Technical Report for the Pyramid

Project, Alaska Peninsula, Alaska

Prepared for

Full Metal Minerals

Prepared by

SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.

2CF012.000
June 21, 2013
 Technical Report for the Pyramid Project,
Alaska Peninsula, Alaska

Effective Date: May 9, 2013

Signature Date: June 2013

Prepared for Prepared by

Full Metal Minerals SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.

1500-409 Granville St. 2200–1066 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 1T2 Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2
Canada

Tel: 604-484-7855 Tel: +1 604 681 4196

Web: www.fullmetalminerals.com Web: www.srk.com

Authored by :

Darrell Farrow, Pr.Sci. Nat Gilles Arseneau, PGeo

Associate Consultant Associate Consultant

Peer Reviewed by :

Marek Nowak, PEng

Principal Consultant

Project No: 2CF012.000

File Name: Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621

Copyright © SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., 2013

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page ii

Important Notice
This report was prepared as a National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report for Full Metal
Minerals (FMM) by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (SRK). The quality of information, conclusions,
and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in SRK’s services,
based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources,
and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is
intended for use by FMM subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with SRK and relevant
securities legislation. The contract permits FMM to file this report as a Technical Report with
Canadian securities regulatory authorities pursuant to National Instrument 43-101, Standards of
Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities law,
any other uses of this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk. The responsibility for this
disclosure remains with FMM. The user of this document should ensure that this is the most
recent Technical Report for the property as it is not valid if a new Technical Report has been
issued.

Copyright
This report is protected by copyright vested in SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. It may not be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever to any person without the
written permission of the copyright holder, other than in accordance with stock exchange and
other regulatory authority requirements.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page iii

Executive Summary
The Pyramid Project is an early stage copper molybdenum gold exploration prospect located in
Alaska, USA.

This technical report documents the mineral resource estimate for the Pyramid prospect. It was
prepared following the guidelines of the Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument
43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and in conformity with generally accepted CIM “Estimation of Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines”.

Property Description, Location, Access and Physiography

The Pyramid Project is located on the southwestern tip of the Alaskan Peninsula approximately
890 km by air southwest of Anchorage, centered on NAD83 coordinate N394450, E6165953
Zone 4N. The nearest town is the fishing village of Sand Point on Popof Island, 33 km south-
southeast of the Pyramid Project. Access to the property is via a flight from Anchorage to the
regional airport in Sandpoint. People and supplies are ferried 25 km across the Unga Straight
separating Sand Point and the camp on Balboa Bay.

Prominent volcanic geographical references are the Veniaminof Volcano (140 km northeast) and
the Pavlof Volcanoes (80 km southwest). The project is set in the upper most part of a west
draining basin that works its way north out to Herendeen Bay and towards Bristol Bay. Elevations
vary from 150 m in the valley to the south to 850 m at the top of Pyramid Peak. The terrain is
moderate to steep and sparsely vegetated as much of the work area is considered to be above
the tree line. Rock scree-talus is commonplace throughout the area and rock outcrop is generally
sparse. In the lower elevations, minor tundra and low-lying shrubs are present.

The Pyramid property consists of 38,376 hectares, encompassing an approximately 26 km by

13 km area. Lands at the project are split into separate surface and sub-surface (mineral)
ownership. The sub-surface (mineral) rights are held by The Aleut Corporation (TAC), whereas
the surface rights are held by the Shumagin Corporation in some areas and the Tanadgusix
Corporation (TDX) in others. A lease agreement was completed on the 30th of June, 2010
granting Full Metal Minerals and its affiliates conditional exploration rights in specific lands
outlined in the agreement, particularly lands in the Pyramid Project area. Notably, a separate
surface lease agreement was obtained with the TDX Corporation in July, 2010. A letter
agreement was reached with the Shumagin Corporation for lease of eight townships within their
surface owned estate. The agreements provide Full Metal Minerals access to their surface owned
lands with the right to conduct mineral exploration and ultimately mining if there is sufficient
encouragement to proceed. At present there are no outstanding hindrances with respect to land
status at the Pyramid Project.

History

The history of Pyramid dates back to the mid-1970s when geologists from Aluet Corp (TAC) and
Quintana-Duval Mining identified porphyry copper-molybdenum potential during regional
reconnaissance along the Alaskan Peninsula. Although Pan American Petroleum was active in

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page iv

the region during the 1960s, there is no evidence they conducted exploration at Pyramid other
than possible claim staking. There is no evidence of historic mining or prospecting in the Pyramid
area, which is relatively uncommon for a broadly mineralized and partly exposed porphyry
system.

Quintana-Duval Mining initiated surface mapping and geochemical sampling in 1974, which
ultimately defined a large area of porphyry-style alteration and copper-molybdenum
mineralization sufficient to warrant a 1975 drill program. In 1975, Aleut-Quintana-Duval completed
19 core holes for a total of 1692 m which confirmed the presence of a broad area of copper and
molybdenum mineralization to a maximum depth of 168 m. The distribution of holes and broad
Cu-Mo mineralization allowed Aleut-Quintana-Duval to produce a shallow (less than 100 m)
resource of 126,330,000 tons containing 0.403% Cu and 0.025% Mo with a 0.25% cut-off grade
(Christie, J. S., 1975). The 1975 program was followed-up in 1976 with a one-hole program,
placed on a prior site which had poor recovery in the chalcocite enrichment zone; however, the
results did not indicate higher grades and the entire program was abandoned.

Minor rock and stream sediment sampling was performed at Pyramid between 1979 and 1991,
and the exploration was gold oriented, thus most samples were typically analyzed for gold, silver,
mercury, and arsenic.

Full Metal Minerals (FMM) and Metallica Resources (Metallica), following completion of a joint
venture commenced mineral exploration in 2005 along the Alaskan Peninsula using Sand Point
as a base of operations. The exploration team focused on the Pyramid porphyry copper-
molybdenum deposit in addition to Centennial and Apollo-Shumagin gold deposits. The work at
Pyramid included completion of five induced polarization (IP) lines and several miles of ground
magnetics along with opportunistic rock chip sampling and outcrop lithologic-alteration mapping.
A reported 177 rock chip, 14 silts/stream sediment, and 1 soil samples were collected during the
2005 season. The samples were analyzed at BSI inspectorate through Alaska Assay
Laboratories for fire assay gold and 31 elements by aqua regia ICP. During 2006, exploration by
FMM and Metallica focused upon a rock channel sampling program on continuous exposures in
one of the principal creeks transecting the Pyramid porphyry system. A total of 113 rock chip
samples were collected and only analyzed for gold, copper and molybdenum.

There was no additional exploration conducted on the Pyramid property until Antofagasta entered
into an Option Agreement with FMM during 2010 and commenced drilling on the Property.

Geological Setting and Mineralization

The Pyramid Project is located in the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’, in a portion of the arc which contains a
number of other porphyry copper epithermal gold deposits in addition to hundreds of metal
occurrences. The project area is located in a volcanic arc setting, approximately 20 km from the
Pacific-North America convergent plate boundary. The volcanic arc is derived from semi-
continuous tectonic activity and oceanic crust subduction since the Mesozoic and currently
represented by a chain of nearly 80 volcanoes throughout the Aleutian island chain and Alaskan
Peninsula.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page v

The Pyramid Cu-Mo mineralization is centered on several late Miocene porphyry intrusions, likely
quartz diorite in composition, which is hosted by a sequence of Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary
clastic sedimentary rocks. The intrusive bodies are small (<200 m) stocks or dikes and are
exposed in an area of at least 2.5 km x 1.5 km largely within an east-west trending glacial valley.
Available drill hole data suggest that most of these intrusive units occur as vertical bodies but
existence of smaller sills cannot be ruled out. They have similar mineralogy of plagioclase, biotite
and amphibole with variable occurrence and abundance of quartz phenocrysts. Texture of the
rocks varies from small to coarse grained porphyritic to coarse equigranular texture.

Exploration and Drilling

In 2010, FMM entered into a joint-venture with Antofagasta Minerals PLC (Antofagasta) to
explore the Pyramid Project.

A program of work on the Pyramid Project commenced in August 2010 and to date 30 core holes
have been drilled on the property for a total of 7485 meters. In addition to drilling, several
geophysical surveys including ground magnetics and Induced polarization (IP) were conducted
simultaneously as was continued mapping and prospecting.

Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security

FMM has used a robust procedure for sampling, sample preparation, analysis and security.
Assay samples were collected from half core sawed lengthwise with an unbiased sampling
interval of two meters through the entire length of the drill holes starting at bedrock. Assaying
protocols include the use of commercial certified control samples, sample blanks and duplicates
to monitor the accuracy of the laboratory, ALS-Chemex Vancouver or their Reno Nevada
laboratory. Two assay methods are used; a 30 g fire assay ICP-AES method for gold analysis
and a 4-acid near total digestion ICP-AES procedure that produces quantitative results for 33
elements. A pre-determined over limit for copper and molybdenum is prescribed by both FMM
and Antofagasta. Thus, when copper exceeds 2,500 ppm and/or molybdenum exceeds 200 ppm,
the sample is automatically analyzed by the higher detection limit AA-OG62 method of analysis.

Data Verifications

Exploration data verification for the Pyramid Project has included a site visit by SRK, enforced
database structures, analytical quality assurance and quality control samples and assay
checking.

SRK Associate, Dr. Gilles Arseneau, visited the site in March 2013 to examine drill core, core
logging and sampling procedures, and view the drill sites. Drill site locations were verified with
hand-held GPS and were found to agree with the digital database of drill hole locations.

SRK conducted routine verifications to ascertain the reliability of the electronic borehole database
provided by FMM and completed an audit of the FMM analytical and quality control data acquired
during the sampling of the Pyramid deposit. All assays in the current database were verified
against the independently sourced sample certificates from ALS Laboratories and ActLabs. The

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page vi

mafic volcanic rocks used as blank sample material naturally contains a higher concentration of
copper than average crustal rocks and it is recommended that for future programs, FMM source a
more appropriate material for blank samples. It is also recommended that FMM request re-
analysis of batches of samples which return SRM values greater than three standard deviations
of the mean.

After the review, SRK is of the opinion that the Pyramid drilling database is sufficiently reliable for
resource estimation.

Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

No metallurgical testwork has been completed for the Pyramid deposit.

Mineral Resource Estimates

SRK utilized Gemcom’s Gems version 6.3.1 to complete the Mineral Resource estimation. A
comprehensive and validated drill hole database including 49 drill holes was utilized to complete
the analysis.

Three domains were modeled: a very low grade leach cap varying between zero to 90 m in
thickness (not estimated); a supergene enrichment zone below the leach cap with variable depth
extending to 250 m below surface in some areas and defined by increased chalcocite
mineralization and higher copper values; and the primary hypogene mineralized zone, with
copper mainly occurring as chalcopyrite, underlying the supergene zone in most areas.

The Pyramid resource was estimated using Gemcom’s GemsTM (Gems) 3D block modeling
software in multiple passes in 25 by 25 by 10 m blocks by ordinary kriging. Grade estimates were
based on capped 2 m composited assay data. Capping levels were set at 1.3% Cu for the
supergene and 0.83% Cu for the hypogene zone. Mo was capped at 0.1% and 0.08% for the
supergene and hypogene zones respectively. Gold grades were capped at 4.2 g/t for the
supergene and 0.215 g/t for the hypogene zone. In calculating the CuEq, SRK Consulting
(Canada) Inc. utilized the long term metal prices provided by Energy and Metals Consensus
Forecast (Cu US$ 3.54/lb, Mo US$ 18.23/lb, Au US$ 1,480/oz). The contained copper represents
estimated contained metal in the ground and has not been adjusted for metallurgical recoveries.

Mineral resources were classified in accordance with definitions provided by the Canadian
Institute of Mining (CIM) as stipulated in NI43-101. All interpolated blocks were classified as
Inferred Mineral Resource.

In order to quantify the Mineral Resources requirement of “reasonable prospects of economic

extraction”, the block model was subjected to conceptual mining limits using an open pit
optimization program. The process uses reasonable mining and processing parameters to define
a conceptual pit within which the material with reasonable economic prospects should be
contained.

The inferred resources for the Pyramid deposit reported at Cu Eq grade of 0.21% are
summarized in Table 14.11.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page vii

Table i: Mineral Resource Statement*, Pyramid Project, Alaska Peninsula, Alaska, SRK Consulting
(Canada) Inc, effective date, May 9 2013
Au Au Cu Cu Mo Mo
Deposit Class Tonnes
(g/t) (oz) (%) (lb) % (lb)

Open Pit

Supergene Inferred 94,000,000 0.092 276,000 0.40 823,000,000 0.02 40,000,000

Hypogene Inferred 79,000,000 0.083 212,000 0.30 515,000,000 0.02 34,000,000
Total Inferred 173,000,000 0.088 488,000 0.35 1,338,000,000 0.02 74,000,000
** Open pit mineral resources are reported at a Cu Eq cut-off grade of 0.21% using metal prices (USD) of
Cu US$3.54/lb, Mo US$18.23/lb and Au US$1480/oz. The contained copper represents estimated
contained metal in the ground and has not been adjusted for metallurgical recoveries. All numbers have
been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. Mineral resources are reported in relation to a
conceptual pit shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic
viability. Confidence in the estimate of Inferred mineral resources is insufficient to allow the meaningful
application of technical and economic parameters or to enable an evaluation of economic viability worthy of
public disclosure.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Pyramid Project is an early stage copper molybdenum gold exploration prospect located on
the southwestern tip of the Alaskan Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Drilling by FMM and the previous
owners has identified Cu-Mo mineralization centered on several small late Miocene porphyry
intrusions, hosted by a sequence of Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary clastic sedimentary rock.

Mineral resources were estimated in conformity with generally accepted CIM “Estimation of
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Best Practices” guidelines by ordinary kriging using
Gemcom Gems software. Mineral resources may be affected by further infill and exploration
drilling that may result in increases or decreases in subsequent resource estimates

SRK is not aware of any significant risks and uncertainties that could be expected to affect the
reliability or confidence in the early stage exploration information discussed herein.

SRK recommends that FMM continues the exploration on the Pyramid Project, specifically, SRK
recommends that the next exploration phase includes a 5000 m drilling program comprising of 15
additional drill holes to expand and further delineate the porphyry mineralization. SRK estimates
that the recommended work program together with support camp will cost $3,674,000.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page viii

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................13
2 Reliance on Other Experts ..............................................................................................14
3 Property Description and Location .................................................................................15
3.1 Permits and Authorization ........................................................................................................... 20
4 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography................21
4.1 Accessibility ................................................................................................................................ 21
4.2 Physiography .............................................................................................................................. 21
4.3 Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 21
4.4 Local Resources and Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 21
5 History ..............................................................................................................................23
5.1 Early History................................................................................................................................ 23
5.2 1970 - 1976 ................................................................................................................................. 23
5.3 1979-1991 ................................................................................................................................... 25
5.4 2003-2006 ................................................................................................................................... 25
6 Geological Setting and Mineralization ............................................................................28
6.1 Regional Geology ....................................................................................................................... 28
6.2 Property Geology ........................................................................................................................ 30
6.3 Mineralization and Alteration ...................................................................................................... 32
7 Deposit Types ..................................................................................................................35
8 Exploration .......................................................................................................................36
8.1 2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 36
8.2 2011 ............................................................................................................................................ 36
8.3 2012 ............................................................................................................................................ 37
9 Drilling ..............................................................................................................................39
9.1 Historical Drilling ......................................................................................................................... 39
9.2 2010 Drilling ................................................................................................................................ 40
9.3 2011 ............................................................................................................................................ 40
9.4 2012 Drilling ................................................................................................................................ 41
10 Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security ...................................................................43
10.1 Historical Sample Preparation and Analyses ............................................................................. 43
10.2 2010 to 2012 Sample Preparation and Analyses ....................................................................... 43
10.3 Specific Gravity Data .................................................................................................................. 44
10.4 SRK Comments .......................................................................................................................... 44
11 Data Verification ...............................................................................................................45

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page ix

11.1 Historical Data Verification .......................................................................................................... 45

11.2 FMM Data Verification ................................................................................................................ 45
11.3 Analytical Quality Assurance and Quality Control Programs ..................................................... 45
11.4 SRK Data Verification ................................................................................................................. 46
11.4.1 Quality Control Results ..................................................................................................... 47
12 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ...............................................................51
13 Mineral Resource Estimates ...........................................................................................52
13.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 52
13.2 Resource Estimation Procedures ............................................................................................... 52
13.3 Database ..................................................................................................................................... 52
13.4 Specific Gravity ........................................................................................................................... 53
13.5 Solid Body Modeling ................................................................................................................... 53
13.6 Compositing ................................................................................................................................ 54
13.7 Capping ....................................................................................................................................... 56
13.8 Data Statistics ............................................................................................................................. 56
13.9 Block Model ................................................................................................................................ 57
13.10 Variography ......................................................................................................................... 57
13.11 Grade Interpolation .............................................................................................................. 59
13.12 Block Model Validation ........................................................................................................ 60
13.13 Block Model Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................................................... 63
13.14 Mineral Resource Classification .......................................................................................... 65
13.15 Mineral Resource Statement ............................................................................................... 66
14 Adjacent Properties .........................................................................................................68
15 Other Relevant Data and Information .............................................................................69
16 Interpretation and Conclusions ......................................................................................70
17 Recommendations ...........................................................................................................71
18 Date and Signature Page .................................................................................................72
19 References........................................................................................................................73

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page x

List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Pyramid property location map (from FMM, 2013) ................................................................... 15
Figure 3.2: Pyramid property land tenure map (from FMM, 2013) ............................................................. 16
Figure 4.1: Typical Landscape in the Pyramid Project Area ....................................................................... 22
Figure 5.1: Quintana-Duval Geology, Alteration, and Historic Drill Hole Locations .................................... 24
Figure 5.2: Pyramid historic surface sampling, 1974-75 Quintana-Duval, 1986-1987 Battle Mountain Gold,
2005-2006 Metallica .................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 5.3: Thematic land satellite imagery base with interpreted mineral speciation superimposed and
outline of alteration zoning as interpreted by the Quintana-Duval joint venture work................................. 27
Figure 6.1: Regional Geology Setting ......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6.2: Geological Map of the Pyramid Property .................................................................................. 32
Figure 6.3: Alteration interpretation map of Pyramid Project, end of the 2010 program. Alteration
boundaries defined during field examination, 2010. Potassic defined as biotite-magnetite, phyllic is
defined as sericite, quartz, sulfide, and pyrite halo consists of veined pyrite with minor quartz, calcite,
sparse epidote, and chlorite. ....................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 8.1: Rock sampling to date at over the main prospect at Pyramid (Au) .......................................... 37
Figure 8.2: TMF (Total Magnetic Field) ground magnetic map, Pyramid Project, data collected by AES
and processed by IGS................................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 9.1: Location of surface drilling from 2010 to 2012 at Pyramid. ...................................................... 42
Figure 11.1: Blank analytical results for molybdenum over time for Alaska quarry material submitted with
Pyramid drill core samples. ......................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 11.2: Blank analytical results for gold over time for Alaska quarry material submitted with Pyramid
drill core samples. ....................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 11.3: Blank analytical results for copper over time for Alaska quarry material submitted with
Pyramid drill core samples. ......................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 11.4: Scatter plot and Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation plot of copper data for course
reject duplicate Pyramid samples. .............................................................................................................. 49
Figure 11.5: Scatter plot and Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation plot of molybdenum data for
course reject duplicate Pyramid samples. .................................................................................................. 49
Figure 11.6: Scatter plot and Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation plot of gold data for course reject
duplicate Pyramid samples. ........................................................................................................................ 49
Figure 13.1: 3D view of the Pyramid modeled domains. ............................................................................ 54
Figure 13.2: Histogram of sample length for the supergene domain. ......................................................... 55
Figure 13.3: Histogram of sample length for the hypogene domain. .......................................................... 55
Figure 13.4: Experimental and modeled correlograms for the supergene (a,b,c) and hypogene (d,e,f)
mineralized domains ................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 13.5: Scatter plots showing correlation between OK, ID2 and average composite copper,
molybdenum and gold sample grades for the supergene domain. ............................................................. 61
Figure 13.6: Scatter plots showing correlation between OK, ID2 and average composite copper,
molybdenum and gold sample grades for the hypogene domain. .............................................................. 62
Figure 13.7: Grade tonnage curve for Pyramid .......................................................................................... 65

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page xi

List of Tables
Table 3.1: Pyramid Property Tenures ......................................................................................................... 17
Table 9.1: 1975 Aleut-Duval Quintana drill hole locations .......................................................................... 39
Table 9.2: 2010 drill hole locations and orientations ................................................................................... 40
Table 9.3: 2011 drill hole locations and orientations ................................................................................... 41
Table 9.4: 2012 drill hole location and orientations. ................................................................................... 42
Table 11.1: Commercial SRM used by FMM for the 2010 – 1012 Drilling Programs ................................. 46
Table 11.2: Quality Control Data Produced by FMM in 2010 to 2012 for the Pyramid Resource Area ..... 46
Table 13.1: Pyramid drill hole database summary ...................................................................................... 53
Table 13.2: Sample capping levels for Pyramid.......................................................................................... 56
Table 13.3: Composite data summary statistics for Pyramid...................................................................... 57
Table 13.4: Block model location and setup ............................................................................................... 57
Table 13.5: Modeled correlograms for Pyramid mineralized domains ....................................................... 59
Table 13.6: Estimation parameters for the supergene mineralized domain ............................................... 59
Table 13.7: Estimation parameters for the hypogene mineralized domain ................................................ 60
Table 13.8: Comparison of average sample grades with OK and ID2 estimates for informed blocks ....... 62
Table 13.9: Pyramid inferred block model quantity and grade estimates* at various Cu Eq cut-off values 64
Table 13.10: Assumptions Considered for Conceptual Open Pit Optimization. ......................................... 66
Table 13.11: Mineral Resource Statement*, Pyramid Project, Alaska Peninsula, Alaska, SRK Consulting
(Canada) Inc, effective date, May 9 2013 ................................................................................................... 67
Table 17.1: Estimated Cost for the Exploration Program Proposed for the Pyramid Project. .................... 71
Table 18.1: Qualified Persons ..................................................................................................................... 72

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page xii

List of Abbreviations
Unit or Term Abbreviation
Canadian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy CIM
centimetres cm
day d
o
Degrees Celsius C
Dollars (Canadian) $ or C$
Dollars (US) US$
foot ft
grams g
grams per tonne g/t
kilograms per tonne kg/t
kilometres km
metres m
micron µ
millimetres mm
6
Million / mega (10 ) M
Million years My
National Instrument 43-101 NI 43-101
National Topographic Service NTS
Net Smelter Return NSR
North American datum NAD
Ounce per ton opt
specific gravity SG
ton (2000 lbs) ton
tonne (1000 kg) t
tonne per day tpd
Year yr

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 13

1 Introduction
The Pyramid Project is an early stage copper molybdenum gold exploration project, located in
Alaska, USA. It is located on the southwestern tip of the Alaskan Peninsula approximately 890 km by
air southwest of Anchorage and 33 km northwest of Sand Point, the nearest town.

In January 2013, Full Metal Minerals (FMM) commissioned SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (SRK) to
visit the property and prepare a geological model and mineral resource estimate for the Pyramid
Project.

This technical report summarizes a mineral resource estimate for the Pyramid Project. Mineral
resources were classified as Inferred mineral resources following the CIM Definition Standards for
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (December 2005) guidelines. The report was prepared
following the guidelines of the Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 and
Form 43-101F1, and in conformity with generally accepted CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resources
and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines”.

The report was compiled by Dr. Gilles Arseneau, P.Geo., and Darrell Farrow, M.Sc., Pr.Sci.Nat., with
assistance from Michael Tedeschi of FMM. The information contained in this report was provided by
FMM. Dr. Arseneau carried out a visit to the Pyramid Project on March 19 and 20, 2013 to examine
drill core, core logging and sampling procedures, and visit the drill sites. Mineral resources were
estimated by Darrell Farrow, Pr.Sci.Nat, under the supervision of Dr. Arseneau.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 14

2 Reliance on Other Experts

In preparing this report, SRK has relied on information provided by FMM for matters pertaining to
environmental, socioeconomic, and permitting issues. SRK has not performed an independent
verification of land title and tenure as summarized in Section 3 of this report. SRK did not verify the
legality of any underlying agreement(s) that may exist concerning the permits or other agreement(s)
between third parties, but have relied on information provided by Full Metal Minerals.

SRK was informed by FMM that there are no known litigations potentially affecting the Pyramid
Project.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 15

3 Property Description and Location

The Pyramid Project is located 890 km by air southwest of Anchorage, centered on NAD83
coordinate N394450, E6165953 Zone 4N (Figure 3.1). The main project area is located
approximately 5 km from the Gulf of Alaska at the tip of the Alaskan Peninsula. The nearest town is
the fishing village of Sand Point on Popof Island, 33 km south-southeast of the Pyramid Project
(Figure 3.2). Prominent volcanic geographical references are Veniaminof Volcano (140 km
northeast) and the Pavlof Volcanoes (80 km southwest).

The Pyramid property consists of 38,376 hectares, encompassing an approximately 26 km by 13 km

area. Lands at the project are split into separate surface and sub-surface (mineral) ownership. The
sub-surface (mineral) rights are held by The Aleut Corporation (TAC), whereas the surface rights are
held by the Shumagin Corporation in some areas and the Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX) in others. A
lease agreement was completed on the 30th of June, 2010 granting Full Metal Minerals (FMM) and
its affiliates, conditional exploration rights in specific lands outlined in the agreement, particularly
lands in the Pyramid Project area (Figure 3.2). Notably, a separate surface lease agreement was
obtained with the TDX Corporation in July, 2010. A letter agreement was reached with the Shumagin
Corporation for lease of eight townships within their surface owned estate. The agreements provide
FMM access to their surface owned lands with the right to conduct mineral exploration and ultimately
mining if there is sufficient encouragement to proceed. The mineral resources for the Pyramid
Project reported herein are located on the Pyramid property comprising the townships listed in
Table 3.1. At present there are no outstanding hindrances with respect to land status at the Pyramid
Project.

Figure 3.1: Pyramid property location map (from FMM, 2013)

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 16

Figure 3.2: Pyramid property land tenure map (from FMM, 2013)

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 17

Table 3.1: Pyramid Property Tenures

Township Range Section Meridian Acres MI_Label Subsurface Owner Surface Owner
18
052S 072W 18 Seward 635 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
(635)
19
052S 072W 19 Seward 636 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
(636)
052S 072W 20 Seward 640 20 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 21 Seward 640 21 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 22 Seward 640 22 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 23 Seward 640 23 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 24 Seward 640 24 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 25 Seward 640 25 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 26 Seward 640 26 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 27 Seward 640 27 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 28 Seward 640 28 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 29 Seward 640 29 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
30
052S 072W 30 Seward 638 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
(638)
31
052S 072W 31 Seward 639 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
(639)
052S 072W 32 Seward 640 32 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 33 Seward 640 33 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 072W 34 Seward 640 34 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
18
052S 073W 18 Seward 635 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(635)
19
052S 073W 19 Seward 636 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(636)
052S 073W 20 Seward 640 20 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
052S 073W 21 Seward 640 21 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 22 Seward 640 22 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 23 Seward 640 23 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 24 Seward 640 24 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 25 Seward 640 25 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 26 Seward 640 26 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 27 Seward 640 27 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 28 Seward 640 28 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 29 Seward 640 29 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
30
052S 073W 30 Seward 638 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(638)
31
052S 073W 31 Seward 639 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(639)
052S 073W 32 Seward 640 32 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
052S 073W 33 Seward 640 33 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 34 Seward 640 34 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 35 Seward 640 35 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
052S 073W 36 Seward 640 36 Aleut Corp Atka Village Corp
19
052S 074W 19 Seward 636 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
(636)
052S 074W 20 Seward 640 20 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 18

Township Range Section Meridian Acres MI_Label Subsurface Owner Surface Owner
052S 074W 21 Seward 640 21 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
052S 074W 22 Seward 640 22 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
052S 074W 23 Seward 640 23 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
052S 074W 24 Seward 640 24 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
052S 074W 25 Seward 640 25 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
052S 074W 26 Seward 640 26 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
052S 074W 27 Seward 640 27 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
052S 074W 28 Seward 640 28 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
052S 074W 29 Seward 640 29 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
30
052S 074W 30 Seward 638 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
(638)
31
052S 074W 31 Seward 639 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
(639)
052S 074W 32 Seward 640 32 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
052S 074W 33 Seward 640 33 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
052S 074W 34 Seward 640 34 Aleut Corp St. Paul Village Corp
052S 074W 35 Seward 640 35 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
052S 074W 36 Seward 640 36 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 072W 5 Seward 640 5 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
6
053S 072W 6 Seward 607 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(607)
7
053S 072W 7 Seward 609 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(609)
053S 072W 8 Seward 640 8 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 1 Seward 640 1 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 2 Seward 640 2 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 3 Seward 640 3 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 4 Seward 640 4 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 5 Seward 640 5 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
6
053S 073W 6 Seward 607 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(607)
7
053S 073W 7 Seward 609 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(609)
053S 073W 8 Seward 640 8 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 9 Seward 640 9 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 073W 10 Seward 640 10 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 11 Seward 640 11 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 12 Seward 640 12 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 13 Seward 640 13 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 14 Seward 640 14 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 15 Seward 640 15 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 073W 16 Seward 640 16 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 073W 17 Seward 640 17 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
18
053S 073W 18 Seward 610 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(610)
19
053S 073W 19 Seward 611 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
(611)
053S 073W 20 Seward 640 20 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 19

Township Range Section Meridian Acres MI_Label Subsurface Owner Surface Owner
053S 073W 21 Seward 640 21 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 073W 22 Seward 640 22 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 073W 23 Seward 640 23 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 073W 26 Seward 640 26 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 073W 27 Seward 640 27 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
30
053S 073W 30 Seward 613 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
(613)
31
053S 073W 31 Seward 614 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
(614)
053S 073W 32 Seward 640 32 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 073W 33 Seward 640 33 Aleut Corp Pauloff Harbor Village Corp
053S 073W 34 Seward 640 34 Aleut Corp Pauloff Harbor Village Corp
053S 074W 1 Seward 640 1 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 2 Seward 640 2 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 3 Seward 640 3 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 4 Seward 640 4 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 5 Seward 640 5 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
6
053S 074W 6 Seward 607 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
(607)
7
053S 074W 7 Seward 609 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
(609)
053S 074W 8 Seward 640 8 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 9 Seward 640 9 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 10 Seward 640 10 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 11 Seward 640 11 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 12 Seward 640 12 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 13 Seward 640 13 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 074W 14 Seward 640 14 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 15 Seward 640 15 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 16 Seward 640 16 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 17 Seward 640 17 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
18
053S 074W 18 Seward 610 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(610)
19
053S 074W 19 Seward 611 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(611)
053S 074W 20 Seward 640 20 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 074W 21 Seward 640 21 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 22 Seward 640 22 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 23 Seward 640 23 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 24 Seward 640 24 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 074W 25 Seward 640 25 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 074W 26 Seward 640 26 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 28 Seward 640 28 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 29 Seward 640 29 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
30
053S 074W 30 Seward 613 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
(613)
31
053S 074W 31 Seward 614 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
(614)

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 20

Township Range Section Meridian Acres MI_Label Subsurface Owner Surface Owner
053S 074W 32 Seward 640 32 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 33 Seward 640 33 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 35 Seward 640 35 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 074W 36 Seward 640 36 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W Seward 640 1 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 2 Seward 640 2 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 3 Seward 640 3 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 075W 10 Seward 640 10 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 075W 11 Seward 640 11 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 075W 12 Seward 640 12 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 13 Seward 640 13 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 075W 14 Seward 640 14 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 075W 15 Seward 640 15 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
19
053S 075W 19 Seward 611 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
(611)
053S 075W 20 Seward 640 20 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 21 Seward 640 21 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 075W 22 Seward 640 22 Aleut Corp Aleut Corp
053S 075W 23 Seward 640 23 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 24 Seward 640 24 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 25 Seward 640 25 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 26 Seward 640 26 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 27 Seward 640 27 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 28 Seward 640 28 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 29 Seward 640 29 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
30
053S 075W 30 Seward 613 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
(613)
31
053S 075W 31 Seward 614 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
(614)
053S 075W 32 Seward 640 32 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 33 Seward 640 33 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 34 Seward 640 34 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 35 Seward 640 35 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp
053S 075W 36 Seward 640 36 Aleut Corp Sand Point Village Corp

3.1 Permits and Authorization

Permits required for the Pyramid Project include the Alaska Costal Management Permit from the
Alaska Division of Mining, Land & Water, the Miscellaneous Land Use Permit, also from the Alaska
Division of Mining, Land and Water and a water use permit from the Army Corp of Engineers
(AMPC) permit, all of which have been received and are in good standing.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 21

4 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure

and Physiography
4.1 Accessibility

Access to the property is via a commercial flights from Anchorage to the regional airport in
Sandpoint. People and supplies are ferried 25 km across the Unga Straight separating Sand Point
and the camp on Balboa Bay. This occurs either via boat or helicopter. Several miles of existing dirt
roads exist on the property and date back to 1975 when the first exploration program was conducted.
An access road from Balboa Bay to the project site also exists and in 2011 minor repairs were made
to the road making it ATV accessible. Many of the old roads were utilized during the 2012 drilling
season to reduce additional surface impact.

4.2 Physiography

The project is set in the upper most part of a west draining basin that works its way north out to
Herendeen Bay and towards Bristol Bay. Elevations vary from 150 m in the valley to the south to
850 m at the top of Pyramid Peak; however, most exploration activities have been conducted in the
range of 300 m to 600 m. The terrain is moderate to steep and sparsely vegetated as much of the
work area is considered to be above the tree line (Figure 4.1). Rock scree-talus is commonplace
throughout the area and rock outcrop is generally sparse. In the lower elevations, minor tundra and
low-lying shrubs are present. There is also minor alder growth in some of the lower elevations to the
south.

4.3 Climate

Temperatures at nearby Sand Point range from highs near 60°F (15°C) in the summer to lows
around 20°F (-6°C) in the winter. The daytime and nighttime temperatures vary daily by about 10°F
(6°C). Precipitation is common; snow from autumn to spring and rain when the temperatures allow it.
The truncated summer often does not allow for snow to fully melt from winter to winter, although by
August/September the area of snow cover has often decreased a considerable amount compared to
the start of the season. The weather is generally unpredictable and typically windy with fronts
ascending from both the north and south.

4.4 Local Resources and Infrastructure

The nearest town is the fishing village of Sand Point which is on the northwest side of Popof Island
and 33 km south-southeast of the Pyramid Project (Figure 3.2). Sand Point has a population which
varies from about 2000 in the summer to 1200 in the winter. Commercial fishing is the key industry of
Sand Point and the surrounding towns of Cold Bay (135 km southwest), King Cove (119 km
southwest), Nelson Lagoon (50 km north), and Bear Lake (48 km northeast).

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 22

Figure 4.1: Typical Landscape in the Pyramid Project Area

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 23

5 History
5.1 Early History

Exploration, prospecting, and mining in the region dates back to 1882 when coal was identified and
extracted on Unga Island followed shortly thereafter with the discovery of gold on both Shumagin
and Unga Islands. Gold mining in 1886 at the Apollo vein on Unga Island is considered the first gold
mining operation in the state of Alaska. The Apollo produced approximately 112,000 ounces of gold
between 1886 and 1914 through the extraction of nearly 500,000 tons of free milling rock.
Approximately 18 km north of Pyramid are Cretaceous aged bituminous coal beds that were
identified in 1889, though they proved difficult to extract, possibly due to structural complexity.

The history of Pyramid dates back to the mid-1970s when geologists from Aluet Corp (TAC) and
Quintana-Duval Mining identified porphyry copper-molybdenum potential during regional
reconnaissance along the Alaskan Peninsula. Although Pan American Petroleum was active in the
region during the 1960s, there is no evidence they conducted exploration at Pyramid other than
possible claim staking. There is no evidence of historic mining or prospecting in the Pyramid area,
which is relatively uncommon for a broadly mineralized and partly exposed porphyry system.

5.2 1970 - 1976

The Quintana-Duval teams initiated surface mapping and geochemical sampling in 1974 which
ultimately defined a large area of porphyry-style alteration and copper-molybdenum mineralization
sufficient to warrant a 1975 drill program. Geology, alteration, and sample location maps from 1974
were geo-referenced and digitized (Figure 5.1). The 1974 exploration was sufficient to identify
several targets based upon detailed geological and alteration mapping in addition to geochemical
results from 63 soil, 18 rock, and 11 silt/stream sediment samples (Figure 5.2). All of the samples
were analyzed for copper, molybdenum, zinc, gold, and silver.

Quintana-Duval commenced drilling in September 1975. Operations were conducted from a

Peninsula based camp and an access road was constructed by bull dozer from the head of Balboa
Bay (Albatross Anchorage) to the Pyramid Project, a road distance of 6.8 km. Upon commencement
of drilling, two rigs completed 19 core holes for a total of 1692 m (Figure 5.1). One drill rig consisted
of a skid mounted Longyear 38 which drilled 1163 m of NQ core over 13 holes. The second, a screw-
feed Boyles rig, was a smaller machine that drilled 6 AQ holes for a total of 529 m and was
transported in part by helicopter or skid.

The 1975 drilling confirmed the presence of a broad area of copper and molybdenum mineralization
to a maximum depth of 168.6 m where NQ holes averaged 89.3 m and AQ holes averaged 88.1 m,
the deepest of which was 135.6 m. The distribution of holes and broad Cu-Mo mineralization allowed
Quintana-Duval to produce a resource calculation which is stated in the 1975 Pyramid Project report
by J. S. Christie (Christie, J. S., 1975). The report stated a resource of 126,330,000 tons containing
0.403% Cu and 0.025% Mo with a 0.25% cut-off grade. This resource was based upon drill hole
geochemistry and calculation of 17 polygonal blocks to produce tonnage. The estimated resource is
shallow at less than 100 m and was indicated to have potential to grow at depth. An additional
48,800,000 potential tons was also calculated based upon a favorable undrilled area, though no
grade was predicted. These results are historic in nature from work completed prior to 2001 and NI

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 24

43-101 standards and should not be relied upon. The 1975 program was followed-up in 1976 with a
one-hole program, placed on a prior site which had poor recovery in the chalcocite enrichment zone.
However, the results did not indicate higher grades and the entire program was abandoned.

Figure 5.1: Quintana-Duval Geology, Alteration, and Historic Drill Hole Locations

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 25

Figure 5.2: Pyramid historic surface sampling, 1974-75 Quintana-Duval, 1986-1987 Battle Mountain Gold,
2005-2006 Metallica

5.3 1979-1991

Gold exploration was active throughout the region between 1979 and 1991 by various companies
including Resource Associates of Alaska (RAA), Battle Mountain Gold, Bear Creek, Teck, and
Cominco (Van Wyck, et al, 2005). Exploration consisted of broad reconnaissance –style rock, stream
and soil sampling programs and some drilling, though no significant deposits were identified. It
should be noted that only minor rock and stream sediment sampling was performed at Pyramid
during this time, and the exploration was gold oriented, thus most samples were typically analyzed
for gold, silver, mercury, and arsenic. Historic databases contain sparse metal or trace element
geochemistry.

5.4 2003-2006

Alaska Earth Resources, Inc. (AERI) successfully negotiated a mineral exploration lease with two
Peninsula native corporations in 2003: BBNC (Bristol Bay Native Corporation) and The Aleut
Corporation (TAC). The Pyramid Project sits entirely within TAC mineral lands and a combination of
surface lands dominated by the Shumagin Corporation and to a lesser degree by the St Paul

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 26

Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX). Full Metal Minerals (FMM) examined the property in 2004 and
subsequently optioned the lease from AERI.

FMM and Metallica Resources (Metallica), following completion of a joint venture, commenced
mineral exploration in 2005 along the Alaskan Peninsula using Sand Point as a base of operations.
The exploration team focused on the Pyramid porphyry copper-molybdenum deposit in addition to
Centennial and Apollo-Shumagin gold deposits. The 2005 program consisted of reconnaissance-
style mapping, surface sampling, ground geophysics, and examination of the Apollo-Shumagin
epithermal gold vein systems. The work at Pyramid included completion of five induced polarization
(IP) lines and several miles of ground magnetics along with opportunistic rock chip sampling and
outcrop lithologic-alteration mapping. A reported 177 rock chip, 14 silts/stream sediment, and 1 soil
samples were collected during the 2005 season (Figure 5.2). The samples were analyzed at BSI
inspectorate through Alaska Assay Laboratories for fire assay gold and 31 elements by aqua regia
ICP. Recommendations for additional work at Pyramid were made for the 2006 season, including
drilling four holes totaling 914 m.

A remote sensing study was undertaken in late 2005 over the Pyramid area and surrounding areas
(Figure 5.3). The study examined several band widths from land satellite imagery, and through
filtering, identified the following minerals: sericite, kaolinite pyrophyllite, illite, jarosite, and alunite.
Most of these minerals are associated with porphyry copper systems and are present in or peripheral
to Pyramid. The work was contracted to and conducted by Ming-Ho Du Image2Map Services Inc.

During 2006, exploration by FMM and Metallica focused upon a rock channel sampling program on
continuous exposures in one of the principal creeks transecting the Pyramid porphyry system. This
program was recommended by consultant John Proffett who conducted a one-day visit to the
property and suggested a line of continuous channel sampling along a well exposed creek segment
might represent a horizontal drill hole. The crew collected 113 rock chip samples and only analyzed
for gold, copper, and molybdenum.

No drilling was completed on the property since a surface exploration agreement was not completed
with the Village Corporations. However, a review of the historic drill core was undertaken at the
Alaska Materials Archive Center in Eagle River, AK. This review was conducted by Joanna Lispke
and Joel Rotert and compiled into a separate report. Based upon the positive core review report and
surface sampling, a drill program was recommended for the following season.

There was no additional exploration conducted on the Pyramid property until Antofagasta entered
into an Option Agreement with FMM during 2010 and commenced drilling on the Property.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 27

Figure 5.3: Thematic land satellite imagery base with interpreted mineral speciation superimposed and
outline of alteration zoning as interpreted by the Quintana-Duval joint venture work

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 28

6 Geological Setting and Mineralization

6.1 Regional Geology

The Pyramid Project is located in the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’, a portion of the arc which contains a
number of other porphyry copper epithermal gold deposits in addition to hundreds of metal
occurrences. The project area is located in a volcanic arc setting, approximately 20 km from the
Pacific-North America convergent plate boundary. The volcanic arc is derived from semi-continuous
tectonic activity and oceanic crust subduction since the Mesozoic and currently represented by a
chain of nearly 80 volcanoes throughout the Aleutian island chain and Alaskan Peninsula.

The Alaska Peninsula is comprised of arc-related volcanic and plutonic rocks intermixed with marine
and minor continental sedimentary rocks that date to the late Paleozoic (Figure 6.1). Exposed
Peninsula basement lithologies have both accretion and continental origins, derived from a long
complex tectonic history. Regional mapping has labeled lithologic boundaries by structural
components such as thrust faults, normal faults, strike-slip faults, intrusive contacts, and
unconformities. Thrust and strike-slip faults are principally derived from compressional and
transpressional tectonism, some as deeply rooted long lived structures. This is typical of structural
preparation in conjunction with arc-related subduction and is partly responsible for the genesis of the
Pyramid porphyry center.

The sedimentary rocks throughout the range of the Alaskan Peninsula are dated from the upper
Triassic through the Pliocene with a good percentage represented by the Jurassic through Tertiary.
Collectively, the entire sedimentary stratigraphic column consists of roughly 800 m of upper Triassic,
6,424 m of Jurassic, 5,825 m from the Cretaceous, and 8,131 m contained within the Tertiary for an
aggregate total of about 21,180 m (Detterman, et al, 1974). The most dominant rock types are
siltstone, sandstone, shale, and conglomerate, with lesser amounts of tuffs and lavas, limestone,
mudstone, and non-marine coal. Tuffs and lava material are found prominently within much of the
Tertiary formations whereas the limestone and non-marine coal is confined to the Cretaceous and
older.

Examination of Port Moller 1:250.00 quadrangle reveals fewer overall exposed sedimentary
formations with the following being most dominant with measured thickness:

Tertiary

• Stepovak Formation (2030 m)

• Tolstoi Formation (660 m)

Cretaceous

• Chignik Formation (490 m)

• Hoodoo Formation (630 m)
• Shumagin Formation (3000 m)

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 29

Jurassic

• Northeast Creek Member (Naknek Fm), (614 m)

• Snug Harbour Siltstone Member (Naknek Fm), (625 m)

• Indecision Creek Sandstone (Naknek Fm), (870 m)

The Jurassic rocks, likely by virtue of a longer history, are more deformed and becomes better
exposed on the northern side of the Peninsula. Should a continuous sequence be exposed of the
above sedimentary rocks, there would be roughly 8,920 m of sediments present within the Port
Moller/general Pyramid area.

Figure 6.1: Regional Geology Setting

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 30

The entire sedimentary package is not exposed, but in general, has a northeast-southwest strike and
southeast dip that varies from shallow to steep. The further northeast on the Peninsula, the more
deformed and rotated the sedimentary package tends to be.

Relative timing and interpretation indicates the Alaska Peninsula terrain was accreted in the early
Tertiary exposing Upper Cretaceous variably marine sedimentary rocks of the Chignik, Shumagin,
and Hoodoo Formations. Early Tertiary sedimentary rocks are also within the accreted terrain and
were subducted beneath the peninsular terrain. The Border Range Fault is interpreted to occur
between the inner and outer Shumagin Islands where the Shumagin Formation and Late Cretaceous
Plutons of 58-63 Ma are best exposed. Following terrain accretion, southern Alaska rotated counter-
clockwise between 30-50 degrees to its current location by no later than 43 Ma. At this time, the
direction of the accretion shifted to a northwest vengeance of the currently active Aleutian
(subduction) Trench.

6.1.3 Economic Geology

Regional metal endowment and mineralization is consistent with other porphyry copper districts
worldwide. There are several different mineralizing events within the region, all of which are related
to arc-subduction volcanism. The oldest event is the farthest south and includes epithermal and
porphyry style mineralization on Unga and Popof islands, 47 km (30 miles) to the south-southwest.
Although this event is older than the event responsible for Pyramid mineralization, it is less eroded
and present surface distribution may suggest that only the upper tiers of the greater porphyry system
are exposed.

The Pyramid deposit is hosted within the current volcanic arc, a contemporaneous intrusive rock that
has been dated to 6 million years by K-Ar isotope dating (Armstrong et al, 1975). Also associated
with this activity are Pavlof and Veniaminof; two active volcanoes within the arc. The arc becomes
progressively older to the east with the Bee Creek porphyry system being roughly 20 Ma. While the
current arc is more deeply eroded, several epithermal centers have been identified, most notably the
San Diego bay epithermal center and hot springs located along the northern coast of the Alaska
Peninsula only several miles from the Pyramid deposit.

6.2 Property Geology

6.2.1 Sedimentary Rocks

The sedimentary rocks at Pyramid consist of a thick succession of clastic rocks of largely siltstone
character. The siltstone commonly occurs as a fine-grained rock with no preserved internal structure
such as bedding. Locally, feldspatic siltstone with small (<1 mm) plagioclase grains or slightly coarse
sandstone texture occurs. They are thought to belong to the Late Cretaceous age Hoodoo Formation
and the Late Paleocene to Middle Eocene Tolstoi Formation. The Hoodoo is a lower continental
slope submarine shale, siltstone, and fine-grained sandstone, becoming coarser (sandy)
stratigraphically upwards.

Siltstone within the Pyramid area is intensely affected by pervasive K-silicate alteration of biotite
giving the pale brown to creamy appearance to the rock. This is variably overprinted by green to grey
sericite alteration in the core of the mineralized area. It characteristically has higher hairline vein

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 31

density relative to the adjacent intrusive porphyry unit reflecting a pre-mineralization fracture system
and competency difference. Least altered siltstone occurs as a dark grey rock outside the K-silicate
zone. Therefore, appearance of zones of dark grey siltstone in drill holes marks the outer limit of the
intense K-silicate alteration zone.

6.2.2 Intrusive Rocks

The Pyramid Cu-Mo mineralization is centred on several late Miocene porphyry intrusions, likely
quartz dioritic composition, which are hosted by a sequence of Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary clastic
sedimentary rocks (Figure 6.2). The intrusive bodies are small (<200 m) stocks or dikes and are
exposed in an area of at least 2.5 × 1.5 km largely within an east-west trending glacial valley.
Available drill hole data suggest that most of these intrusive units occur as vertical bodies but
existence of smaller sills cannot be ruled out. They have similar mineralogy of plagioclase, biotite
and amphibole with variable occurrence and abundance of quartz phenocrysts. Texture of the rocks
varies from small to coarse grained porphyritic to coarse equigranular texture. The intrusive rocks
found on the property have been divided into several types on the basis of texture, mineralogical
composition and timing of emplacement.

Feldspar porphyry (FP) is a main intrusive rock at Pyramid emplaced into the host sedimentary rocks
commonly as vertical bodies less than 150 m wide. It is characterized by approximately 35% small
(2-3 mm) plagioclase phenocrysts in a fine-grained mafic groundmass of dominantly plagioclase,
biotite and hornblende. Locally, small (<2 mm) triangular shape quartz occur. Hornblende is rarely
preserved but abundant biotite occurs in groundmass in areas with least sericite alteration. Quartz
diorite porphyry (QDP) is texturally and mineralogically similar to the feldspar porphyry, having
approximately 35% plagioclase phenocrysts. However, characteristically, it has approximately 5%
small (ca. 3 mm) hexagonal to rounded quartz phenocrysts.

The equigranular diorite (ED) forms a large central intrusive body at Pyramid with surface exposure
of at least 600 m × 400 m. Drill core data suggest that it probably expands at depth and extends
especially towards west. It is characterized by approximately 60% plagioclase (3-4 mm), 30% biotite
(1-6 mm) and amphibole, 2% magnetite and less than 10% groundmass of largely plagioclase. The
biotite is usually recrystallized and hornblende is rare. It has been affected by K-silicate alteration
characterized by quartz + K-feldspar + magnetite. It locally contains veins with green sericite
alteration halos with minor chalcopyrite and trace pyrite (cp>>py). They cut and are cut by early
green sericite veinlets suggesting development of early veins within ED. However, typical Pyramid
mineralization associated with quartz-grey sericite veins do not occur. Late pyrite veins are not
common.

Crowded feldspar porphyry (CFP) is a distinct porphyry unit at Pyramid characterized by abundant
coarse phenocrysts of zoned plagioclase (2-8 mm, 45%), biotite (2-5 mm, 15%), hornblende (3-4
mm, 10%), and magnetite (1-2 mm, 3%) in a fine-grained grey feldspar-rich groundmass. CFP cuts
FP and QDP with sharp contacts and rarely has clasts of QDP. CFP is only weakly mineralized and
commonly barren.

The plagioclase biotite dike (PBD) is a late mafic dike with thickness from a few cm to over 20 m. It
cuts all previous rock units especially near the contacts between older rocks and occurs as dikes
trending approximately east-west. PBD is characterized by variable amounts of plagioclase (20 to

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 32

40%) and locally biotite phenocrysts in a biotite-rich groundmass with magnetite (1-3%). Locally,
PBD contains disseminated chalcopyrite with minor pyrrhotite similar to minette dikes. PBD,
however, is commonly barren, cuts all vein types and is locally cut by trace hairline pyrite veins.

Figure 6.2: Geological Map of the Pyramid Property

6.3 Mineralization and Alteration

The alteration suites can be described as multiphase and in approximate paragenetic order
consisting of early potassic assemblages (biotite-magnetite+/-kspar), early dark micaceous (EDM)
veining, A and B quartz-kspar-sulphide veining, minor D-veining as pyrite-carbonate-quartz-sericite,
copper sulphide enrichment, and oxidation (Figure 6.3). The complete timing of phyllic alteration
(quartz, sericite, pyrite) has not been fully established but likely overlaps the potassic alteration
phase and is identified with aspects of EDM, A, B, and D veining. Indications of argillic alteration are
also present with an abundance of clay altered feldspars, particularly in holes drilled on the south
side of the valley. Not all alteration types were identified in each hole, but various combinations were
observed and contribute to a slightly complex multiphase system.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 33

Figure 6.3: Alteration interpretation map of Pyramid Project, end of the 2010 program. Alteration
boundaries defined during field examination, 2010. Potassic defined as biotite-magnetite, phyllic is
defined as sericite, quartz, sulfide, and pyrite halo consists of veined pyrite with minor quartz, calcite,
sparse epidote, and chlorite.

The early potassic is dominantly potassium-rich secondary biotite with variable disseminated to
veinlet fine-grained magnetite. The biotite is fine-grained, often root beer brown, shreddy,
preferentially replaces pre-existing hornblende and often biotite. The magnetite is typically fine-
grained disseminated and/or in hairline veinlets with biotite. A slightly later (?) phase of potassic
alteration consists of potassium feldspar with quartz and sulphides in veining as A-type veins. This
type of veining is common in the drilling and locally very abundant on the surface.

The early dark micaceous (EDM) veins and veinlets are abundant, particularly in hornfelsed
sediments. The veins are composed of quartz, sericite, chalcopyrite, pyrite, minor chlorite, and
sparse K-spar. They are 1-3 mm wide, but can be up to 1 cm and have diffuse halos with no distinct
wall boundary. These veins are thought to be genetically early as they are observed cross-cut by A,
B, and D veins. Another hypothesis indicates EDM veins originally contained biotite and K-spar, but
no sericite or chlorite which would be later alteration components replacing biotite and most of the K-
spar.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 34

All drill holes were found to contain A-veins, variably composed of quartz, K-spar, sericite, and
sulphide minerals (chalcopyrite, pyrite, and molybdenite) with minor anhydrite and carbonate. The
veins range from a few millimeters to a couple of centimeters wide, have distinct wall boundaries,
center-lines which are frequently filled with sulphide minerals. The veins can occur as cross-cutting
stockworks and observed in hornfels, quartz diorite porphyry, diorite porphyry, and feldspar porphyry.
Coeval and slightly later B-veins are apparent by their lack of alteration halo and are dominantly
composed of quartz with minor sericite and deep purple anhydrite, and have sharp continuous
transects of the core. Molybdenite and chalcopyrite are the most frequent sulphide minerals
associated with B-veins, commonly along the wall rock-vein boundary. They are not as abundant as
EDM or A veins, but are found in all holes. The EDM, A, and B veins probably occurred during the
transition between late potassic to early-middle phyllic alteration.

Perhaps the latest veining event, D-veins, tend to cross cut all other vein types mentioned above.
They can contain a variety of minerals, though nearly always contain pyrite with at least minor to
moderate amounts of sericite, quartz, calcite/siderite, clay, and sparse molybdenite. D-veins are
interpreted to arrive late, during the waning phyllic alteration phase, though are not considered a
major part of the system in the holes drilled.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 35

7 Deposit Types
A porphyry copper-molybdenum-gold system is the primary deposit style targeted at the Pyramid
Project. The Property is regionally located within the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’, a geographic moniker for
an area of tectonic and volcanically active terrains encircling the Pacific Basin. There are hundreds
of known porphyry style deposits located within this feature, which includes countries such as the
United States, Canada, Russia, Japan, Indonesia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, and Mexico. The ‘Ring
of Fire’ hosts an enormous amount of copper, molybdenum, gold, and silver from porphyry style
deposits which are typically large low grade, bulk tonnage and generally open pit for economically
effective extractions.

Porphyry deposits are large, low-medium grade deposits; their primary (hypogene) mineralization is
dominantly structurally controlled and is genetically and spatially related to felsic or intermediate
intrusions. Along with hypogene mineralization, copper rich porphyry deposits have the potential for
secondary (supergene) mineralization. Supergene mineralization occurs when copper bearing sulfide
minerals (i.e. chalcopyrite) are weathered or dissolved by downward to laterally migrating acidic
groundwater, then re-precipitated in a deeper reduced setting; the end result can be the precipitation
and deposition of higher grade copper minerals, enhancing the economic potential. Secondary
supergene mineralization does occur at Pyramid.

Porphyry deposits come in varying styles, grades, and depths of exposure and as a result have a
broad spectrum of deposit types. Typical copper porphyry deposit grades range from 0.2 to 1.5 %
copper, 0.01 to 0.05 % Mo, 0.05 to 0.5 g/t Au, and 0.5 to 5.0 g/t Ag. Due to the various compositions
of porphyry deposits, they often have varying metal values. There are deposits that are copper and
gold rich, molybdenum and silver poor or copper and molybdenum rich, and gold and silver poor.
Some deposits can also have smaller quantities of other precious metals that fall into the platinum
group metals (platinum, palladium, rhenium, indium and rhodium) as well as selenium. These rarer
metals and elements are often extracted during the smelting process.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 36

8 Exploration
Surface exploration agreements with two Alaska Native Village Corporations were finalized in 2010,
and FMM subsequently entered into an Option Agreement with Antofagasta Minerals PLC
(Antofagasta), principally focused on the Pyramid area.

8.1 2010

A program of work on the Pyramid Project commenced in early August, 2010 and was completed by
mid-September, 2010. The program encompassed geologic mapping, collection of 150 rock chip
samples, and diamond core drilling of 5 holes for a total of 1668 m with depths ranging from 201 m to
500 m. The 2010 exploration program included the collection of surface samples, particularly in
areas with deficient sample coverage. Previously sampled outcrops, specifically in areas covered
during 2005 and 2006, were not fully duplicated and considered sufficient to merge and integrate
with the 2010 sampling. Most of these samples were gathered during reconnaissance and detailed
surface mapping. Six of the 150 samples were taken at the San Diego Bay alteration target, 8 km to
the east.

The 2010 surface sampling and mapping program identified previously un-recognized exposures
containing strong porphyry style alteration and mineralization, and defined a 4 km x 3 km NE-SW
oriented zone of strong porphyry style alteration and mineralization.

8.2 2011

The 2011 field program began June 1st and lasted until August 1st of 2011. The program consisted
of rock chip and grab sampling (Figure 8.1), detailed geologic mapping, vein density mapping,
diamond core drilling of 12 holes totaling 2,576 m with depths ranging between 105 m to 327 m, and
a magnetic survey at Pyramid as well as minor prospecting and geologic sampling at San Diego Bay.
A ground magnetic survey was contracted to Aurora Geoscience LTD out of Whitehorse, Yukon
Canada. A one-man crew conducted the survey and collected a total of 26.6 line kilometers with 3
km of N-S tie lines, 100 km E-W line spacing and 10 m station spacing. The survey was oriented
east-west over the heart of the porphyry system. Also during late 2011, a high quality 5 m resolution
IKONOS Geo Eye image capture over the immediate Pyramid target and surrounding area was
commissioned through ETerra. Several images were captured, though none had 100% coverage
due to cloudy peaks, thus imagery from other slightly lower quality datasets were spliced-in and a
good image was ultimately produced in early May, 2012 (Figure 8.2). The dimensions of the image
are 14.7 km x 7.7 km. This high quality dataset also came with 5 m digital contours to replace the
government 100 feet contour data.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 37

Figure 8.1: Rock sampling to date at over the main prospect at Pyramid (Au)

8.3 2012

The 2012 exploration campaign consisted of an extension of the 2011 ground magnetic survey and
minor geologic mapping. There were no rock chip or grab samples taken during the season. Most of
the focus for the season was on a drill program which resulted in 3,241 m of drilling over a total of 13
holes. The mapping was performed over five man days by Full Metal Minerals geologist Joey Wilkins
and focused on the southwest of the property. The most substantial part of the program, outside of
drilling, was a four day ground magnetic survey performed by two Alaska Earth Sciences (AES)
geologists in mid-August. The base station was a G-856AX Memory-Mag Proton Procession
Magnetometer, and the rover was a G-859 MINING MAG Cesium Vapor Magnetometer. The work
done extended the previous survey by about 1 km to the west (Figure 8.2), essentially covering all
areas of drilling, but not all areas of surface mapping. This data was merged with the 2011 dataset
by Ronald Bell at International Geophysical Services (IGS), LLC in Lakewood, Colorado. After
merging the data, several products such as reduced to pole, total magnetic field, analytical signal,
vertical derivative, and tilt derivative were produced using Geosoft Montage geophysical software.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 38

Figure 8.2: TMF (Total Magnetic Field) ground magnetic map, Pyramid Project, data collected by AES
and processed by IGS.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 39

9 Drilling
9.1 Historical Drilling

Drilling conducted by the Aleut-Quintana-Duval JV in 1975 consisted of two rigs which completed 19
core holes for a total of 1692 m (Table 9.1 and Figure 9.1). One drill rig consisted of a skid mounted
Longyear 38 which drilled 1163 m of NQ core over 13 holes. The second, a screw-feed Boyles rig,
was a smaller machine that drilled 6 AQ holes for a total of 529 m and was transported in part by
helicopter or skid. Overall core recovery was poor; especially in strongly altered chalcocite enriched
rocks. It is hypothesized that overall grades may be higher than indicated due to loss of chalcocite in
these sections.

Drilling confirmed the presence of a broad area of copper and molybdenum mineralization to a
maximum depth of 169 m where NQ holes averaged 89 m and AQ holes averaged 88 m; the
deepest of which was 136 m (Table 9.1). The distribution of holes (Figure 9.1) and broad Cu-Mo
mineralization allowed Aleut-Quintana-Duval to produce a resource calculation which is stated in the
1975 Pyramid Project report by J. S. Christie (Christie, J. S., 1975). The report stated a resource of
126,330,000 tons containing 0.403% Cu and 0.025% Mo with a 0.25% cut-off grade.

Table 9.1: 1975 Aleut-Duval Quintana drill hole locations

Hole_ID Easting Northing Elevation Depth Azimuth Dip
BBS1-1 393931 6165530 478.0 62.8 0 -90
BBS1-2 393385 6165660 419.6 82.6 0 -90
BBS1-3 394257 6165581 400.4 92.4 0 -90
BBS1-4 394260 6165329 462.5 58.5 0 -90
BBS1-5 394478 6165613 427.4 135.6 0 -90
BBS1-6 394868 6166032 385.8 97.2 0 -90
QP-1 394107 6165823 358.0 127.1 0 -90
QP-2 393584 6165783 421.4 168.6 0 -90
QP-3 393816 6165434 535.7 103.3 0 -90
QP-4 393986 6165645 415.5 106.7 0 -90
QP-5 394125 6165974 320.0 127.4 0 -90
QP-6 394408 6166203 412.5 98.5 0 -90
QP-7 394172 6166199 379.7 43.3 0 -90
QP-8 394910 6165884 415.1 48.5 0 -90
QP-9 395177 6166214 491.4 61.6 0 -90
QP-10 394596 6166029 357.7 83.5 0 -90
QP-11 394565 6166207 418.9 89.6 0 -90
QP-12 394472 6165828 346.5 13.1 0 -90
QP-13 394873 6165828 436.5 91.9 0 -90

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 40

9.2 2010 Drilling

A surface exploration agreement with the village corporations was finalized in 2010, and FMM
subsequently entered into a joint-venture with Antofagasta Minerals PLC (Antofagasta), principally
focused on the Pyramid area. Work on the program commenced in early August, 2010 and was
completed by middle September, 2010. The program encompassed geologic mapping, collection of
150 rock chip samples, and HQ sized diamond core drilling of 5 holes for a total of 1,668 m with
depths ranging from 201 m to 500 m (Table 9.2 and Figure 9.1).

Table 9.2: 2010 drill hole locations and orientations

Hole ID Easting Northing Elevation (m) Depth Azimuth Dip

10PY001 394174 6166198 379.96 499.87 184.07 -66.15
10PY002 394150 6165488 451.66 356.62 10.00 -80.00
10PY003 393520 6165648 458.10 312.42 179.93 -69.73
10PY004 394408 6166204 412.48 298.70 183.00 -80.00
10PY005 394408 6166204 412.48 201.17 348.61 -56.13

Copper, molybdenum, and gold geochemistry from the five core holes indicated economic
mineralization with the potential to expand dimensions of known mineralization. The most significant
drill hole, PY10-005 was oriented northward on the north side of the known system and encountered
0.63 % Cu, 0.018 % Mo, and 0.141 g/t Au from surface to a depth of 201 m. Other highlights from
the 2010 drilling included 156 m of 0.402 % Cu, 0.039 % Mo, and 0.108 g/t Au in drill hole PY10-004
and 468 m of 0.32 % Cu, 0.018 % Mo, and 0.067 g/t Au in drill hole PY10-001. Higher grades were
detected over intervals of 40 to 70 m in all 5 drill holes, and drill hole PY10-005 recorded multiple 2
m intercepts with over 1% Cu. Despite core recovery problems reported by Quintana-Duval in 1975,
the core recovery during this campaign was excellent.

9.3 2011

During 2011, 12 HQ sized diamond core holes totaling in 2,576 m with depths ranging between
105 m to 327 m were drilled (Table 9.3 and Figure 9.1). Copper, molybdenum, and gold
geochemistry from the 12 drill holes showed potential for the expansion of the known mineralization.
Although some drill holes failed to intercept significant Cu-Au-Mo mineralization, eight were
successful. Of those eight, 11PY010 was the most impressive with 310 m of 0.39 % Cu, 0.009 %
Mo, and 0.102 g/t Au. Drill hole 11PY016 returned 156 m of 0.71 % Cu, 0.018 % Mo, and 0.179 g/t
Au.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 41

Table 9.3: 2011 drill hole locations and orientations

Hole ID Easting Northing Elevation (m) Depth (m) Azimuth Dip

11PY006 394170 6166200 379.69 274.32 356.12 -49.37
11PY007 394300 6166200 396.05 219.46 352.92 -49.31
11PY008 394550 6166300 472.47 253.90 0.00 -50.00
11PY009 394150 6165488 451.66 219.46 180.00 -50.00
11PY010 394050 6165950 333.29 327.05 357.86 -58.30
11PY011 394800 6166150 421.71 179.83 0.00 -50.00
11PY012 394800 6165750 419.62 269.13 173.40 -60.70
11PY013 394150 6165700 386.24 140.21 182.50 -59.30
11PY014 394366 6165568 410.54 176.78 182.60 -49.20
11PY015 393700 6165650 469.43 104.55 180.00 -60.00
11PY016 394650 6165600 455.54 249.94 174.73 -50.26
11PY017 394458 6166234 436.82 161.54 0.00 -50.00

9.4 2012 Drilling

During the third year of exploration, the joint venture between Antofagasta-Full Metal continued,
although a third party consulting/logistics group Alaska Earth Sciences was used for general project
management. A helicopter supported drill rig was used throughout the entire project supplied by
Peak Exploration Drilling Co. All of the diamond core drilling was HQ in dimension, drill hole
orientation was either north or south and always at an angle.

Thirteen diamond core holes with a total drilled depth of 3241 m were completed during the 2012
program (Table 9.4 and Figure 9.1). There were very few weather days and the drill remained in
good repair. Nine of the thirteen drill holes (12PY018, 019, 021, 022, 023, 027, 028, 029, and 030)
all have anomalous to significant copper, gold, and molybdenum intercepts. There are a total of 3
drill holes with ≥ 0.2% Cu over approximately 100 m. The longest continuously anomalous intercept
is in drill hole 12PY018 which has 344 m at 0.110 % Cu, 0.036 % Mo and 0.035 g/t Au.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 42

Table 9.4: 2012 drill hole location and orientations.

Hole ID Easting Northing Elevation (m) Depth (m) Azimuth Dip
12PY018 394596 6165730 383.04 512.06 180° -55°
12PY019 394462 6165433 465.96 228.60 180° -55°
12PY020 393915 6165947 344.50 166.42 180° -65°
12PY021 393710 6165790 411.85 249.94 180° -65°
12PY022 393399 6165797 421.50 249.94 180° -65°
12PY023 393205 6165838 393.90 283.46 180° -65°
12PY024 393507 6165241 406.95 176.78 0° -55°
12PY025 393225 6165431 316.67 169.47 0° -60°
12PY026 394704 6165410 561.12 158.50 180° -55°
12PY027 394939 6165910 451.32 274.32 180° -55°
12PY028 393596 6165998 339.92 192.02 180° -55°
12PY029 393816 6165439 534.45 316.08 180° -80°
12PY030 393702 6165638 473.04 263.65 180° -70°
Total 3241.24

Figure 9.1: Location of surface drilling from 2010 to 2012 at Pyramid.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 43

10 Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security

10.1 Historical Sample Preparation and Analyses

Samples for assay were obtained by splitting the core with a core splitter, crushing to a -4 mesh size
and then reducing the volume by 50-75% using a Jones Riffle. These yielded samples consisting of
2-3 lbs depending on core size and recovery. Copper and molybdenum assays were run on all
samples and check assays from two additional laboratories were made with the original pulps. 50-75
ft composite samples were also run for gold and silver and select representative samples run with 30
element spectrographic analysis.

10.2 2010 to 2012 Sample Preparation and Analyses

Sampling during the 2012 project was a continuation of the methods used in the 2010 and 2011
seasons which had been laid out by FMM geologists and approved by Antofagasta. This involved an
unbiased sampling interval of two meters through the entire length of the drill holes starting at
bedrock. Core was sawn in half using two 14 inch diamond bladed rotary saws on site and placed in
sealed polyethylene bags. Within the catch basin below the blade, a chafing dish was placed, which
was able to collect the fines from cutting. The fine material was allowed to settle, after which the
water was poured off. The fine material was halved, one part was put into the core box and the other
with the samples bound for the laboratory. The chafing dish was emptied upon completion of each
sample. This procedure was initiated early in the 2012 program when chalcocite mineralization was
present in the core and wet saw cutting showed minor evidence of ‘washing’ of this secondary
copper mineralization.

Upon completion of each drill hole, sample bags were compiled into rice sacks and transported to a
locked facility rented by FMM in Sand Point, Alaska. Each rice sack was labeled with a bag number
and sample string contents. After completion of up to three drill holes, the rice sacks were then
loaded onto charter aircraft and transported to Anchorage, where the samples were couriered by
Alaska Earth Sciences (AES) personnel to the ALS Preparation Facility in Anchorage, AK. Samples
were kept under lock and key or under direct supervision by AES employees during the entire
process of shipment to the prep facility. Drill holes were generally submitted as their own work order;
exceptions were made to accommodate deeper holes.

The Anchorage, AK preparation laboratory crushed and pulverized every sample then produced a
balanced 200 g split called a pulp which was placed into a small envelope.

The Pulps were then sent to the ALS-Chemex Vancouver laboratory, or in some cases, their Reno,
Nevada laboratory where each sample was analyzed. Two methods were chosen for each sample: a
30 g fire assay ICP-AES method for gold analysis and a 4-acid near total digestion ICP-AES
procedure that produces quantitative results for 33 elements. The lower detection limit for gold is
0.005 parts per million (ppm), 1 ppm for copper, and 1 ppm for molybdenum. A pre-determined over
limit for copper and molybdenum was prescribed to the laboratory by both FMM and Antofagasta.
Thus, when copper exceeded 2,500 ppm and/or molybdenum exceeded 200 ppm, the sample was
automatically analyzed by the method AA-OG62, which consists of the same method just with a
higher detection limit of 0.001 to 40 %. Once the laboratory had completed analyzing all of the
samples in the batch, they reviewed the data for any potential quality control problems and upon

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 44

passing their QAQC restrictions, results were posted on their secure website. Upon which time, pre-
designated members of FMM were allowed to access and download the data. The time frame for
preparation and analysis was typically 15 to 25 days, but sometimes longer during the busiest times
of the year.

10.3 Specific Gravity Data

Specific gravity (SG) on select samples from the Pyramid Project was collected in 2010 and 2011 but
not in 2012. In 2010, 21 samples were sent to ALS Laboratory for analysis. These samples were
weighed in both air and water with the data reported as a ratio between the density of the sample
and the density of the water. In 2011, 40 samples representing various lithologies were tested on-site
by geologists from Antofagasta Minerals using methods similar to 2010.

10.4 SRK Comments

In the opinion of SRK the sampling preparation, security and analytical procedures used by FMM are
consistent with generally accepted industry best practices and are therefore adequate.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 45

11 Data Verification
11.1 Historical Data Verification

All information from historical work and sampling including core drilling was derived from a 1975
report produced by J.S Christie, the project geologist for the Aleut-Quintana Duval joint Venture.
Core from the project still exists at the Alaska core repository in Eagle River Alaska and was
inspected by FMM geologists in 2006 and re-logged in 2011. Due to contamination and the mixed
nature of some of the boxes (core had been dumped out of the original boxes and returned out of
place) it was decided not to re-assay any of the core. Additionally due to the age of the analysis, the
original certificates were unavailable from the laboratory, thus FMM is relying on the values included
in the 1975 report.

11.2 FMM Data Verification

All drill holes, both recent and historical were initially located using a handheld Garmin GPS with an
accuracy of ± 3 m. In 2012, a differential GPS survey was conducted over the Pyramid Project,
covering most but not all of the drill holes located on the property. Down hole drill surveys were
conducted on all recent drill holes except in cases where this was impossible due to collapsed holes
or lost pipe.

A batch of samples from each drill hole were carefully selected and sent to a second ISO certified
laboratory as a means of data verification. A total of 10 % of all 2010 to 2012 pulp samples (314)
were sent to ActLabs for analysis. Overall, excellent correlation is seen between assay results from
the two laboratories for copper ICP values, with 97.5 % of sample pairs having a half absolute
relative difference of less than 10%. Correlation between sample pairs for molybdenum is lower with
74.2 % of sample pairs having a half absolute relative difference of less than 10%. As expected, due
to the lower concentration there was much more variation in the relative difference of the gold values
with only 49.2 % of sample pairs having a half absolute relative difference of less than 10%. One
sample had an original gold value of 5.06 ppm and a rerun value of 0.034. As there were no other
high grade samples, this sample pair was removed as an outlier. Scatter plots and percentile rank
charts sample pairs for copper ICP, molybdenum ICP and gold fire assay are presented in Appendix
B, Figures B1 to B3.

11.3 Analytical Quality Assurance and Quality Control Programs

A quality control and assurance system was implemented by FMM from the beginning of the
program, which consisted of placing a blank sample or Standard Reference Material (SRM) sample
every 10 samples, alternating between the two. Blank material for 2010 and 2011 was sourced from
a granodiorite intrusion near the town of Chicken, Alaska intended to have similar properties to the
host rocks at Pyramid. Overall, these rocks were barren but were later found to contain anomalous
fracture hosted copper mineralization which led to irregular spikes in the data. In 2012, blank
material was sourced via AES personnel from an Interior Alaska quarry. This material consisted of
barren unaltered basalt. Though unmineralized, it contained on average 30 ppm Cu due to the fact
that mafic volcanic rocks naturally contain a higher concentration of copper than average crustal
rocks. These blanks were systematically sampled to assure that they contained sufficiently low metal

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 46

values before being used. The SRM’s used are tabulated in Table 11.1 and have all been certified by
the source company, CDN Laboratories.

Table 11.1: Commercial SRM used by FMM for the 2010 – 1012 Drilling Programs
Standard Standard Standard
Standard Au (g/t) Cu (%) Mo (%)
Deviation Deviation Deviation
CDN-CM-6 1.430 0.045 0.737 0.0195 0.083 0.0040
CDN-CM-7 0.427 0.021 0.445 0.0135 0.027 0.0010
CDN-CM-8 0.910 0.055 0.364 0.0120 0.016 0.0007
CDN-CM-11A 1.014 0.053 0.332 0.0060 0.038 0.0020
CDN-CM-13 0.740 0.047 0.786 0.0180 0.044 0.0020
CDN-CM-14 0.792 0.039 1.058 0.0310 0.042 0.0010
CDN-CGS-23 0.218 0.018 0.182 0.0050

There were no outstanding quality control or quality assurance issues during the 2010 to 2012
seasons. Most standards fell within 2 standard deviations for copper and molybdenum and rarely fell
near 3 standard deviations, most typically in relation to the gold. The standard with the most range in
gold was CDN-CM-14 with 3 samples falling outside 3 standard deviations, though not considered
extreme and these batches were not re-analyzed.

The 2010 to 2012 external analytical quality control data produced by FMM is summarized in
Table 11.2.

Table 11.2: Quality Control Data Produced by FMM in 2010 to 2012 for the Pyramid Resource Area
Quality Control Type Count Percentage
Core Samples 3,611
Blanks 232 1:16 (6.4%)
Standard Reference Material 181 1:20 (5.0%)
Coarse Reject Duplicate 16 < 1%

11.4 SRK Data Verification

SRK Associate, Dr. Gilles Arseneau, carried out a site visit on March 19 and 20, 2013 to examine
drill core, core logging and sampling procedures, and visit the drill sites. Drill site locations were
verified with hand-held GPS and were found to agree with the digital database of drill hole locations,
although only two sites were located because of snow cover. Several holes were re-logged and
checked against original drill log. SRK noted that the original drill logs agreed well with the re-logging
and copper assay values seem to agree well with the amount of visible chalcopyrite and chalcocite
present in drill core. In February 2013, SRK completed an audit of the FMM analytical and quality
control data acquired during the sampling of the Pyramid deposit. The audit was completed by SRK
Associate, Darrell Farrow. SRK conducted routine verifications to ascertain the reliability of the
electronic borehole database provided by FMM. All assays in the current database were verified
against the independently sourced sample certificates from ALS Laboratories and ActLabs. The
copper, molybdenum and gold values in the assay table were found to match the laboratory
certificates.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 47

After the review, SRK is of the opinion that the Pyramid drilling database is sufficiently reliable for
resource estimation.

11.4.1 Quality Control Results

FMM made available to SRK the assay results for analytical quality control data accumulated for the
Pyramid drilling project from 2010 to 2012. SRK aggregated the assay results from the quality control
samples for further analysis. Sample blanks and certified reference materials data were summarized
on time series plots to highlight any potential failure. Field duplicate paired assay data were analysed
using scatter plots and ranked absolute relative difference charts.

Field blanks are used to monitor contamination introduced during sample preparation and to monitor
analytical accuracy of the laboratory. True blanks should not have any of the elements of interest
much higher than the detection levels of the instrument being used. SRK consider batch samples
which contain a blank sample with more than five times of detection limit as problematic batches. In
general, molybdenum (Figure 11.1) and gold (Figure 11.2) returned good results while copper
(Figure 11.3) consistently returned values that were too high. The high copper values can be
attributed to the fact that FMM was using mafic volcanic rocks which naturally contain a higher
concentration of copper than average crustal rocks. The spikes in the earlier blank samples are due
to blank material for 2010 and 2011 which was sourced from a granodiorite intrusion near the town of
Chicken, Alaska containing anomalous fracture hosted copper mineralization. It is recommended that
for future programs, FMM source a more appropriate material for blank samples.

Pyramid Mo Field Blanks

(ALS; 2010 - 2012 DDH Samples)
25.000
N = 230

20.000

Acceptance Limit
Mo Assay (ppm)

15.000

10.000

5.000

0.000
21/09/2010
21/09/2010
30/09/2010
11/10/2010
14/10/2010
18/10/2010
25/07/2011
25/07/2011
27/07/2011
27/07/2011
03/08/2011
03/08/2011
10/08/2011
11/08/2011
11/08/2011
12/08/2011
26/08/2011
08/09/2011
08/09/2011
20/09/2011
20/09/2011
20/09/2011
21/09/2011
23/09/2011
31/07/2012
10/08/2012
10/08/2012
20/08/2012
31/08/2012
31/08/2012
02/09/2012
13/09/2012
13/09/2012
16/09/2012
16/09/2012
17/09/2012
17/09/2012
22/09/2012
26/09/2012
26/09/2012
27/09/2012
27/09/2012
03/10/2012
10/10/2012
16/10/2012
16/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure 11.1: Blank analytical results for molybdenum over time for Alaska quarry material submitted
with Pyramid drill core samples.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 48

Figure 11.2: Blank analytical results for gold over time for Alaska quarry material submitted with
Pyramid drill core samples.

Pyramid Cu Field Blanks

(ALS; 2010 - 2012 DDH Samples)

N=
N = 231
230
100.000

80.000
Acceptance Limit
Cu Assay (ppm)

60.000

40.000

20.000

0.000
21/09/2010
21/09/2010
30/09/2010
11/10/2010
14/10/2010
18/10/2010
25/07/2011
25/07/2011
27/07/2011
27/07/2011
03/08/2011
03/08/2011
10/08/2011
11/08/2011
11/08/2011
12/08/2011
26/08/2011
08/09/2011
08/09/2011
20/09/2011
20/09/2011
20/09/2011
21/09/2011
23/09/2011
31/07/2012
10/08/2012
10/08/2012
20/08/2012
31/08/2012
31/08/2012
02/09/2012
13/09/2012
13/09/2012
16/09/2012
16/09/2012
17/09/2012
17/09/2012
22/09/2012
26/09/2012
26/09/2012
27/09/2012
27/09/2012
03/10/2012
10/10/2012
16/10/2012
16/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure 11.3: Blank analytical results for copper over time for Alaska quarry material submitted with
Pyramid drill core samples.

Analysis of field duplicate samples was undertaken during the 2010 drilling campaign but not in 2011
and 2012. Scatter plots and percentile rank charts for coarse reject split duplicate copper,
molybdenum and gold data are presented in Figures 11.4 to 11.6 respectively. Very good correlation
is seen between course reject splits for copper with 87.5% of duplicate pairs having a half absolute
relative difference of less than 10%. Correlation between coarse reject splits for molybdenum and

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 49

gold is lower with 50% and 43.8%, respectively, of duplicate pairs having a half absolute relative
difference of less than 10%.

Figure 11.4: Scatter plot and Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation plot of copper data for course
reject duplicate Pyramid samples.

Figure 11.5: Scatter plot and Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation plot of molybdenum data for
course reject duplicate Pyramid samples.

Figure 11.6: Scatter plot and Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation plot of gold data for course reject
duplicate Pyramid samples.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 50

Time series plots for standard reference materials (SRM) CDN-CM-6, CDN-CM-7, CDN-CM-8, CDN-
CM-11A, CDN-CM-13, CDN-CM-14, and CDN-CGS-23 can be found in Appendix A, Figures A1 to
A31.

SRM CDN-CM-13 was the only standard that performed consistently well for gold. The other SRM’s
returned a number of samples with values greater than three standard deviations from the certified
mean value for the SRM.

Variable performance of all SRM’s used was seen for copper using the ICP-AES method of analysis
with a number of samples returning values greater than three standard deviations from the certified
mean value of the SRM. With the exception of CDN-CM-11A in which one sample returned a copper
value very much greater than three standard deviations of the mean, all SRM’s performed well when
analysed using the AA-OG62 method of analysis for copper.

All SRM’s performed well for molybdenum analysed by the AA-OG62 method of analysis, whereas
with the ICP-AES method of analysis, CDN-CM-11a returned one sample with a molybdenum value
of very much greater than three standard deviations from the certified mean molybdenum value and
CDN-CM-14 returned two samples with molybdenum values greater than three standard deviations
from the mean.

FMM did not request re-analysis of batches of samples containing SRM’s which returned values
greater than three standard deviations from the certified mean value of the SRM. Where samples
were analysed for copper and molybdenum using both the ICP-AES and the AA-OG62 method of
analysis, the AA-OG62 results were used for the resource estimate and on the whole all SRM’s
performed better using the AA-OG62 method of analysis. However, not all samples were analysed
using both methods and SRK recommends that for future programs, FMM should request re-analysis
of batches of samples which return SRM values greater than three standard deviations of the mean.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 51

12 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

No metallurgical testwork has been completed for the Pyramid deposit.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 52

13 Mineral Resource Estimates

13.1 Introduction

SRK was engaged in January 2013, by Full Metal Minerals (FMM) to provide a mineral resource
estimate for the copper molybdenum gold Pyramid Project, Alaska Peninsula, Alaska.

The Mineral Resource Statement presented in this report represents the first time disclosure of
mineral resource for the Pyramid Project by FMM with the Canadian Securities Administrators’
National Instrument 43-101.

13.2 Resource Estimation Procedures

The resource evaluation methodology involved the following procedures:

• Database compilation and verification;

• Construction of wireframe models for the Pyramid copper molybdenum, gold mineralization
domains;
• Data preparation (compositing and capping) for geostatistical analysis and variography;

• Block modeling and grade interpolation;

• Resource classification and validation;

• Assessment of “reasonable prospects for economic extraction” and selection of appropriate cut-
off grades; and
• Preparation of the Mineral Resource Statement.

13.3 Database

The Pyramid database comprises descriptive information and assay grades from exploration drilling
carried out by FMM and Antofagasta Minerals PLC (Antofagasta) from 2010 to 2012 inclusive as well
as historical drilling conducted by the Aleut-Quintana-Duval JV in 1975. The database was provided
to SRK in Excel format spreadsheets and contains 19 historical drill holes and 30 drill holes drilled
between 2010 and 2012. The database includes the following tables:

• Drill hole collar information such as location and length;

• Down hole survey information such as direction and dip;
• Lithology information including rock group codes and interpreted geology;
• Mineralization information including mineral types and percentage;
• Vein counts and types of veins;
• Alteration information including alteration type;
• Down hole magnetic susceptibility data;
• Down hole specific gravity measurements ;
• Chemical analytical (assay) records; and,
• Ore type.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 53

The data encompasses 49 drill holes, 247 down hole survey readings, 3,926 copper, molybdenum
and gold assays, and 59 specific gravity measurements (Table 13.1).

Table 13.1: Pyramid drill hole database summary

2010 - 2012 Drilling Historical Drilling Total
Drill Holes 30 19 49
Down Hole Survey 247 20* 267
Assays 3611 315 3926
Specific Gravity 59 0 59
* Historical drill holes are all vertical

TM
The supplied mineral resource database was imported into Gemcom’s Gems 6.4.1 software
Access Database and validated by checking for inconsistencies in naming conventions, analytical
units, duplicate entries, length, distance values, or sample intervals less than or equal to zero, blank
or zero-value assays, out-of-sequence intervals, intervals or distances greater than the reported drill
hole length, inappropriate collar locations, and missing interval and coordinate fields. A few minor
inconsistencies were noted and corrected by FMM. No other significant validation errors were noted
in the supplied database. Gold assay intervals marked below the detection limit of 0.005 g/t were
assigned a nominal grade of 0.0025 g/t prior to importing into Gems.

13.4 Specific Gravity

The data supplied by FMM included 59 specific gravity measurements from the 2010 and 2011
drilling. In 2010 samples were sent to the ALS Laboratory for specific gravity measurements and in
2012 samples representing various lithologies were tested on-site by geologists from Antofagasta
Minerals using a laboratory scale and recording the mass of drill hole core pieces in air and in water.
There were not enough specific gravity measurements for interpolation of specific gravity into blocks.
Specific gravity measurements falling within the supergene and hypogene zones were averaged and
an average specific gravity value of 2.59 and 2.68 were applied to the blocks in the supergene and
hypogene domains respectively.

13.5 Solid Body Modeling

Solid models were created to provide spatial limits for each of the mineralization domains within the
Pyramid copper molybdenum gold porphyry deposit.

Domains were created by interpretation of the drill hole lithology data from the 2010 to 2012 drill
holes together with the historical drill holes. Three domains were modeled: a low grade leach cap
varying between 0 to 90 m in thickness; a supergene enrichment zone below the leach cap with
variable depth extending to 250 m below surface in some areas and defined by increased chalcocite
mineralization and higher copper values; and the primary hypogene mineralized zone, with copper
mainly occurring as chalcopyrite, underlying the supergene zone in most areas. Three zones of
hypogene mineralization were modeled, one to the north of the large central intrusive equigranular
diorite (ED), one to the south of the ED and one to the west of the ED intrusion. The boundary
between the hypogene and supergene mineralization was broadly based on the percentage of
chalcocite together with the copper values within the drill holes. Two barren veins of crowded

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 54

feldspar porphyry (CFP) intersect the modeled supergene in the north western portion of the deposit.
These veins were also modeled in order to remove them from the modeled supergene.

TM
Gemcom’s Gems 6.4.1 software was used to create the wireframes. The topography surface was
constructed from E-Terra satellite imagery tiles from which a DEM was created and imported into
Gems as a dxf file.

Figure 13.1 depicts a three dimensional (3D) view of the modeled domains.

N N
Northern Hypogene Northern Hypogene

Leached Zone
Southern Southern
Sediment Hypogene Hypogene

Supergene Supergene

Crowded
Feldspar
Porphyry
Western Hypogene Western Hypogene

Figure 13.1: 3D view of the Pyramid modeled domains.

13.6 Compositing

A total of 1,265 and 938 diamond drill hole assay intervals fall within the modeled supergene and
hypogene domains respectively. Approximately 75% of samples are 2 m in length and therefore a
compositing interval of 2 m was selected. Histograms of sample length for the supergene and
hypogene domains can be seen in Figures 13.2 and 13.3 respectively.

The assays were imported into Gems and composited to 2 m length weighted intervals within the
modeled domains.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 55

Figure 13.2: Histogram of sample length for the supergene domain.

Figure 13.3: Histogram of sample length for the hypogene domain.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 56

13.7 Capping

Grade capping analysis was conducted on the domain-coded sample assay data in order to limit the
influence of extreme assay values during estimation. The assays from the supergene and hypogene
domains were examined using histograms and cumulative frequency plots. Capping threshold values
were selected that minimize changes in the sample distribution, and composited values were capped
to these values prior to estimation (Table 13.2).

Table 13.2: Sample capping levels for Pyramid

Maximum Cap Number Average Lost Metal
Domain Commodity Average
Value Value Capped Capped (%)*
Hypogene Supergene

Au g/t 5.06 0.42 10 0.0841 0.0775 7.8

Cu % 1.765 1.3 3 0.3753 0.3748 0.1
Mo % 0.087 0.1 4 0.0165 0.0161 2.0
Au g/t 0.794 0.215 6 0.0719 0.0704 2.2
Cu % 1.23 0.83 2 0.2870 0.2858 0.4
Mo % 0.199 0.08 7 0.0172 0.0169 1.6
*Lost metal is (Average – Averaged Capped)/Average * 100 where Average is the average grade of the composited assays
before capping and Average Capped is the average grade of the composited assays after capping.

13.8 Data Statistics

Summary statistics were compiled for the composite data for the supergene and hypogene domains
(Table 13.3).

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 57

Table 13.3: Composite data summary statistics for Pyramid

Type Statistic Au g/t Au Cap g/t Cu % Cu Cap % Mo % Mo Cap %
Number of Samples 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333
Average 0.0796 0.0747 0.3350 0.3342 0.0169 0.0167
Minimum
Total

0.0000 0.0000 0.0053 0.0053 0.0001 0.0001

Maximum 5.0600 0.4200 1.7649 1.3000 0.2680 0.2500
St Dev. 0.1319 0.0627 0.2141 0.2116 0.0180 0.0166
CV 1.6574 0.8395 0.6392 0.6330 1.0637 0.9931
Number of Samples 1362 1362 1362 1362 1362 1362
Average 0.0846 0.0773 0.3700 0.3696 0.0167 0.0165
Supergene

Minimum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0053 0.0053 0.0002 0.0002

Maximum 5.0600 0.4200 1.7649 1.3000 0.2680 0.2500
St Dev. 0.1664 0.0732 0.2413 0.2391 0.0184 0.0168
CV 1.9673 0.9463 0.6521 0.6470 1.1001 1.0151
Number of Samples 971 971 971 971 971 971
Average 0.0726 0.0710 0.2858 0.2847 0.0173 0.0170
Hypogene

Minimum 0.0025 0.0025 0.0163 0.0163 0.0001 0.0001

Maximum 0.7939 0.2150 1.2300 0.8300 0.1417 0.0800
St Dev. 0.0537 0.0438 0.1561 0.1523 0.0175 0.0164
CV 0.7402 0.6165 0.5463 0.5349 1.0138 0.9633

13.9 Block Model

A block model was constructed to cover the entire extent of the modeled mineralized domains for
Pyramid. The block model includes estimated copper, molybdenum and gold grades as well as
estimated grades by other than ordinary kriging methods, and an estimated copper equivalent (Cu
Eq) grade. A block percentage model was used to accurately determine volume and tonnage values
based on the modeled wireframes. The geometrical parameters of the block model are summarized
in Table 13.4.

Table 13.4: Block model location and setup

Description Easting (X) Northing (Y) Elevation (Z)
Block Model Origin NAD 83 393050 6165000 1000
Block Dimensions (metres) 25 25 10
Number of Blocks 76 80 122
Rotation (degree) 0°

13.10 Variography

Experimental correlograms and correlogram models were generated for copper, molybdenum and
gold from composite grade data. The nugget effect was established from down hole correlograms.
Directional correlograms were examined and ultimately omnidirectional models were employed. The

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 58

correlogram models used for grade estimation within the supergene and hypogene domains
(Figure 13.4) are summarized in Table 13.5.

OMNI - Cu Supergene OMNI - Cu Hypogene

1.50 1.50
Azim. Dip Azim. Dip
150.0 .0 .0 .0
150.0 .0 (cf) .0 .0 (cf)
1.20 1.20

0.90 0.90

Gamma (h)
Gamma (h)

0.60 0.60

0.30 0.30

0.00 0.00
70 140 210
Lag Distance (h)
280 350
(a) 70 140 210

Lag Distance (h)

280 350
(d)

OMNI - Mo Supergene OMNI - Mo Hypogene

1.50 1.50
Azim. Dip Azim. Dip
.0 .0 .0 .0
.0 .0 (cf) .0 .0 (cf)
1.20 1.20

0.90 0.90
Gamma (h)
Gamma (h)

0.60 0.60

0.30 0.30

0.00
0.00
70 140 210

Lag Distance (h)

280 350
(b) 70 140 210

Lag Distance (h)

280 350
(e)

OMNI - Au Supergene OMNI - Au Hypogene

1.50 1.50
Azim. Dip Azim. Dip
.0 .0 .0 .0
.0 .0 (cf) .0 .0 (cf)
1.20 1.20

0.90 0.90
Gamma (h)
Gamma (h)

0.60 0.60

0.30 0.30

0.00
70 140 210 280 350 (c) 0.00
70 140 210 280 350
(f)
Lag Distance (h) Lag Distance (h)

Figure 13.4: Experimental and modeled correlograms for the supergene (a,b,c) and hypogene (d,e,f)
mineralized domains

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 59

Table 13.5: Modeled correlograms for Pyramid mineralized domains

Omnidirectional Ranges a 1 , a 2
Metal Domain Nugget C 0 Sill C 1 around around around
X-Rot Y-Rot Z-Rot
Z Y Z
0.25 0 0 0 70 70 70
Supergene 0.2
Cu 0.55 0 0 0 340 340 340
Hypogene 0.18 0.82 0 0 0 155 155 155
0.12 0 0 0 120 120 120
Supergene 0.25
Mo 0.63 0 0 0 130 130 130
Hypogene 0.30 0.70 0 0 0 200 200 200
0.10 0 0 0 20 20 20
Supergene 0.2
Au 0.70 0 0 0 300 300 300
Hypogene 0.30 0.70 0 0 0 200 200 200

13.11 Grade Interpolation

Ordinary Kriging (OK) was used for the estimation of block grades. For all metals a three-pass series
of expanding search ellipsoids with varying minimum sample requirements was used for sample
selection and estimation.

Composite data used for the estimation was restricted to samples located in the respective domains,
i.e., hard boundaries were used. Estimated copper, molybdenum, and gold block grades were used
to estimate CuEq block grades. Estimation criteria for the supergene and hypogene domains are
summarized in Tables 13.6 and 13.7 respectively. All interpolated blocks were classified as inferred
mineral resource.

Table 13.6: Estimation parameters for the supergene mineralized domain

Gemcom Number of
Search Radii Max.
Search Rotations Composites
Commodity Search Type Samples
Pass X Y Z
Z Y Z Min. Max. per DDH
(m) (m) (m)
1 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 70 40 70 6 12 4
Cu 2 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 340 100 340 4 12 3
3 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 25 25 25 4 12 -
1 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 120 80 120 6 12 4
Mo 2 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 340 100 340 4 12 3
3 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 25 25 25 4 12 -
2 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 20 20 20 6 12 4
Au 1 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 340 100 340 4 12 3
2 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 25 25 25 4 12 -

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 60

Table 13.7: Estimation parameters for the hypogene mineralized domain

Number of
Rotation Search Radii Max.
Search Composites
Commodity Search Type Samples
Pass X Y Z
Z Y Z Min. Max. per DDH
(m) (m) (m)
1 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 155 100 155 6 12 4
Cu 2 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 300 200 300 4 12 3
3 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 25 25 25 4 12 -
1 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 200 100 200 6 12 4
Mo 2 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 300 200 300 4 12 3
3 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 25 25 25 4 12 -
2 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 200 100 200 6 12 4
Au 1 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 300 200 300 4 12 3
2 Ellipsoidal 20° 0° 0° 25 25 25 4 12 -

13.12 Block Model Validation

The block model was validated visually by the inspection of successive section lines in order to
confirm that the block model correctly reflects the distribution of high-grade and low-grade samples.
An inverse distance squared estimate (ID2) was prepared for the blocks using the same search
criteria and compared against the OK estimate. The average composite sample grades for all blocks
containing composite samples (informed blocks) were compared to the OK and ID2 estimates using
scatter plots. The scatter plots for copper, molybdenum and gold within the supergene and hypogene
domains are shown in Figures 13.6 and 13.7 respectively.

Good correlation between OK, ID2 and average composite sample grades was observed for copper,
molybdenum and gold in both the supergene and hypogene domains. Average sample grades for
the informed blocks are compared against the average grade of the OK and the average grade of the
ID2 estimates for copper, molybdenum and gold in Table 13.8.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 61

CU - SAMPLE AVERAGE VERSUS OK CU - OK VERSUS ID2

1.2 1.4
N = 294 N = 294
1.2
1

1
0.8
Cu % OK

Cu % ID2
0.8
0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
y = 0.8413x + 0.0563 y = 1.1343x - 0.0471
R² = 0.8819 R² = 0.9806
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Cu % Samp Av. Cu % OK

MO - SAMPLE AVERAGE VERSUS OK MO - OK VERSUS ID2

0.14 0.14
N = 294 N = 294
0.12 0.12

0.1 0.1
Mo % OK

Mo % ID2
0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02
y = 0.8953x + 0.0024 y = 1.1379x - 0.0028
R² = 0.8822 R² = 0.9734
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Mo % Samp Av. Mo % OK

AU - SAMPLE AVERAGE VERSUS OK AU - OK VERSUS ID2

0.45 0.45
N = 272 N = 272
0.4 0.4

0.35 0.35

0.3 0.3
Au ppm OK

Au ppm ID2

0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05
y = 0.7917x + 0.0156 y = 1.1758x - 0.0114
R² = 0.8695 R² = 0.9741
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Au ppm Samp Av. Au ppm OK

Figure 13.5: Scatter plots showing correlation between OK, ID2 and average composite copper,
molybdenum and gold sample grades for the supergene domain.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 62

CU - SAMPLE AVERAGE VERSUS OK CU - OK VERSUS ID2

0.7 0.8
N = 209 N = 209
0.6 0.7

0.6
0.5

0.5
Cu % OK

Cu % ID2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.2
0.2

0.1 0.1
y = 0.8082x + 0.0563 y = 1.0681x - 0.0201
R² = 0.8255 R² = 0.982
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Cu % Samp Av. Cu % OK

MO - SAMPLE AVERAGE VERSUS OK MO - OK VERSUS ID2

0.07 0.08
N = 203 N = 203
0.06 0.07

0.06
0.05

0.05
Mo % OK

Mo % ID2
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03

0.02
0.02

0.01 0.01
y = 0.8133x + 0.003 y = 1.1134x - 0.0019
R² = 0.8448 R² = 0.9848
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Mo % Samp Av. Mo % OK

AU - SAMPLE AVERAGE VERSUS OK AU - OK VERSUS ID2

0.2 0.18
N = 209 N = 209
0.18 0.16

0.16
0.14
0.14
0.12
Au ppm OK

Au ppm ID2

0.12
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04

0.02 0.02
y = 0.7583x + 0.0178 y = 1.083x - 0.006
R² = 0.7722 R² = 0.977
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Au ppm Samp Av. Au ppm OK

Figure 13.6: Scatter plots showing correlation between OK, ID2 and average composite copper,
molybdenum and gold sample grades for the hypogene domain.

Table 13.8: Comparison of average sample grades with OK and ID2 estimates for informed blocks

No. Sample
Domain Commodity OK ID2
Blocks Average
Hypogene Supergene

Cu 294 0.366 0.365 0.366

Mo 294 0.016 0.017 0.016
Au 272 0.083 0.081 0.084
Cu 209 0.281 0.283 0.283
Mo 203 0.017 0.017 0.017
Au 209 0.071 0.071 0.071

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 63

13.13 Block Model Sensitivity Analysis

The mineral resources of the project are sensitive to the selection of the reporting cut-off grade. To
illustrate this sensitivity, the block model quantities and grade estimates within the conceptual pit
used to constrain the mineral resources are presented in Table 13.9 at different cut-off grades. The
reader is cautioned that the figures presented in this table should not be misconstrued with a Mineral
Resource Statement. The figures are only presented to show the sensitivity of the block model
estimates to the selection of cut-off grade. Figure 13.8 presents the effects of increasing cut-offs on
the tonnage and grade of the deposit.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 64

Table 13.9: Pyramid inferred block model quantity and grade estimates* at various Cu Eq cut-off values
Cu Eq Au Au Cu Cu Mo Mo
Zone Tonnes
Cut-Off (g/t) (oz) (%) (lb) % (lb)

>0.4% 69,528,515 0.107 239,133 0.4583 702,535,609 0.0211 32,398,237

>0.35% 78,978,212 0.101 257,135 0.4351 757,589,748 0.0203 35,404,545

>0.3% 86,079,432 0.097 267,853 0.4178 792,844,809 0.0198 37,646,536

Supergene

>0.25% 91,314,699 0.094 274,669 0.4047 814,626,519 0.0194 39,121,880

>0.21% 93,696,332 0.092 276,665 0.3984 822,878,710 0.0192 39,722,759

>0.15% 94,628,683 0.091 277,601 0.3958 825,683,995 0.0191 39,869,480

>0.1% 94,810,052 0.091 277,633 0.3952 826,061,951 0.0191 39,896,455

TOTAL 94,810,052 0.091 277,633 0.3952 826,061,951 0.0191 39,896,455

>0.4% 52,957,717 0.088 149,525 0.3368 393,205,903 0.0208 24,307,227

>0.35% 68,474,140 0.085 188,107 0.3134 473,123,835 0.0203 30,685,813

>0.3% 75,802,999 0.084 205,195 0.3010 503,046,447 0.0202 33,740,607

Hypogene

>0.25% 78,235,466 0.084 210,213 0.2969 512,085,506 0.0200 34,467,021

>0.21% 79,128,480 0.083 211,806 0.2951 514,736,418 0.0199 34,707,556

>0.15% 79,411,773 0.083 212,208 0.2945 515,554,993 0.0199 34,755,283
>0.1% 79,411,773 0.083 212,208 0.2945 515,554,993 0.0199 34,755,283

TOTAL 79,411,773 0.083 212,208 0.2945 515,554,993 0.0199 34,755,283

>0.4% 122,486,231 0.099 388,658 0.4058 1,095,741,511 0.0210 56,705,464

>0.35% 147,452,352 0.094 445,242 0.3786 1,230,713,583 0.0203 66,090,358

>0.3% 161,882,430 0.091 473,048 0.3631 1,295,891,256 0.0200 71,387,143

Combined

>0.25% 169,550,164 0.089 484,882 0.3549 1,326,712,025 0.0197 73,588,901

>0.21% 172,824,812 0.088 488,471 0.3511 1,337,615,128 0.0195 74,430,316

>0.15% 174,040,456 0.088 489,809 0.3496 1,341,238,988 0.0194 74,624,763

>0.1% 174,221,826 0.087 489,840 0.3493 1,341,616,944 0.0194 74,651,738

TOTAL 174,221,826 0.087 489,840 0.3193 1,341,616,944 0.0194 74,653,182

* The reader is cautioned that the figures in this table should not be misconstrued with a Mineral Resource Statement.
The figures are only presented to show the sensitivity of the block model estimates to the selection of cut-off grade.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 65

Pyramid Deposit
250,000,000 0.4500

0.4000

200,000,000
0.3500

0.3000

150,000,000
0.2500
Tonnes

Cu %
0.2000
100,000,000

0.1500

0.1000
50,000,000

0.0500

0 0.0000
0.00 0.10 0.15 0.21 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Cu Eq Cut-off Tonnage Curve

Cu % Grade Curve

Figure 13.7: Grade tonnage curve for Pyramid

13.14 Mineral Resource Classification

Mineral resources were estimated in conformity with generally accepted CIM “Estimation of Mineral
Resource and Mineral Reserve Best Practices” guidelines. Mineral resources may be affected by
further infill and exploration drilling that may result in increases or decreases in subsequent resource
estimates. Mineral resources may also be affected by subsequent assessments of mining,
environmental, processing, permitting, taxation, socio-economic, and other factors.

Mineral reserves can only be estimated based on the results of an economic evaluation as part of a
preliminary feasibility study or feasibility study. As such, no mineral reserves have been estimated by
SRK as part of the present assignment. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral
Resources will be converted into a mineral reserve. Confidence in the estimate of Inferred mineral
resources is insufficient to allow the meaningful application of technical and economic parameters or
to enable an evaluation of economic viability worthy of public disclosure.

Mineral resources for the Pyramid Project have been estimated and classified according to the “CIM
Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves: Definition and Guidelines” (December, 2005) by
DJ Farrow, Pr.Sci.Nat., under the supervision of Dr. Gilles Arseneau P.Geo., an “Independent
TM
Qualified Person” as defined by National Instrument 43-101. The commercial Gemcom’s Gems
software program was used for mineral resource modeling.

SRK considers that the quality of the 2010 to 2011 exploration data (confidence in the location and
reliability of assaying results) acquired by FMM is good and therefore is not a factor that would
impact resource classification. The use of the historical drill hole assay data in the estimation of
mineral resources does not support an Indicated mineral resource. The confidence in the underlying

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 66

datasets support classification of Inferred mineral resources within the meaning of the CIM Definition
Standards. However, there is insufficient information to confirm both the geological and grade
continuity with the current level of sampling to support an Indicated mineral resource classification
within the meaning of the CIM Definition Standards.

All interpolated blocks were classified as inferred mineral resource.

13.15 Mineral Resource Statement

CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (December 2005) defines a
mineral resource as:

“A concentration or occurrence of diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or natural solid

fossilized organic material including base and precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals in or on
the Earth’s crust in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable
prospects for economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics and
continuity of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological
evidence and knowledge”.

The “reasonable prospects for economic extraction” requirement generally implies that the quantity
and grade estimates meet certain economic thresholds and that the mineral resources are reported
at an appropriate cut-off grade taking into account extraction scenarios and processing recoveries. In
order to meet this requirement, SRK considers that major portions of the Pyramid Project are
amenable for open pit extraction.

In order to determine the quantities of material offering “reasonable prospects for economic
extraction” by an open pit, SRK used a pit optimizer and reasonable mining assumptions to evaluate
the proportions of the block model that could be “reasonably expected” to be mined from an open pit.

The optimization parameters were selected based on experience and benchmarking against similar
projects (Table 13.10). The reader is cautioned that the results from the pit optimization are used
solely for the purpose of testing the “reasonable prospects for economic extraction” by an open pit
and do not represent an attempt to estimate mineral reserves. There are no mineral reserves on the
Pyramid Project. The results are used as a guide to assist in the preparation of a Mineral Resource
Statement and to select an appropriate resource reporting cut-off grade.

Table 13.10: Assumptions Considered for Conceptual Open Pit Optimization.

Parameter Value Unit
Copper Price * 3.54 $US per pound
Molybdenum Price * 18.23 $US per pound
Gold Price * 1480 $US per ounce
Mining Cost 4 US$ per tonne mined
Processing 10 US$ per tonne of feed
Mining Dilution 0 percent
Mining Loss 0 percent
Overall Pit Slope 50 degrees
* Long term metal prices provided by Energy and Metals Consensus Forecast

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 67

SRK considers that the blocks located within the conceptual pit envelope show “reasonable
prospects for economic extraction” and can be reported as a Mineral Resource.

In calculating the CuEq, SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. utilized the long term metal prices provided
by Energy and Metals Consensus Forecast (Table 13.10). The contained copper represents
estimated contained metal in the ground and has not been adjusted for metallurgical recoveries.

The inferred resources for the Pyramid deposit reported at Cu Eq grade of 0.21 percent are
summarized in Table 13.11.

Table 13.11: Mineral Resource Statement*, Pyramid Project, Alaska Peninsula, Alaska, SRK Consulting
(Canada) Inc, effective date, May 9 2013
Au Au Cu Cu Mo Mo
Deposit Class Tonnes
(g/t) (oz) (%) (lb) % (lb)

Open Pit

Supergene Inferred 94,000,000 0.092 276,000 0.40 823,000,000 0.02 40,000,000

Hypogene Inferred 79,000,000 0.083 212,000 0.30 515,000,000 0.02 34,000,000
Total Inferred 173,000,000 0.088 488,000 0.35 1,338,000,000 0.02 74,000,000
** Open pit mineral resources are reported at a Cu Eq cut-off grade of 0.21% using metal prices (USD) of Cu
US$3.54/lb, Mo US$18.23/lb and Au US$1480/oz. The contained copper represents estimated contained
metal in the ground and has not been adjusted for metallurgical recoveries. All numbers have been rounded
to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit
shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Confidence in the estimate of Inferred mineral resources is insufficient to allow the meaningful application of
technical and economic parameters or to enable an evaluation of economic viability worthy of public
disclosure.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 68

14 Adjacent Properties
There are no adjacent properties considered relevant to this technical report.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 69

15 Other Relevant Data and Information

There is no additional data or information not contained in this report which is relevant to the project.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 70

16 Interpretation and Conclusions

The Pyramid Project is an early stage copper molybdenum gold exploration prospect located on the
southwestern tip of the Alaskan Peninsula, Alaska, USA. The history of Pyramid dates back to the
mid-1970s when geologists from the Aluet Corp (TAC)-Quintana-Duval joint venture identified
porphyry copper-molybdenum potential during regional reconnaissance along the Alaskan
Peninsula.

Drilling by FMM and the previous owners has identified Cu-Mo mineralization centered on several
small late Miocene porphyry intrusions, hosted by a sequence of Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary
clastic sedimentary rock.

A total of 49 drill holes totaling 9,177 m has delineated an inferred mineral of 173 million tons grading
0.08 g/t Au, 0.35% Cu and 0.02% Mo. Mineral resources were estimated in conformity with generally
accepted CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Best Practices” guidelines by
ordinary kriging using Gemcom Gems software. Mineral resources may be affected by further infill
and exploration drilling that may result in increases or decreases in subsequent resource estimates

SRK is not aware of any significant risks and uncertainties that could be expected to affect the
reliability or confidence in the early stage exploration information discussed herein

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 71

17 Recommendations
During 2012, only limited geologic mapping and no rock or chip sampling was performed; as a result
the recommended target areas are based upon information gathered from drill hole data, magnetics,
and surface work done during the 2010 to 2012 campaigns. In addition to drilling new targets, infill
drilling is recommended in certain areas of the deposit targeting near surface higher copper grades.

A program of at least 5,000 m of diamond core drilling is recommended with drill holes taken to
depths greater than 250 m on average with deeper holes targeting the potassic core of the system.
In holes with strong mineralization, it is recommended that a second hole be drilled at a steeper
angle.

Aside from drilling, surface exploration work is recommended. Additional soil sampling as well as
geologic mapping in the western portion of the property with corresponding vein density mapping is
also recommended.

Table 17.1: Estimated Cost for the Exploration Program Proposed for the Pyramid Project.
Description Quantity Unit Cost Estimate (CDN$)
Diamond drilling and assaying 5000 metres $1,195,000
Sample Analysis $140,000
Transport $1,804,000
Personnel $350,000
Logistics $185,000
TOTAL $3,674,000

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 72

18 Date and Signature Page

This technical report was written by the following “Qualified Person” The effective date of this
technical report is May 9, 2013.

Table 18.1: Qualified Persons

Qualified Person Signature Date

Gilles Arseneau, P.Geo “original signed” June 21, 2013
Darrell Farrow, Pri.Sci.Nat. “original signed” June 21, 2013

Reviewed by

Original signed
Marek Nowak, PEng.

All data used as source material plus the text, tables, figures, and attachments of this document
have been reviewed and prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering
and environmental practices

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

SRK Consulting
Technical Report for the Pyramid Project Page 73

19 References
Armstrong, R.L.. Harakal. J.E., and Hollister. V.F., 1976, Age determination of late Cenozoic
porphyry copper deposits of the North American cordillera: Institute of Mining and Metallurgical
Transactions, Section B, v. 85, p.239-244.

Christie, J. S., 1975, Pyramid Project, Aleut-Quintana-Duval Joint Venture Report on 1975 Drill
Program.

Detterman, R. L., Case J. E., Miller, J. W., Wilson, F. H., Yount, M. E., 1996, Stratigraphic
Framework of the Alaska Peninsula, U.S.G.S. Bulletin 1969-A, 74p.

Van Wyck, N., Ellis, W. T., Petterson, M. A., McLeod, R., 2005, Southwest Alaska Peninsula –
Shumagin Islands Project 2005 Technical Report Port Moller Region.

Wilson, F. H., Detterman, R. L., DuBois, G. D., 1999 Geologic Map of the Alaska Peninsula,
Southwest Alaska, U.S.G.S. Open File Report 99-317, 1:500,000 scale.

DJF/GA_hd Pyramid_2CF012.000_Technical Report_DJF_GA_MN_20130621 June 2013

 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

To accompany the report entitled: Technical Report for the Pyramid Project, Alaska Peninsula, Alaska, June 21,
2013.

I, Dr. Gilles Arseneau, P. Geo., residing in North Vancouver, B.C., do hereby certify that:

1) I am an Associate Consultant with the firm of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (SRK) with an office at Suite 2200-
1066 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada;

2) I graduated with a B.Sc. in Geology from the University of New Brunswick in 1979; an M.Sc. in Geology from the
University of Western Ontario in 1984 and a Ph.D. in Geology from the Colorado School of Mines in 1995. I have
practiced my profession continuously since 1995. I have worked in exploration in North and South America and
have extensive experience with porphyry copper-gold deposits such as the Pyramid Project;

3) I am a Professional Geoscientist registered with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of
British Columbia, registration number 23474;

4) I have personally inspected the subject project on March 19 and 20, 2013;

5) I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 and certify that by virtue of
my education, affiliation to a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements
to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 and this technical report has been
prepared in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1;

6) As a qualified person, I am independent of the issuer as defined in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101;

7) I am the co-author of this report and responsible for all sections of the report and accept professional
responsibility for all the sections of this technical report;

8) I have had no prior involvement with the subject property;

9) I have read National Instrument 43-101 and confirm that this technical report has been prepared in compliance
therewith;

10) I have not received, nor do I expect to receive, any interest, directly or indirectly, in the Pyramid Project or
securities of Full Metal Minerals Ltd.; and

12) That, at the effective date of the technical report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, this
technical report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the
technical report not misleading.

Vancouver “Signed and Sealed”

June 21, 2013 Dr. Gilles Arseneau, P. Geo

Associate Consultant
 APPENDIX A
Time Series Plots for Certified Reference Materials
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-6 Analysis
1.80
N = 32

1.60 1.605 1.595

1.57 1.575
1.551.551.551.545
1.525 1.52 1.531.525 1.53
1.51
1.471.46 1.485
1.471.475
1.455 1.44 1.455
1.45 1.45
1.431.415
Au Assay (ppm)

1.42 1.42
1.40 1.39
1.35
1.315

1.20

1.00
CDN-CM-6
Expected Value
0.87
+2StdDev
0.80
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.60
21/09/2010 25/07/2011 03/08/2011 08/09/2011 31/07/2012 20/08/2012 03/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A1: Analytical results for gold over time for standard reference material CDN-CM-6 submitted with
Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-6 Analysis
0.82
N = 32
0.80 0.802
0.791
0.78
0.771 0.772 0.771 0.769
0.76 0.761
0.754 0.755 0.752
ICP Cu Assay (%)

0.751 0.75
0.74 0.743 0.741 0.740.74
0.732 0.732
0.728
0.72 0.719 0.719
0.717 0.719 0.718
0.716
0.707
0.70 0.703
0.699
0.693 0.694
0.684
0.68 0.678
CDN-CM-6
0.66 Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.64
-2StdDev
0.62 -3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.60
21/09/2010 25/07/2011 03/08/2011 08/09/2011 31/07/2012 20/08/2012 03/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A2: Analytical results for copper analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference material
CDN-CM-6 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-6 Analysis
0.82
N = 13
0.80

0.78

0.76 0.759
OG Cu Assay (%)

0.743 0.744 0.743

0.74 0.739
0.735 0.732
0.731 0.731
0.726
0.72 0.722

0.709
0.70 0.697

0.68
CDN-CM-6
0.66 Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.64
-2StdDev
0.62 -3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.60
12/08/2011 10/08/2012 17/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A3: Analytical results for copper analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference material
CDN-CM-6 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-6 Analysis
0.11
N = 32
0.10

0.09 0.0905
0.0883 0.0888
ICP Mo Assay (%)

0.0873
0.0851
0.0844 0.0841 0.0838 0.0846 0.0831
0.0841
0.084 0.0836
0.0827 0.0825 0.082 0.0826 0.0831
0.0822 0.0823
0.0816 0.0815
0.08 0.0804 0.0806 0.0805
0.0803 0.0798 0.0801 0.0791
0.0786 0.0789 0.0788

0.07

CDN-CM-6
0.06
Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.05 -2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.04
21/09/2010 25/07/2011 03/08/2011 08/09/2011 31/07/2012 20/08/2012 03/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A4: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-6 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-6 Analysis
0.11
N = 12
0.10

0.09 0.089
OG Mo Assay (%)

0.088
0.086
0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085
0.084 0.084
0.082
0.08 0.081 0.081

0.07

CDN-CM-6
0.06
Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.05 -2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.04
31/07/2012 20/08/2012 03/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A5: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-6 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-7 Analysis
0.60
N = 29

0.514
0.50
0.48
0.465 0.46 0.459
0.453
Au Assay (ppm)

0.443
0.434 0.431 0.435 0.43
0.424 0.418 0.424 0.4190.426 0.414
0.422 0.417
0.41 0.409 0.407
0.40 0.401 0.398 0.4
0.39 0.384
0.369 0.362

0.30

CDN-CM-7
Expected Value
0.20 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.10
21/09/2010 11/10/2010 25/07/2011 03/08/2011 20/09/2011 10/08/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A6: Analytical results for gold over time for standard reference material CDN-CM-7 submitted with
Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-7 Analysis
0.55
N = 30

0.50
ICP Cu Assay (%)

0.471
0.465 0.462
0.4610.46
0.456 0.455
0.45 0.452 0.452
0.444 0.446 0.446
0.44 0.442 0.441
0.4310.433 0.431 0.432 0.432
0.427 0.425 0.426 0.427
0.423 0.423
0.411 0.411
0.40 0.4010.402

CDN-CM-7
Expected Value
0.35 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.30
21/09/2010 11/10/2010 25/07/2011 03/08/2011 20/09/2011 10/08/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A7: Analytical results for copper analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference material
CDN-CM-7 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-7 Analysis
0.55
N=8

0.50
OG Cu Assay (%)

0.466
0.459
0.454
0.45 0.449 0.448
0.44 0.442
0.437

0.40

CDN-CM-7

0.35 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.30
31/07/2012 24/08/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A8: Analytical results for copper analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference material
CDN-CM-7 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-7 Analysis
0.035
N = 30

0.030
0.0296
0.0282
0.0277
0.0272
ICP Mo Assay (%)

0.0268 0.0271
0.0271
0.0267 0.0267 0.0266
0.0263 0.0261
0.0261 0.026 0.0261
0.0258 0.0259 0.0256 0.0256
0.025 0.0252 0.025 0.0253
0.0249 0.0247 0.0249
0.0243 0.0244
0.0243 0.0245 0.0244

0.020

CDN-CM-7
Expected Value
0.015 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.010
21/09/2010 11/10/2010 25/07/2011 03/08/2011 20/09/2011 10/08/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A9: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-7 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-7 Analysis
0.035
N=8

0.030

0.028
OG Mo Assay (%)

0.027 0.027
0.026 0.026
0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025

0.020

CDN-CM-7

0.015 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.010
31/07/2012 24/08/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A10: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-7 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-8 Analysis
1.20
N = 32
1.1

1.025 1.04
1.00 0.986 0.982 0.979
0.951 0.956
0.93 0.931
0.916
0.898 0.899 0.911 0.926
0.883 0.897
0.886 0.87
0.891 0.892
0.867
0.833 0.838 0.847 0.85
0.834 0.845 0.841
0.827
Au Assay (ppm)

0.80
0.761
0.709

0.60

0.40
CDN-CM-8
Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.20
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.00
21/09/2010 14/10/2010 27/07/2011 08/09/2011 31/07/2012 20/08/2012 10/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A11: Analytical results for gold over time for standard reference material CDN-CM-8 submitted with
Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-8 Analysis
0.45
N = 33

0.40
0.386
0.373
ICP Cu Assay (%)

0.371
0.367 0.364 0.365 0.366 0.366
0.362 0.361
0.36 0.36 0.363 0.362
0.361
0.355 0.354 0.356
0.353 0.355
0.35 0.351 0.352 0.352
0.344 0.343 0.346
0.344
0.337 0.337 0.334
0.328 0.326
0.324

0.30

CDN-CM-8
Expected Value
0.25 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.20
21/09/2010 14/10/2010 27/07/2011 08/09/2011 31/07/2012 20/08/2012 22/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A12: Analytical results for copper analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-8 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-8 Analysis
0.45
N = 13

0.40

0.375 0.376
OG Cu Assay (%)

0.364 0.366
0.358 0.358 0.358 0.36
0.352 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355
0.35

0.30

CDN-CM-8
Expected Value
0.25 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.20
31/07/2012 20/08/2012 22/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A13: Analytical results for copper analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-8 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-8 Analysis
0.020
N = 33

0.018
0.0173
0.0168 0.0168 0.0169
0.0163
0.0163
ICP Mo Assay (%)

0.0162 0.0162
0.016 0.0159
0.0158 0.0157
0.0155 0.0155 0.0155
0.0155
0.0153 0.0152
0.0151 0.015
0.0149 0.0149 0.015
0.0149 0.015 0.0149 0.015
0.0148 0.0149
0.0147 0.0146
0.0143 0.0144
0.0142
0.014

0.012
CDN-CM-8
Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.010
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.008
21/09/2010 14/10/2010 27/07/2011 08/09/2011 31/07/2012 20/08/2012 22/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A14: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-8 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-11A Analysis
1.40
N = 23
1.295

1.20
1.16 1.145
1.105 1.11
1.075 1.075 1.075 1.08
1.05 1.05 1.06 1.055 1.06
1.04 1.025
1.00 0.988 0.996
Au Assay (ppm)

0.958 0.961
0.934

0.80 0.809

0.60
0.516
CDN-CM-11A
0.40
Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.20 -2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.00
10/08/2011 21/09/2011 13/09/2012 26/09/2012 10/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A15: Analytical results for gold over time for standard reference material CDN-CM-11A submitted with
Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-11A Analysis
0.45
N = 23

0.40 0.397
ICP Cu Assay (%)

0.35 0.351
0.343 0.34 0.341 0.342
0.338 0.338 0.335 0.337
0.334 0.333
0.33 0.327 0.326 0.33
0.324 0.321 0.325
0.315 0.317
0.313
0.309
0.30

CDN-CM-11A
Expected Value
0.25 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.20
10/08/2011 21/09/2011 13/09/2012 26/09/2012 10/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A16: Analytical results for copper analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-11A submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-11A Analysis
0.45
N = 16

0.40
OG Cu Assay (%)

0.356
0.35
0.342 0.345 0.343 0.345
0.338 0.335 0.335 0.336 0.335 0.338
0.333 0.334 0.333
0.328
0.321

0.30

CDN-CM-11A
Expected Value
0.25 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.20
02/09/2012 16/09/2012 27/09/2012 16/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A17: Analytical results for copper analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-11A submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-11A Analysis
0.050
N = 23
0.045

0.040
0.0377
ICP Mo Assay (%)

0.0367 0.03660.03630.0369 0.0371

0.036 0.03650.0365 0.0365
0.035 0.0351 0.035
0.0344 0.0347
0.0341 0.0341
0.0336 0.03330.0338 0.03350.033
0.0329

0.030

0.0258
0.025
CDN-CM-11A

0.020 Expected Value

+2StdDev
-2StdDev
0.015
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.010
10/08/2011 21/09/2011 13/09/2012 26/09/2012 10/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A18: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-11A submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-11A Analysis
0.050
N = 16

0.045
OG Mo Assay (%)

0.040
0.039

0.037 0.037 0.037

0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
0.035 0.035 0.035
0.034

0.030
CDN-CM-11A
Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.025
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.020
02/09/2012 16/09/2012 27/09/2012 16/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A19: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-11A submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-13 Analysis
1.00
N = 20
0.90
0.856
0.844
0.822 0.832
0.80 0.794 0.791
0.773 0.764 0.771
0.761 0.764 0.764 0.758
Au Assay (ppm)

0.736 0.741 0.743 0.744 0.74

0.717
0.70 0.702

0.60

0.50
CDN-CM-13

0.40 Expected Value

+2StdDev
-2StdDev
0.30
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.20
11/08/2011 21/09/2011 31/08/2012 26/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A20: Analytical results for gold over time for standard reference material CDN-CM-13 submitted with
Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-13 Analysis
0.95
N = 20
0.90

0.861
0.85
ICP Cu Assay (%)

0.809 0.812
0.80 0.801
0.788 0.785 0.789
0.776 0.778 0.783 0.773
0.772
0.763
0.753 0.757 0.755
0.75 0.745 0.746
0.736 0.741

0.70
CDN-CM-13

0.65 Expected Value

+2StdDev
-2StdDev
0.60
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.55
11/08/2011 21/09/2011 31/08/2012 26/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A21: Analytical results for copper analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-13 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-13 Analysis
1.00
N = 13

0.90
OG Cu Assay (%)

0.807 0.812
0.80 0.791 0.795 0.791
0.788 0.78
0.771 0.776 0.778
0.763 0.767 0.762

0.70

0.60
CDN-CM-13
Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.50
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.40
12/08/2011 16/09/2012 27/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A22: Analytical results for copper analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-13 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-13 Analysis
0.06
N = 20

0.05

0.0468
0.0448
ICP Mo Assay (%)

0.0434 0.04360.0436
0.0424 0.0425 0.0419 0.043 0.04250.04240.0424 0.0422 0.0432 0.0421 0.0420.0424
0.041 0.0409 0.0411
0.04

0.03

CDN-CM-13
Expected Value
0.02 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.01
11/08/2011 21/09/2011 31/08/2012 26/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A23: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-13 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-13 Analysis
0.06
N = 12

0.05
OG Mo Assay (%)

0.044
0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043
0.042 0.042
0.041 0.041 0.041
0.04

0.03

CDN-CM-13
Expected Value
0.02 +2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.01
31/08/2012 16/09/2012 10/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A24: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-13 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-14 Analysis
1.10
N = 23
1.00
0.954
0.936
0.912
0.90
0.865 0.858
Au Assay (ppm)

0.80 0.804 0.804 0.807 0.811 0.803

0.789 0.797 0.794 0.794 0.788 0.8 0.795 0.79 0.789
0.7590.751
0.732 0.743
0.70

0.60
CDN-CM-14

0.50 Expected Value

+2StdDev
-2StdDev
0.40
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.30
11/08/2011 20/09/2011 02/09/2012 26/09/2012 10/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A25: Analytical results for gold over time for standard reference material CDN-CM-14 submitted with
Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-14 Analysis
1.20
N = 23
1.15

1.10
ICP Cu Assay (%)

1.05

1.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.993 0.993 0.991
0.982 0.985
0.966 0.97
0.95
CDN-CM-14

0.90 Expected Value

+2StdDev
-2StdDev
0.85
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.80
11/08/2011 20/09/2011 02/09/2012 26/09/2012 10/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A26: Analytical results for copper analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-14 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-14 Analysis
1.20
N = 20
1.15

1.10
1.09 1.09
1.075 1.075
OG Cu Assay (%)

1.07 1.07 1.07

1.055 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.06
1.05 1.05
1.035 1.04 1.035 1.035 1.035 1.03
1.01
1.00

0.95
CDN-CM-14

0.90 Expected Value

+2StdDev
-2StdDev
0.85
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.80
11/08/2011 31/08/2012 16/09/2012 03/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A27: Analytical results for copper analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-14 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-14 Analysis
0.050
N = 23

0.045
0.0438
ICP Mo Assay (%)

0.0432
0.0428
0.0419
0.0413
0.041 0.041
0.0407
0.0403
0.040 0.03980.0398 0.0399 0.0399 0.0398 0.04 0.0398
0.03930.0393 0.0392 0.0393 0.0394
0.0385
0.0379

CDN-CM-14

0.035 Expected Value

+2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.030
11/08/2011 20/09/2011 02/09/2012 26/09/2012 10/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A28: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-14 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CM-14 Analysis
0.050
N = 16

0.045
OG Mo Assay (%)

0.043
0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042
0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041
0.040 0.04 0.04

CDN-CM-14

0.035 Expected Value

+2StdDev
-2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.030
31/08/2012 16/09/2012 27/09/2012 16/10/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A29: Analytical results for molybdenum analysed by AA-OG62 method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CM-14 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CGS-23 Analysis
0.35
N = 19
0.30
0.294

0.267
0.259
0.25 0.249 0.249
Au Assay (ppm)

0.233 0.233 0.234

0.225 0.225 0.228
0.223
0.209 0.211
0.20 0.203 0.2
0.197 0.194
0.192

0.15

CDN-CGS-23
0.10
Expected Value
+2StdDev
0.05 -2StdDev
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.00
10/08/2011 13/09/2011 16/09/2012 26/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A30: Analytical results for gold over time for standard reference material CDN-CGS236 submitted with
Pyramid samples.
 Pyramid
ALS Standard Reference Material CDN-CGS-23 Analysis
0.21
N = 19
0.20

0.19 0.189
0.186 0.1855
0.1845 0.185 0.1845
ICP Cu Assay (%)

0.18 0.181 0.18 0.18 0.181 0.182

0.175 0.1745
0.1735 0.173 0.173
0.17 0.17 0.169
0.167

0.16
CDN-CGS-23

0.15 Expected Value

+2StdDev
-2StdDev
0.14
-3StdDev
+3StdDev
0.13
10/08/2011 13/09/2011 16/09/2012 26/09/2012

Samples (Time Series)

Figure A31: Analytical results for copper analysed by ICP-AES method over time for standard reference
material CDN-CGS-23 submitted with Pyramid samples.
 APPENDIX B
Scatter and Half Absolute Relative Deviation Lots for Samples Assayed at ALS
Laboratories and ActLabs
 Bias Chart Check Assay Pairs Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation Plot
(Duplicates ALS and ACTLABS; DDH Samples) (Duplicates ALS and ACTLABS; DDH Samples)
1.0 100%
N = 314 pairs N = 314 pairs Cu…
0.9 90%

0.8 80%

0.7 70%
ACTLABS (Cu %)

0.6 60%

HARD (%)
0.5 50%
0.4 40%
y = 1.0173x
0.3 R² = 0.9885
30%
0.2 2010 - 2012 +10% 20% 97.5

0.1 10%
-10%
0.0 0%
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ALS (Cu %) Rank

Figure B1: Scatter plot and Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation plot of copper data for Pyramid samples
assayed at ALS Laboratories and ActLabs.

Bias Chart Check Assay Pairs Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation Plot
(Duplicates ALS and ACTLABS; DDH Samples) (Duplicates ALS and ACTLABS; DDH Samples)
0.07 100%
N = 314 pairs N = 314 pairs Mo…
90%
0.06
80%
0.05
70%
ACTLABS (Mo %)

60%
HARD (%)

0.04
50%
0.03
40%
y = 1.0187x
0.02 R² = 0.981 30%

2010 - 2012 +10% 74.2

20%
0.01
-10% 10%
0.00 0%
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ALS (Mo %) Rank

Figure B2: Scatter plot and Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation plot of molybdenum data for Pyramid
samples assayed at ALS Laboratories and ActLabs.

Bias Chart Check Assay Pairs Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation Plot
(Duplicates ALS and ACTLABS; DDH Samples) (Duplicates ALS and ACTLABS; DDH Samples)
0.3 100%
N = 313 pairs N = 313 pairs Au…
90%

80%

70%
ACTLABS (Au ppm)

0.2
60%
HARD (%)

50%

40%
0.1 y = 0.8841x
R² = 0.8101 30%

2010 - 2012 +10% 20% 49.2

-10% 10%
0.0 0%
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ALS (Au ppm) Rank

Figure B3: Scatter plot and Ranked Half Absolute Relative Deviation plot of gold data for Pyramid samples
assayed at ALS Laboratories and ActLabs.