Logging

1
THE MINERAL CORPORATION

ADVISORS TO THE MINERAL BUSINESS
Mineral Resource Estimates of the Corachapi Project

held by Global Gold S.A.C. in the Puno District of Peru
Prepared under the Guidelines of National Instrument 43-101 and accompanying

documents 43-101.F1 and 43-101.CP (October 2005)
By The Mineral Corporation, Bryanston, South Africa
Tel : +27 11 463 4867

Fax : +27 11 706 8616
1 TITLE PAGE
Report No C-MYI-CON-881-644 October 2010
Report Author
David Young BSc (Hons), FGSSA, MSAIMM, FAusIMM,

Pr Sci Nat, Qualified Person
Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

Global Gold S.A.C. In the Puno District of Peru
Report No. C-MYI-CON-881-644 October 2010
2
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 TITLE PAGE ........................................................................................................... 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. 2
3 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 6
4 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 9
5 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS............................................................................... 9
6 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ............................................................. 10
7 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
PHYSIOGRAPHY................................................................................................... 11
8 HISTORY ............................................................................................................. 12
8.1 Previous Ownership ...................................................................................... 12
8.2 Previous Work .............................................................................................. 12
8.3 Historical Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates ......................................... 12
9 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ......................................................................................... 13
9.1 Regional Geology ......................................................................................... 13
9.2 Local Geology .............................................................................................. 13
9.3 Project Geology ............................................................................................ 16
9.3.1 Structural Geology .................................................................................. 16
10 DEPOSIT TYPES ................................................................................................... 17
11 MINERALISATION................................................................................................. 18
11.1 Mineralisation Model ..................................................................................... 18
12 EXPLORATION...................................................................................................... 18
12.1 Exploration Rationale and Objectives ............................................................. 18
12.2 Data Compilation .......................................................................................... 19
12.2.1 Radiometrics........................................................................................... 19
12.2.2 Drilling ................................................................................................... 19
13 DRILLING ............................................................................................................ 19
13.1 Drilling Programme and methodology ............................................................ 19
14 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH .................................................................... 21
14.1 Sampling Methods and Density of Sampling ................................................... 21
14.2 Sampling Recovery ....................................................................................... 21
14.3 Sample Quality ............................................................................................. 22
14.4 Rock Types and Mineralisation ...................................................................... 22
14.5 Borehole Logging Procedures ........................................................................ 22
14.5.1 Contact Logging Procedures .................................................................... 22
14.5.2 Global Gold Logging Procedures ............................................................... 23
14.6 Sampling Results .......................................................................................... 23
15 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ................................................ 26
15.1 Contact Samples .......................................................................................... 26
15.1.1 Sample Preparation ................................................................................. 26
15.1.2 Sample Delivery Procedures .................................................................... 26
15.1.3 Analytical Quality Assurance and Control Results....................................... 26
15.2 Global Gold Samples ..................................................................................... 26
15.2.1 Sample Delivery Procedures .................................................................... 26
15.2.2 Sample Preparation and Analysis (CIMM) ................................................. 27
15.3 Analytical Quality Assurance and Control Results ............................................ 28
15.3.1 Duplicate Data ........................................................................................ 28
15.3.2 Standard Data ........................................................................................ 29
15.3.3 Blank Data.............................................................................................. 31
15.4 Sample Database ......................................................................................... 32

3
15.5 Overall Adequacy Statement ......................................................................... 32

16 DATA VERIFICATION ............................................................................................ 32
16.1 Quality Control and Data Verification Procedures ............................................ 32
16.1.1 Site Visit (July 2009) ............................................................................... 33
16.1.2 Sample Database/Laboratory Certificate ................................................... 34
16.1.3 Independent Sample Analysis .................................................................. 34
16.2 Qualified Persons Statement ......................................................................... 35
16.3 Limitations of Verification .............................................................................. 35
16.4 Failure to Verify ............................................................................................ 35
17 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ....................................................................................... 35
17.1 Solex Resources ........................................................................................... 36
17.2 Vena Resources............................................................................................ 37
17.3 Fission Energy Corp ...................................................................................... 37
18 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ......................................... 40
19 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ..................................... 40
19.1 Borehole Database ....................................................................................... 40
19.2 Borehole twinning analysis ............................................................................ 40
19.3 Exploration Data Analysis .............................................................................. 43
19.3.1 Composites............................................................................................. 43
19.3.2 Distribution............................................................................................. 43
19.4 Variogram Analysis ....................................................................................... 45
19.4.1 Indicator variograms ............................................................................... 45
19.5 Estimation Methodology and Parameters........................................................ 47
19.5.1 Estimation Parameters ............................................................................ 47
19.5.2 Search Parameters .................................................................................. 48
19.5.3 Tonnage and Grade Calculation ............................................................... 49
19.6 Model Constraints ......................................................................................... 51
19.6.1 Surface Topography ................................................................................ 51
19.6.2 Depth of Drilling ..................................................................................... 51
19.6.3 Radiometric Anomaly .............................................................................. 51
19.7 Geological Losses ......................................................................................... 51
19.8 Density Determinations ................................................................................. 51
19.9 Mineral Resource Classification ...................................................................... 52
19.9.1 Kriging Efficiency .................................................................................... 52
19.9.2 Estimation Error ...................................................................................... 53
19.9.3 Overall Mineral Resource Classification ..................................................... 53
19.10 Mineral Resource Statement ...................................................................... 55
19.11 Classical Statistical Benchmarking .............................................................. 55
20 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ........................................................ 58
21 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION.................................................................... 58
22 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 58
23 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 59
24 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE ................................................................................ 60
25 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS ON DEVELOPMENT AND
PRODUCTION PROPERTIES .................................................................................. 60

4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the Corachapi Mining Concession ............................................ 12

Figure 2: Regional Geology of Peru ......................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Geology Surrounding the Corachapi Project .............................................. 15
Figure 4: Rose diagram depicting the main regional fault orientations....................... 16
Figure 5: Stereogram of the Structural Data Measured by The Mineral Corporation ... 17
Figure 6: Radiometric Survey with current drillholes (source: Global Gold S.A.C.) ...... 20
Figure 7: Core Recovery vs U grade (ppm).............................................................. 22
Figure 8: Mean deviation plot of duplicates of the ALS and CIMM laboratories ........... 29
Figure 9: Error Deviation plot for Standards of the CIMM and ALS Chemex
laboratories............................................................................................. 30
Figure 10: Mean Deviation plot for Standards at CIMM and ALS Chemex Laboratory.... 31
Figure 11: Blank Data Plot ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 12: Core recovery observations ...................................................................... 33
Figure 13: Solex Resources Property Holdings (as at December 2008) ........................ 36
Figure 14: Solex Resources Property Holdings in Macusani East ................................. 37
Figure 15: Ownership of Adjacent Properties ............................................................. 39
Figure 16: Comparison of half core from Contact drilling with whole core from
verification drilling ................................................................................... 41
Figure 17: CW-1440-09 twin borehole results ............................................................ 42
Figure 18: 2.5m Composite distribution in Normal Space ........................................... 43
Figure 19: 2.5m Composite distribution in Ln Space .................................................. 44
Figure 20: Coefficient of variation vs increasing Ln of U (ppm) ................................... 44
Figure 21: Low and High Grade sub-populations from the 2.5m Composites ............... 45
Figure 22: Anisotropic Indicator Variogram for the 2.5m Composites above 11ppm ..... 46
Figure 25: Average variance as a percentage of the population variance for randomly
drawn sample sets (30 iterations) ............................................................ 49
Figure 26: Plan View of block model at 4500m showing U abundance (ppm) .............. 50
Figure 27: Density against drillhole depth for all density measurements ...................... 52
Figure 28: Plan view of Block Model at 4500m showing Mineral Resource
classification ........................................................................................... 54
Figure 29: 5m Composite Distribution in Normal Space .............................................. 56
Figure 30: Isotropic Variogram of the Ln Transforms of the 5m Bench Composites ...... 57
Figure 31: Grade Tonnage Curve for the LN estimate ................................................ 57

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Average borehole sampling results ........................................................... 23

Table 2: Standard, Blank and Duplicate Statistics ................................................... 28
Table 3: Standards used for Analytical Quality Assurance and Control...................... 29
Table 4: Independent collar locations and observations .......................................... 33
Table 5: Analytical Results of the Independent Sampling by The Mineral
Corporation on the CIMM Reject Crushed Core .......................................... 35
Table 6: List of verification boreholes (twins) and overall analytical results .............. 40
Table 7: Variogram Parameters ............................................................................. 47
Table 8: Estimated means, confidence limits and estimation errors for MIK .............. 48
Table 9: Measured Mineral Resources .................................................................... 55
Table 10: Indicated Mineral Resources .................................................................... 55
Table 11: Inferred Mineral Resources ...................................................................... 55
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: Borehole Twinning results

6
3 SUMMARY
Global Gold S.A.C., which is owned 99.5% by Macusani Yellowcake Inc has
undertaken a phase of exploration work aimed at confirming and possibly extending
the Mineral Resources in the Corachapi Mining Concession. The concession was
previously owned by Contact Uranium Peru S.A.C. and was transferred to Global Gold
S.A.C. in June 2009. 219 diamond drilled boreholes have been drilled to evaluate the
surficial uranium mineralisation to a depth of approximately 50m. Of these 219
boreholes, 193 were drilled by Contact Uranium Peru S.A.C. and 26 were drilled by
Global Gold S.A.C. The Mineral Corporation has completed a Mineral Resource
estimate based on those boreholes for which complete analytical data was available, a
total of 210 boreholes.
The mining concessions are located in the Puno District of south east Peru, in the
Altiplano of the Eastern Cordillera of the Andes, the altitude of the concessions being
between 4330m to 4580m above mean sea level. The concessions are only some
14km to the west of the Interoceanico Highway that allows access into western Brazil
from the Pacific Ocean through Peru. A power line also follows this route and passes
close to the east of the concessions.
Exploration work completed by the Instituto Peruano de Energia Nuclear as well as the
United Nation Development Programme/International Atomic Energy Agency in the
mid to late 1970’s identified this part of Peru to be uraniferous. The Corachapi area
was identified as being underlain by suitable host rocks (Tertiary age acid volcanics)
and mining concessions were taken out in July 2005 by S.M.R.L. Corachapi and
subsequently transferred to Global Gold S.A.C on 18 June 2009.
To date the concession has been explored via diamond drilling that has been cut
longitudinally to provide a sample for analysis and one for storage by Contact Uranium
Peru S.A.C. The half core samples have been crushed, pulverized and analysed for
uranium abundance. Contact Uranium Peru S.A.C. employed the ALS Chemex
laboratory in Lima for their samples and the subsequent samples generated by Global
Gold S. A. C. were analysed at the CIMM Lima laboratory in Lima. However, CIMM
erected a sample crushing and pulverizing facility in Juliaca thus reducing the amount
of material that had to be transported to Lima. Global Gold’s practise on their newly
drilled core is to take whole core samples.
The sampling and analytical quality assurance and control results for both laboratories
has been scrutinised and the analytical results to date, may be employed for the
estimation of Mineral Resources.
Verification of the Contact electronic database of the geology, sampling, analyses and
surveying was completed in 2009 by cross-checking a small sample of core logging
and field measurements collected by The Mineral Corporation with Contact’s electronic
database. A small sample of analytical results provided in Excel spreadsheet form from
the ALS Chemex Laboratory, were cross-checked with the Contact electronic database.
Also an independent sample of randomly selected crushed core reject material was
completed to a) ensure the mining concessions are underlain by uraniferous material
and b) to validate to some extent the Contact analytical results.
The concessions are surrounded by other projects and publically disclosed data by
four projects (Solex Resources, Contact Uranium Limited, Vena Resources and Fission

7
Energy Corp) would indicate that the style, nature and abundance of the uranium
mineralisation identified to date is in accord with these projects. Subtle variations
would appear to exist.
Mineral Resource estimates have been completed via a block model and interpolation
of the uranium abundance by geostatistical methods in the Datamine environment. A
block model of base cell sizes of 25m x 25m x 2m was employed and trimmed by the
surface topography model. Multiple Indicator Kriging was used to estimate the
expected proportion of material above a series of cut-offs, and average grades within
grade groups estimated using classical statistics. Due to the highly skewed nature of
the 2.5m bench composite data and method thereof, the mineral resource estimates
at different uranium cut-offs were checked for material bias by conducting a classical
log normal estimation on 5m composites and a 3D variogram derived block variance.
A good correspondence for tonnage is evident between these two methods, however,
the block model could tend to slightly overestimate the tonnage and uranium grade at
the 75 U ppm cut-off. Classification of the Mineral Resource is based on kriging
efficiency and grade estimation error. The identified Mineral Resources are as follows:
Measured Mineral Resources

Cut off U grade tonnes lbs U3O8 U3O8 grade U3O8 grade
(U ppm) (U ppm) (000s) (000s) (%) (lbs/ton)
25 42 19,281 2,109 0.005% 0.099
50 76 3,809 752 0.009% 0.179
75 120 1,031 321 0.014% 0.283
100 162 463 195 0.019% 0.382
125 197 276 141 0.023% 0.464
150 246 150 96 0.029% 0.580
Indicated Mineral Resources

25 98 25,093 6,393 0.012% 0.231
50 136 15,522 5,498 0.016% 0.321
75 171 10,562 4,699 0.020% 0.404
100 204 7,608 4,031 0.024% 0.481
125 237 5,593 3,449 0.028% 0.559
150 268 4,258 2,972 0.032% 0.633
Inferred Mineral Resources

25 134 6,311 2,202 0.016% 0.317
50 170 4,645 2,053 0.020% 0.401
75 195 3,753 1,906 0.023% 0.461
100 227 2,891 1,707 0.027% 0.536
125 274 2,068 1,473 0.032% 0.646
150 327 1,500 1,274 0.039% 0.770

8
The Mineral Corporation makes the following recommendations:
1) Complete in-fill drilling to the north of Taypicorani, south of Corachapi and along
the eastern radiometric anomaly on Taititira (Figure 6);
2) At or around the site of the highest U abundances (boreholes CW-1760-07 and
CW-1520-09), drill vertical holes to 120m to test for depth extension; and
3) Try to locate the regional faults depicted in Figure 3, that should traverse the
eastern corner of Corachapi and conduct ground radiometric surveys and
trenching if appropriate.

9
4 INTRODUCTION
This report describes the exploration activity and mineral potential of the Corachapi
Mining Concessions (“Corachapi Project”) in the Corani District of Peru owned by
Global Gold S.A.C. (“Global Gold”).
This report has been prepared with the objective that Global Gold can make this
report public with other documentation as per the requirements of National
Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral projects (NI 43-101) as set out
in Form 43-101F1 (October 2005).
Technical information that this report is based upon has been provided by Global Gold
on site at Lima and Isivilla, Peru, as well as a site visit to the Corachapi Project by the
Qualified Person to collect independent data.
5 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

This report has been compiled by The Mineral Corporation which is a South African
company with international affiliations, which comprises 26 professional technical staff
and many associates offering expertise in a wide range of geoscientific and mining
disciplines. The Mineral Corporation has a demonstrated track record in undertaking
independent assessments of exploration and in preparing qualified and competent
person’s reports and independent feasibility studies on behalf of exploration and
mining companies and financial institutions world-wide.
This report has been prepared by professional staff based at The Mineral Corporation’s
offices in Randburg (South Africa). A site visit was undertaken by David Young and
Stewart Nupen in July 2009 to Global Gold’s offices in Lima, the Isivilla site office and
the Corachapi Project. These members of staff are specialists in the fields of
exploration, geology and mineral resource estimation and classification and meet the
requirements of the South African Council of Natural Professional Scientists
(“SACNASP”) in order to allow them to act as Qualified Persons (QP) under the
requirements of the SAMREC code as recognised by National Instrument 43-101
(“NI43-101”).
A visit to the currently employed laboratory (CIMM Peru S.A.) was undertaken during
a 2008 visit. This necessitated visits to the Juliaca site where sample acceptance,
crushing and pulverising is completed, to the Lima - Callao site where pulverised
samples undergo acid digestion and the Lima – Miraflores site where the digested
material is analysed for uranium abundance.
Approximately 49% of the sample analysis completed for the Mineral Resource
estimation was conducted by the ALS Chemex laboratory, however this laboratory has
not been visited by the Qualified Person.
Neither The Mineral Corporation nor any of their consultants employed in the
preparation of this report has any beneficial interest in the assets of Global Gold. The
Mineral Corporation has been paid fees and will continue to be paid fees for this work
in accordance with normal professional consulting practices.

10
6 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

Macusani Yellowcake Inc (“Macusani”) is a company that listed on the TSX Venture
Exchange in November 2007. Macusani owns 99.5% of a Peruvian company, Global
Gold S.A.C. (“Global Gold”), the remaining 0.5% is held by a Peruvian individual as
recommended by the Ministry of Energy and Mines (“MEM”). Global Gold hold various
mineral rights internationally; however, the focus of this report is entirely on the
Corachapi Mining Concession (Figure 1).
The main legislation governing the mining sector is the General Mining Law of Peru
Gazetted in June 1992 with subsequent amendments. Investment promotion laws,
the Peruvian tax regime and environmental framework are other components of the
Peruvian mining landscape. Concessions are granted for exploration, exploitation,
beneficiation, auxiliary services and transportation by the MEM. No concession is
required for reconnaissance, prospecting or trading.
A mining concession grants its holder the right to explore and exploit minerals within
its area and the key characteristics include:
• Concessions are exclusive, freely transferable and mortgageable;

• Location is based on a UTM grid system of minimum 100ha to 1000ha.
• Granted on a first-come, first served basis;
• Indefinite term but with restrictions and an objective based criteria;
• Single annual fee payable. Fee structure based on scale of operations and
duration of ownership; and,
• Access to the property must be negotiated with surface land owners.
The work programme budget and expenditure defined in the “objective based criteria”
has to be presented in year 7 of the life of the mining concession to the MEM and
penalties are incurred for under expenditure. By year 12 of the life of the mining
concession, it is expected that exploitation should be ongoing, if this is not the case
then justification has be presented to the MEM and an extension of 6 years may be
conferred.
The annual fees payable by Global Gold to the MEM are currently standing at US$3/ha
and of the 7 year work programme budget of US$5m, approximately US$3.8m has
been spent, which equates to 76% of the budget.
The Corachapi Project is made up of three mining concessions as follows (Figure 3):
• Corachapi - 500ha - Title No 01-03428-97

• Taititira - 100ha - Title No 01-02152-04
• Taypicorani - 200ha - Title No 01-00070-05
These mining concessions were granted to S.M.R.L Corachapi, a Contact Uranium Peru
S.A.C. (“Contact”) entity on the 27th July 2005 and subsequently transferred to Global
Gold on 18 June 2009. These mining concessions are valid for all solid minerals.
The Mineral Corporation has restricted their review of the Mineral Rights held by
Global Gold to checking the individual license boundaries on plans to those depicted
on the mining concession outputs from the MEM. No legal review of the validity of the
process Global Gold went through to obtain the mining concessions has been

11
undertaken, nor has an attempt been made to understand the various “Contact”
company structures and ownerships prior to transfer.
All diagrams employ the UTM Zone 19S projection and the Provisional South American
Datum - 1956 datum.
7 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND

PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Corachapi Project is located within the Province of Carabay, Department of Puno,
southeastern Peru. It is approximately 650km south east of Lima where the
Interoceanico Highway (“IH”) passes approximately 14km to the east of the Project.
The IH is a system of tarred roads that link the ports of San Juan and Ilo on the west
coast of Peru over the Andes to the west side of Brazil. The nearest towns to the
Corachapi Project are Macusani, 26km to the southeast of the project area, and
Corani, 1km to the north (Figure 3). An un-tarred road, in good condition, connects
the Corachapi Project to the IH.
The closest airport to the Corachapi Project is Juliaca, situated approximately 180km
from the southern boundary of the concessions. This airport is in good condition and
receives numerous daily flights from Lima and Cusco.
There are no electricity supplies or telephone communication networks in any part of

the project area.
The Corachapi Project is situated in the relatively flat Altiplano of the Eastern
Cordillera of the Andes Mountain Range. Elevation ranges from 4 330m to 4 580m
above mean sea level. The surface ownership of the Corachapi Project is held by the
local community.
Precipitation has a marked seasonality. The rainy season is from September but peaks
between January and April. The exposed eastern slopes of the Andes receive more
than 2 500mm of rain annually, but sheltered locations receive much less. May to
August is characterised by very dry conditions and cold nights. Temperatures range
from 19°C in November to -10°C in July. These climatic conditions and altitude
dictate that the Corachapi Project is vegetated by coarse scrub and grasses.

12
Figure 1: Location of the Corachapi Mining Concession

12
8 HISTORY
8.1 Previous Ownership

Global Gold acquired the Corachapi Mining Concession from Contact in June 2009.
8.2 Previous Work

In 1975 the general uranium and nuclear activities in Peru were placed under the
control of the Instituto Peruano de Energia Nuclear (“IPEN”). A five year plan
(1976-1981) was initiated with the aim of identifying and developing resources in
the country. The Macusani East area is the most studied area in southern Peru by
IPEN. After IPEN discovered the first 60 uranium showings in 1978, systematic
radiometric prospecting and trenching were carried out over an area of
approximately 600km2, culminating in the discovery of numerous additional
uranium showings.
From mid-1977 a long term United Nation Development Programme/International

Atomic Energy Agency (“UNDP/IAEA”) project was initiated consisting of regional
reconnaissance over selected areas. Results of most of the work were negative
except for a car-borne radiometric survey of the Puno Basin where a significant
discovery was made near Macusani in the southern Cordillera Oriental, north of
Lake Titicaca. Anomalies were found in the volcanic and interbedded sediments of
the Upper Tertiary age Macusani volcanics and the Permian age Mitu Group. In the
same exploration phase additional anomalies were located to the SSW near Santa
Rosa in Tertiary age porphyritic rhyolites and andesites.
These and other discoveries in the Lake Titicaca region, concentrated the
exploration in the general area. A helicopter spectrometric survey of selected areas
was completed in 1980 in Munani, Lagunaillas and Rio Blanco as an IAEA/IPEN
Project and a fixed wing survey was completed in an adjacent area by IPEN.
Numerous uranium anomalies were discovered.
In 1984, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear

Energy Agency and the IAEA sponsored an International Uranium Resources
Evaluation Project Mission (“IUREP”) to Peru. The mission estimated that the
Speculative Resources of the country fell within the range of 6 000 to 11 000 tonne
of uranium.
8.3 Historical Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates

In January 2007 an estimate for the Mineral Resources for Corachapi was carried
out by Contact. This was based on 645 samples collected from 77 trenches cut
across the strike of the mineralisation at 50m or 100m intervals. The estimated
Mineral Resources were some 3 793 064 tonne at an average of 975 U ppm.
In April 2009, a second Mineral Resource estimate was compiled by SRK

Consulting. The estimated Mineral Resources (at a 50U ppm cut-off) were 7.0M
tonne at an average grade of 208 U ppm and these results were published by
Contact in November 2008. It should be noted that this estimation was based on
the gamma down-the-hole logging results.

13
Global Gold elected to embark on a validation drilling campaign, and estimate new
mineral resources in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 (Press Release
dated 6 March 2009).
The Mineral Corporation is not aware of any Mineral Reserves being published for
this concession.
9 GEOLOGICAL SETTING
9.1 Regional Geology

The Andes represents a large anticlinorium complicated by a series of faults and
intrusions. The flanks of this superstructure are made up of the coastal Mesozoic
and eastern Palaeozoic belts. The Andes represent the Late Tertiary and
Quaternary rejuvenation by block faulting of an eroded early Tertiary folded
mountain range which occupied the axis of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic geosynclines.
Topographically the mountains consist of a central dissected plateau, the Altiplano
or Puno, enclosed by narrow ranges, the Cordillera Occidental and the Cordillera
Oriental (IUREP; 1984).
The main geological units are shown in Figure 2.
9.2 Local Geology

In the Macusani region, late Tertiary tuffs, ignimbrites and associated sediments
are preserved in a NW-SE trending graben. Much of the Early Tertiary and
Mesozoic cover were eroded prior to deposition of the pyroclastics so they were
deposited in part directly on the Palaeozoic rocks including Late Palaeozoic
intrusives (Hercynian granites) and extrusives (Mitu volcanics).
The geological plan of the area (Figure 3) indicates that the mining concession is
underlain by rocks of the Neogene Period, Quenamari Formation (dated between
22.5Ma to 1.8Ma). Miocene Epoch rocks (Sapanuta and Yapamayo Members)
outcrop over the Corachapi Project.
The known uranium occurrences in the Macusani area identified by IUREP are
associated with Miocene Epoch Quenamari Formation tuffs, ignimbrites and
interbedded sediments in a NW_SE trending graben. Uranium in the form of
pitchblende, uranophane, gummite and meta-autunite occurs predominantly in a
fluvio-lacustrine sediment between two pyro-clastic units. The thickness of the
sedimentary unit varies from less than 1m to over 5m.
Other uranium mineralisation is indicated by IUREP (1984) to be hosted in acidic

volcanic rocks of rhyolite composition that cover large areas of the Macusani
Plateau in horizontally bedded formations from surface to a depth of about 100m
but these appear to be lenticular or confined to fracture zones.

14
Figure 2: Regional Geology of Peru

15
Figure 3: Geology Surrounding the Corachapi Project

16
9.3 Project Geology

The host rocks and ore body is composed of an acidic tuff with pyroclasts of size
60mm to sub-macroscopic. The main minerals constituting the tuff are quartz,
orthoclase and plagioclase in a groundmass of amorphous glass (Thatcher, 2008).
A crude bedding is evident in some outcrops based on strata containing larger and
smaller pyroclasts as well as differential weathering; a flat dipping tuff is
interpreted.
9.3.1 Structural Geology

From the published geological maps of the area structural elements can be
measured from the Quenamari Formation rocks. These are mainly observed
fault and bedding strike measurements. Based on a length weighting of the
faults the rose diagram depicted in Figure 4 has been processed to indicate the
main fault orientations.
200 Apparent Strike

250 max planes / arc
150 at outer circle
100 Trend / Plunge of

Face Normal = 0, 90
(directed away from viewer)
50
No Bias Correction
W 200 150 100 50 50 100 150 200 E
50
100
150
1181 Planes Plotted
Within 45 and 90
200
Degrees of Viewing
Face
Figure 4: Rose diagram depicting the main regional fault orientations
The main fault strike orientations in order of dominance are 102.5˚, 157.5˚,
072.5˚ and 012.5˚. Based on structural measurements made on mineralised
fractures collected by The Mineral Corporation for this project an analysis of
the fracture orientations was completed. This data is contained in Figure 5
The rocks are noted from the regional plans to dip to the north-east (048˚) by
an average of 6˚.

17
Fisher
Concentrations
% of total per 1.0 % area
0.00 ~ 2.00 %
2.00 ~ 4.00 %
4.00 ~ 6.00 %
6.00 ~ 8.00 %
8.00 ~ 10.00 %
10.00 ~ 12.00 %
12.00 ~ 14.00 %
W E 14.00 ~ 16.00 %
16.00 ~ 18.00 %
18.00 ~ 20.00 %
No Bias Correction
Max. Conc. = 19.1765%
Equal Angle
Lower Hemisphere
10 Poles
10 Entries
Figure 5: Stereogram of the Structural Data Measured by The Mineral Corporation
The main structural features emerging from Figure 5 are as follows:
• The primary mode is at 155°/77°, indicating a dominant steep dip to the

south.
• The second most important mode is at 035°/83°.
From the above it is clear that most of the fractures are steep. The primary
structural orientations of 155°/77° and 035°/83° (strike orientations of 065˚
and 125°) would appear to correspond to the faulting strike orientations
measured from the geological plans at 072.5˚ and 102.5° respectively.
Based on this structural model the areas with high fracture density are likely to
be better mineralised to those areas with lower fracture densities. There would
appear to be two regionally mapped faults (Figure 3) that pass through the
south eastern portion of the Corachapi Project.
10 DEPOSIT TYPES
The Corachapi Project style of mineralisation within fractured acidic pyroclastics is not
a common form of uranium mineralisation. The main uranium mineral present is
meta-autunite concentrated as disseminations and sometimes massively along
fractures. Hence the exploration is based on ground radiometrics followed by
evaluation drilling over the potential host rocks of the mineralisation. A model of the
mineralisation paragenesis has been erected for the Colibri II and III area (6km
distant) that is considered at this early stage in the understanding for the Corachapi
Project to be appropriate (Young, 2010).
Meta-autunite is a secondary from of uranium mineralisation and the paragenesis is

considered to be via hypogene enrichment of uranium from a deep protore. A normal
hydrothermal uranium paragenesis is not supported by the mineralised whole rock
geochemistry i.e. the normal associations with base metal sulphides and hematite are
missing. Undoubtedly supergene alteration and enrichment via meteoric waters has
subsequently taken place. This style of mineralisation is noted from the adjacent
properties to the Corachapi Project.
The drilling programme has been designed to pierce the prism shaped pyroclastic host
rocks of dimensions 1900m x 500m x 50m without overall sample orientation biases.

18
11 MINERALISATION
A total of 62m of half-core material was logged by The Mineral Corporation which was
selected to allow scrutiny of core containing low, medium and high grade uranium
abundances (Section 16.1.1). Only two mineralised fractures were observed in the
core logged, however, disseminated meta-autunite mineralisation and biotite appears
to pervade the core locally; the highest grade borehole only had disseminated meta-
autunite mineralisation present. From this scant information it would appear that the
uranium mineralisation is not concentrated at Corachapi along fracture planes but is
disseminated sporadically throughout the acidic tuff. It is noted from viewing the
sampling data in 3-D that there would appear to be a “stratigraphic” control on the
uranium mineralisation of interest.
11.1 Mineralisation Model

The mineralisation model erected by Young (2010) is as follows:
• Lithification of the acidic tuffs.

• Minor faulting and fracturing of the tuffs with preferential orientations west to
east, northwest to southeast and flat lying:
• Hypogene mineralisation from fluids with a high oxygen fugacity containing
both U4+ and U6+. Deposition of UO2 (pitchblende - minor) and both UO3
2H2O (schoepite - major) (Rich et al, 1977) occurred as well as the biotite
alteration of the wall rocks along the preferred fracture directions. The
hypogene fluids are considered to have tapped primary uranium mineralisation
from a deeper seated protore associated with the volcanic rocks.
• Supergene alteration of the schoepite occurred to form meta-autunite via
downward migration of meteoric waters.
• Later stage fracturing and jointing with no mineralisation occurred.
The implication for the exploration programme due to this model is that deeper
levels of uranium mineralisation can be expected.
12 EXPLORATION
12.1 Exploration Rationale and Objectives

Uranium exploration activities in Peru in general, and in Southern Peru in particular
date back to the work of IPEN in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Uranium anomalies were found near Macusani in Upper Tertiary volcanics and the
Permian Mitu Group, by a long term UNDP/IAEA project. Further detail of previous
work is included in Section 8.2.
On the basis of these known anomalies, Global Gold has obtained prospecting
permits over some 14% of the Macusani Plateau. The general exploration rational
involves the delineation of potential Uranium anomalies through a combination of
regional geological understanding and surface radiometric techniques in order to
delineate targets for further investigation through drilling.

19
12.2 Data Compilation
12.2.1 Radiometrics
The Corachapi Concession covers the largest radiometric anomaly that was
outlined by IPEN during its work in the1980s. Global Gold has conducted a
subsequent ground-based radiometric survey to guide the drilling and these
results are depicted in Figure 6.
12.2.2 Drilling
An extensive drilling campaign by Contact included over 193 holes. Further
drilling by Global Gold has brought the current status to 11 818m in 219 holes.
The results of 210 of these holes have been employed in the creation of this
report.
13 DRILLING
13.1 Drilling Programme and methodology

Exploration work by Contact began at the end of 2007. A total of 193 HQ diamond
holes were drilled by Contact amounting to a metreage of more than 10 000m.
Four of these holes were repeat holes. The holes were drilled on 80m or 160m
spaced east-west lines. The spacing of the holes on the lines was 40m. In
general, two holes were drilled from each location, one dipping 50º east and the
other 50 º west. Core recovery is reported to be generally over 85-90%.
Global Gold has drilled an additional 26 boreholes bringing the current status of
drilling to 11 818m from 219 boreholes. Of these holes, 210 have been chemically
analysed, 107 holes were analysed by Contact and 103 holes were analysed by
Global Gold. One hole was analysed by both companies.

20
Figure 6: Radiometric Survey with current drillholes (source: Global Gold S.A.C.)

21
14 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH
14.1 Sampling Methods and Density of Sampling

10 920 core samples (excluding duplicates, standards and blanks) taken by Contact
and Global Gold average 1.006m each in length with a maximum of 4.0m and a
minimum of 0.4m. The Contact protocol was to sample half core (HQ size - ~78mm
in diameter) by sawing it longitudinal over the entire length of the borehole, a
practise that was continued by Global Gold on the core that Contact had drilled but
had yet to be sampled at the time of the transfer in ownership. For sampling of
core drilled by Global Gold, Global Gold sampled whole core (N-sized - ~60mm in
diameter) on 1.0m long intervals.
The Contact boreholes were drilled on 80m or 160m spaced E-W lines . On each
line, the spacing between drilling locations is 40m where two holes are drilled from
each location, one dipping-50° east, the other -50° west. Global Gold have
continued to drill on this pattern.
Although the structural review did not indicate that a fracture-fill mineralisation
model prevails at the Corachapi Project, the possibility of sampling bias due to
borehole orientation has been analysed. This was completed by scrutiny of down-
the-hole variograms for west oriented holes compared to east oriented holes as
well as scrutiny of the respective raw data uranium abundance distributions and
means. Equal weighting was given for the differently oriented samples.
14.2 Sampling Recovery

An estimation of the sample recovery was completed on the site visit (Section 16.1)
at 93% with the <20m deep core having lower recoveries than the >20m deep
core that averages 100%.
Another global measure of the sample recovery was provided by the total drilling
metres (11817.88m) and the total metres sampled and un-sampled (10920m +
897.88m = 11817.88m) that yielded a global core recovery of 92.00%.
It was noted that the nature of the mineralisation, particularly near mineralised
fractures, is such that uranium minerals, particularly meta-autunite, are likely to be
washed away while drilling and sawing the core into two halves. An analysis of the
U abundance versus core recovery (Contact data) shows that for a recovery less
than approximately 80% this would appear to be true (Figure 7).

22
3,000
2,500
2,000
U Abundance (ppm)
1,500
1,000
500
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
Core Recovery
Figure 7: Core Recovery vs U grade (ppm)
The fourteen twinned-hole exercise by Global Gold was aimed at understanding if

there had been any biasing-low by sawing the core in half.
14.3 Sample Quality

As the mode of the mineralisation is considered to be mainly disseminated meta-
autunite, the integrity of the samples in half core over one metre samples is
considered adequate. The method adopted by Global Gold to take samples of
whole core for their evaluation programme is sound, apart from leaving no library
samples for further scrutiny. A comprehensive photographic archive is, however,
retained of the Gllobal Gold core.
14.4 Rock Types and Mineralisation

The rocks hosting the U mineralisation are acidic tuffs (ignimbrites). The
mineralisation is bright yellow meta-autunite that can occur as fracture filling or as
fine disseminations.
14.5 Borehole Logging Procedures
14.5.1 Contact Logging Procedures

Due to the nature of the take-over by Global Gold of the mining concessions
and data, very little is known regarding the Contact logging and sampling
procedures. However, the electronic data base has been verified by The
Mineral Corporation as discussed in Section 16.1.1. that would indicate that
industry norms would have been employed by Contact.

23
14.5.2 Global Gold Logging Procedures

The normal logging procedures adopted by Global Gold were observed in 2008
and are documented in Young, 2010. Those applied at Corachapi are as
follows:
• Logging took place on site at a moveable field station which was located
close to the drill rigs and relocated periodically. An initial visual
assessment of the core was made and zones of good and poor
mineralisation were noted.
• Radioactivity was then measured by means of a spectrometer. 4-5
measurements were recorded over each 1.0m length of core. Mineralised
fractures were measured independently. Each of the 4-5 measurements
was stored in the borehole records.
• Sampling intervals at 1.0m were identified.
• Sample intervals were identified with a pre-marked aluminium tag.
• Detailed geological logging was then completed. Notes were made of the
lithology, alteration, mineralisation and general rock description. The rock
description recorded colour and approximate mineral assemblage.
Structural information such as the core axis to fracture angle of
mineralised fractures was also recorded.
14.6 Sampling Results

The overall borehole sampling results are provided in Table 1 based on 1m
composites as defined in Section 18.3.1.
Table 1: Average borehole sampling results

Length U grade U grade
Borehole Borehole Length (m)
(m) (ppm) (ppm)
CW-0880-01 39.4 28.6 CW-1440-10 53.5 38.1
CW-0880-03 49.9 17.6 CW-1440-11 51.1 55.4
CW-0880-04 50.0 30.0 CW-1440-12 49.0 49.8
CW-0880-05 52.8 36.4 CW-1440-13 51.4 32.2
CW-0880-05T 53.4 29.5 CW-1440-14 51.2 93.4
CW-0880-06 57.2 20.3 CW-1440-15 45.4 22.3
CW-0880-07 52.0 30.4 CW-1440-16 52.0 19.6
CW-0880-08 52.0 23.9 CW-1520-01 51.0 311.6
CW-0880-09 50.6 215.1 CW-1520-02 51.0 37.0
CW-0880-10 48.8 75.9 CW-1520-03 60.1 112.9
CW-1040-01 96.6 30.0 CW-1520-03T 59.8 195.7
CW-1040-02 65.5 96.1 CW-1520-04 66.7 69.0
CW-1040-03 84.9 96.9 CW-1520-05 68.8 78.6
CW-1040-04 90.9 500.3 CW-1520-06 58.5 38.8
CW-1040-05 70.7 586.6 CW-1520-07 61.8 23.6
CW-1040-05A 53.2 307.7 CW-1520-08 58.2 28.5
CW-1040-06 70.9 348.0 CW-1520-09 68.8 62.4
CW-1040-06T 73.1 429.4 CW-1520-10 71.2 33.0
CW-1040-07 44.8 50.2 CW-1520-11 67.1 78.1
CW-1040-08 56.3 55.4 CW-1520-12 52.6 84.4
CW-1040-08A 29.6 162.8 CW-1520-13 79.4 20.3
CW-1040-09 59.7 41.6 CW-1520-14 71.7 20.5
CW-1040-10 68.6 42.9 CW-1520-15 71.8 21.7
CW-1040-11 67.4 22.2 CW-1520-16 65.3 22.2
CW-1040-12 64.1 55.0 CW-1520-17 68.7 19.1
CW-1040-13 77.9 32.2 CW-1520-18 68.8 20.3
CW-1040-14 69.6 21.6 CW-1600-01 54.8 446.5
CW-1040-15 50.3 25.6 CW-1600-01T 55.5 360.4
CW-1040-16 86.4 19.6 CW-1600-02 54.8 46.7
CW-1040-17 77.1 44.9 CW-1600-03 74.5 126.2

24

(m) (ppm) (ppm)
CW-1040-18 19.3 35.7 CW-1600-04 57.7 116.7
CW-1040-19 40.0 31.2 CW-1600-05 53.3 30.7
CW-1040-20 15.0 36.6 CW-1600-06 69.3 33.4
CW-1040-21 6.2 24.1 CW-1600-07 64.8 31.3
CW-1040-22 10.0 30.2 CW-1600-08 77.4 32.9
CW-1040-23 14.0 26.9 CW-1600-09 56.9 36.7
CW-1040-24 13.0 23.8 CW-1600-10 60.1 31.0
CW-1120-01 41.8 136.5 CW-1600-11 66.6 64.1
CW-1120-02 62.0 117.6 CW-1600-12 73.4 45.3
CW-1120-03 52.0 69.3 CW-1600-13 60.3 53.9
CW-1120-04 54.0 189.1 CW-1600-14 73.4 38.7
CW-1120-05 80.2 53.1 CW-1600-15 71.7 15.1
CW-1120-06 77.8 93.9 CW-1600-16 75.0 22.3
CW-1120-06T 69.9 300.3 CW-1600-17 50.3 26.1
CW-1120-07 8.0 53.5 CW-1600-18 69.1 20.9
CW-1120-08 53.0 86.2 CW-1760-01 64.0 18.9
CW-1120-08T 53.9 246.6 CW-1760-02 61.0 24.7
CW-1120-09 53.0 37.7 CW-1760-03 55.0 19.9
CW-1120-10 50.7 43.7 CW-1760-04 53.0 24.6
CW-1120-11 54.5 20.3 CW-1760-05 54.0 29.0
CW-1120-12 50.8 23.9 CW-1760-06 45.6 53.4
CW-1120-13 54.7 18.0 CW-1760-07 54.1 99.9
CW-1120-14 51.6 29.3 CW-1760-08 50.1 23.8
CW-1200-01 51.3 41.1 CW-1760-09 57.0 176.5
CW-1200-02 51.3 30.1 CW-1760-10 53.7 340.0
CW-1200-03 48.9 86.0 CW-1760-10T 54.4 603.8
CW-1200-04 53.8 64.4 CW-1760-11 52.5 22.1
CW-1200-05 57.0 183.4 CW-1760-12 50.8 141.9
CW-1200-05T 56.9 575.6 CW-1760-13 54.0 32.8
CW-1200-06 52.6 402.3 CW-1760-14 50.9 27.2
CW-1200-07 50.3 26.4 CW-1760-15 49.4 65.3
CW-1200-08 51.7 37.2 CW-1760-16 49.9 25.2
CW-1200-09 47.5 19.4 CW-1760-17 38.8 40.7
CW-1200-10 48.3 28.3 CW-1760-18 50.0 21.5
CW-1200-11 59.6 16.4 CW-1920-03 44.8 36.0
CW-1200-12 47.8 21.0 CW-1920-03T 45.7 48.1
CW-1280-01 51.7 174.9 CW-1920-04 50.0 24.0
CW-1280-02 50.1 22.4 CW-1920-05 49.0 31.5
CW-1280-03 49.9 31.7 CW-1920-06 50.6 46.2
CW-1280-04 50.0 29.5 CW-1920-07 50.0 29.1
CW-1280-05 51.0 34.5 CW-1920-08 50.0 22.3
CW-1280-05T 49.0 50.2 CW-1920-09 31.5 32.5
CW-1280-06 51.6 47.1 CW-1920-10 45.9 27.5
CW-1280-07 44.6 87.3 PT-A2-TV 64.5 251.8
CW-1280-08 49.6 93.9 PT-C2-TV 70.0 194.6
CW-1280-09 54.0 18.4 PT-C3-TV 88.0 88.3
CW-1280-10 52.3 24.9 QC-0320-01 2.0 26.6
CW-1280-11 54.0 18.9 QC-0320-02 23.0 26.3
CW-1280-12 54.0 20.5 QC-0320-03 42.3 42.1
CW-1360-03 67.0 33.4 QC-0320-04 23.0 1112.0
CW-1360-04 81.0 22.7 QC-0320-04 1.6 52.8
CW-1360-05 52.0 54.1 QC-0320-07 26.8 62.1
CW-1360-06 51.9 55.2 QC-0320-08 30.0 35.4
CW-1360-07 57.3 25.2 QC-0320-09 32.3 31.1
CW-1360-08 57.3 28.9 QC-0320-10 34.0 56.7
CW-1360-09 53.6 31.3 QC-0320-10T 34.1 51.8
CW-1360-10 66.4 21.4 QC-0400-01 25.2 73.6
CW-1360-11 56.5 36.1 QC-0400-02 23.0 408.3
CW-1360-11T 57.0 39.9 QC-0400-03 25.0 41.6
CW-1360-12 63.0 68.4 QC-0400-04 22.7 95.8
CW-1360-13 50.9 27.0 QC-0400-05 30.0 36.0
CW-1360-14 56.0 44.6 QC-0400-06 24.7 81.1
CW-1360-15 55.0 19.4 QC-0400-07 46.0 84.9
CW-1360-16 64.1 24.3 QC-0400-08 38.0 559.5
CW-1440-01 51.0 29.3 QC-0400-09 47.8 296.1

25

(m) (ppm) (ppm)
CW-1440-02 52.6 25.5 QC-0400-09T 51.8 500.4
CW-1440-03 54.0 59.0 QC-0400-10 42.0 65.7
CW-1440-04 70.3 55.4 QC-1120-17 39.0 123.0
CW-1440-05 65.5 45.8 QC-1120-18 47.0 202.3
CW-1440-06 53.3 52.9 QC-1200-09 43.0 103.1
CW-1440-07 56.6 37.6 QC-1200-10 50.0 54.3
CW-1440-08 79.8 36.2 QC-1200-11 50.1 58.3
CW-1440-09 53.6 45.5 QC-1200-12 49.0 86.4
CW-1440-09T 54.0 42.0 CW-1440-10 53.5 38.1

26
15 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY
15.1 Contact Samples

Due to commercial reasons, only 103 of the 193 holes drilled by Contact were
sampled using “wet” chemical techniques (ICP-MS or ICP-OES) or XRF, for grades
higher than 100ppm. The balance was radiometrically logged.
15.1.1 Sample Preparation

The core preparation included detailed logging, photography and splitting the
HQ sized core in half longitudinally. One half of the core was kept on site.
15.1.2 Sample Delivery Procedures

The primary laboratory for assaying was ALS Chemex Lima (Peru), while ALS
Brisbane (Australia) was used for XRF analysis.
15.1.3 Analytical Quality Assurance and Control Results

Quality control samples in the form of duplicates and check samples were
inserted by Contact. Duplicates came from the oversize material of the ALS
Chemex samples, and check samples from ALS Chemex Lima pulps was sent to
an independent external laboratory, Genalysis Perth (Australia).
15.2 Global Gold Samples
15.2.1 Sample Delivery Procedures

The complete sample batch, accompanied by a senior representative of the
Global Gold exploration team, was sent by road to the town of Juliaca. The
samples were delivered to a preparatory laboratory operated by CIMM in
Juliaca where the samples were crushed and pulverised. It was essentially
CIMM’s ability to accept core samples in Juliaca that accounted for the decision
to use the CIMM laboratory for the analysis of core from the Corachapi Project.
A review of the detailed procedures within this laboratory is included in Section
15.2.2.1.
From the preparatory laboratory in Juliaca, the pulverized samples were

transported by CIMM to the main CIMM laboratory in Callao, on the outskirts of
Lima by either road or as air freight to the CIMM Callao laboratory in Lima.
The CIMM Callao laboratory represents the entry point into the CIMM LIMS
system for the samples, and at this point an acid digestion was made from the
pulverised sample. A detailed review of the procedures within this laboratory is
included in Section 15.2.2.2.
Finally, the sample solutions were analysed at a dedicated CIMM ICP-MS facility
in Miraflores, Lima. A detailed review of the procedures within this laboratory
is included in Section 15.2.2.3.
The Mineral Corporation examined the sample receiving facilities at all three
these laboratories and found them to be well organised. It would appear that
the chain of custody of the Global Gold samples from site to final analysis is
reasonably secure.

27
15.2.2 Sample Preparation and Analysis (CIMM)

Sample preparation and analysis was carried out through the CIMM Laboratory
- Lima.
15.2.2.1 CIMM Preparation Laboratory (Juliaca)

The samples were weighed on delivery and given a laboratory code.
Drying was completed over a 12hr period at 100˚C. Crushing was
done by two jaw crushers; the first to 6mm and the second to
2.5mm. Crushing was completed when the sample was
100%<2.5mm. CIMM standards were entered into the stream after
the first jaw crusher. The jaw crushers were flushed with quartz
material; some of which were sent to the Lima offices for analysis on
a regular basis.
One certified reference material, one blank sample and two duplicate
samples were incorporated into each batch of 50 samples delivered to
CIMM for laboratory quality control and assurance. These results were
given to Global Gold on the analysis certificates.
After homogenisation, the crushed sample was riffle split to an

approximate 250g sample that was pulverised by a ring mill. The ring
mill was flushed after approximately every five samples or if there
was a marked colour change in the crushed material. The
preparation facility strives to have the pulverised material at 85%
<200 mesh grain size.
The jaw crushers, riffles and ring mills are all cleaned with
compressed air and are located within sub-housings to keep
contamination to a minimum. The reject material is kept on site but
will eventually be transported to the Global Gold warehouse in Lima.
15.2.2.2 CIMM Laboratory (Lima – Callao)

The pulverised material was entered into the LIMS system and the
sample was manually homogenised. Wet samples were dried before
an approximate 0.20g aliquot (±0.02g) sample was spooned out and
digested with a mixture of HCl+HNO3+HF+HClO4 acid over a period
of 8hrs. The bottles of digested material and acid were dispatched to
the CIMM laboratory in Miraflores, Lima.
15.2.2.3 CIMM ICP-MS Laboratory (Lima - Miraflores)

The concentration of uranium was read from the acid digested liquid
by inductively coupled plasma - mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) for
abundances of 0.05ppm to 10 000ppm (1%). Any results greater
than 10 000ppm were re-analysed via inductively coupled plasma -
optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). The latter instrument
would require a new acid digest to be completed on an aliquot of
0.25g. The ICP-MS and ICP-OES equipment is calibrated daily with
three appropriate standards.

28
15.3 Analytical Quality Assurance and Control Results

In addition to the analytical quality assurance and control samples employed by the
two laboratories, both Contact and Global Gold, inserted blanks, and standards into
the sampling streams.
Table 2 contains the overall statistics for the analytical quality assurance and
control samples. 810 such samples for a total of 10 920 core samples were
employed, representing 7.42% of the total. It is the preferred method of The
Mineral Corporation to analyse comparative results by error deviation percentage or
mean deviation percentage charts for standard and duplicate analytical results
respectively, as a sense of proportion is gained from the differences. The
definitions are as follows:
Error Deviation = [Xanalysis-Xstandard]/Xstandard
By using this convention, negative deviations are noted as under-reporting and

positive deviations are noted as over-reporting of results.
Mean Deviation = [XA-XB]/Mean (XA, XB)
Table 2: Standard, Blank and Duplicate Statistics

Inserted Inserted Inserted Inserted Inserted Inserted
No. of
Sampler Laboratory by by by by by by Percentage
Samples
Sampler Laboratory Sampler Laboratory Sampler Laboratory
Standards Blanks Duplicates
5338 Contact ALS 45 72 3 32 187 0 6.17%
5582 Global Gold CIMM 206 117 123 145 0 317 16.73%
10920 Total 251 189 126 177 187 317 11.42%
15.3.1 Duplicate Data

The results for the duplicates submitted by Contact are shown in Figure 8. Not
depicted in Figure 8 is one value of 32 000 U ppm which has a mean deviation
of -27%. No results for internal duplicates by ALS Chemex were available. The
average mean deviation for ALS Chemex (Contact) is -1.08%.
Global Gold only submitted standards and blanks into the sampling stream and
did not submit any duplicates. The CIMM laboratory duplicates were based on
re-analysing the reject material and also a small percentage of the remaining
pulp material. Thus the laboratory duplicate was mainly a measure of the
analytical error with a small proportion being a measure of sampling error.
Apart from poor precision near the detection limits the CIMM results display
good analytical precision. The average mean deviation for CIMM is +0.55%.
Samples which were taken by The Mineral Corporation in 2009 from crushed
core rejects were also inserted as duplicate check samples. In general, the
mean deviation for these duplicates is within 20% (Figure 8), averaging
-1.75%.

29
ALS (Contact) CIMM (internal) CIMM (TMC)

70
50
30
Mean Deviation (%)
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

‐10
‐30
‐50
‐70
Duplicate Mean (U ppm)
Figure 8: Mean deviation plot of duplicates of the ALS and CIMM laboratories
15.3.2 Standard Data

Certified reference material (standards) was introduced by Contact and Global
Gold into the laboratory sample streams and internally by the ALS and CIMM
laboratories. The standards employed are provided in Table 3. Note that
certain of the expected means for the standards inserted by ALS and Contact
were not available. In these situations The Mineral Corporation has calculated
the mean of the reported results and used the mean deviation method to
assess analytical “accuracy”.
Table 3: Standards used for Analytical Quality Assurance and Control

Standard ID Expected Value (U ppm) Sampler
AMIS0029 867.00 ALS
AMIS0030 1351.00 ALS
STDBL-1 220.00 ALS
STDG2000 10.00 ALS
STDGBM999-5 2.37 ALS
STD41 3.20 CIMM
ISIVILLA001 15.70 Global Gold
SARM86 1206 The Mineral Corporation

30
Figure 9 shows error deviation for the standards for which the expected values
are known. It can be seen that generally the lower grade standards (<20ppm)
have higher deviations from the expected mean. The error deviation for CIMM
averages -12.65% and for ALS Chemex averages -4.47%.
CIMM (internal) ALS (internal) CIMM (Global)

60
40
20
Error Deviation (%)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
‐20
‐40
‐60
Certified Reference Material Value (U ppm)
Figure 9: Error Deviation plot for Standards of the CIMM and ALS Chemex laboratories
Figure 10 shows mean deviation for the standards for which the expected
values are not known.

31
60
ALS (internal) ALS (Contact)
40
20
Mean Deviation (%)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
‐20
‐40
‐60
Standard Reference Number
Figure 10: Mean Deviation plot for Standards at CIMM and ALS Chemex Laboratory
15.3.3 Blank Data

Blanks were employed to obtain a measure of contamination in the sample
preparation and in the laboratory, but uranium is prolific in its presence in
rocks in general; the crustal abundance is approximately 2.8ppm. Thus it is
difficult to obtain suitable rocks that contain no uranium. Global Gold
employed normal Peruvian cooking flour as a blank material but the source of
the CIMM blank material is not known. The results of all of the blank analytical
results are contained in Figure 11.

32
ALS (internal) ALS (Contact)
40
30
20
10
Mean Deviation (%)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
‐10
‐20
‐30
‐40
Standard Reference Number
Figure 11: Blank Data Plot
From Figure 11 it can be seen that throughout the entire programme the
analyses generally returned results below 3.5 ppm, although there does appear
to be anomalous values between 4 and 8ppm.
15.4 Sample Database

As part of the Mineral Resource estimation process, The Mineral Corporation
compiled a Microsoft Access database of the borehole information. This database
includes the analytical results from the sampling process.
15.5 Overall Adequacy Statement

Based on the sample preparation scrutinised for the CIMM Laboratory, the security
protocols described by Global Gold and the analytical procedures adopted by the
CIMM laboratory, these attributes can be stated as adequate. The quality assurance
and control results for the ALS Chemex laboratory would indicate that these data
can also be stated as adequate.
16 DATA VERIFICATION
16.1 Quality Control and Data Verification Procedures

The Mineral Corporation has undertaken the following steps to verify the validity of
the data used in this Mineral Resource evaluation.

33
16.1.1 Site Visit (July 2009)

David Young and Stewart Nupen visited the site and conducted the following
measurements and observations:
Half core from boreholes CW-1440-05, CW-1120-06, CW-1440-14, CW-1520-

09, SN1, SN2 and CW-1280-01 were logged and the core recoveries
determined by measuring the core lengths between the drillers depth
markings. The results of this analysis are depicted in Figure 12 where it can be
seen that below approximately 20m there is generally 100% core recovery. In
the zone 0 to 20m depth the core recovery can fluctuate, but averages 89%.
180%
160%
140%
120%
Core Recovery
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Depth Down the Hole (m)
Figure 12: Core recovery observations
The sampling locations and sample numbers were noted based on the sample
markers left in the core trays. In nearly all cases the marker location and
number corresponded with the Contact electronic database provided by Global
Gold.
The collars and orientations of the following boreholes were independently

measured CW-0880-09, CW-0880-07, CW-1040-05, CW-1120-06, CW-1120-05
and CW-1600-11. These results are depicted in Table 4. Mineralised fracture
orientations were observed at collar positions or in shallow trenches.
Table 4: Independent collar locations and observations

Contact Database Data TMC Measurements Differences Mineralisation TMC Observations
Borehole No X-Coord Y-Coord Azimuth Dip X-Coord Y-Coord Azimuth Dip X-Coord Y-Coord Azimuth Dip (°) U Abundance at
(m) (m) (m) Collar (ppm)
CW-0880-09 322 474 8 461 251 90 -50 322 471 8 461 249 80 3 2 10 20.78
CW-0880-07 322 435 8 461 250 90 -50 322 435 8 461 249 80 -55 0 1 10 5 16.94
CW-1040-05 322 438 8 461 412 90 -50 322 439 8 461 401 90 -1 11 0 46.20 Disseminated yellow-green
meta-autinite. No
pronounced mineralised
fractures.
CW-1120-06 322 514 8 461 493 270 -50 322 513 8 461 492 270 1 1 0 22.00 No obvious mineralisation
surrounding collar
CW-1120-05 322 515 8 461 493 90 -50 322 513 8 461 492 90 -50 2 1 0 0 21.80 No obvious mineralisation
surrounding collar
CW-1600-11 322 837 8 461 972 90 -50 322 833 8 461 971 90 -48 4 1 0 -2 19.30
CW-1520-9 322756 8461890 90 -50 322 753 8 461 890 3 0 19.70
CW-1440-14 322754 8461813 270 -50 322 752 8 461 814 2 -1 30.90
CW-1440-5 322599 8461813 90 -50 322 594 8 461 813 5 0 24.70

34
16.1.2 Sample Database/Laboratory Certificate

A random sample of analytical results from 10 boreholes within the electronic
borehole logs were cross checked with the Uranium grade as reported in the
laboratory certificates. No errors were encountered in this process.
16.1.3 Independent Sample Analysis

The ALS Chemex reject crushed core stored in Macusani was independently
sampled by The Mineral Corporation. Thirty random reject sample material
was taken to the CIMM laboratory at Juliaca. This exercise was to enable The
Mineral Corporation to ascertain that the Corachapi Project is underlain by
uraniferous material and shed some light on the possible under-reporting of
the uranium abundance by the ALS Chemex laboratory and provide some data
on the core sampling representivity.
The results of the independent sampling of the ALS Chemex samples are
contained in Table 5. The quality control data from CIMM for this batch of data
(3 x duplicates, 1 x blank and 1 x standard) all returned acceptable analytical
precision (0.15%), nil contamination (<0.05 U ppm) and accuracy (1.87%).
The standards introduced by The Mineral Corporation (2 x 101 U ppm and
1 x 1206 U ppm) indicated that the CIMM laboratory had an average error
deviation of 0.94%, i.e. it overstated the uranium abundance by less than 1%.

35
Table 5: Analytical Results of the Independent Sampling by The Mineral Corporation

on the CIMM Reject Crushed Core
Borehole Sample U ppm
CW-1440-05 D2001 40.14
CW-1440-05 D2002 45.70
CW-1440-05 D2003 119.00
CW-1440-05 D2004 276.00
CW-1440-05 D2005 80.35
CW-1120-06 D2007 85.05
CW-1120-06 D2008 85.15
CW-1120-06 D2009 134.00
CW-1120-06 D2010 990.00
CW-1120-06 D2011 83.36
CW-1440-05 D2013 22.91
CW-1440-05 D2014 13.51
CW-1440-05 D2015 19.91
CW-1440-05 D2016 12.24
CW-1440-05 D2017 12.94
CW-1440-05 D2018 16.66
CW-1520-09 D2019 90.87
CW-1520-09 D2020 94.39
CW-1520-09 D2021 72.49
CW-1520-09 D2022 79.64
CW-1520-09 D2023 111.00
CW-1520-09 D2024 106.00
CW-1600-11 D2025 436.00
CW-1600-11 D2026 47.52
CW-1040-05 D2028 27800.00
CW-1040-05 D2029 478.00
CW-1040-05 D2030 58.67
CW-1040-05 D2031 199.00
CW-1040-05 D2032 42.64
CW-1040-05 D2033 44.11
16.2 Qualified Persons Statement

The Mineral Corporation and the Qualified Person has independently processed the
data presented by Global Gold and their agents in verifying the data employed in
the Mineral Resource estimates.
16.3 Limitations of Verification

None
16.4 Failure to Verify

Not applicable.
17 ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Descriptions of uranium mineralisation on adjacent properties are provided by the
qualified Person, but it must be understood that they have not been verified and that
it is not indicative of mineralisation in the Corachapi Project.

36
17.1 Solex Resources
Figure 13: Solex Resources Property Holdings (as at December 2008)
Solex owns 50% of the Macusani East Project through a joint venture with
Eldorado Gold Corporation ("Eldorado"). On April 21, 2005, Solex entered into a
joint venture agreement with Frontier Pacific Mining Corporation in which Frontier
had the right to earn a 50% interest in the project by spending US$4 million over
five years as the operator. In June of 2008, Eldorado acquired Frontier and became
the Company's new joint venture partner at Macusani East.
The Macusani East project consists of 72 concessions covering 47 820ha (Figure

14) and contains 53 known uranium anomalies discovered in the 1970s by IPEN.
The JV completed 27 600m of drilling at the Macusani East project from 2006 to
2008 to test the seven initial uranium targets identified by the IPEN in the 1970s.
The targets at Macusani East include Calvario I, Calvario II, Calvario III, Puncopata,
Agaton, Sayaña West and Sayaña Central.

37
Figure 14: Solex Resources Property Holdings in Macusani East
17.2 Vena Resources

Vena Resources Inc. (“Vena”) is a Canadian mining company focused on the
exploration and development of Peru's mineral potential. Vena commenced an
extensive diamond drill program in the Macusani uranium district through a
strategic partnership with Cameco in 2008 (Figure 15). Vena announced on
14 October 2010 that Henkle and Associates ("Henkle") has completed its first
Mineral Resource estimate for this project. The current Mineral Resource numbers
are based on 15 160m of diamond drilling in 86 drill holes performed over the last
four years covering only 20% of the prospective Tantamaco target area: The
following tables are a direct copy of the Vena press release (Press release
14 October 2010).
0.2 Lb/Tm (76.90 ppm) U3O8 CUTOFF

Resource Type Tonne Lbs U3O8 Lb/Tm Ppm/Tm %U3O8/Tm
Indicated 13 622 226 7 598 193 0.558 214.56 0.025
Inferred 13 603 295 7 369 497 0.542 208.40 0.025
0.4 Lb/Tm (153.80 ppm) U3O8 CUTOFF

Resource Type Tonne Lbs U3O8 Lb/Tm Ppm/Tm %U3O8/Tm
Indicated 10 565 113 7 089 536 0.671 258.01 0.030
Inferred 11 225 506 6 996 922 0.623 239.55 0.028
17.3 Fission Energy Corp

Fission Energy Corporation is a Canadian based uranium exploration and
development company with an international property in Peru. The Company's
shares were spun-out as a distribution by Strathmore Minerals Corporation
(“Strathmore”) in 2007. Fission holds the rights to 9 claim blocks encompassing
51km2, and surface rights over some of the areas with known uranium
mineralisation in the Macusani area (Figure 15).

38
Within the area, the stratigraphy is dominated by the sub-horizontal Pliocene

Quenamari Formation, which is mainly composed of ignimbrite layers. Uranium
anomalies occur on plateaus that are composed of the Upper Yapamayo Member of
the Quenamari Formation. Sampling to date has shown that the most significant
uranium anomalies appear to be restricted to this assemblage. Mineralisation within
the area is dominated by very high grade autinite veins along 'enriched fault
planes', with lesser disseminated mineralisation. The significant fault planes can be
up to 2m thick, while multiple enriched fault planes occur in shear zones up to
150m across. Autunite contains 51% uranium by weight and converts into 60% -
65% U3O8.
The remaining concessions surrounding the Corachapi Project are either owned by
private companies or no work has been completed on the properties and reported.

39
Figure 15: Ownership of Adjacent Properties

40
18 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

No metallurgical testing has been undertaken to date.
19 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
19.1 Borehole Database

The Microsoft Access database described in Section 19 formed the basis for the
Mineral Resource estimates. As described in that and previous sections, the
borehole data is comprised of two generations, the Contact data and the Global
Gold data.
19.2 Borehole twinning analysis

Although the Contact data would appear to have been gathered and analysed using
appropriate controls, The Mineral Corporation did recommend that a number of
twin boreholes be drilled to provide additional assurance to Global Gold.
Fourteen verification boreholes were drilled, as listed in Table 6 below. It is noted

that not all of the Contact boreholes were in fact sampled by Contact, and that 8 of
these boreholes were in fact sampled by Global Gold. The Contact data is
generated by the sampling of half core, while the Global Gold data is generated by
the sampling of whole core. Table A also lists the average U (ppm) of the entire
borehole.
Table 6: List of verification boreholes (twins) and overall analytical results

Half Core Half Core Whole Core
Twin Borehole Length
Borehole ID Contact Global Gold Twin
ID (m)
U (ppm) U (ppm) U (ppm)
CW-0880-05 CW-0880-05T 52 37 30
CW-1040-06 CW-1040-06T 69 352 454
CW-1120-06 CW-1120-06T 70 103 300
CW-1120-08 CW-1120-08T 53 86 250
CW-1200-05 CW-1200-05T 51 203 640
CW-1280-05 CW-1280-05T 50 34 50
CW-1360-11 CW-1360-11T 56 36 40
CW-1440-09 CW-1440-09T 53 46 42
CW-1520-03 CW-1520-03T 58 114 199
CW-1600-01 CW-1600-01T 54 453 370
CW-1760-10 CW-1760-10T 54 338 608
CW-1920-03 CW-1920-03T 44 36 49
QC-0320-10 QC-0320-10T 34 57 52
QC-0400-09 QC-0400-09T 41 288 627

41
700
Half Core Analysis Contact
Half Core Analysis Global Gold
600 Perfect Regression
y = 2.1589x + 0.257
R² = 0.8565
Borehole Average ‐ Global Gold twin U (ppm) 500
400
y = 0.8162x + 83.205
R² = 0.6906
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Borehole Average ‐ Contact Drilling U (ppm)
Figure 16: Comparison of half core from Contact drilling with whole core from
verification drilling
Figure 16 shows two sets of XY comparisons, the blue dots represent the
comparison between the average U (ppm) for the boreholes drilled and sampled by
Contact with their twins, and the red dots represent a comparison between the
average U (ppm) of boreholes drilled by Contact and sampled by Global Gold, with
their twins.
Figure 17 illustrates a comparison between borehole CW-1440-09 and its twin. A

full set of these comparisons is included as an Appendix I. In this figure, while poor
correlation between individual sampling points is noted, an overall correlation of
high and low grade zones is evident. Similar trends were noted in the other 13
borehole sets.

42
CW 1440 09 original CW 1440 09 twin
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 17: CW-1440-09 twin borehole results
The Mineral Corporation interprets the results of the verification drilling as follows:
• Comparison between borehole and their twins on a sample for sample basis is
very poor, but this is to be expected in an orebody with an extremely skewed
grade distribution and a very high nugget effect (Section 19.3.2);
• As a result of the high population variance and high nugget effect, it can be
anticipated that the confidence limits around samples drilled very close to each
other would be wide, and in fact 92% of the twinned samples fall within the
lower and upper 90% confidence limit expected;
• High and low grade trends are clearly evident in both original boreholes and
their twins, and provide good global validation of the veracity of the Contact
drilling results;
• There is a reasonable correlation between the average U (ppm) grade of the
borehole drilled and sampled by Contact and their twins;
• However, for the boreholes drilled by Contact and sampled by Global Gold,
there is a tendency for the twin result to be higher than the original.
The Mineral Corporation considers it appropriate to use both the Contact data and
the Global Gold data for the estimation of the Mineral Resources.

43
19.3 Exploration Data Analysis
19.3.1 Composites
The raw sampling data was typically sampled at 1m intervals (both Contact
and Global Gold). The sampling data was composited into samples of equal
vertical support of 2.5m (i.e. all composites were 2.5m in vertical extent
irrespective of their inclination). As detailed density information was not
available at a borehole scale, these composites were not densometricaly
weighted.
Two boreholes were drilled at each drilling site, generally -50° towards the
west and east. The separation distance of the drilling sites is approximately
40m along the drilling lines and the drilling lines spaced at approximately 80m
intervals. The depths of the holes vary from 26m to 97m, but are generally
50m in depth.
An analysis was carried out to determine if boreholes drilled with different

orientations showed different variability characteristics, to determine if any
correction for a preferred mineralisation orientation relative to the drilling was
appropriate. The average U grade, variance and downhole variograms for the
two sets of boreholes with common orientation did not differ significantly, and
thus each 2.5m vertical composite was considered to provide the same support
to the estimates.
19.3.2 Distribution
Figure 18 shows the U concentration distribution for the 2.5m composites. The
distribution is highly skewed. Figure 18 also contains the descriptive statistics
for the same population.
Figure 18: 2.5m Composite distribution in Normal Space

44
Figure 19: 2.5m Composite distribution in Ln Space
Figure 19 illustrates that the log transformed data remains positively skewed.
Analysis of the Co-efficient of Variation (CoV) indicates that despite the
apparently high values at the top end of the distribution, the 2.5m composites
fit on a smooth curve and hence no value capping is required. This is shown in
Figure 20.
4.5
3.5
2.5
Ln U (ppm)
1.5
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
CoV
Figure 20: Coefficient of variation vs increasing Ln of U (ppm)

45
The preferred method of evaluating this deposit is by Multiple Indicator Kriging

(MIK), in order to attempt to honour the strongly skewed distribution of the
2.5m composites, a series of cut-offs was selected. The location of the cut-offs
were selected as illustrated in Figure 21, and was based on the method
proposed by Clarke (1993) and utilizes changes in slope of the cumulative
probability plot for the 2.5m composites. When referring to grades or data
between successive cut-off’s, the term ‘grade group’ has been applied.
Figure 21: Low and High Grade sub-populations from the 2.5m Composites
Based on the divisions depicted in Figure 21, 97%% of the 2.5m composites
have U abundances falling above the 11ppm cut-off, 68% have U abundances
above the 20ppm cut-off, 11% above the 93ppm cut-off and 0.3% above the
3619 cut-off.
19.4 Variogram Analysis

Indicator variograms for the various cut-offs described in Section 19.3 were
analysed.
19.4.1 Indicator variograms

Structured indicator variograms for the cut-offs 11, 20 and 93 were obtained
and are shown in Figure 22, Figure 23 and Figure 24. Initially, the variance in
several directions in 3 dimensions were analysed and this revealed a preferred
orientation of 45° east of north. Further analysis was carried out in a co-
ordinate system rotated 45° east of north.

46
Figure 22: Anisotropic Indicator Variogram for the 2.5m Composites above 11ppm

47
No variograms were obtained for the highest cut-off (>3619 ppm), however,
this represents only a very small portion (<1%) of the sampling data.
19.5 Estimation Methodology and Parameters

MIK was applied to blocks of size 25 x 25 x 5m using the variograms obtained and
described in 19.4.1 in order to estimate the probability (or proportion) of each
block being above the various cut-offs.
The grade for each grade group was estimated from the 2.5m composite data
within the grade group, as described in Section 19.5.1 and a weighted average
grade for the whole block calculated on the basis of the individual probabilities.
19.5.1 Estimation Parameters

The structure evident in the variography permitted MIK to be applied. Table 7
contains the variogram parameters used for the MIK block proportion and error
estimate.
Table 7: Variogram Parameters

Spatial Spatial
Cut-off Range1 Range1 Range1 Range2 Range2 Range2
Azimuth Nugget Variance Variance
(ppm) (X) (Y) (Z) (X) (Y) (Z)
1 2
11 45 0.005 167 298 48 0.02 - - - -
20 45 0.099 39 39 18 0.055 106 205 46 0.059
93 45 0.105 40 84 27 0.028 - - - -
3619 0 0.025 40 40 30 0.001 - - - -

48
The weighted average grade of the block was calculated using the estimated
means in Table 8. These estimates are the log estimates of the mean and the
upper and lower 90% confidence limits as defined by Rendu (1981).
Table 8: Estimated means, confidence limits and estimation errors for MIK
Grade No. of Lower 90% Upper 90% Log Estimation
Mean
(ppm) samples CL CL Variance Error (%)
0 to 11 91 7 6.7 7.3 0.060 4.4
11 to 20 1065 16 15.9 16.1 0.017 0.7
20 to 93 2028 38 29.5 38.8 0.154 12.2
93 to 3619 372 389 342 453 0.791 14.2
above 3619 10 5311 4762 6351 0.051 15.0
19.5.2 Search Parameters

The three dimensional arrangements of the samples presented a potential
screening problem. Thus the sample search parameter was set to include a
large number of samples in order to ameliorate the influence of a single
borehole which may contribute a biased influence to a block.
Two search radii were used. Estimation using the more stringent 1st search
radius was used if a minimum number of 14 samples were located within the
range of the variogram. The less stringent 2nd search radius was used if the
criteria for the 1st radius were not met. In this case, estimation was carried out
if a minimum of 14 samples were located within twice the range of the
variogram.
The minimum number of samples of 14 was used following an analysis of the

potential impact of reducing this criteria. In this analysis, each population was
randomly sampled, while incrementally increasing the number of samples
drawn. The average grade and variance of each sample set was analysed by
completing thirty iterations of this simulation.
Figure 25 illustrates that at 14 samples, the variance has reached 80% of the
population variance for the three grade groups. It is concluded that a minimum
of 14 samples would provide acceptable unbiased estimates of the kriging error
for these groups.

49
> 11 ppm > 20 ppm > 93 ppm
1.2
0.8
% Variance
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2 12 22 32 42 52 62 72
Number of samples
Figure 25: Average variance as a percentage of the population variance for randomly drawn
sample sets (30 iterations)
19.5.3 Tonnage and Grade Calculation

The final estimated grade of each block was calculated by applying the
estimated means for each grade group to the estimated proportion of each
grade group within each block.
Tonnages were calculated utilising the block volume and the density described
in Section 19.8. Figure 26 depicts the blocks estimated at the 4 500m
elevation.

50
322000 E
322100 E
322200 E
322300 E
322400 E
322500 E
322600 E
322700 E
322800 E
322900 E
323000 E
323100 E
323200 E
323300 E
323400 E
323500 E
323600 E
323700 E
8462750 N 8462750 N
8462500 N 8462500 N
8462250 N 8462250 N
8462000 N 8462000 N
8461750 N 8461750 N
8461500 N 8461500 N
8461250 N 8461250 N
8461000 N 8461000 N
U grade (ppm)
8460750 N 8460750 N
[25,50]
0 100 200 300 400 [50,75]
[75,150]
[150,300]
322000 E
322100 E
322200 E
322300 E
322400 E
322500 E
322600 E
322700 E
322800 E
322900 E
323000 E
323100 E
323200 E
323300 E
323400 E
323500 E
323600 E
323700 E
8460500 N [300,500]
8460500 N
Plan view - U Grade (ppm)
[500,1000]
[1000,CEILING]
Figure 26: Plan View of block model at 4500m showing U abundance (ppm)

51
19.6 Model Constraints

Estimation of a grade for either sub-population was permitted only within a
constrained volume. The volume was constrained by the parameters discussed in
the following text.
19.6.1 Surface Topography

The topographic surface was estimated from Ikonos imagery by Photosat in
Vancouver, Canada. It was noted that there is a discrepancy between the
topographic elevation as estimated by the Ikonos data, and the local elevation
as per the government topographic plans. It was determined to use the
Ikonos topography as the reference for the block model.
19.6.2 Depth of Drilling

Although the downhole variogram and the indicator variograms all showed that
additional continuity with depth of between 30 and 40m is possible, visual
inspection of the borehole data in 3-dimensions highlighted that many of the
boreholes ended in low grade. Estimation was thus constrained to the depth
of drilling.
19.6.3 Radiometric Anomaly
19.7 Geological Losses

As the estimate considered disseminated and fracture hosted mineralisation in a
rock mass, rather than being contained within a well-constrained orebody, no
geological losses have been applied. The only geological losses that may impact on
the Mineral Resource estimates would be un-mineralised dykes, none of which have
been identified. This is considered to be reasonable as the mining of this resource
is likely to be undertaken by open-pit means, with limited selectivity.
19.8 Density Determinations

Density measurements have been taken for 5cm samples at 5m intervals down the
length of four boreholes (CW-1760-14, CW-1760-13, CW-1280-04, CW-1360-07).
Due to the porous and friable nature of the host rock, it was not possible to
perform density determinations on large (>50cm) pieces of core. Rather, small
(5cm) pieces of wax covered core were selected at the end of every 1m length of
core and the relative density (R.D.) was determined by means of measuring the
weight in air and the weight in water using the following formula:

ൌ
ሺ െ ሻ
Wa = weight of sample in air

Ww = weight of sample in water.
The average density of these 40 samples is 2.0 kg/m3. This is typical of other
density measurements in similar environments, specifically at Macusani’s Colibri II
and III concessions (Young, 2010).

Global Gold S.A.C. in the Puno District of Peru
52
Density (t/m 3 )
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
10
20
Depth (m)
30
40
50
60
Figure 27: Density against drillhole depth for all density measurements
Figure 27 illustrates the density determinations for the four holes. It is noted
however that a drop in density is evident at a depth of approximately 50m. As the
majority of the Mineral Resources lie above this level, the mean density of
2.0km/m3 has been applied to the entire Mineral Resource.
19.9 Mineral Resource Classification

Mineral Resources have been classified on a combination of two criteria, the Kriging
Efficiency (KE) obtained for the MIK, which is an indication of the confidence in the
estimate of the proportion of material above the cut-offs, and the estimation error,
which is a measure of the confidence in the estimation of the grade.
19.9.1 Kriging Efficiency

Kriging efficiency is calculated for each estimate of a proportion within a block
i.e. above 11, above 20, above 93 and above 3619, using the formula below:
െ
ൌ

KV = Kriging variance
BV = Block variance

53
A weighted average KE is then calculated using the estimated proportion of

material in each block. Blocks are then classified according to the weighted
average KE. Measured Mineral Resources are defined for blocks which have a
KE greater than 0.5. Indicated Mineral Resources are defined for those blocks
which were estimated with a KE greater 0.25 while the remainder of the blocks
which met the search criteria were classified as Inferred. This classification
methodology is described by Mwasinga (2001).
19.9.2 Estimation Error

An estimation error for the grade within each grade group was calculated by
classical statistical means by employing the upper and lower 90% confidence
limit, as follows:
Error (%) = ((0.5*(Upper Limit – Lower Limit))/Mean) x 100
These errors are provided in Table 8. A weighted average estimation error was
calculated for each block by applying the estimated proportion of material in
each grade group in each block.
Measured Mineral Resources were assigned to blocks with an average

estimation error of less than 10%. Indicated Mineral Resources to blocks with
an estimation error of between 10 and 25%. Blocks with an estimation error
greater than 25% were considered Inferred.
19.9.3 Overall Mineral Resource Classification

Where a block had two different classifications, based on the KE and the 90%
confidence limit estimation error, the lower of the categories was selected for
the final Mineral Resource classification.
A sense of the classification distribution around the drilling data of the

Measured (green), Indicated (blue) and Inferred (red) Mineral Resources can
be gained by scrutiny of the plan view of the Mineral Resource Block Model
(Figure 26).
A cut-off grade for the classification of Mineral Resources of 25 U ppm has

been applied.

54
322000 E
322100 E
322200 E
322300 E
322400 E
322500 E
322600 E
322700 E
322800 E
322900 E
323000 E
323100 E
323200 E
323300 E
323400 E
323500 E
323600 E
323700 E
323800 E
8462750 N 8462750 N
8462500 N 8462500 N
8462250 N 8462250 N
8462000 N 8462000 N
8461750 N 8461750 N
8461500 N 8461500 N
8461250 N 8461250 N
8461000 N 8461000 N
Mineral Resource Classification
8460750 N 8460750 N
0 100 200 300 400
Indicated
Inferred
322000 E
322100 E
322200 E
322300 E
322400 E
322500 E
322600 E
322700 E
322800 E
322900 E
323000 E
323100 E
323200 E
323300 E
323400 E
323500 E
323600 E
323700 E
323800 E
8460500
Plan viewN- Mineral Resource Classification 8460500 N
Measured
Figure 28: Plan view of Block Model at 4500m showing Mineral Resource classification

55
19.10 Mineral Resource Statement

Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11 contain a summary of the Measured, Indicated and
Inferred Mineral Resources identified respectively at ascending cut-off grades of
U ppm.
Table 9: Measured Mineral Resources

25 42 19,281 2,109 0.005% 0.099
50 76 3,809 752 0.009% 0.179
75 120 1,031 321 0.014% 0.283
100 162 463 195 0.019% 0.382
125 197 276 141 0.023% 0.464
150 246 150 96 0.029% 0.580
Table 10: Indicated Mineral Resources

25 98 25,093 6,393 0.012% 0.231
50 136 15,522 5,498 0.016% 0.321
75 171 10,562 4,699 0.020% 0.404
100 204 7,608 4,031 0.024% 0.481
125 237 5,593 3,449 0.028% 0.559
150 268 4,258 2,972 0.032% 0.633
Table 11: Inferred Mineral Resources

25 134 6,311 2,202 0.016% 0.317
50 170 4,645 2,053 0.020% 0.401
75 195 3,753 1,906 0.023% 0.461
100 227 2,891 1,707 0.027% 0.536
125 274 2,068 1,473 0.032% 0.646
150 327 1,500 1,274 0.039% 0.770
19.11 Classical Statistical Benchmarking

A classical Log Normal (LN) estimation using 5m bench composites was carried out
in order to validate the estimation methodology applied for material errors. Figure
29 illustrates the result of compositing at 5m for the U ppm distribution. The
overall range of the distribution is reduced, but the population is still highly
skewed.

56
Figure 29: 5m Composite Distribution in Normal Space
The results of the classical LN estimate indicate a global mean of 57ppm. It is

noted that the estimate of the mean by this method is lower than the average of
the dataset. This would indicate that the arithmetic average is being influenced by
a small number of very high grade samples and that caution should be exercised in
using the arithmetic average to predict the mean of the orebody.
A comparison between the grade / tonnage plot of the results of the classical LN
estimation and the equivalent grade / tonnage plot generated from the block model
for the September 2010 estimates is shown in . It should be noted that the classical
grade / tonnage curve utilises a spherical log variogram of nugget = 0.415, spatial
variance 1 = 0.257, range 1= 36m, spatial variance 2 = 0.226, range 2 = 141m.
Figure 30 shows the variogram of the log transformed data of the 5m bench
composites. This variogram provides a block (25x25x5m) variance of 0.3205, that
can be employed for grade / tonnage estimation.

57
Figure 30: Isotropic Variogram of the Ln Transforms of the 5m Bench Composites
Grade Tonnage (Tonnes)
700 120.00%
600
100.00%
500
80.00%
Tonnage above Cut‐off
Grade above cut‐off
400
60.00%
300
40.00%
200
20.00%
100
0 0.00%
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500
Cut‐off (U ppm)
Grade above cut off (MIK) Average grade above cut off (LN)
Tonnage above cut off (MIK) Tonnage above cut off (LN)
Figure 31: Grade Tonnage Curve for the LN estimate
From Figure 31 it is noted that block model reconciles well with the classical LN
methodology but it would generally return a slightly higher tonnage at a higher
grade than is predicted by the LN methodology at greater than a 50 U ppm cut-off.

58
20 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

Not applicable.
21 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION

The exploration drilling and analyses of core samples completed by Contact and Global
Gold has allowed the estimation of the uranium Mineral Resources for the Corachapi
Project. The Mineral Resource are estimated are as follows:
Measured Mineral Resources

25 42 19,281 2,109 0.005% 0.099
50 76 3,809 752 0.009% 0.179
75 120 1,031 321 0.014% 0.283
100 162 463 195 0.019% 0.382
125 197 276 141 0.023% 0.464
150 246 150 96 0.029% 0.580
Indicated Mineral Resources

25 98 25,093 6,393 0.012% 0.231
50 136 15,522 5,498 0.016% 0.321
75 171 10,562 4,699 0.020% 0.404
100 204 7,608 4,031 0.024% 0.481
125 237 5,593 3,449 0.028% 0.559
150 268 4,258 2,972 0.032% 0.633
Inferred Mineral Resources

25 134 6,311 2,202 0.016% 0.317
50 170 4,645 2,053 0.020% 0.401
75 195 3,753 1,906 0.023% 0.461
100 227 2,891 1,707 0.027% 0.536
125 274 2,068 1,473 0.032% 0.646
150 327 1,500 1,274 0.039% 0.770
22 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Mineral Corporation makes the following recommendations:
4) Complete in-fill drilling to the north of Taypicorani, south of Corachapi and along
the eastern radiometric anomaly on Taititira (Figure 6);
5) At or around the site of the highest U abundances (boreholes CW-1760-07 and
CW-1520-09), drill vertical holes to 120m to test for depth extension; and
6) Try to locate the regional faults depicted in Figure 3, that should traverse the
eastern corner of Corachapi and conduct ground radiometric surveys and
trenching if appropriate.

59
23 REFERENCES
Clark, I., 1993. Practical Reserve Estimation in a Shear-Hosted Gold Deposit,
Zimbabwe. International Mining Geology Conference, Kalgoorlie WA, 5-8 July 1993,
pp.157-160
Fission Energy Corp. Available from:

http://www.fission-energy.com/s/Macusani.asp
International Uranium Resources Evaluation Project; 1984. Orientation Phase Mission,

Summary Report, Peru. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy
Agency, Paris, 1984.
Mwasinga, P., 2001. Approaching Resource Classification: General Practices and

Interpretation of Geostatistics, in Eds Xie, Wang and Jiang, Computer Applications in
the Minerals Industries. A. A. Balkema Publishers, 2001.
Rendu, J.-M., 1981. In Introduction to Geostatistical Methods of Mineral Evaluation.

S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. Monograph Series, Johannesburg.
Rich, R. A., Holland, H. D. and Petersen, U., 1977. Hydrothermal Uranium Deposits.
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co. New York, 1997.
Solex Resources, 2008. Available from:

http://www.solexresources.com/s/Maceast.asp [Accessed 20 October 2010]
Thatcher, E., C. 2008. A petrographic and Mineralogical Investigation of a Sample of

Tuff from Peru with Particular Reference to the Uranium Mineralisation Present.
Unpublished Report by Microsearch CC, Johannesburg October 2008.
Vena Resources, 2008. Available from:

http://www.sedar.com/GetFile.do?lang=EN&docClass=8&issuerNo=00009790&fileNa
me=/csfsprod/data92/filings/01318431/00000001/s%3A%5Cvem903.pdf
Young, D. R., 2010. Update to Mineral Resource Estimates for the Colibri Project held
by Global Gold S.A.C. in the Puno District of Peru, Report No. C-MYI-COL-731-637.
The Mineral Corporation, Johannesburg, 2010 (available on SEDAR).

60
24 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE
Date 22 October 2010
Signed
D. R. YOUNG
Director
25 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS ON DEVELOPMENT

AND PRODUCTION PROPERTIES
Not applicable

Appendix I: Borehole Twinning results

1
60
50
40
Depth (m)
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
U (ppm)
80
70
60
50
Depth (m)
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
U (ppm)

2
90
80
70
60
Depth (m)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
U (ppm)
60
50
40
Depth (m)
30
20
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
U (ppm)

3
60
50
40
Depth (m)
30
20
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
U (ppm)
60
50
40
Depth (m)
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
U (ppm)

4
60
50
40
Depth (m)
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
U (ppm)
60
50
40
Depth (m)
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
U (ppm)

5
70
60
50
Depth (m)
40
30
20
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
U (ppm)
60
50
40
Depth (m)
30
20
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
U (ppm)

6
60
50
40
Depth (m)
30
20
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
U (ppm)
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (m)
25
20
15
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
U (ppm)

7
QC 0320 10 original QC 0320 10 twin
40
35
30
25
Depth (m)
20
15
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
U (ppm)
QC 0400 09 original QC 0400 09 twin
60
50
40
Depth (m)
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
U (ppm)


Logging

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Logging

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

THE MINERAL CORPORATION

Mineral Resource Estimates of the Corachapi Project

Prepared under the Guidelines of National Instrument 43-101 and accompanying

By The Mineral Corporation, Bryanston, South Africa

Tel : +27 11 463 4867

Report No C-MYI-CON-881-644 October 2010

David Young BSc (Hons), FGSSA, MSAIMM, FAusIMM,

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

1 TITLE PAGE ........................................................................................................... 1

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

15.5 Overall Adequacy Statement ......................................................................... 32

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

Figure 1: Location of the Corachapi Mining Concession ............................................ 12

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

Table 1: Average borehole sampling results ........................................................... 23

Appendix I: Borehole Twinning results

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

Measured Mineral Resources

Indicated Mineral Resources

Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

The Mineral Corporation makes the following recommendations:

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

5 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

6 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

• Concessions are exclusive, freely transferable and mortgageable;

• Corachapi - 500ha - Title No 01-03428-97

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

7 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND

There are no electricity supplies or telephone communication networks in any part of

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

Figure 1: Location of the Corachapi Mining Concession

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

8.1 Previous Ownership

8.2 Previous Work

From mid-1977 a long term United Nation Development Programme/International

In 1984, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear

8.3 Historical Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates

In April 2009, a second Mineral Resource estimate was compiled by SRK

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

9.1 Regional Geology

The main geological units are shown in Figure 2.

9.2 Local Geology

Other uranium mineralisation is indicated by IUREP (1984) to be hosted in acidic

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

Figure 2: Regional Geology of Peru

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

Figure 3: Geology Surrounding the Corachapi Project

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

9.3 Project Geology

9.3.1 Structural Geology

200 Apparent Strike

100 Trend / Plunge of

Figure 4: Rose diagram depicting the main regional fault orientations

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

Figure 5: Stereogram of the Structural Data Measured by The Mineral Corporation

The main structural features emerging from Figure 5 are as follows:

• The primary mode is at 155°/77°, indicating a dominant steep dip to the

Meta-autunite is a secondary from of uranium mineralisation and the paragenesis is

Mineral Resource Estimate of the Corachapi Project held by

11.1 Mineralisation Model