environmental, health and safety and taxes matters.
Permitting government agencies are listed in the table below, including a summary of the
most important required approvals and permits.

May 2013
Table 4-2
Required Key Permits and Authorizations, including Agencies
Area Key Permits and Authorizations Jurisdiction
Mining Law 24,196 Certificate of Registration under Secretaría de Minería de la Nación
number 242
Import and export Certificate of Import and Export Customs
(done)
Mining Property Onix mine - File 16,835 granted Salta Mining Court House
Surface Rights File 17,206 Arita camp rights Salta Mining Court House
(granted)
File 18,387 right of way and water
rights (granted)
File 19,200 Water rights (on
tramitation)
Water Resources Water Concession for Mining Secretaría de Recursos Hídricos de
Activity Use Salta
Waste Management Disposal of Hazardous Waste via Secretaría de Medioambiente y
Landfill Desarrollo Sustentable.
Pathogenic Waste Secretaría de Minería
Provincial Registration as Municipio de Tolar Grande
Generator, Operator and transporter
of Hazardous Wastes (registered,
needs upgrade)
Environmental Management Environmental Impact Declaration Secretaria de Minería de Salta
(Approval of Environmental Impact
Statement, art.250 Mining Code,
art.34 of Provincial Law 7,141)
Comply with the DIA requirements
Camp qualification Arita Camp municipal qualification Municipio de Tolar Grande
(done)
Explosives Registration for Explosives Users Ministerio del Interior
(Mansfield Minera S.A.) Registro Nacional de Armas
Registration for Users and (RENAR)
Vendors of Explosive Services
(vendor)
Certification of Powder Magazines
(contractor)
Storage of Ammonium Nitrate and
Controlled Products (blasting
contractor and MDR)

May 2013
Table 4-2 (continued)

Contract foreign professionals Hire foreign professionals RENURE (Migrations)
Fuel Registration in the Liquid Fuel Secretaría de Energía
Dispensing Registry or National
Liquid Petroleum Gas Registry
(contractor)
Gas compression plant (Salar de Environmental Impact Declaration Secretaria de Medioambiente y
Pocitos) Desarrollo Sustentable.
Secretaría de Energía.
Municipio de San Antonio de los
Cobres
Chemicals Use of chemic products (NaCN) SEDRONAR
Communications Use of satellite telephone and Private contracts with vendors.
internet Comisión Nacional de
Use of VHF hand held radios Comunicaciones
Cultural and Natural Notification of Accidental Secretaría de Cultura de la
Heritage Discovery of Artifacts Potentially Provincia de Salta
Relevant to Cultural or Natural
Heritage of the Province.
Request for Liberation of an Area
(i.e., free of culturally significant
artifacts)
Health Authorization for Installation and Municipio de Tolar
Operation for Food Preparation Grande/AOMA (Mining Union)
and Operation of Dining Area
Authorization to Operate Water
Potabilization Plant
Potable Water Certificate
Medical Post, Doctors and
Ambulances
Emergency Plan for Contingencies Ministerio de Salud
Health Security in Mining
Activities ART
Landing Airstrip (Landing Strip Qualification) by ANAC (Administración Nacional
Regulus Argentina de Aviación Civil)
Transit and transportation Transit of special machinery National Roads: Vialidad Nacional
Provincial roads: Vialidad de la
Virtual Gas Pipe Provincia
Use of Soil Quarry Concession in fiscal Juzgado de Minería de la
provincial areas Provincia de Salta

May 2013

Construction Approval of structural plans COPAIPA Engineer Chamber of
Architectural plans Salta
Gas mine plans
Electrical plans
Certificate of Hygiene and Safety
standards in the workplace
Safety plans
Starting civil construction Municipio de Tolar Grande
certificate (Municipal tax)
Final construction certificate
Fire suppression system certificate Jefatura de Bomberos (Fire Chief)
Water Management Authorization for construction a Secretaría de Recursos Hídricos de
Works and Structures water management structure la Provincia de Salta
Water management works
Approval and authorization to
operate
Environmental impact report for the Secretaría de Minería
water pipes and construction
Mining operations Mining producer registration Secretaría de Minería de Salta
Ore transport guidelines
Notice of start-up of mining
activity
Notice of suspension of operations
or abandonment
Habilitation plant and facilities Municipio de Tolar Grande
4.7 Environmental
There are no known current environmental liabilities for this Project.
environmental impact, and ways to prevent and mitigate that impact. On many occasions,
the Government of Salta Province has inspected the various activities. Further details on
environmental studies and reports are provided in Section 20.

May 2013

accepted by the Mining Judge of Salta after being examined by environmental
technicians of the Secretariat of Mining and the Provincial Secretariat of Environment.
In November of 2010, the Company submitted the EIA (exploitation) report for the
Lindero Project, and in November 2011, the Company received approval of this EIA
through the issue of the Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental (DIA).
In May and November 2012, the Company filed an advance activities report on the
Lindero Project as established by DIA requirements (Biannual updates).
Further details on all environmental related activities are provided in Section 20.
4.8 Comments on Section 4
In the opinion of the QPs:
• KCA was provided with sufficient information that supports Goldrock’s

mineral tenure on the Project;
• Minimum work requirements under the tenure grant have been met;
• Annual land usage and environmental compliance reports have been
lodged;
• Surface rights are held by the Salta Province. The actual mining concession
includes the right to use the surface for mine and plant construction.
Development of such infrastructure will require additional sectorial permits
for construction;
• There are no third-party royalties payable on the Project other than a 3%
Provincial royalty. The Provincial royalty is payable on revenue after
deduction of direct processing, commercial and general and administrative
costs;
• Current permits have allowed exploration and associated supporting
testwork to be conducted under appropriate Provincial and Federal laws.
Additional sector permits are required for Project development and
construction;

May 2013
• At the effective date of this Report, there are no known current

environmental liabilities for this Project; and
• Baseline environmental studies were completed in 2007. The EIA
(exploitation) was submitted in November 2010 and approved in
November 2011, which allows for the Project to proceed to the
construction phase (pending specific sector permits).
The information discussed in this section supports the declaration of Mineral Resources,
Mineral Reserves and a mine plan with an accompanying financial analysis.

May 2013
5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES,

INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
5.1 Accessibility & Infrastructure
service center of the region, at latitude 25o 06’ south and longitude 67o 45’ west. Drive
time from Salta to the Project is approximately 7-7.5 h, over a road distance of 420 km.
The nearest town to the Lindero Project is Tolar Grande (population 250), located 75 km
to the northeast.
Access to the project is via National Route 51, which passes through the towns of San
Antonio de Los Cobres and Olacapato, and Provincial Route 27, via Pocitos and Tolar
Grande.
During 2008–2009, Goldrock constructed a 4,000 m long Project airstrip, which is

situated about 10 km from the proposed Project plant site. Permitting for commercial use
of the strip by Mansfield in support of the planned mining operation is in progress.
An international freight rail line passes through Tolar Grande.
5.2 Climate
The Project is located in the Argentinean puna, a cool, arid zone that commences at an
elevation of approximately 3,500 to 4,000 m.
In 2007, Goldrock installed a weather station in the Project area. Based on records from
the station, the Project conditions include:
• Average annual rainfall of about 37 mm, distributed irregularly throughout

the year. The most severe rainstorms registered were in January 2008,
during which 82 mm fell in two days. The 100 year 24-hour rainfall event
is 110 mm. Since the Goldrock weather station only has the last 5-6 years
of weather data, the heap leach and site water balance were based on
historical rainfall data from the Salar de Pocitos, Unquillal and Hombre
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 5 - Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
May 2013
Muerto weather stations. Based on these three stations that average rainfall
was approximately 45 mm;
• The annual average temperature is 3.9°C. The warmest months are
January, with an average temperature of 8.0°C, and February, with an
average temperature of 8.4°C. The coldest month is July, with a monthly
average temperature of -2.6°C. The average maximum temperature is
30°C and the average minimum temperature is -10°C;
• The annual average relative humidity is 33%, with a monthly average
maximum of 45% in July, and an average minimum of 27% from
November to February;
• The annual average barometric pressure is 75 kPa; and
• Annual pan evaporation is about 2,700-2,800 mm.
It is expected that any future mining operations will be able to be conducted year-round.
5.3 Infrastructure
Existing Project infrastructure comprises a climate station, two man camps that can
accommodate 150 people, and airstrip; the latter two are located adjacent the Project
tenure (refer to Section 4). The camp has mobile satellite phones, satellite internet, basic
link unit (BLU) radios for long range communication and ultra-high frequency (UHF)
radios for local connections. Currently, power requirements are supplied by a diesel
generator.
Site access will be primarily by existing national and provincial roads that will be used
during construction and operation. These roads are mainly consolidated dirt roads, some
of which will require improvements to accommodate transport of special oversized or
heavy parts during construction. Limited site improvements for roads will be required.
An international railway line joins the city of Salta with Tolar Grande and the deep-sea
port of Puerto Anganos on the Chilean coast. This line is currently operational and it is
expected that the growth of mining activity in the puna will make it economically viable.
A new transfer area on the outskirts of Tolar Grande can be built in the future to make
use of this area.
Manning requirements for the Project will primarily come from Argentina at large.
May 2013
Argentina has sufficient experienced and skilled professionals to run the proposed
Lindero operation. Qualified engineers and geologists have been involved in several gold
mines in operation in the country since 1994 as well as in Chile and Bolivia. Regionally,
finding the right people is more difficult, as Salta Province does not have any metallic
mines operating, but some local mining engineers have experience running borax mines.
However, in neighboring provinces, including Jujuy, where Mina Pirquitas and Mina
Aguilar are situated, and Catamarca, where Bajo La Alumbrera is situated, qualified
professionals, operators, and laborers may be recruited. Personnel may also be able to be
sourced in Salta City.
construction and permanent operations housing. The worker/operator quarters will house
224 people and the supervisor quarters will house 60 people for a total of 284 beds.
During construction housing at the existing camps will also be used. The on-site camp
complex will include a dining and recreation hall.
Other planned on-site Project buildings include:
• Administration Building
• Process Shop
• Warehouse
• Truckshop
• ADR Plant Building
• Refinery Building
• Reagents Storage Building
• Assay and Metallurgical Laboratory
• Guard Shack
Power for the Lindero Project will primarily be provided by natural gas generators. Five
possible power options were considered by AMEC in the pre-feasibility study including
electrical power from a powerline, natural gas from tanker trucks, natural gas from a
natural gas pipeline, diesel delivered by trucks, and electrical generation using wind
power. Goldrock hired Saxum Engineering Solutions (Saxum) to determine a capital and
operating cost estimate for power. The study concluded natural gas supplied by tanker
trucks to be the most viable option. The main power plant will consist of two turbo-
charged, air-cooled natural gas generators with a total installed power of 13.2 MW. One
generator will be a dual-fuel generator that can also operate on diesel fuel if there is any
May 2013
natural gas supply disruption. The generators are oversized due to efficiency loses at
high altitude.
Fresh water supply to support the mine and process operations will be provided by two
wells located 13 km to the east and two smaller capacity wells located on the Lindero
property. The maximum water requirement for all mining and process activities is
estimated to be 26 L/s.
Waste will be disposed of in compliance with local regulations. Hazardous waste, such
as oil filters, used oil, and the like will be transported to Salta and disposed of
appropriately. Goldrock is registered at the local authority as a hazardous waste
producer.
5.4 Physiography
The Project is located in the puna (altiplano) region of Argentina. The area is
characterized by north–south-trending mountain ranges rising to over 6,000 m and
intermontane basins with attendant salt lakes (salars) with a base level of 3,500 m.
Elevations on the property range from 3,700 m to 3,990 m above sea level. The Lindero
deposit is situated on the upper section of a conical hill which emerges from an extensive
flat area.
The almost total lack of rainfall in the puna determines a vegetational floor that
corresponds to the “province of puna” shrub steppe, an herbaceous steppe with vegetal
associations consisting of añagua, lejía y tola, añagua y rica-rica, iros, muña-muña, vira-
vira, chachacoma, among others. There are many areas with no vegetation whatsoever.
The fauna corresponds to the Andean Patagonian sub-region, Andean district, represented
mainly by camelids (llamas, vicunas, and guanacos). Donkeys have been incorporated
into the landscape for the last 50 years and compete for pasture with other herbivores.
The Lindero project falls within the 1,687 sq. km Rio Grande watershed. This watershed
takes Salar de Arizaro as the local base level. The watershed has little runoff; the
majority of the irregularities in the field consist of ephemeral water courses caused by
sporadic rainfall. The extremely arid conditions of the region, combined with scarce to
null vegetation, allows the little water that does fall to filter rapidly to the subsoil with
limited erosion.
May 2013
In the opinion of the QPs, the existing and planned infrastructure, availability of staff, the
existing power, water, and communications facilities, the methods whereby goods are
transported to the mine, and any planned modifications or supporting studies are well-
established, or the requirements to establish such, are well understood by Goldrock, and
can support the declaration of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves and the proposed
mine plan for the Project.
May 2013
6.0 HISTORY
Gold–copper mineralization associated with potassic alteration was first discovered by

Goldrock geologists at the Arizaro prospect in November 1999, and led to claim staking.
The prospect and surrounding area was explored using reconnaissance and detailed
geological mapping, soil geochemistry (talus fines), and trench sampling and mapping
during 2000. The Lindero deposit was identified in September 2000.
During 2002–2003, Rio Tinto had an option on the property, during which time
geological mapping, ground magnetics and induced polarization surveys geophysical
surveys, road cut sampling, drilling of 10 core holes (3,280 m), metallurgical test work,
and a first-time mineral resource estimate were performed. As the tonnage and grade
estimate did not meet Rio corporate targets, the option was not taken up.
Goldrock recommenced as Project operator, and between 2005 and 2009 completed
additional trenches, metallurgical testwork, geological mapping and a core-relog
program, generation of a three-dimensional (3D) geological model for the Lindero
deposit, and 121 drill holes (31,348 m). Mineral resources were estimated during 2003
and 2008, and updated in late 2009.
A pre-feasibility study was completed by AMEC in 2010 assuming a production

throughput of 30,000 tonnes of ore per day.
In 2012 and 2013, Goldrock commissioned KCA to complete a feasibility study on the
Project using a reduced throughput of 18,750 tonnes of ore per day. Mineral Resources
and Reserves were updated in 2013. The remainder of this Report discusses the results of
the work in the feasibility study.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 6 - History

May 2013
7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
7.1 Regional Geology
The western part of the Salta Province is underlain by mid to late Tertiary continental
volcanic arcs and related sedimentary rock of the Andean cycle (Figure 7-1). The
Andean volcanic arcs are concentrated along the north trending axis of the high Andes
and along several northwest trending structural transverse zones. Sedimentary rocks are
deposited in large back arc continental basins similar to the Siete Curvas basin, a portion
of which is active and includes the Salar de Arizaro basin.
The Siete Curvas basin is a 100 km by 130 km extensional pull-apart basin filled with
continental sediments including immature red beds, extrusive volcanic rocks and
evaporite deposits. The active part of this basin is known as the Salar de Arizaro basin.
South of the Salar de Arizaro basin, basement exposures are characterized by high to
medium grade metamorphic rocks of Proterozoic age. To the east of the basin,
outcrop Cambrian-Ordovician intrusives and associated platform-shelf clastic sediments
with submarine volcanic facies. The western part of the Salar de Arizaro basin is
underlain by Cambrian to Ordovician intrusives, and Permian to Jurassic intrusive rocks
which are spatially related to volcanics and porphyries of Eocene-Oligocene age. All
these units are covered by Pliocene volcanics of the north-south trending Andean
volcanic arc.
The Siete Curvas basin is bounded to the north and south by northwest transverse
volcanic arcs of the Andean cycle. The Lindero Deposit is located in the southern
volcanic belt (Figure 7-1), which is characterized by adjacent or superimposed
stratovolcanic complexes commonly manifested by eroded volcanic cones. Rocks
exposed in these belts include andesite and dacite porphyries and coeval volcanic and
volcaniclastic rocks.
The Siete Curvas basin is structurally bounded by large regional structures: to the north
by the Calama–Olacapato–El Toro Transverse Structure, and to the south by the
Archibarca Transverse Structure (Figure 7-1). The transverse zones are interpreted to be
surface expressions of ancient deep crustal trans-lithospheric structures, which were
initially related to the opening of the proto-Atlantic Ocean in the Cretaceous, and have
been periodically reactivated (Richards, 2000). The East Fissure Fault Zone and the
Pocitos Linear Zone bound the basin to the west and east respectively (Figure 7-1).
These regional north–south-trending structures are interpreted to represent suture zones
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 7 - Geological Setting and Mineralization

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
hnical Report Page 7-
7-2
of acccreted terraiin, which arre geotectonnically similaar to the Chhilean West Fissure Fauult
Zone (Richards, 2000). Presently the trans-lithosp
t pheric structutures mark tthe transitioon
from flat-slab subbduction to steep-slab
s su
ubduction offf the west cooast of Southh America.
Figure
F 7-1
Regio
onal Geologgy
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Section

n 7 - Geologicaal Setting andd Mineralizatioon
May 2013
2
7.2 District Geology
The Lindero deposit is located in the Archibarca volcanic arc at the southern margin of
the Salar de Arizaro basin (Figure 7-1). The deposit is part of the Arizaro volcanic-
intrusive complex, which consists of two superimposed concentric volcanic centers: the
Arizaro and the Lindero volcanic cones.
The Arizaro Prospect area is host to fine to medium-sized horblende diorite to monzonite
porphyritic stocks, and the Lindero volcanic cone consists of satellite feldspar and
feldspar- hornblende porphyry (Figure 7-2). Northwest-trending dacitic plugs and
numerous andesitic and dacitic radial dykes crosscut both systems (Figure 7-2). Both
volcanic centers are characterized by two sequences of volcaniclastic mass-flows,
crystalline lapilli tuffs, fine crystalline tuffs and fine-grained lava flows.

May 2013
Lindeero Project – NI
N 43-101 Tech
Figure 7--2
District
D Geo
ology
Kapppes, Cassiday & Associates Section 7 - Geological Setting and Mineralization

May 2013
Basement rocks outcrop to the north and east of the Lindero deposit (Figure 7-2). These
consist of coarse-grained Ordovician granites, which are unconformably overlain by
Early Tertiary red-bed sediments. This sequence is intruded by the Miocene porphyries
of the Lindero-Arizaro complex that host gold mineralization. All units are overlain by
Pleistocene basaltic flows, volcaniclastics and tuff sequences derived from the
Archibarca volcanic center.
7.3 Lindero Deposit Geology
7.3.1 Lithologies
Gold mineralization at the Lindero deposit is hosted by the Miocene porphyries of the
Lindero–Arizaro complex. This intrusive complex consists of six, concentric,
multiphase porphyries that intrude and disrupt the Early Tertiary red-bed sandstones
(Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4), forming a rocky cone northwest of the Arizaro volcanic
complex. Radiating dacitic and andesitic dykes crosscut both the intrusives and the red-
beds.

May 2013
Lindero P
Project – NI 43-101 Technical Reporrt Pagee 7-6
Figure
F 7-3
Plan off Lindero Depo
osit
Kappes, C
Cassiday & Associiates ng and Mineralization
Section 7 - Geological Settin
May 20133
Lindero P
Figure
F 7-4
Cross-section through
t Linderro Deposit
Kappes, C
May 20133
The six porphyry intrusive phases are presented in chronological order:
• FPD (fine porphyry diorite) represents the first intrusive event. This diorite
is characterized by fine-grained diorite porphyry that crops out around the
complex, forming an external ring. This phase intrudes into the red-beds
and forms a contact halo that includes contact breccias (BxC) and hornfels.
The intrusive rock consists of fine euhedral plagioclase and occasional
mafic phenocrysts in a dark-green groundmass of fine plagioclase, biotite,
and magnetite. FPD is commonly mineralized with gold and copper.
• CPD1 (crowded porphyry diorite 1) consists of abundant coarse euhedral

plagioclase phenocrysts, with occasional mafic phenocrysts, in a
groundmass containing fine crystalline plagioclase, quartz, and magnetite.
There are CPD1 unit outcrops to the north and east of the deposit. Both
CPD1 and FPD intrusive can show magmatic differential cooling. CPD1
commonly hosts strong gold mineralization.
• PBFD (porphyry bimodal feldspar diorite) is a bimodal diorite porphyry

characterized by two different-sized plagioclase and rare mafic phenocrysts
set in a dark-green groundmass of fine plagioclase, biotite and magnetite.
This diorite occurs at the margins of CPD1 and FPD towards the centre of
the complex. PBFD represents a small percentage of the intrusive complex
and may show moderate mineralization.
• CPD2 (crowded porphyry diorite 2) is a quartz–diorite porphyry with

abundant hornblende and euhedral plagioclase phenocrysts. CPD2 crops
out at the centre of the complex and generally contains less mineralization.
• DDP (mingled diorite porphyry) is a diorite porphyry that may show a

combination of two intrusive textures — a fine-grained porphyritic texture
at shallow levels that changes to coarse-grained equigranular porphyry at
depth. This unit occurs at the centre of the complex and is associated with
CPD2. The lithology may host moderate mineralization.
• PMI (post-mineral intrusive) is a late quartz–monzonite porphyry. The

central zone of this intrusive shows a well-defined, coarse-grained
porphyritic texture that changes to a fine-grained texture toward the

May 2013
margins. At the contact of this unit, the texture becomes brecciated with
mineralized clasts of intrusive and matrix showing a fluidal texture.
Generally the phenocrysts consist of plagioclase with occasional mafic
phenocrysts set within an aphanitic, brown, ground mass, which includes
felsic minerals and small quartz grains. This intrusive postdates the main
mineralizing event and occurs within the central–north area of the complex.
Texturally, the green andesitic dykes are coarse-grained with plagioclase and mafic
phenocrysts within an aphanitic ground mass. The dacitic dykes are mainly brownish in
color, consisting of a fine-grained felsic groundmass with occasional small plagioclase,
hornblende and quartz phenocrysts. Generally these dykes are unaltered or with a weak
propylitic alteration. The andesitic dykes generally cut the red beds whilst the dacitic
dykes intrude the main intrusive complex.
Breccias have been identified in the complex, but they represent a relatively lower
volume in comparison to other units. Styles include:
• BxHid (hydrothermal breccia) hydrothermal breccias are generally a few meters

wide. Magnetite, silica, and a combination of anhydrite, magnetite, with a
chalcopyrite matrix have been identified within this breccia. Angular to rounded,
rotated xenoliths from intrusions are present. The breccias resemble intense
stockworks and occur throughout the complex.
• BxMag (magmatic breccia) corresponds to two magmatic breccia units. Either

polylithic or monolithic, these breccias contain rounded clasts of intrusive
cemented by a porphyritic magmatic matrix. The main occurrences are found in
the east and north of the intrusive complex and are closely associated with
volcaniclastic breccias. These breccias may host weak mineralization.
• BxVu (volcaniclastic breccias) comprise a volcaniclastic breccia of angular

sedimentary clasts cemented by a porphyritic magmatic matrix. The breccia unit
is closely associated with the main magmatic breccias. Weak mineralization may
be observed within this unit.
Early Tertiary red-bed sandstones envelop the Lindero intrusive complex. The sandstones
are dominated by fine to medium-grained, well-rounded quartz grains hosted within a
porous, ferruginous matrix of finer-grained material. The beds trend in a northwest to
southeast direction and dip between 10° to 30° to the southwest. Intrusion of the

May 2013
porphyries into these sediments formed a hornfels halo and contact breccias (BxC)
that deformed the original bedding. The sandstones envelop the Lindero intrusive
complex.
Relationships between the current lithology codes in use by Goldrock and the previous
codes used by Rio Tinto are presented in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1
Relationships between Rio Tinto and Goldrock Lithology Codes
Rio Tinto Lithology Goldrock Lithology Codes
(previous model) (current model)
P2 FPD-CPD1
PMP PMI and CPD2
PA DDP center, PBFD on one
side, FPD-CPD1 in the
northeast part of the complex
7.3.2 Alteration
Alteration assemblages display a concentric pattern at the Lindero deposit and commonly
comprise a central core or annular zone of strong potassic alteration, a bounding zone of
propylitic alteration, an intermediate argillic zone, which can overprint potassic or
propylitic suites, and a distal sericite and/or advance argillic alteration zone, which is
generally not preserved. This distribution can be observed on a deposit-scale (Figure 7-5).

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Figure 7--5
Plan View of Altera
ation Zoness at the Lind
dero Deposiit

May 2013
The central core, which is represented by the PMI and CPD2 porphyries, is generally
unaltered but locally shows a weak carbonate–chlorite–epidote alteration in juxtaposition
with a narrow contact zone of chlorite–carbonate alteration. Rimming the weakly
altered core is a strong to moderate potassic alteration zone hosted in the FPD–CPD1
porphyries and in the PBFD. A zone of hydrolytic alteration can form around the
potassic zone at shallow levels; this includes areas with strong sericite–limonite
alteration which generally overprints the potassic zone.
A strong argillic alteration affects the red-bed sediments. Grading outwards, the red-bed
sediments exhibit strong propylitic alteration and towards the outer edge, can also display
a very weak epidote alteration.
In the southern area, a magnetite–K-feldspar zone overprints the sediments at the contact
with the potassic zone. Silica-rich brecciated features occur radially to the deposit and
are interpreted to be associated with lower-temperature alteration.
Carbonate–Chlorite–Epidote Alteration
The PMI porphyry is mainly unaltered and only weak carbonate alteration was observed
in the groundmass. Minor replacement of mafic minerals by epidote can be found in
veinlets. At the contact between the PMI porphyry and the FPD–CPD, CPD2, and PBFD
porphyries, a narrow, moderate-intensity chlorite–carbonate rim can be observed. These
rims are formed by chlorite replacement of the hornblende and weak carbonate alteration
of the matrix. Low-grade mineralization is associated with this alteration suite.
Potassic Alteration
Strong and moderate potassic alteration form rims around the core of the system.
Generally, the strongest potassic alteration appears to the east, southwest and north. This
assemblage is characterized by abundant secondary K-feldspar, replacement of the mafic
groundmass by biotite and magnetite, recrystallization of the feldspar phenocrysts and
formation of K-feldspar halos around veinlets. The potassic zone is characterized by
the presence of sigmoidal quartz, biotite–magnetite, magnetite–sulfides, quartz–
magnetite– sulfides and quartz–sulfides in well-developed stockworks, and copper
mineral intergrowth with the feldspar crystals. This style of alteration hosts the most
intense gold– copper mineralization.

May 2013
Strong Chlorite Alteration
Strong to moderate chlorite alteration forms as a rim around the potassic alteration and is
also present in the centre of the intrusive system, where it mainly affects the CPD2
porphyry. Chlorite completely replaces mafic minerals and secondary biotite.
Argillic–Sericitic Alteration
Argillic–sericite alteration is present in several locations in the intrusive rocks and in the
sediments. In the northeast, it affects the FPD–CPD1 porphyries, overprinting and
grading out from the strong potassic alteration. This alteration style is also developed
around the intrusive bodies within the sediments. Generally, the original textures of the
porphyry are almost completely replaced. This style of alteration is characterized by the
replacement of feldspar by sericite and clays, and a complete replacement of the
groundmass by silica, sericite and pyrite (limonites), associated with pyrite (limonite–
jarosite) veinlets. The presence of disseminated pyrite (limonite) and pyrite
veinlets generally indicates a decrease in gold mineralization.
Propylitic Alteration
Propylitic alteration develops principally within the sediments. Strong propylitic

alteration is characterized by complete epidote–calcite replacement of the sediments.
Weak propylitic alteration is characterized by epidote veinlets cross-cutting the red-
beds. This alteration forms a rim around the argillic–sericite alteration halo. Propylitic
alteration also affects the intrusive porphyries.
7.3.3 Structural Setting
The Lindero deposit lies within the northwest–southeast-trending (120°) Archibarca

transverse structural zone, which forms the dominant set of structures regionally, and has
been interpreted as controlling large-scale igneous volcanic activity and regional fluid
outflow (Richards et al., 1999). The combination and intersection of the structures at
Lindero are mainly responsible for the emplacement of the porphyries. Three
principal sets of structures are recognized at the Lindero volcanic cone, in the order of
structural importance these are: a set of structures striking at 110° to 130°, a second
striking at between 55° to 75° and a third at 20° to 35°.

May 2013
These first, northwest–southeast-trending structures, form strike slip normal faults

which have produced uplift of the central block relative to blocks to the north and
south. The second sets of structures are also strike slip normal faults, and these form the
transecting valley between the Lindero and the Arizaro intrusive complexes. The second
set of structures controlled the emplacement of dacitic dykes as well as part of the
mineralized stockwork. The third set of structures controlled the emplacement of the
porphyries and i s t h e m a i n conduit for gold-mineralizing fluids.
Semicircular ring structures, formed by uplifting stresses during emplacement of the

intrusive (Sillitoe R.H., 1992), have been identified. These structures do not show any
evidence of mineralization.
7.4 Arizaro Prospect Geology
The Arizaro prospect area is dominated by one main intrusive unit moderately to strongly
mineralized, outcropping in the central part of the prospect area. It consists of fine
hornblende porphyritic diorite intruded by several stocks, dykes, igneous-cemented
breccias and hydrothermal breccias. Smaller stocks are exposed in a few areas. Dykes of
andesitic and dacitic compositiona are generally radially distributed to the main intrusive.
Different types of igneous-cemented breccias have been recognized:
• Magnetite-rich, igneous-cemented breccia with strong copper-gold

mineralization;
• Biotite-rich, igneous-cemented breccia with gold-copper mineralization; and
• Polymictic, igneous-cemented breccias.
At the margins of the intrusive, to the north and east outcrop two sequences of
volcaniclastic mass-flows, crystalline lapilli tuffs, fine crystalline tuffs and fine-grained
lava flows. The volcaniclastics in contact with the intrusive have suffered strong contact
metamorphism (Figure 7-6). The volcaniclastics are believed to represent the remnants
of a volcanic edifice.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Figure 7--6
Arizzaro Porphy
yry Units

May 2013
7.4.1 Lithology
A number of intrusive lithologies and extrusive rocks have been recognized based on
textural and mineralogical characteristics from field observations, and descriptions of
drill core:
BPD: Bimodal Feldspathic Diorite Porphyry.

It is characterized by two different population sizes of feldspar phenocrysts, in a fine-
grained crystalline matrix with a dioritic composition. The mafic minerals consist of
amphibole and biotite. This intrusive is locally present in the prospect area, it forms most
of the Arizaro intrusive volcanic complex. Cross-cutting relationships with other
intrusives suggest that it represents one of the earliest intrusive events in the complex
FED: Fine-Grained Hornblende Equigranular Diorite.

Fine-grained dioritic intrusive outcrops frequently in the prospect area. It is composed of
plagioclase feldspar and hornblende phenocrysts within a fine grained matrix of
magnetite and biotite. This is the main intrusive host to gold-copper mineralization, and
post-dates the BPD.
FPD: Fine-Grained Porphyry Diorite.

Fine grained porphyritic rock with medium-grained feldspar crystals and abundant mafic
hornblende and biotite, within a fine-grained, light gray in color crystalline dioritic
matrix. This porphyry has scarce magnetite veinlets and hosts weak gold-copper
mineralization.
DP: Diorite Porphyry.

Diorite porphyry with fine- to medium-grained feldspar phenocrysts within a dark-gray
crystalline matrix composed of fine mafic crystals with magnetite. Occasionally the
diorite porphyry is grain-supported to matrix- supported. The mafic minerals are
hornblende and fine biotite. The intrusive is intruded along a Northwest-Southeast
trending structure and hosts moderate to low grade gold-copper mineralization.
QMP: Quartz Monzonite Porphyry

This intrusive shows a well-defined, coarse-grained porphyritic texture which changes to
a fine-grained texture toward the margins. Generally the phenocrysts consist of
plagioclase with occasional mafic phenocrysts set within an aphanitic, brown, ground
mass, which includes felsic minerals and small quartz grains. This intrusive occurs
outside the prospect area and outcrops principally in the western part of the intrusive

May 2013
complex following a north-south trend. The QMP is believed to be the youngest intrusive
event.
IPB: Igneous-cemented Polymictic Breccia:

The breccia is composed of porphyritic clasts of different types of intrusive within a dark,
fine-grained igneous matrix, sometimes with magnetite. This lithology in general is rarely
affected by alteration and is massive and is located to the east and north of the main
intrusive.
7.4.2 Dykes
Texturally, the green andesitic dykes are coarse-grained with plagioclase and mafic
phenocrysts within an aphanitic groundmass.
Dacitic dykes are mainly brownish in color, consisting of a fine-grained felsic

groundmass with occasional small plagioclase, hornblende and quartz phenocrysts.
Generally these dykes are unaltered or have weak propylitic alteration. The andesitic
dykes generally are radial to the volcanic center cutting the intrusive phases and the
surrounding volcaniclastics.
7.4.3 Volcanic Rocks
The central porphyritic intrusives are ringed by a volcanic sequence which is a remnant
of a volcanic edifice. Exposures to the north, northeast and east of the prospect area show
textural, lithological and structural differences between different volcanic units. The
volcanic sequence consists of volcaniclastic deposits, lapilli crystal-lithic tuffs, fine-
grained crystal-lithic tuffs and fine-grained ash. These volcanic rocks represent massflow
deposits; lahars, ash-flows and ash-fall deposits related to a volcanic center. The Central
Arizaro porphyry intrudes the volcanic center, which has a metamorphic contact with the
volcaniclastics. Numerous dykes radiate out of the volcanic center cutting the volcanic
sequence. The bedding planes of the volcaniclastics and tuffs located north of the
complex dip away from the volcanic center. This unit is commonly overprinted by
intermediate argillic alteration, sericite alteration and advanced argillic alteration,
commonly next to the main mineralized areas.

May 2013
Interpretation of the field relationships between the intrusives and volcanics indicates that
the volcanic rocks are coeval with the Central Arizaro porphyry and suggest that the
Arizaro intrusives were emplaced at shallow depths.
7.4.4 Alteration Assemblages.
Several alteration assemblages are noted in the prospect area. Some assemblages have an
unusual alteration mineralogy for porphyry gold-copper deposits and both their spatial
and temporal relations are complicated. Field mapping and drill core observations have
been used to establish preliminary alteration assemblages and their spatial relationships.
The alteration map is shown in Figure 7-7.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Figure 7--7
Alteration Map
M of the Arizaro
A Prospect

May 2013
Alteration patterns are semi-concentric and are asymmetric with a core of moderate to
strong potassic alteration including, zones of K-feldspar rich-magnetite silica alteration.
An incomplete rim of chloritic alteration is developed outboard of the potassic alteration.
In the southeast part of the prospect, intermediate argillic alteration has formed and
overprints potassic alteration. Sericitic and very weak argillic alteration (hydrolytic
alteration) has developed in the volcanic tuffs. To the south and west of the prospect,
chloritic alteration passes directly to propylitic alteration. An actinolite-magnetite
alteration assemblage forms in the eastern part of the prospect.
Strong K-feldspar Magnetite-rich Alteration
The alteration assemblage resembles a “pseudo” breccia texture, and includes

monomictic clasts with a dioritic composition and magnetite - anhydrite – chalcopyrite
cement. The diorite clasts are rounded, K-feldspar-biotite altered and locally cement-
supported. It occurs throughout the central part of the prospect area and follows a
structural lineament. This alteration assemblage, hosts the highest gold values.
K-feldspar -Biotite-Magnetite Alteration.
This alteration assemblage is characterized by strong disseminated biotite replacing mafic

minerals, with 4% to 5% disseminated magnetite. Biotite-magnetite chalcopyrite veinlets
are present with K-feldspar vein haloes. Gold-copper mineralization is hosted in veinlets
and disseminations in the rock. The outer zone of this assemblage is characterized by a
lack of K-feldspar veinlets and less intense biotite-magnetite stockworks and lesser
amounts of disseminated magnetite. Generally this style of alteration forms an oval-
elliptical body in the central and in the western parts of the prospect.
K-feldspar- Biotite- Quartz veinlets
This alteration is characterized by strong K-feldspar-biotite-quartz veining, K-feldspar is

present as selvedges produced by the vein-forming fluids. This alteration assemblage is
only developed in a small area.
Chloritic Clots
This is an unusual alteration assemblage represented by clots of chlorite developed

pervasively throughout the rock, generally occurs at the edges of the K-feldspar-biotite
alteration and hosts medium grade gold copper mineralization.

May 2013
Green Biotite Stockwork Alteration
Intense green biotite alteration in a stockwork of veinlets affects the Diorite (FED). The
alteration produces a greenish color to the rock. This alteration assemblage is considered
to be a post-mineralization alteration, no mineralization is associated with this alteration
assemblage.
Propylitic Alteration
Propylitic alteration is noted mainly to the southwest of the prospect area. This alteration
assemblage is characterized by epidote, quartz, magnetite, chlorite and carbonates as
veinlets and disseminations.
The chlorite dominated part of the assemblage occurs as a rim around weak potassic
alteration. It consists of chlorite replacing mafic minerals (actinolite) with 1% to 2%
disseminated magnetite. It is common to observe the chlorite replacing actinolite, which
is in turn replaced by biotite near the potassic core.
The epidote dominated portion of the alteration assemblage occurs outboard of the
chlorite-dominated propylitic assemblage and developed in the outer margins of the
hydrothermal system. It represents the cooler, more distal portion of the alteration.
Argillic Alteration.
This style of alteration is characterized by bleaching of the volcanic tuffs. White clays
and very rare, patchy silica are present. The silica likely formed by devitrification of
volcanic glass within the tuffs. Destruction of the feldspars, formation of jarosite and
limonites and replacement of the matrix by clays and silica are characteristics of this
alteration assemblage.
Supergene Alteration
This assemblage includes the oxidation of copper minerals, mainly chalcopyrite to

copper-bearing limonites and/or chrysocolla and the replacement of the magnetite to
hematite (martitized). This alteration is widespread over the system and is an effect of
surficial weathering and oxidation.

May 2013
7.5 Mineralization
Two areas with gold-copper porphyry style mineralization were discovered in the Project
area.
Gold–copper mineralization at Lindero is mainly hosted in the FPD and CPD1

porphyries. The mineralized zones form a semi-circular shape about 600 m in diameter
which extends to a depth of 600 m, consisting of three different zones at the surface.
The Arizaro prospect is a multiphase porphyritic stock, dioritic to monzodioritic in

composition with gold-copper mineralization in an area of 600 meters by 550 meters, at
least 300 meters deep..
7.5.1 Lindero Deposit
Gold–copper mineralization is hosted in four different bodies which form a semi-circular

shape at the surface. The northeast (NE) body extends north south for 450 m and is at
least 190 m wide, extend for at least 300 m vertically and dips at -80° towards the center
of the complex (Figure 7-8).

May 2013
Lindero P
Project – NI 43-101 Technical Reporrt Page 7-23
7
Figure
F 7-8
Plan of Mineralized
M Bo
odies
Kappes, C
May 20133
N 43-101 Tech
The NE
N body is thet largest, and
a has the highest
h goldd grades, aveeraging approoximately 1..0
g/t go
old at surfacee.
The southwest
s (S
SW) body fo orms an ellip
ptical shape tthat is 270 m long, up too 100 m widde
and extends
e for at
a least 400 m vertically. Grades averraged approxximately 0.88 g/t gold.
The remaining
r bodies are naarrow and were
w discoveered in the nnorth and wwest under thhe
PMI intrusion. These bodiees increase in
n size with ddepth, reachhing a maxim mum width oof
100 m.
m All the po
orphyry bodiies connect into
i a single ring-like boody at depth..
At Lindero, distrribution of the

t gold–cop pper mineraalization shoows a strongg relationshiip
with lithology, sttockwork veeinlets, and alteration
a asssemblages. Grades aveerage 0.70 gg/t
gold and 0.11% copper,
c based on compossite sampless of FPD andd CPD1 porpphyries.
ologies contrrol the distriibution of gold–copper

Litho g mineralizattion. The generally low w-
gradee CPD2, DD DP and PMI porphyries were w intrudeed into the ccenter of the higher-gradde
dioritte phases FPD, CPD1, and PBFD D. The CPD D2, DDP, aand PMI poorphyries arre
verticcally emplacced and showw a lower density
d of veeinlets and some gold m mineralizationn,
formiing a low-grrade to non-mmineralized core. A rim m of hornfells is present at the contacct
of FPPD– CPD1 with the reed-bed sedim ments. The hhornfels occcasionally contains welll-
develloped minerralization. This becom mes less freqquent when moving aw way from thhe
contaact. Gold- coopper mineraalization is also
a associatted with variious types off veins.
The following
f veein types are present at th
he deposit:
• Quartzz sigmoid dal discon ntinuous vveinlets; Q

Quartz–magnnetite-sulfidees
(chalccopyrite); Qu
uartz–sulfidees;
• Chlorite + pyrite discontinuou
d us veinlets; N
Narrow veins (hairline) oof magnetitee;
• netite–clinopy
Magn yroxene (aabundant, s ometimes w
with bornite); Biotitee–
magneetite–chalcop
pyrite;
• Quartzz–limonite–h
hematite (ox
xidation zonne); Gypsum
m (after anhhydrite) witth
variab
ble widths;
• Anhyd
drite-–magnetite–chalco
opyrite (someetimes formiing breccias)).
Gold– –copper miineralizationn at Lindero o was depoosited durinng the empplacement oof
multiiple phases of
o diorite, qu
uartz–diorite and monzonnite intrusionns disruptingg the Tertiarry
red-b
bed sedimen nts. Gold iss generally contained iin quartz–m magnetite, quuartz, quartzz–
sulfid
de and biotitte–chalcopyrrite veinlets, and is assoociated withh chalcopyrite–magnetitte

n 7 - Geologicaal Setting andd Mineralizatioon
May 2013
2
disseminations. These mineralized stockworks and associated potassic alteration are

interpreted to have formed as the result of degassing of the latest intrusions (CPD2, DDP
and PMI). Fluid pressures during degassing triggered the fracturing of earlier intrusions
(FPD, CPD1 and PBFD) and wall rocks, resulting in secondary permeability and
allowing gold-rich fluids to circulate and precipitate, forming gold–copper
mineralization.
Higher gold–copper grades (approximately 1.0 g/t gold and 0.1% copper) are commonly
associated with sigmoidal quartz, quartz–magnetite–sulfides, biotite–magnetite–
chalcopyrite, magnetite–chalcopyrite, and quartz–limonite–hematite stockworks, which
are strongly correlated with K-feldspar alteration. This relationship is best developed in
the east zone of the deposit, where the highest gold grades occur. At other locations
where one or more stockwork types are missing or the intensity of fracturing is lower,
mineralization tends to be weaker and the grade of gold tends to be lower (approximately
0.4 g/t gold).
Gold mineralization at Lindero is characterized by free gold, which is associated with

chalcopyrite and/or magnetite grains with rare interstitial quartz. Gold grain size is up to
70 µm but is generally in the range of 20 µm to 30 µm. Copper occurs as sulfides, most
commonly as chalcopyrite and more occasionally as bornite.
The weathered oxidation zone at Lindero is generally poorly developed and averages 44
m in thickness. The oxide minerals are irregularly distributed with somewhat stronger
oxidation observed in fractured zones with higher permeability. In the oxidation zone the
copper minerals have been altered to copper limonite, copper oxides, and chrysocolla.
Pyrite has been altered to limonite, goethite, and hematite. Late-stage anhydrite/gypsum
veins have been dissolved out of the rock by percolating groundwater fluids. The zone of
oxidation thickens towards the center of the intrusive complex. In the red-bed sediments
the average thickness is 19 m, in the CPD1/FPD lithology the average thickness is 34 m,
in the PBFD the average thickness is 54 m, and in the DDP/CPD2 lithology the thickness
is 130 m to 150 m.
7.5.2 Arizaro Prospect
Gold–copper mineralization is hosted in one body which has a semi-oval shape at the
surface. It runs north to south for 490 m and is at least 380 m wide, and extends for at
least 300 m vertically.

May 2013
In the center there is a high grade body with a semi-elippsoidal form, extending north-
south for 480 m and about 50 meters wide, averaging approximately 0.7 g/t gold at the
surface.
The Arizaro prospect has styles of mineralization with copper–gold grades which are
strongly correlated with different alteration assemblages. Mineralization is mainly
associated with potassic alteration. This occurs generally in multi-directional veins, vein
stockworks and disseminations. In some areas, the veins density is high, forming vein
stockworks in the intrusive rocks. These vein stockworks are limited to magnetite-biotite
veinlets, quartz-magnetite-chalcopyrite veinlets, late magnetite breccias and in late-stage
mineralization events, anhydrite-sulfide veinlets.
Chalcopyrite and bornite are the main copper minerals. Gold is mainly associated with
chalcopyrite, quartz, and anhydrite veinlets. Magnetite is common as massive
replacements of the matrix in breccias, in veinlets and as disseminations.
Molybdenite is sporadically present and is associated with anhydrite-chalcopyrite

veinlets. The presence of pyrite is limited to the distal margins of the system.
The copper oxide minerals found in the prospect are chrysocolla and brochanthite. These
occur as fracture-fill, fine veinlets with quartz ± sulfides and replacing feldspar crystals.
The iron oxide minerals present are limonite, hematite and very sporadic jarosite along
fractures.
Coarse gold was observed and confirmed with x-ray diffraction analysis in the University
of Neuquen, Argentina laboratory, in drill hole ARD 14 (154.5m) and was also identified
macroscopically in an anhydrite-chalcopyrite-molybdenite vein.
Gold–copper grades average 0.6 g/t gold and 0.15% copper. Gold to copper ratios are
consistently 3:1 which suggests higher gold mobilization in the hydrothermal fluids with
respect to copper, and may be interpreted as representing the higher levels of metal
precipitation from gold-rich, copper-poor, hydrothermal solutions.

May 2013
In AMEC‘s opinion the geological understanding of the deposit settings, lithologies,

structural and alteration controls, and mineralization style is sufficient to support a
mineral resource estimation at Lindero.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
8.0 DEPOSIT TYP

PES
The tectonic
t settiing, geological environm
ment, intrusiive rocks, allteration asseemblages annd
minerralization ofo the Lin ndero depossit display the characcteristics off a gold-ricch
porph
hyry copperr deposit. (S Sillitoe, 199
92). An ideealized sectiion throughh the Linderro
Depoosit is shownn in Figure 8-1.
Figure
F 8-1
Copper-Go
C ld Porphyryy Model
(From Bellanger et al.,, 2006, modiified by Goldd Rock Mines)
8.1 Geollogical Mo
odel and Concepts
C
Gold-rich porphy yry copper deposits

d are typically foound in oroggenic belts aat convergennt
plate boundariess or in asssociation with
w emplaceement of hhigh-level sstocks durinng
nsional tecto
exten onism relatedd to strike-sslip faulting and back-aarc spreadingg. There arre
comm monly multip ple intrusiv
ve emplacem ments at sshallow deppths, evidennced by thhe
preseervation of coeval
c volcannic sequencees.
Comppositions raange from calc-alkalin ne quartz ddiorite to ggranodioritee and quarttz

monzzonite. Geneerally the in
ntrusives aree cylindricaal or bell-shhaped bodiees with smaall
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Section 8 – Deposit Typees

May 2013
2
surface expressions but are very large at depth. Commonly these porphyries are
concentric, forming a high-grade annular zone with a barren core (Sillitoe, 1992).
Gold-rich porphyry copper deposits generally take the form of large zones
of hydrothermally altered rock containing quartz–magnetite, quartz, quartz–sulfide,
biotite– chalcopyrite veins and stockworks, and chalcopyrite–magnetite disseminations.
The mineralization appears to be closely related to strong potassic alteration with a
surrounding zone of propylitic alteration and/or pyrite halo with no, or low-grade, gold
mineralization. These stockworks and potassic alteration are believed to be formed during
the latest phase of emplacement as the result of degassing of the intrusion. Fluid
pressures break the earlier intrusions and fracturing the host rock permitting the gold rich
fluids to move through and form the ore body (Sillitoe 1992). The Lindero deposit is
believed to have formed in this manner.
Gold-rich porphyry deposits are generally found at shallow crustal level, about 1–2 km
deep. Most deposits range from >100 m to <1 km in diameter and the vertical span of the
entire alteration suite is approximately 4 km from the paleo-surface (Sillitoe, 1992).
Porphyry deposits are characteristically low grade but contain high tonnages, with an
average grade of 0.4–1.0% copper, <1 g/t gold and tonnages of 50–500 Mt (Titley and
Beane, 1981 and Sillitoe, 2000).
Mineralization tends to occur as disseminations or concentrated in veinlets. In many

deposits, both styles of mineralization can occur, as is the case at the Lindero deposit.
8.2 Exploration Concepts
Following the discovery of gold–copper mineralization associated with potassic alteration

at the Arizaro prospect in November 1999, a detailed exploration program was planned to
study the alteration and mineralization within the Arizaro prospect and its environs.
The program consisted of reconnaissance and detailed geological mapping, soil

geochemistry (talus fines), and trench sampling and mapping. These programs lead to
the discovery of the Lindero prospect in September 2000. Additional exploration
programs consisted of geological mapping and trench sampling to define new drilling
targets and refine the interpretation of the prospect.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 8 – Deposit Types

May 2013
The exploration program at the Lindero deposit was also based on the knowledge
acquired from the development of other similar prospects in the High Andes.
Approximately 200 km to the south of Lindero Project, a number of gold-rich porphyry
deposits occur between latitudes 27° south and 28° south (Maricunga belt; Muntean &
Einaudi 2001) in Chile. This belt includes the Refugio, Cerro Casale, Marte, Lobo and
Santa Cecilia porphyry deposit, which show similar geological characteristics to the
setting and mineralization of the Lindero Project. All of these deposits are low-grade
gold–copper deposits. Geochronological data indicates this group of deposits was formed
between 24 Ma to13 Ma (Miocene).
AMEC is of the opinion that the Lindero deposit and Arizaro prospect are typical of
porphyry gold–copper deposits on the basis of the geologic setting, the host rocks, styles
of alteration, styles of mineralization, geometry of the deposits, and concentration of the
various sulfide minerals, including: Formed in an orogenic belt at convergent plate
boundaries or in association with emplacement of high-level stocks during extensional
tectonism related to strike-slip faulting and back-arc spreading; Associated with
transverse structural zones marking the transition from flat slab subduction to steep slab
subduction off the west coast of South America; Associated with intrusive rocks with
compositions ranging from diorite to quartz- monzonite; Occurrence in a district with
several other gold-rich porphyry deposits; Annular shaped geometry, elongated
vertically, Mineralization is primarily in the form of disseminations and veinlets with
variable amounts of quartz, pyrite, chalcopyrite and magnetite.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 8 – Deposit Types

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
9.0 EXPLORATIO
ON
9.1 Lind
dero Depossit
The Lindero dep posit was discovered

d in
i 1999 as a result off a regionall program oof
explo
oration underrtaken by Goldrock. Seeveral explorration prograams have beeen conducteed
oldrock and Rio Tinto on the Linderro deposit (W
by Go W. Fuchter aand D.Renie,, 2003):
• oldrock Cam
Go mpaign: Augu
ust 2000–Occtober 2001 (completed in Decembeer
200
01);
• Rio
o Tinto Caampaign: May 2002–Feebruary 20003 (report ccompleted iin
Maarch 2003);
• Go
oldrock Camp
paign: Octob
ber 2005–Jannuary 2008; and
• Go
oldrock Cam
mpaign: Augu
ust 2010–Noovember 20110.
The exploration
e programs
p aree summarizeed in Table 99-1.
Table
T 9-1
Summary
y of Explora
ation Progra
ams Carried
d Out on thee Lindero D
Deposit
Date Type off work Companyy
2000 Geology & alteration map
pping 1 : 10000 Gooldrock
2000 Soil sampliing grid 100 m x 50 m Gooldrock
2001 Trenches 1,752 m Gooldrock
2002 Road samppling 3,500 m Riio Tinto
2002 Geophysicss. 43 km groun
nd magnetics. 11
1 km IP Riio Tinto
2002 Drilling 3,2
279 m (10 holees) Riio Tinto
2005 Trenches 1,264 m (16 tren nches) Gooldrock
2005–2006
6 Drilling 2,6
609 m (11 holees) Gooldrock
2006 Geologicall map 1 : 5000 & 3D modelin ng Gooldrock –Gustaavo Fernandez
Trenches 332 m (4 trench hes) Gooldrock
2007 Metallurgiccal test 2,200 kg
k Ammerican Au-Agg Associates onn behalf of Gooldrock
2006–2008
8 Drilling 288,768 m (100 holes)
h Gooldrock
2010 Drilling 3,4
480 m (18 holees). For prefeassibility. Gooldrock
9.1.1 Goldrrock Campa

aign: 2000–2001
The 2000–2001 campaign, conducted by Goldrocck, comprissed geologiccal mappingg,

grid sampling,
s an
nd trenching..
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Section 9 - Exploratioon

May 2013
2
Geological Mapping
Regional mapping was initially carried out at a scale of 1:10,000 and was completed by
December 2000. Detailed geological and alteration mapping of the Lindero Prospect was
conducted at a scale of 1:2,500 by geologists Jorge Kesting, Facundo Huidobro, and
Russell Dow of Goldrock. The large-scale mapping was carried out on a 100 m x 50
m grid (15 lines of approximately 1,000 m in length and spaced 100 m apart
with stations/pickets located every 50 m along the line). The lines were surveyed
using a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit.
Soil (Talus fines) Geochemistry
A total of 304 talus fines samples were collected from the grid on station spacings of 100
m x 50 m, covering the Lindero deposit. Samples were collected from 20 cm-deep holes
dug at each station. About 300–400 g of talus fines were sieved to 95% passing 80
mesh. Samples were then bagged, numbered, and submitted for analysis to ACME
analytical laboratory in Mendoza, Argentina. This work was supervised by Mr. Facundo
Huidobro of Goldrock. The results indicated a gold-in-talus-fines anomaly (>200 ppb
Au) that covered an area of 300 m x 500 m in the southeast part of the grid,
approximately coincident with the CPD1–FPD porphyry. Copper results indicated a
circular donut-shaped anomaly (>250 ppm) with a radius of about 200 m centered on
the intrusive complex, and largely coincident with the CPD1–FPD porphyry and potassic
alteration zones.
Trenching
Ten trenches, totaling 1,752 m, were excavated on the Lindero deposit. An access road
exposed an additional 102 m of potassic-altered porphyry. The objectives of the
trenching program were to better define the rock types and alteration assemblages, to
expose gold-copper mineralization for better characterization, and to assess the gold and
copper content of the mineralized zones. The work was supervised by Facundo
Huidobro of Goldrock, and was carried out with a hydraulic excavator supplied by a local
contractor. The trenches were sampled at two meter and five meter intervals (Table
9-2), and samples were collected by hand on a continuous chip basis or from channels
cut by a diamond saw.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 9 - Exploration

May 2013
Table 9-2
Trench and Road Cut Samples
Length Sample Sample No. of
Trench (m) Interval Type Samples Results
LD250N 225 5 chip 45 110 m @ 404 ppb Au & 0.130% Cu
LD50N 326 5, 2 chip, 132 74 m @ 1,472 ppb Au & 0.121% Cu
LDBL 136 2 chip, 68 42 m @ 1,029 ppb Au
LD50S 185 5 chip 37 50 m @ 593 ppb Au & 0.216% Cu
LD200S 116 2 chip, 58 52 m @ 436 ppb Au & 0.124% Cu
LD300E 156 2 chip, 78 110 m @ 1,077 ppb Au & 0.106% Cu
LD200E 208 2 chip, 104 34 m @ 1,644 ppb Au & 0.126% Cu
LD50W 160 2 chip, 80 38 m @ 911 ppb Au & 0.208% Cu
LD150W 80 5 chip 16 80 m @ 442 ppb Au & 0.176% Cu
LD200 160 5 chip 32 80 m @ 442 ppb Au & 0.114% Cu
LC (N) 14 2 chip 7 —
LC(S) 88 2 chip 44 —
Samples were sent to ACME Analytical Laboratory in Mendoza where gold grades were
analyzed by FA/AA (i.e., fire assay with an atomic absorption finish) and copper by
atomic absorption. The data were presented on maps at a scale of 1:1,000 and in
MapInfo format. Certain sections of continuous chip sampling were checked by
analyzing diamond saw-cut channel samples taken from the same intervals.
Goldrock did not have a formal QA/QC program with well-defined and documented
protocols and procedures in place for the trenching program. No estimate for
analytical precision or accuracy was undertaken. Instead, the Company has relied on
ACME’s internal checks in determining the reliability of the analyses.
A combination of trench mapping and sampling results indicated a semi-annular zone

around the PMI–CPD2 porphyries with highest grades confined to the southeast corner of
the mineralized zone. This zone measured some 550 m x 100 m, although there was
evidence from the road-cutting to the south that the mineralization could be extended at
surface for another 200 m of strike. In addition, a smaller zone of lower-grade
mineralization was recognized from the semi-annular zone towards the center of
the deposit area; this inner zone had dimensions of approximately 400 m x 70 m.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
9.1.2 Rio Tinto

T Campa
aign: 2002 – 2003
The second explloration cam

mpaign was carried outt by Rio Tiinto after thhe signing oof
an op
ption agreem
ment (LOU)) in April 2002.
2 The Rio Tinto program was conducteed
betweeen May 200
02 and Febru
uary 2003, and consistedd of:
• Geeological map
pping;
• Geeophysics (grround magneetics and indduced polarizzation surveyys);
• Ro
oad cut samp
pling;
• Driilling (described in Sectiion 10.5);
• Meetallurgical test
t work; an
nd
• Resource estim
mation.
ogical Mapp
Geolo ping
Rio Tinto re-maapped the Lindero areea in Septeember 20022. Additionaal data from m
expossures on neww access ro oads constru ucted by Rio Tinto, as well as froom drill corre
recovvered from the Rio Tinto drilling prrogram, werre included iin the geoloogical studies.
While the addittion of thesse newly-accquired dataa helped reffine the geoology of thhe
prosppect, no sign
nificant mod difications to
t the geollogy as mappped by Goldrock werre
introd
duced. Thee re-mapping g and re-inteerpretation oof the geologgy was superrvised by M Mr.
Ruiz of Rio Tintoo, and the geeological datta were pressented on a mmap at a scaale of 1:2,5000.
Data were also diisplayed in MapInfo
M form
mat.
RioTTinto identifiied additionaal structural details for the prospect. Two mainn orientationns
of sto
ockworks weere defined a northwest orientation,, dominant iin the westerrn and southh-
westeern part of thhe intrusive complex; and,
a a northeeast vein oriientation dom
minant in thhe
eastern part of th
he grid.
Five main mineeralizing ev vents were recognized on the bassis of crossscutting veiin
relationships. Th
he veins, from
m earliest to latest, are:
• Firrst stage narrrow (hairlinee) magnetite veins (1–5 gg/t Au);

• A-ttype quartz veins
v with minor
m sulfidees (<1 g/t Auu; ±Cu);
• Seccond stage hairline
h magn
netite veins ((>1 g/t Au);
• Co
oarse magnettite veins witth chalcopyrrite (Cu); andd
• Qu
uartz veins with
w pyrite (w
weak Au).

May 2013
2
Geophysics
A total of 43 km of ground magnetic data and 11 km of gradient-array IP data

were collected from the grid over the Lindero deposit. The magnetic data were collected
with a line spacing of 100 m with stations spaced every 10 m along the lines,
whereas the IP/resistivity survey data were collected with a line spacing of 200 m with
stations spaced every 50 m along the lines.
Roscoe Postle Associates (RPA) reviewed the work and in their opinion, both surveys are
appropriate for disseminated mineralization; however, the magnetic spacing resulted in a
large spatial sampling bias, which precluded effective contouring. The IP survey
spacing was deemed appropriate for large-scale anomalies.
The survey were undertaken with common commercial geophysical instruments (GSM
GEM-19 magnetometers, Elrec-6 receiver and VIP-3000 transmitter) by Quantec’s
local subsidiary based in Mendoza. Basic processing was undertaken by Jim
Scarbrough of Rio Tinto using Geosoft software, and maps were produced in MapInfo
format. The interpretation was superficial, and in some cases appeared to RPA to be
incorrect. Quantitative interpretation was completed (e.g., 3D magnetic modeling),
although not formally reported.
There is no direct IP/resistivity response from the known gold mineralization; however,
the IP data form a semi-concentric ring around the mineralization and probably
represents pyrite in the propylitic alteration zone, although this has not been adequately
tested by drilling. There is no direct magnetic response associated with the
mineralization despite the fact that drill results (e.g., LID-04) report strong magnetic
intersections. RPA’s opinion was that the magnetic interpretation was incomplete and that
further magnetic surveying was required.
Road-cut Sampling
A total of 385 chip samples were collected from 3.5 km of new roads constructed on
the prospect in 2002. Continuous chip sampling was conducted over 3–5 m intervals,
and submitted for analysis to ALS Chemex Laboratory in Mendoza. The sample
preparation was undertaken in Mendoza and a sub-sample of 100 g together with
blanks, duplicates, and certified standards was shipped to ALS Chemex in Vancouver
for Au + 35 element analyses (Au+35T package). Gold was assayed by FA/AA and the
35 elements by inductively-coupled plasma (ICP).

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
QA/QQC procedu ures are welll documentted and apppropriate. Q Quality contrrol data waas
review
wed by RPA A. The addiitional road--cut samplinng data conffirmed and extended thhe
knowwn intersectiions of surrface mineraalization prreviously ouutlined in tthe trenchinng
underrtaken by Gooldrock.
Drilliing and Coree Logging
A tottal of 3,278 m of core drrilling in ten holes was c ompleted at the Linderoo deposit from
m
May to Decembeer 2002 by Rio Tinto. The drillinng campaignn is describeed in Sectioon
10.5, Drilling of this
t report.
Drill holes were cored at HQ H size (63.5 mm core diameter), aand the coree was loggeed
on siite by Rio Tinto
T geolog
gists under the supervi sion of Mr.. Pedro Ruiiz. Goldrocck
perso
onnel helped d with thee logging anda samplinng of the core, whicch was theen
subseequently storred in Goldrrock‘s warehhouse in Saltta. Core loggging was enntered directlly
onto computer withw drill logs produced d on paper and CD RO OM. Drill ssections werre
produuced at a scaale of 1:1,000
0.
Core Sampling an
nd Assaying
g
Core sampling was

w carried out on hallf-core sampples and soome 2,046 ssamples werre
subm
mitted for annalysis. Sam
mpling was carried outt at 2 m inntervals andd the samplees
were sent to ALS S Chemex Laboratory
L in
i Mendoza for sample preparation before beinng
analy
yzed by ALS S Chemex inn Vancouveer. Gold waas assayed bby FA/AA aand the otheer
elemeents by ICP..
QA/QQC was rigorously perfo ormed accordding to form

malized protoocols and proocedures, annd
analy
ysis of the reesults obtain
ned from the study indiccated that, allthough som
me errors werre
foundd, the laboratory‘s perfformance waas satisfactoory; a 4–6% % difference between thhe
origin
nal and checcked sampless was noted.
9.1.3 Goldrrock Campa

aign: 2005–2008
This third exploraation campaiign was carrried out by G

Goldrock andd consisted oof:
• Geeological map
pping; Trencching;
• Dig
gital Satellite Topograph
hy;

May 2013
2
• Drilling (described in Section 10.5, Drilling); Road cut sampling;

• Metallurgical test work; and
• Resource estimation.
Trenching
In 2005, Goldrock completed a trenching program which was designed to define surface
mineralization. Sixteen trenches totaling 1,234 m were excavated. Trenches were
channel sampled every 2 m with a rock saw, and a total of 498 samples were
collected. The sampling method and QA/QC procedures are described in Section 10.7,
Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security.
Four additional trenches (332 m) were excavated in 2007 (NTR-01 to NTR-04) on the
west zone of the Lindero deposit, in order to characterize the nature of surface
mineralization in that area. A total of 159 samples were taken.
A summary of trenches locations and soil samples collected on the property over the
successive exploration surveys is presented in Figure 9-1.

May 2013
Lindero P
Figure
F 9-1
ations and Soil Grid Layout fo
Trench Loca or the Lindero Project
Kappes, C
Cassiday & Associiates Seection 9 - Exploration
May 20133
Drilling and Core Logging
Goldrock based its drilling campaign on information obtained from the trenching.
Drill holes were cored to HQ size, and the core was logged on site by Goldrock
geologists under the supervision of Mr. Jorge Kesting. Drilling and core logging is
described in detail in Section 10, Drilling, in this report.
Geological Mapping
In 2007, previous drilling and trenching information allowed Mr. Gustavo Fernandez, a
geological consultant, to develop a geology model for the Project at a scale of 1:1,000.
All drill holes were re-logged. Trenches and roads were mapped in detail. A 1:2,000
topographic map was built based on a satellite image.
Topography
The Lindero topographic data were obtained from a Quickbird, natural color, 64 cm pixel
satellite image which covered 64 km². Previously, fixed control points on the ground were
used to rectify the image to the proper co-ordinate system. The Quickbird image was
combined with a stereo Ikonos image which covered 100 km², to generate a 1 m resolution
digital elevation model (DEM). These two products were used to construct an ortho-
rectification of the image, and Infosat using the PCI Geomatica Orthoengine software
produced a topographic map with 5 m contour levels.
9.1.4 Goldrock Campaign 2010
Between August and November 2010, six holes were drilled for geotechnical studies.
Five condemnation holes were drilled in strategic areas where important infrastructure
such as leach pads and waste rock piles were planned. An additional seven geotechnical
holes were drilled in areas of planned foundation construction. A total of 3,480.5 m were
drilled in 18 holes. The locations and lengths of the drill holes are shown in Table 9-3.

May 2013
Table 9-3
Location of 2010 drill holes
Hole Easting Northing Elevation
Name (m) (m) (m) Azimuth Dip Depth Hole Type Purpose
LGT-06 2622846 7226034 3919.6 225 -75 350 HQ oriented
Geotechnical
LGT-07 2622854 7226358 3908.3 3215 -75 350 HQ oriented
LGT-08 2623088 7226474 3919.7 360 -75 350 HQ oriented
LGT-09 2623389 7226340 3940.4 60 -75 350 HQ oriented
LGT-10 2623053 7225937 3942.2 180 -75 350 HQ oriented
LGT-11 2623368 7226050 3909.8 125 -75 350 HQ oriented
CON-01 2623939 7225801 3828.7 360 -60 200 HQ
Condemnation
CON-02 2623540 7226013 3854.7 250 -60 300 HQ
CON-03 2623019 7225780 3893.7 290 -60 200 HQ
CON-04 2624147 7226481 3757.0 270 -60 235.5 HQ
CON-05 2622638 7226896 3755.1 140 -60 200 HQ
LP 2624301 7226805 3732.0 0 -90 35 HQ
ADR 2623800 7227021 3736.4 0 -90 35 HQ
Foundations
PWH 2623991 7226913 3727.4 0 -90 35 HQ
NHPGR 2623659 7225861 3835.6 0 -90 35 HQ
HPGR 2623659 7225879 3831.1 0 -90 35 HQ
LIM 2623641 7225961 3828.4 0 -90 35 HQ
STO 2623721 7225949 3817.6 0 -90 35 HQ
The geotechnical holes were planned by AMEC Earth & Environmental Americas
(AMEC). These holes were part of geotechnical studies conducted by AMEC to complete
open pit geotechnical design. The scope of work undertaken included:
• Selection of drill hole locations;

• Geotechnical logging and core orientation;
• Selection of representative samples for unconfined compression testing and
direct shear testing; and
• Completion of point load tests, core photography and laboratory testing on
selected samples
The geotechnical holes were oriented with a Reflex Act instrument and down-hole
deviations were measured with a Reflex gyroscopic instrument.
The condemnation holes were drilled to demonstrate that the areas selected for leach
pads, waste rock piles and other facilities on surface did not have underlying
mineralization. Holes were logged and sampled with the same methodology as the
geotechnical drill holes. The condemnation holes were down hole surveyed.

May 2013
Samples from the geotechnical and condemnation drill holes were collected every two
meters and analyzed by Alex Stewart Lab in the Province of Mendoza. A total of 1,881
samples were assayed by ICP analysis for 39 elements, and were analyzed for gold by
fire assay(30g charge). Goldrock inserted QA/QC samples with the batches of samples
submitted to the analytical laboratory. 87 CRM (Certified Reference Material) samples
(samples with known values of Au and Cu), 99 duplicates and 92 blanks were analyzed.
The assay results from the geotechnical holes showed only weak mineralization.
Therefore the extents of the mineralization in the deposit have not changed and do not
materially affect the estimation of Mineral Resources. The assay results from the
condemnation holes did not show any anomalous gold or copper values. The holes drilled
for foundation design were not assayed.
9.2 Arizaro Prospect
The Arizaro prospect was discovered in 1999 as a result of a regional program of

exploration undertaken by Goldrock. Since then, exploration programs have been
conducted in the area consisting of initial exploration by Goldrock during 2000–2001 and
a follow-up program by Rio Tinto during 2002–2003. Three drill programs were
conducted by Goldrock during 2010 to 2012. The exploration work conducted at Arizaro
is summarized in Table 9-4.
Table 9-4
Summary of Exploration Programs Carried Out on the Arizaro Prospect
Date Type of Work Company
2000 Geology & alteration mapping 1:10,000 Goldrock
2000 Soil sampling grid 100 m x 50 m Goldrock
2001 Trenches 3,845 m Goldrock
2002 Geophysics. 43 km ground magnetic. 11 km IP Rio Tinto
2002 Drilling 628 m (2 holes) Rio Tinto
2010 Drilling 2,116. 7 (6 holes) Goldrock
2010 Trenches 230 m Goldrock
2011 Trenches 2,260 m Goldrock
2011 Drilling 3,124 m (8 holes) Goldrock
2012 Drilling 2,983 m (13 holes) Goldrock
2013 Metallurgical Testwork Goldrock

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
9.2.1 Goldrrock Initial Work
ugust 2000 a surface ex

In Au xploration prrogram was designed too study the aalteration annd
minerralization within
w the Arrizaro-Lindeero propertyy. This progrram consisteed of generaal
and detailed geo ological maapping, soill (talus finees) geochem mistry, trencch samplingg-
mappping and expploration reco
ommendatio ons on both pprospect areaas.
The first
f regional geological mapping was completeed between S September and Decembeer
2000 at a scale off 1:10,000 with
w detailedd geological aand alteratioon maps gennerated for thhe
prosp
pect at a scale of 1:5,0 000 and 1:2,500. (Separrate report by Russell Dow, Marcch
2001).
Initia
al Results
At Arizaro
A taluss fine samp ples were collected
c onn a 100 m by 50 m grid, samplle
locatiion co-ordinnates were determined
d by hand-he ld GPS. A Assay resultts defined aan
anom
malous area with
w over 10 00 ppb Au th hat covered 600 m by 11,100 m andd an area witth
over 250 ppm Cu u that covereed 550 m by
y 830 m. Peaak values were 1.3 g/t AAu and 0.97% %
Cu, coincident
c in
n location with
w zones off strong potaassic alteratiion. The Au––Cu anomally
margins were maasked by allu uvial and vollcaniclastic ccover.
Goldrrock cut a to
otal of 3,845 m of trenches (2001); siignificant treench results included:
• Treench 00: 32 m @ 1.42 g/t

g Au, 0.50%
% Cu and 166 m @ 0.55 gg/t Au, 0.44%
%
Cu
u;
• Treench 1: 64 m @ 0.86 g/t
g Au, 0.31%
% Cu, includdes 20 m @ 1.60 g/t Auu,
0.3
35% Cu;
• Treench 100 S: 20 m @ 1..09 g/t Au, 00.36% Cu, includes 12 m @ 1.41 gg/t
Au
u, 0.49% Cu;;
• Treench 300 W: 42 m @ 0.69 g/t Au, 00.51% Cu, inncludes 20 m @ 0.94 g//t,
0.5
53 % Cu; and
d
• Treench 300 N: 20 m @ 0.6
66 g/t Au, 0..58% Cu.
All saamples weree taken over intervals of 2 m. Four zzones in the trenches havve significannt
Au–CCu values; each
e zone exxtends from about 30 m by 95 m too 50 m by 2200 m. Thhe
higheest 10% of thhe assays (392 m) gave an average 00.67 g/t Au aand 0.35% C Cu, with peaak
valuees of 7.0 g/t Au and 1.5% Cu. Thee best Au–Cuu assay resuults in trenchhes coincideed

May 2013
2
principally with strong and moderate potassic alteration.
9.2.2 Rio Tinto Campaign
Arizaro Prospect Field Review
A field visit to the Arizaro prospect was completed on January 2003 in order to review
additional potential of gold and copper mineralized zones. The key objective was to
define the relationship between gold and copper values obtained from the surface
sampling with lithology type and alteration type. Five higher-grade gold and copper
anomalous zones were identified in the potassic-altered younger diorite porphyry.
Geophysics
Ground magnetic, gradient-array IP and resistivity data at Arizaro verify that a 1 km²
porphyry system with pyrite halo surrounds the area mapped as potassic alteration.
Similar to Lindero, a central, low-resistivity zone was also detected that may be
delineating a central mineralized porphyry.
The Arizaro porphyry Cu–Au prospect displays clear geophysical responses in the IP
and ground magnetic data. These data define a central intrusive with peripheral
propylitic alteration and volcaniclastic rocks.
Drilling and Core Logging
A total of 628 m of core drilling in two holes was completed at the Arizaro project from
November o December 2002 by Rio Tinto. The drilling campaign is described in
Section 10.5, Drilling of this report.
Drill holes were cored at HQ size (63.5 mm core diameter), and the core was logged
on site by Rio Tinto geologists. T he core was then subsequently stored in Goldrock‘s
warehouse in Salta. Core logging was entered directly onto computer with drill logs
produced on paper and CD ROM. Drill sections were produced at a scale of 1:1,000.

May 2013
Core Sampling and Assaying
Core sampling was carried out on half-core samples and some 314 samples were
submitted for analysis. Sampling was carried out at 2 m intervals and the samples
were sent to ALS Chemex Laboratory in Mendoza for sample preparation before being
analyzed by ALS Chemex in Vancouver. Gold was assayed by FA/AA and the other
elements by ICP.
QA/QC was rigorously performed according to formalized protocols and procedures, and
analysis of the results obtained from the study indicated that, although some errors were
found, the laboratory‘s performance was satisfactory; a 4–6% difference between the
original and checked samples was noted.
9.2.3 Goldrock Campaign 2010 – 2012
Three drilling exploration campaigns were completed in 2010 to 2012, together with
geological and alteration mapping. 2,492 meters of trenches and 175 meters of road cuts
were excavated to define mineralization on surface. The three phases of diamond drilling
have defined a zone of gold mineralization, which extends 490m north-south and 390 m
east-west.
Geological Mapping
In 2011, during the drilling campaign a detailed geological mapping was carried out at a
1:1000 scale. Trenches and road cuts and existing outcrops facilitated the mapping.
Detailed mapping of all structures and veinlets in the trenches and road cuts defined two
preferential directions of structures, a dominant northeast-southwest trend and
subordinate northwest-southeast trend.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Figure
F 9-2
Stereograph
S hic Projectio
on (to Uppeer Hemisphhere) of Stru
uctures and Veinlets
ough the map

Altho pping was performed
p in
n only one paart of the Proospect area ((the northeast
sector), it can be assumed thhat the preferrential orienntations of thhe structuress and veinletts
are consistent
c throughout th
he project arrea. No strucctural controol on the m mineralizationn,
was determined
d except
e in verry specific caases.
Drilliing program
ms were desiigned consid dering the nnew geologyy and alterattion mappinng
comppleted in 2011), the holles were loccated to test the most inntense potasssic alteratioon
expossed at surfacce, which is mainly
m in the central parrt of the Prosspect area.
Trencching and Ro
oad Cut Sam
mpling
The objectives
o off the trenchin
ng program and road cuuts was to beetter define tthe rock typees
and alteration assemblagees, to exp pose gold-copper miineralization for betteer
charaacterization, and to condu uct analyses of the gold aand copper ccontent of thhe mineralizeed
zoness. The work was supervised by Carollina Pereyra and Mario A Abdala of M Mansfield S.AA.
A tottal of 34 rock
k chip samples were colllected from 175m of a rroad cut. Continuous chiip
sampples were colllected over 5 m intervals, and submiitted for anaalysis to Alexx Stewart Laab
in Meendoza. Gold d was assayeed by FA andd copper by AA, and thee 39 elementts by ICP.

May 2013
2
Results obtained Road Cut: 25m @ 0.92 g/t Au, 0.36% Cu.
In November 2010 two trenches were completed, totaling 212 meters. (A-10 trench
350°Az; B-10 trench 87°Az).
• Trench A-10: 10 m @ 0.89 g/t Au, 0.35% Cu.

• Trench B-10: 14 m @ 0.53 g/t Au, 0.22% Cu.
Between May and June 2011, six new trenches were excavated, totaling 2,265 m. Samples
were collected every 2 meters by chipping from east to west and from south to north, the
trenches were mapped in detail. These trenches were designed to investigate soil
anomalous areas (over 50 ppb Au) delineated from by the grid soil sampling in 2001.
• Trench B-11: 10 m @ 0.58 g/t Au, 0.23% Cu.
Drilling
Goldrock completed 8,223.8 m of diamond drilling in 29 drill holes in three different

exploration campaigns during 2010-2012 in the Arizaro Prospect area. Drilling activities
were supervised by Mansfield project geologists. Two different drilling companies were
involved in this work, EcoMinera S.A., in 2010 and Falcon Drilling S.A. in 2011 and in
2012.
The logging of the holes was carried out by staff of Mansfield and supervised by Lic.
Jorge Kesting. Logging of core utilized standard logging procedures. Since 2010, the core
logging followed the same method, maintaining the same log sheet structure. The logging
process occurs after the core sampling, so as to take advantage of the flat surface of the
remaining half core, which permits a better identification of the lithological
characteristics.
A lithological library has been built up from small rock samples, so as to provide the core
loggers with a reference tool to identify the general characteristics of the lithologies and
alteration types. Drill core is stored at the Project site, in a locked facility (warehouse).
Drilling successfully discovered a moderate to high grade zone of gold mineralization at

shallow depths.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
All th
he holes werre drilled usiing an HQ diameter
d (633.5 mm) for tthe first 2500 m to 280 m
m,
and were
w subseqquently redu uced to a NQ
N diameteer (47.6 mm m). Holes depths varry
accorrding to the area
a and the purpose forr which theyy were collarred. The aveerage depth is
300 m and the deeepest hole reeached a dep
pth of 501.9 m.
Figure
F 9-3
Arizaro Section 39950
Core Sampling and Assaying

g
Core sampling was

w carried out at 2 m inttervals, irresspective of liithology, annd was carrieed
out on
o half-coree samples. 4,559
4 samplles were subbmitted for analysis too ASA (Aleex
Stewart), and AC
CME Laboratories in Mendoza,
M Arrgentina for sample preeparation, annd
analy
ysis.

May 2013
2
The analytical laboratories are independent of Goldrock, and have international

accreditations.
Goldrock inserted QA/QC samples into the batches of samples sent to the laboratory,
which included quarter core duplicates, coarse duplicates, blanks and pulp standard
reference materials.
Chain-of-custody procedures were standard practice of any sample shipment to the

Analytical laboratories. Also sample security relies upon the fact that the samples are
always locked in the core facility.
In AMEC‘s opinion:
The exploration programs completed to date are appropriate to the known the
mineralization styles of the Lindero deposit;
Exploration has discovered one deposit, and identified one additional prospect with
mineralization at surface;
Exploration has been appropriately conducted by Goldrock and its previous option
partner, Rio Tinto;
Where appropriate, exploration programs requiring specific expertise such as geophysical

surveys have been performed by contract personnel and companies under the supervision
of Goldrock staff.

May 2013
10.0 DRILLING
10.1 Introduction
Different drilling contractors, using a range of drill rigs (Longyear 44, Longyear 38 and
F-2000), were employed on the Project from 2002 to 2013. Falcon Drilling carried out
approximately 90% of the drilling. The drilling at Arizaro was completed by EcoMinera
S.A. in 2010 and Falcon Drilling S.A. in 2011 and 2013.
10.2 Lindero Deposit
10.2.1 Rio Tinto Campaign 2002
Rio Tinto (through a joint venture agreement) completed a 10 hole core drilling campaign
between April and December 2002. These holes were drilled by Connors Drilling from
Mendoza, Argentina, using a Longyear 44 drill rig.
The first ten holes were labeled LID-1 to LID-10, and totaled 3,277.9 m. The drilling was
performed in two phases:
First phase: drilling of 1,753.29 m of HQ-size core from six holes in order to test the
highest-grade trench results and the strongest alteration in outcrops.
Second phase: drilling of 1,524.61 m of HQ-size core in four holes in order to test the
central part of the mineralized porphyry system and to define the extension of the
mineralized zone outlined during the previous phase of drilling.
Drilling conditions were good, and core recovery was generally above 90%, although
LID-09 was abandoned in a fault zone.
The drilling outlined gold–copper mineralization that is generally coincident with the
CPD1-FPD (Rio Tinto code P2) porphyry and the annular potassic alteration zone, and is
largely confined to the eastern, south-eastern, and southern parts of the intrusive
complex. Two higher-grade (~1 g/t Au) core zones were located within the general zone
of mineralization. The Main High-Grade Zone (MVZ) is a semi-annular zone located in
the core of the mineralization along the south-eastern and southern part of the complex
and appears to be controlled by the intersection of the west–northwest and north–
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 10 - Drilling

May 2013
northeast structural trends. The second, smaller, mineralized body, the Parallel High-
Grade Zone (PVZ) is parallel to, and located inboard from, the MVZ largely within the
DDP and PBFD (Rio Tinto code PA) porphyries in the central part of the intrusive
complex.
10.2.2 Goldrock 2005 to 2008
Goldrock has completed a total of four separate drill campaigns on the Project. Drill hole
prefixes were changed to LDH for all Goldrock drill holes.
In the first campaign, between October 2005 and February 2006, Patagonia Drilling
Company completed drill holes LDH-11 to LDH-21 for a total of 2,609.24 m of core.
Longyear 44 and F-2000 drill rigs were used during this campaign.
Subsequently, four more campaigns were conducted by Falcon Drilling Company

(branch Barbados), using a Longyear 38 drill rig. The second campaign started in early
2006, the third between late 2006 and early 2007, the fourth from late 2007 to early 2008,
and fifth between August and November 2010, (Table 10-1).

May 2013
Table 10-1
Summary of drilling campaigns at the Lindero Deposit
No. of
Company Period DDH Drill Holes Drilled by Type Diameter Meters
Rio Tinto Apr 2002- Dec 2002 10 LID-1 to LID-10 Connors Drilling DDH HQ/NQ 3,279
Goldrock Oct 2005 - Feb 2006 11 LDH-11 to LDH-21 Patagonia Drill S.A. DDH HQ/NQ 2,609
Goldrock Apr 2006 - Jul 2006 17 LDH-22 to LDH-38 Falcon Drilling DDH HQ/NQ 5,441
Goldrock Sep 2006- Jun 2007 48 LDH-39 to LDH-86 Falcon Drilling DDH HQ/NQ 14,570
Goldrock Jul 2007 - Jan 2008 30 LDH-87 to LDH-116 Falcon Drilling DDH HQ/NQ 7,404
Goldrock Sep 2008 5 LGT-1 to LGT-5 Falcon Drilling DDH HQ 1,353
Goldrock Aug 2010 – Nov 2010 18 LGT-6 to LGT-11 Falcon Drilling DDH HQ 3,480
CON-01 to CON-05
Foundation drill hole
(7holes)
TOTAL 139 38,137

May 2013
In early 2006, holes LDH-22 to LDH-38 were drilled. During this second campaign a
total of 5,441.2 m were drilled, mainly in the eastern and south-western part of the
complex.
The third campaign began in late 2006 and terminated in mid-2007, totaling 48 holes
(LDH-39 to hole LDH-86) and 14,569.9 m of core. During this campaign the northern
mineralized zone of the deposit was discovered after holes LDH-48 and LDH-50
intersected significant mineralization.
The fourth campaign comprised holes LDH-87 to LDH-116 for a total of 7,404.0 m of
core.
The fifth campaign consisted of five geotechnical drill holes for a total of 1,353 m of
core. The drill holes are located in the red-bed sediments surrounding the mineralization.
A total of 38,137 meters of diamond drilling in 139 holes was completed at the Lindero
Prospect from April 2002 to November 2010 by Goldrock and Rio Tinto.
Ground conditions were good, and core recovery was generally above 90%.
10.2.3 Drilling Method
Core drilling was used from the beginning of the exploration, and produced a good
recovery rate (92.68% on average). Samples were used not only to determine the
distribution of mineralization and alteration in the deposit, but also for lithology, density,
metallurgical and geotechnical tests.
All drill holes were drilled using HQ diameter for the first 300 m, and were subsequently
reduced to NQ (47.6 mm) diameter. This reduction occurred due to the drill rig having
insufficient power to drill HQ (63.5 mm) beyond 300 m. Drill hole depths vary
according to the area and the purpose for which they were collared. The average depth is
300 m and the deepest hole reached a depth of 576 m.
Drill holes were generally orientated perpendicular to the mineralization forming a radial
pattern, except in the eastern portion where the drill holes are either perpendicular
(azimuth 270°) or parallel (azimuth 190°) to the main mineralized body. Dips vary
depending on the target and range from -50° to -89°, averaging -70°. The spacing
between drill holes is between 40 m to 50 m at surface and tends to increase with depth.

May 2013
10.2.4 Geological Logging Procedures
Lithological Core Logging
Since 2005, the core logging followed the same method, maintaining the same log sheet
structure. The logging process occurs after core has been cut and sampled, so as to take
advantage of the flat surface of the remaining half core, which permits a better
identification of the lithological characteristics.
Standardized logging forms and geological legends were developed for the Lindero
deposit. The geological legend is partly built on historical observations of the local
geology. The logging records for lithologies and structure use alphanumeric codes,
whereas a numeric scale from 1 to 3 defines alteration, veinlets, minerals and oxidation,
where 1 = weak, 2 = moderate and 3 = strong. Unique features not accounted for in the
legend are noted under written comments.
alterations.
Geotechnical Core Logging
Initial geotechnical logging recorded only recoveries and RQD parameters. However,
from hole LDH-53, the geotechnical logging was designed to collect more detailed
information. The geologist recorded the following parameters: core recovery, RQD, rock
hardness index, rock weathering index, frequency fracture, type of fracture, roughness,
infilling material and aperture of fractures. All these data are then used for the
geotechnical characterization of the rock mass of the deposit.

measurements.
10.2.5 Drill Hole Collar Surveys
Drill-hole collars are marked with PVC pipes introduced in the hole at surface and then
cemented. Hole numbers are either sprayed with paint or engraved into the cement
blocks. Metal tags are sometimes used to mark the hole number, depth, orientation and

May 2013
dip. According to Goldrock, the only hole, out of 116, that was not marked properly is
LID-04 which is positioned to one side of the main access road to the Project.
During the first exploration campaign in 2002 by Connors Drilling, no collar survey was
undertaken. Collars have subsequently been picked up where possible.
The holes drilled from 2005 to 2008 as well as the ten holes drilled during the 2002
campaign were surveyed by Servicios Topograficos with a differential GPS. Co-
ordinates are projected on the WGS 84 Datum ellipsoid and calibrated according to the
position of Geodetic point IGM N° PR-02-015, located a few kilometers from the Project.
The results are available in geographic co-ordinates and in metric co-ordinates (UTM and
Gauss Kruger), using the WGS 84 datum.
10.2.6 Down-hole Surveys
During the first Rio Tinto exploration drilling campaign in 2002 by Connors Drilling, no
down-hole survey was undertaken despite the fact that many of the holes extended
beyond 300 m in depth. Down-hole surveying is an important component of the drilling
database and the lack of surveys impacts the reliability of the information collected, and
the confidence level of the Mineral Resource estimates derived from the data.
Holes drilled in 2002 and during the first Goldrock campaign that were completed during
October 2005 to February 2006 (Patagonia Drilling) were not originally down-hole
surveyed. In 2005, Goldrock attempted to survey the holes but only a magnetic
instrument was available and measurements were of very poor quality.
In June 2006 GEC-Geophysical Exploration & Consulting S.A. (GEC) was contracted by
Goldrock to carry out borehole surveying services with a Reflex Maxibor II System 3
Probe (Maxibor) which is not affected by magnetism. This instrument was used from
2006 until early 2008. Down-hole surveys were conducted both on the new holes and on
the older holes drilled in the previous campaigns. Due to caving of the side-walls in
holes LID-04, LID-08, LID-09 and LDH-15 no down-hole surveys were performed.
In 2008, Goldrock detected that the Maxibor surveys showed an unacceptably large
deviation in the drill holes and a decision was made to re-survey all holes that showed a
deviation of more than 5%. The fault is believed to be due to operator error.

May 2013
Comprobe Chile Ltd. (Comprobe) was contracted to re-survey the holes considered by
Goldrock as having incorrect down hole deviations. A surface-recording gyroscopic
instrument was used, and orientation and dip parameters were recorded every 10 m.
Eighty percent of the holes were re-surveyed, with most of the holes showing
little deviation and the maximum deviation recorded was 8°. This survey meets or
exceeds industry standards.
Figure 10-1 shows the different collar locations and down-hole orientations.

May 2013
Lindero P
1
Figure
F 10-1
Drill Hole Loccations and Oriientations
Kappes, C
Cassiday & Associiates Section 10 - Drillling
May 20133
10.3 Arizaro Project
10.3.1 Rio Tinto Campaign 2002
Rio Tinto (through a joint venture agreement) completed a two hole core drilling
campaign between November and December 2002. These holes were drilled by Connors
Drilling from Mendoza, Argentina, using a Longyear 44 drill rig. Two HQ-diameter core
holes (628 m) were drilled to test the better trench results from the Arizaro area.
ARD001 was located to test two intervals of significant trench results (64 m @ 0.86 g/t
Au, 0.31% Cu; and 32 m @ 1.42 g/t Au, 0.50% Cu) on the south side of the prospect.
Zone 1 and Zone 2 were tested by drill hole, ARD-01, at depth.
ARD002 was located 400 m north of ARD001 to test trench results of 20 m @ 0.66 g/t
Au and 0.58% Cu. No significant results were returned.
The high gold and copper values on surface appear to be restricted to strongly potassic
altered zones that were also mapped at surface. The highest gold and copper grades
returned from trench samples of the major strongly potassic-altered zones are related to
rare magnetite and quartz magnetite veinlets. The higher grade gold–copper anomalous
zones have a north–northwest and northeast preferential orientation and are not persistent
along strike.
Drill Hole ARD-01 displayed that highly gold anomalous zones on surface correspond
with those at depth, dipping to the north–northeast. Gold and copper values in the drill
hole are lower than the values from surface trenches. Drill Hole ARD-02 displayed
weak gold-copper mineralization at depth.
10.3.2 Goldrock Campaign 2010 – 2012
Goldrock completed 8,223.8 m of diamond drilling in 27 drill holes in three different

exploration campaigns during 2010-2012 in the Arizaro Prospect area. Drilling activities
were supervised by Mansfield’s project geologists. Two different drilling companies
were involved in this work, EcoMinera S.A., in 2010 and Falcon Drilling S.A. in 2011
and in 2012.
Goldrock has completed a total of four separate drill campaigns on the Project. Drill hole
prefixes were assigned ‘ARD’ for all Goldrock drill holes. These campaigns are
summarized in Table 10-2.

May 2013
Table 10-2
Summary of drilling campaigns at the Arizaro Project
No. of
Company Period DDH Drill Holes Drilled by Type Diameter Meters
Rio Tinto Apr 2002- Dec 2002 2 ARD-01 to ARD-02 Connors Drilling DDH HQ/NQ 628
Goldrock Aug 2010 - Nov 2010 6 ARD-03 to ARD-08 Falcon Drilling DDH HQ/NQ 2,116
Goldrock June 2011 – Oct 2011 8 ARD-09 to ARD-16 Falcon Drilling DDH HQ/NQ 3,124
Goldrock Sep 2012- Jan 2013 13 ARD-17 to ARD-29 Falcon Drilling DDH HQ/NQ 2,983
TOTAL 29 8,851

May 2013
The first campaign was completed by Rio Tinto between April and December 2002. A
total of 628 meters of drilling were completed in two holes.
The second campaign was completed between August and November of 2010 and totaled
2,116.7 m in six drill holes. Drilling was performed by Eco Minera Mining Services,
based in San Juan, Argentina.
Subsequently, the third and fourth campaigns were conducted by Falcon Drilling
Company. The third campaign started in mid 2010 and was completed in October 2011,
the fourth began late in 2012 and was completed in January 2013.
Drilling successfully discovered a moderate to high grade zone of gold mineralization at

shallow depths. A total of 8,851 meters of diamond drilling in 29 holes was completed at
the Arizaro Prospect from April 2002 to January 2013 by Goldrock and Rio Tinto.
Ground conditions were good and core recovery was generally above 90%.
10.3.3 Drilling Method
Core drilling was used from the beginning of the exploration, and produced a good
recovery rate (92.65% on average). Samples were used not only to determine the
distribution of mineralization and alteration in the deposit, but also for lithology, density,
metallurgical and geotechnical tests.
All drill holes were drilled using HQ diameter for the first 300 m, and were subsequently
reduced to NQ (47.6 mm) diameter. This reduction occurred due to the drill rig having
insufficient power to drill HQ (63.5 mm) beyond 300 m. Drill hole depth varies
according to the area and the purpose for which they were collared. The average depth is
200 m and the deepest hole reached a depth of 501.90 m.
Drill holes were generally orientated perpendicular to the mineralization with an east to
west orientation. Dips vary depending on the target and range from -50° to -89°,
averaging -70°. The spacing between drill holes is between 40 m to 50 m at surface and
tends to increase with depth.
Gold mineralization is in disseminated veinlets and true thicknesses were not calculated
for the drill holes as the drill holes were frequently collared in mineralization.

May 2013
10.3.4 Geological Logging Procedures
Lithological Core Logging
The core logging followed the same method as in Lindero Deposit, maintaining the same
log sheet structure. The logging process occurs after core has been cut and sampled, so
as to take advantage of the flat surface of the remaining half core, which permits a better
identification of the lithological characteristics.
Standardized logging forms and geological legends were developed for Arizaro Project.
The geological legend is partly built on historical observations of the local geology. The
logging records for lithologies and structure use alphanumeric codes, whereas a numeric
scale from 1 to 3 defines alteration, veinlets, minerals and oxidation, where 1 = weak, 2 =
moderate and 3 = strong. Unique features not accounted for in the legend are noted under
written comments.
alterations.
Geotechnical Core Logging
The geotechnical logging was designed to collect detailed information. The geologist
recorded the following parameters: core recovery, RQD, rock hardness index, rock
weathering index, frequency fracture, type of fracture, roughness, infilling material and
aperture of fractures. All these data are then used for the geotechnical characterization of
the rock mass of the deposit.

measurements.
10.3.5 Drill Hole Collar Surveys
Drill-hole collars are marked with PVC pipes introduced in the hole at surface and then
cemented. Hole numbers are either sprayed with paint or engraved into the cement
blocks. Metal tags are sometimes used to mark the hole number, depth, orientation and
dip. During the first exploration campaign in 2002 by Connors Drilling, no collar survey

May 2013
was undertaken. Collars have subsequently been picked up where possible.
The holes drilled from 2010 to 2013 as well as the ten holes drilled during the 2002
campaign were surveyed by Servicios Topograficos with a differential GPS. Co-
ordinates are projected on the WGS 84 Datum ellipsoid and calibrated according to the
position of Geodetic point IGM N° PR-02-015, located a few kilometers from the Project.
The results are available in geographic co-ordinates and in metric co-ordinates (UTM and
Gauss Kruger), using the WGS 84 datum.
10.3.6 Down-hole Surveys
During the first Rio Tinto exploration drilling campaign in 2002 by Connors Drilling, no
down-hole survey was undertaken.
C & M S.A Company was contracted to survey the holes drilled by Goldrock. A surface-
recording gyroscopic instrument, produced by Reflex was used, and orientation and dip
parameters were recorded every three to five meters. 93% of the holes were surveyed,
with most of the holes showing little deviation. The two first holes were caved in and
no measurements were collected. Only 10% of drill hole ARD8 was surveyed. At least
90% of the length of the remaining holes were surveyed.

May 2013
Lindero P
Project – NI 43-101 Technical Reporrt Page 10
0-14
Figure
F 10-2
Drilll Location Map
p
Kappes, C
Cassiday & Associiates Section 10 - Drillling
May 20133
N 43-101 Tech
10.4 Drilll Program Conclusio

ons and R
Recommen
ndations
AME EC recommeends that Go oldrock con nstruct a rellational dataabase contaiining all driill
hole information so that impoortant inform
mation relatiing to collarss, down holee surveys annd
core logging
l can be easily ex
xtracted from
m the databasse.
10.5 Com
mments on Section 10
0
The quantity
q andd quality off the litholog
gical, geotecchnical, colllar and dow
wnhole surveey
data collected in
n the exploraation and deelineation coore drill proograms at Liindero are, iin
AME EC‘s opinionn, sufficient to
t support mineral
m resouurce estimation:
• Alll of the driill holes weere drilled uunder Goldrrock management in thhe
perriod 2002–2 2013. Data collection
c dduring these programs w
was collecteed
usiing industry standard praactices;
• Driill orientatio
ons are appro
opriate to thee orientationn of the mineeralization;
• Co
ore logging meets indusstry standardds for explooration of porphyry-stylle
dep
posits;
• Geeotechnical logging
l is su
ufficient to ssupport minneral resourcce estimationn.
The data havee been revieewed by AM MEC with regards to suitability tto
sup
pport detaileed mine planning;
• Coollar surveeys have been perrformed uusing induustry-standarrd
insstrumentation n. Uncertain
nty in collaar locations of drill holles, surveyeed
usiing compasss and tape have
h been inncorporated into subsequuent resourcce
claassification; and
a
• Doownhole surrveys perfo ormed durinng the drilll programss have beeen
perrformed usin
ng industryy-standard innstrumentatiion. Uncertaainties in thhe
dowwnhole locations of the t drill hholes have been incorrporated intto
sub
bsequent resource classiffication.
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Sectiion 10 - Drillin

ng
May 2013
2
11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY
11.1 Introduction
Drilling in 2002 was carried out by Rio Tinto, and included 10 holes totaling 3,277.86 m
of core which were sampled at intervals of 2 m. Sampling was performed by Rio Tinto
personnel. In total, 1,628 samples were collected.
Goldrock drilled 111 diamond drill holes between 2005 and 2008 and collected an
additional 15,492 samples from 31,348 m of core. Samples were collected on 2 m
intervals, and representing 8 kg of rock for HQ core size and 4 kg for NQ core size. All
sampling was undertaken by Goldrock personnel.
Trenches excavated by Goldrock during the 2005 to 2008 period were channel-sampled
with a rock saw every 2 m. Trenches excavated at Arizaro during 2010 to 2011 were
channel sampled or chip sampled.
Based on discussions with Mr. Kesting of Goldrock, and from observations noted while
examining the core and the trenches in the field during the site visit in 2009, it appears
that the sampling was carried out to industry norms, although no sampling was being
carried out during the AMEC site visits.
11.2 Drill Hole Sampling Method
Only core drilling has been conducted at Lindero and core recoveries are generally
greater than 90%. Drill core is laid out for sampling and logging at the core logging
facility at the camp. Sample intervals are marked on the core and depths recorded on the
appropriate box (Figure 11-1).
The first sample of each core hole was marked from the start of core recovery to an
acceptable recovery interval (generally 2 m to 4 m from the surface). The remainder of
the core is marked off at 2 m intervals. The numbering sequence used allows for the
insertion of QA/QC samples.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates 11 Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 11-1
Pho
oto of Drill Core beforee Sampling
Oncee the core waas marked, geotechnical

g l logging waas performedd and then aall cores werre
systemmatically ph
hotographedd within the box. The ccore is then halved usinng a diamonnd
saw. Samples weeigh between n 4 kg and 8 kg. Field dduplicates weere preparedd from quarteer
coress. Samples were collectted in plastiic bags, labeeled and sennt by truck tto the ACMME
Laboratory in Mendoza,
M Arggentina. Th he remainingg half-cores were storedd and entereed
into the
t Lindero camp
c core sttorage wareh
house.
11.3 Tren
nch Sampliing Metho
od Linderoo
The trenches
t werre excavated
d and any loo
ose material was cleanedd off the beddrock. A rocck
saw was
w used to cut a 2 cm- to 3 cm-wid de channel aalong the exxposed bedroock. Samplees
were approximattely four kilograms (baased on voluume calculaations usingg an assumeed
speciific gravity of
o 2.5 g/cm3)).
Field
d duplicates were collectted by takin
ng a second channel sam mple next too the originaal
sampple. Metal taags showing
g the trench number
n and sample num mber were atttached to thhe
bedro
ock exposuree. An exampple of a chan
nnel sample iis shown in F
Figure 11-2..
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates 11 S

Sample Prepaaration, Analyssis and Securiity
May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 11-2
Photo of Channel Saample
ples were collected

Samp c in plastic bag
gs, labeled and sent bby truck too the ACM
ME
Laboratory in Meendoza, Argeentina.
11.4 Tren
nch and Ro
oad-cut Sa
ampling M
Method Arrizaro
The trenches
t werre excavatedd and any looose materiall was cleaned off the beddrock. In thhe
progrrams conduccted in 2000,, samples weere taken annd a rock saw w was used tto cut a 2 cm
m-
to 3 cm-wide channels
c alo
ong the exp posed bedrocck. In moree recent caampaigns, thhe
samppling proceduure was by chip-samplin ng. Samplees were approoximately foour kilogram ms
(baseed on volumee calculation
ns using an assumed
a speccific gravityy of 2.5 g/cm
m3).
Metaal tags showiing the trencch number and

a sample nnumber weree attached too the bedrocck
expossure. Trench
hes in Arizarro did not folllow a QA/Q
QC protocol..

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
11.5 Samp
ple Preparration and
d Assayingg
11.5.1 Lindeero
Rio Tinto,
T 2002–2
2003 (reported in RPA, October 20004)
Half--core samples from drill holes LIID-01 to L

LID-10 weree sent to A
ALS Chemeex
M Argentina,
A for
f sample preparationn. The annalyses werre
perfo
ormed by ALLS Chemex in
i Vancouveer, Canada.
The sample
s prepaaration and assay
a protocols for half- core samplees were:
• Sam
mple dried (when requirred) at 55° C
C;
• Entire sample (4-7 kg) cruushed. Two--stage crushhing: jaw crrush to 1 cm
m,
theen cone crush
h to 75% -10
0 mesh;
• Entire sample pulverized
p to
o 95% -80 m
mesh and bleended;
• Rifffle split to 300
3 g sub-saample. 300 g split pulveerized to 95%
% -150 meshh;
Rifffle split to three 100 g samples;
s andd
• 100
0 g pulp sentt to ALS Ch
hemex Laborratory in Vanncouver, Cannada.
Samp ples were assayed for go old using firre assay withh atomic abssorption (AA
A) finish, annd
for 35 elements using ICP spectrophoto
s ometry. Coppper values above 1.0% % were re-ruun
with AA. The sam mple charge size for firee assay was 330 g. Assayy results werre provided iin
electrronic formatt and in hard
d copy.
Rio Tinto
T includ
ded pulp duuplicates, cooarse duplic ates, blankss and standaard referencce
materrials (SRMss) in the drilll sample su
ubmissions tto the laborratory in ordder to controol
assay
y accuracy and
a precision n. Batches of
o samples were sent ffor check annalyses at thhe
Alex Stewart Laaboratory in n La Serenaa, Chile andd the Bonddar Clegg L Laboratory iin
Canaada.
drock: 2005 to
Goldr t 2008
Core and trench samples weere bagged and then paackaged in larger plastiic sacks witth
plastiic tags and labeled. Saacks were trransported tto ACME L Laboratories in Mendozaa,
Argen ntina. A lisst of samples and sacks were preparred for eachh shipment aand a copy oof
subm
mittal sent forr filing to thee Salta officee.

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
Throuughout the thhree years of

o drilling, Goldrock
G sennt its drill corre and trenchh samples foor
prepaaration to the ACME (IS SO 9001:2000 certified)) laboratory in Mendoza (Argentinaa)
and Santiago
S (Ch
hile) for assaay.
The sample
a protocol for drill samples was as follows:
• Sam
mple dried (when requirred) at 60°C;;
• Entire sample (4–8 kg dep
pending on ccore size) w
was crushed. Jaw crushinng
to 70%
7 -10 meesh;
• Rifffle split of 500
5 g samplee;
• Hoomogenized 500 g split pulverized to 95% -2000 mesh (1500 µm). Riffl
fle
spllit to two 100
0 g samples.. 300 g kept as pulp rejecct; and
• 100
0 g pulp sen
nt for gold fiire assay witth AA finishh and 100 g sent for totaal
cop
pper by AASS to the ACM ME Laboratoory in Santiaago, Chile.
All samples colleected by Go oldrock weree assayed foor gold usingg 30 g fire aassay with aan
AA finish
f and a second aliquuot was selected for totaal copper by aqua regia digestion annd
AA analyses. Assay
A resultss and certifficates weree reported eelectronically by e-maiil.
ACM ME uses interrnationally-aaccepted anaalytical techhniques and SRMs at alll levels of thhe
sampple preparatioon and samp ple assay proocedure to aassure qualitty control. Additionallyy,
the laaboratory checks 12% off all assays by
b duplicate analyses.
Goldrrock includded blanks, SRMs and twin sampples in the drill and trrench samplle
subm
missions to control assayy accuracy and
a precisionn. Batches of samples were sent foor
dupliicate analysees in the Alex
A Stewartt Laboratoryy in Mendooza, Argentina or in L
La
Seren
na, Chile. Additionall check assays were conducted at the A ALS Chemeex
M Arg
gentina.
11.5.2 Ariza
aro
drock: 2010 to
Goldr t 2013
Sampples from the first driilling campaaign core ssample weree sent to A Alex Stewaart
M Arrgentina. Th
he remainingg core sampples were trransported tto
ACMME Laborato ories (ISO 9001:2000
9 certified)
c inn Mendoza, Argentina and Santiaggo
(Chille) for assay..

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
Throu ughout the three

t years of drilling, 4,559
4 core ssamples werre submittedd for analysis
from the 2010-20 012 drilling campaigns. Core and trrench samplees were placced in labeleed
plastiic bags with
h plastic taggs and then n packaged into larger plastic sacks. A list oof
sampples and sackks was prepared for eacch shipment and a copyy of the sam mple submittaal
form was sent forr filing to Go
oldrock’s Saalta office.
The sample
a protocol for the drrill samples w
was:
• Sam
mple dried (when requirred) at 60°C;;
• Entire sample (4–8 kg dep
pending on ccore size) w
was crushed. Jaw crushinng
to 70%
7 -10 meesh;
• Rifffle split of 500
5 g samplee;
• Hoomogenized 500 g split pulverized to 95% -2000 mesh (1500 µm). Riffl
fle
spllit to two 100
0 g samples.. 300 g kept as pulp rejecct; and
• 100
0 g pulp sen
nt for gold fiire assay witth AA finishh and 100 g sent for totaal
cop
pper by AASS.
All saamples colleected by Golldrock were assayed forr gold using a 30 g fire aassay with aan
AA finish
f and a second aliquuot was seleected for coppper analysis by aqua reegia digestioon
and AAA analysess. Assay ressults and cerrtificates weere reported electronicallly by e-maiil.
Alex Stewart and d ACME usee internationnally-accepteed analyticall techniques and SRMs aat
vels of the sample
all lev s prepaaration and sample
s assayy procedure to assure quuality controol.
Addittionally, the laboratory checks
c 12% of all assayss by duplicatte analyses.
Goldrrock includeed blanks, SRMs

S and tw
win samples in the drill sampling suubmissions tto
contrrol assay acccuracy andd precision. Batches oof samples were sent for duplicatte
analy
yses in the Alex
A Stewarrt Laboratorry in Mendooza, Argentiina or the A
ALS Chemeex
Laboratory in La Serena, Chiile or ACME E laboratoriees.
All laboratories
l are indepen
ndent of Goldrock, annd have inteernational aaccreditationns.
Samp ple security has
h relied uppon the fact that the sam
mples were aalways lockeed in the corre
faciliity. Chain-off-custody pro
ocedures connsisted of fillling out sam
mple submitttal forms thaat
were sent to the laboratory with
w sample shipments tto make certtain that all ssamples werre
receiv ved by the laaboratory.

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
11.6 Bulk
k Density/S
Specific Gravity
11.6.1 Lindeero
Goldrrock conduccted bulk deensity measu urements on 841 samplees. Sampless consisted oof
piecees of core over 7 cm in leength and weeighing betw
ween 108 g aand 402 g.
Bulk density meaasurements were

w conduccted on diffeerent intrusivve rocks reppresenting orre
and waste,
w oxide and sulfide mineralizattion, and froom sedimentts. The methhod used waas
the American
A Staandard Testiing Materialls (ASTM) M Method C977. This metthod involvees
weighhing a dried
d sample of core, immerrsing it in w water to fill ppore spaces,, and then ree-
weighhing the corre in both aiir and waterr. Howeveer, the methood can overeestimate bullk
densiity when the rock is poro
ous.
A waax-coating, water
w immerrsion methodd (ASTM C C914) was coonducted onn 840 samplees
by Goldrock stafff so as to chheck the resuults obtainedd with ASTMM C97. Gooldrock founnd
the in
nitial measuurements to beb reliable, except for ooxidized pieeces of rockk, which gavve
differrent results when comp pared to thee first methhods. The checking prrocedure waas
condu ucted as folllows:
• Sam
mple waxing
g;
• Sam
mple weightting when drry; and
• Im
mmersion of waxed
w samp
ples in waterr, and weighhing using a plastic strinng
hannging from the
t balance and
a connectted to the sam mples, so the samples arre
weeighed in the water.
The bulk
b density (BD) was caalculated usiing the folloowing formuula:
BD = (dry weigh
ht)/(dry weigh
ht – immersed weight)
In ord
der to verify
y the results obtained, Goldrock
G conntracted ACM
ME laboratoories to checck
the BD
B measureements on 148 1 selected d core sampples. The ttests perform
med used thhe
stand
dard certified
d wax-coated d techniques.

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
11.6.2 Ariza
aro
Goldrrock conduccted bulk deensity measu urements on 493 samplees. Sampless consisted oof
piecees of core over an averag
ge of 7 cm in
n length and weighing beetween 93 g and 408 g.
Bulk density meaasurements werew conduccted on diffeerent intrusivve rocks reppresenting orre
and waste,
w oxide and sulfide mineralizattion, and froom sedimentts. The methhod used waas
the American
A Staandard Testiing Materialls (ASTM) M Method C977. This metthod involvees
weigh hing a driedd sample of core, immerrsing it in wwater to fill ppore spaces,, and then ree-
weigh hing the corre in both aiir and waterr. Howeveer, the methood can overeestimate bullk
densiity when the rock is poroous. Goldro ock intends too send 20% of the sampples to ACM ME
laborratories to ch
heck the bulkk density meeasurementss with a waxx-coated watter-immersioon
techn
nique.
Results are still being

b interp
preted as thee measuremeents at the A
ACME laborratory are noot
yet co
omplete.
11.7 Com
mments on Section 11
1
In AM
MEC‘s opinion, the sam mple preparattion, assay, aand securityy procedures employed bby
Goldrrock at the Lindero dep posit are apppropriate forr the style oof mineralization and thhe
commmodities of in
nterest, and are suitable to support m
mineral resouurce estimation:
• Sam
mple preparration for core
c and treench samples has folloowed similaar
pro
ocedures thro
oughout the Project explloration histoory;
• Preeparation proocedures aree in accordaance with inddustry-standdard methodds,
andd are suitable for the dep
posit style;
• A QA/QC prrogram com mprising blaank, standarrd and crosss laboratorry
dup plicate samp ples has beeen used onn the Projeect since thhe 2002 driill
proogram. QA/QC submisssion rates m meet industrry-accepted standards oof
inssertion rates;
• Cuurrent sample storage prrocedures annd storage aareas are coonsistent witth
ind
dustry standaards;
• ore handling protocols ob
Co bserved by A
AMEC meet industry staandards;
• Co
ore handling facilities arre suitable ffor the loggiing and sam
mpling of driill
corre;

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
• Daata are colleccted followin

ng Project-appproved sam
mpling protoccols;
• Sammpling has been perfformed in aaccordance with indusstry standarrd
praactices;
• Sam
mple intervaals of 2 m are typical of sample interrvals used inn the industryy,
and
d are conssidered to adequately represent the variabbility of thhe
min
neralization;;
• Arcchived sawn
n drill core has
h been adeqquately storeed;
• Coore sampling protocolss are adeqquate to suupport mineeral resourcce
esttimation; and
d
• Treench sampliing at Lindeero has beenn performedd using induustry-standarrd
praactices and samples are adequate
a to ssupport mineeral resourcee estimation.

May 2013
2
12.0 DATA VERIFICATION
During 2009, AMEC completed a database audit of the Lindero Project data used to
support Mineral Resource estimation at Lindero. AMEC have not verified data from
subsequent exploration campaigns on the Lindero Project.
12.1 Database Audit
The Lindero Project data are stored in a series of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and
MapInfo tables. AMEC imported the collars, assay, survey and lithology tables into
Access to perform an audit of the digital database. The audit consisted of checking the
digital data against source documents to ensure correct data entry as well as data integrity
checks (checking for overlapping intervals, data beyond total depth of hole, etc.).
12.2 Collar and Down-hole Surveys
AMEC checked all collar and down-hole survey information for each campaign against
source documentation. In addition, AMEC completed a hand-held GPS survey of 18 drill
hole collars and four trench collars. The results show a good agreement with locations in
the database. The differences in location are less than 10 m with the exception of the
collar of trench LIN13-S. The location of the starting point of the trench may have been
obscured by access road construction.
In total there are 14 drill holes with a compass and tape collar survey. All of the trenches
were surveyed using either a hand-held GPS unit or compass and tape. Goldrock has
examined a high resolution Quickbird satellite image showing trench locations on the
ground. Trenches with locations which do not agree with the Quickbird image have been
modified to fit the locations shown on the Quickbird image.
A study of down-hole deviations based upon the down-hole surveys was undertaken by
AMEC to determine whether unsurveyed drill holes or drill holes surveyed using the
Maxibor instrument should be adjusted. A summary of collar surveys and down-hole
surveys is shown in Table 12-1.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 12 – Data Verification

May 2013
Table 12-1
Summary of Collar and Down-hole Surveys
Number of Drill
Collar Survey Holes
DGPS 107
Compass and Tape 14
Maxibor 50
Gyroscopic 53
No Survey 18
AMEC used the first and last down-hole survey of each drill hole to calculate a total,
accumulated azimuth and dip deviation. Vertical deviations in the dip of the drill holes as
measured by Maxibor and gyroscope surveys are very similar.
Horizontal deviations in the azimuth of the drill holes, however, are different. The
gyroscopic survey measurements show that 45 out of 53 drill holes (85%) deviated in a
clockwise direction (i.e. following the rotation of the drill rod) while Maxibor
measurements show 26 out of 50 drill holes (52%) deviating in an anti-clockwise
direction.
In order to evaluate the risk associated with the Maxibor surveys, AMEC constructed a
model using gyroscopic down hole surveys with a clockwise azimuth deviation. Each
drill hole with a Maxibor survey was then evaluated against the model in order to
determine the down hole depth at which the horizontal deviation became greater than 10
m in either the easting or northing direction. Results show that a total of 15 drill holes
had horizontal deviations of greater than 10 m at down-hole depths ranging from 150 m
to 490 m.
The depth intervals of those drill holes with excessive horizontal deviations were flagged
and were subsequently considered during resource classification.
The drill holes and trenches with hand-held GPS or compass and tape-type collar surveys
were subsequently considered during resource classification.

May 2013
12.3 Drill Logs
AMEC examined the lithological contacts between the different intrusive rock types on
selected core from 13 drill holes (representing over 10% of the total number of drill
holes) defined by Goldrock on the site visit. AMEC found one error in drill hole LDH-
81, where the intrusive contact between the CPD2 and PMI rock types had not been
identified by Goldrock. Generally, AMEC agrees with the lithological contacts as logged
by Goldrock.
12.4 Assays
Rio Tinto Drilling Campaign
No assay certificates are available from the Rio Tinto drill campaigns. The data are
contained in an Excel spreadsheet. AMEC has therefore not verified the assay data
against source documentation. The lack of assay certificates for the drill holes from the
Rio Tinto drilling campaign has been considered during resource classification.
Goldrock Drilling Campaign
AMEC checked a total of 15,371 assays out of a total of 17,118 assays (representing 92%
of the database) against source documentation. AMEC found a total of 89 assays which
showed differences between the values shown in the assay certificate and in the database.
The error rate in the database is 0.6% which is considered acceptable. AMEC considers
databases with an error rate below 1% to have acceptable accuracy for supporting mineral
resource estimation.
AMEC has considered the lack of supporting assay certificates during resource
classification.
Independent Sampling
AMEC selected 20 quarter-core sample intervals from half core to confirm the presence
of gold mineralization. Upon collection, samples were under the custody of Mr. Thomas,
who personally delivered the samples to a courier in Salta for transport to ALS Chemex‘s
laboratory in La Serena, Chile. The samples were fire assayed with an AA finish.

May 2013
Assay results and the original assays are presented in Table 12-2.
Table 12-2
AMEC Independent Sampling Results
AMEC Goldrock
Original ALS Au ACME Au
Drill Hole From To Sample Length g/t g/t
LDH-38 30 32 501657 2 0.152 0.114
LDH-38 32 34 501659 2 0.288 0.211
LDH-38 34 36 501660 2 0.647 0.384
LDH-38 36 38 501661 2 0.870 0.598
LDH-38 38 40 501662 2 1.590 1.101
LDH-38 260 262 501785 2 0.509 0.394
LDH-38 262 264 501786 2 0.798 1.033
LDH-38 264 266 501787 2 0.626 0.531
LDH-38 266 268 501788 2 0.290 0.235
LDH-38 268 270 501789 2 0.448 0.365
LDH-71 180 182 506683 2 1.650 1.241
LDH-71 182 184 506684 2 1.070 1.413
LDH-71 184 186 506686 2 0.098 1.815
LDH-71 186 188 506687 2 0.032 1.471
LDH-71 188 190 506688 2 0.029 0.479
LDH-41 136 138 502278 2 0.840 0.866
LDH-41 138 140 502279 2 0.213 0.182
LDH-41 140 142 502280 2 0.148 0.128
LDH-41 142 144 502281 2 0.108 0.095
LDH-41 144 146 502282 2 0.095 0.081
The results of AMEC‘s independent samples agree reasonably well with the original
sample assays with the exception of the assays from LDH-71. The samples from LDH-
71 were taken across a sharp change in gold grade observed in the original assays at a
hole depth of 188 m. In AMEC‘s independent samples the contact appears to have been
transposed up the drill hole to a down-hole depth of 184 m.
AMEC considers quarter-core duplicates to have poorer sampling precision when

compared with half core, and that significant variability in assay grades should be
expected. The level of agreement obtained in Table 12-2 is on par with that observed for
the field duplicates (re-sawn quarter core) that were routinely included in drill sample

May 2013
submissions. The AMEC values confirm the presence of gold mineralization at the
Project, and confirm that gold grades above 1 g/t Au can be expected.
12.5 Bulk Density/Specific Gravity
AMEC reviewed the results of the ACME specific gravity measurements and compared
them with Goldrock‘s specific gravity measurements.
A consistent low bias was observed in the Goldrock results. AMEC performed regression
analysis to correct the wax-coated measurements made by Goldrock. The equation used
to correct the low bias is:
Y= 0.9726X + 0.1067
Where Y is the Goldrock density and X is the ACME density.
12.6 Core Recovery
No core recovery data exist for the drill holes from the Rio Tinto drill campaign.
During the Goldrock drill campaigns the overall core recovery averaged 93%. AMEC
examined the database for evidence of intervals with lowered recoveries by calculating
average recoveries by lithology and within the oxidation zone. The results show that
recoveries within the oxidation zone are significantly lower with an average of 84% core
recovery.
In order to check for trends in the gold grade with changes in core recovery, AMEC
plotted scatter plots of core recovery against gold grade by lithology and by oxidation
zone. The scatter plots generally show trends of increasing gold grade with decreasing
recovery, which would usually indicate positive bias in gold grades caused by the loss of
unmineralized or low grade portions of the drill core during drilling.
AMEC also created scatter plots of elevation against gold grade and elevation against
recovery. The plots show that there is a trend of increasing gold grade with increasing
elevation and a trend of decreasing recovery with increasing elevation. AMEC removed

May 2013
the trend of decreasing recovery with elevation by making scatter plots of core recovery
against gold grade within 50 m elevation swaths from 3,800 m to 3,950 m elevation. The
results show that there is no evidence of a positive bias in gold grades associated with
decreasing core recoveries.
12.7 Assay QA/QC
12.7.1 Rio Tinto, 2002–2003
QA/QC procedures and protocols used by Rio Tinto in the sampling of the first drilling
campaign are described in a report compiled by Rio Tinto (Ruiz,et al., 2003) for
Goldrock.
The Rio Tinto report states that 2,036 samples were sent from both the Lindero and
Arizaro prospects for analysis. Samples were sent first to the ALS Chemex laboratory in
Mendoza for crushing, pulverizing and splitting. One coarse duplicate (taken after cone
crushing to 75% passing -10 mesh) and one pulp duplicate (taken from a split at the end
of pulverization, 95% passing -150 mesh) were inserted in every 30 samples with the
objective of checking for splitting or laboratory errors. Samples were randomized.
Independent checks assays were carried out using Alex Stewart in Chile, and Bondar
Clegg in Canada. Copper-gold and gold SRMs and blank samples were inserted at the
rate of one in every 20 samples.
No documentation is available describing the origin of the blank material or the

certification of the SRMs.
AMEC reviewed the QA/QC procedures and evaluated the QA/QC data consisting of
blanks, pulp duplicates, coarse duplicates, check assays and SRMs. Insertion rates for
these QA/QC samples are considered acceptable with the exception of the coarse
duplicates and are shown in Table 12-3.

May 2013
Table 12-3
Summary of QA/QC Samples, Rio Tinto Campaign
Sample Type Number Insertion Rate
Samples 1628 ---
Total QA/QC 408 25%
Blanks 84 5%
Pulp Duplicates 84 5%
Coarse Duplicates 22 1%
SRMs 54 3%
Checks 164 10%
Total 2036 ---
Blanks
The ALS blank analyses for the 2002–2003 drilling campaign are considered acceptable.
Only one sample out of 84 contained a gold assay greater than five times the analytical
detection limit.
SRM Samples
Rio Tinto used two SRMs, R1 and R2, with recommended values of 0.176 g/t Au and
1.238 g/t Au respectively. No documentation is available which states whether the SRMs
were certified or not.
Check Assays
Rio Tinto sent samples for check assays to the Alex Stewart laboratory in La Serena,
Chile and Bondar Clegg in Canada. Samples were selected with grades more than 0.90
g/t gold and 500 ppm copper. The results of the analyses show a negative bias in the
ALS assays compared to the results of the other laboratories. This negative bias is at
least partially caused by the selection of samples based upon grades. The ALS assays
have a fixed lower limit while the check assays can be lower in grade. This is known as a
selection bias.
Coarse Duplicates
Precision for coarse duplicate samples was acceptable for the gold assays. AMEC
calculated ALS Chemex assay precision to be ±13.9% for gold at the 90th percentile.

May 2013
AMEC considers coarse duplicate assays to be acceptably precise if 90% of the assays
show less than 20% absolute relative difference (|pair difference| ÷ pair mean).
Pulp Duplicates
AMEC calculated ALS Chemex assay precision to be ±31% for gold at the 90th
percentile. AMEC considers pulp duplicate assays to be acceptably precise if 90% of the
assays show less than 10% absolute relative difference (|pair difference| ÷ pair mean). For
gold deposits, this precision is often not achieved. However AMEC considers the assay
precision for the Rio Tinto drill campaign to be marginal.
12.7.2 Goldrock: 2005 to 2008
QA/QC procedures were implemented throughout the drill programs, and included
SRMs, blanks, field duplicates and check samples. A total of 1,872 quality control
samples were inserted into the total sample stream of 15,492 drill core samples submitted
to the ACME laboratories in Mendoza, Argentina and ACME in Santiago, Chile. This
represents 12.8% of the sample stream.
For drill holes LDH-11 to LDH-74, a SRM, a field duplicate and a blank were inserted in
each batch of 30 samples. Cross-laboratory check assays were performed on pulp sample
material, samples were collected every 10 samples. Two 100 g samples were split from
the original pulp sample, and one sent to Alex Stewart Laboratory in Mendoza,
Argentina, the other to the ALS Chemex Laboratory in Mendoza (Argentina) and to La
Serena (Chile) for assay. Assaying at Alex Stewart and ALS Chemex used a 50 g gold
fire assay with an AA finish.
For drill holes LDH-75 to LDH-116, a SRM, a field duplicate and a blank were inserted
in every batch of 20 samples. Goldrock reduced the number of samples in each batch to
obtain more confidence in the results. Check assays were collected the same way as for
holes LDH-11 to LDH-74, with one pulp for every 10 samples, and sent to the same
reference laboratories.
Three different groups of SRMs were used for the Lindero Project. The first group
consisted of three SRMs of different grades which are representative of the
mineralization at the Lindero deposit, and were used during the sampling of holes LDH-

May 2013
11 to LDH-33. These SRMs were certified by ACME laboratories in Santiago, Chile.
Sampling of drill holes LDH-34 to LDH-39 used four SRMs obtained from Silex (a
subsidiary company of Apex Silver); however, no documentation exists of the certified
accepted best values.
The final group of SRMs was certified by Alex Stewart Argentina (ASA) in Mendoza
and consisted of four different SRMs and was used during the sampling of drill holes
LDH-40 to LDH-116.
For drill holes LDH-75 to LDH-116, field duplicates were collected at a frequency of no
less than 15 samples. The half cores were sawed to quarter-core and stored in bags, with
different labels to the regular samples, and then inserted in the sampling stream.
Trench samples from the 2005 to 2006 exploration campaign were submitted along with
blanks, field duplicates, and standards inserted in each batch of 30 samples. No check
assay analyses were performed on the original trench sample assays.
An intrusive granodiorite was used as a blank. Rock samples were collected

systematically at an intrusive batholith outcrop next to the road to the Lindero property.
The rock samples were broken in a plastic basin so as to avoid contamination from local
soils or pebbles. Only homogeneous pieces of rocks were kept, by removing oxidized
surfaces for instance. Finally blank samples were bagged, labeled, and inserted in the
sampling stream.
12.7.3 2005–2006 Drill Campaign (LDH-11 to LDH-21)
During the 2005–2006 Goldrock drill campaign a total of 270 QA/QC samples were
inserted into the sample analysis submissions along with 1,787 regular samples, resulting
in an overall insertion rate of 15.1%. A summary of the QA/QC samples is shown in
Table 12-4.

May 2013
Table 12-4
Summary of QA/QC Samples 2005–2006 Campaign
Regular Samples 1,787
QA/QC Total 270 15.11%
Blanks 59 3.30%
Field Duplicates 59 3.30%
Standards 60 4.98%
Check Assays 92 5.15%
Total 2,107
AMEC considers the overall rate of insertion of QA/QC samples to be acceptable.
SRM Samples
Goldrock used three SRMs (prepared and certified by ACME) during the 2005–2006
drilling at Lindero. The documentation to support ACME‘s certification of the SRMs is
incomplete. For evaluation of the SRMs, AMEC prepared control charts for each, as well
as an accuracy plot. A summary of the performance of each SRM is shown in Table 12-5.
Table 12-5
2005–2006 ACME SRM Sample Analyses
Best ACME
Standard Number Number Value Mean
ID Samples Outliers Au g/t Au g/t Bias%
STD 1 ACME 47 0 0.984 0.983 -0.1 %
STD 2 ACME 16 0 0.548 0.526 -4.0%
STD 3 ACME 26 0 0.343 0.363 5.9%
Overall, the bias is 1.0% for the SRMs during the 2005–2006 campaign. On the basis of
these results, AMEC concludes that the accuracy of the ACME laboratory during the
2005–2006 drill campaign was within acceptable ranges.
Check Assays
No SRMs or pulp duplicates were included in the check assay dispatches to control assay
accuracy and precision at the secondary check laboratories.
AMEC found the gold assays from the ACME assays to be biased low by -7% based

May 2013
upon the comparison of ACME assays with the ALS Chemex check assays.
A small high bias was observed in the Alex Stewart check assays (+4.4%).
The results of the check assay analyses do not show any evidence of systematic bias.
Blanks
The ACME blank analyses for the 2005–2006 drilling campaign are considered
acceptable. Only one sample out of 59 contained a gold assay greater than five times the
analytical detection limit.
Quarter-Core Twin Samples
Precision for quarter-core duplicate samples was unacceptably high for the gold assays.
AMEC calculated ACME assay precision to be ±95.9% for gold at the 90th percentile.
AMEC considers quarter-core duplicate assays to be acceptably precise if 90% of the
assays show less than 30% absolute relative difference (|pair difference| ÷ pair mean).
Cross-laboratory Pulp Duplicates
The Goldrock QA/QC program is lacking in pulp duplicate analyses performed at the
same laboratory using the same analytical procedures. As a substitute, AMEC used the
check assays to evaluate precision. The precision values obtained are a combination of
analytical, pulp sub-sampling and between laboratory variances. As such it is to be
expected that the precision is somewhat lower than same laboratory duplicates analyzed
under the same conditions as the original samples.
AMEC calculated ACME to ALS Chemex assay precision to be ±24.7% for gold at the
90th percentile. Precision for the ACME to Alex Stewart was found to be ±28.5%.
AMEC considers pulp duplicate assays to be acceptably precise if 90% of the assays
show less than 10% absolute relative difference (|pair difference| ÷ pair mean). For gold
deposits this precision is often not achieved. AMEC considers this level of precision to
be acceptable for cross-laboratory pulp duplicates.

May 2013
12.7.4 2006 Drill Campaign (LDH-22 to LDH-38)
During the 2006 Goldrock drill campaign a total of 544 QA/QC samples were inserted
into the sample stream, together with 2,791 regular samples, resulting in an overall
insertion rate of 19.5%. A summary of the QA/QC samples is shown in Table 12-6.
Table 12-6
Summary of QA/QC Samples 2006 Campaign
Samples 2,791
QA/QC 544 19.49%
Blanks 108 3.87%
Duplicates 99 3.55%
Standards 45 1.61%
Checks 290 10.39%
Total 3,437
AMEC considers the overall rate of insertion of QA/QC samples to be acceptable.
SRM Samples
Goldrock used two of the same SRMs (prepared and certified by ACME) as those used
during the 2005–2006 drilling at Lindero. AMEC did not consider the SRMs obtained
from Silex, as no documentation exists of the certified accepted best values. For
evaluation of the SRMs, AMEC prepared control charts for each, as well as an accuracy
plot. A summary of the performance of each SRM is shown in Table 12-7.
Table 12-7
2006 ACME SRM Sample Analyses
Standard Number Number Best Value ACME Mean
STD 2 ACME 9 0 0.548 0.529 -3.5%
STD 3 ACME 35 1 0.352 0.351 -0.2%
The overall bias cannot be calculated as there are only two SRMs from which to derive
the slope of the linear best fit line. Based on the results for the individual SRMs, AMEC
concludes that the accuracy of the ACME laboratory during the 2005–2006 drill
campaign was within acceptable ranges.

May 2013
Check Assays
AMEC found the gold assays from the ACME assays to be biased low by -2% based
upon the comparison of ACME assays with the ALS Chemex check assays. A low bias
was also observed in the Alex Stewart check assays (-6.2%).
Assay biases between laboratories are common up to 5%, but biases that are >10% are
generally not. AMEC therefore consider the check assay results to be acceptable.
Blanks
The ACME blank analyses for the 2006 drilling campaign are considered acceptable.
Only two samples out of 102 samples contained a gold assay greater than five times the
analytical detection limit.
Quarter-core Twin Samples
Gold assay precision for quarter-core duplicate samples was marginal. AMEC calculated
ACME assay precision to be ±42.1% for gold at the 90th percentile. AMEC considers
quarter-core duplicate assays to be acceptably precise if 90% of the assays show less than
30% absolute relative difference (|pair difference| ÷ pair mean).
AMEC used the check assays to evaluate precision. The precision values obtained are a
combination of analytical, pulp sub-sampling and between laboratory variances. As such
it is to be expected that the precision is somewhat lower than same laboratory duplicates
analyzed under the same conditions as the original samples.
90th percentile. Precision for the ACME to Alex Stewart was found to be ±21.2%.
AMEC considers pulp duplicate assays to be acceptably precise if 90% of the assays
show less than 10% absolute relative difference (|pair difference| ÷ pair mean). For gold
deposits this precision is often not achieved. AMEC considers this level of precision to

May 2013
be acceptable for cross-laboratory pulp duplicates.
12.7.5 2006 to Early 2007 Drill Campaign (LDH-39 to LDH-86)
During the 2006 Goldrock drill campaign a total of 1,762 QA/QC samples were inserted
into the sample analysis stream, together with 7,468 regular samples, resulting in an
overall insertion rate of 23.6%. A summary of the QA/QC samples is shown in 12-8.
Table 12-8
Summary of QA/QC Sample 2006 – 2007 Campaign
Samples 7,468
QAQC 1,762 23.6%
Blanks 316 4.2%
Duplicates 322 4.3%
Standards 307 4.1%
Checks 817 10.9%
Total 9,230
For the 2006 to early 2007 drilling campaign, AMEC considers the overall rate of
insertion of QA/QC samples to be acceptable.
SRM Samples
Goldrock used four SRMs (prepared and certified by Alex Stewart Laboratories) during
the 2006 to early 2007drilling at Lindero. Recommended values for gold were
determined using six repeat analyses conducted by ACME, ALS Chemex, Alex Stewart
and OMAC laboratories. AMEC considers Goldrock‘s manner of determining the
recommended value of the SRMs to be substandard in relation to industry-best practices.
AMEC recommends that a SRM value be determined by assaying at a minimum of five
separate laboratories.
For evaluation of the SRMs, AMEC prepared control charts for each, as well as an
accuracy plot. A summary of the performance of each SRM is shown in Table 12-9.

May 2013
Table 12-9
2006-2007 Alex Stewart SRM Analyses
Standard Number Number Best Value ACME Mean
STD 1 ASA 76 5 0.351 0.345 -1.7%
STD 2 ASA 80 4 0.534 0.528 -1.1%
STD 3 ASA 74 2 1.059 1.034 -2.3%
STD 4 ASA 74 3 4.770 4.744 -0.5%
Overall, there is no measurable bias in the analyses of the SRMs during the 2006 to early
2007 campaign. AMEC concludes that the accuracy of the ACME laboratory during the
2006 to early 2007 drill campaign was within acceptable ranges.
Check Assays
The gold assays from the ALS Chemex check assays show no measurable bias compared
to the ACME assays. A low bias was observed in the Alex Stewart check assays (-4.4%).
Assay biases between laboratories are common up to 5%, but biases greater than 10% are
not. AMEC therefore considers the check assay results to be acceptable.
Blanks
The ACME blank analyses for the 2006 to early 2007 drilling campaign are considered
acceptable. Only four samples out of 308 samples contained a gold assay greater than
5 times the analytical detection limit.
ACME assay precision to be ±34% for gold at the 90th percentile. AMEC considers

May 2013
AMEC used the check assays to evaluate precision. The precision values obtained are a
combination of analytical, pulp sub-sampling and between laboratory variances. As such
it is to be expected that the precision is somewhat lower than same laboratory duplicates
analyzed under the same conditions as the original samples.
90th percentile. Precision for ACME to Alex Stewart was found to be ±22.1%. AMEC
considers pulp duplicate assays to be acceptably precise if 90% of the assays show less
than 10% absolute relative difference (|pair difference| ÷ pair mean). For gold deposits
this precision is often not achieved. AMEC considers this level of precision to be
acceptable for cross- laboratory pulp duplicates.
12.7.6 Late 2007 to Early 2008 Drill Campaign (LDH-87 to LDH-116)
During the 2007–2008 Goldrock drill campaign a total of 1,065 QA/QC samples were
inserted into the sample analysis stream, together with 3,677 regular samples, resulting in
an overall insertion rate of 29%.
A summary of the QA/QC samples is shown in Table 12-10.
Table 12-10
Summary of QA/QC Sample Analyses 2007–2008 Campaign
Samples 3,677
QA/QC 1,065 29.0%
Blanks 216 5.9%
Duplicates 216 5.9%
Standards 217 5.9%
Checks 416 11.3%
Total 4,742
For the late 2007 to early 2008 drilling campaign, the insertion rate for the QA/QC
samples was acceptable.
SRM Samples
Goldrock used the same four SRMs (prepared and certified by Alex Stewart
Laboratories) during the late 2007 to early 2008 drilling program at Lindero.

May 2013
For evaluation of the SRMs, AMEC prepared control charts for each, as well as an
accuracy plot. A summary of the performance of each SRM is shown in Table 12-11.
Table 12-11
2007–2008 Alex Stewart SRM Analyses
Best ACME
Standard Number Number Value Mean
ID Samples Outliers Au g/t Au g/t Bias
STD 1 ASA 51 0 0.351 0.346 -1.3%
STD 2 ASA 55 0 0.534 0.532 -0.4%
STD 3 ASA 52 1 1.059 1.035 -2.2%
STD 4 ASA 55 0 4.770 4.744 -1.1%
Overall there is a bias of -1.1% in the analyses of the SRMs during the late 2007 to early
2008 campaign. AMEC concludes that the accuracy of the ACME laboratory during the
late 2007 to early 2008 drill campaign was within acceptable ranges.
Check Assays
AMEC found the gold assays show no measurable bias between the ACME assays and
the ALS Chemex check assays.
A small high bias was observed in the Alex Stewart check assays (+4.6%).
The results of the check assay analyses do not show any evidence of systematic bias.
Blanks
The ACME blank analyses for the 2007 to early 2008 drilling campaign are considered
acceptable. Only three samples out of 216 samples contained a gold assay greater than
five times the analytical detection limit.

May 2013
ACME assay precision to be ±34% for gold at the 90th percentile. AMEC considers
AMEC used the check assays to evaluate precision as a substitute for true pulp duplicate
analyses. The precision values obtained are a combination of analytical, pulp sub-
sampling and between laboratory variances. As such it is to be expected that the
precision is somewhat lower than same laboratory duplicates analyzed under the same
conditions as the original samples.
90th percentile. Precision for the ACME to Alex Stewart pulp duplicates was found to be
±13.9%. AMEC considers this level of precision to be acceptable for cross-laboratory
pulp duplicates.
Comparison of Trench Channel Samples with Drill Holes
Previous workers on the Lindero deposit have identified a possible high bias in the assay
results of trenches when compared with drill holes.
AMEC selected trench samples within a 20 m horizontal radius and a 15 m vertical radius
of drill hole samples. AMEC calculated summary statistics and made a quantile-quantile
(Q-Q) plot of the two subsets of data. The results shown in Table 12-12 demonstrate that
there is no statistical difference between the sample types. As a result of the comparison,
AMEC is of the opinion that the channels samples are suitable to support mineral
resource estimation.

May 2013
Table 12-12
Summary Statistics, Comparison of Trenches with Drill Holes
Trenches Drill Holes
Au g/t Au g/t
Minimum 0.01 0.01
Maximum 3.06 3.03
Mean 0.50 0.051
Median 0.26 0.23
Std. Deviation 0.60 0.64
CV 1.22 1.25
Count 174 144
12.8 Recommendations Arising from 2009 AMEC Data Verification
AMEC recommends that Goldrock compile and maintain a relational database for the
Lindero Project which contains all collar, assay, survey, and lithology information. The
QA/QC data and analyses form an important component of the Project database and these
data should also be maintained in a relational database.
AMEC recommends that drill holes and trenches lacking in surveyed collar coordinates
are surveyed wherever possible and that the original surveyor‘s records are stored.
AMEC recommends that drill holes with Maxibor surveys which show significant
amounts of deviation compared to gyroscopic surveys should be re-surveyed with the
gyroscopic instrument.
The certification of SRMs is an important component of quality control monitoring of

sample assaying, therefore AMEC recommends that Goldrock carefully document the
certification of all SRMs in use at the Lindero Project.
AMEC recommends that Goldrock submit QA/QC samples with dispatches of check
assays to control the accuracy and precision of the check assays.
AMEC recommends that in subsequent drilling campaigns Goldrock submit coarse

duplicate sample splits and pulp duplicate sample splits to the ACME laboratory
for re-analysis.

May 2013
In AMEC‘s opinion, the data verification programs undertaken on the data collected from
the Project up to 2009 support the geological interpretations, and the analytical and
database quality, and therefore the data can support mineral resource estimation. Data
gathered subsequently have not been independently verified by AMEC.

May 2013
Lindero Feasibility Study Page 13-1
13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL

TESTING
13.1 Introduction
This section describes the metallurgical testwork undertaken with samples of the Lindero
ore, as well as key results from the testwork, trends and heap leaching parameter
selection. Five phases of testwork were considered as well as a final battery of tests
completed last year on the oxide material to be used as the coarse crushed over liner
material. In addition to the metallurgical testwork, the mineralogical characteristics and
ore crushing parameters are described in this section. Finally the description for the
production model used in the cash flow is also included.
13.2 Summary Recoveries and Leaching Parameters
The following tables show a summary of the recovery and leach parameters that have
been selected thus far:
Table 13-1
Project Heap Leach Recoveries
Item Gold Recovery (%)
Gold Recovery, average LOM 68
Met Type 1 (fresh) 68
Met Type 2 (oxides) 74
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 13 – Mineral Processing & Metallurgical Testing
May 2013
Table 13-2
Heap Leaching Parameter design criteria
Parameter Value Unit
Particle Size, nominal (p80) 9 mm
Bulk Density (dry basis) 1.75 t/m³
Irrigation Rate, nominal 10 L/m2/h
Heap Height 10 m
Primary Leach Cycle 60 days
Secondary Leach Cycle 180 days*
Cyanide Concentration 250 ppm
Cyanide Consumption 0.45 kg/t
Lime Consumption 2.50 kg/t
Moisture Content 1.5 %
*Note: Secondary leach cycle is one week on leach/two weeks off
13.3 Testwork Programs
The first metallurgical tests were performed by Rio Tinto in 2000-2002, who conducted
testwork on oxide and fresh (hypogene) sample material from trenches and drill holes
(Lakefield, 2000). The testwork comprised a series of gravity separation, cyanidation,
and flotation tests. Lakefield concluded from the metallurgical testing that Lindero ores
were amenable to cyanidation.
Kappes Cassiday and Associates (KCA) then performed a series of tests in behalf of
Mansfield Minera S.A. Independent Quality Assurance was performed by Chemex and
certificates of assay quality are included in the testwork reports. The samples from this
testwork were located according to the map in Figure 13-1. The integrity of each sample
was ensured by American Gold Silver Associates (AAAA). The testwork was divided
into five separate “phases” (Phase I, II, III,.IV, and V).
13.3.1 Phase I: October 2004
The testwork was completed on composite oxide cores, fresh cores and oxide trench
material (see Section 13.4 Sampling). Sample sizes received by KCA for each composite
were 72 kg, 112 kg and 77 kg respectively. The purpose of these tests was to confirm
amenability to leaching, especially heap leaching and to test different sample sizes.
Samples were sent directly to the KCA laboratories for crushing. Bottle Rolls Leach tests
May 2013
at various crush sizes (from pulverized to 25 mm ranges) were performed as well as three
column tests (1.5 m high x 15 cm diameter) on the composites in order to define leaching
parameters, including recoveries.
13.3.2 Phase II: August 2006
Testwork was completed on various samples (oxides and fresh samples) as per Table 13-
3. Primary crushing was completed at Salta University, overseen by AAAA and
Mansfield Minera S.A. Additional crushing of the material was then performed at KCA
using a jaw crusher with an open side setting of 12.5mm. From this material, head
analyses for gold and silver were conducted as well as coarse ore bottle rolls at different
crush sizes (between 6 mm and 25 mm). Fifteen column tests were performed in
columns of 3 m and 6 m heights, both at 15 cm in diameter. Leach times for these
column tests were 150 and 250 days respectively.
13.3.3 Phase III: July & September 2007
Testwork was completed on various fresh and oxide samples of the ore body as per Table
13-3. For this testwork, the previously selected sizing and crushing methodology
components were tested. On July 14, samples were received by KCA which were crushed
in a hammer-mill to a nominal size of 9 mm at the facilities in the Salta Province. 17
column tests (which included three duplicates) and head analyses were performed on this
material.
In September, four samples from Polysius were received by KCA, three of which had
been nominally crushed to 9 mm in an HPGR mill and the fourth which had been taken
as a grab sample. Four column tests were performed on these samples. The columns had
a diameter of 23 cm with heights ranging from 1.3 to 4.8 m.
It was discovered after the column tests had begun on the Polysius samples that they had
been contaminated with platinum group metals (PGMs) during the crushing process,
which is believed to have increased cyanide consumptions to abnormally high values as
compared with the other 17 columns. It is not felt that gold extraction was necessarily
affected in these contaminated columns.
May 2013
Other Phase III testwork included:
• Head analyses, multi-element and whole rock analyses performed on the

samples, as well as paste pH, Eh and dissolved oxygen concentration
analyses;
• Cold cyanide copper shake tests;
• Compacted permeability testwork;
• Detoxification testwork; and
• HPGR roll abrasion testing, using an HPGR at the Polysius facility.
13.3.4 Phase IV: March 2008
Hammer-mill crushed samples (nominal 6.3 mm) were sent to KCA and combined to
make three composites. The composites were used for cyanide column leach tests to
determine the effect of sodium cyanide addition on leaching (Phase IV).
However, it was discovered that the samples had been contaminated with Boron during
crushing at Universidad National de Salta (UNSA) in Argentina, which resulted in KCA
being unable to control the on-flow pH and the out-flow pH. This contamination resulted
in excessive hydrated lime and sodium cyanide consumption and also affected recoveries.
Head analyses for the three separate composites indicated boron values ranging from
0.079% to 0.089%.
All Phase IV tests were invalidated because of the boron contamination and are not used
for determining any metallurgical parameters in the Feasibility study.
13.3.5 Phase V: 2009
Phase V testwork further considered the effect of crushing type on leaching parameters.
Oxide samples were sent to REMco (Vertical Shaft Impactor, VSI), Metso (Cone
Crusher) and KHD (High Pressure Grinding Roll, HPGR) for crushing to a nominal 6.3
mm followed by testing by KCA in column tests.
HPGR pilot scale grinding tests were carried out using a Humboldt Wedag pilot roller
press at KHD test facilities to provide a basis for estimating the size of the HPGR unit
May 2013
that would be required to achieve a target production of between 1,200 t/h and 1,500 t/h,
to provide material for column tests, and to give an indication of projected operating
costs.
REMco performed crush tests to determine if gold ore from Lindero processed through a
vertical shaft impactor (VSI) would have higher heap leach recovery than ore crushed in
a traditional cone crusher. Based on these tests, REMco was asked to recommend a
processing circuit flow to reduce the material from minus 12 inch to minus 3/8 inch at a
rate of 1,500 t/h.
METSO conducted tests at their Mineral Research and Test Center to investigate
crushing performance of a cone crusher. Additionally, lab tests were conducted on the
crushing characteristics of the sample on gold.
Column testwork was performed on composite samples, two columns for each sample.
On one column, leaching was performed as usual. On the second column, the effect of
recycling effluent solution was tested to determine if recoveries were affected by the
recycle. This recycling test was conducted because recycling would allow for lower
pumping rates and a smaller treatment plant in an actual production scenario.
13.3.6 AllOX: Additional Testwork on Overliner Material
Additional testwork was done on oxide material that was initially considered for the
overliner. Bottle rolls, rock density measurements, permeability & puncture tests as well
as head analyses were performed on the material. The effect of cyanide concentration was
also tested on recoveries.
13.4 Sampling
Phase I through V testwork was performed on a number of samples obtained from drill
core, trenching, and blast tests. Table 13-3 summarizes how the samples were grouped
by lithology and whether a lithology was classified as fresh (hypogene) or oxide. Table
13-4 summarizes the samples obtained for each specific column test from each phase of
testwork. Figure 13-1 provides a plan view of the resource and the spatial locations of
each of the metallurgical test holes and other sampling activities.
May 2013
Table 13-3
Key for Lithology Codes and Groupings
Presence
Mineralogical Oxides/ Geological
Lithology Description Grouping Fresh[1] Model
FPD/CPD1 Fine Porphyry Diorite MET 1 Fresh 52,94%
PBFDox Bi-Modal Porphyry MET 1 Fresh 2,56%
BxMagmt Magmatic Breccia MET 1 Fresh 2,13%
FPDox Oxide Fine Porphyry Diorite MET 2 Oxide 9,90%
DDP/DDPox Mingled Porphyry MET 3 Fresh & Oxides 4,03%
SED Sediments MET 4 Fresh & Oxides 19,19%
PMI Post Mineral Quartz Diorite Fresh 9,25%
May 2013
Table 13-4
Samples Used in Metallurgical Testwork Programs
Testwork Program KCA Test Hole No. Lithology
Phase No.
Phase I 32162 Mix of LID 1-2-10 FPD/CPD1
32165 Mix of LID 1-2-10 FPD/CPD1
32168 Mix of 2003 Trenches FPDox
Phase II 35839 LID-5 SED
35842 LID-6 FPD
35845 LID-7 FPD
35848 LID-7 DDP
35851 LID-8/15 CPD1
35854 LID-10 FPD
35857 LID-10/20 FPD/CPD1
35860 LID-2/10/14/14 FPD/CPD1
35863 LDH-13 PBFDox
35866 LDH-13 FPD/CPD1
35869 LDH-12/19/17 FPDox
35872 LDH-12/17 SED
35875 LDH-17/19/20 FPD/CPD1
35878 LDH-17/19/20 FPD/CPD1
35881 All Trench FPD/CPD1
Phase III 37419 LDH-28/53/53 FPD
37422 LDH-28/53/53 FPD
37425 LDH-28/49 FPD
37428 LDH-65/67 FPD/CPD1
37431 LDH-24/65 SED
37434 LDH-25/67 FPD/CPD1
37437 LDH 60-62 FPDox
37440 LDH 60-62 SED
37443 LDH-18/39/42/43/44/45/58 FPDox
37446 LDH-18/39/42/43/44/45/58 FPDox
37449 LDH-18/39/43/44/45/48/50/61 FPD
37452 LDH-18/39/43/44/45/48/50/61 FPD
37455 LDH-42/43/58/44 SED
37458 LDH-40/41/54 DDPox
37461 LDH 47/63 FPDhyp/BxMagmt/FPDox
37464 LDH-41/43/47 FPD/CPD1
37467 LDH-41/43/47 FPD/CPD1
37470 LDH- 22/29/30/31/34/52/56/40/47 FPD
37473 LDH-18/39/43/44/45/48/50/61 FPDhyp
37476 LDH-18/39/43/44/45/48/50/61 FPDhyp
37479 LDH-18/39/43/44/45/48/50/61 FPDhyp
Phase IV 38845 LDH-109/110/111/106/115 FPD/CPD1
38851 LDH-109/110/111/106/115 FPD/CPD1
38857 LDH-103/104/105 FPDhyp
38863 LDH-103/104/105 FPDhyp
38869 LDH-93/94/95/98/100 FPDox
38875 LDH-93/94/95/98/100 FPDox
Phase V 42106 Blast Bench A FPDox
42111 Blast Bench A FPDox
May 2013
Lindero F
Feasibility Study Page 13-8
1
Figure
F 13-1
Meetallurgical Tesstwork Samplin
ng Locations
Kappes, C
Cassiday & Associa
ates Section 13 – Mineeral Processing & Metallurgical Tessting
May 20133
13.5 Mineralogy and Petrography
The gold mineralization at Lindero consists of two principal ore types: an oxide
(weathered) type; and a hypogene (unweathered, fresh) type. These ore types are
contained within a gold-copper mineralized, potassic altered, porphyry deposit which is
amenable to open pit mining and heap leach processing.
Gold mineralization is hosted within quartz-magnetite, quartz sulfide and biotite

chalcopyrite veinlets with haloes of disseminated chalcopyrite and magnetite. Gold
mineralization in zones of weaker stockwork development tends to grade lower than 0.40
g/t Au. Gold grains range from 20 to 30 μm but have been noted up to 70 μm. Copper
mineralization is predominantly as chalcopyrite with minor bornite. In the supergene
oxidized zones (oxides), copper occurs as copper oxides and chrysocolla. The bulk of the
deposit is considered a hypogene type, since most of the deposit is not weathered or
oxidized. The majority of the iron in solution was found to form magnetite over pyrite,
since these solutions are in a more oxidative environment, and the sulfur formed sulfates.
Two separate petrographic studies were performed by Dr. Lawrence T Larson of Nevada.
The thin section and polish section studies were done over 37 samples, four of which
were from grab sample from trenches and the rest from core of the Lindero material.
Samples were collected from representative areas of all the deposit, including all
lithology units defined. The following observations were made: The most important
general observation from the first batch of samples is that while there is some
mineralogical and textural variation from sample to sample, overall the samples are
remarkably uniform. All, but one, are of porphyritic diorite to quartz diorite. The
principal alteration type in all samples (but one) is potassic, with extensive introduced
orthoclase feldspar and lesser secondary biotite as well as minor actinolite.
Overall the rock type and its alteration/mineralization are a very good fit for the “diorite
porphyry copper-gold model” proposed by Vic Hollister in 1974. In most examples of
this model phyllic alteration is lacking, the potassic alteration zone leads outward directly
to prophylitic alteration, sulfur is inadequate in quantity to convert iron to pyrite and
therefore magnetite is common.
Rock alteration, overall, is dominantly potassic with significant potassium feldspar and
secondary biotite. There seems to be a great deal of silication overprinted on this potassic
alteration and several of the samples are clearly stockwork samples. Deviations to this
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 13 – Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing
May 2013
potassic and silicic alteration are found as propylitic (chlorite and calcite) alteration on
some samples.
Gold is present in eight of the twenty-two thin sections received in the second batch of
samples. In two of the sections, the gold is ‘free’ and occurs interstitially to quartz grains
in vein quartz with grain sizes of 70 µm and 12 µm respectively. In four of the samples
gold is encapsulated in chalcopyrite and the gold grain size is much smaller, ranging from
3 to 8 µm. In all of the sections where gold is in the chalcopyrite, the gold looks to have
formed at the same time.
Base metal minerals present are generally consistent in all sections with a few minor
variations. In general, base metal minerals include magnetite, hematite, pyrite and
chalcopyrite with very rare occurrences of bornite, chalcocite, covellite, galena and
sphalerite in a few sections. Goethite, cuprite and malachite are found in sections from
shallow & oxidized samples. Magnetite and chalcopyrite are ubiquitous and in general
both are disseminated through the host rock and within or immediately adjacent to quartz
or quartz/gypsum veinlets.
Whole Rock and Chemical Analysis of the ore was performed on Phase III testwork and
results of this testwork are included in Tables 13-5 and 13-6.
May 2013
Table 13-5
Multi-Element Analysis for Phase III material
Multi-element Analysis
Constituent Unit FPDhyp FPDhyp FPDhyp FPDhyp FPDhyp
Al % 7.07 7.23 7.17 7.08 8.02
As mg/kg <10 <10 15 21 <10
Ba mg/kg 707 714 719 706 779
Bi mg/kg <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Ctotal % 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.09
Ca % 3.4 2.85 2.97 2.91 2.92
Cd mg/kg 13 12 12 13 17
Co mg/kg 10 11 9 12 12
Cr mg/kg 110 81 99 88 45
Cu mg/kg 1410 1624 1438 1782 1200
Cucyanide soluble mg/kg 215 452 271 486 230
Fe % 4.28 3.89 4.03 4.06 4.47
Hg mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.13
K % 2.32 2.39 2.39 2.34 3.02
Mg % 0.65 0.68 0.62 0.62 0.6
Mn mg/kg 1266 1081 1098 1155 934
Mo mg/kg 29 22 26 32 23
Na % 2.4 2.67 2.49 2.54 2.8
Ni mg/kg 33 460 193 429 8
Pb mg/kg 110 72 96 90 151
Stotal % 1.55 1.29 1.28 1.09 1.22
Ssulfide % 0.11 0.23 0.19 <0.01 0.01
Ssulfate % 1.44 1.06 1.09 1.09 1.21
Sb mg/kg 3 2 3 2 NA
Sr mg/kg 511 569 542 544 645
Ti % 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.34
V mg/kg 58 55 57 55 40
W mg/kg 10 11 9 10 <10
Zn mg/kg 588 474 516 488 365
May 2013
Table 13-6
Phase III Whole Rock Analysis
Whole Rock Analysis
Constituent Unit FPDhyp FPDhyp FPDhyp FPDhyp FPDhyp
SiO2 % 58.03 61.03 60.83 59.92 59.56
Si % 27.13 28.53 28.44 28.01 27.84
Al2O3 % 13.2 13.33 13.37 13.94 14.15
Al % 6.99 7.06 7.08 7.38 7.49
Fe2O3 % 6 5.51 5.76 5.59 6.26
Fe % 4.2 3.85 4.03 3.91 4.38
CaO % 4.91 3.93 4.18 4.16 4.06
Ca % 3.51 2.81 2.99 2.97 2.9
MgO % 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.06
Mg % 0.63 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.64
Na2O % 3.52 3.6 3.25 3.76 3.85
Na % 2.61 2.67 2.41 2.79 2.86
K 2O % 2.8 2.83 2.87 2.92 3.56
K % 2.32 2.35 2.38 2.42 2.95
TiO2 % 0.45 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.5
Ti % 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.3
MnO % 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13
Mn % 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.1
SrO % 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Sr % 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
BaO % 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09
Ba % 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08
Cr2O3 % 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01
Cr % 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
P2O5 % 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.18
P % 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08
LOI % 5.85 4.86 4.86 4.79 3.34
Totals % 96.3 97.05 97.09 97.05 96.81
13.6 Crushing Work Index and Abrasiveness
Hazen performed Bond abrasion index (Ai) and Bond crusher impact (Wi) testing on
eight samples of Lindero ore. Work index results ranged from 5.37 kWh/t to 6.93 kWh/t,
indicating low work indices. These results are summarized in Table 13-7. The rock was
characterized as abrasive.
May 2013
Table 13-7
Summary Results Hazen Comminution Tests
Ai. G
Sample Wi. kWh/t
51555-1 0.4111 n/a
51555-2 0.4685 n/a
51555-3 0.4846 n/a
51555-4 0.5437 n/a
51555-5 0.3933 n/a
51555-6 n/a 5.66
51555-7 n/a 5.37
51555-8 n/a 6.93
Abrasion index and Crusher impact tests were also performed in 2007 by METSO with
the following results.
Table 13-8
Summary Results. METSO Comminution Tests
Material Characteristic Value Classification
Bond Abrasion Index 0.3430 Abrasive
French Abrasivity 1,118 g/t Abrasive
French Crushability 40% Medium Crushability
13.7 Paste pH, Eh and Dissolved Oxygen
Paste pH, Eh and Dissolved oxygen testing was performed on samples during the Phase
III test work. The results are shown below.
Table 13-9
Results from paste pH, Eh and Dissolved oxygen testwork
Lithology Size Paste pH Paste Eh Dissolved oxygen
Nominal (mV) (mg/l)
FPDhyp pulverized 7.9 136 -
FPDhyp pulverized 7.9 145 5.82
FPDhyp 10 mesh 7.7 146 5.95
May 2013
These results indicate that paste pH levels are neutral to alkaline, indicating a low to
moderate amount of lime will be required to maintain normal operating pH levels within
the heap.
13.8 Head Analyses
Table 13-11 presents a summary of all Au and Ag head analyses performed on all
samples (Phases II-V).
Head analyses for carbon, sulfur, mercury and soluble copper were also performed on the
Phase III material. The results are shown below in Table 13-10.
Table 13-10
Total Carbon, Sulfur, Mercury & Soluble Copper Analyses
Cyanide
Total Total Total Total soluble Cyanide
Carbon Sulfur Sulfides Sulfates Mercury Copper Cu soluble
Lithology (%) (%) (%) (%) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Cu (%)
FPDhyp 0.14 1.55 0.11 1.44 <0.05 1410 215 15
FPDhyp 0.11 1.29 0.23 1.06 <0.05 1624 452 28
FPDhyp 0.12 1.28 0.19 1.09 <0.05 1438 271 19
FPDhyp 0.12 1.09 <0.01 1.09 <0.05 1782 486 27
FPDhyp 0.09 1.22 0.01 1.21 <0.05 1200 230 19
May 2013
Table 13-11
Head analyses for the Lindero Testwork
Phase Testwork Description Au (g/t) Ag (g/t)
II LID-05,64-272 m 0.58 <1.7
II LID-06, 26-84 m 0.43 1.8
II LID-07, 314-334 / 348-440 m 0.89 <1.7
II LID-07, 152-280 m 0.46 <1.7
II LID-08/15, 3-34 / 14-68 m 0.5 <1.7
II LID-10, 76-130 / 144-181 m 0.55 <1.7
II LID-10/20, 198-230 / 116-212 m 0.3 1.7
II LID-02/10/14/14, 3-92 / 03-76/ 4-40/ 68-142 m 1.08 <1.7
II LDH-13, 14-64 m 0.74 <1.7
II LDH-13, 64-104/118-182/196-218/236-254/286-362 m 0.86 <1.7
II LDH-12/19/17, 0-44 / 0-36 / 0-20 m 1.89 <1.7
II LDH-12/17, 96-181 / 46-74 m 0.96 6.3
II LDH-17/19/20, 20-46 / 36-258 / 24-86 m 1.59 1.5
II Trench, 1.0-1.5 0.82 <1.7
III FPD, Area 1 1.05 <1.7
III FPD, Area 1 0.65 1.8
III FPD/CPD1, Area 2 2.43 <1.7
III BxSed, Area 2 0.62 1.8
III FPD/CPD1, Area 2 0.53 <1.7
III FPDox, Area 3 0.85 <1.7
III BxSed, Area 3 1.01 <1.7
III FPDox, Area 4 0.87 <1.7
III FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7 0.74 <1.7
III BxSed, Area 4 0.5 <1.7
III DDPox, Area 5 0.87 <1.7
III FPDhyp/BxMagmt/FPDox, Area 6 0.81 1.9
III FPD/CPD1, Deep Material East Body 0.63 <1.7
III FPD, Deep Material SW West 0.65 <1.7
III FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7 Polysius H 0.75 12.5
III FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7 Polysius L 0.67 3.1
III FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7 Polysius M 0.85 17.1
III FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7 grab sample 0.63 1.5
IV FPDox 1.03 <1.7
IV FPDhyp 0.96 <1.7
IV CPD1 1.03 <1.7
V East Body N Blast Bench A 1.21 4.1
AllOX Core Composite 0.69 0.1
AllOX Near Surface Composite 1.1 0.26
AllOX LDH-12, 0.40-0.65 gms 0.64 0.1
AllOX LDH-19, > 1.00 Au/MT 1.5 0.1
AllOX LDH-36, 0.65-1.00 gms 0.95 0.1
AVERAGE 0.89
May 2013
13.9 Particle size distribution
Particle size distribution analyses were performed during Phase III and Phase V test
campaigns.
In Phase III, material was crushed using a hammer mill to a nominal size of 10 mm.
Hammer milling is considered to be the closest type of crushing method to HPGR (High
Pressure Grinding Roll), which is considered to be the most cost effective method of
crushing for the Project. The results of the hammer mill particle size testwork are shown
in Figure 13-2 below:
Figure 13-2
Hammer Mill Particle Size Distribution of Phase III Material
Phase III Particle Size Distributions ‐ Hammer mill crushed (Nominal 10mm)
120.00%
100.00%
Percentage passing (%)
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Particle Size (mm)
The red dotted line represents the average curve and shows a p80 size of 8 mm and a p20
of 0.3 mm. These crush sizes are coarser than what is to be expected by an HPGR (see
Figure 13-3), and so the recoveries from these hammer milled columns can be considered
as less favorable than HPGR columns.
During Phase V, material was crushed in different types of crushing equipment,

specifically a VSI, cone crusher, and HPGR. The particle size distributions for each type
are compared in Figure 13-3.
May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 13-3
HPGR
H Partticle Size Distribution oof Phase V M
Material
The difference
d in
n crushing methodology
m y is noted heere with resspect to the p20 materiaal.
The p80
p passing sizes for alll crushing ty
ypes are simiilar (5 to 7 m
mm) but thee p20 materiaal
for th
he HPGR iss considerably finer than n the p20 vvalues for thhe VSI and ccone crusheer.
Colummn tests con
nducted on HPGR
H crush
hed materiall also showeed higher goold recoveriees
than VSI or conee crushed material
m (KC
CA, 2009), w which is likeely a result of the higheer
fines component in the HPGR R material.
13.10
0 Rock Den
nsity Test Work
W
Rockk density testts were com mpleted on raandomly seleected specimmens from thhe material iin
the AllOX
A testwo
ork phase. The
T specimeens selected were wholee shapes or bbroken piecees
and exhibited
e su
ufficient stru
uctural integ
grity to perrmit handlinng. Rock deensities werre
determmined utilizzing the wax immersion test method (ASTM Metthod C914, SStandard Tesst
Method for Rockk Density an nd Volume of Solid Ref efractories bby Wax Imm
mersion). Thhe
resultts are given below:
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Seection 13 – Min

ineral Processiing and Metall
llurgical Testin
ng
May 2013
2
Table 13-12
Rock Density Results
KCA Received Dry Weight Rock Density
Sample No. Hole ID Weight (g) (g) (g/cm3)
42137A LID-01 396.33 385.49 2.44
42137B LDH-12 434.71 434.08 2.54
42137C LDH-17 256.09 255.69 2.30
42137D LDH-19 261.61 260.59 2.55
42137E LDH-20 399.63 398.71 2.48
42137F LDH-23 402.05 401.5 2.55
42137G LDH-25 319.5 319.15 2.56
42137H LDH-31 329.76 329.23 2.52
42137I LDH-34 255.64 254.82 2.34
42137J LDH-35 342.48 341.56 2.64
42137K LDH-36 324.1 323.93 2.61
42137L LDH-37 259.34 258.9 2.54
42137M LDH-60 387.32 387 2.47
42137N LDH-62 189.94 189.73 2.51
42137O LDH-114 370.43 369.56 2.53
42137P LDH-115 444.87 444.13 2.56
42137Q LDH-116 281.6 280.84 2.54
Average: 2.51
13.11 Bottle Rolls
The bottle roll tests were designed to determine the relation between crush size and
recovery, in order to select crush sizes for Phase III column tests. The following tests
were conducted in Phase II and are given here together with the results from AllOX liner
bottle rolls:
May 2013
Table 13-13
Phase II and AllOX Bottle Roll Test Summaries
Average Calculated Average Au
Grade Au (g/t) Extraction (%)
Nominal 6.3mm 0.83 61.53%
MET 1 0.79 62.09%
MET 2 0.85 69.00%
MET 3 0.46 57.00%
MET 4 1.24 57.00%
Nominal 10mm 0.97 60.00%
MET 1 0.96 57.80%
MET 2 0.9 67.33%
MET 3 0.46 59.00%
MET 4 1.24 66.00%
Nominal 12.5mm 0.83 50.87%
MET 1 0.79 50.00%
MET 2 0.85 57.00%
MET 3 0.46 48.00%
MET 4 1.24 54.00%
Nominal 19mm 0.85 48.86%
MET 1 0.79 48.36%
MET 2 0.85 49.00%
MET 3 0.46 36.00%
MET 4 1.89 67.00%
Nominal 25mm 0.62 57.29%
MET 1 0.56 57.18%
MET 2 0.96 58.73%
Although the extraction rates are lower than expected, they indicate a clear trend of
greater extraction with smaller crush sizes. No more bottle rolls were done for the
purposes of this study since the extraction data from the columns was preferred for
modeling heap leaching extraction.
13.12 Drain down tests, Slump data and Permeability
The height of ore in the column test was measured before and after leaching. This height
was utilized to calculate the “slump” during leaching as well as to calculate the final
apparent bulk density for the material in the column. The initial and final height used to
May 2013
calculate the percent slump and the final apparent bulk density for the Phase IV column
leach test were from the third/final loading of the columns.
KCA typically considers slumps larger than 10% as high. The calculated percent slump
values for the Lindero column leach tests were considered to be low, ranging from 0% to
2%. At the conclusion of the drain down tests, a maximum percolation test was
completed on selected column tests. The calculated flow rates were good, indicating no
permeability issues.
Compacted permeability test work was completed on portions of the wet tailings material
from the Phase III column leach tests. The material utilized for the column leach tests
was as-received material crushed utilizing a hammer mill in Argentina and as-received
material crushed utilizing high pressure grinding rolls (HPGR) at the Polysius Research
Centre in Germany.
The purpose of the test work was to examine the permeability of the Lindero ore under
varying compaction loads (heap heights). Equivalent calculated dry heap heights of 19,
37, 56, 75, 93, 112, 131, 149 and 168 meters were utilized for this test program. Table
13-14 summarizes these tests at 93 meters because the Lindero heap height is expected to
be approximately 90 meters.
May 2013
Table 13-14
Summary of Compacted Permeability Tests
KCA p80 Estimated Overall
Sample Crushing Crush Dry-Wet, Out Flow, Heap Test
No. Type Size, mm % Slump L/hr/m² Height Result
37419 Hammermill 7.39 10 308 93 Pass
37422 Hammermill 7.01 9 308 93 Pass
37428 Hammermill 7.82 9 1,728 93 Pass
37431 Hammermill 8.34 11 1,594 93 Pass
37434 Hammermill 8.88 10 1,263 93 Pass
37437 Hammermill 5.47 10 355 93 Pass
37449 Hammermill 7.34 10 181 93 Pass
37452 Hammermill 7.26 10 197 93 Pass
37455 Hammermill 8.40 1 1,578 93 Pass
37458 Hammermill 7.69 9 2,667 93 Pass
37464 Hammermill 6.99 11 189 93 Pass
37467 Hammermill 6.73 9 87 93 Fail
37473 HPGR 8.26 10 95 93 Fail
37476 HPGR 8.07 10 339 93 Pass
37479 HPGR 8.00 9 118 93 Pass
KCA generally considers a slump of greater than 10% and an out flow of less than ’10
times’ the specific flow rate a failure. In the case for the Lindero ore the specific flow
rate is 10 L/hr/m², therefore an outflow below 100 L/hr/m² can be considered a failure.
Only two tests failed at an estimated heap height of 93 meters. However, there is
sufficient number of tests with enough consistency between tests that indicate a ‘pass’,
therefore there is no expected problems with permeability within the Lindero heap.
13.13 AllOX Puncture Test
From the core composite and near surface composite material, 22.4 mm size material was
sent to Geo-Logic Associates in Grass Valley, CA for utilization in puncture test work.
May 2013
Along with the sample material, two bags of pad underliner (crushed to 6.3 mm) material
were combined, and the minus 6.3 millimeter material was also submitted.
A total of two separate puncture tests were conducted utilizing a portion from each of the
submitted composite samples and pad underliner material. These tests were conducted by
applying a force to the ore over the liner which was equivalent to an ore height of 120
meters. The results of the puncture tests are summarized below.
Table 13-15
Puncture test results
Normal Equivalent Test
Stress. Ore Ht Duration
Description (kPa) (m) (hrs) After Test Description
Core Composite 1,979 120 48 Very minor yielding. No
Pad Underliner 1,979 120 48 punctures observed or noted
Near Surface Composite 1,979 120 48 Very minor yielding. No
Pad Underliner 1,979 120 48 punctures observed or noted
13.14 Blast Testing
Rock blast tests were conducted at four locations within the footprint of the proposed
Lindero open pit between September and November of 2008 to determine rock
fragmentation properties for mining and crushing equipment selection. Approximately
3,800 m3, or 10,000 t were shot in each test.
Lindero ore has weakly cemented fractures (magnetite. quartz. and gypsum) that
increasingly are filled with gypsum as the ore transitions to depth. As a result, the ore
breaks small (<150 mm, 80% to 90% passing), with only two rocks observed as big as
305 mm in three of the 10,000 t test blasts.
Two blast patterns were tested, 4m x 3m and 3m x 3m, to compare the fragmentation
effects of the different powder factors. The different powder factors and hole patterns
had no effect in the fragmentation results, indicating that a substantially lower powder
factor than was tested could be used in actual production.
Ore comminution tests were performed on various sample size fractions. Drop
simulation tests of 13m and 14m were undertaken to determine the amount of crushing or
May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
size reduction
r th
hat would occcur in a dro
op of this m
magnitude, alllowing preddiction of thhe
commminution thaat would occur in the then-propose
t ed (2008) coonveyor/ore pass mininng
scenaario. Substan
ntial commiinution did occur
o in theese drop tessts and with a low speeed
sampple that was accelerated
a with
w the REM Mco VSI to a velocity eqqual to a 1800m drop.
Drop tests on waste

w materiial generallyy broke rocck small enoough to allow conveyoor
transp
port; however, the top fragments
f ranged up to nnearly 1m, ttoo big for cconveying buut
accepptable for tru
uck and shovvel operationns. Orica Sabbrex sonic annalysis was conducted oon
surface and deep per rocks. Th ndicate that fragmentation similar tto the surfacce
hese tests in
blast tests should
d be expectedd at depth. Please
P see thhe photos in F
Figure 13-4::
Fiigure 13-4
Photograph
P hs of Blast T
Testwork

llurgical Testin
ng
May 2013
2
13.15 Cyanide Column Tests
The cyanide column testwork performed on Lindero samples consisted of column

preparation and testing, daily measurements of variables such as metal concentrations,
pH, and reagent concentrations, as well as tails analysis (particle size fractions and metal
distributions) and slump analysis.
Overall, 45 column tests were considered in the general analysis of leaching parameters
and recoveries (the six Phase IV column tests were disregarded due to boron
contamination). Table 13-16 presents a summary of the test parameters of each column
for Phases I, II, III, and V.
Extraction data such as recovery curves, solution to ore ratios and reagent consumptions
were derived from the analysis of these column tests and are discussed further in Section
13.17: Gold Recoveries, Section 13.16.4: Cyanide Concentration and Consumption, and
Section 13.16.5: pH Control and Lime Consumption.
May 2013
Table 13-16
Column Test Work Parameters for all Phases
Crush Size Leach Bulk Irrigation Sodium
Metallurgical (nominal Cycle Density rate Cyanide Au Head Calc Au
2
Phase Category Crusher Type mm) (days) (t/m3) (l/m /h) (ppm NaCN) grade (g/t) Head (g/t)
Phase I MET 1 Cone crusher (KCA) 12.5 101 1.59 10 500 1.29 1.27
Phase I MET 1 Cone crusher (KCA) 6.3 101 1.67 10 500 1.29 1.23
Phase I MET 2 Jaw crusher (KCA. 19mm) 19 101 1.42 10 500 1.46 1.48
Phase II MET 4 Jaw crusher (ARG. 12.5mm) 8.05 148 1.58 10 250 0.58 0.67
Phase II MET 1 Jaw crusher (ARG. 12.5mm) 8.16 148 1.59 10/20 250 0.43 0.46
Phase III MET 1 Hammer Milled (ARG 9mm) 7.39 380 1.87 15/20 250 1.05 1.05
Phase III MET 4 Hammer Milled (ARG 9mm) 5.62 398 1.69 15 250 1.01 0.95
Phase III MET1. MET2 Hammer Milled (ARG 9mm) 7.391 399 1.75 15/20 250 0.81 0.89
Phase III MET 1 Polysius. H (POL 9mm) 8.26 398 1.68 15 250 0.75 0.8
Phase III MET 1 Polysius. L (POL 9mm) 8.07 398 0.92 15/20 250 0.67 0.71
Phase III MET 1 Polysius. M (POL 9mm) 8 398 1.86 15 250 0.85 0.69
REMCO VSI Crushed
Phase V MET 2 (Recycled Solution) 9.5 111 1.53 10/15/20 100 / 250 1.21 1.28
REMCO VSI Crushed (No
Phase V MET 2 Recycled Solution) 9.48 111 1.53 10/15/20 100 / 250 1.21 1.28
METSO Cone Crushed
METSO Cone Crushed (No
KHD HPGR Crushed
KHD HPGR Crushed (No
May 2013
13.16 Leaching Parameters
13.16.1 Agglomeration
Agglomeration was not considered necessary since there is no evidence of abundant

kaolinite in the orebody. Furthermore, blast tests show the fracturing of the material and
that very few fines (50 micron material) are generated. The Polysius testwork using the
HPGR showed that less that 10% of the crushed material was below 45 microns, which is
considered to be low with respect to fines content.
13.16.2 Nominal Particle Size
A particle size of p80 3/8” or 9 mm was selected as the optimum crush size, considering
the trade-off between crushing costs and recoveries with decreasing particle size. The
data from the column testwork, which has been averaged for each crush size, shows a
clear trend with respect to crush sizes as seen in Figure 13-5.
Figure 13-5
Crush size versus Recoveries for Phases II, III, IV
Crush Size versus Recoveries
90%
85%
80%
Gold recovery (%)
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Nominal Crush Size (mm)
MET 1 MET 2 MET 3 MET 4
Most of the results in Table 13-5 were not generated using the HPGR, but rather other
May 2013
crushing techniques (hammer-mill, cone, impact). The HPGR generally creates a finer
tail fraction that other crusher types (See Figures 13-2 and 13-3), and also generates
microfractures within ore particles, which presents an opportunity of greater extraction
rates and higher leach kinetics during initial leaching periods compared to what is
presented in the Feasibility Study.
13.16.3 HPGR Trade off and Crushing Parameters
As part of the Phase III testwork, Polysius performed abrasion testing using an HPGR at
the Polysius facility. The mineralized rock was found to be low to medium abrasive,
compared with other copper-gold ores tested by Polysius as depicted in Figure 13-6.
Figure 13-6
Polysius Abrasion Comparisons
Ores best suited for high-pressure grinding are located in quadrant 4. Ores in quadrant 4
are minimally abrasive and produce a lot of fines. Ores least suited to HPGR crushing
are found in quadrant 2. The Lindero sample plots in quadrant 1, close to the optimal
fourth quadrant. The Polysius testing concluded Lindero ore is amenable to HPGR
crushing.
Subsequent testwork in Phase V then examined the influence of crusher types, which
each produced a different p80 particle size distribution. The particle size distributions for
May 2013
these three crusher types are illustrated in Figure 13-3. The HPGR product demonstrated
a faster and slightly higher metallurgical recovery rates than that of other crusher
methods on lithologically identical feed.
Figure 13-7
Recovery Curves for Various Crusher Types
Phase V Recovery Curves
90%
80%
70%
Gold Recoveru (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Solution to Ore Ratio
REMCO VSI Crushed (Recycled Solution) REMCO VSI Crushed (No Recycled Solution)
METSO Cone Crushed (Recycled Solution) METSO Cone Crushed (No Recycled Solution)
KHD HPGR Crushed (Recycled Solution) KHD HPGR Crushed (No Recycled Solution)
Capital costs for the VSI were lower than for the HPGR, which were in turn lower again
than for the cone crushers, given the same throughput and 80% passing size. Therefore
both costs and recoveries favored the HPGR over cone crushers. The preliminary results
demonstrated HPGR secondary crushers improved metallurgical recovery over all other
crusher options. Although the testwork was only done on oxide ores, which is sufficient
to justify HPGR selection and parameters, it is expected that HPGR testing will increase
recoveries for all ore types. It should be noted that with respect to the fresh material
recoveries, those of non-HPGR-crushed material have been used in the production model
as the most conservative option.
A practical specific grinding force for industrial applications appeared to be in the range
of 3.8 – 4.2 N/mm². With respect to the KHD HPGR closed circuit tests with edge
May 2013
recycling, carried out at a specific force of 4.6 N/mm², a moisture content of 3.5 % and a
roll speed of 10 RPM, the net specific energy achieved was 2.1 kWh/t. at a specific
throughput of 265 t/hm³.
13.16.4 Cyanide Concentration and consumption
The column testwork for all phases was done at 250 ppm which has been selected as the
design criteria for the heap irrigation. This value is in the middle of typical industrial gold
leaching concentrations in irrigation solutions (without the presence of silver), typically
between 100 and 600 ppm NaCN, (Kappes, 2002).
Cyanide consumption is a function of ore characteristics and solution to ore ratios, since
it is cyanide oxidation, degradation and consumption by total ore constituents, not just
gold, that constitute total consumption. Cyanide consumption is therefore generally
independent of recoveries. The following consumptions were observed for all columns
from Phases II, III & V:
Figure 13-8
Cyanide Consumptions (Laboratory) as a Function of Solution to Ore Ratio for All
Lithologies, Phases II, III, IV
Cyanide Consumptions as a function of solution to ore
ratio ‐ Phases II, III, IV
3.50
3.00
Cyanide Consumption (kg/t)
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Solution to Ore Ratio (tsolution/tore)
May 2013
Table 13-17 summarizes the cyanide consumptions (at 250 ppm concentration) for each
lithology. This table shows that there is no significant difference in cyanide consumption
between different lithologies, and that the consumption is expected to be consistent
throughout the ore body.
Table 13-17
Cyanide consumption as a function of Lithology
Lithologies NaCN Consumed (kg/t)
MET 1 1,3
MET 2 1,3
MET 3 1,0
MET 4 1,2
Mixed (MET 1 & MET 2) 1,0
AVERAGE 1,3
Based on field experience, KCA typically reduces the laboratory column test cyanide
consumptions. The factor is generally 25-33% of the laboratory results; therefore the
selected cyanide consumption for the Lindero project is 0.45 kg NaCN per tonne ore.
13.16.5 pH Control and Lime Consumption
The pH of the leach solution in the typical production heap should be maintained above
10 to ensure that no hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas is produced. HCN generation presents
a safety risk as the liberated gas is toxic, and also leads to excess cyanide consumption.
To maintain the pH in the desired range, lime (CaO) is used. Paste pH tests indicate that
the acid generating potential of the ore should be minimal (See Section 13.7) and column
testwork showed that pH was sufficiently maintained in the effluent solution. Table 13-18
shows that there is no lithology effect on lime consumption.
May 2013
Table 13-18
Column Test Hydrated Lime Consumption as a Function of Lithology
Lithologies Ca(OH)2 Consumed (kg/t)
MET 1 2.0
MET 2 2.3
MET 3 2.2
MET 4 2.1
Mixed (MET 1 & MET 2) 2.0
AVERAGE 2.1
Note hydrated lime was used in column tests. However, since the bottle roll tests from
Phase II showed an approximate 25% higher hydrated lime usage, an overall
consumption of 2.7 kg/t of Ca(OH)2 (hydrated lime) was selected for process lime
consumption. This is equivalent to 2.0 kg/t of CaO (pebble lime) which is the type of
lime that will be delivered to site. The lime activity from Argentinean suppliers is
typically at 80-85% active lime, which if assuming 80% translates to a final consumption
of 2.5 kg lime/tonne ore.
13.16.6 Solution-to-Ore Ratio, Recycling and Cycle times
The cycle time selected for leaching of Lindero ore was 240 days (equivalent 120 days or
non-stop leaching), 60 days of open circuit (primary) leaching and 180 days of secondary
recycled and intermittent solution leaching for a 10 m lift. This secondary 180 day leach
cycle consists of a one week on – two week off schedule, so the equivalent continuous
period of applied solution is 60 days.
Solution recycling did not demonstrate any negative impact on leaching kinetics during
111 day leach cycles for 1 m columns in the Phase V testwork. Figure 13-9 curves from
Phase V have been extrapolated to a 10 m lift using solution to ore ratios and demonstrate
cycle times.
It is worth noting that these days and recoveries refer to the first leach cycles of each lift.
The first few lifts will have the additional leaching times of the lifts above them leaching
through, and so final leaching cycles will be closer to 650 days over the lower lifts.
The corresponding solution to ore ratio for the selected 240 day leach cycle is 1.65
tsolution/tore. Typical practice is to apply 1.30 tsolution/tore during a 70 day leach cycle
May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
(Kapp
pes, 2002) so this value indicates thee slower leacching characcteristics of tthe ore.
Fiigure 13-9
Recoveries
R as
a a functionn of leachin
ng time for a 10m lift
13.16
6.7 Irriga
ation Rate
10 L//m2/h is conssidered an in
ndustry standdard betweeen pumping eefficiency annd kinetics oof
leach
hing. Higherr irrigation rates
r were performed
p onn the colummns with no visible trennd
with respect to extraction
e rattes. Althoug
gh specific irrrigation rattes affect thee transport oof
cyaniide to gold-b
bearing partiicles and witthin them, foor the majorrity of heapss in operationn,
time (and solutioon to ore raatio) is a mo ore importannt factor ovverall with rrespect to thhe
recov
veries.

llurgical Testin
ng
May 2013
2
13.17 Gold Recoveries
13.17.1 Gold Recoveries per lithology
The gold recoveries selected were based on the Phase III and Phase V column testwork
because the crush size and method of crushing for these tests is the most consistent with
the design of the Lindero crushing system and are summarized in Table 13-19.
Table 13-19
Recoveries as a Function of Lithology and Testwork Phase
Metallurgical Extracted, Average Au
Phase Testwork Category Lithology % Au Extraction (%)
Phase III FPD 77%
Phase III FPD 76%
Phase III FPD 66%
Phase III FPD/CPD1 76%
MET 1 70%
Phase III FPD 72%
Phase III FPD 63%
Phase III FPDhyp/BxMagmt/FPDox 58%
Phase III FPDox 73%
MET 2 74%
Phase III FPDox 75%
Phase III MET 3 DDPox 74% 74%
Phase III BxSed 70%
MET 4 67%
Phase III BxSed 63%
Phase V (KHD) FPDox 79%
MET 2 79%
Phase V (KHD) FPDox 78%
The above data, once analyzed and averaged using individual column tests, was then
discounted by 2-5%, a scale-down factor when applying column recovery data to
industrial heaps. The results are shown in Table 13-1 and are repeated in the following
Table 13-20.
May 2013
Table 13-20
Project Heap Leach Recoveries
Gold Recovery
Item (%)
Gold Recovery, average LOM 68
Met Type 2 (oxides) 74
13.17.2 Gold Recoveries per grade
Testwork results did not indicate any clear extraction trend with respect to grades within
the range of 0.45 – 2.0 g/t Au. The following graph shows all the column recoveries
versus calculated head grades for Phases II, III and V. Only the columns with nominal
crush sizes of 6.3 mm and 9 mm were used for this analysis, so as to eliminate the
variable of crush size on recoveries. The results were divided up by lithology (MET 1 –
MET 4).
Figure 13-10
Head grades versus Recoveries for 6.3mm and 9mm Material
Head grade versus Recoveries (Phase II,III & V)
90%
85%
80%
Au Rescovery (%)
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Calculated Au Head Grade (g/t)
MET 1 MET 2 MET 3 MET 4
May 2013
13.18 Production Model and Curves
KCA translated the laboratory recovery curves into an estimated field leach recovery
curve. The mine model includes four ore types with four different ultimate recoveries.
The hypogene ore type is divided into three subcategories; Met Type 1, 3, and 4. The
oxide ore type is labeled as Met Type 2.
The recovery curve for the oxide ore type, or Met Type 2, was based on laboratory tests
from the Phase II and III testing programs (KCA Test Nos. 37437, 37443, 37446). The
field leaching recovery curves extend from the start of leaching to final leaching of the
ore. Final recovery of the Met Type 2 ore is expected after 480 days. The other ore types
(hypogene) – Met Types 1, 3, and 4, will require additional time to complete the leaching
process. KCA Test Nos. 35854, 35842, 35851, 35848, 37452, and 37449 were evaluated
to determine a field recovery curve for the Met Type 1 ore. The Met Type 3 and 4 curves
were then developed from the Met Type 1. It was assumed that the recovery rates trends
for the Met Type 3 and 4 ores would be similar to the Met Type 1, but that they would be
proportionally different based on their final recovery values. As such, the Met Type 3
and 4 field curves parallel the Met Type 1 field curves, but are adjusted lower to reflect
the ratio of the final recovery values.
Laboratory test results vary from actual field recoveries due to scale up factors, ore
mixing, and numerous other factors. Based on many years experience in heap leaching
KCA has incorporated values from the test work, values from the expected final recovery
rates, and made adjustments to produce the final recovery rate curves. The initial values
of the curves are based on the solution to ore ratios up to a value of 0.8 tonnes of solution
per tonne of ore. Thereafter the values for the curve follow the time versus recovery
aspect of the laboratory test results. Several adjustments were made to the curves to
compensate for predicted field conditions. The values on the curve for the time to reach
the 0.8:1 solution to ore ratio were adjusted to reflect the time required to reach this ratio
at the design application rate plus an additional 10 days. The 10 days represent the delay
in getting ore under leach after stacking plus the time to saturate the 10 meter lift.
After reaching the 0.8:1 ratio, it appears that time is more directly influencing recovery.
The rate of recovery in the field is projected to equal that shown in the laboratory
columns tests for recovery verse time. As described in previously, the direct leach time
was selected at 240 days. After being covered by the next lift, the ore in the specific lift
will continue to be leached by solutions applied to the overlying lifts above. When
May 2013
irrigation starts on the new overlying lift, the solution passing through the old ore will
rinse out the gold that has been dissolved during the dormant period. The final leaching
due to pass through solution will recover the precious metals not recovered during the
initial 240 (60+180) days.
An additional adjustment to the recovery curves is made after the leaching cycle reaches
240 days (continuous leaching and on/off leaching). After this direct leaching period, a
dormant period of 30 days is expected before the start of the residual or pass through
leaching (leaching from solution applied to lifts above). The recovery curves values have
been adjusted so that no increases in recovery occur during this 30 day period. The 30
day dormant period represents the time required to complete stacking, set up leaching
piping, and for solution saturation of the overlying lift. After the 30 day period recovery
rates are based on the laboratory test results of time verse recovery.
In general the field recovery rate curves follow the laboratory test result trends and
modifications as discussed in the preceding sections. However, some minor changes
have also been made to the curves. Typically, laboratory test results tend to become
skewed or slightly irregular due to process variable changes done during the laboratory
tests, incomplete tests, or due to test result variances. KCA has smoothed or adjusted the
field recovery curves to compensate for these types of irregularities. The smoothing
adjustments follow the rate of change between both solution to ore ratios versus recovery
and time versus recovery on a larger scale and the adjustments are constrained by the
ultimate recovery rates.
The field recovery curves generated from the analysis and adjustments described above
are shown in Figure 13-11. These curves are used to determine the gold production
schedule used in the financial analysis for the project.
May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fig
gure 13-11
Field Recovery Curves
C for A
All Met Typ
pes
13.19 Copp
per Behav
vior and SA
ART
Coppper minerals dissolve in n cyanide solutions at vaarying ratess and to varyying degrees.
Coppper in cyanid de leach solu
utions is not desirable
d as copper can consume sodium cyanidde
durin
ng dissolution, consume dissolved ox xygen, decreease preciouus metal disssolution rates,
interffere with sollution processsing techniq
ques and endd up in the fiinal Doré.
For Lindero,
L coppper mineraals are founnd principallly as chryssocolla (oxide ores) annd
chalccopyrite (fresh ore types). At ambiient temperaatures coppeer dissolutioon in cyanidde
solutiions can be problematiccally high fo or certain coppper mineraals such as thhe carbonatees
azuritte and malaachite, however copperr dissolutionn is typicallyy much lower for coppeer
silicaates (chrysoccolla) and co ulfides (chalccopyrite), as is found in Lindero oress.
opper iron su
ble 13-21 presents the eextent of coppper leachinng of variouus

As a general refference, Tab

llurgical Testin
ng
May 2013
2
copper minerals when placed in a dilute cyanide solution.
Table 13-21
Solubility of Cu Minerals in NaCN Solution (Hedley and Tabachnick,1958)
% Copper dissolved
Copper Mineral Formula in 0.1% NaCN
Azurite 2Cu(CO)3.Cu(OH)2 94.5
Malachite 2CuCO3 (OH)2 90.2
Chalcocite Cu2S 90.2
Covellite CuS 95.6
Native Copper Cu 90.0
Cuprite Cu2O 85.5
Bornite FeS.2Cu2S 70.0
Enargite Cu3AsS4 65.8
(Cu.Fe.Ag.Zn)
Tetrahedrite 12Sb4S13 21.9
Chrysocolla CuSiO3.(nH2O) 11.8
Chalcopyrite CuFeS2 5.6
The copper leaching behavior of Lindero ore was studied as a part of Phase II and III
column test work. In this work, copper was tracked during column leach tests. The total
copper leached, in terms of grams of copper per tonne ore, was determined for each
column test by tracking the amount of copper loaded onto carbon. These results, along
with the copper head grades, are presented in Table 13-22.
May 2013
Table 13-22
Phase II and III Copper Head Grades and Recoveries
KCA Head Extracted, Copper
Phase Test No. Description g Cu/MT g Cu/MT Recovery
II 35839 LID-05, 64-272 meters 1331 64 5%

II 35842 LID-06, 26-84 meters 1331 59 4%
II 35845 LID-07, 314-334 / 348-440 meters 1148 89 8%
II 35848 LID-07, 152-280 meters 897 124 14%
II 35851 LID-08/15, 3-34 / 14-68 meters 1243 129 10%
II 35854 LID-10, 76-130 / 144-181 meters 844 41 5%
II 35857 LID-10/20, 198-230 / 116-212 meters 450 17 4%
II 35860 LID-02/10/14/14, 3-92 / 3-76 / 4-40 / 68-142 meters 1302 25 2%
II 35863 LDH-13, 14-64 meters 821 65 8%
II 35866 LDH-13, 64-104/118-182/196-218/236-254/286-362 meters 796 20 3%
II 35869 LDH-12/19/17, 0-44 / 0-36 / 0-20 meters 1323 138 10%
II 35872 LDH-12/17, 96-181 / 46-74 meters 1120 27 2%
II 35875 LDH-17/19/20, 20-46 / 36-258 / 24-86 meters 1397 33 2%
II 35878 LDH-17/19/20, 20-46 / 36-258 / 24-86 meters 1397 57 4%
II 35881 Trench, 1.0-1.5 935 33 4%
III 37419 FPD, Area 1 828 39 5%

III 37422 FPD, Area 1 780 28 4%
III 37425 FPD, Area 1 1628 46 3%
III 37428 FPD/CPD1, Area 2 1308 35 3%
III 37431 BxSed, Area 2 667 30 4%
III 37434 FPD/CPD1, Area 2 783 23 3%
III 37437 FPDox, Area 3 1013 66 6%
III 37440 BxSed, Area 3 1165 40 3%
III 37443 FPDox, Area 4 1689 90 5%
III 37446 FPDox, Area 4 1569 44 3%
III 37449 FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7 1248 52 4%
III 37452 FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7 1223 52 4%
III 37455 BxSed, Area 4 1150 55 5%
III 37458 DDPox, Area 5 1352 32 2%
III 37461 FPDhyp/BxMagmt/FPDox, Area 6 1599 60 4%
III 37464 FPD/CPD1, Deep Material East Body 951 18 2%
III 37467 FPD/CPD1, Deep Material East Body 934 26 3%
III 37470 FPD, Deep Material SW - West 917 77 8%
III 37473 FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7, Polysius H 1318 135 10%
III 37476 FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7, Polysius L 1230 85 7%
III 37479 FPDhyp, Area 4 + 7, Polysius M 1382 120 9%
Note: Phase II Heads are assayed heads that were provided by Mansfield Minera S.A.. Copper recoveries were
calculated based on these assayed heads, as no tail assays for copper were performed. Phase III heads are calculated
heads based on the copper extracted plus tails assays, and calculated recoveries are based on these calculated heads.
May 2013
Copper extractions in Phase II and III column tests ranged from approximately 20 g Cu/t
to about 140 g Cu/t, averaging about 60 g Cu/t.
Comparing the average copper leaching with the average copper head grades, which
averaged about 1,150 g Cu/t for Phase II and III combined, the average extraction of
copper was only about 5% (ranging from 2% to 14%). This agrees well with the
observation that copper mineralogy at Lindero consists primarily of chrysocolla and
chalcopyrite, which are both only minimally soluble in weak cyanide solutions (See
Table 13-21).
Under normal heap leach solution pHs and cyanide concentrations, the dominant copper
cyanide complex is Cu(CN)32- and theoretically binds 2.3 g of NaCN per g of Cu leached.
An additional 0.8 g NaCN per g Cu may be irreversibly consumed if the copper is present
in oxidized (2+) form. These estimations can be used as an order-of-magnitude indication
of the copper contribution to overall cyanide consumption, keeping in mind that the
complexed portion of cyanide isn’t irreversibly “consumed” but rather bound
(complexed) with copper. Certain copper recovery methods, if used, may present the
opportunity to recover a portion of this complexed cyanide.
The selection of the total operational cyanide consumption to be 0.45 kg NaCN/MT, after
applying the scale-up factor to column test consumptions (See Section 13.16.4) are well
within the expected average heap cyanide consumption of 0.1 – 1.0 kg NaCN/t. This
indirectly suggests that copper does not have an unusually high effect on cyanide
consumption.
Due to the relatively low copper leaching observed during Phase II and III column tests,
along with some process calculations described in Section 14 – Processing, the
integration of a copper removal technique at the onset of production is not considered
necessary. In addition, the Lindero recovery plant, as described further in Section 14, has
included some design features to address the buildup of copper. As an additional
contingency as part of the project risk analysis, in the case that copper increases to levels
beyond what is expected, a dedicated copper removal process called SART
(Sulfidization, Acidification, Recycling and Thickening) has been evaluated as a possible
future addition to the plant. A short general description of SART is included below, and
explained in further detail in Section 14.
May 2013
13.19.1 SART Process
The SART process is designed to recover cyanide that is combined with copper during
leaching in the heap, and also remove the soluble copper from the leach circuit. This is
expected to reduce overall reagent consumption and eliminate the tendency for the heap
leach solution to continually build up higher and higher copper concentrations in
solution. High copper to gold concentration ratios tend to increase loading of copper on
activated carbon relative to gold, unless high free cyanide levels are maintained in the
feed to the adsorption circuit. Maintaining very high free cyanide levels in the adsorption
feed, which then returns to the leach circuit, tends to exacerbate the leaching of additional
copper and thereby can further increase cyanide consumption.
SART is an acronym which stands for Sulfidization, Acidification, Recycle and

Thickening. Influent leach solution from the heap is sent to the SART process, which
recovers copper as a sulfide precipitate at a low solution pH by the simultaneous addition
of sodium hydrosulfide and sulfuric acid, according to the following reactions:
2 Cu(CN)32-(aq) + S2-(aq) → Cu2S(s) + 6 CN-(aq)

2 CN-(aq) + H2SO4(aq) → 2 HCN(aq) + SO42-(aq)
The copper sulfide precipitate is thickened and typically recovered as a salable product,
which will pay for part or all of the SART operating costs. The leach solution, now
stripped of copper, is sent to a neutralization reactor in which lime is added to return the
pH to the level of the feed solution. In the process the cyanide is recovered as free
cyanide (calcium cyanide) and gypsum is precipitated according to the following
reactions;
2 HCN(aq) + Ca(OH)2(aq) → Ca(CN)2(aq) + 2 H2O

SO42-(aq) + Ca(OH)2(aq) → CaSO4(s) + 2 H2O
The gypsum precipitate is thickened and disposed of as a waste product, and the
neutralized leach solution, stripped of copper and containing the recovered cyanide at pH
10-11, is forwarded to the adsorption circuit and/or back to the leach circuit.
SART testwork was not specifically performed on leach solutions from Lindero ore.
Testwork can be useful in refining SART reagent consumptions and certain design
criteria, however general criteria and consumptions have been established for SART
May 2013
through previous test work and literature that are expected to sufficiently address the
plant features and costs as a future contingency at the feasibility stage. The Lindero heap
leach operation is not considered to be unusual in regards to solution chemistry that
would affect its amenability to treatment via SART. If and when SART is deemed
necessary, some test work during the detailed design of the plant may be warranted.
13.20 Water Quality
Even though the project area only receives less than 50mm of precipitation per year on
average, various studies and observations indicate subsurface water is abundant in the
project area. The project area receives abundant runoff from snow melt from the high
mountains to the south and southwest. See Section 12 for a description of the Lindero
Water Supply and Management.
Observations and studies indicate that there are sufficient quantities of high quality water
for both industrial and domestic needs for the project. With respect to scaling, antiscalant
costs have been incorporated into the project economics.
Table 13-23 represents the water quality in the Vega de Chascha zone. Los Andes
Department in Salta denominated Pozo Lindero Agua 2 (St.Lin.Ag2). The geographical
coordinates of the well is: 25º 05’ 27.4” latitude South; 67º 39’ 09.4” longitude East.
May 2013
Table 13-23
Water Quality Table
Parameters Unit Value
pH pH 7.7
Turbidity NTU < 1.0
Conductivity @ 25oC μS/cm 5060
Color Esc. Pt-Co <5
Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 3100
Total Solids @ 105oC mg/l 3250
Suspended solids mg/l < 10
Total Alkalinity mg/l 64.7
Bicarbonate mg/l 78.9
Total hardness mg/l 327
Calcium mg/l 109
Magnesium mg/l 13.4
Nitrite mg/l 0.03
Ammonia mg/l < 0.06
Chloride mg/l 1420
Sulfate mg/l 246
Nitrate mg/l 16.8
Fluoride mg/l 1.06
Sodium mg/l 982
Potassium mg/l 29.3
Manganese mg/l Not detected
Total iron mg/l Not detected
13.21 Detoxification Testwork
A total of nine detoxification tests were done on selected column tests from Phase III.
The purpose of the detoxification is to determine the time, and the amount of hydrogen
peroxide and copper sulfate needed to achieve acceptable total and WAD cyanide levels
discharging from the column material. Tables 13-24 and 13-25 summarize the results of
the detoxification testwork.
May 2013
Table 13-24
Summary of Detoxification Test Results – Total & WAD Cyanide
Initial Total Final Total Initial WAD Final WAD
Cyanide, Cyanide, Cyanide, Cyanide,
KCA Test No. Description mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
37419 FPD 588 1.55 413 0.10
37422 FPD 544 1.66 488 0.11
37443 FPDox 452 1.36 397 0.13
37446 FPDox 466 1.83 354 0.13
37449 FPDhyp 534 1.24 420 0.13
37452 FPDhyp 689 1.33 610 0.16
37464 FPD/CPD1 428 1.03 368 0.18
37467 FPD/CPD1 373 0.68 344 0.13
37473 FPDhyp 1,480 1.88 1,270 0.58
Table 13-25
Summary of Detoxification Test Results – Reagent Usage
Tonnes Na2S2O5 CaO CuSO4
KCA Test Solution/Tonnes Added, Added, Added,
No. Description Cycles Ore kg/t kg/t kg/t
37419 FPD 18 1.17 1.15 0.24 0.01
37422 FPD 14 1.60 1.72 0.40 0.02
37443 FPDox 27 1.60 1.40 0.23 0.01
37446 FPDox 13 1.48 1.63 0.36 0.01
37449 FPDhyp 22 1.31 0.87 0.19 0.01
37452 FPDhyp 18 2.25 1.70 0.32 0.02
37464 FPD/CPD1 27 1.64 0.79 0.17 0.01
37467 FPD/CPD1 14 1.57 0.99 0.22 0.01
37473 FPDhyp 30 3.81 3.04 0.52 0.04
All of the nine tests reached the test criteria of the effluent from the columns containing
less than 2.0 mg/L total cyanide for three consecutive days (or cycles).
May 2013
13.22 Arizaro Bottle Rolls
Coarse ore bottle roll tests were completed on four different drill core composites from
the Arizaro deposit. The drill core was comprised of both fresh and oxide ore. The
samples were crushed to 80% passing 9.5 mm and the sodium cyanide concentration
maintained in the tests was 1.0 gram per liter of solution. All four tests lasted 53 days.
Tables 13-26 and 13-27 summarizes the results of these bottle roll tests.
Table 13-26
Summary of Arizaro Bottle Rolls – Gold Extraction and Reagent Usage
Calculated Extracted NaCN
Head, Au Au, Consumption, Ca(OH)2
Description g/t % kg/t Addition, kg/t
Ore Type 1, BX MAG, High Grade 1.86 67 2.50 1.00
Ore Type 2, BX MAG, Medium Grade 0.62 64 2.07 1.00
Ore Type 3, FED, Medium Grade 0.42 73 1.25 1.00
Ore Type 4, FED, High Grade 1.04 72 3.79 1.00
Table 13-27
Summary of Arizaro Bottle Rolls – Silver and Copper Extraction
Calculated Calculated
Head, Ag Head, Cu Extracted Ag, Extracted Cu,
Description g/t g/t % %
Ore Type 1, BX MAG, High Grade 0.79 3,370 67 22
Ore Type 2, BX MAG, Medium Grade 0.62 2,260 50 26
Ore Type 3, FED, Medium Grade 0.70 2,215 43 17
Ore Type 4, FED, High Grade 0.79 3,320 60 33
May 2013
14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
The 2009 Lindero Project Mineral Resource estimate and grade shells were prepared by
David G. Thomas, P.Geo., Principal Resource Geologist employed by AMEC,. The
Mineral Resource estimates were prepared using 3-D models in the commercial mine
planning software GEMS® (version 6.21), have been estimated in accordance with
industry practices, and conform to the requirements of CIM Definition Standards (2010).
Mineral Resources were constrained inside open pit shells constructed using the
commercial mine programming software Whittle®.
Goldrock retained AMEC to complete a re-tabulation of the Mineral Resources for the
Lindero heap leach gold project located in Salta Province, Argentina. AMEC previously
estimated Mineral Resources for the project in 2010. The block grade estimates and
Mineral Resource classification have not changed.
AMEC used updated metal prices, mining, and processing costs provided by Goldrock to
calculate a marginal cut-off grade to compare with Goldrock’s suggested cut-off grade
and to generate an updated optimized pit shell. The updated metal prices, mining and
processing costs were reviewed by AMEC. The optimized pit shell constrains the Mineral
Resource to material with “reasonable prospects of economic extraction” as per the 2010
CIM Definition Standards Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves.
14.1 Database
Goldrock provided AMEC with MS Excel® spreadsheets containing all drilling

information on the Lindero property. AMEC imported the collar downhole survey,
lithological, and assay data into a MS Access® database and performed data verification
checks before importing the data into GEMS®. Validation routines within the software
were used to check for survey errors, overlapping intervals, missing intervals, skipped
intervals, and values outside of range. No errors were reported by the software.
The drill hole database that supports mineral resource estimation comprises 17,753
samples from 121 core holes (34,656.8 m) and 32 trenches (1,268 m) collected between
2002 and 2008 by Rio Tinto and Goldrock.
The database was closed for estimation purposes on 31 July 2009.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 14 - Mineral Resource Estimates

May 2013
14.2 Geological Models
Goldrock provided AMEC with 3D mineralized solids which were prepared to reflect
geological interpretations prepared by Goldrock geologists from plan views spaced 20 m
apart. The geological models used to constrain the resource estimation comprised seven
lithological models:
• FPD (Fine Porphyry Diorite) / CPD1 (Crowded Porphyry Diorite);
• PBFD (Porphyry Bimodal Feldspar Diorite). Represents a small percentage

of the intrusive complex and hosts medium grade gold mineralization;
• CPD2 (Crowded Porphyry Diorite 2). Crops out at the centre of the
intrusive complex and generally contains low-grade mineralization;
• DDP (Desmezcla Diorite Porphyry). This unit occurs at the centre of the
intrusive complex and is associated with CPD2. Hosts low- to medium-
grade mineralization in the 0.1 g/t Au to 0.4 g/t Au range;
• PMI (Post Mineral Intrusive). This intrusive post-dates the main

mineralizing event and occurs at the central–north area of the intrusive
complex;
• S1 (Early Tertiary Red-bed Sandstones). Intrusion of the porphyries into

these sediments formed a hornfels halo and contact breccias surrounding
the porphyries that are variably mineralized;
• BX (Magmatic Breccia) corresponds to two magmatic breccias. Either

polylithic or monolithic, these breccias contain rounded clasts of intrusives
cemented by a porphyritic magmatic matrix. The main occurrences are
found in the east and north of the intrusive complex;
• The ring shaped FPD/CPD1 and S1 domains were further subdivided into
five radially distributed segments so that each segment has an internally
consistent geometry, reflecting the geometry of mineralization.

May 2013
Mineralization is distributed in stockworks which are tangential to the

circular CPD1–FPD intrusion;
AMEC constructed a surface to represent the base of oxidation in order to reproduce

vertical trends in the gold grades.
14.2.1 Probabilistic Grade Shells
AMEC used probability assigned constrained kriging (PACK) to estimate gold grades.
PACK was designed to define economic envelopes around mineralized zones
automatically on the computer that are difficult to outline and delineate using
more traditional and labor-intensive methods such as wireframing. Probabilistic
envelopes are first generated using indicators to define the limits of the economic
mineralization and then the envelopes are used in the resource estimation to confine the
higher grade assays from smearing into lower-grade zones and restrict lower-grade
assays from diluting the higher-grade zones.
PACK models were constructed for all domains except the PMI as follows:
• Indicator thresholds were selected for all domains. The threshold value for
the CPD1–FPD, PBFD, BX and S1 domains was 0.5 g/t Au while the
threshold value for the CPD2 and DDP domains was 0.2 g/t Au;
• A gold indicator field was created in the composite file and composites
with gold values below the threshold were assigned a value of zero, while
composites with gold values equal to or above the threshold were assigned
a value of one;
• A NN model was then constructed using the gold indicators and the
number of blocks by indicator value was tabulated;
• The gold indicators in the composite file were then used to estimate the
probability that each block was above the threshold using ordinary kriging;

May 2013
• For all domains blocks with a probability of greater than or equal to 0.5
were assigned a block code of one and blocks with a probability below 0.5
were assigned a block code of zero; and
• The probability value was selected so that the percentage of blocks

assigned a block code of one matched the percentage of blocks assigned a
value of two in the NN model to minimize global bias.
The Indicator variogram nugget was modeled using a single structure down-the-hole
correlograms and directional indicator variograms were modeled using two spherical
structures.
Figures 14-1 to Figure 14-4 include a 3D image of the mineralized domain solids, a level
plan showing composite grades and estimation blocks, and two cross-sections displaying
the composite grades and estimation blocks. Each block model plan displays the drill
traces showing the relationship of the drill hole to the mineralization. Section plans
display the orientation of the drill holes in relation to the orientation of the
mineralization. Composite grades shown on the drill hole traces (Figure 14-1 and Figure
14-2) reflect areas of high-grade, lower-grade and non-mineralized material intersected
by drilling.

May 2013
Figure 14-1
Lindero Lithological Domains
CPD1/FPD
PMI
CPD2
DDP
PBFD
BX
Note: Abbreviations for the lithology codes are the same as those described in Section 10.1.3. Drill holes
are color coded by logged lithological codes.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 14-2
Plan 3760–Model Go
old Grade Blocks,
B Commposites and
d Search Ellipses
Note: 2-dimensionall view. Plan vieew corridor is ± 20 m
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Section 14 - Mineral Resoource Estimatees

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 14-3
North–So
outh Section
n Showing Gold
G Gradees of Blocks and Composites
Note: 2-dimensionall view. Verticall section corrid

dor is ± 20 m

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 14-4
East–W
West Section Showing Gold
G Gradess of Blocks aand Composites
Notte: 2-dimension
nal view. Vertical section corrridor is ± 20 m

May 2013
2
14.2.2 Composites
Assay and density data were composited into 4 m down-hole intervals honoring the
contact with the waste domain PMI lithology. A 4 m composite length was selected as a
majority of the assays are 2 m in length, and it corresponds to half of one bench height.
14.2.3 Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) Envelope
AMEC constructed a wireframe solid around the mineralized area of the Lindero deposit
and excluding isolated drill holes. A maximum extrapolation distance of approximately
30 m was chosen to limit the calculation of basic statistics and declustered statistics for
subsequent model validation.
14.2.4 Exploratory Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics of the assays and composites have been completed by AMEC using
histograms, boxplots, and contact plots.
14.2.5 Basic Statistics
AMEC plotted statistics using 4 m composites. The CPD1–FPD, PBFD and DDP
lithologies have the highest mean grades of 0.62 g/t Au, 0.45 g/t Au and 0.39 g/t Au
respectively.
14.2.6 Contact Analysis
To determine whether composites should be used across lithological boundaries during

gold estimation, AMEC constructed contact plots for all the different combinations of
lithological boundaries. A contact profile is a plot of the average grade as a function of
distance from the contact. For example, the grade profile can be plotted on a X-Y graph
with grade plotted on the Y-axis and distance from the contact plotted on the X-axis. The
contact is located mid-way along the X-axis so that the profile from one domain can be
plotted to the left of the contact while the profile from a second domain can be plotted to

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
the riight of the coontact. Hard

d contacts (o
only those coomposites thhat lie withinn each domaiin
are used
u for estiimation in th
hat domain)) are generaally justifiedd if there is a substantiaal
gradee difference between thee domains an nd soft contaacts (composites in adjaacent domainns
are inncluded in the t estimation) are justtified if the grade diffeerence is miinor or if thhe
gradees at the bou undary are nearly
n identical. Firm bboundaries aare justified where gradees
chang ge graduallyy across the contact.
c If a hard bounndary was im mposed wherre grades tennd
to chhange gradu ually, gradess may be ov verestimatedd on one siide of the bboundary annd
underrestimated ono the opposiite side.
Results from the Lindero con ntact profilees showed thhat hard, sofft and firm ccontacts exisst.
Firm boundaries were modelled by allowing composiites on the oother side of the boundarry
mation of bllocks in the first
to be used in estim f pass butt not in subssequent passees.
14.2.7 Exam
mination of Extreme
E Va
alues
The mineral ind dustry emplo oys top-cuttting (also c alled cappinng) or varioous forms oof
―outtlier restrictiion to preveent unreasonnable over-prrojection off very high ggrades durinng
minerral resource modeling. This proced dure is very subjective, and there iss no standardd.
It is left
l for the Qualified
Q Perrson to judgee.
Raw assay data ono 2 m comp posite length

hs were exaamined to assess the amoount of metaal
that is
i at risk fro
om high-graade assays. AMEC ussed multiplee statistical methods annd
comppiled a tabullation of thee resulting grade
g cappinng values sugggested by each methodd.
AME EC then seleected a final capping vaalue for eachh domain. The amounnt of metal tto
remove is then deetermined by y the followiing formula::
Metaal-to-remove = (1 – (aveerage grade capped dataa ÷ average grade uncappped data)) x

100
AME EC performeed a metal at

a risk analyysis using ann AMEC inn-house Forttran program
m,
riskhi2a.exe, to determine an
a appropriaate capping grade. Thee following assumptionns
were made for the Lindero deeposit metal at-risk runs :
• Pro
oduction ratee of 10.4 Mt/a;

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
• Nuumber of sammples minedd annually iss expected tto be 1,346. This numbeer
waas determined by dividin
ng 12 years of expectedd mining intoo the numbeer
of total
t composites; and
• Eacch sample reepresents app
proximatelyy 7,750 t.
Results from the metal-at-risk

k study sugg
gest cappingg thresholds oof between 00.75 g/t Au iin
the lo
ow-grade CP PD2 and DD DP domains to a maximuum of 3.0 gg/t Au in the higher-gradde
CPD1–FPD dom main. The peercentage off composites above the tthresholds vaaries betweeen
0.6%
% and 1.6%. The expectted number of o high gradde compositees that will be mined peer
year ranges betwween nine annd 15, whichh are relativeely low num
mbers. The ppercentage oof
metall to be remov
ved for each
h domain is between
b 1% and 2%.
AME EC restricted
d the influencce of composites above tthe capping thresholds bby imposing a
search ellipse witth dimension
ns reduced by
b between 110% and 30% %.
AME EC produced d an un-resstricted moddel to deterrmine the eeffect of thhe restrictionn.

Tabu
ulating a min neral inventory at a 0.2
2 g/t Au cutt-off, the restricted moddel showed a
decreease of betweeen 1.0% an
nd 2.8% for contained
c ouunces. Globally the conttained ouncees
were reduced by 1.2%. AME EC considers the imposedd restrictionss to be reasoonable.
14.2.8 Vario
ography
Vario
ography wass completed by domain on uncappedd 4 m compposites usingg Sage2001™ ™
softw
ware. The nugget efffect was first establisheed using a down-hole correlogram m.
Direcctional correelograms werre modeled using two sttructure spherical (Sph) models to ffit
experrimental variiograms. The nugget efffects are low
w to moderateely low in alll domains.
In AM ges and strucctures appearr reasonable for the stylees

MEC‘s opiniion, the interrpreted rang
of mineralization
m n at the Pro oject. Seaarch and varriography pparameters uused for golld
estim
mation are listed in Tablee 14-1 and Taable 14-2.

May 2013
2
Table 14-1
Variogram Parameters
Orientation Distance of Grade Continuity

Sill
X-Axis Y-Axis Z-Axis X-Axis Y-Axis Z-Axis
Model 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
Nugget Structure Structure Azimuth Dip Azimuth Dip Azimuth Dip Range Range Range Range Range Range
0.2 g/t Indicator 0.35 0.28 0.37 98 -8 7 -10 45 78 35 60 70 235 190 137
0.5 g/t Indicator 0.3 0.25 0.45 90 0 360 0 90 -90 30 80 40 75 40 220
CPD-East 0.24 0.33 0.43 30 10 300 0 210 80 50 300 30 50 25 290
CPD-Northeast 0.19 0.45 0.36 110 0 20 0 90 -90 30 400 20 80 70 270
CPD-North 0.3 0.34 0.36 183 -19 53 -62 100 20 25 75 20 165 15 200
0.25 0.31 0.44 45 8 315 -6 265 80 25 35 35 35 15 60
CPD-West
0.2 0.55 0.25 40 0 310 0 90 -90 40 45 15 200 30 200
CPD-Southwest
0.1 0.43 0.47 90 0 0 0 90 -90 30 130 30 290 104 120
DDP-CPD2 0.1 0.44 0.46 240 -85 330 0 60 -5 40 300 15 50 15 125
PMI
0.25 0.45 0.3 0 0 0 0 90 -90 25 60 25 60 25 60
BX

May 2013
Table 14-2
Grade Interpolation Parameters
Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 1st and 2nd Pass 3rd Pass
Search Radius Search Radius Search Radius Sample Restrictions Sample Restrictions
Rock Type X-Axis Y-Axis Z-Axis X-Axis Y-Axis Z-Axis X-Axis Y-Axis Z-Axis Min Max Max Per Hole Min Max Max Per Hole
CPD-E 15 45 60 30 90 120 45 135 180 3 12 2 1 12 3

CPD-NE 60 20 60 90 30 90 135 45 135 3 12 2 1 12 3
CPD-N 40 20 60 80 40 120 120 60 180 3 12 2 1 12 3
CPD-W 30 30 60 60 60 120 90 90 180 3 12 2 1 12 3
CPD-SW 20 40 60 40 80 120 60 120 180 3 12 2 1 12 3
PBFD 15 45 60 30 90 120 45 135 180 3 12 2 1 12 3
SEDS-E 30 90 120 45 135 180 1 12 3
15 45 60 3 12 2
SEDS-NE 1 12 3
60 20 60 90 30 90 135 45 135 3 12 2
SEDS-N 1 12 3
40 20 60 80 40 120 120 60 180 3 12 2
SEDS-W 1 12 3
30 30 60 60 60 120 90 90 180 3 12 2
SEDS-SW 1 12 3
20 40 60 40 80 120 60 120 180 3 12 2
DDP 1 12 3
20 40 40 40 80 80 60 120 120 3 12 2
CPD2 1 12 3
20 40 40 40 80 80 60 120 120 3 12 2
BX 1 12 3
30 30 60 60 60 120 60 60 120 3 12 2

May 2013
14.2.9 Model Setup
Block model dimensions are 10 m x 10 m x 4 m. The block size was chosen such that
geological contacts are reasonably well reflected and to support an open pit mining
scenario. A bench height of 8 m in ore, 12 m in waste and selected 16 m is anticipated.
Using a 4 m bench height in the model allows flexibility during mine planning
and optimization studies.
The primary rock codes in CPD1–FPD and S1 domains were subdivided by segment in
an anti-clockwise direction. AMEC developed a rock code numbering system to
incorporate the radially distributed segments, PACK grade shells, and position relative to
the oxide surface. The rock codes for the CPD1–FPD and S1 domains are presented in
Table 14-3.
Table 14-3
Rock Codes for CPD1/FPD and S1 Domains and Subdomains
0.50 g/t PACK 0.05 g/t PACK
Grade Shell Sulfide Grade Shell Oxide
Primary Code Oxide Codes Codes Codes
Segment FPD S1 FPD S1 FPD S1 FPD S1
CPD1 CPD1 CPD1 CPD1
East 11 71 111 711 1150 7150 1151 7151
Northeast 12 72 121 721 1250 7250 1251 7251
North 13 73 131 731 1350 7350 1351 7351
West 14 74 141 741 1450 7450 1451 7451
Southwest 15 75 151 751 1550 7550 1551 7551
The other domains were coded by oxide and grade shell using the same numbering
system. The rock codes are shown in Table 14-4.
Table 14-4
Rock Codes for Other Domains and Subdomains
Grade Shell Codes (0.2 g/t PACK Shell)
Rock Type Primary Code Oxide Codes Sulfide Oxide
PBFD 3 31 350 351
CPD2 4 41 420 421
DDP 5 51 520 521
PMI 6 61 - -
BX 9 91 950 951

May 2013
14.2.10 Estimation Methodology
Blocks within a mineralized domain were interpolated using composites assigned to the
same domain. AMEC chose to interpolate the grades using ordinary kriging, as the grade
distribution is reasonably smooth. Hard, Firm and Soft contacts were defined between
different domains and sub-domains
A three-pass method was employed to assign estimated grades. The search strategy
employed concentric expanding search radii restricted by the block domain code and the
applicable variogram. The distances for the three passes were determined as follows:
• Pass 1: a short search radius of derived from twice the distance between drill
holes, based on typical drill hole spacing such that at least four drill holes
would be found within the search ellipse. Domains with Firm boundaries
used composites on the opposite side of the boundary for interpolation;
• Pass 2: an intermediate search radius derived by twice the typical drill hole
spacing plus 10% to account for drill pattern irregularities. Domains with
Firm boundaries were not permitted to use composites on the opposite side
of the boundary; and
• Pass 3: a larger, less restrictive search radius such that all blocks would have
interpolated grades. This distance varied depending on the domain.
In the first and second passes, grade interpolation required a minimum of three
composites, a maximum of twelve composites, and no more than two composites per drill
hole. In the third pass, grade interpolation required a minimum of one composite, a
maximum of 12 composites and no more than three composites per drill hole.
14.2.11 Bulk Density Assignment
AMEC used the specific gravity values shown in Table 14-5, which were determined by
AMEC. Specific gravity values were assigned by lithology to each block

May 2013
Table 14-5
Specific Gravity Values Assigned to Lindero Model
Specific Rock
Domain Gravity Codes
CPD1 2.58 11 to 15
CPD1 oxide 2.50 111 to 151
PBFD 2.59 3
PBFD oxide 2.51 31
CPD2 2.64 4
CPD2 oxide 2.56 41
DDP 2.59 5
DDPoxide 2.58 51
PMI 2.49 6
PMI oxide 2.51 61
S1 2.57 7
S1 oxide 2.50 71
BX 2.59 9
BX oxide 2.44 91
14.2.12 Model Validation
Nearest-Neighbor Block Model
AMEC constructed a gold nearest-neighbor (NN) model to compare to the ordinary

kriged (OK) block model to check for bias.
Global Bias
AMEC checked the gold model for global bias by comparing the means of the OK model
with means from the NN model by domain. The NN model theoretically produces an
unbiased estimate of average value at a zero cut-off grade. A relative percentage value of
less than 5% difference between the means is an acceptable result and indicates good
correlation between the two models. For the CPD1–FPD domain, the estimates are
within the 5% limit and indicate a good correlation. The PBFD and PMI domains show
differences of 5% and 34.7% respectively, however due to the low number of blocks and
due to the low grades within the PMI lithology, AMEC considers that this is acceptable.
When all of the domains are combined with the other lithologies, the overall difference is
within 0.3% as shown in Table 14-6.

May 2013
Table 14-6
Global Bias Check by Rock Type
Rock NN Mean OK Mean Relative Percent Number of
Rock Type Code Grade (g/t) Grade (g/t) Difference Blocks
CPD1/FPD 1 0.572 0.581 1.60% 91,570
PBFD 3 0.477 0.5 5.00% 4,426
CPD2 4 0.18 0.182 1.10% 17,128
DDP 5 0.402 0.388 -3.50% 6,962
PMI 6 0.088 0.058 -34.70% 15,993
S1 7 0.322 0.317 -1.50% 33,198
BX 9 0.382 0.379 -0.70% 3,681
Global 0.427 0.429 0.30% 172,958
Visual Inspection
AMEC completed a detailed visual validation of the Lindero resource model. Models
were checked for proper coding of drill hole intervals and block model cells, in both
section and plan. Coding was found to be properly done. Grade interpolation was
examined relative to drill hole composite values by inspecting sections and plans.
Checks showed good agreement between drill hole composite values and model cell
values.
Figure 14-5 presents an example east–west-oriented cross-section through the central part
of the Lindero deposit.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 14-5
Section 2623155
2 E, Showing Coomposites aand OK Mod
del Gold Grrades

May 2013
2
Swath Plots
Swath plot validation was performed with an in-house AMEC program, swath2.exe,
which permits a visual comparison of local bias between the kriged and NN estimates.
The program separates the block model into user-defined orthogonal slices (swaths)
along easting, northing, and elevation axis and calculates the average grade for each
swath. AMEC reviewed the swath plots and determined that gold grades from kriged and
NN blocks compare well with composite grades with increasing number of composites.
OK block grades are also similar to the NN block grades, matching peaks and valleys.
AMEC concluded that the estimation was unbiased.
Change of Support Smoothing Check
All linear interpolation methods cause some degree of smoothing in the final block model
grade distribution relative to the composite grade distribution. This is caused in part due
to the change of support during grade estimation of blocks from the grades of composite
sized samples. An excess of smoothing can result in incorrect production forecasts of
tonnage and average grade. Smoothing excess can be detected by comparing the OK
grade-tonnage curve against a Discrete Gaussian (Herco)-adjusted NN grade tonnage
curve; the Herco-adjusted NN block model grade distribution is used as a proxy for
reality.
If the smoothing excess is too severe (more than 10% relative difference), it can usually
be reduced by restricting the number of composites used in estimation or subdividing the
deposit into domains with different average grades via deterministic methods, spatial
domains or soft–firm–hard (SFH) boundaries on lithology. Conversely, if the degree of
smoothing is too low, the number of composites used in estimation and/or the size of the
search neighborhood should be increased.
The results are presented in Table 14-7 at a gold cut-off grade of 0.2 g/t Au and assuming
a 10 m (easting) x 10 m (northing) x 8 m (elevation) selective mining unit. The results
are generally acceptable with some excess smoothing in the CPD1–FPD West domain,
which is most likely due to the low number of blocks in the domain.

May 2013
Table 14-7
Relative Differences in Tonnes and Grades at 0.2 g/t Au Cut-Off
Relative Relative Relative
Percent Percent Percent
Difference in Difference in Difference in
Domain Rock Code Tonnes Grade Metal
CPD1/FPD East 11 -3.6% 2.1% -0.8%
CPD1/FPD Northeast 12 -0.4% -0.9% -0.7%
CPD1/FPD North 13 0.2% -2.4% 0.0%
CPD1/FPD West 14 -10.6% 4.6% -2.3%
CPD1/FPD Southwest 15 -0.7% -2.7% -0.2%
DDP/CPD2 4,5 -2.1% 1.1% -0.8%
Global -1.9% -0.2% -0.6%
14.2.13 Confidence Limit Determination
Geostatistics provides an assortment of tools to establish confidence levels on resource

estimates. The simplest of these methods involves evaluation of estimation variances for
large blocks. This method gives an estimate of global confidence or confidence over
large areas. The method is not dependent on the local data. A more complicated method,
conditional simulation, incorporates data dependency to determine confidence limits.
Inferred Drill Hole Grid Spacing
Mineral resources were classified as Inferred when a block was located within 70 m of
the nearest composite. Drill hole spacing for Inferred Resources would broadly
correspond to a 70 m x 70 m grid or blocks with grades extrapolated 70 m from the
nearest drill hole.
Indicated Drill Hole Grid Spacing
AMEC calculated the confidence limits for determining the appropriate drill grid spacing
for Indicated Resources. AMEC considers that Indicated Resources should be known
within ±15% with 90% confidence on an annual basis (production year). The statistical
criterion used for Indicated Resources is that a yearly mine production should be known
to at least ±15% with 90% confidence.
A drill grid spacing of 75 m gives 90% confidence levels in individual domains ranging

May 2013
from ±8% to ±11% for an annual product increment and is within the suggested limits of
±15%.
A drill spacing of 90 m was selected to ensure that the continuity of discontinuous high-
grade gold zones, along with the extent and shape of the mineralization, is sufficiently
delineated to give a reliable estimate of tonnes and grade.
Mineral resources were classified as Indicated when a block was located within 54 m of
the nearest composite and one additional composite from another drill hole was within 90
m. Drill hole spacing for Indicated Resources would broadly correspond to a 75 m x 75 m
grid.
AMEC manually adjusted the classification in peripheral areas of the drill grid so that
blocks extrapolated greater than 30 m from the closest drilling were classified as Inferred.
Measured Drill Hole Grid Spacing
AMEC calculated the confidence limits for determining appropriate drill grid spacing for
Measured Resources. AMEC considers that Measured Resources should be known
within ±15% with 90% confidence on a quarterly basis (production quarter).
A drill grid spacing of 37.5 m gives 90% confidence levels in individual domains ranging
from ±8% to ±11% for a quarterly product increment.
Mineral resources were classified as Measured when a block was located within 35 m of
the nearest composite and two composites from two additional drill holes was within 45
m. Drill hole spacing for Measured Resources would broadly correspond to a 37.5 m x
37.5 m grid.
14.3 Mineral Resource Classification
AMEC visually reviewed the continuity of resource blocks with gold grades equal to or
greater than the base case cut-off of 0.15 g/t Au in section and plan. AMEC concluded
that the resource model showed good grade and geologic continuity in areas of the
CPD1– FPD domain with 37.5 m drill spacing, and adequate continuity for grade
interpolation and open-pit mine planning along strike and dip in areas with drill hole

May 2013
spacing at 75 m with a distance of less than 30 m extrapolation away from the drilled
area.
Geological and grade continuity in the central and western parts of the intrusive complex
is complicated by the occurrence of multiple intrusive events and magmatic breccias
which increase the uncertainty in this area. Therefore AMEC downgraded blocks within
this area to the Indicated category.
In addition to considering geological and grade continuity for mineral resource

classification, AMEC considered the uncertainty in the location and quality of the drill
hole composites used to interpolate block grades. Areas with the majority of the
composites derived from drill holes with uncertain locations or assays with no supporting
laboratory certificates were downgraded from the Measured to the Indicated category.
Trenches were only permitted to inform blocks up to an Indicated category of mineral

resource.
AMEC briefly reviewed the distribution of metallurgical samples to ensure a reasonable

amount of confidence in metallurgical recoveries.
Automated resource classification algorithms usually produce results with isolated blocks
of different categories (a spotted dog appearance). AMEC removed isolated blocks by
manually adjusting the classification.
14.4 Assessment of Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction
To assess reasonable prospects of economic extraction as required by the definition of

Mineral Resource in NI 43-101, the mineralization was confined within a Lerchs–
Grossmann optimization, the key parameters of which were the geological and grade
continuity of mineralization. AMEC considered that the mineralized material that
displays geological and grade continuity, and which falls within a pit shell constructed
using reasonable economic parameters is likely to support economic extraction.
Goldrock requested that AMEC use a gold price of $1,450/oz for the update to the
Mineral Resource Estimate. This price is consistent with AMEC’s view on what is
considered a general industry consensus on long-term gold prices for Mineral Resource

May 2013
estimates. The 2009 Mineral Resource estimate used a gold price of $890/oz.
The process and mining costs were updated using information provided by Goldrock. The
cost assumptions are comparable with other similar AMEC projects and are generally
similar to costs used in the Feasibility Study currently being completed for Lindero. The
costs used in the 2013 Mineral Resource tabulation are shown in Table 14-8 below.
Table 14-8
Costs Used in Mineral Resource Estimate
2013 Resource Estimate
Cost Price
Ore Mining Cost [1] $2.10 / tonne mined
Waste Mining Cost $2.10 / tonne mined
Ore Processing and G&A Cost [2] $5.20 / tonne milled
Treatment and Refining Costs $6.19 / ounce gold produced
1 Includes $0.20 / tonne G and A cost.
2 Total Ore Based Costs used to calculate marginal cut-off
Goldrock requested that AMEC use a metallurgical recovery of 70%. This metallurgical
recovery is the same as that used in the 2009 Mineral Resource estimate and is consistent
with the recovery estimated during the pre-feasibility study.
Geotechnical Parameters
The optimized pit shell used to constrain Mineral Resources in 2009 used a range of
slope angles between 56° and 58°. For the updated 2013 Mineral Resource estimate, an
overall slope angle of 52° was used and is based on the latest geotechnical report
completed for Goldrock by Seegmiller in August 2012. AMEC flattened the original
slope angles from the Seegmiller report to 52° to account for haulage ramps within the pit
walls.
The original slope angles from the Seegmiller report are shown below in Figure 14-6.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 14-6
Geeotechnical Pit Slope Parameters
Marg
ginal Cut-offf Calculation
n
AME EC calculated d a marginal cut-off graade (COG) uusing gold prrice, ore-bassed costs, annd
metalllurgical recovery. The marginal
m cu
ut-off is baseed on the geenerally acceepted practicce
that a decision iss made at thee pit rim if mined
m materrial above thhe marginal cut-off gradde
will lose
l less mon ney if it is seent to the mill rather thaan if it is sennt to the wasste dump. It is
consiidered “ore” if it contain ns a value thaat is greater tthan the costts to processs it.
Revenue per gramm was calcu

ulated using the metal prrice per gram
m of gold annd the processs
recov
very (70%). The
T total oree-based costs are shown in Table 14-9 (above).
The marginal
m cutt-off grade (C
COG) was calculated usiing the folloowing formuula:
COG = Tottal Ore Based

d Costs / (Reevenue per G
Gram x Metaallurgical Reecovery)
AME EC determineed a margin nal cut-off grrade of 0.16 g/t Au. In 22009 AMEC C calculated a
margginal cut-off grade of 0.1
15 g/t Au. AMEC
A conclludes that thhe marginal cut-off gradde
has not
n changed significantly
s y from the prrevious Mineeral Resourcce estimate.
Goldrrock requested that AM

MEC use a 0.20
0 g/t Au cut-off graade to reportt the Mineraal

May 2013
2
Resource. However, AMEC has reported Mineral Resources using a 0.15 g/t cut-off
grade since this is close to the marginal cut-off grade using the current estimated ore
based costs and metal prices. AMEC has included the 0.20 g/t Au cut-off grade for
reporting sensitivity of the Mineral Resources to cut-off grade.
14.5 Mineral Resource Statement
David G. Thomas P. Geo. is the QP for the mineral resource estimate for the Lindero
deposit. Mineral resources have an effective date of 23 January 2013. Mineral resources
for the Project are summarized in Table 14-10. Mineral Resources are reported as
undiluted and in-situ grades.
Mineral Resources were constrained within a pit shell (Pitshell52deg2013Param.dxf)

constructed using the commercial mine optimization software Whittle®. AMEC used the
gold price, treatment/refining, mining and process costs, metallurgical recovery and
geotechnical parameters described in the previous sections to optimized a pit shell with a
Lerchs-Grossman algorithm. The classified Mineral Resources are tabulated in Table 14-
9 using a 0.15 g/t Au cut-off grade and are reported within the pit shell. The Measured
and Indicated Mineral Resources are inclusive of those Mineral Resources modified to
produce the Mineral Reserves.
Table 14-9
Lindero Mineral Resource Statement
(Effective Date 23 January 2013, David G. Thomas P.Geo.)
Resource Tonnage Gold Copper Gold
Category (Mt) (g/t) (%) (MOz)
Measured 28.5 0.76 0.11 0.70
Indicated 100.2 0.47 0.10 1.51
Measured and Indicated 128.7 0.53 0.10 2.19
Inferred 59.7 0.37 0.09 0.71
Notes: 1. Mineral Resources are reported above a 0.15 g/t Au cut-off grade.
2. Mineral Resources are reported with internal dilution appropriate for a 10 x 10 x 8m selective mining unit and
assuming cut-off grades between 0.1 g/t and 0.5 g/t Au. No external dilution is included.
3. Mineral Resources are reported using a long-term gold price of US $1,450/oz, mining costs at US $2.10 per
tonne (including G and A), with total processing and process G&A costs of US $5.20 per tonne of ore and an
average process recovery of 70%. The treatment and refining costs were estimated to be US $6.19 per ounce gold.
4. Mineral Resources are reported within a conceptual pit shell using a slope angle (52°) consistent with
geotechnical parameters from a report issued by Seegmiller in August 2012.
Table 14-10 shows the sensitivity of mineral resources with different gold grade cut-offs
in increments of 0.05 g/t from 0.15 g/t Au to 0.5 g/t Au. The material reported in the

May 2013
table is contained within the US$1,450 pit shell.
Table 14-10
Sensitivity of Lindero Mineral Resource to Cut-Off Grade
Cut-Off Grade Tonnes Grade Contained Metal
Category Au (g/t) (Mt) Au (g/t) Cu (%) Au (Moz)
Measured 0.15 28.5 0.76 0.11 0.70
0.20 28.4 0.76 0.11 0.69
0.25 28.2 0.77 0.11 0.69
0.30 27.4 0.78 0.12 0.69
0.35 25.9 0.81 0.12 0.67
0.40 23.8 0.84 0.12 0.65
0.45 21.9 0.88 0.13 0.62
0.50 20.5 0.91 0.13 0.60
Indicated 0.15 100.2 0.47 0.10 1.51
0.20 91.0 0.50 0.10 1.46
0.25 80.5 0.54 0.11 1.40
0.30 69.2 0.58 0.11 1.29
0.35 57.9 0.64 0.12 1.19
0.40 47.6 0.69 0.13 1.06
0.45 40.0 0.74 0.13 0.95
0.50 34.5 0.78 0.14 0.87
Measured and 0.15 128.7 0.53 0.10 2.19
Indicated
0.20 119.4 0.56 0.11 2.15
0.25 108.7 0.60 0.11 2.10
0.30 96.7 0.64 0.11 1.99
0.35 83.8 0.69 0.12 1.86
0.40 71.5 0.74 0.13 1.70
0.45 61.9 0.79 0.13 1.57
0.50 55.0 0.83 0.14 1.47
Inferred 0.15 59.7 0.37 0.09 0.71
0.20 50.3 0.40 0.09 0.65
0.25 42.1 0.44 0.10 0.60
0.30 33.5 0.48 0.10 0.52
0.35 24.8 0.53 0.11 0.42
0.40 17.1 0.61 0.12 0.34
0.45 12.4 0.67 0.13 0.27
0.50 9.1 0.75 0.13 0.22
Notes: Base case cut-off used in Mineral Resource estimate highlighted in grey.

May 2013
AMEC compared the 2013 Mineral Resource estimate with the 2009 Mineral Resource
estimate. Table 14-11 shows the results of the comparison. For the combined Measured
and Indicated categories, the differences in reported tonnage, grade and contained metal
are insignificant. For the Inferred category, the reported tonnage and contained metal are
approximately between 12% and 15% lower.
Table 14-11
Comparison with 2010 Mineral Resource Estimate
Grade Contained Metal
Category Tonnes Au Cu
(% Difference) (% Difference) (% Difference) (% Difference)
Measured 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -0.50%
Indicated -3.80% 0.00% 0.00% -2.90%
Measured and Indicated -3.00% 0.80% 0.00% -2.20%
Inferred -14.30% 2.80% 0.00% -12.30%
AMEC evaluated the cause of the changes in the Mineral Resource estimate by
generating a series of optimized open pits with varying metal price, slope angle
parameters and cost. Three cases were considered:
• Case 1 – To assess the impact in the constraining pit shell after modifying
gold price, Case 1 was run using the same constraining parameters of 2009:
slope angles, mining costs, processing costs and metallurgical recovery.
The only change was to the gold price which was updated from $890/oz Au
used in 2009 to $1,450/oz Au for the 2013 update and the selling cost to
$6.19/oz Au;
• Case 2 – Once the gold price had been updated to $1,450/oz Au, Case 2
was run updating the constraining pitshell slope angles to 52°. The rest of
the constraining parameters stayed fixed as in 2009: mining costs,
processing costs and metallurgical recovery; and
• Case 3 – With the gold price updated to $1,450/oz and the slope angles of
the constraining pitshell updated to 52° overall, Case 3 was run updating

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
thee operating costs: $2.100/t mined aand $5.20/t processed. Metallurgicaal

reccovery remaiins at 70%.
The various asssumptions and

a the totaal reported Measured, Indicated and Inferreed
contaained metal are
a shown beelow in Figu
ure 14-7.
The results
r show that the Min
neral Resourrce estimate is sensitive to changes iin metal pricce
and operating
o cost assumptio
ons. The gainns obtained after updatinng the gold price in Casse
1 are more than offset
o when the
t operatingg costs are uupdated in Caase 3.
AMEEC concludees that the higher

h confiidence Meassured and IIndicated poortions of thhe
Mineeral Resourcee are robust to changes in
i pit slope aangles, costs and metal pprices.
Fiigure 14-7
Comparisson of Reported Mineral Resourcee within Optimized Pit Shells
Mineeral Resources, which were

w estimateed using corre drilling annd trench daata, have beeen
perfo
ormed to inddustry practtices, and co onform to tthe requirem ments of CIM M Definitioon
Stand
dards (2010)) and is suitaable to suppo
ort detailed m
mine planninng.

May 2013
2
15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
This section is intended to establish NI 43-101 compliant Proven and Probable Reserves.
The report details pit and dump designs for the Lindero Gold project in the Salta
Province, Argentina.
MDA has used measured and indicated resources provided by AMEC to define reserves.
Reserve definition is done by first identifying ultimate pit limits using economic and
geometrical parameters with pit optimization techniques. The resulting optimized pit
shells were then used for guidance in pit design to allow access for equipment and
personnel. Several phases of mining were defined to enhance the economics of the
project, and MDA used the phased pit designs to define the production schedule to be
used for cash-flow analysis for the feasibility study.
Cash-flow models have been produced by KCA and MDA has reviewed them and
determined them to be reasonable with respect to stating reserves for the Lindero Gold
project.
The following sections detail the definition of reserves used for the production
scheduling. Later sections detail the production schedule and the mining costs used in
the KCA cash-flow model.
15.1 Pit Optimization
Pit optimization was done using Gemcom’s Whittle software to define pit limits with
input for economic and slope parameters. The optimization used parameters provided by
Goldrock and other consultants based on recent studies.
Pit optimization was done for four different operating cases: 12,000; 15,000; 19,000; and
30,000 tonnes per day (TPD). Though the final operating scenario uses a 15,000 TPD
startup expanding to 18,750 TPD in year 1, the ultimate pit design was developed from
the 15,000 TPD operating scenario while using a minimum cutoff grade for pit
optimization. This is considered to be conservative with respect to reserves.
Optimization used only Measured and Indicated material for processing. All Inferred
material was considered as waste.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 15 - Mineral Reserve Estimates

May 2013
Varying gold prices were used to evaluate the sensitivity of the deposit to the price of
gold as well as to develop a strategy for optimizing project cash flow. To achieve cash-
flow optimization, mining phases or push backs were developed using the guidance of
Lerchs Grossman pit shells at lower gold prices.
15.1.1 Economic Parameters
Economic parameters for pit optimizations were used based on previous and updated
information. The recoveries are based on metallurgical types, which were broken into
four different categories for material that is to be processed:
Economic parameters are provided in Table 15-1.
Table 15-1
Pit Optimization Economic Parameters
Item Value Units
Reference Mining Cost $2.10 $/t Mined
Processing Cost $4.30 $/t Processed
G&A per Year $8.95 $/t Processed
Process Rate 15,000 t/Day
Days per Year 360 Days/Year
Tonnes per Year Processed 5,400,000 t/Year
G&A per Tonne 1.66 $/t Processed
Royalty 3% NSR
Export Tax 5% NSR
Selling Cost 6.19 $/oz Au Recovered
Payable 99.8%
Preliminary Final Recovery
Met1 (FPD/CPD1) 70.5% 67.91%
Met2 (FPD/CPD1ox) 78.5% 73.58%
Met3 (FPD/CPD2ox) 66.8% 69.29%
Met4 (SED) 65.3% 61.18%
Base gold price $1,400 $/oz Au
Mining cost was assumed to be $2.10 per tonne for all mining. This is based on the
concept that all mining would be done by a contractor at a rate of $2.00/t and an
additional $0.10/t was added for mining General Services. The completion of this study
used contract mining to mine phase one and two switching to owner mining for phases
three and four. As the owner mining costs are lower than contract mining, the use of

May 2013
contract mining costs is deemed reasonable for reserve definition.
Processing costs were assumed to be $4.30 per tonne processed based on previous work.
The final processing costs have decreased to $4.18.
General and administrative (“G&A”) costs are assumed to be fixed at $8,950,000 per
year. This was provided by Goldrock and has been revised by KCA for the final
reporting. The G&A costs were applied in the optimization as $1.19 per tonne processed
based on the tonnage-rate target. The final G&A costs have decreased to $1.12.
A 3% royalty was applied to pit optimization to represent a provincial royalty. This is

conservative as the provincial royalty allows for deduction of processing and G&A costs.
Additionally, a 5% net smelter return tax was applied to represent export fees for the
Argentinean government. The actual tax is 4.762%. As noted in the Risks and
Opportunities section of this report, the 4.762% export tax may be reduced by 2.5%
should the Lindero production officially as a mineral product produced in the Puna.
Recoveries were estimated into metallurgical domains based on lithology. Preliminary

values were used for pit optimization and are based on the AMEC Pre-Feasibility study.
The final recovery estimates are also shown in Table 15-1.
A base price of $1,400 per ounce of gold was used for cutoff grade calculations and
Whittle project evaluations. Other gold prices were also used for sensitivity analysis.
15.1.2 Cutoff Grades
Internal and external cutoff grades were calculated based on the economic parameters.
The internal cutoff grade assumes an economic pit has been defined and considers the
mining cost as a sunk cost. The external cutoff grade is a break-even cutoff grade that
includes mining costs. The calculated cutoff grades are shown in Table 15-2.

May 2013
Table 15-2
Cutoff Grades (g Au/t)
Met Type Internal External
Met1 0.24 0.32
Met2 0.21 0.29
Met3 0.25 0.34
Met4 0.26 0.35
Using Whittle to further evaluate the optimized pit shells, various elevated cutoff grades
were evaluated. Based on this evaluation, a 0.35 g Au/t cutoff was determined for use in
pit definition, scheduling, and Proven and Probable Reserve statement.
15.1.3 Slope Parameters
Pit slope recommendations were provided by Ben Seegmiller of Seegmiller International.

MDA used these recommendations to develop parameters for pit design and pit
optimization. The recommendations allow for up to a 55 degree inter-ramp angle. For
pit optimization, inter-ramp slopes were flattened to 48 degrees to account for access
ramps in the final design.
15.1.4 Pit-Optimization Results
Whittle pit optimizations were run using the economic and slope parameters described in
previous sections. Pit optimizations were completed using prices of $300 to $2,000 per
ounce Au in increments of $20 per ounce in order to analyze the deposit’s sensitivity to
gold prices. Results for $100 per ounce increments from $300 to $2000 per ounce of
gold are shown in Table 15-3. A graph of the Whittle results is shown in Figure 15-1.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Table
T 15-3
Whittle
W Pit Optimization
O n Results
Material Prrocessed Waste Total Strip
Au K K Ozs K K
Pit Price
P Ton
nnes g Au//t Au Tonnes Tonnes Ratio
1 $3
300 824 1.58 42 307 1,131 0..37
6 $4
400 3,665 1.30 153 1,397 5,062 0..38
11 $5
500 8,178 1.11 292 4,034 12,212 0..49
16 $6
600 15,70
01 0.98 493 9,481 25,182 0..60
21 $7
700 21,29
95 0.92 627 14,973 36,267 0..70
26 $8
800 30,54
48 0.85 831 25,451 55,998 0..83
31 $9
900 39,57
75 0.80 1,018 40,010 79,585 1..01
36 $1,000 49,30
01 0.77 1,214 59,569 108,870 1..21
41 $1,100 55,39
91 0.75 1,329 72,932 128,323 1..32
46 $1,200 60,82
26 0.73 1,433 88,451 149,278 1..45
51 $1,300 65,782 0.72 1,530 105,815 171,597 1..61
56 $1,400 68,67
73 0.72 1,584 117,078 185,751 1..70
61 $1,500 71,62
26 0.71 1,639 129,554 201,180 1..81
66 $1,600 73,14
43 0.71 1,667 136,974 210,117 1..87
71 $1,700 74,17
74 0.71 1,685 141,997 216,170 1..91
76 $1,800 75,181 0.70 1,703 147,481 222,662 1..96
81 $1,900 75,63
30 0.70 1,710 149,735 225,364 1..98
86 $2
2,000 76,411 0.70 1,724 154,752 231,163 2..03
Fiigure 15-1
Graph off Whittle Reesults
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Section 15 - Mineral Reseerve Estimatess

May 2013
2
15.1.5 Ultimate Pit Limit Selection
The ultimate pit limit was determined using discounted cash-flow analysis (i.e. no capital
was applied in the analysis). Whittle software “Pit by Pit” analysis was used based on a
5% discount rate. The analysis was done using a gold price of $1,400 per ounce. Pit
shells optimized at lower gold prices were used as interior phases to increase the
discounted operating cash-flow. The ultimate pit limit was selected as the pit shell that
maximized the operating cash-flow for each case.
Pit shell number 51 (optimized at $1,300 / oz Au) was selected as the ultimate pit limit
and used as a guide for ultimate pit design as described below.
15.2 Pit Designs
Detailed pit design was completed, including an ultimate pit and three internal pits. The
ultimate pit was designed to allow mining of economic resources identified by Whittle pit
optimization while providing safe access for people and equipment. Internal pits or
phases within the ultimate pits and were designed to enhance the project by providing
higher-value material to the leach pad earlier in the mine life.
15.2.1 Bench Height
Pit designs were created to use eight-meter benches for mining. This corresponds to the
resource model block heights, and MDA believes this to be reasonable with respect to
dilution and equipment anticipated to be used in mining.
15.2.2 Pit Design Slopes
Slope parameters were provided in a report by Ben Seegmiller of Seegmiller International

(Seegmiller, 2010). Slope recommendations were given as a single set of parameters for
all walls in the pit as follows:

May 2013
• Up to 55 degree inter-ramp slope angles;

• Up to 70 degree bench face angles;
• Up to 16 meter high benches; and
• Minimum six meter catch benches.
Additionally, Seegmiller states that for stability precautions:
• The upper 20 meters of weathered pit slopes may need reduced angles; and
• Minor slumping may occur in slope “noses”.
15.2.3 Haulage Roads
Ramps were designed to have a maximum centerline gradient of 10%. In areas where the
ramps may curve along the outside of the pit, the inside gradient may be up to 11% or
12% for short distances.
Ramp width was determined as a function of the largest truck width to be used in mine
planning. Design criteria accounts for 3.5 times the width of the truck for running room
in areas using two-way traffic. An additional width is added to the ramp for a single
safety berm at least half of a tire height inside of the pit. For roads designed outside of
the pit, and additional safety berm is accounted for in the road widths.
Contract mining has been assumed for the first two phases of operations, and will use
smaller 40 to 50 tonne capacity trucks. For the first two phases, a ramp width of 24 m
was used.
Owner mining has been assumed for the final two phases of mining. The owner-mining
truck fleet is proposed to be made up of 91 metric tonne capacity trucks. These phases
were designed to have 28 m wide ramps where two-way traffic is anticipated. In some
lower portions of the designs, where one-way traffic is assumed, the ramps are narrowed
to 17 m.

May 2013
15.2.4 Ultimate Pit
As discussed in previous sections, the ultimate pit limit uses pit shell number 51 from the
Whittle runs shown in Table 15-3 as a guide. The ultimate pit is an integrated design
using interior pit phases. The first two phases are mined to the south of the deposit and
will be mined by contract mining. The third phase is mined in the southeast deepening
the pit, and the final phase is to complete mining in the north and at depth in the east.
The interior pit phases were designed with consideration to lower gold price Whittle pit
shells in order to enhance the project economics. During mining of the final phase, a
ramp to the northeast will be developed down to the 3,778m bench to provide access
from the northwest. From the 3,770 elevation and below, benches will be accessed using
the upper portions of the phase three ramp to the south.
The uppermost crest of the pit is located at an elevation of 3,930 meters and the bottom of
the pit is 3,642 meters. The ultimate pit is circular with a maximum diameter of 836
meters. Figure 15-2 shows the ultimate pit design.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 15-2
Lindero Ultimate
U Pit Design

May 2013
2
15.2.5 Pit Phasing
Phase one and two were designed assuming contract mining. The main portion of the
phase one pit design has a strike length of approximately 550 meters from northeast to
the southwest and a width of about 220 meters. An additional shallower portion of the
phase one pit trends east to west for about 280 meters and 75 meters wide. The phase
one pit design is shown in Figure 15-3. The phase one pit design exits to the east at an
elevation of 3,895 meters.
Phase two mines material to the north, west, and below the bottom of phase one. The
east/west length of this phase is approximately 620 meters long with a width of 220
meters. The ramp exists at an elevation of 3,898 meters on the south. The phase has an
upper crest elevation of 3,994 and extends to a depth of 3,794 meters.
Phase three will mine around the south, west, and north sides of phase two. Phase three
has a circular diameter of approximately 560 meters with an exit in the southeast at the
3,860 elevation. The upper crest is located at an elevation of 3,970 meters and the
bottom of the pit is at 3,650 meters.
Phase four deepens the pit on the north and east sides to the ultimate pit limit. Phase four
contains a ramp in the northeast high wall which is used for the upper benches down to
the 3,778 bench. Below this, the phase three ramp is extended from the 3,770 meter
bench northward around the northern portion of phase four. The pit has an upper crest of
3,930 meter elevation and is deepened in the east to an elevation of 3,642 meters. A
secondary higher floor is located in the north end of the phase with a bottom elevation of
3,714 meters.
Figure 15-3, 15-4, and 15-5 show phase 1, 2, and 3 pit designs, respectively. Phase four
is depicted in Figure 15-2 as the ultimate pit. Resulting reserves for each of the phases
are shown in Table 15-4.

May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 15-3
Phasee 1 Pit Desiggn

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 15-4

May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 15-5

May 2013
2
15.3 Dilution
The AMEC resource model with block sizes of 10m by 10m by 4m was used to estimate
resources. The model was estimated based on this block size, and this model was used to
define the ultimate pit limit and to estimate Proven and Probable reserves. While the pit
design is based on eight meter bench heights, in areas of high/waste grade variability, the
benches could be mined at the four meter block heights as required. Thus, MDA believes
that the block size is reasonable with respect to a selective mining unit. MDA further
believes that this represents an appropriate amount of dilution for statement of reserves
for the Lindero deposit.
15.4 Reserves and Resources
Mineral reserves for the project were developed by applying relevant economic criteria in
order to define the economically extractable portions of the resource. MDA developed
the reserves to meet NI 43-101 standards. The NI 43-101 standards rely on the CIM
Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves adopted by the CIM
council. CIM standards define Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves as:
Mineral Reserve
Mineral Reserves are sub-divided in order of increasing confidence into
Probable Mineral Reserves and Proven Mineral Reserves. A Probable Mineral
Reserve has a lower level of confidence than a Proven Mineral Reserve.
A ‘Mineral Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of a Measured or

Indicated Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility
Study. This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing,
metallurgical, economic and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time
of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified. A Mineral Reserve
includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the
material is mined.
Mineral Reserves are those parts of Mineral Resources which, after the
application of all mining factors, result in an estimated tonnage and grade which,
in the opinion of the Qualified Person(s) making the estimates, is the basis of an
economically viable project after taking account of all relevant processing,

May 2013
metallurgical, economic, marketing, legal, environment, socio-economic and

government factors. Mineral Reserves are inclusive of diluting material that will
be mined in conjunction with the Mineral Reserves and delivered to the
treatment plant or equivalent facility. The term ‘Mineral Reserve’ need not
necessarily signify that extraction facilities are in place or operative or that all
governmental approvals have been received. It does signify that there are
reasonable expectations of such approvals.
Probable Mineral Reserve

A ‘Probable Mineral Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of an Indicated,
and in some circumstances a Measured Mineral Resource demonstrated by at
least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must include adequate
information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant
factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction can
be justified.
Proven Mineral Reserve

A ‘Proven Mineral Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of a Measured
Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This
Study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical,
economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting,
that economic extraction is justified.
Application of the Proven Mineral Reserve category implies that the Qualified
Person has the highest degree of confidence in the estimate with the consequent
expectation in the minds of the readers of the report. The term should be
restricted to that part of the deposit where production planning is taking place
and for which any variation in the estimate would not significantly affect
potential economic viability.
Table 15-4 reports the Proven and Probable reserves based the pit designs discussed in
previous sections of this study for each case. The reserves are shown to be economically
viable based on cash-flows provided by KCA. MDA has reviewed the cash-flows and
believes that they are reasonable for the statement of Proven and Probable reserves.

May 2013
Table 15-4
Proven and Probable Reserves and Associated Waste by Phase
Proven Probable Total Proven and Probable Waste Total Strip
Phase K Tonnes g Au/t K Ozs Au K Tonnes g Au/t K Ozs Au K Tonnes g Au/t K Ozs Au K Tonnes K Tonnes Ratio
Ph_1 7,222 0.99 230 3,887 0.93 116 11,109 0.97 346 3,181 14,290 0.29
Ph_2 3,895 0.82 102 6,300 0.75 152 10,195 0.77 254 7,041 17,235 0.69
Ph_3 4,201 0.76 103 16,462 0.60 315 20,662 0.63 417 52,871 73,533 2.56
Ph_4 8,988 0.71 206 14,591 0.63 296 23,579 0.66 502 54,475 78,054 2.31
Total 24,305 0.82 641 41,240 0.66 878 65,546 0.72 1,519 117,568 183,113 1.79
Proven and Probable Reserves are reported using a 0.35 g Au/t cutoff grade
15.4.1 Additional In-pit Resources
Not all of the Measured and Indicated Resources inside of pit designs have been
converted to reserves due to the cutoff grade used for reporting. The resource used a 0.15
g Au/t cutoff grade, while the reserves are stated using a 0.35 g Au/t cutoff. In addition,
the reserve cutoff grade has been elevated to 0.35 g Au/t, which is higher than the
breakeven internal cutoff grades as shown in Table 15-2. Table 15-5 shows the
Measured and Indicated Resources between the internal and reserve cutoff grades inside
of the pit designs.
Table 15-5
In-Pit Resources Between Internal and Reserve Cutoff Grades
Measured Mineralized Resource Indicated Mineralized Resource Total Mineralized Resource
Phase K Tonnes g Au/t K Ozs Au K Tonnes g Au/t K Ozs Au K Tonnes g Au/t K Ozs Au
Ph_1 432 0.30 4 804 0.29 7 1,236 0.29 12
Ph_2 311 0.31 3 1,620 0.30 16 1,931 0.30 19
Ph_3 298 0.31 3 5,153 0.31 51 5,451 0.31 54
Ph_4 998 0.31 10 7,059 0.30 68 8,058 0.30 78
Total 2,040 0.31 20 14,637 0.30 142 16,676 0.30 162
Note that the material listed in Table 15-5 is planned to be stacked on top of the waste
dump so that it remains accessible for later processing. Thus, in the operating scenario,
this material would remain as potential economic material and remain as a resource.
Inferred resources were considered as waste and not used in the economic analysis. Note
that CIM standards define inferred resources as:
An ‘Inferred Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which

quantity and grade or quality can be estimated on the basis of geological
evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified,
geological and grade continuity. The estimate is based on limited information

May 2013
and sampling gathered through appropriate techniques for locations such as

outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes.
Due to the uncertainty that may be attached 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.
Table 15-6 shows the inferred resources inside of the pit designs for each phase at
economic cutoff grades for each metallurgical type. The cutoff grades used for reporting
in-pit inferred resources in Table 15-6 are 0.24, 0.21, 0.25, and 0.26 g Au/t for
metallurgical types 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively.
Table 15-6
In-Pit Inferred Resources
Total Inferred Material
Phase K Tonnes g Au/t K Oz Au
Phase 1 156 0.78 4
Phase 2 600 0.54 10
Phase 3 4,377 0.39 55
Phase 4 5,265 0.47 80
Total 10,397 0.45 149

May 2013
16.0 MINING METHODS
16.1 Material Types
Material was broken into ore and waste categories for the purpose of scheduling. The
waste consists of mineralized waste, and the ore is categorized by grade, classification,
and metallurgical type.
16.2 Waste Material Definition
Waste material was separated into mineralized waste, which is Measured and Indicated
resources above the internal break-even cutoff grade and the reserve cutoff grade. This
material is reported in Table 15-5.
True waste is either Measured or Indicated material below the internal cutoff grade,
Inferred material (all Inferred material is classified as waste), or non-classified material.
The true waste material is to be placed into the waste dump immediately to the west of
the crusher as a valley fill. Initial material will be built up around the crusher to provide
a dumping area, and then expanded to develop a flat stockpiling area. Excess waste will
expand the dump to the west at an elevation of approximately 3,900 meters to provide for
additional stockpiling areas for mineralized waste.
16.3 Ore Definition
Measured and Indicated material above cutoff grade and inside of the pit was classified
by both grade and by metallurgical domain. The grade ranges were low-grade, medium-
grade, and high-grade using 0.35, 0.50, and 1.0 g Au/t grade breaks respectively. All ore
material is considered to be economic and is either feed directly to the crusher or in
stockpiles near the crusher.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 16 – Mining Methods

May 2013
16.4 Mining Method
The Lindero Gold project has been planned as an open-pit truck and shovel operation.
The truck and shovel method provides reasonable cost benefits and selectivity for this
type of deposit. Only open-pit mining methods are considered for mining at Lindero.
16.5 Mine-Waste Facilities
The primary Mine waste facility has been designed to the west of the primary crusher.
This facility is built from the 3,900 meter elevation through the western valley. There is
ample room for future expansion of this facility should it be required.
The primary dump is intended to be built as a flat surface extending through the valley to
the west. The dump height is not expected to exceed 120m between the dumping crest to
the underlying topography. Waste material would be dumped against a berm on the
dump face, and dozers would be used to maintain the dumping face. The flat portion of
the dump is intended to be used for stockpiling of mineralized waste. This is intended to
reduce haul distances should the material become economic in the future.
There may be opportunities to dump closer to the pit off of upper benches near the east
ultimate pit crest. MDA believes that priority exists to dump into the primary dump as it
creates space for stockpile storage and handling. However, opportunities to dump shorter
near the ultimate pit crest should be examined in the later years of the mine life.
The primary dump has a total capacity of 111,725,000 tonnes of the required 100,891,000
tonnes of waste, though there is suitable space to expand the dump to the west or upward.
The mineralized waste stockpile has been designed on top of the primary waste dump and
can hold a capacity up to 54,000,000 tonnes, though only 16,700,000 million tonnes are
anticipated to be stored.
16.6 Mine-Production Schedule
Proven and Probable reserves were used to schedule mine production, and Inferred
resources inside of the pit were considered as waste. The final production schedule uses

May 2013
trucks and shovels as required to produce the ore to be feed into the process plant and
maintain stripping requirements for each case.
Table 16-1 shows the mine-production schedule, including re-handle from stockpiles.
Ore production shown are Proven and Probable reserves mined from the pit and is broken
down into three classes by grade: High-Grade Ore is ore equal to or above a 1.00 g Au/t
cutoff; Medium-Grade Ore is ore above 0.50 but below 1.00 g Au/t cutoff grades; and
Low-Grade Ore is ore above 0.35 but below 0.75 g Au/t cutoff grades. Mineralized
waste shown is material that is above a breakeven cutoff grade, but below the reserve
cutoff grade of 0.35 g Au/t. This material has potential economic value and will be
stockpiled on top of the primary waste dump. Other waste shown includes inferred and
un-classified material along with material below the break-even economic cutoff grades.
The production schedule is based on a ramp up in process production. During the

construction and initial mining, a total of 2,046,000 tonnes of ore is mined. Some ore
will remain in stockpile, but 1,263,000 tonnes will be placed on the pad. A large portion
of this will be crushed and laid down as over-liner material. In year one of production,
the processing rate is 15,000 tonnes per day for the first six months then it will increase to
18,750 tonnes per day.
Mined ore is hauled to either the crusher or a nearby stockpile. Stockpiles are maintained
to both smooth out the production to the crusher as well as to enhance the economics by
allowing higher-grade material to be fed before lower-grade material. All high-grade
material is hauled directly to the crusher. Medium-grade material is given a higher
priority to be fed directly into the crusher as compared with low-grade material.
When possible, material will be direct fed into the crusher to reduce re-handle costs. Re-
handle of material will be done using the contractor equipment in the earlier years, and
then by owner-mining equipment. Table 16-2 shows the material that is hauled to the
crusher by metallurgical domain, which includes both direct feed and re-handled
material. Table 16-3 shows the yearly stockpile balance sheet for low-grade and
medium-grade material.

May 2013
Table 16-1
Annual Mine Production Schedule
Units Pre-Prod Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
High-Grade K Tonnes 687 3,345 1,761 803 538 814 576 690 712 353 - 10,281
Ore g Au/t 1.28 1.38 1.24 1.22 1.17 1.17 1.19 1.15 1.22 1.28 - 1.27
K Ozs Au 28 149 70 32 20 31 22 25 28 15 - 420
Medium-Grade K Tonnes 888 3,874 5,071 2,190 3,600 5,847 2,952 4,191 4,777 2,349 - 35,739
Ore g Au/t 0.74 0.77 0.76 0.72 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.72 0.72 - 0.73
K Ozs Au 21 96 124 51 81 132 69 100 111 54 - 840
Leach-Grade K Tonnes 470 830 1,708 1,392 2,455 4,213 1,604 2,152 3,290 1,413 - 19,526
Ore g Au/t 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.42 - 0.41
K Ozs Au 6 11 23 18 33 56 22 28 43 19 - 259
Total Ore K Tonnes 2,046 8,049 8,540 4,386 6,593 10,874 5,132 7,033 8,779 4,115 - 65,546
g Au/t 0.85 0.99 0.79 0.72 0.63 0.62 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.66 - 0.72
K Ozs Au 56 256 217 101 134 218 112 154 182 88 - 1,519
Mineralized K Tonnes 448 726 1,430 1,466 1,460 3,011 2,012 2,209 3,177 738 - 16,676
Waste g Au/t 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 - 0.30
K Ozs Au 4 7 14 14 14 30 19 22 31 7 - 162
Other Waste K Tonnes 718 1,209 4,852 19,083 17,497 10,752 21,276 16,378 8,119 1,006 - 100,891
Total Waste K Tonnes 1,166 1,936 6,282 20,549 18,957 13,763 23,288 18,587 11,296 1,744 - 117,568
Total Mined K Tonnes 3,212 9,985 14,822 24,934 25,550 24,637 28,420 25,620 20,075 5,859 - 183,113
Strip Ratio W:O 0.57 0.24 0.74 4.69 2.88 1.27 4.54 2.64 1.29 0.42 1.79
Rehandel K Tonnes - 99 1,846 4,221 1,100 121 2,319 569 147 4,577 3,399 18,399
g Au/t - 0.86 0.78 0.62 0.44 0.71 0.47 0.42 0.46 0.45 0.41 0.52
K Ozs Au - 3 46 84 16 3 35 8 2 66 45 307

May 2013
Table 16-2
Annual Ore Delivery to the Crusher
Metallurgical K Tonnes 128 3,934 3,722 3,864 2,346 5,206 4,198 5,484 6,106 6,159 2,845 43,993
Domain 1 g Au/t 1.11 1.15 0.92 0.77 0.64 0.77 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.58 0.41 0.74
K Ozs Au 5 145 110 95 49 129 93 127 143 115 38 1,049
Metallurgical K Tonnes 1,132 1,693 2,469 1,202 1,355 175 1,038 225 77 120 100 9,586
Domain 2 g Au/t 0.98 1.07 0.84 0.62 0.65 0.73 0.60 0.48 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.79
K Ozs Au 36 58 67 24 28 4 20 3 1 2 1 245
Metallurgical K Tonnes 0 - 36 1,033 2,113 821 884 364 136 213 177 5,778
Domain 3 g Au/t 0.38 - 0.49 0.58 0.62 0.62 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.55
K Ozs Au 0 - 1 19 42 16 12 5 2 3 2 103
Metallurgical K Tonnes 3 498 613 760 1,026 638 720 785 521 349 276 6,188
Domain 4 g Au/t 0.99 0.90 0.80 0.61 0.56 0.62 0.51 0.64 0.59 0.43 0.41 0.62
K Ozs Au 0 14 16 15 19 13 12 16 10 5 4 123
Total K Tonnes 1,263 6,126 6,840 6,859 6,840 6,840 6,840 6,859 6,840 6,840 3,399 65,545
g Au/t 0.99 1.11 0.88 0.70 0.63 0.74 0.62 0.69 0.71 0.56 0.41 0.72
K Ozs Au 40 218 193 154 138 162 137 152 156 124 45 1,519

May 2013
Table 16-3
Annual Stockpile Balance
Pre-Prod Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
K Tonnes 342 830 1,519 942 761 3,749 518 743 2,000 1,351 -
Added
g Au/t 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.43 0.40 0.41 0.42 -
Low-Grade Stockpile
K Ozs Au 5 11 20 13 10 50 7 10 26 18 -
Removed
K Tonnes - - 12 1,690 1,007 - 1,941 569 126 4,012 3,399

g Au/t - - 0.42 0.42 0.42 - 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41
K Ozs Au - - 0 23 14 - 26 8 2 53 45
K Tonnes 342 1,172 2,679 1,932 1,685 5,434 4,011 4,185 6,060 3,399 -
Balance
g Au/t 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 -
K Ozs Au 5 16 36 26 22 72 53 55 80 45 -
K Tonnes 440 1,192 2,027 806 93 406 94 - 86 500 -
Added
Medium-Grade Stockpile
g Au/t 0.76 0.78 0.77 0.74 0.71 0.70 0.76 - 0.73 0.72 -
K Ozs Au 11 30 50 19 2 9 2 - 2 12 -
Removed
K Tonnes - 99 1,835 2,532 93 121 379 - 22 564 -

g Au/t - 0.86 0.78 0.76 0.71 0.71 0.72 - 0.72 0.72 -
K Ozs Au - 3 46 62 2 3 9 - 1 13 -
K Tonnes 440 1,533 1,726 - - 285 - - 64 - -
Balance
g Au/t 0.76 0.77 0.77 - - 0.70 - - 0.73 - -

K Ozs Au 11 38 42 - - 6 - - 2 - -
K Tonnes 782 2,022 3,546 1,748 853 4,156 611 743 2,086 1,851 -
Added
g Au/t 0.61 0.64 0.62 0.56 0.45 0.44 0.48 0.40 0.42 0.50 -
K Ozs Au 15 41 71 32 12 59 9 10 28 30 -
Removed
K Tonnes - 99 1,846 4,221 1,100 121 2,319 569 147 4,577 3,399
Total
g Au/t - 0.86 0.78 0.62 0.44 0.71 0.47 0.42 0.46 0.45 0.41
K Ozs Au - 3 46 84 16 3 35 8 2 66 45
K Tonnes 782 2,705 4,405 1,932 1,685 5,719 4,011 4,185 6,124 3,399 -
Balance
g Au/t 0.61 0.62 0.55 0.42 0.41 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 -
K Ozs Au 15 54 78 26 22 79 53 55 81 45 -

May 2013
16.7 Equipment Selection and Productivities
Lindero has been planned as an open-pit mine conventional haul trucks, hydraulic
shovels, and front-end loading equipment. Phase one and two pits will be mined by a
contractor while owner mining equipment will be used for phase three and four mining.
To obtain contract cost proposals, contractor mining tonnages were summarized and
provided to potential contractors along with pit and dump designs. Productivity estimates
for contractor equipment has been estimated by the contractor. Contractors have
proposed to use a combination of 40 to 50 ton capacity trucks along with loaders,
excavators, and hydraulic shovels. Contract pricing has been done less the fuel
requirements, and MDA has estimated the contractor fuel requirements for costing
purposes. Note that contract mining proposals are only considered for load, haul, and
general mine support activities. Drilling and blasting will be done by the owner through
the life of mine.
Owner mining being proposed for phase three and phase four will be done using 91 tonne
capacity trucks loaded by front end loaders and hydraulic shovels. Shovel production has
been planned using hydraulic face shovels with 17 cubic meter (heaped) buckets. A
cycle time of 34 seconds is used for each bucket placed into a truck and reasonable dig
ability and a 95% fill factor has been assumed. Total productivity which is estimated to
be up to 2,000 tonnes per operating hour, includes an 83% efficiency factor. MDA has
assumed 21 operating hours per 24 hour day, which allows for startup, breaks, safety
meetings, and shutdown. No adverse weather is anticipated, so no weather delay time
has been assumed.
Truck productivity for owner mining operations is based on haul and return speeds for
each segment of travel. Three dimensional line segments were drawn using Surpac mine
planning software, and the speeds were flagged into description files based on percent
gradient and direction of travel. The line segments, or haulage profiles, represent the
travel routes along in-pit ramps and ex-pit roads. Geovia’s MineSched software was used
for scheduling and to report the truck hours required based on the profiles and speeds.
The speeds were estimated based on performance curves for CAT 777F trucks. Different
speeds were used for loaded trucks hauling material out of the pit and empty trucks
returning to the pit. The number of truck hours required was adjusted by an efficiency
factor of 83% used to represent interferences on haul roads, queuing times at shovels, and
other operational delays that may be encountered.

May 2013
The available truck hours were based on 21 operating hours per 24 hour day and were
adjusted by truck availability. Truck availability was assumed to start at 90% for new
trucks, and reduced by 1% per year. These factors are considered to be reasonable with
respect to the operating conditions at Lindero.
16.8 Mine Personnel
Mine personnel estimates include both operating and mine-staff personnel for contractor
and owner operator operations. Operating personnel are estimated as the number of
people required to operate trucks, loading equipment, and support equipment to achieve
the production schedule. Mine staff is based on the people required for supervision and
support of mine production. The owner mining mine-staff organizational chart is shown
in Figure 16-1. The estimated number of contract mine personnel required is shown in
Table 16-4 while the owner mine personnel requirements are shown in Table 16-5.
Salaries for owner mining positions were estimated based on information received from
Goldrock. Salaries include an allowance for benefits at a rate of 28.5% of the base salary
for each position. The extended cost for labor by year is shown in thousands of US
dollars in Table 16-6. Note that mobile equipment labor costs are allocated to production
equipment in the calculation of mining costs in later sections.

May 2013
Figure 16-1
Owner Mining Mine Organizational Chart
Open Pit Mine
Manager
Mine Clerk
Mine
Mine General Chief Mine
Maintenance Chief Geologist
Foreman Engineer
General Foreman
Mine
Ore Control
Maintenance Shift Supervisors Mine Engineer Chief Surveyor
Geologist
Foreman
Samplers Mine Surveyors

May 2013
Table 16-4
Contractor Mine Personnel Requirements (Phase 1 & 2 Mining)
Pre-Prod Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12
Management
Mine Manager 1 1 1 1
Mine Clerk 1 1 1 1
Mine Shift Foremen 4 4 4 4
Mine Trainer 4 4 4 4
Mine Production
Loading Operators 8 12 12 12
Haul Truck Operators 32 32 40 44
Support Equipment Operators 8 16 16 16
Mechanics 8 16 16 16
Welders 4 8 8 8
Servicemen 4 8 8 8
Total Contractor 74 102 110 114 - - - - - - - - -
Table 16-5
Owner Mine Personnel Requirements
Pre-Prod Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12
Mine General
Mine Manager 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -
Mine Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -
Mine Operations
Shift Foremen - - - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 - -
Mine Trainer - - - 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 - - -
Blaster 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - -
Blaster's Helper 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - -
Laborer 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 - -
Loading Operators - - 2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 - -
Haul Truck Operators - - 8 40 44 52 52 52 52 24 16 - -
Drill Operators 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 - -
Support Operators 2 2 2 16 22 22 22 22 22 22 10 - -
Mechanics 1 3 6 25 28 31 31 31 31 21 12 - -
Welders 1 2 3 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 4 - -
Servicemen 2 2 2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 - -
Mine Maintenance
Maintenance Superintendent - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maintenance Foremen - - - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2
Light Vehicle Mechanics 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2
Tiremen 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2
Shop Laborers 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
Maintenance Planner 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
Engineering
Chief Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -
Mine Surveyors 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - -
Surveyor Helper 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - -
Mine Engineer 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - -
Mine Geology
Chief Geologist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -
Ore Control Geologist 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - -
Sampler 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 - -
Total Owner Personnel
Operations 18 23 37 133 146 156 156 156 156 118 68 - -
Engineering 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 - -
Geology 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 - -
Total 30 35 49 145 158 168 168 168 168 130 79 - -

May 2013
Table 16-6
Mine Annual Personnel Costs ($000.’s USD)
Pre-Prod Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
Mine General
Mine Manager $ 98 $ 130 $ 130 $ 130 $ 130 $ 130 $ 130 $ 130 $ 130 $ 130 $ 65 $ 1,337
Mine Clerk $ 21 $ 28 $ 28 $ 28 $ 28 $ 28 $ 28 $ 28 $ 28 $ 28 $ 14 $ 291
Mine Operations
Shift Foremen $ - $ - $ - $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 43 $ 1,259
Mine Trainer $ - $ - $ - $ 87 $ 87 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 13 $ - $ 360
Blaster $ 53 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 20 $ - $ 634
Blaster's Helper $ 43 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 17 $ - $ 514
Laborer $ 65 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 43 $ 890
Loading Operators $ - $ - $ 70 $ 421 $ 421 $ 421 $ 421 $ 421 $ 421 $ 421 $ 139 $ 3,156
Haul Truck Operators $ - $ - $ 281 $ 1,403 $ 1,544 $ 1,824 $ 1,824 $ 1,824 $ 1,824 $ 842 $ 279 $ 11,645
Drill Operators $ 53 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 41 $ - $ 1,216
Support Operators $ 53 $ 70 $ 70 $ 561 $ 772 $ 772 $ 772 $ 772 $ 772 $ 225 $ - $ 4,838
Mechanics $ 26 $ 105 $ 210 $ 877 $ 982 $ 1,087 $ 1,087 $ 1,087 $ 1,087 $ 737 $ 209 $ 7,497
Welders $ 33 $ 87 $ 130 $ 521 $ 521 $ 521 $ 521 $ 521 $ 521 $ 521 $ 86 $ 3,984
Servicemen $ 43 $ 57 $ 57 $ 227 $ 227 $ 227 $ 227 $ 227 $ 227 $ 227 $ 28 $ 1,775
Mine Maintenance
Maintenance Superintendent $ - $ - $ - $ 71 $ 71 $ 71 $ 71 $ 71 $ 71 $ 71 $ 35 $ 535
Maintenance Foremen $ - $ - $ - $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 174 $ 43 $ 1,259
Light Vehicle Mechanics $ 26 $ 35 $ 35 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 $ 35 $ 1,114
Tiremen $ - $ - $ - $ 114 $ 114 $ 114 $ 114 $ 114 $ 114 $ 114 $ 28 $ 823
Shop Laborers $ - $ - $ - $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 11 $ 315
Maintenance Planner $ - $ - $ - $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 17 $ 509
Engineering
Chief Engineer $ 60 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 39 $ 813
Mine Surveyors $ 53 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 35 $ 719
Surveyor Helper $ 33 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 22 $ 445
Mine Engineer $ 97 $ 129 $ 129 $ 129 $ 129 $ 129 $ 129 $ 129 $ 129 $ 38 $ - $ 1,165
Mine Geology
Chief Geologist $ 60 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 79 $ 39 $ 813
Ore Control Geologist $ 90 $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 60 $ 1,232
Sampler $ 43 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 14 $ 568
Total Owner Personnel
Mine General $ 119 $ 159 $ 159 $ 159 $ 159 $ 159 $ 159 $ 159 $ 159 $ 159 $ 79 $ 1,628
Operations $ 367 $ 673 $ 1,173 $ 4,626 $ 5,082 $ 5,424 $ 5,424 $ 5,424 $ 5,424 $ 3,324 $ 828 $ 37,770
Engineering $ 241 $ 322 $ 322 $ 322 $ 322 $ 322 $ 322 $ 322 $ 322 $ 231 $ 96 $ 3,142
Geology $ 192 $ 256 $ 256 $ 256 $ 256 $ 256 $ 256 $ 256 $ 256 $ 256 $ 113 $ 2,613
Total $ 920 $ 1,410 $ 1,910 $ 5,363 $ 5,819 $ 6,161 $ 6,161 $ 6,161 $ 6,161 $ 3,970 $ 1,116 $ 45,153

May 2013
17.0 RECOVERY METHODS
17.1 Process Design Basis
Test work results developed by KCA has indicated that the Lindero ore is amenable to
heap leaching for the recovery of gold. The ore will be mined by standard open pit
mining methods; fine crushed using a system incorporating cone and HPGR (high
pressure grinding roll) crushers and conveyor stacked on the leach pad in 10 meter lifts.
Ore will be two-stage leached with a dilute cyanide solution, and the leached gold will be
recovered from the solution using a carbon adsorption circuit. The gold will be
periodically stripped from the carbon using a desorption process. The gold will be plated
on stainless steel cathodes, removed by washing, filtered, dried, and then smelted. Based
on a total ore reserve of approximately 65.5 million tonnes and an established processing
rate of 18,750 tonnes per day (6.75 million tonnes per year), the project has an estimated
life of about 10 years.
Engineering and design of the processing plant was undertaken for complete crushing,
leaching, and recovery systems. The criteria used for the design of the processing circuit
are summarized in Table 17-1.
Table 17-1
Processing Design Criteria Summary
Item Design Criteria
Annual Tonnage Processed 6,750,000 tonnes
Crushing Production Rate 18,750 tonnes/day normal
Crushing Operation 12 hours/shift, 2 shifts/day, 7 days/week
Crusher Availability 75%
Crushing Product Size 80% -9 mm
Primary Leaching Cycle, days (Total) 60
Secondary Leaching Cycle, days (Total) 180 (1week on leach/2 weeks off leach)
Average Gold Recovery 68.3%
Metallurgical test work has shown generally higher gold recoveries with finer crush sizes.
Test work shows field gold recoveries of 68.3% at a crush size of P80 = 9 mm. A three
stage crushing circuit consisting of a primary jaw crusher, three secondary cone crushers
and an HPGR has been selected that will nominally produce this product at the desired
throughput.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 17 - Recovery Methods

May 2013
Results from compacted permeability tests and column leach tests show that
agglomeration is not needed. Lime is added at 2.5 kg/tonne ore for pH control.
The Lindero Project shows some amount of soluble copper in the ore. Calculations from
test work show copper concentrations at levels that can most likely be addressed by
certain design strategies in the recovery plant, but may warrant a copper and cyanide
recovery system (SART) later in the project life. Further discussion on this topic is
covered in Section 17.11.
17.2 Processing Rate
To address the typical challenges faced in most plant start-ups, the processing design and
costing accounts for a reduced throughput in the plant for the first several months of
operation. Specifically, a three month period of operation of reduced tonnage is
designated as part of the pre-production period, where the plant throughput begins at a
rate of 8,000 tonnes per day and increases to 10,000 and 12,000 tonnes per day in months
two and three respectively. This three month time period will be considered pre-
production. Following this, in commencement of production in Year 1, is a six-month
period of production at a reduced rate of 15,000 tonnes per day before expanding to the
full planned production rate of 18,750 tonnes per day.
17.3 Crushing Area
ROM ore is transported from the mine in 100-tonne surface haul trucks and dumped in
the ROM feed bin. Oversized rocks or large lumps are broken using a rock breaker.
Material is fed from the ROM feed bin to a vibrating grizzly feeder. The grizzly oversize
is fed to the jaw crusher and the grizzly undersize is recombined with the jaw crusher
product on the primary crusher discharge conveyor which feeds the secondary crushing
distribution bin. A tramp metal electromagnet and metal detector are installed on the
primary crusher discharge conveyor to protect the secondary crushers.
Ore leaving the distribution bin is fed equally to the secondary feed conveyors by pan
feeders. The secondary feed conveyors transfer material to the vibrating double deck

May 2013
secondary screens which feed over size material to the cone crushers. Three cone
crushers in parallel will be utilized. The cones are run in closed-circuit with screen
undersize feeding the secondary discharge conveyor which feeds the tertiary surge bin
and screen oversize being crushed in the secondary cone crushers and recycled back to
the screens.
Secondary-crushed product is transferred to the tertiary surge bin and is then fed to the
HPGR feed bin by a belt feeder. Tertiary crushing is completed by a single HPGR unit
with edge recycle in a semi-open circuit. A portion of discharge material along the edges
of the rolls is separated by a multi-compartment chute and is recycled back to the tertiary
surge bin by a series of conveyors.
The final plant product is 80% passing 9 mm and is conveyed to a fixed stacker, which
discharges to a conical stockpile.
17.3.1 Ore Reclamation & Lime Addition
The crushed ore stockpile is sized to accommodate a total capacity of approximately

28,000 tonnes (16,000 m3). Crushed ore is reclaimed from the stockpile by two vibrating
pan feeders to a conveyor in a tunnel below the stockpile. Lime for pH control is added
to the ore on the reclaim tunnel conveyor at a rate of 2.5 kg per tonne of ore from two 75-
tonne silos equipped with bin activator, variable speed screw feeder, and dust collector.
The ore with added lime is discharged to the heap stacking system.
17.3.2 Ore Conveying & Stacking
The heap will be constructed in 10 meter high lifts, 100 meters wide at the toe, using a
mobile conveyor stacking system. The first lift will be stacked so that the toe of the heap
is five meters from the inside toe of the perimeter berm. The effective overall slope of
the heap will vary between 2.2H:1V and 2.5H:1V.
The heap stacking system consists of mobile field conveyors (grasshoppers) that transfer
the ore to a horizontal index conveyor and mobile stacker conveyor. Stacking will begin
at the northwest corner of the pad area, nearest the ADR plant, and will retreat upslope
toward the crushed ore stockpile.

May 2013
17.4 Leach Pad and Leach System
The final location for the leach pad and ponds was selected considering the available area
within the Lindero property and the location of other project facilities. The total pad will
be constructed in two phases. The pad capacity is approximately 65,500,000 tonnes
assuming a heap bulk density of 1.75 tonnes/m3. The leach pad will be divided into eight
drainage cells and will have a lined surface area of just over 700,000 square meters.
Gypsum rich soils were found in certain areas under the heap leach pad and pond areas,
which are considered unsuitable for use as foundation materials and must be removed
prior to placement of the heap or pond materials. The gypsum contaminated beds were
mapped out and a volume of material for removal was determined.
17.4.1 General Description
The eight drainage cells for the leach pad will be constructed in two phases. The initial
or first phase construction will occur during Year -1 (start of construction). The second
phase will start in the middle of Year 1. Phase 1 construction includes drainage cells 1-4
which cover 378,000 m2 and Phase 2 includes drainage cells 5-8 which cover
approximately 378,000 m2.
Slopes on the pad were maintained at a minimum of 0.5% in the primary down gradient
drainage direction. The slope along the main solution collection channel along the front
of the leach pad is also maintained at a minimum of 0.5%. The pad surface will match
the natural topography as much as possible to minimize required earthworks.
The leach pad external berms will be 1.2 meter high with 1.5H:1V slopes along the sides
and upslope edge of the pad. The down slope pad berm along the solution collection
channel will be 1.5 meters high. The pad will be separated into eight cells by internal 1.0
meter high internal berms.
17.4.2 Stability Considerations
The leach pad site has low to moderate natural slopes. Generally, the pad has slopes of
0.5-1.0% along the down slope toe (along the solution collection channel), 4 - 10% in the
main central part of the pad, and up to 16% along the south edge of Cells No. 3-8.

May 2013
Overall the pad slopes are quite favorable for heap stability. The overall heap side slopes
have been designed at 2.5H:1V.
17.4.3 Pad Earthworks and Lining System
The pad lining system will consist of a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) overlain by a
1.5 mm LLDPE geomembrane liner. An alternate 300mm thick under liner system can
also be used in place of the GCL if sufficient suitable material is found near the project,
although none has been found to date.
A pad liner leak detection system is incorporated in the construction of the pad. The pad
leak detection system consists of finger drains located in each cell in the vicinity of the
main cell drain pipe. These finger drains are made up of gravel filled trenches with
perforated pipes. At the heap toe each perforated pipe transitions to a solid HPDE pipe
and is brought out under the pad external berm to allow monitoring.
17.4.4 Leaching System
17.4.4.1 Leaching Concept
KCA has designed the Lindero leach system to allow two stage leaching during the early
years of the operation. The advantage of two stage leaching is that lower grade heap off-
flow solution from the older parts of the heap is recycled to new ore to increase the
pregnant solution grade and reduce the size of the required recovery plant. The downside
of this type of system is that recoverable gold in inventory is increased. Also, in large
high heaps, after a certain heap height is reached, quite commonly there is little
difference in solution grade values draining from the various parts of the heap. It is
KCA’s opinion that during the first three to four years of operation, Lindero’s total heap
height will be low enough that this two stage leach system will be advantageous. Also,
when the heap height is low, the gold in inventory is less due to less total solution
contained within the heap. At some point during the Lindero project life, KCA expects
that the project economics will favor going to a single stage leach by adding the
additional carbon column train to the ADR plant. For this study KCA has assumed this
will occur in Year 4.

May 2013
In general, leach solution is distributed to the heap by a series of high-flow, high-head

pumps drawing from a tank containing either intermediate solution (primary leach) or
barren solution (secondary leach). The solution is pumped through steel main header
pipes running along the north edge of the pad.
Antiscalant polymer is continuously added to the leach solutions to reduce the potential
for scaling problems within the irrigation system.
17.4.4.2 Recommended Leaching Time
It will not be practical to maintain an individual lift under constant leach long enough to
reach the maximum design recovery prior to covering the lift with a new lift. Therefore
the leach system has been designed considering an initial leach time sufficient to recover
the majority of the recoverable values, followed by additional leach time based on an
on/off leaching cycle, followed by additional leach time as each successive overlying lift
is leached. As shown in the accompanying field leach recovery curves (Figure 17-1), it
will take over 400 days to reach the ultimate recovery for any given lift. It will be
extremely important to follow good heap leach practices when building the heap to
maintain permeability and to insure the heap is well irrigated.
KCA examined the column test recoveries versus the solution to ore ratio, as well as the
recoveries versus leach time. Based upon this analysis, KCA ultimately selected a
continuous leach time of 60 days, followed immediately by an intermittent leach time of
180 days as the design basis. Together this 240 day period makes up the “direct field
leach time.” KCA defines “direct field leach time” as the time when an individual lift is
directly under irrigation prior to being covered by another lift. At the average application
rate of 10 L/m2/hr this direct leach time will apply approximately 1.65 tonnes of solution
per tonne of ore. The intermittent leach time is based on cycling on and off on a one
week on and two weeks off schedule.

May 2013
Lindero F
Feasibility Study Page 17-7
1
Figure
F 17-1
Lindero Prrojected Field Heap
H Recovery Curves by Meet Type
Kappes, C
Cassiday & Associa
ates hods
Section 117 - Recovery Meth
May 20133
17.4.5 Solution Collection System
Perforated corrugated polyethylene pipes will be placed on the geomembrane liner to

facilitate the collection and transport of leach solution to the cell discharge points.
The perforated primary collection pipe for each cell will transition to a solid pipe at the
down slope berm and then pass through a notch in the berm to a distribution box located
in the main solution collection channel, which will allow the operators to separate higher
grade solution to send to the ADR plant from lower grade solution that will be recycled to
the heap.
17.4.6 Overliner
A 0.6 meter thick overliner fill will be placed over the geomembrane liner and perforated
drain pipes during the pre-production period to facilitate solution collection and to protect
the liner during heap stacking.
17.5 Solution Management
Management of leach solutions is an important part of a heap leach operation both to

maximize gold recovery and to prevent the loss of cyanide bearing solutions to the
environment. The Lindero project area is in a dry region which makes solution
management much simpler. Due to the very limited site rainfall, pond requirements for
precipitation control will be based upon the volume needed to store a sudden storm event.
17.5.1 Design Criteria and Concepts
The Lindero heap leach system is designed as a zero discharge facility. The pond system
is divided into two parts. One pond (Pregnant Solution Pond) as a working pond and a
second pond for containment of excess solution designed for the sudden storm event.
The Pregnant Solution Pond is sized to contain a working volume of 24 hours at the total
heap irrigation flow rate, plus a drain down volume equal to 24 hours at the total heap
irrigation flow rate.

May 2013
The overall average pond depth is six meters (not including the deeper pump sump) with
the bottom sloping toward the pumps.
The Pregnant Solution Pond has been designed with a partial divider berm. This will
allow the separation of two different grades of solution to allow the recycle of the lower
grade solution to the heap. During the early production years (years 1-3) this feature will
allow treatment of a reduced flow through the recovery plant while minimizing the extra
gold inventory associated with recycling solution to the heap. Once the heap height gets
above two to three lifts it is expected that heap off-flow solution grades will be quite
similar from various heap cells and the effectiveness of separating solutions will be
reduced.
The Excess Solution Pond is sized to contain a 110 mm storm event occurring over the
entire lined facility (pad, ponds and collection channels) with a 100% runoff coefficient.
By incorporating normal working solution and drain down volumes in the Pregnant
Solution Pond, it insures that the Excess Solution Pond will be used only very
infrequently, if at all. During typical operations, normal rainfall events can be
accommodated in the Pregnant Pond as long as a significant heap drain down event does
not occur at the same time.
17.5.2 Pond Volume Requirements
KCA recommends the following pond capacities. The pond volumes shown in Table 17-2
do not include freeboard which is defined as the pond level above the invert of the pond
overflow channel.
Table 17-2
Pond Volume Requirements, m3
Pregnant Pond Excess Pond Total, All Ponds
Dead Storage 7,600 8,000 15,600
Working Solution 38,600 0 38,600
Heap Drain Down 38,600 0 38,600
Sudden Storm Precipitation 0 81,500 81,500
Total Required Volume 84,800 89,500 174,300

May 2013
17.5.3 Pond Lining
The pregnant and intermediate solution pond(s) utilize a double 1.5 mm HDPE liner
system on top of GCL, while the excess solution pond utilizes a single 1.5 mm HDPE
liner over GCL. Leak detection for the pregnant and intermediate pond(s) is provided by
geonet sandwiched between the two HDPE liners on top of the GCL liner and collection
system to detect any solution between the liners in the even there is leakage through the
primary liner. A similar leak detection and collection system for the excess pond is
installed between the HDPE liner and GCL. The liner and leak detection system
significantly reduces the possibility of solution entering the environment below the pond.
Leak detection systems are checked and logged for solution each shift during operations.
17.6 ADR Plant
Leaching will be followed by recovery of the gold and silver in a standard activated
carbon recovery circuit. Gold and silver-bearing solution discharging from the heap will
be directed to a pregnant pond. Gold and silver recovery will take place in a carbon
adsorption-desorption-recovery plant. The plant will be located in the vicinity of the
pregnant pond. Pregnant solution will be pumped to the plant, where adsorption during
the two stage leach cycle will take place in two trains of five cascade carbon adsorption
columns. During the single leach cycle (anticipated to be in year 4) a third carbon
adsorption column train will be added to the plant. Barren discharge from the final
column of each train will flow by gravity to the barren tank from which it will be pumped
back to the heap for further leaching.
Desorption will utilize a pressurized elution process followed by recovery of gold from
pregnant eluant solutions in electrolytic cells. The strip/recovery process (also referenced
as a modified Zadra process) will be set up as a multiple pass circuit through the
electrolytic cells. Facilities for mixing and adding caustic to the elution circuit will be
included. The loaded cathode sludge will be smelted in a natural gas-fired crucible
furnace.

May 2013
17.6.1 Copper
The Lindero ore contains cyanide soluble copper that will be leached along with the gold
and silver in the pregnant cyanide solution. Solution concentrations of 300-400 ppm Cu
and 0.3-0.4 ppm Au are anticipated in the pregnant solution feed to the carbon adsorption
circuit. The processing of pregnant solution through a carbon adsorption and recovery
circuit with high levels of soluble copper can be problematic. Several design features
have been incorporated into the plant design to handle the copper.
Cyanide addition to the leaching solution will be done at the pregnant solution manifold
ahead of the carbon column circuit. Adding cyanide to the pregnant solution before the
carbon columns will reduce the rate at which the copper is adsorbed onto the gold. Even
with the elevated cyanide levels in the adsorption circuit, some copper will be adsorbed
on the carbon. To reduce the copper levels on the carbon prior to processing the carbon
in the desorption circuit (elution) a cold stripping circuit is included in the plant design.
Copper levels in ore from mining operations will be regularly monitored in the lab by
determining the cyanide soluble copper and total copper. The mine grade control program
will use these results to identify any high copper zones and if required the material can be
stockpiled and treated later in the mine life.
17.6.2 Adsorption
Adsorption of gold onto carbon is accomplished in cascade-type carbon column trains

consisting of five columns per train. Two carbon column trains (800 m3/h total capacity)
are included for the two-stage leach in the first three years of operation, followed by the
addition of a third train for the single-stage leach in year four onward (1,600 m3/h total
capacity). Barren leach solution, after passing through the adsorption circuit, is
discharged from the final columns by gravity to a barren tank and is then pumped to the
heap for further leaching.
17.6.3 Recovery & Smelting
Desorption will utilize a pressurized elution process followed by recovery of gold and
silver from pregnant eluant solutions in electrolytic cells. The strip/recovery process

May 2013
(also referenced as a modified Zadra process) will be set up as a multiple pass circuit
through electrolytic cells. Facilities for mixing and adding caustic to the elution circuit
will be included. Loaded cathodes are washed and the resulting precious metal sludge is
dried followed by smelting in a natural gas-fired tilting crucible furnace to produce a final
doré product.
The recovery and smelting area includes the components necessary for removing the gold
from the carbon and then smelting them into a product for final sale. The necessary
recovery components include a cold cyanide stripping circuit (for addressing copper in
the leach solution), a desorption circuit, an acid wash circuit, a carbon thermal
regeneration circuit, a carbon handling circuit, and an electrolytic circuit. The smelting
components include a smelting furnace and off-gas collection circuit and a slag
granulation and recovery circuit.
17.7 Process Solution & Makeup Water
Process solution is required in the heap leach recovery plant for reagent makeup, wash
down, filter cleaning, and other uses. The process solution requirements are met by a
separate pipeline from the barren tank. For an average year it is estimated that about 5
m3/hr of makeup water will be required for the recovery plant.
17.8 Process Water Balance
The Lindero heap leach system is designed as a zero discharge facility. The Lindero
project area is in a dry region which makes solution management fairly simple. Due to
the very limited site rainfall, precipitation control will be based upon the volume needed
to store a sudden storm event, using the excess pond.
17.8.1 Precipitation Data
Precipitation data has been collected from several weather stations around the Project site
between 1950 and 2001. Average precipitation is based on the average precipitation data
from the four closest weather stations to the Project site. Extreme wet year and dry year
data was reviewed from the same weather stations as used in the average year. Since the

May 2013
rainfall from extreme dry year data was so minimal, in the water balance the precipitation
is assumed to be zero.
Precipitation data for average, wet, and dry years is summarized in Tables 17-3, 17-4, and
17-5, respectively.
Table 17-3
Average Year Rainfall Data in mm
Weather
J F M A My Ju Jl Ag S O N D Year
station
Salar de
19 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 35
Pocitos
Unquillal
14 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 33
Hombre
35 20 7.8 1.1 0.7 1 1.2 0.8 1.6 0 0.4 7.1 77.4
Muerto
Mina La
6 4 0 1 5 2 4 4 6 0 1 4 37
Casualidad
AVERAGE: 18.5 11.0 3.2 0.5 1.4 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.9 0.3 0.4 5.0 45.4
Table 17-4
Wet Year Rainfall Data in mm, Years 1950-1990 (Hombre Muerto 1992-2001)
Weather
station
Salar de
109 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 162
Pocitos
Unquillal
133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133
Hombre
54.8 73.6 7.9 0 0.6 0 0 0 6.8 0 0 1.7 145.4
Muerto
Mina La No
Casualidad Data
AVERAGE: 98.9 39.9 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 146.8

May 2013
Table 17-5
Dry Year Rainfall Data in mm, Years 1950-1990 (Hombre Muerto 1992-2001)
Weather
station
Salar de
3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Pocitos
Unquillal 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Hombre
0.6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.5 1 0 3 2.2 9.2
Muerto
Mina La No
Casualidad Data
AVERAGE: 2.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.7 7.1
17.8.2 Water Balances
Based on the preceding rainfall data, active water balances were calculated based on the
requirement for the full processing tonnage of 18,750 tonnes per day. Water balance
spreadsheets were prepared for an average year, wet year, and dry year. For all scenarios,
it was determined that the Lindero Project will be in a water deficit and makeup water
will be required. Makeup water requirements vary minimally between average, wet, and
dry years due to the minimal overall precipitation at the Project site.
Due to high evaporation rates experienced on site, drip tubes for heap irrigation are
planned to be buried in order to reduce evaporation of solution from the heap.
The heap leach water balance spreadsheet for the average precipitation year is shown in
Table 17-7. Figure 17-2 shows a simplified overall process water balance diagram for the
average year in terms of hourly flows and consumption.
Table 17-6 summarizes the site-wide average water requirements for an average
precipitation year for the Lindero Project including water requirements for the camp,
buildings, mining road dust control, etc.

May 2013
Table 17-6
Site-Wide Average Year Water Requirements
Description Value m³/hr
Crusher Dust Control 11.6
Heap Leach Usage 58.1
Road Dust Control 12.8
Truck Shop Wash Down 1.0

Camp Usage 2.1
Buildings
- Admin 0.5
- Plant Shop & Warehouse 0.5
- Mine Shop & Warehouse 1.0
- Laboratory 1.0
- ADR Plant 5.0
- Refinery 0.5
TOTAL Water Required 94.1

May 2013
Table 17-7
Heap Leach Water Balance, Average Precipitation Year
Assumptions
2 2
Lined Pad/Ditch Collection Area (sq. m) 717,400 Pad 703,000m , lined ditches 14,400m Pond evap. equals 60% of pan evap. over 80% pond area
Preg Pond Collection Area (sq. m) 18,970 Idle heap evapotranspiration equals 67% of pan evap.
Excess Pond Collection Area (sq. m) 20,600 Maximum evapotranspiration = rainfall over idle area
Total Leach Flow to Heap (cu. m/hr) 1,600 Evaporation system is sprinklers operating on leached pad area
Evaporation System Flow (cu. m) 0 N/A Allowable Wet Season Accum volume in process ponds adjusted for 100 yr 24-hr storm event
Allowable Wet Season Accum. in Process Ponds 54,899 Ore Absorption = Draindown moisture - ROM Moisture. Assume no change by season.
Wet Season Ore Absorption (%) 6.9
Dry Season Ore Absorption (%) 6.9 Wet Season = Dec - Mar
Average Annual Emitter Evap 0.25 Buried emitter evap, % of solution pumped 174,300 m3 total ponds volume
Average Annual Sprinkler Evap 0.0 N/A
Ore Throughput per Year 6,750,000
Maximum Rainfall Event - 24 hour (mm) 110
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Annual
Days in Month 31 30 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 31 365
Precipitation (mm) 18.5 11.0 3.2 0.5 1.4 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.9 0.3 0.4 5.0 45.4
Pan Evaporation (mm) 369.8 318.0 309.8 226.4 129.9 67.9 54.6 124.8 186.8 270.2 325.1 366.7 2,750.0
Emitter Evap. (%) 0.40 0.35 0.34 0.25 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.29 0.35 0.40 0.25
Sprinkler Evap. (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Idle Heap Evapotrans. Area (sq. m) 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115 553,115
Idle Heap Evapotrans. (mm) 247.8 213.0 207.6 151.7 87.0 45.5 36.6 83.6 125.2 181.0 217.8 245.7 1,843
Ore Placed on Pad (tonnes) 562,500 562,500 562,500 562,500 562,500 562,500 562,500 562,500 562,500 562,500 562,500 562,500 6,750,000
Precip. Collected (cu.m) 14,004 8,327 2,422 397 1,079 568 984 908 1,438 189 265 3,804 34,385
Ore Absorption (cu. m) 38,813 38,813 38,813 38,813 38,813 38,813 38,813 38,813 38,813 38,813 38,813 38,813 465,750
Emitter Evap. (cu. m) 4,647 3,996 3,894 2,845 1,632 853 686 1,569 2,348 3,395 4,085 4,609 34,560
Sprinkler Evap. (cu. m) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Evapotrans. (cu. m) 10,233 6,084 1,770 290 788 415 719 664 1,051 138 194 2,779 25,125
Pond Evaporation (cu. m) 3,367 2,895 2,821 2,061 1,183 618 497 1,137 1,701 2,460 2,960 3,339 25,040
Evaporation System (cu. m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Net Precip. Gain(+)/Loss(-) (43,056) (43,461) (44,875) (43,612) (41,337) (40,131) (39,731) (41,273) (42,475) (44,617) (45,787) (45,736) (516,090)
Excess Solution Pond

Allowable Accum. in Excess 54,899 54,899 54,899 54,899 54,899 54,899 54,899 54,899 54,899 54,899 54,899 54,899
Accum. into Excess 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled from Excess 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Quantity in Excess 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Makeup Solution Required 43,056 43,461 44,875 43,612 41,337 40,131 39,731 41,273 42,475 44,617 45,787 45,736 516,090
Solution to Treat/Discharge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
monthly average to treat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

excess after treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
extra flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Flow 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600
Makeup Water Req'd (Liters/sec) 16.1 16.8 18.5 16.3 15.9 15.0 15.3 15.4 15.9 17.2 17.1 17.1
m³/hr 58 60 67 59 57 54 55 55 57 62 62 61 58.9

May 2013
Figure 17-2
Process Water Balance Diagram, Average Precipitation Year
Ore Moisture
11.6 Precipitation Evaporation Precipitation Evaporation
2.0 3.41 2.0 3.41
Units
PRIMARY LEACH NEW 800 808 Production Rate (Avg. over 365 days) tpd 18,493
CRUSHED ORE SECONDARY LEACH
23.1 ORE OLD ORE ROM Moisture Content, % dry ore % 1.5%
Dust Control, % dry ore % 1.5%
752 801 Total Pad Collection Area m2 717,400
11.6 Pregnant Pond Collection Area m2 18,970
Dust Control Allowance for Additional Lifts Retained by Ore Allowance for Additional Lifts Primary Irrigation Rate - nominal m3/hr 800
5.39 64.7 5.39 Secondary Irrigation Rate - nominal m3/hr 800
Pan Evaporation - Salar Hombre Muerte mm/yr 2,750
Drip Evaporation Rate - % of sol pumped % 0.25%
Pond Evap Pond Evap Average Annual Precipitation mm 45.425
1.43 1.43 Residual Moisture after Draindown liter/dry t 84.0
Draindown liter/dry t 33.7
Solution Application Rate l/hr-m2 10
PREGNANT POND HIGH PREGNANT POND LOW Lift Height m 10
GRADE GRADE Average additional lifts per year 1
Heap Bulk Density t/m3 1.75
750 Makeup Water Pond Evap - % of Pan Evap % 60%
58.1 Pond Evap Area - % of pond collect area % 80%
Total Precipitation over Pad/Ponds m3/yr 34,385

m3/hr 3.93
750 Total Heap Evaporation (Emitter + Evapotranspm3/yr 59,685
m3/hr 6.81
RECOVERY PLANT BARREN TANK
Total Pregnant Pond Evaporation m3/yr 25,040
m3/hr 2.86
All Values Are Solution m3/hr

Due to extreme low annual precip & high evap, it is assumed that rain falling on idle heap areas is absorbed & does not report to off-flow
For calculation purposes total collected precipitation is split evenly over primary and secondary leach
For calculation purposes total heap evaporation is split evenly over primary and secondary leach
Total pregnant pond evaporation is split evenly over "high grade" and "low grade"
It is assumed the water added for crusher area dust control reports to the heap
Note Heap Leach Water Balance Model does not account for "allowance for additional lifts" in this Process Water Balance. T he "allowance for additional lifts" assumes that the "draindown" flow entered at the right is the additional water required over the residual mositure to maintain proper flow through the heap.
Note Heap Leach Water Balance Model does not account for the "Dust Control" water added in this Process Water Balance.
T he "Dust Control" water minus "allowance for additional lifts" represents the difference in values between the "Makeup Water" reported in this Process Water Balance, and the "Makeup Water" reported in the Heap Leach Water Balance Model.

May 2013
17.9 Process Reagents & Consumables
Average estimated annual reagent and consumable consumption quantities for the process
area are shown in Table 17-8.
Table 17-8
Projected Annual Reagents and Consumables
Annual
Item Form Storage Capacity
Consumption
Sodium Cyanide Briquettes - 1 tonne Supersacks 250 tonnes 3,375 tonnes
Lime Bulk Delivery (27 tonne) 150 tonnes 18,600 tonnes
Activated Carbon 500 kg Supersacks 8 tonnes 68 tonnes
Antiscalant Liquid Tote 1 m3 Bins 10 m3 100 m3
Sodium Hydroxide Dry Solid Sacks 10 tonnes 113 tonnes
Hydrochloric Acid Liquid Tote 1 m3 Bins 20 m3 340 m3
Silica Dry Solid Sacks 1 tonne 3.4 tonnes
Borax Dry Solid Sacks 1 tonne 5.4 tonnes
Niter Dry Solid Sacks 1 tonne 2.7 tonnes
Soda Ash Dry Solid Sacks 1 tonne 2.0 tonnes
17.10 Additional Plant Design Considerations
KCA has based the plant design on industry standards that have been proven over time.
Exceptions or deviations from industry norms are discussed in the following sections.
17.10.1 Adsorption
KCA expects that the low gold concentration and the relatively high copper concentration
in the pregnant solution is going to affect the gold loading level on the carbon. As a
result, KCA has estimated that gold loading will only average approximately 1,800 g
Au/tonne of carbon. The carbon adsorption circuit and the desorption circuit have been
sized accordingly. To minimize the loading of copper on carbon, KCA also recommends
adding cyanide ahead of the adsorption columns to maximize free NaCN in solution.

May 2013
17.10.2 Recovery & Smelting
KCA has included a cold cyanide strip cycle to remove much of the copper that will be
adsorbed on to the carbon. The high copper content discharge solution from the cold
cyanide strip will be pumped to the barren tank and back to the leach system.
17.10.3 Reagents
The copper in the process solution circuits will force the operators to maintain fairly high
cyanide concentrations in the various circuits. The high cyanide concentrations require
more cyanide which in turn impacts operation costs. At some point in the mine life it
may become cost effective to remove the copper from the solution and reduce the cyanide
concentrations used in the plant. This approach is discussed in the next section.
17.11 SART
The SART (Sulfidization, Acidification, Recycle and Thickening) process is designed to

remove copper cyanide from the leach circuit by precipitating copper as a copper sulfide
product and recover cyanide as free cyanide which can be returned to the leach circuit.
The Lindero ore contains cyanide soluble copper that will be leached along with the gold
and silver in the pregnant cyanide solution. Although it is expected that the included
ADR design features should be able to control the copper without further action, if
copper unexpectedly rises too far beyond this point there may be a need (and/or an
economic benefit) for a copper recovery circuit (SART).
The SART plant is presented essentially as a contingency item at this time.
17.11.1 SART Process
In the SART process, influent leach solution from the heap is sent to the circuit via a
surge tank, then pumped to the primary reactor which recovers copper as a sulfide
precipitate at a low solution pH by the simultaneous addition of sodium hydrosulfide and
sulfuric acid to the reactor inlet pipe, according to the following reactions:

May 2013
2 Cu(CN)32-(aq) + S2-(aq) → Cu2S(s) + 6 CN-(aq) (pH 4 - 5)

2 CN-(aq) + H2SO4(aq) → 2 HCN(aq) + SO42-(aq)
Copper sulfide is thickened, filtered and dried as a salable product.
The leach solution overflow in the copper thickener, now stripped of copper, is sent to a
neutralization reactor circuit consisting of two agitated tanks in series, where lime is
added to return the pH to the level of the feed solution, i.e. approximately pH 10-10.5. In
the process the cyanide is recovered as free cyanide (calcium cyanide) and gypsum is
precipitated according to the following reactions:
2 HCN(aq) + Ca(OH)2(aq) → Ca(CN)2(aq) + 2 H2O

SO42-(aq) + Ca(OH)2(aq) → CaSO4(s) + 2 H2O
Gypsum is thickened and filtered as a waste product, and the process solution with
recovered cyanide is returned to the leaching/ADR circuit.
For plant safety, all SART plant areas are rigorously instrumented to monitor and alert
HCN and H2S levels, with appropriate tie-ins to chemical neutralization and pH
adjustment of acidic vessels in case of maintenance or emergency. All operators in the
SART areas will be also be equipped with gas monitors and will be rigorously trained on
safety procedures.
17.11.2 SART Sizing Basis
To develop a basis for sizing of a potential SART plant, a review was conducted of test
work leach curves where copper data was available, along with process calculations and a
preliminary economic analysis of various SART plant sizes. From these scenarios it was
determined that a SART plant treating between 200-300 m3/h of solution was the best fit
considering costs and treatment level. The final sizing and cost basis assumed a
continuous flow of 300 m3/h with a influent copper concentration of 200 ppm, a
precipitation efficiency of 80%, and a free cyanide concentration of 250 ppm. From this
sizing the capital cost of the SART plant was estimated at US$ 13.3 million, with an
average operating cost of US$ 0.22/tonne ore. The operating costs would be expected to
be fully offset by the copper and cyanide recoveries.

May 2013
18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
The infrastructure and services were developed to support the Lindero Project operations.
The project infrastructure includes the following major areas:
• Access roads, including upgrades to existing roads and construction of new

roads;
• Power connection and supply from natural gas-fired generators to site
facilities;
o Natural gas supply system to site;
• Process water supply and distribution, including a fire water system;
• Potable water system;
• Sewage system;
• Project buildings, including:
o Administration building;
o ADR process area / building;
o Refinery building;
o Process shop;
o Laboratory building;
o Mine truck shop;
o Guard house;
o Reagent storage; and
o Warehouse;
• Natural gas and diesel fuel storage systems;
• Explosives storage;
• Man camps for construction and operations;
• Miscellaneous site services such as:
o Security;
o First Aid;
o Communications;
o Employee transport; and
o Solid waste disposal.
________________________________________________________________________
Kappes Cassiday & Associates Section 18 - Project Infrastructure
May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
18.1 Acceess Roads & Site Acccess
The Project
P is loccated 260 km
m due west ofo Salta City,, the main seervice centerr of the
region. Drive tim me from Saltta City to thee Project is aapproximatelly 7–7.5 h, oover a road
distan
nce of 420 km.
k
Fiigure 18-1
Projectt Location M Map
Access to the pro oject is via National Ro oute 51, whiich passes thhrough the ttowns of Saan
Anton nio de Los Cobres and Olacapato, and Provinccial Route 227, via Pocittos and Tolaar
Grande. Existin ng national and
a provinccial roads w will be used during connstruction annd
operaation. These roads are mainly con nsolidated ddirt roads annd will requuire minimum m
improovements to o accommod date transporrt of special oversized oor heavy parrts during thhe
consttruction stage.
_____ __________ ___________ __________ ____________________________________________
Kappees Cassiday & Associates
A Sectio
ion 18 - Projecct Infrastructurre
May 2013
2
Significant road improvements are planned for stretches of road between the Tolar
Grande and the Mansfield camp and between Pocitos and Tolar Grande. These upgrades
are necessary to accommodate construction and mine activities for the Project. A report
was prepared by a local vendor detailing the activities required for the planned upgrades
and associated costs (Grupo AGV, 2013).
In addition to roads there is an international railway line that joins the city of Salta with
the Tolar Grande and the deep-sea port of Puerto Anganos on the Chilean coast. The line
is currently operational and may become economically viable with the growth of mining
activity in the Puna region.
The general Project location is shown in Figure 18-1.
18.2 Power Supply
18.2.1 Power Requirement
The estimated peak demand load for the processing and crushing plant, heap leach and
ancillary facilities at the Lindero project site is 10.39 MW, with an average draw of
approximately 7.62 MW. Electrical power will be generated on site at a generation plant
located at the ADR plant area.
A review of power sourcing options during the pre-feasibility study stage indicated that
natural gas-fueled generation was the most technically viable and efficient option for the
Lindero project. Natural gas is available via the Gasoducto de La Puna at a point in
Pocitos, approximately 160 km from the site.
A “Virtual Pipeline” is proposed for Lindero which consists of a mother station installed
in Pocitos (at the source), a receiving station installed on site, and a series of trailer trucks
to transport the natural gas. The mother station will consist of a compression plant with
two compressors and refrigeration units at a total capacity of 2,940 Nm³/h compressed
natural gas for transport. Transportation will be handled by two trucks, each with two
trailers of a capacity of 13,500 Nm³/h. Mansfield will purchase the fleet and hire the truck
operators. On site, the trailers can be off-loaded and fed to the generation plant without
the need for a separate storage area for the natural gas.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
At the plant, electrical power will be generated on site by two 6.6 MW (de-rated)
generators, which deliver a total of 13.2 MW at 6.6 kV. Power will be distributed on-site
at 6.6 kV, 3 phase, 50 Hz and will be further stepped down to 380 V 3 ph and 220 V,
accordingly. Large motors such as the HPGR motors will operated at 6.6 kV and smaller
operating motors will use 380 V.
A study was prepared which detailed power plant options, capital and operating costs for
the approach described above (Saxum, 2012).
The estimated project electrical power consumption is presented in Table 18-1.
Table 18-1
Power Consumption by Area
Attached Operating
Power Power Operating kWh/t
Area (kW) (kW) kW kWh/year ore
Area 13A - Primary Crushing 351 351 335 2,128,358 0.315
Area 13B - Secondary/Tertiary Crushing 4,995 4,995 3,633 24,148,539 3.578

Area 15 - Fine Ore Stockpile and Heap Stacking
System 1,149 1,149 909 6,135,194 0.909
Area 22 - Leaching 2,354 2,315 1,477 12,353,095 1.830
Area 28 - Recovery 303 270 216 592,540 0.088
Area 31 - Refinery 144 127 102 392,448 0.058
Area 34 - Reagents 29 18 15 29,353 0.004
Area 60 - Power 0 0 0 0 0.000
Area 62 - Water 153 153 117 433,443 0.064
Area 66 - Facilities 968 968 781 3,465,423 0.516
Area 68 - Fuel Facilities 30 30 27 116,640 0.017
Area 75 - Laboratory 15 15 12 51,875 0.008
Total 10,490 10,390 7,624 49,846,907 7.387
18.2.2 Emergency Power
One of the generators used in the main generation plant will be a dual-fuel generator
which can operate either on natural gas or diesel fuel. In the case of a disruption to the
gas supply at the pipeline in Pocitos, the duel-fuel generator can operate on diesel to
supply power to critical areas on site, in particular the heap leach pumping systems and
man camp.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
18.3 Water Supply
The Lindero Project will require water for the following uses:
• Mining operations for dust control;

• Crushing for dust control;
• Makeup water for the heap leach pad;
• Process plant and laboratory;
• Man camp and administration;
• Construction activities; and
• Fire water.
The expected average water demand for the project is estimated at 26.1 L/s (94.1 m3/h)
for the full processing tonnage for all site facilities including the heap leach, crusher dust
control, road dust suppression, and infrastructure, as determined by the Project water
balance (see Section 17.8).
A summary of the Project water demands is shown in Table 18-2.
Table 18-2
Site Water Demand
Area Demand (m3/h)
Crusher Dust Control 11.6
Heap Leach 58.1
Road Dust Control 12.8
Truck Shop Wash Down 1.0
Camp Usage 2.1
Buildings & Misc. Usage 8.5
Total Water Requirement 94.1
18.3.1 Water Source – Wells
Significant work was completed in locating adequate water sources for the Project.
Hydrology, hydrogeology studies were conducted to identify the Rio Grande basin and its
several sub-basins, followed by with geo-electric profiling to determine drilling targets
(Vector Report entitled “Estudio Hidrologico, Proyectos Lindero y Rio Grande”, Vector
Report entitled “Estudio Hidrogeologico – Primera Etapa, Proyectos Lindero y Rio
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
Grande”). These initial exploratory activities are discussed further in Section 24.1.
Several exploratory wells were drilled and pumping tests conducted in the Project area,
notably in the Lindero, Arita, and Chachas sub-basins (Andina, 2011, Andina 2013,
Hidrotec 2012). These well locations are identified in Figure 18-2, and the results of the
well pump tests are shown in Table 18-3.
Table 18-3
Summary of Well Locations and Tests
Surface Distance Well Verified
Location Location Elevation from Depth Date Flow
Well Name East North (masl) Lindero (meters) Drilled (m3/h)
Andina 1 2,624,477 7,233,475 3,497 6 km North 59 Jan-11 1.16
Andina 2 2,635,923 7,225,160 3,536 13 km East 130 Mar-11 70
Hidrotec 1 2,619,649 7,224,907 3,725 6 km West 25 Feb-12 3.5

0.5 km North
Hidrotec 2 2,623,585 7,227,251 3,731 102 Feb-12 14.7
of Pit
0.5 km North
Hidrotec 3 2,623,653 7,227,402 3,727 120 Apr-12 36
of Pit
0.5 km North
Hidrotec 5 2,623,185 7,227,273 3,738 157 Dec-12 8
of Pit
Andina 3 2,635,876 7,225,156 3,536 13 km East 142 Jan-13 100
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
Lindero P
1
Figure
F 18-2
Well Test Locationss
____________________
______________
______________
_____________
______________ ___
_____________________________________________________
Kappes C
Cassiday & Associa
ates Project Infrastructure
Section 18 - P
May 20133
Water for the Lindero Project will be supplied by four water wells; two are located on site
(Hidrotec 2 and Hidrotec 3) near the man camp and two are located about 13 km to the
east of the site in the Chachas area, carrying water to site via a buried pipeline (Andina 2
and Andina 3). On site production for the two wells is approximately 50 m3/hr and off-
site production is approximately 70 m3/hr for each of the two wells. It is assumed that
only one of the two off-site wells will be operating at any given time to meet anticipated
project needs. As a contingency the water pipeline system accommodates a design flow
rate of 140 m³/hr (39 L/s), which considers flow from both the Chachas area wells
operating simultaneously. The pipeline is sized in this way to accommodate the
possibility of a future expansion in the processing rate.
From the results and discussion above, the plan is to commission and use the on-site
wells Hidrotec 2 and Hidrotec 3 during construction. Since on site supply from Hidrotec
2 and Hidrotec 3 alone is not sufficient to meet the overall project demands once
production has commenced, additional water will be supplied from the remote wells
Andina 2 and Andina 3, via a buried pipeline. The remote wells and pipeline will be built
and commissioned during the general construction period.
18.3.2 Raw Water and Fire Water Distribution
There will be two main reservoir tanks for raw / fire water storage for the Lindero
Project. The first tank, with a capacity of 975 m3, will be located near the crushing
circuit and will supply process water to the crushing area along with fire water for the
entire site. This tank is designed to maintain a minimum 2 hour fire water reserve for fire
emergencies. The second tank will be located near the ADR plant area and will have a
storage capacity of 700 m3, supplying process water only to the plant and heap areas.
18.3.3 Potable Water System
A potable water system will be installed to supply potable water to the camp area. The
potable water system in essence will consist of a pre-filtration unit coupled to a reverse
osmosis unit and associated piping, tankage, and controls. Chemical controls will be
included for preservation in the potable water storage tank.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
18.3.4 Sewage Treatment System
An anaerobic sewage treatment systems will be installed near the man camp to treat
waste water generated on the site. Effluent from the treatment plant can be reused as
make-up water for the heap leach barren solution tank or reintegrated into the
environment via leach fields.
18.4 Process Area Buildings
Most of the process buildings for the Lindero Project have been primarily designed as
steel frame buildings with modular thermo-acoustic panels; in general these are pre-
engineered and pre-fabricated steel buildings which include all structural members,
exterior doors and windows, roofs, insulation, interior and exterior wall panels and all
connectors required to erect and assemble the building on-site.
For the refinery, a reinforced concrete block / masonry type building design is used for
security purposes.
18.4.1 Administration Building
For the administration building, a fast-assembly modular type building is designed, which
incorporates the use of pre-cast concrete slabs, pre-assembled structural panels and pre-
wired electrical to minimize onsite installation time. This design was selected by
Goldrock and specifications developed by Saxum Engineered Solutions, using KCA
layout drawings. The administration building has a foot print of about 916 m2 which
includes offices, a training room, meeting room, clinic, bathrooms, and a storage room.
General and administrative staff along with certain key management in both operations
and mining will occupy the administration building.
18.4.2 Guard House
A small guard house will be erected at the entrance to the property. The guard house will
include lighting, power outlets, and a heating unit. Entrance to the property will be
monitored continuously.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
18.4.3 Process Shop
The process shop is a 350 m2 pre-engineered steel building and is located at the crusher
area. The process shop has a main work area for repairs and maintenance for equipment
for the crushing plant and ADR plant, and also includes an office area, a break area, toilet
facilities, and tool room.
18.4.4 Warehouse
The warehouse is a 350 m2 pre-engineered steel building and is located near the
administration building. The warehouse will contain critical spares for the process areas
and includes an office area, break room and bathroom.
18.4.5 ADR Plant Building
The ADR (absorption desorption recovery) plant will be housed in a pre-engineered steel
building. The building will house the carbon columns, pressure stripping circuit, acid
wash, carbon regeneration, and caustic mixing areas. The ADR building has a foot print
of 1,684 m2. Due to the relatively high profile of the carbon columns and the elution and
acid wash columns, the building will be large, approximately 18 meters at the roof apex.
The ADR building is located in the same general area as the laboratory, where chemical
analysis of samples from the ADR plant are performed.
18.4.6 Refinery Building
The refinery will be located adjacent to the ADR building. The refinery will be
constructed of reinforced concrete block / masonry with a steel roof. A separate secure
staging area is included at the entrance of the building. The interior and exterior of the
building will be under surveillance via cameras and closed-circuit television.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
18.4.7 Laboratory
A full service laboratory facility will be present at the Lindero Project site. The design of
the lab includes:
• isolated foundations with perimeter berms;

• support slabs for equipment;
• concrete sidewalks/halls;
• a fire assay lab section consisting of:
o concrete columns;
o masonry type walls;
• office sector constructed with modular wall panels;
• bathrooms with ceramic tile floor;
• wet laboratory areas with ceramic floors;
• a sample preparation area;
• data input, AA, and weighing areas; and
• a metallurgical lab area.
The laboratory is sized to process 160 solid samples per day and 260 solution samples per
day.
18.4.8 Reagents Storage Building
The reagents storage building (pre-fabricated steel) will be 382 m2. The facility is
divided into five sections with storage for sodium cyanide, carbon, caustic (sodium
hydroxide), hydrochloric acid and antiscalant, and other dry reagents such as fluxes.
18.5 Mine Area Buildings
Mining operations will be supported using a series of buildings located in an area

adjacent to the administration building.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
18.5.1 Truck Shop
A shop will be erected on a site near the administration building and is connected to the
haul road from the pit and crushing areas. The shop will be 924 m2 and will have three
work bays with an internal clearance of 11.7 m and one wash bay with an eave height of
6.7 m, which will accommodate the earthmoving equipment anticipated for the project.
The shop will have concrete floors, metal siding and a 10 ton overhead crane system to
facilitate all anticipated repairs on the earthmoving fleet. Areas will be allocated for
mechanical, electrical, welding, and maintenance activities. Adjacent to the shop
building will be a wash bay. The wash down drainage from equipment washing will be
directed to an oil-water separator.
The shop will be equipped with a large air compressor/receiver to service the wash down
area and other tooling.
Offices for mine contractors, as well as a break area and first aid area will be provided in
the nearby administration building.
Equipment spares for the mining area will be stored in the warehouse with over size
storage in an adjacent fenced storage area.
18.5.2 Explosive Storage
The bulk explosives facility will include two detonator magazines consisting of modified
shipping containers surrounded by earthen screening mounds and security fencing, and
two similarly constructed industrial explosive magazines within close proximity of the
main magazine complex. All of the containers will be situated within a secure area,
surrounded by fencing, and managed accordingly.
Raw materials, such as ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, and primary explosives used in the
explosive manufacturing process, will be brought to site by road and stored at the
explosives facility site until required.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
18.6 Camp
18.6.1 Permanent / Construction Camp
construction and permanent operations housing. The camp will be erected north of the
pit and along the northern project boundary. The facility will include modular dormitory
type facilities for workers and for supervisors. The worker/operator quarters will house
224 people and the supervisor quarters will house 60 people for a total of 284 beds.
Under normal operations a total of about 400 people are expected to work at the project
site, including processing, mining, and G&A personnel. The 2-shift schedule planned
during operations will mean that approximately 200 personnel will be on site at any given
time.
18.6.1.1 Dormitories
The operator accommodations will consist of four 56-man dormitories for a total capacity
of 224 persons. Each dormitory contains 28 rooms, two persons per room, and has
separate men’s and women’s bathroom and shower areas.
The supervisor accommodations will consist of three 20-man dormitories for a total
capacity of 60 persons. Each dormitory contains 20 private rooms with a small private
bathroom containing a toilet and shower.
The dormitory buildings are designed as fast-assembly modular type buildings, which
incorporates the use of pre-cast concrete slabs, pre-constructed modules, pre-wired
lighting, heating, and electrical to minimize onsite installation time.
18.6.1.2 Dining Facilities
A kitchen, recreation, and dining facility of 1,216 m2 will be constructed and located
adjacent to the staff housing. This facility will be a permanent facility that will continue
to be used through operations. The dining area will be a large single room with adjacent
bathrooms. The kitchen will be complete with all facilities necessary to prepare meals for
the anticipated operations and construction workforce. The recreation area will include a
small gym, cinema, internet café, and additional room for table games.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
The dining and recreation area will also be constructed of pre-assembled modular units to
minimize site erection time.
18.6.1.3 Laundry Room
A 60 m2 laundry room will be included in the camp and will be located next to the dining
and recreation building.
18.6.2 Temporary Expansion
18.6.2.1 Construction Phase
Construction activities will require an anticipated 600 contractor personnel working on

day shifts. Contractors will be on site for up to one year constructing buildings, erecting
the crushing plant, water storage and distribution system, ADR facility, and preparing
and lining the leach pad and ponds. Mining contractors will establish haul roads, erect
blasting storage facilities and begin pioneering the mine pit for production.
Goldrock currently owns two other man camp facilities, the Lindero Camp and Regulus
Camp, both located about six kilometers north of the project site. These camps combined
have a capacity of about 150 persons. It is planned during the construction phase to
utilize this camp for a portion of the construction crew, and make up the remaining
capacity by bunking beds in the on-site camp operator and supervisor dormitories as
necessary.
18.6.2.2 Contract/Owner Mining Overlap
In Year 4 it is planned that the mining contractor’s equipment fleet and personnel will be
replaced by a new fleet and crew purchased and hired by Goldrock. As such, there will be
a period of several months where contract mining operations ramp down and owner
mining ramps up, and the operations workforce is expected to be approximately 460-470
personnel (230-235 on site). The proposed camp should be able to handle the population
during this time period.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
18.7 Diesel Fuel Delivery and Storage Systems
Diesel fuel will be delivered to the mine site via contractor owned tanker trucks and
stored in three tanks on site. Two 40 m3 tanks will store mine vehicle diesel fuel and one
smaller 25 m3 tank will store fuel for light vehicles. Each storage tank is contained in a
lined basin to assure no fuel is leaked to the environment. Fuel trucks will be used to
deliver fuel to the mine mobile equipment.
Goldrock will use a third party supplier (fuel vendor) to directly manage the fuel in order
to minimize fraudulent activity. Numerous fuel vendors in Argentina provide this
service.
18.8 Site Services
18.8.1 First Aid
Emergency medical staff will be available at an onsite clinic located in the administration
building. Medical personnel will be contracted by Goldrock. The medical staff includes
two onsite nurses and one on-call doctor.
18.8.2 Communications
An internet protocol (IP) telephone system will be used for off-site communications. The
system includes a device for connecting to the public network, voice mail, and direct
selection of extension number. The telephone switchboard will share installations with
the data network, which will have power and air conditioning back-up support systems.
Phones will be installed in all buildings and facilities. Cellular telephone and internet
coverage will be available in the camp and mining areas.
Hand-held and base station radios will be provided for survey and ore control personnel,
geologists, and operators for on-site communications. Mobile equipment will be
equipped with radios.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
18.8.3 Transportation
Lindero personnel will be transported to the Project from nearby communities and Salta
City, and will reside in the camp during work periods. Transportation will be provided
for the workers from the camp to the mine via buses and large vans on scheduled shift
changes.
18.8.4 Solid Waste Disposal
Solid wastes will be disposed of in a manner complying with local regulations.

Allowable products will be disposed of in a solid waste landfill constructed on site.
Products not allowed to be disposed of in the landfill will be transported to appropriate
facilities off site.
18.9 Site Fencing
The Lindero site is very remote and, as such, it is not considered to be necessary to fence
the entire project site. Specific parts of the project facilities will be fenced including
chain link security fences around the main process plant area, main substation, the
pregnant and excess solution ponds, and the magazines. Fencing will also be installed
around the remote wells to secure the well pumps and generators in that area.
________________________________________________________________________
May 2013
19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
19.1 Gold Pricing
Gold and silver are sold through commercial banks and metal dealers. Sales prices are
obtained based on World spot or London fixes and are easily transacted. The gold price
used for the base case cash flow analysis is $1,400/oz. Sensitivities with variable price
projections are also considered. The sensitivities are located in Section 22.
The Lindero Project, like most gold projects, is highly sensitive to changes in the gold
price. To determine the adequacy of the gold prices used for cash flow analysis, a review
was completed of prices used in recent resource calculations by major gold producers.
The average gold price over the previous three years, 2010 to 2012 is $1,487/oz, based on
the London Bullion Price.
Table 19-1
Recent Metals Prices
Year Low High Average
2010 $1,058 $1,421 $1,225
2011 $1,319 $1,895 $1,569
2012 $1,540 $1,792 $1,667
19.2 Gold Industry Trends
In February 2013, BMO Capital Markets published a forecast where gold is expected to
continue to trade above the $1,500-$1,600/oz range during 2013.
Gold entered 2012 at US$1,598/oz and exited at US$1,657/oz for a gain of 3.7%, but
with plenty of volatility through the year. The gold price nearly breached the
US$1,800/oz mark twice in 2012 but, despite a number of factors that should have been
very positive for the metal, but now it is below US$1,500/oz. The overriding issue
pressuring the gold price was the prospect of an improving U.S. economy and the end of
quantitative easing. Most currencies weakened against the safe-haven U.S. dollar in 2012
as stimulus measures were announced in developing nations. The decline in jewelery and
industrial demand globally was offset by increasing flows into gold Exchange Traded
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 19 - Market Studies and Contracts

May 2013
Funds (ETF’s) and net purchases by central banks. Over 2013, BMO expects gold to
restart its price climb, rising from an average US$1,700/oz to US$1,900/oz in the latter
half of the year. Real interest rates remain under pressure near term; BMO Economics
does not expect the new tightening thresholds (unemployment under 6.5%, inflation
outlook over 2.5%) to be triggered in 2013.
BMO also project the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar to weaken as industrial
production expands in the BRIC nations, but note that the U.S. dollar is likely to
strengthen against European currencies and the Japanese Yen. Over the medium term,
Goldrock expects central banks to continue to be net purchasers of gold as a
diversification strategy. On the supply side, rising operating and capital costs for the
sector due to structurally higher energy prices, declining grades and stronger producer
currencies should provide support at our long-term price of above US$1,400/oz. Gold has
been on the rise for the last 11 years and is likely to remain highly sought after as a store
of wealth and as alternative currency.
Product fabrication and bullion investment are the two principal uses of gold. Within the
fabrication category there are a wide variety of end users, the largest of which is the
manufacture of jewelry. Other fabrication purposes include coins, electronics,
miscellaneous industrial and decorative uses, dentistry, medals and medallions.
19.3 Doré Production Rate
The Lindero mine product will be doré bars containing an estimated mixture of gold
(45%), silver (35%) and copper (20%), which will be stored in a secured vault at the plant
and transported by a security company armored car from Lindero to a security transport
company in Salta and then overseas for refining. The total Doré weight of metal would
be about 5,000 troy oz or 155 kilograms if shipped every week to Salta. The production
rate starts declining during year 9 and less frequent or smaller shipments will be made.
The natural gas fired furnace is designed to produce Doré’ bullion at approximately 5,000
oz/week rate while pouring once per week.

May 2013
19.4 Refinery Selection
International acceptance of the refiner's gold and silver bar markings is an indication of
the refiner's market reputation. Financial strength is also important. Because of the high
unit values involved, it is essential that the refiner be capable of providing the necessary
insurance and security measures, as well as business stability, to ensure that the material
is fully protected from theft or bankruptcy seizure while on their premises. Because of the
competitive nature of the refining industry, it is unlikely that a middleman can improve
on terms that might be reached by dealing with the refiners directly.
19.5 Refining Terms
When a shipment of Doré is sent to the refiner, the refiner melts it down, and samples the
melt. The refiner can also drill the doré for samples as per the agreed contract. A
Goldrock representative such as a witness from the company “Inspectorate or other”
takes possession of the company samples and submits them for assay. Settlement is
decided as per agreements between the refiner and company. If the samples do not agree
within set splitting limits, settlement is then based on umpire assays from a mutually
agreed upon umpire assayer.
19.6 Gold Production Schedule
Table 19-2 summarizes the ounces of gold stacked and recovered by year.

May 2013
Table 19-2
Summary of Ore Processed and Gold Produced
Year -1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Total
Recoverable Gold
Stacked, Oz 28,210 150,328 133,806 104,985 94,510 109,872 93,881 102,377 105,465 84,186 30,428 1,038,047
Gold Recovered to
3,995 118,959 143,721 122,427 87,742 105,372 101,546 96,880 104,430 99,008 50,949 3,018 1,038,047
Doré, Oz

May 2013
Overall gold recovery is approximately 68.3%. Silver will also be recovered but is not
reported in the reserve calculations; however, according to metallurgical test results about
15% of silver will be recovered from the ore. Silver production is not used in the cash
flow model but it is recognized as a minor upside that silver credits will help reduce the
overall gold refining and transport costs which is currently US$10.21per ounce.
19.7 Refining and Transportation Costs
Precious metal refining companies were contacted to obtain budgetary quotes for
refining, transportation and insurance. The entire mass of the Doré, including Silver (and
Copper), incurs a treatment charge. As silver revenue is not included in the mine
economics no silver refining charge is considered.

May 2013
20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL

OR COMMUNITY IMPACT
20.1 Environment
In November 2011, the Salta provincial government granted the principal environmental
permit DIA (Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental), which is the primary mining permit
required for project development, enabling the project operator to start construction and
proceed to full mine operating status.
The Company had received a mine permit to build a heap-leach gold mine at up to 30,000
tonnes per day as detailed in the Pre-Feasibility Study prepared by AMEC Americas
(AMEC) dated June 2010.
This feasibility study is based on a heap leach gold mine operating at 18,750 tonnes per
day using a higher cut-off grade of 0.4 grams/tonne Au, increasing average grades early
in the production schedule and lowering initial capital requirements. These initial
tonnage changes will be promptly reported to the government authority, and the Secretary
of Mining of the Province of Salta. The conditions of the permit stipulate that progress on
the project is to be reported every six months up to the construction phase.
20.1.1 Legal Requirements and Other Obligations
20.1.1.1 Legal Requirements
The environmental legislation relevant to the Lindero project (Project or Lindero Project)
is as follows:
• National Law No. 24,585, of the Environmental Protection for Mining

Activity Act, incorporated into the Mining Code. The scope of this act was
adapted by the Salta Province for application to any mining activity within
its territory. Salta Province stipulates that the Mining Secretary is the
implementing authority. The submission of environmental impact reports
and the corresponding monitoring is the responsibility of this government
authority; and
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 20 - Environmental, Permitting, and Social or Community Impact
May 2013
• Provincial Environmental Protection Law No. 7,070. This law declares

that it is a matter of provincial public order that all necessary actions,
activities, programs, and projects must be carried out to preserve, protect,
defend, improve, and restore the environment and natural resources within
a framework of sustainable development. The provincial government is
task to act as above except in matters governed by special laws such as
Law No. 24,585;
Article 41 of the National Constitution refers to the rights of individuals residing in an

area of productive activity to enjoy a healthy environment without compromising future
generations. It also indicates that the Argentine State and provincial governments will
issue rules as appropriate to their jurisdictions. Other related legislation includes:
• Mining Code of the Argentine Republic;

• Law No. 24,051: Hazardous Waste;
• Law No. 24,196: Mining Investments;
• Law No. 25,612: Comprehensive Management of Industrial Waste and
Service Activities;
• Law No. 25,675: General Environment;
• Law No. 25,688: Environmental Water Management;
• Law No. 25,743: Cultural and Archaeological Heritage;
• Law No. 25,831: Free Access to Public Environmental Information;
• Law No. 7,017: Water Code of Salta Province;
• Provincial Constitution, Articles No. 30, 79, 81, 82;
• Provincial Laws No. 7, 107: Protected Areas; and
• Articles corresponding to bylaws 005/2008: Environmental Code of the
Municipality of San Antonio de los Cobres.
20.1.1.2 Environmental Obligations Register
According to Provincial Law 7070, Article 41, Decrees 3097/00 and 1587/03, the
technical manager of any environmental work must be registered as an Environmental
Impact Evaluator in the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Salta
Province. Maintenance of this registration requires biannual re-enrolment and the
updating of the technical manager’s curriculum vitae. An Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) must be signed as an affidavit, and the person signing the EIA is liable
May 2013
under civil and criminal law for the content of the report. The directors of the company
that owns the mining concession are also liable.
If environmental damage occurs through mining activity, the mining company may be
responsible in the following ways:
• Environmental (recovery to the state prior to production);

• Civil (compensation);
• Administrative (fines); and
• Criminal (jail).
Where damage is caused by legally-sanctioned persons, the legislation states that

authorities and professionals are responsible to the extent of their participation.
20.1.1.3 Other Obligations
In November 2011, the Company received approval of the EIA on the Lindero Project.
The EIA was prepared by the Australian firm Ausenco Vector and presented in 2010 to
the government.
The EIA includes several points detailing the obligations of the Company to the
government, among them; the following are noted as being significant;
• In each of the periodic extensions attached to the Application Authority, or

biannual EIA renewals, the Company and the Environmental Professionals
Assessors must satisfy all requirements of Resolution No. 172/10 of the
Ministry of Economic Development and Resolution N° 448/09 of the
Mining Secretary;
• All future EIA filings must be consistent in the various stages with the
Fixed Capital Investment under Articles 217 and 218 of the Mining Code;
• The Company must satisfy the requirements of Water Code (Law 7017)
and Decree N° 2.299 of its own integral regulations and resolutions of the
Water Resources Ministry;
• Transport, storage, use and disposal of explosives detonators and blasting
accessories for use in blasting shall be governed by regulations from
RENAR (National Weapons Register). In Argentina, acts with explosives
May 2013
within the civil (mining) area, are governed by the "National Law on
Firearms and Explosives No. 20,429, Decree No. 302/83”;
• The Company must allow free access to the supervisory government
officials from the provincial government including environmental, health
and safety officials, and also officials to review production and cost control
data for the determination of provincial mining royalties;
• All service companies that work on the project shall comply with the
Environmental Mining Law, and the Occupational Health and Safety Law;
• All mining input suppliers (such as lime, bentonite, drilling and other
additives) must have an environmental quality certificate demonstrating
compliance with the Environmental Mining Law. The Company shall
endeavor to ensure that all input suppliers comply with the applicable
environmental laws;
• Any changes to the original project, including new development and
evaluations, which have not been reported in updates required by law or the
implementing authority, shall be reported immediately to the implementing
authority;
• The Company must provide an environmental procedures manual that
describes all security measures and contingency plans for each activity
related directly or indirectly to the project, including for all carriers and
drivers specific to the type of load transported;
• Prior to construction, the Company shall submit the Measures Plan for the
control and suppression of fugitive dust to the Environmental Mining
Authority (EMA) for approval (according to the environmental and safety
point of view), which must include alternative methods to abatement of
particulate material generated in mining operations, crushing and
transportation;
• Any proposed alternative road route must be approved by the competent
authorities and incorporated into the monitoring plan;
• Prior to the commencement of the initial stage, the Company must submit a
Safety and Traffic Control Plan (according to the environmental and safety
point of view) to the EMA for approval;
• The Company must instruct and provide training to all personnel and
contractors with respect to environmentally responsible behavior (Law
24,585, Article 3);
• Environmental emergency plans shall "be run periodically” through
practice trials and shall be evaluated to ensure an excellent response in the
case of a real emergency;
May 2013
• The Company must prepare an environmental management plan and

monitoring manual to be used for many activities including timing,
location, frequency, parameters, methods and standards for the variables
listed in the EIA and the technical report, and delivered for approval to the
relevant authority prior to commencement of the operational phase;
• Prior to the commencement of mining and processing, the Company shall
submit to the EMA an update of the satellite image of the area of influence
of the Project. This image will be in multispectral digital format, with 2.4
m resolution similar to that provided in the environmental permit
application. This image will be provided before the beginning of the
construction of the Project and then annually (mapping the progress of the
operation). This image will show the status of environmental impact of the
Project;
• Mud from treatment plants must be treated by authorized hazardous waste
operators and the Company shall submit monthly return receipts thereof to
the Water Resources Secretary and the Mining Ministry;
• Prior to construction, the Company must submit the operation and design
of the activated carbon furnace to the EMA for approval. The focus will be
on emissions generated by this furnace;
• The Company must minimize irreversible landscape impact during the
construction, closure and post closure phases;
• The Company shall not mix or bury hazardous waste or industrial tires;
• All hazardous waste such as oils, hydrocarbons, contaminated soils, etc.
shall be evacuated from the Project and disposed of by authorized operators
and carriers, such disposal to be recorded in a Registry Book which must
be available to the relevant authorities;
• The Company shall immediately inform the relevant authority of all oil
spills and hazardous substance accidents on routes within the province or
on the Project. In all cases, the Company shall immediately provide and
implement a contingency plan;
• The calculation and design of the “Leach Pad” must comply with building
regulations and standards according to international rules and guidelines,
and all available national and provincial precedents, and this work must not
commence without the appropriate approval of the relevant authorities;
• Necessary measures must be taken to implement and ensure a continuous
and permanent quality control during the installation of the membranes,
drainage material and waterproof substrate in the leaching system, to
ensure compliance with the provisions of the EIA;
May 2013
• Prior to construction, an electronic monitoring plan for leak detection in the

leach pad must be issued by the EMA (according to the environmental and
safety point of view);
• The Company must submit a monthly field survey undertaken to detect
leaks in the leaching system, detailing visual inspection and systematic
pattern on the slopes of the leach pad bases and sectors topographically
lower around the stack, and to detect areas with moisture or water surge
that may come from a leak, in addition to the control methods
contemplated in the EIA;
• The Company shall ensure that the theoretical models presented in the EIA
are consistent with the methodical observation of the performance of the
waste dump and leaching systems. These results shall be reported and
submitted quarterly to the EMA;
• The Company must submit the waste dump design to the EMA for
approval, such design to be compliant with international, national and
provincial building regulations and standards;
• At the Company’s expense, the EMA may carry out excavations in the
waste dump area or any other area affected by the Project to determine if
an improper environmental incident has occurred;
• All changes in the Project that impact water use or that generate
unanticipated effects on the EIA will be reported to the Application
Authority;
• The Company must submit quarterly reports on environmental monitoring
hydrochemistry, hydrogeology, climate, flora and fauna monitoring, waste
management, security checks, health and hygiene, with details of
subcontractors, their actions, impacts and assigned responsibilities in the
monitoring process, or collaboration in monitoring plans and controls; and
• Five years prior to the mine closure, the Company must submit a closure
and post closure plan, together with its monitoring plans for all
environmental components, to the EMA for approval. It must include a
traffic and access plan to prevent accidents and to control the process.
20.1.2 Background Environmental Database
May 2013
reports, listed in Table 20-1, each consist of a brief description of the environmental
baseline, the project, environmental impact, and ways to prevent and mitigate that impact.
On many occasions, the Government of Salta Province has inspected the various
activities.
May 2013
Table 20-1
Environment Reports Presented to the Provincial Government
File Date Type of Report
16835 Onyx Mine Nov 4, 1999 Discovery Statement
Lindero Property Nov 12,1999 EIA Exhibit II - Exploration
Oct 31, 2001 EIA Renewal
Oct 15, 2002 EIA Extension
Water permit application at water resource
Oct 16, 2002 agency
Oct 31,2003 EIA Renewal
May 27, 2005 EIA Renewal
May 11, 2006 EIA Extension for Drilling Phase
Dec 17, 2007 Environmental Base Line Report
May 21, 2008 EIA Renewal Presentation
Aug 21, 2008 EIA Approval
Aug 6, 2010 EIA Presentation
Nov 04, 2010 EIA Presentation-Exploitation
EIA Exploitation Approval (DIA) Resol
Nov 12, 2011 316/11
Semestral Report - State of Progress of Project
May 11, 2012 (DIA)
Semestral Report - State of Progress of Project
Nov 10, 2012 (DIA)
17206 Camp Rights Oct 13, 2000 EIA Presentation
Oct 15, 2002 EIA Presentation
Oct 31, 2003 EIA Renewal
Nov 11, 2005 EIA Renewal
Dec 18, 2007 EIA Renewal
Apr 28, 2008 EIA Approval
Apr 28, 2010 EIA Renewal
Oct 14, 2010 EIA Approval
18387 Water and Camp June 07, 2006 EIA Presentation
Rights Aug 28, 2006 EIA Approval
Aug 21, 2008 EIA Renewal
Mar 26, 2009 EIA Approval
Apr 12, 2011 EIA Renewal
Feb 07, 2012 EIA Presentation
19200 Lindero Water Rights Aug 07, 2008 EIA Presentation
Sep 28, 2008 EIA Approval
34-42367/10 Water Concession Jan 5, 2013 Publication in News paper
Chachas 1 70 m³/h Feb 5, 2013 Time out - no opposition
34-13173/12 Water Concession Dec 20, 2012 Publication in News paper
Mine site 14.63 m³/h Jan 20, 2013 Time out – no opposition
Mine site 36 m³/h Jan 20, 2013 Time out – no opposition
Mine site 7.7 m³/h Jan 20, 2013 Time out – no opposition
20217 Calcium Carbonate EIA Presentation
Mar 31, 2010
quarry
May 2013

accepted by the Mining Judge of Salta after being examined by environmental technicians
of the Secretariat of Mining and the Provincial Secretariat of Environment. There are no
known current environmental liabilities for this Project.
In September 2007, the Company installed a weather station (Davis Vantage PRO2) at
the site to record temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, precipitation,
atmospheric pressure, solar radiation, and evaporation. All of these parameters are
recorded on a daily basis in a database at the camp. The weather station allows the
analysis of updated data on a daily basis and analysis of the data across time.
It is important to mention that there is no historical environmental information for the

area before 2007, when the environmental baseline was established and the weather
station installed on site. This data do not allow the drawing of detailed models, such as a
water balance model. Data for such models must come from weather stations like the
stations established at La Casualidad, Unquillal, and Hombre Muerto, and so the project
specific models developed from site-collected data must be used with caution due to the
limited time period.
It is important to note that in May and November 2012, the Company filed an advance
activities report on the Lindero Project as established by DIA requirements (6 monthly
updates).
20.1.3 Existing Conditions
20.1.3.1 Location and Access Routes
The Lindero Project is located southwest of the southern edge of Arizaro Salar in the
department of Los Andes, about 7 km south of the old onyx mine of Arita in the
southwest of Salta Province. The nearest road access lies about 5 km south of the camp
area. The Project is located 60 km from the Salta–Antofagasta railway line, 130 km from
the 345 kilovolt Salta–Escondida power transmission line, and 160 km from the Puna gas
pipeline.
May 2013
20.1.3.2 Climatology
The Project area has a very harsh climate defined as the Andean Puna, which is
characteristic of heights over 2,500 m. In general terms, this is a region of aridity that
displays distinctly continental features.
The climate is dry and cold, with substantial daily temperature variations in both summer
and winter. The temperature in winter averages 5°C. In summer, the maximum
temperature is 30°C, with monthly averages ranging between 15°C and 20°C.
Annual average rainfall does not exceed 50 mm. Rainfall starts in December and ends in
March, but precipitation in the form of snow or sleet can still fall in the months of June,
July, and August. The lack of moisture produces static and lightning electric charges and
discharges, as well as static electricity in devices and appliances.
Winds are usually relatively calm during the night and mornings, but significantly
increase from west to east in the afternoon, especially during the winter months, with
recorded speeds exceeding 100 km/h.
Air quality is generally good, except when the wind carries dust that may interfere with
breathing. Low oxygen levels, and reduced air pressure caused by altitude can result in
mountain sickness (soroche), a common illness on the Puna.
20.1.3.3 Air Quality
Weather conditions in the area contribute to the generation of dust, including ultra-fine
dust particles generated by soil erosion. This is especially the case when weather
conditions discharge soil layers, causing increased levels of suspended particles in the
atmosphere. Removal of material by mining activity will cause an increase in wind
erosion and fine material blasting (silt, clay, and sand).
In the EIA report, air quality was analyzed using the equipment shown in Figure 20-1.
The results (Table 20-2) indicate that for selected pollutants, the concentrations are below
the guideline levels established by current legislation. The results also correspond to
natural levels at each site, with levels of pollutants from activities carried out in the area
at the time of evaluation corresponding to levels of wind-borne particulate matter.
May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 20-1
Examplle of Air Quuality Samplling Equipm
ment
Table
T 20-2
Averaged mental Conceentration off Particulate Matter (P
d Environm PM10)
Poin
nt 2 Point 3 Point 5 Point 6
Lind
dero Linder o Río Grannde Tolar Law No.
Parameterrs LCM
L Hiill Hill Antennaa Grandee 24,585
Total
T Hydrocarrbons
(mg/m3) 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N.E.
3
Carb
bon Monoxide (mg/m ) 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.010 (a)
m3)
Ozone (mg/m 0.001
0 0.016 0.018 0.017 0.015 0.120 (a)
3
Su
ulfur Dioxide (m
mg/m ) 0.001
0 <0.0
001 <0.0011 <0.001 <0.001 0.080 (b)
3
Nitrrogen Dioxide (mg/m ) 0.001
0 0.03
35 0.038 0.039 0.044 0.100 (b)
3
PM10 (mg/m
m) 0.001
0 0.02
25 0.025 0.027 0.024 0.050 (b)
The obtained values are normalized at 25°C and onee atmosphere preessure
(a) Refers
R to the valu
ue for a weighted eight-hour perriod
(b) Refers
R to the legiislated value forr a weighted one-year period.
In Feebruary 20122, Ausenco Vector

V subm
mitted an airr quality moddeling reporrt. This repoort
was carried
c out to
t determinee the effects of the propoosed projectt area in the air quality iin
the im
mmediate en nvironment ini which thee project willl be locatedd. This reporrt presents thhe
estim
mation of em missions annd modeling g results off air qualityy during the operationnal
(miniing) phase of the projectt.
The report
r concluded that th
here will nott be adversee effects on the most im mportant tow wn
near the
t project (Tolar
( Grandde) nor are adverse
a effeccts expectedd in rural setttlements or iin
Antofallita and Cavi
C Vega.
Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Section 20 - Environmentaal, Permitting, aand Social or Coommunity Impaact
May 2013
2
20.1.3.4 Water Quality
For the EIA studies, physical–chemical analyses were performed at the Environmental
Studies Laboratory (National University of Salta) and at Alex Stewart Assayers
Argentina S.A. in Mendoza. During the pre-feasibility phase, control analyses were
performed at the Induser laboratory in Salta.
The selected parameters for the laboratory analyses correspond to those established in
Annex IV of Law No. 24,585–Environmental Legal Framework for Mining Activities. In
the EBL study, the results were compared with the water quality guideline levels
established in Annex IV of Law No. 24,585, both for drinking water and protection of
water life, and with the values specified in the updated Argentine Food Code as shown in
Table 20-3 and Table 20-4.
May 2013
Table 20-3
Water Quality Guideline Levels in Annex IV of Law No. 24,585
Water Life Protection in
Superficial Drinking
Constituent Drinking Water Water
pH 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 9.0
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 1000 1000
Aluminum (mg/L) 0.2
Antimony (mg/L) 0.010 0.016
Arsenic (mg/L) 0.050 0.050
Barium (mg/L) 1
Beryllium (μg/L) 0.039
Boron (mg/L) 0.75
Cadmium (μg/L) 5 0.2
Cyanide (mg/L) 0.10 0.005
Zinc (mg/L) 5.0 0.03
Copper (μg/L) 1000 2
Chrome (Total) (μg/L) 50 2
Chrome (+6) (μg/L) 50
Fluorite (mg/L) 1.5
Manganese (mg/L) 0.10
Mercury (μg/L) 1 0.1
Nickel (μg/L) 25 25
Nitrate (mg/L) 10
Nitrite (mg/L) 1
Silver (μg/L) 50 0.1
Lead (μg/L) 50 1
Selenium (μg/L) 10
Uranium (mg/L) 0.1 0.02
Vanadium (mg/L) 0.10
May 2013
Table 20-4
Drinking Water Specifications of the Argentine Food Code
Parameters Drinking Water Specifications
pH 6.5 - 8.5
Turbidity (NTU) ≤3
Color (Pt-Co Units) ≤5
Ammonia (mg/L) ≤ 0.20
Antimony (mg/L) ≤ 0.02
Residual Steel (mg/L) ≤ 0.20
Arsenic (mg/L) ≤ 0.01
Boron (mg/L) ≤ 0.5
Cadmium (mg/L) ≤ 0.005
Cyanide (mg/L) ≤ 0.10
Zinc (mg/L) ≤ 5.0
Chloride (mg/L) ≤ 350
Copper (mg/L) ≤ 1.00
Chrome (mg/L) ≤ 0.05
Hardness (mg/L) ≤ 400
Total Iron (mg/L) ≤ 0.30
Manganese (mg/L) ≤ 0.10
Mercury (mg/L) ≤ 0.001
Nickel (mg/L) ≤ 0.02
Nitrate (mg/L of NO3) ≤ 45
Nitrite (mg/L of NO2) ≤ 0.10
Silver (mg/L) ≤ 0.05
Lead (mg/L) ≤ 0.05
Selenium (mg/L) ≤ 0.01
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) ≤ 1500
Sulfates (mg/L) ≤ 400
Coliform Bacteria ≤ 3 NMP
Escherichia coli Absent in 100 mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Absent in 100 mL
The analyzed surface water bodies are mainly used for drinking by native fauna and for
general domestic consumption by residents of the area. Water from water bodies
assessed in the Project area was used for exploration-related activities and for some
domestic uses. For culinary purposes, and human consumption in the camps, offices and
work areas, a reverse osmosis water treatment plant is budgeted (in the Feasibility Study)
to provide potable drinking water to the mine site.
May 2013
20.1.3.5 Hydrology
According to the EIA, the Rio Grande basin and watershed take the Arizaro Salar as the
local base level.
In general, the Rio Grande basin does not have significant superficial run-off, with most
of the streams in the area being intermittent, as evidenced by the few drainage lines
developed. Only the Rio Grande River can be considered a water source of importance.
This streams flow permanently at its origins but disappears into the salar after a few
kilometers. There are no measurements of this watercourse.
The Rio Grande basin has an area of 1,687 km² and consists of numerous sub-basins,
including the Rio Grande peninsula, Lindero, Arita, and Chaschas. Most of these sub
basins are tributaries of the Arizaro Salar, with the remaining defined sub-basins, Cori
and Emboscadero, forming from centripetal flow. In its lower regions, the Rio Grande
basin has numerous flat lowlands with lagoons fed by springs that reach their peak during
the winter months.
20.1.3.6 Soil Science
According to the soil atlas of the Argentine Republic–Salta Province (1:500,000 scale)
developed by the National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA) (2002), the
following taxonomical classifications apply to the study area:
• Order: Entisols;
• Suborder: Ortentes;
• Major Group: Torriortentes; and
• Sub-group: Lithic and Typical.
The mapping unit taxonomical classifications are summarized in Table 20-5.
May 2013
Table 20-5
Taxonomical Classification
Capacity of
Complex % Use Constraints Landscape
Lithic Torriortentes 30 VII sc Depth Mountains, hills,
Slope low hills in
highlands, steep
Stoniness slopes. Incipient
Typical valleys. Igneous,
20 VII sc Weather
Torriortentes metamorphic and
Rock 50 Miscellaneous Outcrop sedimentary rocks.
20.1.3.7 Fauna and Flora
In the Project area, weather conditions substantially affect vegetation growth. The almost
total lack of rainfall in the Puna determines a vegetation floor that corresponds to the
"province of Puna" shrub steppe, an herbaceous steppe. Key flora includes; añagua, lejía
y tola, añagua y rica–rica, iros, muña–muña, vira–vira, and chachacoma. There are some
areas with no vegetation whatsoever.
The fauna is typical of the Andean Patagonian sub-region, Andean district, and is mainly
represented by camelids (the llamas, vicunas, and guanacos). Donkeys have been
incorporated into the landscape for the last 50 years and compete for pasture with other
herbivores.
Carnivorous animals such as the fox, skunk, and lynx, and rodents such as "the hidden" (a
kind of mole), small guinea pig (cuis), mouse, and chinchillas, are present. Bird life can
include the Andean ostrich (rhea or small ostrich), hill partridge, ordinary coot, lapwing,
and parinas (flamingos). Reptiles are represented by lizards, which are common, and
snakes, which are very rare.
20.1.3.8 Ecosystem Characterization
The EIA included a detailed description of the eco-regions for the exploration phase by
characterizing the eco-regions, the communities, and various agencies involved in the
Project area, and their interactions. Ecosystem characterization allows a more complete
understanding of the existing interactions between a given project and the environment,
and vice versa.
May 2013
Eco-regions, or biomes present in the Project area are the Puna eco-region and the high
Andean eco-region. These eco-regions were divided into ecological units summarized by
descriptions of the soil, flora, and fauna, and their particularities and interactions
(shelters, niches, eco-tones, barriers, and corridors comprising areas of frequent use). The
degree of disturbance that these communities are experiencing due to human activity is
currently being evaluated.
20.1.4 Local Ecosystem Characterization
To characterize the local ecosystem presented in the EIA, a summary of environmental

conditions of the area was formulated, based on the data from the baseline studies
conducted for the Project, including flora (Talamo et al, 2007), fauna (Lobo et al, 2007),
soil (Chafatinos et al, 2007), social (Soria et al, 2007), and other environmental reports
and studies.
The Project area is covered by the ecological units in Table 20-6 that relate directly to the
vegetation and soil units defined in the EBL. The areas covered are shown in Figure 20-
2.
Table 20-6
Ecological Units
Ecological Unit Vegetation Unit Soil Unit
1 Mono-dominant shrub steppe Arizaro series
2 Bi-dominant shrub steppe Rio Grande series
3 Herbaceous steppe Rio Grande series
4 Flat lowlands Vegas series
5 Mountain Peladales Arizaro series
6 Salar
May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Fiigure 20-2
Ecollogical Unitss
LIN
NDERO
Key to accompany th he satellite imag

ge.
EBL – Arizaro-Rio Grande
G Ecologiical Units 1 to 6
Green circle
c Flat Lowland Unit
Orangee broken line Access Road
Red bo
order Area of Mininng Interest
Green arrow
a Livestock & Anthropic Biiological
Corridor
May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
20.1.5 Identification of Protected Areas

A
The protected
p areea nearest to
o the Lindero
o Project is the Provincial Fauna R
Reserve of Loos
Andees, located 455 km to the north.
n
The Provincial
P System of Prrotected Areaas of Salta ((PSPAS) waas created inn 2000 by Act
No. 7,107.
7 Until then the Pro
ovince of Saalta lacked a legal framew work for thee protection oof
existiing natural areas.
a The PSPAS
P comp prises the prrotected areaas of the Proovince, and iits
goal is to promote the manaagement and d effective protection off national paarks, reservees,
and natural
n and cultural
c monuuments of thhe Province.
The Lindero
L Projject area is highlighted by the red circle on Figure 20-3 thhat shows thhe
locatiion of the Prroject in relaation to the nearest
n protected area.
Fiigure 20-3
Project Location
L in Relation too National P
Parks
Lindero
o project
May 2013
2
N 43-101 Tech
20.1.6 Archa
aeology
The prospecting g undertaken n in the reegion of thhe Project sshowed the presence oof
archaaeological siites and isollated scatterrs. These siites and scaatters compriise four maiin
zoness, as shown in
i Figure 200-4.
Fiigure 20-4
Location
L of Archaeolog
A gical Sites
L
Lindero
The prospecting undertaken n in the areas of primaary or direcct impact off the Linderro
Projeect indicated no archaeollogical and historical
h sittes were pressent. Howevver, along thhe
accesss roads to th
he Project an
nd in other areas
a of Projject influencce, 36 archaeeological sitees
were located. Th hese sites were
w groupedd into four ssectors basedd on the prooximity to thhe
Projeect.
The chronology of the iden ntified archaaeological siites situatess them at thhe end of thhe
Pre-cceramic or Paaleoindian periods
p (7,00
00 BCE onw wards), as sett out in the E
EBL. The agge
of theese sites in th
he Arizaro Salar
S gives th
hem patrimoonial significcance.
The key
k sites are as follows:
• Ariita vega and

d camp sectorrs;
• Ariita vega;
May 2013
2
• The Company’s Camp Area;

• Rio Grande sector;
• Sites south of Rio Grande Hill;
• Lindero sector;
• Emboscadero vega;
• Arizaro Salar south sector;
• Cavi vega;
• Outcrop site in Arizaro Salar; and
• Chaschas vega.
20.1.7 Environmental Risks
20.1.7.1 Risk Assessment
Irreversible impacts are those changes to the environment that persist indefinitely because
it is not feasible to mitigate or restore the environment to an original or equivalent
condition. Such irreversible impacts of the Project will be related to the pit, waste dump,
and heap leach pads, as these works will permanently modify the local landscape.
20.1.7.2 Risk Register
In each stage of the Project development, an analysis of associated potential

environmental risks must be undertaken. Potential risks will be considered at the stages
of construction, development, closure, and post-closure of the mine. All of the facilities
will be designed to provide safe operating conditions in order to reduce potential impacts
on surface waters in the Project area of influence.
Construction Phase
At the construction stage, the risk arises from the intense activity that the construction of
the mine will require. The estimated time of construction is approximately one year.
During this period, around 400 people will be housed in the camp and will be involved in
the construction of facilities such as the camp, water infrastructure, water pipeline, power
plant, roads, process plant, leach pad and crusher.
May 2013
The greatest risk during construction will arise from the fact that the majority of staff will
be under the control of various contractor firms with different environmental management
policies. The Company must be especially careful to include strict environmental
regulations in contracts and enforce those regulations with contractors.
At the construction stage, increases in personnel and equipment transport will be

significant, leading to environmental risks caused by accidents, release of particulate
matter (dust) into the atmosphere, and, from the social point of view, disturbance of the
peace in villages and communities.
A social-environmental risk that may also occur arises from the expectations of the
people in relation to job creation. While 400 to 500 people will be hired in the
construction stage, many from nearby communities, only 400 jobs will be available
during the mining operations stage.
It is estimated that during the construction phase, about 1,000 kg of household waste per
day will be produced. This much waste constitutes a serious environmental risk of
pollution if measures are not implemented to deal with it appropriately.
The disposal of grey and black wastewater generated by the workforce (camp and offices)
will be treated at a water treatment plant located at the accommodation camp and the
treated water from this water treatment plant will be used in the heap leach operation,
effectively recycling this water.
There will also be significant production of hazardous industrial waste, such as used oil,
grease, batteries, waste fuels, and associated materials such as containers. There will also
be non-hazardous industrial waste, such as used personal protective equipment, waste
timber, geo-membrane fabrics, uncontaminated textiles, bricks, insulating plastics,
uncontaminated plastic containers, construction debris, and iron and nonferrous scrap.
The creation and possession of these wastes is an environmental risk that must be dealt
with.
During the construction stage, approximately 1.5 million meters cubic of soil will be
moved during leveling and construction of various facilities and foundations. The
majority of this area will be the installation of the leach pads and pit waste storage piles.
Such soil movement constitutes a risk in itself, but it also damages the almost non-
existent (very thin) layer of soil, with its associated flora and fauna. Even the access
roads to these constructions pose significant risk of disrupting the environment, so strict
May 2013
policies must be set forth to minimize their impact.
During the construction phase, there will also be considerable consumption of fuels for
transport tasks of all kinds.
Operations Phase
The topography of the land will be altered by mineral extraction, especially in the area of
the pit and by construction of the waste dumps and heap leach area. The modifications
made by the waste dumps and the heap leach area do not represent geomorphological
risks because they will be installed on sites that have no relevant natural hazards and will
be designed to withstand earthquakes and extreme rainfall events.
Dumps or Sterile Rock Deposit
While it is predicted that the waste dump area has adequate long-term stability,
monitoring of slope stability and deformation of the dump will be carried out.
Water
The risk of water pollution will always be an issue for consideration and control.
Monitoring and sampling must be constant and the results reported to the relevant
authorities. A comprehensive program of monitoring downstream water quality at
several points must be implemented in order to put aside any uncertainty about potential
contamination. Normally in this type of mine there are concerns about the risks of acid
drainage and cyanide presence from the leach circuit although this is minimized by the
lack of precipitation and drainages.
Water extraction from two or three planned wells in Chachas area, 13km east of the
Project, creates a low risk of reducing the down slope subterranean flow of fresh water to
the salt flat. There is no production activity (farming or residential) in the sub-basin or
near the shore of Arizaro Salar from where the water will be taken.
Air Quality
The operation of the Lindero Project will generate emissions of particulate material (dust)
in the mine and plant area, mainly from mining operations such as drilling and blasting,
movement of vehicles on dirt roads, loading and unloading of mined materials, and
May 2013
primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing operations.
A plan for monitoring, control, and mitigation or reduction of suspended particulate

material (dust) will be implemented through the installation of various types of dust
suppressants and road irrigators, preferably using brackish water as a flocculent of
airborne dust. The nearest community is not downwind of the Project.
There is less risk due to potential gas pollution from vehicles and generators, the gold
smelting furnace, the carbon regeneration furnace, and the analytical and metallurgical
laboratory, but nonetheless these must be carefully controlled and mitigated.
Soil
Both the leaching area and process plant were designed as closed circuits and therefore
no soil contamination is expected. There is, however, always a risk of failure in the leach
circuit, in the transfer of solutions to different facilities, from drainage of leaching
solutions from pads and ponds, and from heavy precipitation that may cause solution in
the circuit to exceed levels. The construction of a contingency (excess) pond will be
included to provide protection against such events, and the installation of outer pipes with
protective berms to protect against excessive rainfall events.
In the ADR, any accidental spills that may contaminate the soil will be avoided. A
central drainage system will collect any spillage and send it to the containment ponds.
During construction, operation, closure, and post-closure, events or situations of low

probability of occurrence may arise involving the contamination of the land, such as an
oil spill, chemical spill, or accidental discharge of process solutions. Each of these events
will have health and safety action plans.
Flora and Fauna
During mine operations, flora may be at risk where mining activities are undertaken, such
as at waste dump areas in the vicinity of the open pit, and where blasting, processing,
crushing, and ore transport activities, and roads occur. All of these areas can cause
deposition of particulate matter.
Human activity, particularly household waste, can attract animals to the area, especially
foxes. For this reason, the site must be closed to such animals so as to mitigate the risk of
May 2013
accidental poisoning, or other impacts such as waste dispersion.
Sites of Archaeological Interest
No sites of archaeological significance were found in the area that will be directly
affected by mining activity. The nearest sites are the Arita vega and the south sector of
the Arizaro Salar. A control plan must be implemented in areas of archaeological interest
closer to the Project, including fencing and a staff awareness program.
Noise
Due to the location of the Project, the environmental noise impact will be virtually nil for
nearby residents and local wildlife. Noise and vibration control will be planned and
installed correctly, and then maintained during the operation stage.
Closure and Post Closure Phase
Environmental risks during the closure stage will be reduced by remediation and
monitoring work. At the closure stage, soil will be contoured by heavy machinery to
minimize the long-term impact of mining activity, and return the topology of the land to
resemble prior conditions. However, the movement of soil, and thus the risk, will be
significantly less than in the mining operations stage.
One social-environmental risk will be the completion of contracts of employment

directly, or indirectly, through contractors, and the surrounding communities. It will be
imperative to implement measures to mitigate this impact during the whole period of
mine operation.
A significant environmental risk will also be present during the closure of facilities,
which will cause significant production of non-hazardous industrial waste and hazardous
products from the movement of heavy machinery. It will be essential to establish clear
environmental policies with the contractors during this process.
The landscape is an important factor to be taken into account during this stage because
the mine will have a definite and obvious impact on the natural landscape. To the extent
possible, the impact on landscape has to be minimized.
May 2013
20.1.8 Environmental Management Plan
One of the priorities of the Company is the care and protection of the environment.
During the exploration phase, an attempt was made to control to the greatest extent
possible any potential environmental impacts on the area. The same effort must be made
in the next stages (construction and operations) of the Project. Therefore, the Company
has defined environmental principles that will enable the development of mining
operations efficiently from a productivity standpoint and from the environmental point of
view:
• Comply with existing environmental laws and regulations;

• Establish and maintain an environmental management program to guide
operations;
• Involve the entire staff of the Company and contractors in the
Environmental Management Plan (EMP);
• Promote environmental awareness among employees and the communities
where operations occur; and
• Mitigate the potential environmental impacts that do occur and support
environmental improvement programs for common benefit.
The EMP defines the criteria, the design of specifications, and management practices that
will be applied to the Lindero Project in order to mitigate, control, and monitor changes in
the baseline conditions during construction, operations, closure, and post-closure of the
Project.
Corresponding prevention measures, mitigation of potential environmental impacts, as

well as rehabilitation measures, are outlined as appropriate. The phases of construction,
operation, and closure of the Project are addressed.
Prevention measures will avoid potential environmental impacts, while mitigation actions
are intended to minimize, correct, or compensate for environmental impacts of the Project
at different stages. Measures to increase, improve, and enhance the positive
environmental impacts caused by the Project will also be implemented.
An environmental contingency plan will be implemented in order to predict potential

environmental incidents that were not taken into account during the life of the mine.
May 2013
20.1.8.1 Measuring Conditions
The following criteria were applied when identifying the environmental protection
measures to be proposed for the Project:
• A clear and understandable proposal allowing reliable and consistent

implementation;
• Technically feasible activities that can be reliably implemented in practice;
• Proposed measures that are economically appropriate to the scale of the
Lindero Project; and
• Ease of monitoring and control during the different stages of the mine life.
The Protection for Mining Activity Plan (PMA) that the Company will implement for the
exploitation phase of the Lindero Project will follow the considerations established in
Law No. 24,585 of the Environmental Protection for Mining Activity Act.
Erosion control works such as trenches and gabions will be built as necessary during any
stage of the Project to ensure the physical stability of the facilities against possible
flooding caused by rare heavy rains.
The stability of the waste dumps, leach pads, and pit will be monitored to prevent any
slippage or collapse. In the bank area of the heap leach, piezometers will be installed to
continuously measure pore pressures in order to detect the formation of phreatic levels in
the slope that may cause slope failures.
In the construction and closure phases, the heap leach pads will have an appropriate
slope. Berms will be built around the pad perimeter to prevent any overflow. Drainpipes
will be maintained around the pad perimeter in case of possible storms.
A closed circuit leach system was designed to minimize fresh water requirements, prevent
discharges to the environment, and maximize the reuse of all process solutions. As a
control measure, water downstream of the leaching zone, plant, and sterile tank will be
monitored regularly to identify any abnormalities in the chemical properties of the
groundwater.
Contingency measures will be implemented to mitigate or remedy any impact which may
occur. In the leaching circuit, a contingency (excess) pond will be built to absorb solution
in the leaching area and other ponds in the event of a malfunction of the leach circuit. As
May 2013
a corrective measure, downstream areas will be designed to recover any leaching solution
and return them to the circuit. In the waste dump areas, the water and soil will be
monitored for acid rock drainage (ARD) using an acid–base-accounting (ABA) test work.
Travertine (abundantly located nearby) can be used for neutralization of acid if required.
Reclamation of the site during the closure and post-closure phases will help to reinforce
all other measures taken.
One of the environmental risks previously identified is the impact on the landscape of
vehicular traffic, such as new roads, spills, hazardous waste such as fuel and diesel oil,
cargoes such as process reagents, and dispersion of these residues in the soil and air.
Preventive measures will be implemented to mitigate these risks. Contractors will be
required to have a program of security and risk prevention for vehicles, adjusted to
Project regulations in regards maintenance of vehicles, traffic speeds, night traffic
restrictions, driver-training requirements, and load handling.
As a preventive measure, signs will be installed along the roads in areas that are
considered to be dangerous. Communications between vehicles and with the Project
control centre will be established within the mine. Communications will also be
established between the Project and various control points on the access routes, such as at
Salta and the mine for monitoring vehicle status, load and source data, and estimated
times of arrival. If any environmental accident occurs, a contingency plan will be
triggered to avoid a significant environmental impact.
A lesser environmental risk related to vehicle traffic is that of emissions of particulate

material (dust) and exhaust gases. As a precautionary measure regarding exhaust gases,
no vehicles on the Project can be more than 15 years old, and all must comply with
current national legislation with respect to a mandatory technical review. To minimize
emissions of particulate matter (dust), besides the restrictions on speed limits, water
trucks will wet the roads constantly.
Experience in the Puna region has shown that use of brackish water or brine that could be
easily be sourced from the Arizaro Salar, can achieve 80% efficiency in the reduction of
particulate matter (dust) emissions into the atmosphere. The conventional method of
using fresh water is estimated to function at 60% efficiency. Therefore, using brackish
water will decrease the volume of fresh water used for dust suppression. There will be
permanent monitoring of atmospheric particulates (PM10) in the mine area and
surrounding communities to establish comparative benchmarks against the environmental
May 2013
baseline. The results of the monitoring program will be communicated to the local
population. Company policy and Project development and operation must not only be
environmentally and socially sustainable, but the awareness of social and environmental
status must be demonstrated to the local community and other stakeholders.
Regulations will require that vehicles be maintained to minimize noise and vibrations.
Ad hoc measures will be established requiring drivers and contractors to carry loads well
stowed, especially during the mine construction and closure phases.
Emissions of blasting products and gases into the atmosphere will be specific and very
limited in duration (time). It is estimated that there will be one blast per day, and at this
frequency is not anticipated to have significant effects. As a preventive measure,
emissions will be monitored because the excessive release of particulates (dust) into the
atmosphere may mean that adjustments in the blasting procedure are necessary to ensure
maximum efficiency is achieved with each blast.
The plan is to place restricted area signs and, in some cases, fencing at the closest
archaeological sites in order to protect them from any possible impact, especially those
that are closest to the access roads. To protect any archeologically valuable sites or
material found, a professional archaeologist will be consulted in the planning stage of the
Project and during any soil removal in areas considered to be of high archaeological
sensitivity.
To mitigate the risk of environmental impact from solid waste and domestic and
industrial fluids, a comprehensive plan will be established for managing these wastes,
including classification by type, hazard, and recyclability. The waste management plan
will be presented as a compulsory preventive measure in the induction report to any
person entering the Project area. A part of the property will be designated as a waste
storage area and surrounded with a small wire fence or frame, to prevent the entry of
persons or animals and to avoid dispersion of the waste by wind.
The entrance to the waste storage area will be controlled by staff dedicated to that
purpose; the Company’s employees will record the quantity, type, origin, and contractor
bringing waste for storage. The waste storage area will be waterproofed with geo-
membrane beds or depositories duly identified for the different types of waste. The
master plan for waste management will establish the guidelines for removal,
transportation, and final disposal of this waste. It will be required by contract that those
contractors who are hazardous-waste generators must be registered in the Province of
May 2013
Salta under current regulations and, upon final payment of the contract, a certificate of
final disposal of waste removed from the mine will be required.
As a mitigation measure, practices will be established that decrease the amount of waste
in the mine, such as the use of reusable drinking water containers. Grey water from the
kitchen and shower, and black water from the toilets, will be dealt with appropriately
(treated and used in the leaching process). Waste water treatment will be conducted using
a water treatment plant sized for the camp and offices.
Flora and fauna will not be significantly affected because the main activity will take place
in areas where there are no significant numbers of plants or animals. However, some
consideration has been given to marking areas such as the Emboscadero area where
wildlife such as flamingos and vicuñas and micro-organisms are known to occur.
The Company will ban hunting, pets, and other activities that could scare away native
animals in the mine property and permitted surrounding areas agreed by government
officials.
The Company will continue with regular information meetings regarding the Project
with the surrounding communities. To support positive social impacts at the beginning of
construction, the Company will conduct a survey to determine the population’s
knowledge, so as to properly implement training programs on the more common and
necessary tasks during the initial stage of construction.
Contractors will be instructed to perform the same training practices in these

communities. Meetings will be carried out with the community to create co-operative
mining services (i.e catering and cleaning services). After the permanent mine closure,
the camp facilities may provide alternative employment such as tourist accommodations.
While the construction and improvement of roads will cause an environmental impact on
the landscape and soil, there will be a positive impact from the social point of view for
those people living in isolated places. These inhabitants will have better roads, the flow
of tourists in the region may increase, and the local economies may have better
opportunities for growth.
To mitigate the strong, negative social impact when a company withdraws from an
activity such as a mining operation, it is necessary to implement measures during the
operations stage. These measures could include employment training that will be useful
May 2013
to the employees after the closure of the mine.
20.1.9 Issues of Environmental Concern
The following general list specifies the most important issues to be considered from the
environmental viewpoint and that must be detailed carefully in the EMP.
• Surveys of residents living in communities near the Project;

• Interests of those agencies evaluating the EIAs;
• Special requests by the Ministry of Sustainable Development of the
Province of Salta (DIA, Environmental Impact Declaration);
• Publications by Argentine media;
• Mining activity of concern to Argentine citizens; and
• Statements by NGOs, politicians, and other opinion makers.
The key areas of community environmental concern are:
• Use of cyanide processes in the mine: Special care will be placed on the
prevention and establishment of monitoring controls of this input for
transport, use, and final disposal. It is recommended that a clear diffusion
of knowledge be undertaken through authoritative communicators during
the feasibility process;
• Formation of acid rock drainage in the waste: The prevention, mitigation,
and restructuring plan must explain in detail how this issue will be handled;
• Water use by the process plant and leach pads: Publications and comments
concerning the excessive use of water and pollution of the same in mining
activity are common. It will be necessary to implement strict monitoring of
water and make this process a participatory activity in which companies,
governments, NGOs, and the community are involved. It is recommended
that water quality data be communicated with higher frequency than that
required by the supervisory authority;
• The environmental impact on populated areas: The closest community to
the Lindero Project is 15 km away in the Cavi vega. There are also more
distant communities such as Tolar Grande and Antofallita. A
communication plan with these communities that is both diplomatic and
discretionary will be required in order to learn, anticipate, and act against
false ideas from whatever source about potential environmental pollution.
May 2013
It is important to note that any abnormality occurring in the mine locale,

such as the untimely death of a llama, may be blamed on the Project
notwithstanding that investigations will later prove to the contrary. It is
very important to establish the Company as a "good neighbor," such as
having a technician make frequent visits to maintain communications and
deal with concerns of the communities as they arise. It is best if aggressive
security measures, such as strongly worded no-trespassing signs, be
avoided, and more informative messages emphasizing safety aspects be
conveyed;
• Effects of blasting operations on the environment: During the feasibility
and operations stages, detailed information on the rock blasting process
should be disseminated to the stakeholders; and
• Doubts concerning the environmental and social impact of the closure and
post-closure phases: The implementation of plans to minimize
environmental impacts after the mine closure will be described in more
detail during the mine construction and operations stages. Details about
the work carried out must be communicated during these stages in order to
minimize a traumatic and abrupt change during the closure process. There
must be an open and honest communication with stakeholders about the
final status of the mine, especially its open pit, waste dumps, and heap
leach pads, which will be the largest remnants of the mine on the
landscape.
20.1.10 Operations and Management
It has been anticipated that operation and management of the Project will be dynamic.
There will be environmental monitoring as in any mining operation, but a community

input monitoring plan will also be implemented regarding the activity of the Company.
This will allow the Company to hear directly from the local residents what they expect
from the Company on issues related to environment. Responding to these concerns
quickly and honestly will show the community that the Company takes its concerns
seriously.
The goal is to have the local people consider the Company as an important part of the
local community, with an open-door policy for the population in general.
May 2013
While there are strict requirements from the competent authority (Secretariat of Mining of
the Province) for items such as the EIAs on the Project and the respective bi-annual
renewal reports, it would be extremely valuable to also submit to the enforcement
authority and the community in general the environmental monitoring report due to be
performed internally within the Company every six months. This will bring more contact
with the government and community.
Environmental remediation costs will also decrease upon closure if all measures are taken
to mitigate negative impacts and remediate all possible damage from the beginning of
mining activities in the mine, taking into account every consideration that both the
Secretariat of Mining and the community may consider.
20.2 Socio-Economic and Cultural Aspects
Within Los Andes Department, the municipality of Tolar Grande is the closest and covers
the Project area. It is located at 3,500 masl, and is reached by Provincial Route No. 27.
The municipality covers 13,785 km² and has a population of approximately 250
inhabitants, most of whom live in the town of Tolar Grande.
The mine will be located in an area where mining activity has historically taken place.
For this reason, all of the people interviewed demonstrated knowledge of the mining
activity in the area. The vast majority of residents interviewed highlighted mining
activity as a job generator in the region.
The environment is a serious issue for the residents. Although they believe that the
mining activity does not substantially affect the environment, they refer to certain risks,
such as water use, dust pollution, and the effects on the people living in the vicinity of the
Project.
As viewed by local residents, the relationship between mining activity and job generation
has three main aspects. First, the region has a history of mining activity, so the people are
familiar with what it means to the area. Second, several people in Tolar Grande have
worked on the exploration phase of the Lindero Project and other mining ventures, so the
Project is familiar. Finally, there is the belief that new mines will provide jobs and help
avoid the migration of young people to larger towns or cities.
Work in the mines is valued because it offers comparatively better salaries, establishes
access to social security, and now, due to better mining technology, is seen as less
May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
difficcult and labo

or intensive than in the past. One rreason is thee pursuit of opportunitiees
that can
c provide training
t for future
f work in mining.
In relation to thee economic benefit thatt the miningg activity im

mplies, somee respondennts
gnized that the
recog t limited mine-life
m is a negative aaspect. Thiis is exemplified by local
experriences with the La Casu
ualidad minee, where thee mining booom was folloowed by tottal
abanddonment.
The Lindero
L Projject area is not
n an area of direct histoorical value. The socio-cultural studdy
ucted in the EBL indicattes a positivee trend in terrms of mine impact.
condu
20.2.1 Comm
munity Rela
ations
The closest
c townn is Tolar Grrande, 75 kmm to the norttheast of thee Project. Thhe town local
goverrnment is rep
presented byy the “Intend
dente” or loccal mayor, wwho governs the town annd
local surrounding
gs, which inccludes the Prroject area.
Contiinuous contaact between the Companny and the coommunity off Tolar Grannde dates bacck
to 19 994. The Company has h contribu uted to the education of the locaal populationn,
particcularly with he potential mining acttivities and the developpment of thhe
h regards th
Lindeero Project. This contrribution has been carrieed out throuugh technicaal talks to thhe
comm munity and the organization of vissits to the L
Lindero Projject for locaal authoritiees,
teach
hers, and stud
dents (Figuree 20-5).
Fiigure 20-5
Trraining is an
n Importantt Part of thee Company’s Culture
May 2013
2
The Company places a high priority on employment of local workers.
Mining development can have a remarkably positive socio-cultural impact. For the
exploration phase, staff was recruited from the communities of Antofalla, Antofallita,
Tolar Grande, Olajacal, Pocitos, San Antonio de los Cobres, and Santa Rosa de los Pastos
Grandes. These individuals demonstrated a great change of attitude regarding
responsibility and predisposition towards private activity (mining). It is worth
mentioning that the constant training they received in their work, gave them experience as
trained personnel for future mining development work in the area.
Traffic in the area generates an indirect positive impact on the lives of isolated villagers.
Communication with friends and family increased due to the visits and packages they
received via Company vehicles that regularly travel to urban centers.
In May 2011, Ausenco Vector prepared a report entitled "Lindero Project, Opinion Poll
and Update of Social EBL for Mansfield”.
This report presented the results of the “Opinion Poll and Update of Social Baseline
Study” undertaken to determine the direct influence of the Lindero Project on the
surrounding area. The objectives set were to update the EBL report prepared by Vector
Argentina S.A. in 2007, with qualitative opinion survey of the Project area boundary.
This study contains statistical variables that establish an approach to the living conditions
of local people. By applying the interviews and surveys, it investigated the views of
residents about mining in general and the Project under analysis in particular.
An external report titled “Goldrock’s Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility” was

conducted in October 2011 by Jan Boon. The purpose of the field study was to
understand the role of relationships in the Company’s positioning related with Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) and in the design and implementation of CSR practices. The
report compares the Company’s CSR practices with the ones described in the “Principles
and Guidance” of “e3Plus, Framework for Responsible Exploration” by the Prospectors
and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). The author conducted semi-structured
interviews with Company employees and with external stakeholders that include
municipal authorities and employees, indigenous representatives, provincial politicians,
legal authorities, and CSR experts from other companies.
In order to guarantee the security of the local population and visitors to the region, the
exploration companies and the municipality of Tolar Grande have regular meetings where
May 2013
emergency and safety and security measures are discussed and related operating protocols
are agreed on. For example, they have produced a map of the area that shows the location
of roads, mining camps, areas covered by cellular phone towers, shelters, nature reserves,
etc. In many occasions the Company and other exploration companies have had to rescue
“lost” tourists that became stranded “in the middle of nowhere”.
The Company has developed guidelines requesting support and contributions to the
community as follows:
• Ensure that requests to the Company are made in the presence of two or
more people that have no direct relation to each other;
• The request should be submitted in writing, describing details, giving the
names of the requesters, and mentioning the reason for the request;
• Requests should be submitted directly to the responsible authority in the
Company to ensure that the resulting support will be viewed and provided
by the Company, and will not be associated with a particular person in the
Company;
• Support and donations always have to be provided in the presence of more
than one person, directly to the requester, and never through
intermediaries;
• A receipt must be signed to register the donation. In some cases, it is also
advisable to request a written note of thanks, for the Company’s audit
purposes;
• Ensure that the request relates to a general use or purpose for the entire
community and that it provides a lasting benefit (i.e. food, fuel and other
consumables are excluded);
• Rotate the benefits as much as possible to avoid favoring the same sectors;
• Learn to say NO on occasion and explain the reasons. Do not postpone
saying no to a later date; and
• Never give money; it does not contribute to the goals of CSR and is
undoubtedly counterproductive.
The Company participated in the signing of an agreement between the Salta Mining
Chamber, the Salta Mining Secretary, the Salta Employment Secretary and the Salta
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Secretary to support training and capacity building.
The courses and conferences offered are supported by other companies and foundations
such as the Foundation UOCRA (Unión Obrera de la Construcción de la República
Argentina – Construction Workers Union of the Argentine Republic), Finning and Austin
May 2013
Powder, and Manpower. Courses offered include building, construction carpentry,

electricity at home, mining safety and security, blasting and heavy equipment
maintenance. These were offered in combination with intensive courses on the use of
personal protection equipment, looking for work, and other basic aspects of labor
relations.
According to the EIA, a regular social survey between residents of direct influence area
(Tolar Grande and neighboring positions) and indirect (involving the populated area
located between Campo Quijano and Tolar Grande or any other way used by the
company, to construction work or during the operation) shall be completed in order to
have a full view of the opinions of those people regarding Project activity. The Company
shall report these results to the competent authority every six months.
The Company shall not modify or alter the social and cultural communities customs of
the area surrounding the Project.
20.3 Permitting
Mining in Argentina is governed by both federal legislation and provincial laws and
decrees. The permitting process, as well as regulatory activities during development and
operations, are managed by the province (Salta)
A mine is put into operation in two phases, starting with an Environmental Impact
Assessment, and then a sector permitting phase. Each of these phases is described further
below.
Approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment allows mining development to

proceed, subject to obtaining sector permits for specific project facilities.
20.3.1 Permit Commitments and Obligations
20.3.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment
The Lindero Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – Operation Stage (Proyecto

Lindero Informe de Impacto Ambiental – Etapa de Explotación), was submitted to the
Salta provincial Mining Authority. Approval of the EIA represents formal approval for
mine construction, allowing excavation to proceed. EIA approval is also a requirement
May 2013
for several of the sector permits that are required for certain installations and workings.
The EIA report describes and assesses associated environmental impacts for exploitation
of the Lindero ore body via open pit and heap leach processing of the ore, in accordance
with the Project as described in the Feasibility Study.
Salta Province supports responsible mining, and the Sub-secretary of the Ministry of
Mines is intent on streamlining the EIA review and approval processes. A
Multidisciplinary Mine Environmental Evaluating Commission (Comisión Evaluadora
Multidisciplinaria Ambiental Minera), has been assembled to revise the EIA process
.
The Company’s DIA (Declaración de Impacto Ambiental) was approved in October
2011. This document is the guiding (primary) operating permit during the life of the
Project. It is also a requirement for the granting of most sector permits for the Project.
The obtained DIA establishes 109 conditions to put in production the mine, related to
social, environmental, health and safety and taxes matters.
20.3.1.2 Sector Permits
Specific approvals and permits are required for many aspects of the project, including:
• Construction permits;
• On-site bulk fuel storage;
• Domestic and industrial effluents;
• Authorization for explosives use and storage;
• Water management;
• Mine operations; and
• Communications.
While the application process can be initiated for many of the permits and approvals at
any time, in most cases, the actual permit or authorization will not be granted until the
feasibility study and the detail plans of the mine are completed.
20.3.1.3 Permitting Agencies
Permitting government agencies are listed in the table below, including a summary of the
most important required approvals and permits.
May 2013
Table 20-7
Mining Law 24,196 Certificate of Registration under Secretaría de Minería de la
number 242 Nación
Import and export Certificate of Import and Export Customs
(done)
Mining Property Onix mine - File 16,835 granted Salta Mining Court House
Surface Rights File 17,206 Arita camp rights Salta Mining Court House
(granted)
File 18,387 right of way and
water rights (granted)
File 19,200 Water rights (on
tramitation)
Water Resources Water Concession for Mining Secretaría de Recursos Hídricos
Activity Use de Salta
Waste Management Disposal of Hazardous Waste via Secretaría de Medioambiente y
Landfill Desarrollo Sustentable.
Pathogenic Waste Secretaría de Minería
Provincial Registration as Municipio de Tolar Grande
Generator, Operator and
transporter of Hazardous Wastes
(registered, needs upgrade)
Environmental Management Environmental Impact Secretaria de Minería de Salta
Declaration
(Approval of Environmental
Impact Statement, art.250 Mining
Code, art.34 of Provincial Law
7,141)
Comply with the DIA
requirements
Camp qualification Arita Camp municipal Municipio de Tolar Grande
qualification (done)
Explosives Registration for Explosives Users Ministerio del Interior
(Mansfield Minera S.A.) Registro Nacional de Armas
Registration for Users and (RENAR)
Vendors of Explosive Services
(vendor)
Certification of Powder
Magazines (contractor)
Storage of Ammonium Nitrate
and Controlled Products (blasting
contractor and MDR)
May 2013

Contract foreign professionals Hire foreign professionals RENURE (Migrations)
Fuel Registration in the Liquid Fuel Secretaría de Energía
Dispensing Registry or National
Liquid Petroleum Gas Registry
(contractor)
Gas compression plant (Salar Environmental Impact Secretaria de Medioambiente y
de Pocitos) Declaration Desarrollo Sustentable.
Secretaría de Energía.
Municipio de San Antonio de los
Cobres
Chemicals Use of chemic products (NaCN) SEDRONAR
Communications Use of satellite telephone and Private contracts with vendors.
internet Comisión Nacional de
Use of VHF hand held radios Comunicaciones
Cultural and Natural Notification of Accidental Secretaría de Cultura de la
Heritage Discovery of Artifacts Potentially Provincia de Salta
Relevant to Cultural or Natural
Heritage of the Province.
Request for Liberation of an Area
(i.e., free of culturally significant
artifacts)
Health Authorization for Installation and Municipio de Tolar
Operation for Food Preparation Grande/AOMA (Mining Union)
and Operation of Dining Area
Authorization to Operate Water
Potabilization Plant
Potable Water Certificate
Medical Post, Doctors and
Ambulances
Emergency Plan for Ministerio de Salud
Contingencies
Health Security in Mining ART
Activities
Landing Airstrip (Landing Strip Qualification) by ANAC (Administración
Regulus Argentina Nacional de Aviación Civil)
Transit and transportation Transit of special machinery National Roads: Vialidad
Nacional
Virtual Gas Pipe Provincial roads: Vialidad de la
Provincia
Use of Soil Quarry Concession in fiscal Juzgado de Minería de la
provincial areas Provincia de Salta
May 2013

Construction Approval of structural plans COPAIPA Engineer Chamber of
Architectural plans Salta
Gas mine plans
Electrical plans
Certificate of Hygiene and Safety
standards in the workplace
Safety plans
Starting civil construction Municipio de Tolar Grande
certificate (Municipal tax)
Final construction certificate
Fire suppression system Jefatura de Bomberos (Fire
certificate Chief)
Water Management Authorization for construction a Secretaría de Recursos Hídricos
Works and Structures water management structure de la Provincia de Salta
Water management works
Approval and authorization to
operate
Environmental impact report for Secretaría de Minería
the water pipes and construction
Mining operations Mining producer registration Secretaría de Minería de Salta
Ore transport guidelines
Notice of start-up of mining
activity
Notice of suspension of
operations or abandonment
Habilitation plant and facilities Municipio de Tolar Grande
20.4 Closure
20.4.1 Legal Requirements and Other Obligations
The mine closure plan will consider the requirements stated by:
• National Constitution, Article 41;

• Provincial Constitution, Articles 30, 79, 81, 82;
• Mining Code of the Argentine Republic;
• Mining Investments Law 24.196;
• Water Code of Salta Province, Law 7.017;
May 2013
• General Environmental Law 25.675;

• National Law of Environmental Protection 24.585;
• Provincial Law of Environmental Protection 7.070;
• Provincial Law of Protective Areas 7.107;
• Environmental Code, Municipality of San Antonio de los Cobres, Bylaw
Articles 005/2008;
• Cultural and Archaeological Heritage Law 25.743; and
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, provincial resolution of
the Ministry of Economic Development, Mining Secretariat 316/2011.
20.4.2 Closure Management
20.4.2.1 Closure Considerations
The Lindero Project will be managed to protect human life and the environment to the
fullest possible extent. The objective of the closure plan is to ensure that after mining
activities cease, the land and communities are left in a state that allows maximum
opportunities for the future.
20.4.2.2 Closure Plan
The mine is anticipated to have an operational lifespan of approximately 10 years. The

final closure plan will be developed and submitted to the mining authority five years
before the mine closure (as per conditions of the granted environmental development
permit).
Technical reports will project the mine situation at the time of the closure, including the
environmental and cumulative effects on the area. The closure plan will incorporate this
information to ensure all impacts that can be anticipated are dealt with. The closure plan
must ensure site water quality and the long-term stability of the heaps, waste-rock storage
areas or other stock pile storage areas with these objectives being achieved through
monitoring. It is envisaged that a period of post-reclamation monitoring will be required
until it has been satisfactorily demonstrated by the results of site monitoring that
reclamation measures have achieved the required outcomes and are self-sustaining.
May 2013
Post-reclamation tasks will include:
• Repair of internal roads;

• Ensuring the chemical and physical stability of the heap leach area;
• Ensuring the physical stability of the waste dumps;
• Removal of smaller structures built at ground level.
The main objectives of the closure plan are to:
• Comply with the regulatory requirements to which Goldrock has

committed regarding the final closure of the Project;
• Prevent, minimize, and mitigate adverse environmental impacts;
• Leave the site in a condition in which environmental and public safety are
protected;
• Comply with all social obligations so as to retain the confidence of the
stakeholders in the mining sector.
20.4.2.3 Closure Plan Phases
The closure plan proposed by Goldrock includes the following phases:
• Progressive closure, which includes those activities that occur during

operation of the mine. This phase includes reclamation activities that take
place simultaneously with mine operations, such as dump and road
reclamation;
• Final closure, which includes the reclamation of the land not being used for
permanent Project work, such as the internal roads, crushing plant, and
camp, and integration of permanent Project work into the landscape. This
phase includes the closure of the heap leach, process plant, and pit areas;
• Post-closure, which includes monitoring of the physical and geochemical
stability of the reclaimed areas following the progressive and final phases
of closure. This phase includes monitoring and if necessary, maintenance
activities.
During the progressive and final phases of closure, it is necessary to consider the
dismantling of equipment and facilities, the demolition of smaller structures built at
May 2013
ground level, the stabilization of waste, and the physical and chemical stability of the site.
20.4.3 Reclamation and Closure of Affected Areas
20.4.3.1 Facilities and Infrastructure
In addition to the ADR plant and laboratory, the Project will include an administrative
office, warehouse and maintenance buildings and accommodation buildings with living
facilities.
The camp and the other buildings will be built with materials that allow their dismantling
and removal from the mine site. Part of the camp might be kept to be used in future
mining activities or possible with tourism activity which will be beneficial to the
community.
Utility poles, power lines, and any generators and transformers will be removed from the
site. Any perimeter fencing will be dismantled and removed.
The Airstrip and Runway facilities, such as the wind sock will not be dismantled. The
runway will become part of the Civil Defense Plan for Tolar Grande. The runway also
holds promise as infrastructure supporting tourism in the area.
Dismantling of plant facilities will include clearing all valuable or usable materials out of
the facilities, and then dismantling, disassembling, and disposing of the facilities.
The ADR plant and the adjacent laboratory will be removed once they are no longer
needed to support residual leaching and drain-down activities, which will occur in later
stages of closure in Year 14.
Fuel storage tanks will be emptied, washed, dismantled, and removed from the site.
For all areas, ground and concrete conditions will be evaluated visually and chemically
to determine if areas or components with traces of fuel will require special treatment.
May 2013
20.4.3.2 Pit
All equipment will be removed from the pit area. However, because of its size, the mine
pit itself cannot be reclaimed to its original status. In the meantime, rock barriers will be
erected to keep people away from dangerous areas.
20.4.3.3 Heap Leach
The heap leach system will be designed and built so as to minimize the need for long-
term active maintenance of the site in the post-closure period. However, closing the heap
leach area will still require recovery and recycling of heap-leach solution, chemical
stabilization of the heap leach area, landscaping of the area to manage run-off, and road
removal.
It will also be necessary to maintain the heap leach area with an adequate slope. It will be
smoothed and rounded to prevent water from concentrating which will prevent erosion
during an unusual precipitation event. Gutters will be left in place to handle storm run-
off.
The management of superficial drain-down will be improved during the closure activities
through the creation of stable channels with few or no long-term maintenance
requirements.
The major activities surrounding closure of the heap are proposed as follows:
• Years 10-11 – Residual leaching will continue at a reduced NaCN level, to

rinse out remaining recoverable gold while preparing the heap for rinsing;
• Years 12-13- - A two year period will follow active leaching where rinsing
of the heap with low level (residual) cyanide solution occurs. No new
cyanide will be added to the leach solution during this time. Raw water
addition to the circuit will be maximized to dilute cyanide concentration
and the leach solution will be applied with sprinklers to maximize
evaporation rates and reduce solution inventory. If necessary evaporators
will be used to assist in solution reduction;
• Year 13 – The heap will be closed in a sequential manner, consisting of
shutting off rinse solution, draining of upper lifts, followed by rounding
and smoothing of heap benches; and
May 2013
• Year 14 – Reclamation of heap and ponds by constructing

evapotranspiration basins in existing ponds to collect and evaporate drain-
down solution from the heap. These basins will also serve to collect and
evaporate future design storm run-off from the heap and ponds areas.
Cyanide and metals will be reduced in the heap leach effluents until acceptable standards
are met. This reduction will be achieved in the above process through;
• Recirculation of the solution;

• Natural mechanisms of cyanide degradation such as UV and air
destruction;
• Formation of chemical complexes ( most cyanide complexes are less toxic
than the cyanide);
• Precipitation of insoluble cyanide salts; and
• Natural biological degradation.
If the above mechanisms are not satisfactory in reducing cyanide levels, additional
processes such as water treatment and chemical destruction processes can be considered
during the closure phase. It is currently assumed these processes will not be necessary.
20.4.3.4 Waste Dump
One area will be used as waste dumps storage, to the west of the pit, and eventually if
possible some waste will be dumped back in the pit (for example some waste from pit
phase IV maybe dumped back into pit phase III). Waste rock will be sampled, analyzed
using acid-generating static tests, and classified before and during mine operations.
During the final stages of construction of the waste dumps, waste rock will also be
strategically placed on the top lifts to promote final drainage, make them more natural
looking. Final reclamation of the waste dumps will occur in Year 10 once the pit is mined
out and there is no need for waste rock disposal. Reclamation of the waste dump will also
occur progressively during the mine operation as much as possible.
20.4.3.5 Acid Drainage
Two fundamental conditions must be present for the generation of acid drainage: plentiful
rainfall and the presence of abundant sulfide-rich minerals in the host rocks. The mine is
May 2013
located in an extremely arid region with an average rainfall of less than 80 mm per year.
The host geology and mineralization contains very little sulfide-rich minerals (i.e pyrite)
making the probability of acid generation unlikely. Additionally, the hosting rocks
contain minerals (such as carbonates, epidotes, etc) that are expected to counteract or
buffer against acid generation. Finally, the mine and dumps are located in a closed basin
with no external drainage.
20.4.3.6 Domestic and Industrial Waste Depot
The mine will follow a very strict policy during its lifetime regarding the management of
waste in order to minimize remediation at closure. This policy will classify waste for
recycling or final treatment.
Superficial infrastructure related to domestic and industrial waste will be removed, such
as the fence around the depot. Industrial and hazardous waste itself will be periodically
removed from the mine during operations to the appropriate facilities, such as
Agrotecnica Fueguina S.A. Under the waste management plan, non-recyclable domestic
waste, which is projected to be mainly organic, will be duly isolated, backfilled, and
landscaped. The need for further treatment for all waste will be evaluated by trained
personnel as necessary.
Backfilled areas will be contoured to allow superficial water to flow naturally in case of
rain and then covered with a 0.5 m layer of surface material from the area to allow natural
re-vegetation. Before backfilling, the material coming from the foundation structure
demolition, if there is any, will also be deposited in the waste dump to help protect
against erosion. An inspection by both the operating and community authorities will be
made before the closure of the waste depots.
20.4.3.7 Water Wells
Production water wells will be abandoned in accordance with government regulations or

transferred to support an approved post-mining land use. Monitoring wells will be
abandoned when the government and company decides they are no longer needed for
long-term monitoring purposes.
May 2013
20.4.3.8 Internal and Access Roads
All roads within the Project, including remnants of old access roads, will be reclaimed.
The use of the property access road will be restricted during and after the closure. A
minimum number of internal access roads will be kept open so that monitoring and
inspections of specific areas of the property can be made. These inspection areas will
include the pit, waste dumps, water wells, and heap leach and surface water areas.
20.4.4 Monitoring During Closure
The environmental monitoring plan implemented during the operation stage will continue
in force during closure activities. The monitoring plan will be updated as the Project
approaches the closure stage, with elements added and deleted as appropriate to the
conditions.
20.4.5 Post-Closure Monitoring
Post-closure monitoring has as its main objectives:
• Confirming the long-term physical and chemical stability of reclaimed

surfaces such as pit, waste dumps, and heap leach area;
• Monitoring underground and surface water flows;
• Evaluating the heap drainage of water content;
• Evaluating the achievement of water quality standards in the area affected
by the Project; and
• Monitoring flora and fauna in the area affected by the Project.
The closure program, including monitoring, will be carried out with the participation of
the community of Tolar Grande. This program will continue in force for approximately
five years after the final mine closure.
May 2013
20.5 Closure Cost Basis
Costs of mine closures and reclamation of mine sites vary considerably due to factors
such as location, climate, rainfall, environmental vulnerability, age of the mine, mining
method, minerals being mined, waste characteristics, and labor costs. Closure cost
estimates should be reviewed regularly to reflect changing circumstances and adjusted
according to inflation and work requirements, as well as undergo a thorough
reassessment on a predetermined cycle to account for changing community standards and
expectations.
Goldrock is responsible for covering all closure costs. If the mining operation is sold, the
buyer must cover the total closure costs.
The total estimated closure cost for the project is US$21.3 million, equivalent to US$
0.32/tonne placed on the heap. Major closure costs are expected to be incurred over Years
10-14. The yearly summary of these costs and credits is presented in Table 20-8.
Note that there are no year 10 operating costs in the closure section. The heap will still
be under active leaching for all of year 10, so all of these operating costs are will be
include in the operating costs in Section 19.
May 2013
Table 20-8
Closure Costs
Operating Costs Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14
Process Labor $814,035 $599,542 $599,542 $520,194
Power $1,438,275 $1,366,361 $1,366,361 $177,359
Reagents $1,586,322 $305,278 $239,359 $0
Support, Spares, Consumables, Supplies $881,191 $464,907 $464,907 $314,983
G&A Labor $327,418 $284,820 $284,820 $113,594
G&A Operating $1,223,454 $908,746 $908,746 $782,392
Total Operating Costs $6,270,695 $3,929,655 $3,863,736 $1,908,521
Capital Costs Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14

Closure Plan Allowance (Regulatory Approval) $15,000
Crushing and Stockpiling Gravel for Ponds $761,559
Crushing Plant Dismantling & Removal $850,000
Safety Berm around Pit Perimeter $0
Waste Dump Re-sloping $0
Heap Smoothing & Re-Contouring $2,515,598
Evaporator Rental & Operation $0
ADR Chemical Remediation Allowance $100,000
ADR Chemical Testing Allowance $75,000
Gravel for Fill of Preg & Excess Ponds $383,672
Gravel for Drain Channel Fill $60,580
Geotextile for Channels and Ponds $135,638
Internal Access Road Reclamation Allowance $50,000
ADR Plant Dismantling & Removal $250,000
Laboratory Dismantling & Removal $0
Admin Office Dismantling & Removal $0
Truck Shop Dismantling & Removal $0
Process Shop Dismantling & Removal $0
Man Camp Dismantling & Removal $0
Year 15+ Post-Closure Monitoring $100,000
Total Capital Costs $776,559 $850,000 $0 $2,515,598 $1,154,890
Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14
Total Closure Costs by Year $776,559 $7,120,695 $3,929,655 $6,379,334 $3,063,411
TOTAL CLOSURE COST $21,269,654
May 2013
20.6 Recommendations
During the next mine phases (construction and operations) the Company shall:
• Maintain continuous communication with stakeholders;

• Conduct air quality sampling in camp locations and operating facilities, as
well as on routes near local villages; and
• Monitor during the stages of construction, operation, and closure so as to
remain aware and keep control of any possible impacts caused by the
operations at the mine.
During the construction, operation, and closure phases the Company shall:
• Give priority to the changes in the region from which the community will
benefit, such as road construction;
• Achieve certification in the ISO 14001 standard during operations;
• Contract with specialists to have flora and fauna monitoring surveys
conducted every autumn and spring;
• Perform soil monitoring at vulnerable points once a year during the lifetime
of the Project and at least two years after its closure. These vulnerable
points correspond to areas where liquids, effluents, or solid waste disposal
will be handled:
o Down slope of the dump area;
o Workshop areas;
o Sanitary landfill areas;
o Temporary hazardous waste management areas;
o Process plant area; and
o Down slope of the heap leach area.
May 2013
21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
Capital and operating costs for the Lindero Project were estimated by KCA with the
assistance of Goldrock, MDA (mining costs), and a local engineering firm Saxum. These
costs are based on the design outlined in this study and are considered to have an
accuracy of +/-15%. All costs are in fourth quarter 2012 or first quarter 2013 US dollars
(US$). No escalation factors have been applied to any costs, present or future capital.
Table 21-1 summarizes the pre-capital costs for the Lindero Project.
Table 21-1
Lindero Pre-Production Capital Costs
Grand Total
US$
VAT $15,530,896
Expansion (future) capital for the project includes the Phase 2 leach pad construction,
expansion of the ADR plant, and purchase of an owner-operated mining fleet. The total
future capital is estimated at US$ 64.1 million.
Closure and reclamation costs are estimated at US$ 21.3 million.
The total life of mine operating cost for the Lindero Project is US$ 10.07 per tonne of
ore. Table 21-2 summarizes the average operating costs for the Lindero Project.
Table 21-2
Lindero Project Average Operating Cost
LOM Cost
Description
(US$ / t ore)
Mine (Owner & Contract) 4.77
Process 4.18
Site G & A 1.12
Total 10.07
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 21 - Capital and Operating Costs

May 2013
21.1 Capital Costs
The required pre-production capital expenditure for the Lindero Project is summarized in
Table 21-3. These costs are based on the design outlined in this study and are considered
to have an accuracy of +/-15%. The scope of these costs includes all mining equipment,
process facilities, and infrastructure for the project.
The costs presented have been estimated primarily by KCA with input from MDA on
mine pre-production, and mine equipment costs. Saxum Engineered Solutions. provided
some local costs for certain items such as the power generation plant and some of the
buildings, and also some local installation rates. All equipment and material
requirements are based on the design information described in previous sections of this
study. Capital cost estimates have been made primarily using budgetary supplier quotes
for all major and most minor equipment items. Where supplier quotes were not available,
a reasonable cost estimate was made based on supplier quotes in KCA project files.
All capital cost estimates are based on the purchase of equipment quoted new from the
manufacturer, or estimated to be fabricated new.
Tables 21-3 and 21-4 present the capital cost summary by area and discipline for the pre-
production capital requirements, including the pre-production mining fleet. All costs are
in fourth quarter 2012 or first quarter 2013 US dollars (US$). No escalation factors have
been applied to any costs, present or future capital. Where prices of equipment were
supplied in Argentine Pesos, an average conversion rate of 4.7 Pesos per US dollar was
used.

May 2013
Table 21-3
Summary of Pre-Production Capital Costs
Supply Install Grand Total
US$ US$ US$
Area 00 - General $1,065,000 $6,865,316 $7,930,316
Area 03 - Camp $2,649,883 $310,986 $2,960,869
Area 08 - Mobile Equipment $3,593,335 $0 $3,593,335
Area 13 - Crushing $16,961,464 $4,280,321 $21,241,785
Area 15 - Ore Reclaim & Stacking $8,858,041 $1,313,504 $10,171,545
Area 22 - Heap Leach & Solution Handling $8,446,005 $5,376,857 $13,822,862
Area 28 - ADR $3,747,946 $1,990,525 $5,738,471
Area 31 - Electrowinning & Refining $1,369,997 $699,306 $2,069,303
Area 34 - Reagents $476,234 $229,168 $705,402
Area 60 - Power $14,524,097 $1,437,344 $15,961,441
Area 62 - Water Supply & Distribution $2,612,979 $1,535,330 $4,148,309
Area 66 - Facilities $2,414,675 $1,342,746 $3,757,421
Area 68 - Fuel $148,879 $18,199 $167,078
Area 75 - Laboratory $1,353,803 $516,351 $1,870,155
Process Plant Total Direct Costs $68,222,339 $25,915,953 $94,138,293
Mine Total Direct Costs $1,713,040 $777,192 $2,490,232
Spare Parts $3,867,580
Freight $2,149,654
Import Tax $125,180
Indirect Costs $3,609,914
Initial Fills $2,437,338
EPCM $13,150,499
Owner's Costs $8,603,267
VAT $15,530,896

May 2013
Table 21-4
Summary of Pre-Production Capital Costs by Discipline
Plant Totals Supply Cost Install Total Supply Spare Parts Contingency Total Direct Indirects Freight Import Tax VAT, Supply VAT, Services VAT, Freight Miscellaneous Grand Total
& Install Cost Cost (Services)
Major Earthworks $4,495,569 $6,232,862 $10,728,431 $1,696,129 $12,424,561 $747,943 $0 $0 $944,070 $1,308,901 $15,425,474
Civils $3,530,611 $689,348 $4,219,959 $667,461 $4,887,420 $82,722 $27,114 $0 $741,428 $144,763 $5,694 $5,889,141
Structural Steelwork $1,380,258 $805,392 $2,185,651 $258,835 $2,444,486 $96,647 $70,215 $0 $144,927 $169,132 $14,745 $2,940,152
Platework $3,796,189 $502,068 $4,298,257 $454,929 $4,753,186 $60,248 $100,136 $0 $398,600 $105,434 $21,029 $5,438,634
Mechanical Equipment $41,153,944 $4,755,190 $45,909,134 $3,867,580 $4,828,673 $54,605,387 $570,623 $1,127,031 $112,412 $4,712,245 $998,590 $151,803 $62,278,090
Piping $4,176,301 $2,810,751 $6,987,051 $1,188,595 $8,175,647 $337,290 $208,815 $0 $877,023 $590,258 $43,851 $10,232,884
Electrical $3,130,362 $3,272,662 $6,403,024 $803,936 $7,206,960 $392,719 $156,518 $0 $525,322 $687,259 $32,815 $9,001,594
Instrumentation $486,073 $501,263 $987,336 $123,797 $1,111,133 $60,152 $14,582 $0 $51,038 $105,265 $3,062 $1,345,232
Infrastructure $6,073,032 $6,346,417 $12,419,449 $1,559,266 $13,978,714 $761,570 $352,539 $2,500 $637,668 $1,332,748 $74,033 $17,139,772
Mining $1,713,040 $777,192 $2,490,232 $85,652 $2,575,884 $500,000 $92,704 $10,268 $110,989 $66,894 $19,468 $3,376,207
Initial Fills $511,841 $2,437,338 $2,949,179
EPCM $13,150,499 $13,150,499
Owner's Costs $8,603,267 $8,603,267
Working Capital $13,140,583 $13,140,583
Plant Total Direct Costs $69,935,379 $26,693,145 $96,628,525 $3,867,580 $11,667,273 $112,163,377 $3,609,914 $2,149,654 $125,180 $9,655,151 $5,509,244 $366,500 $37,331,687 $170,910,709

May 2013
21.2 Mining Capital Costs
Mining capital costs were provided by Mine Development Associates (MDA), who also
prepared the mine plan. Owner capital costs are low in the pre-production period because
most of the initial mining activities are contracted.
Mine capital cost includes pre-stripping costs, contractor mobilization and

demobilization, and mine equipment cost. Mine pre-stripping will be completed by the
contractor based on the production schedule requirements. The estimated contractor
costs for the pre-stripping period is US$ 2.7 million, which includes fuel costs provided
by the owner. This cost includes the mining of approximately 355 thousand tonnes of ore
which will be used for heap leach pad over-liner material and commissioning of the
crushing circuit. This cost is capitalized under Owner’s Costs.
Contractor mobilization is estimated to cost US$ 500,000 (indirect cost) and this cost is
included in the pre-production capital costs, while demobilization is estimated at US$
300,000 and is included in the future capital.
Primary capital equipment estimates have been established based on quotations by

equipment vendors. These estimates include transport to the port of Antofagasta, Chile.
Additional freight costs from Antofagasta to site have been estimated by KCA at 5% of
the equipment supply cost.
Mine capital cost estimates have been made based on contractor quotations, equipment
purchasing agents, information provided by Gold Rock, and recent projects.
Note that explosives storage will be part of an explosives down the hole contract (DTH)
and has not been included in the capital costing. All building and infrastructure capital
was estimated by KCA and are included in subsequent capital cost sections. Items
estimated by KCA include shop equipment, fuel facilities, and shop and office buildings.
The total pre-production mining equipment costs are US$ 3.09 million (excluding VAT).
Mining expansion capital is estimated to be US$ 46.5 million which includes US$ 32.2
million in Year 3 when Goldrock will terminate contract mining and purchase a mining
fleet. The remaining expansion capital includes purchase of additional haul trucks where
required, plus replacement equipment through the life of mine. The future costs are
summarized in Table 21-5.

May 2013
Table 21-5
Summary of Pre-Production and Future Mining Capital Costs (US$ 000’s)
Pre-Prod Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Total
Drilling
Rotary Drill - 153 mm $ 1,091 $ 1,091 $ 1,091 $ 2,182 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,455
Loading
13 Cubic Meter Front End Loader $ - $ - $ 2,088 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,088
Hydraulic Shovel - 18.0 Cu. Meter $ - $ - $ - $ 8,636 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,636
Trucks
91 Metric Tonne Truck Fleet $ - $ - $ 2,814 $ 11,256 $ 1,407 $ 2,814 $ - $ 1,407 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,698
Support Equipment
230 Kw Dozer $ - $ - $ - $ 1,362 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,362
Rubber Tire Dozer $ - $ - $ - $ 1,537 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,537
4.9 m Motor Grader $ - $ - $ - $ 1,558 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,558
Water Truck - 20,000 Liter $ - $ - $ - $ 1,848 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,848
Backhoe/Loader $ - $ - $ - $ 121 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 121
Pit Pumps $ - $ - $ - $ 13 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 13
50 ton Crane $ - $ - $ - $ 630 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 630
Flatbed $ - $ - $ - $ 52 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 52
Mine Maintenance
Lube Truck $ - $ - $ - $ 87 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 87
Fuel Truck $ - $ - $ - $ 252 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 252
Mechanics Truck $ - $ - $ - $ 146 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 146
Forklift $ - $ - $ - $ 26 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26
Other Mine Capital
Light Plant $ 32 $ - $ - $ 32 $ - $ - $ 32 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 96
Explosives Storage Site Prep $ 200 $ 200
Explosives Contract Mobilization and Install $ 551 $ 551
Cap Magazine Included $ -
Mobile Radios $ 11 $ 1 $ 4 $ 33 $ 2 $ 8 $ - $ 8 $ 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 68
Shop Equipment Included $ -
Water Storage (Dust Suppression) $ 25 $ 25
Base Radio & GPS Stations $ 150 $ 150
Unspecified Miscellaneous Equipment $ 100 $ 100
Fuel Facilities Included $ -
Shop Building Included $ -
Access Roads - Haul Roads - Site Prep Included $ -
Ambulance & Fire Equipment Included $ -
Light Vehicles* $ - $ - $ - $ 371 $ 53 $ 318 $ - $ 371 $ 53 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,166
Mine Planning Software & GPS / Survey Equip. $ 470 $ 470
Contractor Mobilization $ 500 $ 500
Contractor De-Mobilization $ 300 $ 300
Total - Primary Equipment $ 1,091 $ 1,091 $ 5,993 $ 22,074 $ 1,407 $ 2,814 $ - $ 1,407 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 35,877
Total - Support Equipment $ - $ - $ - $ 7,121 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,121
Total - Mine Maintenance $ - $ - $ - $ 511 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 511
Total - Other Mine Capital $ 1,939 $ 1 $ 4 $ 836 $ 55 $ 326 $ 32 $ 379 $ 54 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,626
MDA-Reported Mine Capital $ 3,030 $ 1,092 $ 5,997 $ 30,542 $ 1,462 $ 3,140 $ 32 $ 1,786 $ 54 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 47,135
Additional Freight Charges (by KCA) $ 53 $ 51 $ 279 $ 1,365 $ 65 $ 130 $ 2 $ 65 $ - $ 2,010
Customs Charges (by KCA) $ 10 $ 10 $ 56 $ 278 $ 14 $ 29 $ 0 $ 17 $ 1 $ 415
TOTAL Adjusted Mine Capital $ 3,093 $ 1,154 $ 6,331 $ 32,185 $ 1,541 $ 3,299 $ 34 $ 1,868 $ 55 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 49,560
Cap Magazine included in DTH contract. Shop Equipment, Fuel Facilities, Shop Building, Access Roads, and Ambulance & Fire Equipment included by KCA in various capital cost areas/disciplines.

May 2013
21.3 Processing Capital Costs
Process costs have been estimated by KCA with some inputs from Saxum and Goldrock.
Capital cost estimates have been made primarily using budgetary supplier quotes for all
major and most minor equipment items. Where supplier quotes were not available a
reasonable cost estimate was made based on costs in KCA’s project files.
21.3.1 Process Cost Basis
Each area in the process cost buildup, including crushing, stacking, heap leach solution
handling, recovery plant, etc. in the capital cost table is separated into the following
disciplines, where applicable:
• major earthworks (includes pad/pond liner);

• civils (concrete);
• structural steel;
• platework;
• mechanical equipment;
• piping;
• electrical;
• instrumentation;
• infrastructure;
Supply, freight, customs fees and duties, installation costs, and value-added-tax (VAT)
are included in the capital cost buildup for each discipline, and are discussed in the
following sections.
Engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM), indirect costs, and

initial fills inventory are added to the total direct costs. VAT is applied to each discipline
as necessary but is applied separately to (on top of) the total direct costs.
21.3.2 Freight
Where available and applicable, supplier quoted freight cost estimates for equipment
packages are used. Alternatively, freight costs for certain major equipment (e.g. HPGR)

May 2013
have been estimated based on a packing list, applying costs KCA has obtained from
freight forwarders.
21.3.3 Duties and Customs Fees
An import tax is levied on all imported items at 1.0% of the equipment supply cost.
Additional charges of 0.6% of the equipment supply apply for customs broker fees along
with a US$ 150 fixed charge for each import declaration.
21.3.4 Value Added Tax (VAT)
VAT is included in the overall project capital costs as all components of the project will
be subject to this tax. There are two VAT rates:
• For equipment and machinery, and hard assets of the project, a rate of
10.5% is applied;
• For freight and all other supplies and services, a rate of 21.0% applies.
VAT will be refunded in full to the project once certain obligations are met and
information supplied to the Argentine taxing authority.
21.3.5 Major Earthworks
Major earthwork quantities were estimated based on the preliminary site and heap leach
pad design. This includes earthworks for providing level areas for the heap pad and
ponds, building and process areas, and interconnecting roads. Also included here are
detailed earthworks and lining costs for the leach pad and ponds and diversion channels.
All major earthworks volumes have been estimated by KCA and unit rates have been
developed from local contractors. These unit rates were compared with rates from other
South American projects that KCA has recently worked on and KCA has found that the
unit rates provided by the local contractors were considered to be within the expected
normal earthworks unit cost ranges.

May 2013
21.3.6 Civils
Civils include detailed earthworks and concrete. Concrete quantities have been estimated
from takeoffs based on quantities from previous similar equipment installations, from
calculations, or from estimates.
Supply and placement rates for concrete are based on quotations from local contractors,
and from inputs provided by Saxum Engineered Solutions.
21.3.7 Structural Steel
Structural steel requirements for the various areas were developed from takeoff lists
from similar project and from general arrangement drawings. Unit costs for steel,
including installation labor and equipment requirements, were provided by Saxum. Unit
costs vary slightly depending on the type, size and quantity of structural steel to be
installed.
21.3.8 Platework
The platework discipline includes the supply and installation of steel tanks, bins, and
chutes. Costs were developed from material takeoffs from previous projects and from
local contractor bid estimates from KCA tank drawings.
21.3.9 Mechanical Equipment
Costs for all major items of new equipment are based on budgetary quotes from vendors.
Costs for minor equipment items are based on supplier quotes or from KCA’s in-house
database. Where possible, quotes from Argentine vendors were obtained.
Installation estimates are based on equipment type and cost and include installation labor
and equipment usage. Where available, vendor-estimated installation costs are used.

May 2013
21.3.10 Piping and Valves
Piping, fittings, and valve costs for major areas, including the heap leach irrigation and
drainage, process and fire water distribution, and the water pipeline are based on material
take offs, vendor budget quotes for supply of major items, and contractor estimates for
installation. Contractor estimates for piping installations are based on unit rates. KCA
applied the unit rate costs from the contractor pricing to the material take off quantities.
Piping, fittings, and valve costs for other areas have been estimated on a percentage basis
of the mechanical equipment costs.
21.3.11 Electrical
Site medium voltage distribution electrical costs, including power line supply and
installation cost were provided by Saxum based on local supplier bids. Electrical
equipment costs such as low-voltage transformers and MCCs were obtained from local
vendor quotes. Various small electrical equipment items were based on a percentage of
mechanical equipment supply costs, based on cost experience from recent projects in
KCA’s files. Installation costs were based on labor cost estimates provided by Saxum and
KCA recent project files for installation time.
21.3.12 Instrumentation
Because most of the plant is manually or semi-manually operated, instrumentation costs

are minimal. A percentage range of 1.5-3.5% of the mechanical equipment cost was
applied, to applicable areas. Installation costs were developed from KCA’s recent project
experience using local labor rates provided by Saxum.
21.3.13 Infrastructure Capital Costs
Costs for the site infrastructure for the Lindero Project have been estimated using costs
developed by Saxum, and supplier quotes from past KCA projects.

May 2013
21.3.13.1 Buildings
Costs for the Camp, Administration, Truckshop, Laboratory, and Reagent Storage
buildings were provided by Saxum based on take-offs and unit rates developed and
obtained by Saxum. Costs for the remaining buildings were developed from take-offs and
estimates by KCA, applying supply and install rates for building components included in
Saxum’s buildings cost buildup.
21.3.13.2 Access Roads
The main site access road from Salta to the property becomes narrow and windy in the
areas between Pocitos, Tolar Grande, and Lindero and will require some upgrading.
Goldrock provided the cost of such improvements to KCA through a local earthworks
contractor (Grupo AGV, 2013). Road improvements include re-grading some sections of
existing road, widening sections, creating embankments and culverts. In some areas the
road improvements will require significant cut and fill. The total cost of the
improvements along the 167 km stretch between Pocitos and the Lindero site was
estimated at US$ 3.54 million.
21.3.13.3 Power Generation Plant
Power for the Lindero Project is to be supplied by two 6.6MW (de-rated) generators
using natural gas as primary fuel. One generator will be a dual-fuel generator capable of
using both natural gas and diesel fuel. The duel-fuel generator can be used in an
emergency situation if there is a natural gas supply disruption.
A tradeoff study was conducted by Saxum Engineered Solutions in December 2012 to

determine the most economic option to supply power for the Lindero operation based on
capital and operating costs. Natural gas-fired generators with the natural gas being
delivered by truck to the mine site from the existing natural gas pipeline Gasoducto de la
Puna was the approach used in the study. The Saxum cost estimate includes all
equipment, civil work, piping, electrical, engineering, and other services for the supply
and installation of the generator plant as well as a detailed operating cost estimate.

May 2013
21.3.13.4 Raw Water Supply
A significant amount of the site water requirement will be supplied by wells located
approximately 13km to the east of the site. The majority of the water supply capital cost
will be in constructing a 200mm (8 inch) pipeline from these wells to the site. Most of
these costs are included under the piping costs and the mechanical equipment for the well
pumps. A small allowance is included in the infrastructure for small well buildings for
each of the four wells, and secure fencing around the two remote well buildings. Some
additional costs are included for re-drilling and re-casing in the two remote well areas to
12” casings, which will be required to accommodate the submersible pumps and motors.
These costs were obtained through Goldrock from a local vendor who has provided well
drilling services for the existing Lindero wells.
21.3.13.5 Camp Facilities
Capital costs for the camp are based on costs developed by Saxum Engineered Solutions.
The camp buildings consist of pre-manufactured modular units for a
kitchen/dining/recreation area, four 56-man operator dormitories and three 20-man
supervisor dormitories housing a total of 284 persons, and laundry room facilities.
21.3.13.6 Other General Infrastructure Costs
A US$ 100,000 allowance has been allotted for all site fencing.
An allowance of US$ 250,000 has been made for all tooling required for the process shop
and ADR plant.
An allowance of US$ 250,000 has been made for sewage treatment facilities.
An allowance of US$ 320,000 has been made for the potable water treatment system.

May 2013
21.3.14 Indirect Costs
Indirect costs include contractor’s costs for items such as mobilization and
demobilization, temporary construction facilities, quality control, survey support,
warehouse and fenced yards, support equipment, security, and commissioning of certain
equipment items. These costs have been estimated as a factor applied to the various
project installation costs (except mining) and are included in the overall capital cost. The
indirect costs include US $500,000 for mobilization of the contract miners.
21.3.15 Spare Parts
For certain major equipment such as the HPGR, spare parts costs were obtained directly
from vendor quotes. Where quotes for spares were not available, spares were estimated as
a percentage of the mechanical equipment costs. For most equipment a percentage of 3%
was applied to the equipment supply cost. Freight and IVA were applied on top of the
estimated spare parts supply costs.
21.3.16 Initial Fills Inventory
A separate initial fills component of the pre-production capital costs is included, which
consists of critical consumable items purchased and stored on site at the onset of
operations. Initial fills items include sodium cyanide (NaCN), lime, activated carbon,
antiscalant, caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, diesel fuel, and fluxes (silica, borax, niter,
and soda ash). This inventory of initial fills ensures adequate consumables are available
for the first stage of operation, and indicates the inventory that should be maintained
during operations to mitigate the supply risk of such consumables.
21.3.17 Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management
The estimated cost for engineering, procurement and construction management (EPCM)
for the development, construction, and commissioning are based on a percentage of the
direct capital cost. The total estimated EPCM cost of US$ 13.2 million, or 12% of the
total project direct costs minus the mining costs. The percentage base for the EPCM is

May 2013
based on KCA’s experience with EPCM on past projects.
The EPCM costs cover services and expenses for the following areas:
• Project Management;
• Detailed Engineering;
• Engineering Support;
• Procurement;
• Construction Management; and
• Commissioning.
21.3.18 Contingency
For supply costs, a contingency is applied at a rate of 5-15% depending on the discipline.
For installation costs, due to slightly higher uncertainties in labor factors applied to install
due to the remoteness of the region and high elevation in the Puna, a contingency of 15-
20% is applied to installation costs depending on the discipline. In both cases the
contingency is applied to the direct costs (which excludes IVA), and the overall average
project cost contingency calculates to 12.1% of the direct cost.
21.3.19 Future Capital
Future capital expenditures include additional costs for all plant additions constructed
after the initial construction period. The costs for the future capital are structured the
same way as costs for the pre-production period.
The major projects planned for Lindero in the future are the expansion of the heap leach
pad to Phase 2 in Year 1 which includes addition of a 350 m overland conveyor, the
expansion of the ADR plant to include a third adsorption column train in Year 3, the
transition of mining activities to owner control in Year 3, and closure activities in Years
11-14.
Table 21-6 summarizes the future capital for the Lindero project.

May 2013
Table 21-6
Future Capital Summary
Supply Install Grand Total
US$ US$ US$
Heap Leach Phase 2 Expansion (Year 1) $6,257,538 $3,402,985 $9,660,522
ADR Plant Expansion (Year 3) $777,737 $134,547 $912,284
Process Plant Total Direct Costs $7,035,275 $3,537,532 $10,572,806
Mine Expansion & Sustaining Direct Costs $40,457,341 $851,370 $41,308,711
Spare Parts $55,798
Freight $4,604,338
Import Tax $405,534
Indirect Costs $724,504
EPCM $1,447,065
Exploration Costs $1,500,000
Total Expansion & Sustaining Capital (Excluding VAT) $64,071,897
TOTAL Closure Costs $21,269,654
Total Future Capital (Excluding VAT) $85,341,551
VAT $6,940,455
Total Future Capital (Including VAT) $92,282,006
21.3.20 Reclamation and Closure Costs
The plan and design for project closure is detailed in Section 17, Closure. Costs were
developed according to this plan and the capital costs summarized in the future capital
summary table above.
The major components to the closure capital costs are the earthworks involved in
smoothing out the ultimate heap, lining of the channels and ponds with gravel, and
demolition and transport of the structures. Operating costs are also associated with the
owner’s labor involved in closure activities and are briefly discussed with the Project
operating costs.

May 2013
21.3.21 Owner’s Costs
Owner’s costs are included which essentially cover pre-production G&A fixed and
variable costs, G&A labor, production labor, and mining labor (pre-stripping).
Pre-production G&A fixed costs include office operating expenses, legal fees,
phones/internet, office supplies, insurance, IT services and computers, travel, community
assistance, government affairs and PR, environmental permits and licensure, and property
taxes. Pre-production variable costs include camp accommodations and transportation,
environmental and waste management, equipment rentals, light vehicle usage, safety
supplies, general consulting, employee recruiting and training, medical suppliers, and
medical and security contracts/services.
Owner’s Costs were developed by Goldrock and reviewed by KCA. The total cost is
US$ 8.6 million.
21.3.22 Working Capital
The working capital in general is defined as the capital required to sustain operations
before any gold revenue is realized, and is based on a period of total operating costs for
the mine, process, and G&A. For Lindero, the pre-production capital includes a
production period of reduced throughput in the plant for the first months of operation, to
allow for a general start-up adaptation to the process. Specifically, a three month period is
designated as a final phase of the pre-production period, where the plant throughput
begins at a rate of 8,000 tonnes per day for the first month and increases to 10,000 and
12,000 tonnes per day in months two and three respectively. The total cost for this three
month period of operations is designated as the Working Capital, and is costed at US$
13.1 million.

May 2013
21.3.23 Exclusions
The following capital costs are excluded from KCA’s scope of supply and estimate:
• Finance charges and interest during construction;

• Escalation costs; and
• Currency exchange fluctuations.
21.4 Operating Costs
Operating costs for the Lindero Project have been based on the information presented in
earlier sections of this study. Mine operating costs were split into both contract mining
occurring in the first three years of operations (mining of Phase 1 and 2), and owner
mining for part of Year 3 onward (mining of Phase 3 and 4). These costs were
determined by MDA and are estimated to average US$ 4.77/t ore total for contract
mining and owner mining. These results are presented in more detail in Section 19-2.
Estimated life of mine operating costs for the process, laboratory, and support services
are estimated to be US$ 4.18/t ore, and the G&A is estimated to be US$ 1.12/t ore. The
total Project average operating cost is US$ 10.07/t and is summarized in Table 21-2
above.
Operating costs for all areas of the project have been estimated from first principles.
Labor costs are estimated using project-specific staffing, salary, wage, and benefit
requirements. Unit consumptions of materials, supplies, power, water, and delivered
supply costs are also estimated.
Table 21-7 summarizes the process operating costs on a yearly schedule. For convenience
the total contract and owner mining operating costs are also shown, and a total operating
cost by year tallied.

May 2013
Table 21-7
Lindero Project Operating Cost by Year
Pre-Production Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10-10.5 Year 10.5-11 TOTAL (Production)
Tonnes Processed 1,263,231 6,125,918 6,840,000 6,858,740 6,840,000 6,840,000 6,840,000 6,858,740 6,840,000 6,840,000 3,398,644 65,545,273
Annual Costs, US $
Total G&A Costs $1,837,617 $7,350,469 $7,410,235 $8,142,377 $7,694,710 $7,687,239 $7,687,239 $7,806,773 $7,806,773 $5,550,284 $3,340,696 $921,292 $73,235,704
Total Processing Costs $4,405,750 $26,093,226 $28,249,458 $28,366,655 $28,307,958 $28,334,598 $28,329,018 $28,373,675 $28,368,798 $28,235,054 $14,033,516 $2,859,068 $273,956,774
Total M ine Owner's Costs $2,652,139 $7,465,062 $10,560,048 $33,462,075 $35,135,800 $36,850,053 $39,030,655 $37,102,312 $33,598,935 $16,898,214 $3,769,811 $256,525,104
Total M ine Contract Costs $4,245,077 $17,632,057 $27,880,934 $6,855,138 $56,613,206
Total Annual Costs $13,140,583 $58,540,814 $74,100,675 $76,826,245 $71,138,468 $72,871,890 $75,046,912 $73,282,760 $69,774,506 $50,683,552 $21,144,023 $3,780,361 $660,330,789
US $ Per Tonne Ore
Total G&A Costs $1.45 $1.20 $1.08 $1.19 $1.12 $1.12 $1.12 $1.14 $1.14 $0.81 $0.98 $1.12
Total Processing Costs $3.49 $4.26 $4.13 $4.14 $4.14 $4.14 $4.14 $4.14 $4.15 $4.13 $4.13 $4.18
Total M ine Owner's Costs $2.10 $1.22 $1.54 $4.88 $5.14 $5.39 $5.71 $5.41 $4.91 $2.47 $1.11 $3.914
Total M ine Contract Costs $3.36 $2.88 $4.08 $1.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.864
Total US $/Tonne Ore $10.40 $9.56 $10.83 $11.20 $10.40 $10.65 $10.97 $10.68 $10.20 $7.41 $7.33 $10.07
Kappes, Cassiday & Associate Section 21 - Capital and Operating Costs

May 2013
21.5 Basis of Operating Cost Estimate
Project operating costs were determined year by year, considering key events during the
project life such as the ramp up of production from 15,000 to 18,750 t/day in Year 1, the
change in contract/owner mining responsibility in Year 3, the expansion of the ADR
plant in Year 4, the transition from processing from the mine to the stockpile in Year 10,
and the ramp down and transition to closure activities starting in Year 11.
The operating costs presented are based upon ownership of all project production
equipment and site facilities, as well as the Owner employing and directing all operating,
maintenance, and support personnel with the exception of contract mining occurring in
Years 1-3. The contract mining cost is included as a separate cost area but is included in
the overall operating cost.
The operating costs have been estimated and are presented without any added
contingency allowances. The mine, processing, support and general and administrative
operating costs are considered to have an accuracy range of +/- 15%.
Operating costs estimates have been based upon information obtained from the following
sources:
• MDA Mining costs, both contracted and owner;

• Project metallurgical test work and process engineering;
• Budgetary quotations from potential suppliers of project operating and
maintenance supplies and materials;
• Recent KCA project file data; and
• Experience of KCA staff with other similar operations.
Where specific data does not exist, cost allowances have been based upon consumption
and operating requirements from other similar properties for which reliable data exists.
Freight costs have been estimated from a combination of freight forwarder quotes and
similar project files, where delivered prices were not available.
All costs are presented in 4th quarter 2012 US dollars (US$). For labor wages which were
supplied in Argentine Pesos, an average conversion rate of 5.0 pesos per US dollar was
used. For all other costs supplied in Argentine Pesos, a conversion rate of 4.7 was used.

May 2013
It is assumed that the Lindero Project will become eligible for a rebate on the value added
tax (VAT) applied to any and all operating costs; therefore, VAT has not been included in
any of the operating cost estimates.
21.5.1 Labor and Wages
Staffing will be by Argentinean nationals, wherever practical. A limited number of key

supervisory positions need to be held by expatriates, at least for the start-up of the mine.
Labor rates for hourly and staff employees were provided by Goldrock. The average
wage burden rate (approximately 28.5% over gross salary rate) was established to include
the requisite statutory Argentinean social and medical insurance and pension, and bonus
costs.
The salary wage categories and rates selected for the project are shown in Table 21-8.

May 2013
Table 21-8
Labor Category and Wages
AR$ US$
Monthly Annual Annual Monthly Annual Annual
Title Base Salary Burdens Bonus Total Base Salary Burdens Bonus Total
General Manager 50,000 13,500 120,000 945,500 10,000 2,700 24,000 189,100
Senior Manager 39,100 10,557 93,840 739,381 7,820 2,111 18,768 147,876
Operations Manager 34,500 9,315 82,800 652,395 6,900 1,863 16,560 130,479
Area Manager 30,500 8,235 73,200 576,755 6,100 1,647 14,640 115,351
Junior Professionals 12,750 3,634 0 212,989 2,550 727 0 42,598
Medium Professional 15,000 4,275 0 250,575 3,000 855 0 50,115
Senior Professional, Supervisor 18,000 5,130 0 300,690 3,600 1,026 0 60,138
Senior Professional or Senior supervisor 23,750 6,769 0 396,744 4,750 1,354 0 79,349
General Assistant 6,500 1,853 0 108,583 1,300 371 0 21,717
Assistant, (Receptionist, Secretary) 8,500 2,423 0 141,993 1,700 485 0 28,399
Technician, Security Guard 10,500 2,993 0 175,403 2,100 599 0 35,081
Foreman, Specialist 13,000 3,705 0 217,165 2,600 741 0 43,433
Senior Technician, Senior Supervisor 17,200 4,902 0 287,326 3,440 980 0 57,465
Labor I 6,500 1,853 0 108,583 1,300 371 0 21,717
Labor II 8,500 2,423 0 141,993 1,700 485 0 28,399
Operator I 10,500 2,993 0 175,403 2,100 599 0 35,081
Operator II 13,200 3,762 0 220,506 2,640 752 0 44,101
Operator III 16,800 4,788 0 280,644 3,360 958 0 56,129

May 2013
21.6 Mining Operating Costs
Mining operating costs were estimated by MDA. It is expected that the bulk of the
deposit will be amenable to mining using standard drill, blast, load, and haul open pit
mining methods.
Annual mine operating costs have been estimated based on personnel requirements and
equipment hourly costs. Table 21-9 summarizes the annual mine operating costs in terms
of US$/tonne mined and also in terms of US$/tonne moved. The reason for presenting
both cost per tonne mined and cost per tonne moved is that in Years 9-10, mining costs
relate primarily to the rehandling of stockpile. The upper portion of Table 21-9 shows the
tonnage mined and stockpile rehandle by contractor and owner.
Costs are provided based on functional area (drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, support,
services, maintenance, engineering, and geology). The total average mining cost is
estimated to be $1.72/t mined.
Note the pre-production operating cost of $9.6 million is shown in Table 21-9 for
convenience, but this cost is capitalized by KCA under both the Owner’s Costs (Month -
12 to -4) and Working Capital (Month -3 to start of production).

May 2013
Table 21-9
Annual Mine Operating Costs
Owner Mining - Ore K Tonnes - - - 1,716 6,593 10,874 5,132 7,033 8,779 4,115 - 44,242
Owner Mining - Waste K Tonnes - - - 19,711 18,957 13,763 23,288 18,587 11,296 1,744 - 107,346
Owner Mining - Total Mined K Tonnes - - - 21,427 25,550 24,637 28,420 25,620 20,075 5,859 - 151,588
Contract Mining - Ore K Tonnes 2,046 8,049 8,540 2,670 - - - - - - - 21,304
Contract Mining - Waste K Tonnes 1,166 1,936 6,282 838 - - - - - - - 10,222
Contract Mining - Total Mined K Tonnes 3,212 9,985 14,822 3,508 - - - - - - - 31,526
Total Mining - Ore K Tonnes 2,046 8,049 8,540 4,386 6,593 10,874 5,132 7,033 8,779 4,115 - 65,546
Total Mining - Waste K Tonnes 1,166 1,936 6,282 20,549 18,957 13,763 23,288 18,587 11,296 1,744 - 117,568
Total Mined K Tonnes 3,212 9,985 14,822 24,934 25,550 24,637 28,420 25,620 20,075 5,859 - 183,113
Owner Mining - Rehandel K Tonnes - 99 1,846 4,221 1,100 121 2,319 569 147 4,577 3,399 18,399
Owner Mining - Total Moved K Tonnes - 99 1,846 25,648 26,650 24,759 30,739 26,189 20,223 10,435 3,399 169,986
Total Mining - Total Moved K Tonnes 3,212 10,083 16,668 29,156 26,650 24,759 30,739 26,189 20,223 10,435 3,399 201,512
Owner Mining Cost Summary
Drill K US$ $ 669 $ 2,066 $ 2,851 $ 4,624 $ 4,727 $ 4,563 $ 5,229 $ 4,736 $ 3,759 $ 1,133 $ - $ 34,357
Blast K US$ $ 2,167 $ 4,159 $ 5,237 $ 7,490 $ 7,627 $ 7,424 $ 8,266 $ 7,643 $ 6,407 $ 1,870 $ - $ 58,291
Load K US$ $ - $ 16 $ 420 $ 4,931 $ 5,093 $ 4,774 $ 5,757 $ 5,008 $ 4,019 $ 2,530 $ 777 $ 33,325
Haul K US$ $ - $ 30 $ 890 $ 10,855 $ 11,065 $ 13,283 $ 13,014 $ 12,950 $ 12,701 $ 5,833 $ 1,361 $ 81,981
Mine Support K US$ $ 173 $ 276 $ 243 $ 3,445 $ 4,510 $ 4,684 $ 4,644 $ 4,614 $ 4,566 $ 3,577 $ 923 $ 31,655
Mine Maintenance K US$ $ 30 $ 42 $ 42 $ 918 $ 914 $ 965 $ 962 $ 994 $ 989 $ 920 $ 277 $ 7,054
Mine General Services K US$ $ 653 $ 876 $ 876 $ 1,201 $ 1,200 $ 1,157 $ 1,157 $ 1,157 $ 1,157 $ 1,035 $ 432 $ 10,903
Total Owner Mining K US$ $ 3,692 $ 7,465 $ 10,560 $ 33,462 $ 35,136 $ 36,850 $ 39,031 $ 37,102 $ 33,599 $ 16,898 $ 3,770 $ 257,565
Contract Mining Cost K US$ $ 5,910 $ 17,632 $ 27,881 $ 6,855 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 58,278
Total Mining Cost K US$ $ 9,602 $ 25,097 $ 38,441 $ 40,317 $ 35,136 $ 36,850 $ 39,031 $ 37,102 $ 33,599 $ 16,898 $ 3,770 $ 315,843
Mine Cost per Tonne Mined
Drill $/t $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.18 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ - $ 0.19
Blast $/t $ 0.67 $ 0.42 $ 0.35 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.32 $ 0.32 $ - $ 0.32
Load $/t $ - $ 0.00 $ 0.03 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.43 $ - $ 0.18
Haul $/t $ - $ 0.00 $ 0.06 $ 0.44 $ 0.43 $ 0.54 $ 0.46 $ 0.51 $ 0.63 $ 1.00 $ - $ 0.45
Mine Support $/t $ 0.05 $ 0.03 $ 0.02 $ 0.14 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.16 $ 0.18 $ 0.23 $ 0.61 $ - $ 0.17
Mine Maintenance $/t $ 0.01 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 0.16 $ - $ 0.04
Mine General Services $/t $ 0.20 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 0.06 $ 0.18 $ - $ 0.06
Total Owner Mining $/t $ 1.15 $ 0.75 $ 0.71 $ 1.34 $ 1.38 $ 1.50 $ 1.37 $ 1.45 $ 1.67 $ 2.88 $ - $ 1.41
Contract Mining Cost $/t $ 1.84 $ 1.77 $ 1.88 $ 0.27 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.32
Total Mining Cost $/t $ 2.99 $ 2.51 $ 2.59 $ 1.62 $ 1.38 $ 1.50 $ 1.37 $ 1.45 $ 1.67 $ 2.88 $ - $ 1.72
Mine Cost per Tonne Moved
Drill $/t $ 0.21 $ 0.20 $ 0.17 $ 0.16 $ 0.18 $ 0.18 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.11 $ - $ 0.17
Blast $/t $ 0.67 $ 0.41 $ 0.31 $ 0.26 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.27 $ 0.29 $ 0.32 $ 0.18 $ - $ 0.29
Load $/t $ - $ 0.00 $ 0.03 $ 0.17 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.24 $ 0.23 $ 0.17
Haul $/t $ - $ 0.00 $ 0.05 $ 0.37 $ 0.42 $ 0.54 $ 0.42 $ 0.49 $ 0.63 $ 0.56 $ 0.40 $ 0.41
Mine Support $/t $ 0.05 $ 0.03 $ 0.01 $ 0.12 $ 0.17 $ 0.19 $ 0.15 $ 0.18 $ 0.23 $ 0.34 $ 0.27 $ 0.16
Mine Maintenance $/t $ 0.01 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 0.04
Mine General Services $/t $ 0.20 $ 0.09 $ 0.05 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.06 $ 0.10 $ 0.13 $ 0.05
Total Owner Mining $/t $ 1.15 $ 0.74 $ 0.63 $ 1.15 $ 1.32 $ 1.49 $ 1.27 $ 1.42 $ 1.66 $ 1.62 $ 1.11 $ 1.28
Contract Mining Cost $/t $ 1.84 $ 1.75 $ 1.67 $ 0.24 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.29
Total Mining Cost $/t $ 2.99 $ 2.49 $ 2.31 $ 1.38 $ 1.32 $ 1.49 $ 1.27 $ 1.42 $ 1.66 $ 1.62 $ 1.11 $ 1.57

May 2013
21.6.1 Contract Mining Costs
Contract mining costs have been estimated based on quotations received by Goldrock for
such services. The quotations were made based on the cubic meters of mining required in
the production schedule for both ore and waste. Contract mining is anticipated to be used
for mining of phase one and two with an option to extend services beyond the contract.
The costs in this feasibility are based on unit costs of $1.25 US and $1.34 US per tonne
mined in phase one and two respectively, excluding fuel. Additional costs were also
specified for road work that would be performed in pioneering to connect access from the
top of each phase to dump and stockpile sites. The costs have been based on proposed
unit costs of $2.00 per cubic meter of material to be moved while creating side hill roads
and $1.90 per square meter for general road construction. MDA calculated volumes to be
moved and kilometers of road of construction that would be completed by contractor
around the mine site and applied the unit costs accordingly.
Additional costs have also been added for additional work to maintain owner roads.
Contractor mining costs are summarized in Table 21-10.
Unit costs shown in Table 21-9 are artificially low as they are calculated based on all
tonnage mined / moved. When divided by only the tonnage moved by the contractor the
total contractor unit cost is $1.85 per tonne mined by the contractor.

May 2013
Table 21-10
Contractor Mining Costs
Units Pre-Prod Yr_1 Yr_2 Yr_3 Yr_4 Total
Contractor Mined Material
Phase 1 Waste K Tonnes 1,166 1,936 79 - - 3,181
Phase 1 Ore K Tonnes 2,046 8,049 1,015 - - 11,109
Phase 2 Waste K Tonnes - - 6,203 838 - 7,041
Phase 2 Ore K Tonnes - - 7,525 2,670 - 10,195
Phase 3 Waste K Tonnes - - - - - -
Phase 3 Ore K Tonnes - - - - - -
Phase 4 Waste K Tonnes - - - - - -
Phase 4 Ore K Tonnes - - - - - -
Waste Mining K Tonnes 1,166 1,936 6,282 838 - 10,222
Ore Mining K Tonnes 2,046 8,049 8,540 2,670 - 21,304
Total Mined K Tonnes 3,212 9,985 14,822 3,508 - 31,526
Contractor Mining Cost
Phase 1 Mining KUSD $ 4,014 $ 12,481 $ 1,368 $ - $ - 17,863
Phase 2 Mining KUSD $ - $ - $ 18,395 $ 4,700 $ - 23,096
Phase 3 Mining KUSD $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
Phase 4 Mining KUSD $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
Total Contractor Mining Cost KUSD $ 4,014 $ 12,481 $ 19,763 $ 4,700 $ - 40,958
Net Contractor Cost per Tonne $/t $ 1.25 $ 1.25 $ 1.33 $ 1.34 $ - $ 1.30
Additional Work
Side Hill Road Construction K CuM 26 - 17 - - 44
Cost KUSD $ 53 $ - $ 35 $ - $ - $ 87
General Road Construction Km 1.5 1 3
Cost KUSD $ 86 $ - $ 57 $ - $ - $ 143
Material Haulage CuM 2.63 - 1.73 - - 4
Cost KUSD $ 3 $ - $ 2 $ - $ - $ 5
PC 450 Excavator K Hrs 0.24 0.75 1.11 0.26 - 2
Cost KUSD $ 30 $ 94 $ 139 $ 33 $ - $ 296
WA 500 Loader K Hrs 0.18 0.55 0.81 0.19 - 2
Cost KUSD 25 79 118 28 - $ 250
Road Maint. (Grader & Water) K Hrs 0.18 0.55 0.81 0.19 - 2
Cost KUSD $ 21 $ 66 $ 97 $ 23 $ - $ 207
Mechanic Truck K Hrs 0.12 0.36 0.54 0.13 - 1
Cost KUSD $ 5 $ 15 $ 22 $ 5 $ - $ 46
Total Additional Work KUSD $ 222 $ 253 $ 469 $ 89 $ - $ 1,033
Total Contractor Cost-Less Fuel KUSD $ 4,237 $ 12,734 $ 20,232 $ 4,789 $ - $ 41,992
Fuel Estimate
Load Op Hrs 6,297 19,577 29,062 6,878 - 61,815
Haul Op Hrs 18,183 49,277 82,189 25,574 - 175,223
Number of Trucks # 9 8 13 4 -
Support Op Hrs 12,594 39,155 58,125 13,756 - 123,630
Load KL 362 1,125 1,670 395 - 3,552
Haul KL 690 1,871 3,120 971 - 6,652
Support KL 469 1,457 2,163 512 - 4,601
Load K USD $ 398 $ 1,238 $ 1,837 $ 435 $ - $ 3,908
Haul K USD $ 759 $ 2,058 $ 3,432 $ 1,068 $ - $ 7,317
Support K USD $ 516 $ 1,603 $ 2,380 $ 563 $ - $ 5,061
Total K USD $ 1,673 $ 4,898 $ 7,649 $ 2,066 $ - $ 16,286
Net Total Contractor Cost K USD $ 5,910 $ 17,632 $ 27,881 $ 6,855 $ - $ 58,278

May 2013
21.6.2 Owner Mining Costs
As the contractor mining costs do not include drilling and blasting, all drilling and
blasting costs are included into the owner’s mining cost for the life of mine. The owner
mining cost is summarized in Table 21-9. The owner mining costs used unit rates to
calculate costs from first principles. The unit rates were provided by manufacture’s
literature for calculation of owner’s costs as well as from recent projects. The costs are
built up by cost areas of drilling, blasting, loading, haulage, mine support, maintenance,
and mine general services.
21.6.2.1 Drilling Costs
The average life-of-mine drilling cost is estimated to be $0.19/t mined. This includes
maintenance labor allocated to drill maintenance. Drilling costs are estimated assuming
that all mining is done on eight meter benches. A penetration rate is estimated to be 20.8
meters per hour based on drill specifications and rock strength.
21.6.2.2 Blasting Costs
The average life-of-mine blasting cost is estimated to be $0.32/t mined. Blasting costs
are based on contract proposals for down-the-hole (DTH) services. With DTH, the
contractor would supply equipment and personnel to supply bulk and accessories to the
site, storage at site, and delivery of the products to the hole in each blast pattern. The
owner’s cost assumes that the owner will employ blasters and blaster’s helpers to prime
and initiate each shot.
21.6.2.3 Loading Costs
The average life-of-mine loading cost is estimated to be $0.20/t moved by owner (note
that Table 21-9 shows $0.17 per total tonnes moved), which includes the re-handle of ore
from stockpiles and maintenance labor allocated to loader and shovel maintenance. The
cost per tonne is exclusive of the tonnes moved by the mining contractor.

May 2013
21.6.2.4 Haulage Costs
The average life-of-mine haulage cost is estimated to be $0.48/t moved by owner (note
that Table 21-9 shows $0.41 per total tonnes moved). The cost per tonne moved includes
re-handle of stockpiled ore and maintenance labor allocated to truck maintenance.
21.6.2.5 Mine-Support Costs
Mine-support costs include the operation of all of the mine-support equipment. The
average life-of-mine support cost is estimated to be $0.19/t mined. The cost per tonne
moved includes support during re-handling of stockpiled ore at the end of the mine life
and maintenance labor allocated to drill maintenance.
21.6.2.6 Mine-Maintenance Costs
The average life-of-mine mine-maintenance cost is estimated to be $0.04/t moved. Mine-

maintenance costs for personnel and shop supplies are exclusive of the tonnage moved by
the mining contractor. Note that the maintenance wages for mechanics has been included
in the operating cost for equipment. Thus, the maintenance costs do not include the labor
directly attributed to equipment maintenance.
21.6.2.7 Mine General Services Costs
The average life-of-mine general services, Engineering, and Geology costs are estimated
to be $0.06/t. Mine general services costs include costs for mine supervision,
engineering, geology, light vehicles, and supplies.
21.6.3 Mine Personnel and Staffing
Mine personnel estimates include operating and mine-staff personnel, for both contract
and owner mining. Operating personnel are estimated as the number of people required
to operate drills, trucks, loading, and support equipment to achieve the production
schedule as well as those persons required for blasting. Mine staff is based on the people

May 2013
required for supervision and support of mine production.
The estimated number of mine personnel required to execute the mine plan is discussed
in Section 16, along with the specific personnel costs.
21.7 Process Operating Cost
Operating requirements have been estimated based upon unit costs and consumption, and,
where possible, have been broken down by area. The average life of mine operating cost
for the process, lab, and infrastructure is US$ 4.18 per tonne of ore, the total average
mining operating cost is US$ 4.77 and the total average G&A operating cost is US$ 1.12,
for a total operating cost of $10.07 per tonne ore.
Table 21-11 details the average process operating costs on a yearly schedule. For
convenience the G&A costs and total contract and owner mining operating costs are also
included.
A description of each of the costing areas for the process and G&A is included in the
following sections.
21.7.1 Process Personnel and Staffing
Staffing requirements for process personnel were estimated by KCA, staffing for G&A
was estimated by KCA with some input from Goldrock, and staffing requirements for
mining and mine administration personnel were estimated by MDA. These are presented
in Table 21-12.

May 2013
Table 21-11
Lindero Detailed Process Operating Cost by Year
Pre-Prod Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10-10.5 Year 10.5-11 TOTAL (Production)
Tonnes Processed 1,263,231 6,125,918 6,840,000 6,858,740 6,840,000 6,840,000 6,840,000 6,858,740 6,840,000 6,840,000 3,398,644 65,545,273
Annual Costs, US $
Total G&A Costs $1,837,617 $7,350,469 $7,410,235 $8,142,377 $7,694,710 $7,687,239 $7,687,239 $7,806,773 $7,806,773 $5,550,284 $3,340,696 $921,292 $73,235,704
Total Processing Costs $4,405,750 $26,093,226 $28,249,458 $28,366,655 $28,307,958 $28,334,598 $28,329,018 $28,373,675 $28,368,798 $28,235,054 $14,033,516 $2,859,068 $273,956,774
Total M ine Owner's Costs $2,652,139 $7,465,062 $10,560,048 $33,462,075 $35,135,800 $36,850,053 $39,030,655 $37,102,312 $33,598,935 $16,898,214 $3,769,811 $256,525,104
Total M ine Contract Costs $4,245,077 $17,632,057 $27,880,934 $6,855,138 $56,613,206
Total Annual Costs $13,140,583 $58,540,814 $74,100,675 $76,826,245 $71,138,468 $72,871,890 $75,046,912 $73,282,760 $69,774,506 $50,683,552 $21,144,023 $3,780,361 $660,330,789
US $ Per Tonne Ore
Total G&A Costs $1.45 $1.20 $1.08 $1.19 $1.12 $1.12 $1.12 $1.14 $1.14 $0.81 $0.98 $1.12
Total Processing Costs $3.49 $4.26 $4.13 $4.14 $4.14 $4.14 $4.14 $4.14 $4.15 $4.13 $4.13 $4.18
Total M ine Owner's Costs $2.10 $1.22 $1.54 $4.88 $5.14 $5.39 $5.71 $5.41 $4.91 $2.47 $1.11 $3.914
Total M ine Contract Costs $3.36 $2.88 $4.08 $1.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.864
Total US $/Tonne Ore $10.40 $9.56 $10.83 $11.20 $10.40 $10.65 $10.97 $10.68 $10.20 $7.41 $7.33 $10.07
G&A BY AREA ($US )

G&A Labor $316,478 $1,265,910 $1,265,910 $1,265,910 $1,265,910 $1,265,910 $1,265,910 $1,265,910 $1,265,910 $834,588 $417,294 $163,709 $11,859,350
Fixed Costs $512,500 $2,050,000 $2,050,000 $2,050,000 $2,050,000 $2,050,000 $2,050,000 $2,050,000 $2,050,000 $1,415,000 $1,415,000 $0 $19,742,500
Variable Costs $1,008,640 $4,034,558 $4,094,325 $4,826,467 $4,378,800 $4,371,329 $4,371,329 $4,490,863 $4,490,863 $3,300,696 $1,508,402 $757,583 $41,633,854
Total G&A Costs ($US ) $1,837,617 $7,350,469 $7,410,235 $8,142,377 $7,694,710 $7,687,239 $7,687,239 $7,806,773 $7,806,773 $5,550,284 $3,340,696 $921,292 $73,235,704
G&A BY AREA ($US /tonne ore)
G&A Labor $0.25 $0.21 $0.19 $0.18 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.18 $0.19 $0.12 $0.12 $0.05 $0.18
Fixed Costs $0.41 $0.33 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.21 $0.42 $0.00 $0.30
Variable Costs $0.80 $0.66 $0.60 $0.70 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.65 $0.66 $0.48 $0.44 $0.22 $0.64
Total G&A Costs ($US /t) $1.45 $1.20 $1.08 $1.19 $1.12 $1.12 $1.12 $1.14 $1.14 $0.81 $0.98 $0.27 $1.12
PROCES S BY AREA ($US )
Process Labor $1,100,798 $4,403,190 $4,403,190 $4,403,190 $4,403,190 $4,403,190 $4,403,190 $4,403,190 $4,403,190 $4,456,646 $2,228,323 $885,114 $43,896,405
Primary Crushing $89,914 $607,020 $676,737 $678,049 $676,737 $676,737 $676,737 $678,049 $676,737 $676,737 $336,874 $0 $6,450,330
Secondary Crushing $517,152 $3,491,336 $3,899,547 $3,901,609 $3,899,547 $3,899,547 $3,899,547 $3,901,609 $3,899,547 $3,899,547 $1,947,425 $0 $37,156,415
Stacking $172,272 $1,047,150 $1,149,453 $1,150,577 $1,149,453 $1,149,453 $1,149,453 $1,150,577 $1,149,453 $1,149,453 $573,445 $42,120 $11,032,861
Heap Leach $207,541 $1,401,126 $1,559,238 $1,560,362 $1,559,238 $1,559,238 $1,559,238 $1,560,362 $1,559,238 $1,559,238 $778,338 $779,619 $15,642,775
ADR Plant $88,744 $565,855 $594,418 $595,168 $594,418 $594,418 $594,418 $595,168 $594,418 $594,418 $296,355 $94,967 $5,802,766
Refinery $5,580 $161,101 $175,383 $175,758 $175,383 $175,383 $175,383 $175,758 $175,383 $175,383 $87,264 $61,259 $1,719,016
Reagents $2,014,393 $13,343,569 $14,788,157 $14,826,068 $14,788,157 $14,788,157 $14,788,157 $14,826,068 $14,788,157 $14,788,157 $7,350,875 $793,161 $141,883,075
Water Distribution $54,505 $316,590 $245,142 $245,142 $245,142 $245,142 $245,142 $245,142 $245,142 $245,142 $122,571 $65,159 $2,519,963
Laboratory $60,335 $241,340 $246,020 $318,560 $304,520 $331,160 $325,580 $325,580 $365,360 $178,160 $55,960 $34,100 $2,786,675
Support & Services $94,516 $514,949 $512,172 $512,172 $512,172 $512,172 $512,172 $512,172 $512,172 $512,172 $256,086 $103,568 $5,066,494
Total Process Costs ($US ) $4,405,750 $26,093,226 $28,249,458 $28,366,655 $28,307,958 $28,334,598 $28,329,018 $28,373,675 $28,368,798 $28,235,054 $14,033,516 $2,859,068 $273,956,774
PROCES S BY AREA ($US /tonne ore)
Process Labor $0.87 $0.72 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.65 $0.66 $0.26 $0.67
Primary Crushing $0.07 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.00 $0.10
Secondary Crushing $0.41 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 $0.00 $0.57
Stacking $0.14 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.01 $0.17
Heap Leach $0.16 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.24
ADR Plant $0.07 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.03 $0.09
Refinery $0.00 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.02 $0.03
Reagents $1.59 $2.18 $2.16 $2.16 $2.16 $2.16 $2.16 $2.16 $2.16 $2.16 $2.16 $0.23 $2.16
Water Distribution $0.04 $0.05 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.02 $0.04
Laboratory $0.05 $0.04 $0.04 $0.05 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.03 $0.02 $0.01 $0.04
Support & Services $0.07 $0.08 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.08 $0.03 $0.08
Total Process Costs ($US /t) $3.49 $4.26 $4.13 $4.14 $4.14 $4.14 $4.14 $4.14 $4.15 $4.13 $4.13 $0.84 $4.18

May 2013
Table 21-12
Lindero Process Staffing Levels
Average Year Average Year
Job Title Job Title
Qty. Total Cost, US$ Qty. Total Cost, US$
PROCESS LABORATORY
Supervision Metallurgist 1 $79,349
Process Manager 1 $115,351 Metallurgical Technician 1 $35,081
Administrative Technician 1 $42,598 Chief Assayer 2 $114,930
Process General Foreman 1 $60,138 Assayers 2 $70,161
Shift Foreman 4 $173,732 Lab Technician 2 $70,161
Process Maint General Foreman 2 $120,276 Sample Preparation Labor 4 $86,866
Crushing & Grinding TOTAL LABORATORY 12 $456,548
Primary Crusher Operator 4 $140,322
Secondary Crusher Operator 4 $140,322 GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE (STAFF)
Crusher Feed Loader Operator 0 $0 General Manager (ex pat) 1 $189,100
Crusher Helper 8 $227,188 Finance Manager (ex pat) 1 $115,351
Heap Leach Director Community & Government 1 $115,351
Heap Leach Operator 4 $140,322 Purchasing Logistics Administrator 1 $50,115
Reagent Operator 4 $140,322 Purchasing Officer 2 $85,196
Stacking Operator 4 $140,322 Senior Accountant 2 $100,230
Heap Dozer Operator (& relief loader) 4 $140,322 Accounts Payable Clerk 2 $56,797
Piping Crew - Heap Leach 16 $454,376 Human Resources Manager 1 $50,115
Day Laborer 4 $86,866 Human Resources/Payroll Clerk 1 $28,399
Shift Laborer (reliever) 8 $173,732 Security/Safety/Training Manager 1 $50,115
Recovery Plant Safety Officers 2 $85,196
Recovery Plant Operator 8 $280,644 Environmental Supervisor 1 $42,598
Recovery Plant Helper 4 $86,866 IT Administrator 2 $100,230
Refining Operator 2 $88,202 Receptionist/Secretary/Admin Assist 2 $56,797
Refining Helper 2 $56,797 Warehouse Technician 4 $140,322
Process Maintenance GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE (CONTRACT)
Mechanic I 8 $280,644 Doctor / Physician (Contract) 1
Mechanic II 8 $352,810 Nurse (Contract) 3
Mechanic Helper 4 $86,866 Security Guards (Contract) 12
Planner 2 $86,866 Catering/Cleaning Staff 36
Electrician 6 $260,598 Janitor (Contract) incl
Instrumentation Technician 2 $70,161 Camp Cooks (Contract) incl
Power Camp Helpers (Contract) incl
Powerhouse Operator 4 SUBTOTAL G & A (Staff) 24 $1,265,910
Natural Gas Truck Drivers 14 SUBTOTAL G & A (Contract) 52 ---
TOTAL PROCESS 133 $3,946,643 TOTAL G & A Personnel 76 ---

May 2013
21.7.2 Power
Electrical power for the process will be produced at site using natural gas generators,
therefore electrical costs will be driven largely by natural gas prices. Saxum prepared a
detailed buildup of the costs for power generation on first principles which includes the
following considerations (Saxum, 2012):
• Natural gas for power generation, both for generators on site and for
running the compressor and refrigeration units at the mother station in
Pocitos;
• Labor for operating the virtual pipe line and power plant on site;
• Power plant maintenance;
• Virtual pipe line maintenance;
• Diesel fuel for trucks;
• Maintenance of the virtual pipe line trucks and trailers; and
• Maintenance of the road between Pocitos and the site.
The above cost areas are all inclusive in the power cost applied to Lindero. The power
cost assumes a unit price of $US 5.027 per million BTU for natural gas.
The unit price for power for Lindero has been applied at US$0.093 per kWh.
Power usage for the project was derived, starting with the connected-load data from the
mechanical equipment list. Equipment power demands under normal operation were
assigned and coupled with equipment on-stream times to determine the average annual
energy usage and cost. A summary of the power consumption for Lindero by process area
during operations is summarized in Table 21-13.

May 2013
Table 21-13
Process Power and Consumption
Year 1 Year 2-9 Year 10 - 10.5
kWh/year kWh/t kWh/year kWh/t kWh/year kWh/t
Area ore ore ore
Area 13 - Primary Crush 1,916,191 0.315 2,128,358 0.315 1,064,179 0.313
Area 13 - Secondary Crush
/HPGR 21,743,989 3.579 24,148,539 3.578 12,074,269 3.553
Area 15 - Heap Stacking 5,495,856 0.904 6,135,194 0.909 3,067,597 0.903
Area 22 - Leaching 11,113,666 1.829 12,353,095 1.830 6,176,547 1.817
Area 28 - Recovery 592,540 0.099 592,540 0.088 296,270 0.087
Area 31 - Refinery 392,448 0.065 392,448 0.058 196,224 0.058
Area 34 - Reagents 29,353 0.005 29,353 0.004 14,677 0.004
Area 60 - Power 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000
Area 62 - Water 420,849 0.070 433,443 0.064 216,721 0.064
Area 66 - Facilities 3,495,283 0.584 3,465,423 0.516 1,732,711 0.510
Area 68 - Fuel Facilities 116,640 0.019 116,640 0.017 58,320 0.017
Area 75 - Laboratory 51,875 0.009 51,875 0.008 25,937 0.008
TOTAL 45,368,689 7.48 49,846,907 7.39 24,923,453 7.33
21.7.3 Reagents
Operating supply requirements have been estimated based upon unit costs and
consumption, where possible, and have been broken down by area. In the sections below
the assumptions and unit costs associated with the development of the operating costs are
presented. All freight costs have been included. Reagent consumptions are derived from
test work performed for Lindero and from the process Design Criteria. Other costs were
estimated from past KCA experience with similar operations. Table 21-14 shows the
consumption of major consumables and Table 21-15 shows the reagent prices used.

May 2013
Table 21-14
Process Consumable Items
Annual
Item Form Storage Capacity
Consumption
Sodium Cyanide Briquettes - 1 tonne Supersacks 250 tonnes 3,375 tonnes
Lime Bulk Delivery (27 tonne) 150 tonnes 18,600 tonnes
Activated Carbon 500 kg Supersacks 8 tonnes 68 tonnes
Antiscalant Liquid Tote 1 m3 Bins 10 m3 100 m3
Sodium Hydroxide Dry Solid Sacks 10 tonnes 113 tonnes
Hydrochloric Acid Liquid Tote 1 m3 Bins 20 m3 340 m3
Silica Dry Solid Sacks 1 tonne 3.4 tonnes
Borax Dry Solid Sacks 1 tonne 5.4 tonnes
Niter Dry Solid Sacks 1 tonne 2.7 tonnes
Soda Ash Dry Solid Sacks 1 tonne 2.0 tonnes
Natural Gas (Process) Bulk Delivery (truck) N/A* 400,000 m3
*Primary storage is for power generation.
Operating costs for these items have been distributed based on tonnage and gold
production, or smelting batches, as appropriate.
Table 21-15
Reagent Prices
Unit
Reagent Freight Unit
Price
Sodium Cyanide 3.44 included US$/kg
Sodium Hydroxide 0.76 0.41 US$/kg
Lime 0.19 included US$/kg
Hydrochloric Acid 1.08 0.41 US$/L
Antiscalant 2.24 0.41 US$/L
Fluxes 1.47 0.41 US$/kg
Diesel No. 2 1.10 0.41 US$/L
Carbon 2.40 0.41 US$/kg
Natural Gas 5.03 --- US$/MMBtu
21.7.4 Crusher Wear Parts
Crusher liners and other wear parts for the primary (jaw) and secondary (cone) crushing
areas were based on a unit cost per tonne of material processed. The unit cost was
developed from recent projects and KCA project files.

May 2013
21.7.5 HPGR Roll Replacement
Costs for periodic wear replacement of HPGR rolls was based on quotations from
suppliers. The replacement interval for the tires was determined by special wear test work
performed by vendors on the Lindero ore with an applied safety factor.
21.7.6 Crusher Overhaul and Maintenance
Overhaul and maintenance for the crusher and HPGR equipment was based on a unit cost
per tonne of material processed. The unit cost was developed from recent projects and
KCA project files.
21.7.7 Heap Leach Consumables
Heap leach consumables include expenses for broken pipe, fittings and valves and
abandoned drip tubing.
21.7.8 Natural Gas (ADR Plant)
Natural gas is consumed in the process by the carbon regeneration kiln, elution solution
boiler, and the smelting furnace in the refinery. Total consumption of natural gas for all
equipment is 1,177 MMBtu annually (32,240 Nm3) and is based on process calculations
and vendor information.
21.7.9 Water Distribution Pipeline (Well Generators)
Well pumps at the two remote wells (located 13km from site) will be run using diesel
generators. Diesel fuel consumption to pump an average of approximately 50 m3/h to site
continuously is estimated at 177,000 L per year.

May 2013
21.7.10 Laboratory
Fire assaying and solution assaying of samples from both the mine and processing plant
areas will be conducted in the on-site laboratory. The total number of samples processed
will vary by year due to the requirements of the mine. KCA has assumed a cost of US$
5.00/assay and US$ 1.50/assay for processing solids and solution assays respectively.
21.7.11 Fuels
Natural gas will be required for stripping, carbon regeneration, and smelting operations as
described above.
Diesel fuel will be required to operate various mobile equipment around the processing
areas. The cost of diesel fuel is included in the hourly operating cost for these units.
21.7.12 Mobile Equipment
Numerous pieces of support equipment are required for the processing area of the project.
These include light vehicles, a flatbed truck, Bobcat Loader, forklifts, a 50 ton crane, a
boom truck, backhoe, and a dozer. The costs to operate and maintain each of these pieces
of equipment has been estimated using, primarily published information. Otherwise,
allowances have been made based upon experience in similar operations.
Support equipment average annual operating costs have been estimated at $348,000 per
year.
21.7.13 Maintenance and Repair Materials
The maintenance and supply costs used in the study are factored from data obtained from
other operations, as applicable. Operating costs for these items have been distributed
based on tonnage, gold production, or smelting batches as appropriate.
Maintenance and repair supply costs is estimated to average $0.119 per tonne of ore.

May 2013
21.8 General and Administrative
The G&A costs include the costs of general management personnel and general fixed
bonuses and expenses common to the operation. These costs were generated by Goldrock
with review by KCA, based on experience and factoring from similar projects in the
region. The costs were split in fixed and variable cost and labor and operating cost,
respectively.
21.8.1 Fixed Costs
Fixed costs are those costs which remain stable when production increases. The major
components of the fixed costs are:
• G&A Labor;
• Salta office operating expenses and head office charges;
• Communications systems;
• Insurance;
• Community assistance and donations, government affairs and public
relations;
• Environmental permits, licenses, fees, and consultants;
• Property taxes.
21.8.2 Variable Costs
Variable costs are those costs which vary with production. The major components of the
variable costs are:
• Contract labor, including all personnel working mainly at the mine;

• Camp accommodation at US$35/man-day;
• Site environmental management and monitoring;
• Road, yards, and building maintenance;
• Power generation and maintenance for the camp;
• Light vehicles;
• Employee transportation by bus; and

May 2013
• Security costs (based upon a similar project).
Allowances have also been made, based on costs from similar operations, for a range of
general costs, including safety supplies, training programs, consultants, recruiting and
relocation, outside laboratory services, medical supplies and medical services, and costs
for regulatory compliance.
Table 21-16
G&A Cost Summary
Area $/tonne ore
G&A Labor $0.18
Fixed Costs $0.30
Variable Costs $0.64
Total G&A Costs $1.12
The G&A costs for labor for Owner staffing are shown previously in Table 21-12, and
total approximately US$ 1.27 million annually. This cost excludes contract personnel and
operational G&A expenses.

May 2013
22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
22.1 Summary
Based on the estimated production parameters, revenue, capital costs, and operating
costs, taxes and royalties, a cash flow model was prepared by KCA for the economic
analysis of the Lindero project. All of the information used in this economic evaluation
has been taken from work completed by KCA and other consultants working on this
project as described in previous sections of this report.
The Lindero project economics were evaluated using a discounted cash flow (DCF)
method, which estimates the Net Present Value (NPV) of future cash flow streams. The
final economic model was developed by KCA, with input from Goldrock, using the
following assumptions:
• Period of Analysis of 15 years (includes one year of pre-production and

investment), 10 years of production, and four years for closure and
reclamation;
• Gold price of US$ 1,400/oz ;
• Processing rate of 18,750 tpd ore;
• Heap leach gold recoveries of 67.9%, 73.6%, 69.3%, and 61.7% for
metallurgical ore types Met I, II, III, and IV respectively;
• Capital and operating costs as developed in Section 21 of this report; and
• Closure capital costs as outlined in Section 20.
The project economics based on these criteria from the cash flow model are summarized
in Table 22-1.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 22 - Economic Analysis

May 2013
Table 22-1
Life of Mine Summary
Financial Analysis
Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Pre-Tax 40.9%
Internal Rate of Return (IRR), After-Tax 33.4%
NPV @ 5% (Pre-Tax) $ 313.5 M

NPV @ 8% (Pre-Tax) $ 248.4 M

Gold Price Assumption (US$/Ounce) $1,400

Pay Back Period (Years based on After-tax) 2.0 Years
Initial Capital Costs

Pre-Production Initial Capital $ 139.8 M
Working Capital and Initial Fills $ 15.6 M
Value Added Tax (Tax) $ 15.5 M
Total Initial Capital $ 170.9 M
Future Capital (Life of Mine, Excluding VAT) $ 64.1 M
Operating Costs (Average Life of Mine)

Mining (Contract and Owner) $ 4.77/Tonne
Processing $ 4.18/Tonne
G&A $ 1.12/Tonne
Total Operating Cost/Tonne Ore $ 10.07/Tonne
Cash Operating Costs (per ounce of gold) $ 637/Ounce
Cash Operating Costs (including refining & shipping) $ 647/Ounce
Production Data
Life of Mine 10 Years
Mine Throughput (Ore) 6.75 M TPY / 18,750 TPD
Metallurgical Recovery Au (Avg) 68.3%
Average Annual Gold Production (Years 1-9) 109,000 Ounces
Average LOM Strip Ratio (waste:ore) 1.79:1

May 2013
22.2 Methodology
The Lindero project economics are evaluated using a discounted cash flow (DCF)
method. The DCF method requires that annual cash inflows and outflows are projected,
from which the resulting net annual cash flows are estimated and then discounted back to
the project evaluation date. Considerations for this analysis include the following:
• The cash flow model was prepared by KCA with input from Goldrock;
• The period of analysis is 15 years (including one year of pre-production
and investment), 10 years of production, and four years for closure and
reclamation;
• All cash flow amounts are in US dollars (US$). All costs are considered to
be 4th quarter 2012 or 1st quarter 2013 costs. Inflation is not included in
this model;
• The Argentina Peso exchange rate is 5.0 Pesos to the US dollar for all
operating costs, but it is 4.7 Pesos to the US dollar for any mechanical
equipment quotes received in Argentina;
• The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is calculated as the discount rate that
yields a Net Present Value (NPV) of zero;
• The NPV is calculated by discounting the annual cash back to Year -1 at
different discount rates. All annual cash flows are assumed to occur at the
end of each respective year;
• The Payback Period is the amount of time, in years, required to recover the
Initial Construction Capital cost;
• Working Capital is included in the model;
• Value-Added-Tax (VAT) of 10.5% on goods and machinery and 21% on
services is applied in the model, and fully recovered in subsequent years;
• Government royalties and taxes are included in the model;
• 100% equity financing is assumed; and
• Reclamation and Closure costs are included in the model.

May 2013
22.3 General Assumptions
A summary of the general assumptions for cost inputs, parameters, royalties, and taxes
used in the economic analysis are as follows.
• The financial analysis assumes that detailed engineering begins in

September 2013 (Year -1) with site construction commencing in December
2013. The first gold pour is assumed to occur in November 2014;
• The gold pay factor is 99.9%, equal to a refinery deduction of $1.40 at the
base case gold price. A refining charge of $5.00 per ounce is included,
plus shipping and insurance costs of $5.21 per ounce;
• A gold price of US$1,400/oz is used as the base case commodity price;
• Gold production and revenue in the model are delayed one month from the
time ore is stacked. This delay reflects the time required to recover gold
from the heap;
• The life-of-mine average operating costs are US$4.77/tonne for mining
(owner plus contract), US$4.18/tonne for processing, and US$1.12/tonne
for G&A. Specific annual operating costs are applied to the cash flow
model as shown in Table 22-4;
• The initial capital costs for project construction are incurred in the first
year of development (Year -1). The following expansion and sustaining
capital is also included (Table 22-2):
o Replacement of mining equipment throughout the project life;
o Expansion of the heap leach in Year 1;
o Expansion of the ADR plant to include a third carbon column train
in Year 3; and
o Replacement of contract mining with owner mining in Year 3,
incorporating significant investment in mining equipment;
• The variable Argentine Value Added Tax of 10.5% (certain equipment and
assets) and 21% (services and contracts) is included, and it is assumed that
the VAT will be recovered, with reimbursements delayed by 9 to 12
months;
• A 3.00% royalty is payable on the net smelter return, less all operating
costs except mining. This royalty applies to 100% of the production
tonnage;
• A working capital of three months of operating cost during the pre-
production ramp-up period (a total of approximately 900,000 tonnes of ore)

May 2013
is included. Initial fill reagents (such as cyanide, carbon, etc) are also
included as part of the working capital. The assumption is made that all
working capital can be recovered at the project termination, and so the
effective sum of working capital over the life of mine is zero;
• Closure costs of US$ 21.3 million are included, which occur during the
final Years 10-14 of the project;
• Taxes have been applied, with this information provided to KCA by
Goldrock, through Ernst & Young. Axemen Resource Capital Ltd. assisted
in preparing the income tax schedule for the model. Some of the key tax
assumptions are:
o An accelerated 60-20-20 depreciation schedule (60% depreciation
the first year, 20% second year, 20% third year) is applied to all
processing direct capital costs, including ongoing mine
development and exploration activities;
o An accelerated 3-year straight line depreciation (33.3% for each of
the first three years after expenditure) is applied to mine mobile
equipment, freight on all purchases, import tax, EPCM costs,
indirect mine and processing costs, pre-production Owner’s Costs,
and initial fills;
o The Argentine income tax rate of 35% is applied to the estimated
taxable income;
o An export tax was included in the model and it is equal to 4.7619%
of the gold net revenue (gross revenue of gold minus the refining
costs); and
o An import tax of 1.0% is added for all equipment that is purchased
outside of Argentina.
Table 22-2
Capital Cost Summary
Cost, US$ Millions
Initial / Construction Capital (Including Working Capital and VAT) 170.9
Future Capital (Excluding VAT) 64.1
Closure Costs 21.3
Salvage Value 10.8
Life of Mine Capital Costs (excluding closure and salvage) 203.9
Note: Total Project Capital Cost includes working capital recovery and VAT credit

May 2013
22.3.1 “All In” Operating Cost
The World Gold Council (WGC) which is the market development organization for the
gold industry is working with the Major gold mining companies in having the gold
mining industry adopting an "all-in sustaining cash cost" measure that the World Gold
Council believes more fully defines the total costs associated with producing gold. All-in
sustaining cash costs include, sustaining capital, corporate general and administrative
expenses and exploration expense. As such the measure seeks to reflect the full cost of
gold production from current operations. A final standard is expected to be finalized by
WGC members in the middle of 2013.
These “all-in sustaining cash costs” are higher than the traditional cash cost of production
announced by companies. For instance, both Barrick and Goldcorp estimated that their
all-in cash costs are projected at between $1,000 and $1,100 an ounce for 2013. However,
mining firms say the new metric is more transparent. This new metric will essentially
include all the costs associated with producing an ounce of gold and this should make it
much easier to derive margins for each company at any given gold price, and facilitate
sector comparisons. The World Gold Council notes recent discussion on the subject of
‘all-in costs’ and recognizes that investors, governments and other stakeholders are keen
to understand better the complex economics of gold mining.
Goldrock is also committed to transparency hence is reporting this metric.
22.3.2 Average Cash Cost
The average cash cost for the life of the mine is calculated by adding all the mining,
process and G&A operating costs and dividing that number by the total ounces payable.
The total operating costs for the project are US$ 660 million with the total payable
ounces at 1,037,000 ounce; equating to an average cash cost per ounce of US$ 637.
Including $10.21/oz in refining costs, the average cash cost per ounce is US$ 647.
22.4 Financial Model and Results
A discounted cash flow (DCF) method was used to evaluate the economics of the Lindero
project. The DCF method measures the Net Present Value (NPV) of future cash flow

May 2013
streams. This financial model has been developed by KCA with input from Goldrock
and their consultants. Table 22-3 shows the key financial parameters derived from the
cash flow analysis. Table 22-4 presents the cash flows.
Table 22-3
Key Financial Parameters
Item Parameter Unit
Au price 1400 $/oz
Au Recovery Met 1 67.9 %
Ag Recovery Weighted Avg. 68.3 %
Treatment rate 18,750 t/d
Refining cost Au (includes shipping) 10.21 $/oz

Payable factor 99.9 %
Argentina tax rate 35 %
Pre-Tax NPV i, % Post-Tax NPV

$465,088,055 0 $325,054,910
$313,472,923 5 $215,043,911
$248,417,384 8 $167,494,477
$212,827,407 10 $141,376,837
$144,030,514 15 $90,649,655
40.9% IRR 33.4%
Annual Au oz (avg Years 1-9) 109,000

Total Au oz produced 1,038,000 (Rounded to nearest 100 oz)
Total Au oz payable 1,037,000 (Rounded to nearest 100 oz)
Cash Cost/oz Au, $ 637 Per payable ounce

Cash Cost/oz Au, $ (including refining) 647 Per payable ounce
Mine life 10 years

Payback 2.0 years

May 2013
Table 22-4
Cash Flow Analysis
Total Mined Total Year -1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14
Total Ore 65,545,576 2,045,593 8,048,874 8,539,612 4,385,757 6,593,188 10,874,192 5,131,832 7,032,920 8,778,923 4,114,685 0 0 0 0 0
Au, g/t 0.72 0.85 0.99 0.79 0.72 0.63 0.62 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.66
contained Au, oz 1,518,977 55,677 256,399 217,383 100,902 134,303 218,415 112,143 153,756 182,273 87,727 0 0 0 0 0
Total mined 183,113,258 3,211,520 9,984,511 14,821,867 24,934,343 25,549,864 24,637,284 28,419,914 25,619,984 20,075,358 5,858,613 0 0 0 0 0
Strip Ratio (W:O) 1.79 0.57 0.24 0.74 4.69 2.88 1.27 4.54 2.64 1.29 0.42
Ore Processed to Heap Leach Total Year -1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11
Met I 43,992,710 128,107 3,934,067 3,721,985 3,864,136 2,346,396 5,205,639 4,197,553 5,484,375 6,106,347 6,158,796 2,845,309
Au, g/t 0.74 1.11 1.15 0.92 0.77 0.64 0.77 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.58 0.41
Contained Au, oz 1,048,914 4,577 144,969 109,792 95,282 48,634 129,183 93,073 127,405 143,396 114,982 37,621
Recoverable Au Stacked, Oz
Met II 9,586,023 1,132,214 1,693,404 2,469,185 1,201,656 1,355,054 175,413 1,037,965 224,668 76,750 119,786 99,927
Au, g/t 0.79 0.98 1.07 0.84 0.62 0.65 0.73 0.60 0.48 0.42 0.42 0.42
Contained Au, oz 244,817 35,643 58,400 66,746 24,085 28,316 4,108 20,126 3,431 1,025 1,600 1,335
Met III 5,778,400 379 0 36,130 1,033,436 2,112,589 820,653 884,192 364,408 136,371 212,757 177,485
Au, g/t 0.55 0.38 0.00 0.49 0.58 0.62 0.62 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
Contained Au, oz 102,615 5 0 574 19,385 42,151 16,272 12,391 4,841 1,812 2,826 2,358
Met IV 6,188,139 2,530 498,447 612,700 759,513 1,025,960 638,296 720,289 785,289 520,532 348,661 275,923
Au, g/t 0.62 0.99 0.90 0.80 0.61 0.56 0.62 0.51 0.64 0.59 0.43 0.41
Contained Au, oz 122,625 81 14,440 15,781 14,785 18,534 12,714 11,797 16,170 9,847 4,807 3,669
Total Ore Processed, tonnes 65,545,272 1,263,231 6,125,918 6,840,000 6,858,740 6,840,000 6,840,000 6,840,000 6,858,740 6,840,000 6,840,000 3,398,644
Au, g/t 0.72 0.99 1.11 0.88 0.70 0.63 0.74 0.62 0.69 0.71 0.56 0.41
Contained Au, oz 1,518,970 40,305 217,810 192,894 153,537 137,635 162,277 137,388 151,847 156,079 124,216 44,982
Recoverable Gold Stacked, oz 1,038,047 28,210 150,328 133,806 104,985 94,510 109,872 93,881 102,377 105,465 84,186 30,428
Gold Recovered to Dore 1,038,047 3,995 118,959 143,721 122,427 87,742 105,372 101,546 96,880 104,430 99,008 50,949 3,018
Pay factor 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9%
Payable Gold Produced 1,037,009 3,991 118,840 143,577 122,305 87,654 105,267 101,444 96,783 104,326 98,909 50,898 3,015
Gold price 1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400
Gross Revenue $1,451,812,582 $5,586,879 $166,376,184 $201,007,925 $171,226,554 $122,716,221 $147,373,411 $142,022,230 $135,495,978 $146,056,227 $138,472,722 $71,256,841 $4,221,408
Refining charge $10,587,862 $40,744 $1,213,358 $1,465,922 $1,248,731 $894,952 $1,074,773 $1,035,748 $988,153 $1,065,167 $1,009,862 $519,666 $30,786
NET REVENUE $1,441,224,720 $5,546,135 $165,162,827 $199,542,003 $169,977,824 $121,821,269 $146,298,638 $140,986,482 $134,507,826 $144,991,060 $137,462,860 $70,737,175 $4,190,622 $0 $0 $0
OPERATING COSTS
Mining Cost (Owner) $256,525,104 $2,652,139 $7,465,062 $10,560,048 $33,462,075 $35,135,800 $36,850,053 $39,030,655 $37,102,312 $33,598,935 $16,898,214 $3,769,811 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mining Cost (Contract) $313,138,310 $56,613,206 $4,245,077 $17,632,057 $27,880,934 $6,855,138 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Processing Cost $273,956,774 $4,405,750 $26,093,226 $28,249,458 $28,366,655 $28,307,958 $28,334,598 $28,329,018 $28,373,675 $28,368,798 $28,235,054 $16,892,584 $0 $0 $0 $0
G&A Cost $73,235,704 $1,837,617 $7,350,469 $7,410,235 $8,142,377 $7,694,710 $7,687,239 $7,687,239 $7,806,773 $7,806,773 $5,550,284 $4,261,988 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $660,330,789 $13,140,582.61 $58,540,814 $74,100,675 $76,826,245 $71,138,468 $72,871,890 $75,046,912 $73,282,760 $69,774,506 $50,683,552 $24,924,383 $0 $0 $0 $0
OPERATNG CASH FLOW $780,893,932 -$7,594,448 $106,622,013 $125,441,328 $93,151,578 $50,682,801 $73,426,747 $65,939,570 $61,225,065 $75,216,554 $86,779,308 $45,812,792 $4,190,622 $0 $0 $0
TAXES
Royalty Payable $32,841,884 $0 $3,951,574 $4,916,469 $4,004,064 $2,574,558 $3,308,304 $3,149,107 $2,949,821 $3,264,465 $3,110,326 $1,487,478 $125,719 $0 $0 $0
Export Tax Payable $68,629,680 $264,101 $7,864,889 $9,501,991 $8,094,174 $5,801,007 $6,966,595 $6,713,635 $6,405,128 $6,904,329 $6,545,844 $3,368,434 $199,553 $0 $0 $0
Income Tax Payable $140,033,145 $0 $0 $16,878,612 $12,853,965 $6,703,090 $15,276,848 $13,111,253 $15,547,906 $20,048,137 $25,043,809 $13,276,038 $1,293,487 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TAXES $241,504,709 $264,101 $11,816,463 $31,297,072 $24,952,203 $15,078,655 $25,551,747 $22,973,995 $24,902,856 $30,216,930 $34,699,979 $18,131,950 $1,618,759 $0 $0 $0
CASH FLOW BEFORE CAPITAL $539,389,223 -$7,858,549 $94,805,550 $94,144,257 $68,199,375 $35,604,146 $47,875,000 $42,965,575 $36,322,210 $44,999,623 $52,079,330 $27,680,842 $2,571,864 $0 $0 $0

May 2013
Table 22-4 Cont’d

Cash Flow Analysis
CAPITAL COSTS Tax Categ Total Year -1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14
Other Mine Capital 1 $3,698,282 $1,463,432 $26,840 $116,040 $1,165,930 $75,450 $366,900 $30,240 $399,450 $54,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Exploration 1 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mine Equipment 2 $40,100,661 $1,026,800 $1,026,800 $5,572,800 $27,274,261 $1,300,000 $2,600,000 $0 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Major Earthworks & Liner (Supply & Install) 1 $16,869,465 $10,728,431 $6,141,034
Civils (Supply & Install) 1 $4,272,469 $4,219,959 $52,510
Structural Steel (Supply & Install) 1 $2,401,466 $2,185,651 $215,815
Platework (Supply & Install) 1 $4,839,667 $4,298,257 $541,410
Mechanical Equipment (Supply) 1 $43,013,874 $41,153,944 $1,750,000 $109,930
Mechanical Equipment (Install) 1 $4,942,870 $4,755,190 $164,070 $23,610
Piping (Supply & Install) 1 $8,182,355 $6,987,051 $1,195,304
Electrical (Supply) 1 $3,284,295 $3,130,362 $143,981 $9,952
Electrical (Install) 1 $3,414,551 $3,272,662 $133,644 $8,245
Instrumentation (Supply & Install) 1 $1,070,639 $987,336 $79,980 $3,322
Infrastructure (Supply & Install) 1 $12,419,449 $12,419,449
Spare Parts 1 $3,923,378 $3,867,580 $52,500 $3,298
Freight 2 $6,753,992 $2,149,654 $228,074 $585,804 $3,183,028 $151,102 $302,204 $3,024 $151,102
Import Tax 2 $530,714 $125,180 $10,278 $55,768 $279,045 $13,550 $29,260 $302 $16,790 $540
Contingency 1 $15,120,414 $11,667,273 $1,383,709 $278,840 $1,488,381 $67,750 $146,300 $1,512 $83,950 $2,700
EPCM 2 $14,597,565 $13,150,499 $1,325,441 $121,625
Indirect Costs 2 $4,334,418 $3,609,914 $408,358 $316,146
Owner's Costs 2 $8,603,267 $8,603,267
Subtotal $203,873,790 $139,801,892 $14,122,522 $6,609,252 $34,743,998 $1,607,852 $3,444,664 $535,078 $2,451,292 $557,240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Working Capital (Initial Fills) 2 $2,437,338 $2,437,338
Working Capital (90 Days) 8 $13,140,583 $13,140,583
Less: Working Capital Recovery 9 $15,577,921 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,788,960 $7,788,960 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Working Capital $0 $15,577,921 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$7,788,960 -$7,788,960 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $203,873,790 $155,379,812 $14,122,522 $6,609,252 $34,743,998 $1,607,852 $3,444,664 $535,078 $2,451,292 $557,240 -$7,788,960 -$7,788,960 $0 $0 $0 $0
VAT Paid (Supply) 8 $15,117,937 $9,655,151 $1,239,630 $585,564 $3,002,946 $142,275 $307,230 $3,175 $176,295 $5,670
VAT Paid (Services) 8 $7,353,414 $5,875,745 $757,167 $88,033 $542,648 $22,376 $44,752 $318 $22,376
Less: VAT (Rebate) 9 $22,471,351 $15,530,896 $1,996,797 $673,597 $3,545,595 $164,651 $351,982 $3,493 $198,671 $5,670 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net VAT $0 $15,530,896 -$13,534,099 -$1,323,200 $2,871,998 -$3,380,944 $187,331 -$348,489 $195,178 -$193,001 -$5,670 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $203,873,790 $170,910,709 $588,423 $5,286,052 $37,615,996 -$1,773,092 $3,631,995 $186,589 $2,646,470 $364,239 -$7,794,630 -$7,788,960 $0 $0 $0 $0
Reclaimation & Closure 8 $21,269,654 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $776,559 $7,120,695 $3,929,655 $6,379,334 $3,063,411

Less: Salvage 9 $10,809,131 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,015,099 $1,342,329 $0 $0 $3,451,703
TOTAL CAPITAL $214,334,313 $170,910,709 $588,423 $5,286,052 $37,615,996 -$1,773,092 $3,631,995 $186,589 $2,646,470 $364,239 -$7,794,630 -$13,027,500 $5,778,366 $3,929,655 $6,379,334 -$388,292
CLASSIFICATION OF CAPITAL FOR INCOME TAX

Investment in Infrastructure (60 / 20 / 20) 1 $128,953,173 $111,136,577 $11,123,571 $394,880 $3,569,893 $143,200 $513,200 $531,752 $983,400 $556,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment / Other (33.3 / 33.3 / 33.3) 2 $77,357,955 $31,102,653 $2,998,951 $6,214,372 $31,174,105 $1,464,652 $2,931,464 $3,326 $1,467,892 $540 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Not depreciated or amortized 8 $56,881,588 $28,671,479 $1,996,797 $673,597 $3,545,595 $164,651 $351,982 $3,493 $198,671 $5,670 $0 $776,559 $7,120,695 $3,929,655 $6,379,334 $3,063,411
Rebates and recoveries 9 $48,858,403 $0 $15,530,896 $1,996,797 $673,597 $3,545,595 $164,651 $351,982 $3,493 $198,671 $7,794,630 $13,804,059 $1,342,329 $0 $0 $3,451,703
$214,334,313 $170,910,709 $588,423 $5,286,052 $37,615,996 -$1,773,092 $3,631,995 $186,589 $2,646,470 $364,239 -$7,794,630 -$13,027,500 $5,778,366 $3,929,655 $6,379,334 -$388,292
AFTER-TAX NET CASH FLOW

After-tax Net Cash Flow $325,054,910 -$178,769,258 $94,217,127 $88,858,205 $30,583,379 $37,377,237 $44,243,006 $42,778,986 $33,675,740 $44,635,384 $59,873,960 $40,708,342 -$3,206,502 -$3,929,655 -$6,379,334 $388,292
Cumulative -$178,769,258 -$84,552,130 $4,306,075 $34,889,454 $72,266,691 $116,509,697 $159,288,683 $192,964,423 $237,599,807 $297,473,767 $338,182,109 $334,975,606 $331,045,952 $324,666,618 $325,054,910
PRE-TAX NET CASH FLOW

After-tax Net Cash Flow $325,054,910 -$178,769,258 $94,217,127 $88,858,205 $30,583,379 $37,377,237 $44,243,006 $42,778,986 $33,675,740 $44,635,384 $59,873,960 $40,708,342 -$3,206,502 -$3,929,655 -$6,379,334 $388,292
Add back royalty
Add back export tax
Add back income tax $140,033,145 $0 $0 $16,878,612 $12,853,965 $6,703,090 $15,276,848 $13,111,253 $15,547,906 $20,048,137 $25,043,809 $13,276,038 $1,293,487 $0 $0 $0
Pre-tax net cash flow $465,088,055 -$178,769,258 $94,217,127 $105,736,817 $43,437,345 $44,080,328 $59,519,854 $55,890,239 $49,223,646 $64,683,521 $84,917,769 $53,984,380 -$1,913,016 -$3,929,655 -$6,379,334 $388,292
Cumulative -$178,769,258 -$84,552,130 $21,184,686 $64,622,031 $108,702,359 $168,222,212 $224,112,451 $273,336,097 $338,019,618 $422,937,387 $476,921,767 $475,008,751 $471,079,097 $464,699,763 $465,088,055

May 2013
Table 22-4 Cont’d

Cash Flow Analysis
COST OF PRODUCTION SUMMARY TOTAL Year -1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14
Payable Oz Produced 1,037,009 3,991 118,840 143,577 122,305 87,654 105,267 101,444 96,783 104,326 98,909 50,898 3,015
Cash Cost $660,330,789 $13,140,583 $58,540,814 $74,100,675 $76,826,245 $71,138,468 $72,871,890 $75,046,912 $73,282,760 $69,774,506 $50,683,552 $24,924,383 $0
per Payable Oz $637 $3,293 $493 $516 $628 $812 $692 $740 $757 $669 $512 $490 $0
per Payable Oz (including refining) $647 $3,303 $503 $526 $638 $822 $702 $750 $767 $679 $523 $500 $10
All in Operating Cost

Sustaining Capital (Excludes Expansion Capital) $2,666,000 $0 $0 $371,000 $53,000 $318,000 $500,000 $871,000 $553,000 $0 $0 $0
Corporate G&A $21,985,000 $2,198,500 $2,198,500 $2,198,500 $2,198,500 $2,198,500 $2,198,500 $2,198,500 $2,198,500 $2,198,500 $1,099,250 $1,099,250
All in Operating Cost $684,981,789 $13,140,583 $60,739,314 $76,299,175 $79,395,745 $73,389,968 $75,388,390 $77,745,412 $76,352,260 $72,526,006 $52,882,052 $26,023,633 $1,099,250
per Payable Oz $661 $3,293 $511 $531 $649 $837 $716 $766 $789 $695 $535 $511 $365
per Payable Oz (including royalties & refining) $702 $3,303 $555 $576 $692 $877 $758 $808 $830 $737 $576 $551 $416
Total Cost Including Initial & Expansion Capital

Initial & Expansion Capital $211,668,313
Total Cost Including Capital $896,650,101
per Payable Oz $865

May 2013
22.5 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity of project economics to key parameters including gold price, total capital cost
(including reclamation, closure and salvage) and average operating cash cost per ounce
gold has been prepared. The after-tax sensitivity analysis is presented in Table 22-5, and
graphically in Figures 22-1, 22-2, 22-3 & 22-4. The economic indicators chosen for
sensitivity evaluation are the internal rate of return (IRR) and NPV at 0%, 5% and 8%
discount rates. This analysis indicates that the project has robust economics across the
range of variation in the key parameters examined. The project is most sensitive to
revenue (gold price, ore grade and recovery), followed by operating costs (as expressed
by average operating cash cost per ounce gold) and total capital cost.
Table 22-5
Sensitivity Analysis (After Tax)
NPV (in US$)
Variation IRR (After-Tax) 0% 5% 8%
Gold Price (% of Base Case)
86% 1,200.00 21.7% $200,692,086 $121,073,405 $86,843,744
93% 1,300.00 27.6% $262,873,498 $168,065,462 $127,178,838
100% 1,400.00 33.4% $325,054,910 $215,043,911 $167,494,477
107% 1,500.00 39.0% $387,236,321 $262,022,359 $207,810,117
114% 1,600.00 44.5% $449,415,766 $308,898,693 $247,976,544
Total Capital Cost (% of Base Case)

80% $171,767,450 44.2% $353,284,993 $242,638,107 $194,694,556
90% $193,050,882 38.2% $339,169,951 $228,841,009 $181,094,517
100% $214,334,313 33.4% $325,054,910 $215,043,911 $167,494,477
110% $235,617,744 29.4% $310,939,868 $201,246,813 $153,894,438
120% $256,901,175 26.0% $296,824,826 $187,449,714 $140,294,399
Average Operating Cash Cost/Oz (% of Base Case)

80% $509 40.9% $408,586,754 $278,128,417 $221,586,845
90% $573 37.1% $366,820,832 $246,586,164 $194,540,661
100% $637 33.4% $325,054,910 $215,043,911 $167,494,477
110% $700 29.5% $283,288,987 $183,501,658 $140,448,293
120% $764 25.7% $241,523,065 $151,959,405 $113,402,109

May 2013
Figure 22-1
After-Tax IRR vs. Gold Price, Capital Cost, and Operating Cash Cost
After Tax IRR
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
IRR
25% Gold Price
Total Capital Cost
20% Avg Op Cash Cost/Oz
15%
10%
5%
0%
80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120%
Percentage of Base Case

May 2013
Figure 22-2
NPV @ 0% vs. Gold Price, Capital Cost, and Operating Cash Cost
After Tax NPV @ 0%
$500
$450
$400
$350
NPV, Million US $
$300
$250 Gold Price
Total Capital Cost
$200 Avg Op Cash Cost/Oz
$150
$100
$50
$0
80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120%

May 2013
Figure 22-3
After Tax NPV @ 5%
$500
$450
$400
$350
NPV, Million US $
$300
$250 Gold Price
Total Capital Cost
$150
$100
$50
$0
80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120%

May 2013
Figure 22-4
After Tax NPV @ 8%
$500
$450
$400
$350
NPV, Million US $
$300
$250 Gold Price
Total Capital Cost
$150
$100
$50
$0
80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120%

May 2013
23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES
There are no immediately adjacent properties to the Lindero Project.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 23 – Adjacent Properties

May 2013
24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
24.1 Hydrology
24.1.1 General Characteristics and Climate
For general characterization of the area it is important to know that the Project, located
within the Puna region, has a desert/arid climate. Rainfall in the region normally does not
exceed 50 mm per year, evapotranspiration values are high and exceed 2,000 mm per
year, and the soil retention capacity is low at 50 mm. These characteristics result in a
significant deficit of water throughout the year, evidenced by the desert landscape. The
only surface runoff is observed during the few precipitation events in summer. Very few
permanent streams are observed, and generally streams are temporary and lagoons
(vegas) are very small.
The regional geomorphology described in the environmental baseline study and

environmental impact assessment study outlines an extensive environment of quaternary
and tertiary sedimentary basins and valleys formed by ancient alluvial cones, coalescent
alluvial deposits and salt lakes. The ranges of higher altitude formed by volcanic and
intrusive rocks are zones where precipitation (mainly snow) is more significant; these
ranges recharge the lower alluvial basins.
During exploration of Lindero, numerous wells or pools were dug adjacent to the
perimeter of the Salar de Arizaro to supply water for drilling activities and camp usage.
These wells and pools provided water of good quality and were recharged at sufficient
rates to suggest a sufficient quantity of extractable water resources for the Project.
24.1.2 Hydrology and Hydrogeology
Goldrock commissioned Vector Argentina SA (Ausenco) and Conhidro to conduct a

hydrologic study of the Project area, during the detailing of the environment base line
map and Environment Impact Assessment study. As part of the study, the Rio Grande
hydrologic basin was defined through the study of various field parameters and review of
satellite images. The basin was determined to be 1,687 km2 in size. The basin includes
seven hydrologic sub-basins, namely the Rio Grande, Peninsula, Cori, Arita, Chachas,
Lindero and Emboscadero. Only the four sub-basins Arita, Chachas, Lindero and
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 24 - Other Relevant Data and Information
May 2013
N 43-101 Tech
Embo oscadero weere studied with the pu urpose of fiinding wateer supply foor the mininng
operaation. These sub-basins are
a briefly deescribed beloow:
• Chhachas sub-bbasin - the most

m extensivve in the areea at 808 km m2, Chachas is
chaaracterized by
b a big widde alluvial vaalley flankedd by rocky ooutcrops witth
tem
mporary streaams, and somme springs ((vegas) and ttemporary snnow cover;
• Linndero sub-baasin - this baasin extends for 234.8 kkm2 entirely in the area oof
thee project. Strreams are temmporary andd weakly devveloped, andd the heads oof
thee fluvial streaams are in th
he Archibarcca volcano;
• Em
mboscadero sub-basin
s – this basin iss the smallesst of those rreviewed, annd
2
exttends for 22.2 km , and can be conssidered part of the Lindeero sub-basinn.
A small
s lake/saalar is formeed inside; annd
• Ariita sub-basin n is located ffurthest soutth of the stuudied areas, is
n –this basin
2
aboout 58.4 kmm and is prrimarily a llarge flat arrea adjacentt to the salaar
Ariizaro. Somee springs were identifiedd, but no strreams were rrecognized iin
this sub-basin.
Figure 24-1.
Water
W Sourcees Near Prooject Area
Pool near
n Lindero
o site (left) an
nd snowfall over Linderro camp (righht)

n 24 - Other Reelevant Data aand Informatioon
May 2013
2
Linddero Project – NI
N 43-101 Tecchnical Reportt Page 24-3
Figure 24
4-2
Arita, Ch
hachas, Lin
ndero and Emboscadero
o Sub-Basin
ns
Kapppes, Cassiday & Associates Section 24 - Other Relevant Data and In

nformation
May 22013
The lack of pre-existing precipitation data in the region’s recharge areas makes it difficult
to establish the specific recharge parameters for the underground hydric system for the
various basins and sub-basins. To estimate the actual recharge (r) in the area, other
regions with similar hydric behavior were considered. For the actual estimation only 5%
of the registered average annual rainfall (36.09 mm in weather station boundary 2008-
2013) was considered. This estimates the annual volume of water from the aquifer
recharge by km2 and entire sub-basin (i.e VR = 1.8 mm x 1 km2 = 1,800 mm/km2-year).
Table 24-1
Recharge Rates of Arita, Chachas, Lindero and Emboscadero Sub-Basins
Sub-Basin Surface (km2) Recharge (Hm3/year)
Chachas 808.4 1.46
Lindero 234.8 0.42
Arita 58.4 0.11
Emboscadero 22.2 0.04
This estimate reveals that the Chachas sub-basin, 13 km to the east of the project, has the
highest aquifer recharge. The Andina 2 and Andina 3 water wells in the Chachas sub-
basin have demonstrated a production potential of 70 m3/h and 100 m3/h respectively.
24.1.3 Geo-Electric Exploration
Taking into account the geological environment where the project is located, the
objective of the geoelectrical exploration was to identify those sedimentary facies that
allow the storage and movement of groundwater, to help define the drilling targets.
The sedimentary facies in quaternary sediments, ancient and new, alluvial and
colluviums, were prioritized for the selection for location of the geoelectric profiles. A
total of five areas were chosen, where 31 vertical electrical soundings were performed.
Different profiles identified different units described as:
• The upper zone, or higher resistive area (sediment with no water);

• Semi-resistivity unit of hydrogeological interest (with high probability to be an
aquifer);
• Conductive area or upper saline (sediments saturated with saline water); and
May 2013
• Lower conductive area and less resistive area (basement rock without water
content).
The area with the highest hydrogeological interest based on the results of the geoelectric
profiles was the Chachas area, where subsequently two wells were drilled with very
positive results.
To choose the geo-electric profile in the Chachas area, the following items were
considered:
• the surface of the sub-basin (808 km2);

• the geomorphologic characterization;
• a large alluvial fan with a big fluvial capture region;
• existence of permanent water sheds; and
• the presence of surface water in the discharge zone (Salar de Arizaro)
The results showed a unit of hydrogeological interest of 67 to 155 meters thick with a
variable ceiling of 1 to 98 meters, depending on the proximity to the discharge zone in
the Salar de Arizaro. These data were then confirmed in the two wells that were drilled in
2010 to 2012.
May 2013
Lindero P
2
Figure
F 24-3
Geoelectric
G Profile of Chachass Sub-Basin
Kappes, C
Cassiday & Associa
ates Section 244 - Other Relevant D ation
Data and Informa
May 20133
During January 2012, Hidrotec conducted a new geoelectrical profile in the sub-basin
Lindero-Emboscadero near the Project site, with the focus to assess water resource
possibilities close to the site and thus to reduce potential water supply costs. The results
showed a semi-resistivity unit 60 meters thick with hydrological potential, but with
structural complexity that was corroborated afterwards by the four holes drilled by
Hidrotec. This area was determined to have sufficient potential to provide construction
water requirements, while the permanent bore field in the Chachas region is being
developed.
24.2 Operations Strategy
Goldrock will employ a traditional open pit mine organizational structure that is divided
into the primary areas of Mining, Processing, Finance, Government-Community
Relations, Human Resources, and General Services and Administration (G&A). Each
primary area will be divided into separate departments to function properly and be
directly accountable for performance.
Argentina today has a sufficient labor pool of experienced and skilled professionals to
run the Lindero operation. Qualified engineers and geologists have been involved in
several gold mines in operation in the country since 1994 and in Chile and Bolivia.
Scheduled mine operating time will be 360 days a year, working 24 hours a day, with the
operating areas manned by four crews. Each crew will work a 12-hour day for 14 days
and then take 14 days off which takes into account the remote nature of the site (travel
time) as well as the site elevation (3,800 meters altitude).
Goldrock will recruit as many personnel as possible from surrounding communities such
as Tolar Grande, San Antonio de los Cobres, Antofallita and Antofalla.
Contracted services will include food services, laundry, housekeeping, cleaning,

personnel transport (buses) to and from Salta, bullion security and transport, on-site
medical service, security and transport of all consumables.
During the first three years of the mine where total material movement is low, the
intention is to contract out the loading and hauling part of the mine operations, with
Goldrock having the responsibility for drilling, blasting, and ore control. At Year 4
May 2013
Goldrock will purchase additional mining equipment and transition into “owner-mining”
operations.
24.3 Project Security
The security of the Lindero Project considers the risks from the perspective of the
Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, a norm issued by the United Nations
and accepted voluntarily by Goldrock.
The primary considerations in developing the security framework for the project were:
• Organized crime in Argentina is not a significant issue;

• There have been no terrorism incidents in Salta Province since the early
1970s;
• Protester demonstrations are uncommon in the Salta Province, and, when
they do occur, are rarely violent because of social constraints and the risk
of negative effects on government employment. Road blocks in
neighboring provinces are common, but they rarely occur in Salta
Province. The Project area has a very low risk of being affected by
demonstrations or road blocks;
• As in many national police forces around the world, Argentina has some
problems with corruption, mainly due to the low salaries of the members of
the police forces;
• Argentines are strongly influenced by European culture and democratic
ideas. There is still some lingering animosity towards Britain, mainly due
to the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands) dispute. However Argentina
currently hosts over 500 U.S. companies that collectively employ over
155,000 Argentines; and
• Anti-mining sentiment in the period 2003–2007 led to anti-mining laws
that banned mining in certain provinces in Argentina. Since 2008,
provinces where anti-mining laws were passed have changed their attitudes
or are showing positive signs of doing so. Several Andean provinces such
as San Juan, Santa Cruz, Salta, Catamarca, and Jujuy Provinces have
consistently promoted mining and encouraged mining investment.
May 2013
To project the people and assets of the Lindero Project, the security infrastructure will
consist of the following:
• To prevent unauthorized attempts to enter the Lindero facilities and

concessions, a security post at the entrance to the mine will control
entrance to the Project and the Project will be patrolled by a private
surveillance contractor;
• The natural gas compression station at Pocitos will be protected with a 2 m
high fence (within the existing compound) and entrance to the premises
will be controlled by company personnel;
• Suitable software for fuel management and accounting will be used. All
fuel supply contracts will be audited on a regular basis. Procedures will be
in place to manage and account for fuel usage on site;
• Explosives will be kept in special magazines built to meet the security and
safety standards of Argentina and Goldrock Mines. Magazines will have
automatic access control and an alarm system monitored by a control
center. The magazines will be patrolled by security personnel. The area
will be fenced and well lit. Procedures will be in place to manage and
account for explosives;
• All company vehicles will be accounted for at all times. Any vehicle that
enters the property must be properly authorized and accounted for while on
the property. This control will be done through an access control system.
GPS systems will be used for specific vehicles, such as those that travel
constantly outside the property;
• Goldrock Mines will have a small office in Tolar Grande to liaise with
local officials and, in some cases, to screen personnel before they proceed
to the mine site;
• Personnel and vehicles will be searched by security as they enter or exit the
mine site, and vehicles will be inspected randomly. An automatic access
control system will be used to actively account for and verify authorization
for entrance of all personnel and vehicles;
• Assets at the mine site will be secured by means of guards, roving patrols,
and electronic equipment such as closed-circuit television in the
adsorption-desorption-recovery (ADR) plant and Gold Room, access
control, and alarm systems;
May 2013
• Gold will be produced and stored at the site. Therefore, compliance with
the corresponding product security standard will be mandatory. In general,
every effort will be made to avoid keeping doré bars at site; and
• Dore will be shipped in a properly sealed container, and supporting
documentation will be monitored by administration and security staff.
24.4 Health and Safety
Goldrock is focused on occupational health and safety; these are fundamental pillars in
the principles of the operation over the lifetime of the Lindero project. Goldrock is
determined that the health and safety of its employees and their families, and of the
community where the company operates, will not be adversely affected by the project.
To achieve this objective, Goldrock will:
• provide a safe and healthy work environment for all of its employees,
contractors, and visitors;
• evaluate, plan, build, and operate all of the facilities to reduce the risks that
might occur upon occupational health and safety;
• comply with all national, provincial, and municipal laws and regulations
pertaining to health and safety in the mining industry ;
• provide the necessary training and resources to maintain high standards of
health and safety in both work and housing situations;
• at all times, train and motivate personnel so they operate in a safe and
responsible manner tending to the wellbeing of the workers and nearby
communities;
• maintain a high level of emergency training among personnel to face
contingencies that might be produced by the activity developed;
• periodically monitor company and staff performance on health and safety
issues;
• identify and evaluate quantifiable health and safety objectives and the
methods to achieve them to ensure constant improvement toward an
incident-free workplace;
• notify all employees, contractors, visitors, and other interested parties of
this policy to ensure a high level of health and safety awareness; and
May 2013
• ensure compliance with the company’s internal regulations, as well as

those laws relevant to the activity; contracts with Goldrock employees and
service contractors will include a provision stating that in case of a breach
of any regulation or law, the contract will become void immediately.
Goldrock’s objective regarding health and safety issues is the prevention of all incidents
and accidents related to its projects. All operations and tasks will implement a health and
safety system to ensure the achievement of this objective.
24.5 Risks and Opportunities
Risks and opportunities have been identified in various areas of the project. These risks
and opportunities pertain to Geology and Resources, Mine Planning, Metallurgy and
Process, Material Handling, Heap Leach and ADR Design, Infrastructure, Execution
Plan, Procurement Strategy, and Government Relations and Fiscal Regime.
The major potential opportunities include:
• The Arizaro project is located immediately adjacent (3 km southeast) of the

Lindero project. The Arizaro porphyry body was identified prior to the
discovery of the Lindero gold deposit in 1999. The Delineation of Resources
in this area may provide additional upside to the Lindero Project;
• It may be possible to upgrade the low-grade stockpile to a higher-grade
product that can then be sent to the crushing plant merely by screening, as the
current theory is the gold is typically associated with fracture mineralization.
This may result in additional gold production in the early years of the Project;
• There is potential for significant upgrades in mineral resource confidence
categories (particularly Inferred) at Lindero. This could potentially increase
reserves and if realized, could increase the mine life of Lindero by several
years. The deposit is open at depth and a significant amount of mineralization
is currently classified in the Inferred category;
• In the current mine plan a total of 16.7 Mtonnes of Mineralized waste @ 0.30
g/t Au (162,000 ounces) is stockpiled. Depending on the price of gold and the
operating cost regime at the end of the mine life this material maybe
economical to treat, adding mine life;
• Haulage costs may be reduced by design of additional waste dumps around
the circumference of the entire pit;
May 2013
• Some silver will be recovered in the heap leaching process and the silver
credits in the Doré will provide some economic benefit to the Project that is
not currently accounted for;
• A SART plant, if installed, would produce copper as a by-product and reduce
the Project cyanide costs, and also facilitate treatment of the potential Arizaro
ore;
• Additional processing throughput capacity may increase Project value;
• Better leaching kinetics of ore may be experienced than what is currently used
in the production model. More rapid recovery would decrease inventory in
heap leach pad particularly in the first few years of leaching whilst the heap
leach pad is at lower lift levels;
• Lime consumption is believed to be reasonably conservative and there may be
an opportunity to reduce these in practice, leading to lower operating costs;
• If clay or silt deposits within 50 kilometers of the mine site for the secondary
liner under the geomembrane liner on the leach pad can be found, these may
replace the more-expensive geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), and in turn reduce
pre-production capital;
• For mineral products produced in the isolated (undeveloped) Puna region of
Argentina a reimbursement of part of the export tax (currently totaling
4.762%) is possible. The company has started the process to have Gold Silver
Dore recognized as an approved Puna mineral product. This tax rebate (2.5%)
is worth approximately $38 million in the current life of mine plan; and
• The Train between Antofagasta (Chile) and Salta (Argentina) has re-opened
for freight between the two countries with a regular weekly service. There is
the opportunity to reduce the freight costs for the mines major consumables
like lime and cyanide by using this service.
Potential risks with the Project include:
• Variable copper mineralogy of the oxide ore zone may exist which could have
an impact of metallurgical performance;
• Performance of the mining contractor may not meet expectations;
• Argentinean labor costs have gone up substantially in the last few years.
Additional increases in labor costs will have an impact on the profitability of
mining in Argentina;
May 2013
• Lindero is located in a very isolated region. This provides for logistical

challenges in the movement of mining equipment, consumables, and
personnel to site;
• Copper build-up in the cyanide leach solution may possibly result in increased
processing costs and refining penalties;
• Price fluctuations in materials such as steel, concrete, etc. may impact capital
costs;
• Cyanide price, which has been volatile, could rise and impact Project
operating costs;
• The current design of crushing and stacking conveyors excludes covers; high
winds during certain times of year may increase ore losses during these
periods;
• Lack of backup power generation due to few (two) generators may
temporarily impact throughput rate if one generator breaks down or requires
significant maintenance;
• A delay in the delivery of the HPGR could impact gold production;
• Very few metallurgical tests were performed using a laboratory HPGR
crusher. KCA believes that more test work should be completed on HPGR
crushed material for both oxide and hypogene ore to better define process
criteria such as; recoveries, permeability and agglomeration, reagent
consumptions and HPGR sizing; and
• The current Federal government under the Presidency of Cristina Kirchner has
implemented a number of “leftist” policies which has made Argentina, a
traditional business friendly jurisdiction, more difficult to operate cost
effectively.
• AMEC estimated Mineral Resources with internal dilution assuming a 10
meters x 10 meters x 8 meters selective mining unit (SMU), and a production
rate of 25,000 t/day. The amount of internal dilution present within the
Mineral Resource model may not be appropriate for lower production rates
and smaller SMU sizes.
• Due to the low marginal cut-off grade used to report Mineral Resources (0.15
g Au/t), there is a risk that if such a low cut-off grade was selected for mine
operations, difficulty could be experienced in distinguishing between waste
and ore during production.
May 2013
24.6 Project Implementation
The Lindero Project implementation is based on the following key assumptions:
• Process throughput is 6.75 million tonnes/year and process flowsheets will

not change significantly from those presented in the feasibility study;
• There are no permitting or licensing barriers to the start of construction;
• Sufficient funding will be made available to support the proposed Project
schedule;
The first phase of construction is scheduled to begin approximately four months after the
start of basic engineering and the estimated timing for completion of construction and
first gold pour about 14 months after the start of construction. Therefore the total time
for EPCM activities is 18 months.
The project will be developed in a manner similar to most other heap leach projects.
Initial design, including basic design and long lead time items procurement, will be
completed during the early stages. Detailed engineering and procurement will follow and
finally the construction phase will be completed. Details of these activities are discussed
in the sections that follow. General comments and critical path items are also noted.
24.6.1 Detailed Design
The detailed design phase of the project is separated into two parts: an initial basic and
detailed engineering phase followed by final detailed engineering. The initial design
phase of the project will include finalization of:
Specifications for long lead time equipment, a logistic study, detailed engineering for the
leach pad and ponds, and detailed engineering for critical infrastructure items will be
completed early in this period.
Final detailed engineering work will progress in areas and disciplines in a similar
sequence to the initial design phase. An emphasis will be placed on completion of the
earthwork design to facilitate start of the earthworks as this represents a significant
component of construction.
May 2013
Some areas such as the power generation plant and some infrastructure items like the
man-camp, water and sewage treatment plants, will be package-type contracts. In these
types of contracts the vendor will supply detailed design and also will be responsible
either for a majority of the site work or else deliver modular turn-key type packages (e.g.
water treatment plant).
24.6.2 Procurement
Equipment procurement will be a high priority during detailed design as this phase is
dependent on equipment selection. This factor is most prevalent in areas where there are
multiple disciplines, such as the crushing and ADR circuits. As such, these equipment or
equipment packages will be prioritized.
To the greatest extent possible, the required equipment for the project will be sourced
within Argentina. A summary of estimated procurement times for major components are
presented in Table 24-2, listed in order by estimated lead time.
Table 24-2
Procurement Lead Times
Facility/Equipment Source Procurement Lead
Time (Months)
HPGR Imported 12 - 14
Power Plant Package (Generators, Compressors, Trucks) Imported & Local 8-9
ADR Plant Carbon Kiln Imported 7-9
Conveyors (Crushing and Stacking Equipment) Local 7-8
Leach Pumps (Pregnant and Barren) Local 7-8
Mine Rotary Drills Imported 10 - 11
Crushing Equipment (Jaw, Cones, Screens) Imported 6-7
Fabricated Tanks Local 5-6
Laboratory Equipment Imported 5-6
ADR Process Plant Equipment General Imported & Local 3-6
Miscellaneous Construction Equipment Local 3-4
Pad/Pond Liners Local 2-3
Shop/Warehouse/Miscellaneous Buildings Local 1-3
Man Camp Local 1-2
May 2013
24.6.3 Construction Period
Construction activities are planned to start about six months after the initial design phase.
It is anticipated that all construction and erection will be done using local or regional
Argentine contractors, and that concrete, aggregate, steel, tanks, building materials and
supplies, and pipe can be acquired through local sources. Lining installation
(geosynthetic clay liner and geomembrane) will be performed by the liner supplier, using
his own personnel for installation supervision. A separate quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) group will be hired to provide quality control oversight.
Required construction equipment will be determined and equipment bids will be solicited
upon completion of preliminary heap leach, earthwork drainage, roads, and earthwork
construction grade drawings.
Due to the remoteness of the Project, it is considered critical that adequate housing and
facilities are available for the construction crew on-site. The existing Lindero and
Regulus man camps near the Salar de Arizaro will be used for housing of the initial
construction personnel until the on-site camp has been sufficiently completed and is
livable.
The on-site wells, together supplying approximately 50 m3/h of raw water, will be
commissioned in the early phases of construction to provide drinking water to the camp
and also to provide water for use in construction.
The warehouse and fuel facilities will also be constructed during the early phases of the
construction period to allow for use during construction of other areas.
May 2013
24.6.4 Assignment of Responsibility
It is expected that Goldrock will provide some of the construction management services,
for example for access road and some on-site earthworks, utilizing their own personnel.
A significant amount of the detailed design will be performed by local engineering firms,
under direction of the EPCM contractor (whether local or international). Procurement of
local equipment and materials will be handled by the Owner, with support from the
engineering firm(s). Procurement of imported equipment will be performed by the
EPCM contractor. A third party group will be contracted to provide quality control
services for the earthworks, concrete and installation of the pad and pond liners. It also
expected that the owner will hire an owner’s representative to work in cooperation with
the EPCM Manager.
May 2013
25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
The QPs, as authors of this Report, have reviewed the data for the Project and are of the
opinion that:
• Sufficient information was provided to KCA that indicates Goldrock holds

100% of the Project. Minimum work requirements under the tenure grant
have been met. Annual land usage and environmental compliance reports
have been lodged;
• Surface rights are held by the Salta Province. The actual mining concession
includes the right to use the surface for mine and plant construction.
Development of such infrastructure will require additional sectorial permits
for construction.
• There are no third-party royalties payable on the Project other than a 3%
Provincial royalty. The Provincial royalty is payable on the net smelter
return, less all operating costs except mining. This royalty applies to 100%
of the production tonnage.
• Current permits have allowed exploration and associated supporting
testwork to be conducted under appropriate Provincial and Federal laws.
• At the effective date of this Report, environmental liabilities are believed to
be limited to the existing drill pads and access roads.
• Closure provisions are preliminary in nature. Closure costs of US$ 21.3
million are estimated.
• The existing and planned infrastructure, availability of staff, the existing
power, water, and communications facilities, the methods whereby goods
are transported to the mine, and any planned modifications or supporting
studies are well-established, or the requirements to establish such, are well
understood by Goldrock, and can support the declaration of Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves and the proposed mine plan.
• Work programs are possible on the Project year-round.
• The geological understanding of the deposit settings, lithologies, and
structural and alteration controls on mineralization is sufficient to support
estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. The geological
knowledge of the area is also considered sufficiently acceptable to reliably
inform mine design.
• Exploration programs completed to date are appropriate to the
mineralization styles known to occur within the Project boundary.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 25 – Interpretations and Conclusions

May 2013
• The quantity and quality of the lithological, geotechnical, and collar and
down hole survey data collected in the exploration, delineation, and grade
control drill programs are sufficient to support Mineral Resource and
Mineral Reserve estimation.
• Sampling methods are acceptable, meet industry-standard practice, and are
acceptable for Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimation and mine
planning purposes.
• The quality of the gold analytical data is reliable and sample preparation,
analysis, and security have generally been performed in accordance with
exploration best practices and industry standards.
• Data verifications programs undertaken on the data collected from the
Project acceptably support the geologic interpretations and the database
quality, and therefore support the use of the data in Mineral Resource and
Mineral Reserve estimation and in mine planning. No material data biases
have been identified; however, AMEC applied a correction factor to the
specific gravity values to correct a low bias noted in the wax-coated
density measurements collected by Goldrock.
• Metallurgical test work completed on the Project has been appropriate to
establish optimal processing routes for the different mineralization styles
encountered in the deposits. Testwork was completed on mineralization
that was typical of the deposit. Recovery factors were developed from
metallurgical test work. The overall weighted average oxide recovery is
74% and the weighted average hypogene recovery is 67%. Average life-of-
mine gold recovery is projected at 68%.
• The proposed process route uses conventional heap leach and recovery
plant technology. Ore hardness, reagent consumptions and process
conditions are appropriately determined to establish process operating
costs.
• Estimations of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves for the Project
conform to industry practices, and meet the requirements of CIM
Definition Standards (2010). The Mineral Resources are suitable to support
mine planning.
• The open pit mine plan is appropriate to the style of mineralization.
Production forecasts are achievable with the proposed equipment and plant.
• The predicted mine life of ten years is achievable based on the projected
annual production rate and the Mineral Reserves estimated.

May 2013
• Doré production from the Project could be sold either on the spot market,
or under agreements with refineries. It is expected that any sales and
refining agreements would be negotiated in line with industry norms.
• Taxation considerations are limited to a review of the major applicable
taxes for a project in Argentina. Corporate tax is 35%; the taxable income
of individuals is taxed on a sliding scale that begins at the rate of 9% and
increases to 35%; losses incurred during any fiscal year may be carried
forward and set off against taxable income obtained during the following
five fiscal years; and a mining incentive scheme consisting mainly of tax
benefits can be implemented if approved by the National Mining
Secretariat.
• Capital cost and operating cost estimates are appropriate for the economic
circumstances under which they were supplied.
• Reviews of the environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-
economic, marketing and political factors and constraints for the Project
support the declaration of Mineral Reserves using the set of assumptions
outlined.
• The economic analysis shows that overall NPV is positive for the sets of
assumptions considered. Financial analysis of the base case (US$1,400/oz
Au and a discount rate of 5%) showed the pre-tax project NPV to be
US$313.5 million and the internal rate of return (IRR) to be 40.9%. The
pre-tax annual average cash flow for the project is US$ 78.4 million and
the after tax payback period is 2.0 years.
• The sensitivity analysis indicates that the project has robust economics
across the range of variation in the key parameters examined. The project
is most sensitive to revenue (gold price, ore grade and recovery), followed
by operating costs (as expressed by average operating cash cost per ounce
gold) and total capital cost.
The Lindero deposit is open at depth and a significant amount of material is currently
classified in the Inferred category. This material may be able to be reclassified to higher-
confidence resource categories with additional drilling.
In the opinion of the QPs, the Project that is outlined in this Report has met its objectives.
Mineral Resources have been estimated, and Mineral Reserves and a mine plan
developed. The financial analysis based on the mine plan indicates a Project that is viable
and has a 10 year mine life. This indicates the original Project objective of identifying
mineralization that could support mining operations has been achieved. Work completed

May 2013
to date supports the Project proceeding to basic and detailed engineering leading to
construction of the Project.

May 2013
26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The work that has been completed to date has demonstrated that Lindero is a technically
and economically viable project and justifies additional work as described in this Section.
26.1 Deposit Expansion and Exploration Activities
There are near-surface, peripheral areas of the Lindero deposit which have not been
closed off by drilling and which currently are classified as Inferred. Resource upgrades
in these areas would be most cost effective and may have a positive impact on the Project
economics in the early years of the mine life.
As such a cost allowance for exploration (totaling US$ 1.5 million) has been included in
the feasibility study economics, but not for the potential benefits of any reserve increase.
This allowance of $1.5 million should provide for approximately 5,000 meters of
diamond drilling and as this drilling will occur once the pit is significantly advanced
(drilling can occur at depth in the pit) will provide for approximately 30 drill holes
targeting the Inferred mineralization in Phases 3 and 4. The bulk of the Inferred
mineralization at Lindero is located below and adjacent to these pit phases.
26.2 Basic Engineering & Procurement Activities
There is equipment that has very long lead times (usually longer than six months) that
will need to be purchased early to prevent delays during the construction phase of the
project. Table 26-1 summarizes the equipment that have lead times longer than six
months:
Table 26-1
Long Lead Time Items (Greater than Six Months)
Procurement Lead
Facility/Equipment Source Time (Months)
HPGR Imported 12 - 14
Power Plant Package (Generators, Compressors, Trucks) Imported & Local 8-9
ADR Plant Carbon Kiln Imported 7-9
Conveyors (Crushing and Stacking Equipment) Local 7-8
Leach Pumps (Pregnant and Barren) Local 7-8
Mine Rotary Drills Imported 10-11
Crushing Equipment (Jaw, Cones, Screens) Imported 6-7

May 2013
Basic engineering to develop specifications and layout of the crushing circuit should be
started very early in the project implementation stage to ensure that the equipment shows
up to the project sight, on time, during construction. It is also recommended that
Goldrock establishes a procurement team of experienced Argentine personal during the
same time as basic engineering to make sure that equipment is properly ordered and that
paper work for importing of goods into Argentina is complete before the equipment is
shipped. The cost of the basic engineering phase of the project is US$ 300,000.
26.3 Detailed Engineering
The feasibility study presents a robust project. Detailed engineering should be started,
and design and costing of long lead time items finalized to meet the project development
schedule. The cost of this detailed engineering is included in the project economics in the
Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management (EPCM) line item that is US$
13.2 million in the pre-production capital.
26.4 Test Work
KCA recommends confirmatory HPGR crushing test work alongside the initial stages of
basic engineering. In the feasibility study the HPGR was sized conservatively according
to the available test work; additional confirmatory test work will more confidently define
sizing parameters, and possibly allow for a size reduction in the purchased equipment,
reducing up-front capital cost.
Using the material prepared from the confirmatory HPGR sizing test work, KCA would
also recommend compacted permeability test work be conducted to confirm the
permeability results that are available from prior HPGR tests from Phase III metallurgical
test work. The expected cost for the recommended test work is US$ 250,000.

May 2013
27.0 REFERENCES
AMEC Americas Limited, 2010: Pre-feasibility Study, Lindero Project, Argentina:

unpublished report prepared by AMEC Americas Limited for Mansfield Minerals
Inc.
AMEC Americas Limited, 2010: NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Lindero Project,
Salta Province Argentina: Project No. 162667, Effective Date 02 March, 2010.
American Au Ag Associates, 2004, Metallurgical Data Review, Lindero Gold Porphyry

Resource, Salta Province, Argentina, Consultants Report, February
American Au Ag Associates, 2004, revised 2006, Metallurgical Test results, Summary

and Recommendations, Lindero Gold Porphyry Resource, Salta Province,
Argentina, NI 43-101 Report, November 2004, Revised May 2006
Andina Perforaciones, 2011: Informe Tecnico, Pozo Lindero Agua 1: unpublished report
prepared by Andina Perforaciones for Mansfield Minera S.A., January 2011.
Andina Perforaciones, 2011: Informe Tecnico, Pozo Lindero Agua 2: unpublished report
prepared by Andina Perforaciones for Mansfield Minera S.A., March 2011.
Argentine References
• Law Nº 24, 585 Environmental law

• Argentina Government Mining Web site, Legal, Environmental, and
Technical Information, (mineria.gov.ar)
• National Constitution.
• National Mining Law Nº 24,196. Incentives for the mining activity.
• Environmental law Nº 25,675
• National law Nº 19,950 – Commercial entities.
• Argentine Central Bank regulations
• Argentine taxation system - AFIP regulations
• Patents Law Nº 24,481 and Trade Marks Law Nº 22,362.
• Transfer of Technology law Nº 22,426
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 27 – References

May 2013
Ausenco Vector, 2010: Environmental Impact Assessment, “Informe de Impacto

Ambiental, Capitulo 2”, October 2010.
Ausenco Vector, 2011: Proyecto Lindero – Sondeo de Opinion y Actualization ELB

Social: unpublished report prepared by Ausenco Vector for Mansfield Minera
S.A., May 2011.
Belanger. M, P.Geo and others, 2006. Technical Report for Refugio Gold Mine
Bergey, W.R., 1989. Report on Porphyry Copper-Gold Deposits
Boon, Jan, 2011: Mansfield Minera’s Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility:

unpublished report prepared by Jan Boon for Mansfield Minera S.A., October
2011.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), : CIM Definition

Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserved : CIM Standing
Committee on Reserve Definitions, adopted by CIM Council.
Código de Mineria de la Republica Argentina.
Conhidro, S.R.L., 2013: Informe Final, Pozo Lindero Agua 3: unpublished report
prepared by Conhidro S.R.L. for Mansfield Minera S.A., February 2013.
Decreto 249/2007 "Reglamento de Higiene y Seguridad para la Actividad Minera".

20/3/2007. Bs. As
Digby Wells & Associates, 2008. Health and Safety Management Plan. Valencia
Uranium Project.
Dow, R., 2001. Arizaro/Lindero Property. Exploration Progress Report Geological

Mapping, Salta Province, Argentina.
Fuchter, W.A. and Rennie, D., 2003: Report on the Lindero Project, Salta Province,
Argentina: unpublished technical report prepared by Roscoe Postle Associates for
Mansfield Minerals Inc., effective date 16 October 2003;

May 2013
Godoy, M., and Palmer, K., 2008: Technical Report on the Lindero Project, Salta
Province, Argentina: unpublished technical report prepared by Golder Associates
Argentina SA for Mansfield Minerals Inc., effective date 8 August 2008.
Government of Province of Salta: Environmental Impact Declaration, Resolution No.

316, Judicial Record 16835, Department of Mines (Salta), 12 October 2011
Grupo, AGV, 2012: Informe de Posibles Variantes, Salar de Pocitos – Tolar Grande –
Mansfield: unpublished report prepared by Grupo AGV for Mansfield Minera
S.A., 6 November 2012.
Grupo, AGV, 2013: Informe del relevamiento del tramo Salar de Pocitos – Campamento
Mansfield Con Planilla de costo: unpublished report prepared by Grupo AGV for
Mansfield Minera S.A., 28 February 2013.
Hazen Research, 2007: Comminution Testing Hazen Project 10636 Revision 1:

unpublished report prepared by Hazen Research for Mansfield Minerals, Inc.,
August 21, 2007.
Hedley, N., Tabachnick H. Chemistry of cyanidation. Mineral Dressing Notes 23, New
York: American Cyanamid Company 1958.
Hidrotec Perforaciones, 2012: Informe Tecnico, Pozo Lindero 1 (Emboscadero):

unpublished report prepared by Hidrotec Perforaciones for Mansfield Minera
S.A., Exp. 34-13157/2012, February 2012.
Hidrotec Perforaciones, 2012: Informe Tecnico, Pozo Lindero 2: unpublished report

prepared by Hidrotec Perforaciones for Mansfield Minera S.A., Exp. 34-
13173/2012, February 2012.

56786/2012, April 2012.
Hidrotec Perforaciones, 2012: Informe Tecnico, Exploratorio Lindero 4: unpublished

report prepared by Hidrotec Perforaciones for Mansfield Minera S.A., Exp. 34-
216118/2012, November 2012.

May 2013

223780/2012, December 2012.
Humboldt Wedag, Intl, 2009, Report of Test Work – Lindero Project Metallurgical
Sample, Vendor’s Report
Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 2009: Lindero Project, Report of Metallurgical

Testwork: unpublished internal report for Phase I-IV test work prepared by
Kappes, Cassiday and Associates for Mansfield Minerals, Inc., June 2009

Testwork: unpublished internal report for Phase V test work prepared by Kappes,
Cassiday and Associates for Mansfield Minerals, December 2009
Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 2009: Lindero Project, Supplemental Report:

unpublished internal report for Phase I-IV analysis prepared by Kappes, Cassiday
and Associates for Mansfield Minerals, December 2009
Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 2010: Lindero Project, Prefeasibility Study Leach Pad
& Pond Design Report: unpublished internal report prepared by Kappes, Cassiday
and Associates for Mansfield Minerals, March 2010

Testwork: unpublished internal report prepared by Kappes, Cassiday and
Associates for Goldrock Mines Corp., January 2013.
Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 2013: Lindero Project Feasibility Study: unpublished
internal report prepared by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates for Goldrock Mines
Corp., April 2013.
Kappes, D. Precious Metal Heap Leach Design and Practice. Kappes, Cassiday, and
Associates, www.kcareno.com
Larson, L.T., 2004, Petrographic Report – 15 Thin Sections From Samples Taken From
The Lindero Deposit, Salta Province, Argentina, Consultants Report, April

May 2013
Larson, L.T., 2006, Petrographic Report – 22 Thin Sections From Samples Taken From
The Lindero Ore Body, Salta Province, Argentina, Consultants Report, December
Ley 11.179. Código Penal de la Nacion Argentina.
Ley 13.577/49 Ley orgánica de Obras Sanitarias de la Nación.
Ley 24.557 .Higiene y seguridad laboral.
Ley 25.743 de patrimonio cultural y arqueológico.
Ley 7.017 Código de Aguas de la Provincia de Salta.
Ley 7070/99 y Decreto Reglamentario 3252/02 De protección del Medio Ambiente.

Provincia de Salta.
Ley General del Ambiente Nº25.675
Ley Nacional 24.105/91 sobre protección, preservación, conservación y saneamiento del

ambiente y de utilización racional y equilibrada de los recursos naturales entre
Argentina y Chile.
Ley Nacional 24.196 De Inversiones Mineras. 1995. Bs.As.
Ley Nacional 24.585 De Protección Ambiental para la actividad Minera. 1995.
Ley Nacional 25.743 de patrimonio cultural y arqueológico.
Ley Provincial 7.107 Areas Protegidas.
Linea de Base Ambiental, 2007, Salta. Proyectos Lindero y Rio Grande. Preparado por:
Vector S.A, para Mansfield Minera S.A..
Metso Minerals Mineral Research and Test Center, 2008: Paddle Abrasion Results:
unpublished report prepared by Metso for Mansfield Minerals, March 2008.

May 2013
Metso Minerals Mineral Research and Test Center, 2008: Chemical Analysis Results:
unpublished report prepared by Metso for Mansfield Minerals, May 2008.
Mines Group, 2013: Stability Report & Use of Geocomposite Clay Liner (GCL):
unpublished internal report prepared by The Mines Group for Kappes, Cassiday,
and Associates, May 2013.
Nerenberg F. L. 2009 Blast Consult International (BCI): “Execution and evaluation of

Test Blast Program at Lindero Project, Mansfield Minerals, Salta, Argentina:
unpublished report prepared for Mansfield Minerals, December 2009.
Nimsic, T.L., 2006: Lindero Gold Porphyry Resource, Salta Province, Argentina
Metallurgical Test Results, Summary and Recommendations: unpublished
technical report prepared by American Au Ag Associates for Mansfield Minerals
Inc., November 2004, revised September 2006;
Norma E. Carrillo Hidalgo; Enrique Guadalupe Gómez, 2005. A proposal of an

organizational structure to prevent accidents in the mining sector.. Rev. Inst.
investig. Fac. minas metal cienc. geogr v.8 n.15. Lima
Odenanza Municipal N° 11.753. El Procedimiento de evaluación de Impacto Ambiental y

social-EIAS-para la jurisdicción de la Municipalidad de la Ciudad de Salta. de la
Provincia de Salta.
Ordenanza 005/2008 Codigo del Ambiente, de la municipalidad de San Antonio de los

Cobres. Provincia de Salta.
REMco, 2009: Test Report of Findings – Lindero Project Metallurgical Sample:

unpublished report prepared by REMCo for Mansfield Minerals, 2009.
Richards, J.P., 2000. Lineaments revisited. Society of Economic Geologists, SEG

Newsletter, July 2000, Number 42.p 1 and pp 14-20
Rio Tinto Mining and Exploration Limited, 2003, Final Report of Exploration carried out
on Lindero and Arizaro Prospects under a LOU with Mansfield Minera between
March 2002 and March 2003.

May 2013
Roscoe Postle Associates, Inc., 2003, Report On The Lindero Project, Salta Province,
Argentina, Consultants Report, October
Saxum Engineered Solutions, 2012: “Proyecto: Estudio Comparativo de Generacion de

Energia Para Proyecto Lindero”: unpublished internal report prepared by Saxum
Engineered Solutions for Mansfield Minera S.A., Report 121018-R-001, October
2012.
Saxum Engineered Solutions, 2012: “Proyecto: Capital Cost Estimate for Building
Facilities”: unpublished internal report prepared by Saxum Engineered Solutions
for Mansfield Minera S.A., December 28, 2012.
Seegmiller International, 2009: Volume 1, Evaluation/Analysis, Slope Stability Study,

Lindero Project, Mansfield Minera S.A., Salta, Argentina: unpublished report
prepared by Seegmiller for Mansfield Minerals, April 2009.
Seegmiller International, 2009: Volume 2, Field/Laboratory Raw Data, Slope Stability

Study, Lindero Project, Mansfield Minera S.A., Salta, Argentina: unpublished
report prepared by Seegmiller for Mansfield Minerals, March 2009
Seegmiller, B., 2013: Slope Stability Evaluation Lindero Feasibility Level Study Mine
Plan 2012/2013: updated unpublished report prepared by Seegmiller International
for Goldrock Mines Corp., February 2013.
Sillitoe R.H. 1992. Gold-Rich Porphyry Copper Deposits Geological Model and
Exploration Implications.
Titley, S.R., and Beane, R.E., 1981: Porphyry copper deposits—Part I: Geologic settings,
petrology, and tectogenesis: Economic Geology, 75th anniversary volume, p.
214–235.
Vector Argentina S.A., 2009: Estudio de Linea de Base – Estudio Hidrológico, Proyectos
Lindero y Rio Grande: unpublished report prepared by Vector for Mansfield
Minerals, 2009

May 2013
Vector Argentina S.A., 2009: Estudio de Linea de Base – Estudio Hidrológico – Primera
Etapa, Proyectos Lindero y Rio Grande: unpublished report prepared by Vector
for Mansfield Minerals, 2009
Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, organization, web page, 2009.

May 2013
28.0 AUTHORS’ CERTIFICATES
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 28 – Authors’ Certfictaes

May 2013
David G. Thomas
1051 Homer Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada, V6B 2X5
Telephone: 604.710.8973
Email: geodgthomas@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

I, David G. Thomas, do herby certify that:
1. I am currently employed as a Principal Resource Geologist with the geological consulting firm of AMEC
Americas Ltd.
2. I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Geoscientists of British Columbia

(APEGBC NRL # 149114). I am also a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
(MAusIMM # 225250).
3. I am a graduate of Durham University, in the United Kingdom with a Bachelor of Science degree in
Geology and am a graduate of Imperial College, University of London, in the United Kingdom with a Master
of Science degree in Mineral Exploration.
4. I have practiced my profession for over 17 years. In that time I have been directly involved in review of
exploration, geological models, exploration data, sampling, sample preparation, quality assurance-quality
control, databases, and mineral resource estimates for a variety of mineral deposits, including porphyry
gold-copper mineral deposits.
5. I am a qualified person under the definition for ‘qualified persons’ as set out by NI 43-101.
6. I previously estimated Mineral Resources on the property in 2010.
7. I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of the Technical
Report that is not reflected in the Technical Reports, the omission to disclose which makes the Technical
Report misleading.
8. I am independent of the issuer for whom this report is required, other than providing consulting services, as
per Section 1.4 of NI 43-101
9. I have read National Instrument 43-101, companion policy NI 43-101CP and Form 43-101F1, and the
Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
10. I am responsible for Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and portions of Sections 1, 25 and 26 related to
Mineral Resources of the Technical Repot titled, “Technical Report of the Lindero Heap Leach Project”,
dated May 31, 2013.
11. I visited the Lindero Project from July 17 to July 21, 2009.
12. I consent to the filing of this Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and
any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company files on their website
accessible by the public.
Dated this 31 May, 2013
“Signed and Sealed”
David G. Thomas, P. Geo., MSc. (APEGBC # NRL 149114)

CGGGW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CGGGW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report on the Lindero Heap Leach Project

Salta Province, Argentina

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates

Report Date: 31 May 2013

1.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-1

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

3.2 Tenure ...................................................................................................... 3-2

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

10.2 Lindero Deposit ..................................................................................... 10-1

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

13.16 Leaching Parameters ............................................................................ 13-18

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

17.10 Additional Plant Design Considerations .............................................. 17-18

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

22.1 Summary ................................................................................................ 22-1

Figure 4-1 Location Map ........................................................................................... 4-1

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

Figure 7-8 Plan of Mineralized Bodies .................................................................... 7-23

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

Figure 15-5 Phase 3 Pit Design ............................................................................... 15-13

Table 1-1 Lindero Mineral Resource Statement .................................................... 1-12

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

Table 9-2 Trench and Road Cut Samples ................................................................. 9-3

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

Table 13-20 Project Heap Leach Recoveries ........................................................... 13-26

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

Table 22-3 Key Financial Parameters ...................................................................... 22-7

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Table of Contents

1.2 Key Outcomes

• Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves of 65.5 Mt grading 0.72 g/t Au

1.3 Property Description and Location

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 1 - Summary

1.3.1 Mineral Tenure and Surface Rights

A 3% provincial royalty “boca mina” is payable on revenue after deduction of direct

1.3.2 Environmental and Permitting

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 1 - Summary

There are no known current environmental liabilities for this Project.

1.4 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 1 - Summary

1.5 History of Exploration

Gold–copper mineralization associated with potassic alteration was first discovered by

1.6 Geological Setting and Mineralization

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 1 - Summary

Gold mineralizattion at Linddero is charaacterized by free gold, w which is associated witth

The Arizaro pro ospect has styles of mineralization

The Lindero dep posit was discovered

Kappees, Cassiday & Associates Sectioon 1 - Summarry

• Goldrock Campaign: August 2010–November 2010 which consisted of

The Arizaro prospect was discovered in 1999 as a result of a regional program of

1.9.1 Lindero Drilling

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 1 - Summary

1.9.2 Arizaro Drilling

Logging of core utilized standard logging procedures, recording geological and

1.10 Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 1 - Summary

A 10 cm length core sample was collected at 10 m intervals for bulk density

1.11 Data Verification

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 1 - Summary

AMEC has not completed verification of data collected in subsequent exploration

1.12 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Section 1 - Summary

Metallurgical testing included petrography, gravity separation, cyanidation and flotation