MGT MGT MGT MGT MGT - Ontario · 1:2500 scale. Interpretation Plan Map: Outlining anomalies, interpreted zones of thickened-mineralization, resistivity zones at 1:5000 scale (1 plan)

.

MGT MGT MGT MGT MGT

MATRIX GEOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.

Assessment Report

Regarding the IP\RESISTIVITY SURVEYS at the IRON MASK PROPERTY, Cartier, Ontario on behalf of CHAMPION BEAR RESOURCES LTD Calgary, Alberta

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd. Suite 400, 8 King Street East Toronto, ON M5C 1B5

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd Champion Bear Resources Ltd IP\Resistivity Survey Iron Mask Property

QS-209 – November, 2007 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................3 2. GENERAL SURVEY DETAILS .....................................................................................................................4

LOCATION .................................................................................................................................................4 ACCESS ....................................................................................................................................................6 SURVEY GRID ...........................................................................................................................................6

3. SURVEY WORK UNDERTAKEN..................................................................................................................7 GENERALITIES...........................................................................................................................................7 PERSONNEL ..............................................................................................................................................7 SPECIFICATIONS........................................................................................................................................7 SURVEY COVERAGE: .................................................................................................................................9 INSTRUMENTATION ....................................................................................................................................9 PARAMETERS..........................................................................................................................................10 MEASUREMENT ACCURACY AND REPEATABILITY .......................................................................................10 DATA PRESENTATION ..............................................................................................................................10

4. RESULTS AND SUMMARY INTERPRETATION ......................................................................................12 PROPERTY GEOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................12 INTRODUCTION TO GRADIENT \ PDP SURVEYS..........................................................................................12 INTRODUCTION TO QUANTITATIVE SECTIONTM METHODOLOGY...................................................................13 GRADIENT TDIP\RESISTIVITY SURVEY RESULTS.......................................................................................14 QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................15 FOLLOW-UP TARGETS ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................17

5. CONLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................18

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS APPENDIX B: PRODUCTION SUMMARY APPENDIX C: IRIS 6 DIGITAL FORMAT APPENDIX D: THEORETICAL BASIS AND SURVEY PROCEDURES APPENDIX F: INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX E: LIST OF MAPS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: Grid Location on the Iron Mask Property.................................................................................5 Figure 2: Gradient Schematic Array Layout............................................................................................8 Figure 3: Pole-Dipole Schematic Array Layout. ......................................................................................8 Table I: Gradient Survey Coverage (reconnaissance)............................................................................9 Table II: Pole-Dipole Survey Coverage...................................................................................................9 Table III : Recommended Targets for Follow up at Iron Mask Grid......................................................17


QS-209 – November, 2007 3

1. INTRODUCTION

• MGT Project #: QS-209

• Project Name: Iron Mask

• Survey Period: October 25TH to November 18TH, 2007

• Survey Type: Induced Polarization and Resistivity

• Client: Champion Bear Resources Ltd.

• Representative: Watts, Griffis and McOuat

• Client Address: Suite 400, 8 King Street East Toronto ON M5C 1B5

• Objectives:

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

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

Resistivity data. 3. Increase the exploration program efficiency by better directing the future

exploration works and to assist in mapping of general geology, locating structural and alteration features that may favor the precious and base metals presence in the surveyed areas.

The Gradient array was designed to investigate up to 250 meters depth range and was chosen for its high resolution and deep penetration capabilities. The Pole-Dipole arrays are used as detailing tool and were designed to investigate in the 30-150 meters depth range.

• Report Type: Assessment Report



2. GENERAL SURVEY DETAILS

LOCATION

• Province: Ontario

• Country: Canada

• Nearest Settlement: Cartier Twp.

• Claim Numbers: 1197723, 1210839, 1197718, 1163246, 1197716, 1249905, 1229444

• UTM Coordinates: UTM Coordinates (83, Zone 17N):

451,000E – 5,166,000N Latitude /Longitude: 46°42’N / 81°38’W



Figure 1: General Property Location of the Iron Mask Property

IRON MASK PROPERTY



ACCESS

• Base of Operations: Cartier Township, Ontario

• Grid Location: The Iron Mask Grid is located 75 km NW of the Sudbury town

• Mode of Access: The surveyed grid area is accessible by truck and ATV.

SURVEY GRID

• Coordinate Reference System: UTM (Map Datum NAD83)

• Established: Prior the survey execution

• Line Separation: 100 meters

• Station Interval: 25 metres

• Method of Chaining: Metric-chained

• Datum: NAD 1983 1

1 GPS measured coordinates are based on the WGS84 Ellipsoid from gravity survey. Coordinates have been converted to the NAD 1983 datum.



3. SURVEY WORK UNDERTAKEN

GENERALITIES

• Surveyed By: Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd

• Survey Dates: October 25TH to November 18TH, 2007

• Mob/Demob Days: 2 days

• Standby: 4 days

• Survey Coverage: approx. 8.0 km

PERSONNEL

FIELD CREW

• Project Manager: Ludvig Kapllani (Toronto, ON) David Eastcott (Belleville, ON)

• Field Assistants: Gregory Stevenson (Sudbury, ON) Court Howers (Sudbury, ON) Brad Schmitz (Sudbury, ON)

SPECIFICATIONS

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

• Transmitting dipole spacing: Gradient: C1-C2 = 1700 meters Pole-Dipole: C1-C2 = 1.2 km minimum

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

• Sampling Interval: 25 metres

• Total Gradient AB Blocks: 2 blocks

• Total Pole-Dipole Lines: 2 lines

• Areal Coverage: approx 0.6 km2



GRADIENT ARRAY

Tx

Rx

MN = length P1-P2(6 x P1-P2 Spread)

GRADIENT ARRAY COVERAGE AREA

C1

AB = length C1-C2

C2P1 P2

Figure 2: Gradient Schematic Array Layout.

Figure 3: Pole-Dipole Schematic Array Layout.

DIPOLE-POLE ROLL-ALONG ARRAY

(COVERAGE 6 POINTS PER SPREAD

α

Rx Tx300m

N=1-6

PREVIOUSSPREAD

NEXTSPREAD

N=1N=2

N=3N=4

N=5N=6

A =50m

CURRENT SPREAD

C2

C1

DIPOLE-POLE ROLL-ALONG ARRAY

(COVERAGE 6 POINTS PER SPREAD

α

Rx Tx300m

N=1-6

PREVIOUSSPREAD

NEXTSPREAD

N=1N=2

N=3N=4

N=5N=6

A =50m

CURRENT SPREAD

C2

C1



SURVEY COVERAGE:

1. Reconnaissance Gradient: 7,900 m (see Table I)

2. Pole-Dipole Array: 1525 m (see Table II)

LINE START END TOTAL (m) AB=2000m

L1+00N 725W 300W 400 1425W 825W 575

L0+00N 650W 275W 350 1425W 675W 725

L1+00S 600W 125W 450 725W 675W 25

L2+00S 575W 125W 425 725W 675W 25

L3+00S 600W 100W 475 725W 650W 50

L4+00S 575W 100W 450 725W 625W 75

L5+00S 525W 25W 475 700W 600W 75

L6+00S 650W 0 625 L7+00S 725W 300W 400 L8+00S 700W 275W 400 L9+00S 725W 300W 400

L10+00S 725W 325W 375 L11+00S 725W 400W 300 L12+00S 750W 300W 425 L13+00S 725W 300W 400

TOTAL 7900

Table I: Gradient Survey Coverage (reconnaissance)

LINE MIN EXTENT MAX EXTENT TOTAL (m) L0 625W 125W 500

L5+00S 525W 0 525 L12+00S 800W 300W 500

TOTAL 1525 Table II: Pole-Dipole Survey Coverage

INSTRUMENTATION

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

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

• Power Supply: MG-1 Honda 6.5 KW Generator


QS-209 – November, 2007 10

PARAMETERS

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

• Receiver Sampling Parameters: Customized windows

• Measured Parameters:

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

calculation according to the pole-dipole and gradient arrays geometry factor2.

MEASUREMENT ACCURACY AND REPEATABILITY

• Chargeability: generally ≤ 0.5 mV/V.

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

DATA PRESENTATION

• Maps:

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

Pole-Dipole Pseudosections: Posted/contoured pseudo depth section maps of

combined Total Chargeability and Apparent Resistivity (interpreted) at 1: 2500 scale (non-terrain corrected).

Quantitative Sections: Interpreted IP\Resistivity results represented as

conceptual geological model or geoelectric sections at 1:2500 scale.

Interpretation Plan Map: Outlining anomalies, interpreted zones of thickened-

mineralization, resistivity zones at 1:5000 scale (1 plan). • Digital:

TDIP Raw data: Iris IP-6 format (see Appendix B) Gradient Processed data: Geosoft .GDB files using the following format:

Column 1 ⇒ Line - Northings, in meters Column 2 ⇒ Station - Eastings, in meters Column 3 ⇒ Total Chargeability, in mV/V Column 4 ⇒ Apparent Resistivity, in Ω-m

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

Column 1 ⇒ Line - Northings, in meters

2 See BRGM/IRIS IP6 receiver operating manual and Appendix C.


QS-209 – November, 2007 11

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


QS-209 – November, 2007 12

4. RESULTS AND SUMMARY INTERPRETATION

PROPERTY GEOLOGY

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

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

The IRON MASK PROPERTY show apparent similarity to the general geological environment of Olympic Dam Cu-U-Au-LREE deposit. There is also potential on the property for radial and concentric dyke hosted Ni-Cu-PGE related to the SIC. Offset dyke deposit in the Sudbury area consists of disseminated to massive sulphides, predominantly pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite and pentlandite within the dykes. The massive sulphide bodies are often rimmed by a halo of disseminated material and are found along the contacts of the dyke.

INTRODUCTION TO GRADIENT \ PDP SURVEYS

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

Based on the array geometry chosen, gradient investigation depth approaching 600 meters were obtained - with the deepest penetration in the middle third of the array and shallower depths of investigation progressively closer to the transmit electrodes. The gradient apparent resistivity and chargeability data therefore represent a bulk average, from surface to depth, when observed in plan view. Additionally, the gradient array anomaly patterns are essentially sub-vertical (i.e. without complex, asymmetric pant-leg shapes, as in pdp and dpdp), and can be visualized in plan in the same manner as magnetic or gravity data. However, in the presence of moderate to shallow dips, the gradient array anomalies tend to be shifted down-dip relative to shallower arrays, such as pole-dipole – greater discrepancies can also occur with dipole-dipole, owing to the asymmetric array geometry, which tends to bias anomalies towards the infinity pole.

The interpretation plan map presents the interpreted resistivity structures, overlaying the interpreted increased induced polarization zones, called zones of geophysical interest (ZGI). In addition, the direction and approximate length of most prominent IP is represented with arrowed lines.

Finally, fault structures have also been interpreted based on evidence from the TDIP results, generally represented by lower resistivity and lower chargeability.


QS-209 – November, 2007 13

INTRODUCTION TO QUANTITATIVE SECTIONTM METHODOLOGY3

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

QUANTITATIVE SECTIONTM METHODOLOGY provides much better understanding of the relationship between resistivity parameter and chargeability parameter, favoring the resistivity parameter as direct indicator of structures, which is undervalued in the interpretation of geoelectric data. The contrast in specific resistivity (the most representative resistivity of a layer \ unit or group layers \ units) and layers' boundaries are derived from interpretation of resistivity data regardless of geoelectric array used. This is the base of the conceptual geologic-geoelectric model. Geoelectric contacts, faulting system, layers and structures are presented, in geoelectric cross-section format. When enough geological information is available, lithologic statements are made. Geologic-lithologic concepts are related to geoelectric units and favorable geoelectric hosts4 are identified based on the exploration objectives.

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

The final step is to correlate favorable geoelectric hosts with the IP signatures generating the conceptual model. This will determine the best exploration targets based on the exploration objectives. The conceptual geological-geoelectric model can be visualized in a final geological section and can be refined and modified, integrating/overlying additional exploration data. The end product represents a final and unique integrated 2D geological model that can be shared with exploration managers and geoscientists.

Another important consideration is that QUANTITATIVE SECTIONTM METHODOLOGY can be considered as multi-channel coverage survey and our proprietary interpretation procedure can give very detailed interpretation mesh proportional to the survey spacing (e.g. every 25 meters \ 85 feet), analogous to multi-channel seismic coverage concept.

It is significant to emphasize the fact that QUANTITATIVE SECTIONTM METHODOLOGY is not an inversion program or a simple data integration process, but is a complex methodology that requires a different project design, data acquisition and interpretation procedures. It might be comprehensible by now that

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

“QUANTITATIVE SECTIONTM represents a section, derived from the interpretation of Induced Polarization\Apparent Resistivity raw data obtained from conventional and non-conventional array configuration or array combination, represented in the form of conceptual geoelectric-facial model, if geological data are not available, or in the form of conceptual geological model, otherwise.”

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

“A conceptual geological-geoelectric or lithofacial model represents a section with depths and spatial locations of various geological units\structures, assigning geological significance to the structures or units.” 4 Favorable geoelectric host represent the interpreted resistivity signatures, which satisfy the exploration objectives in terms of resistivity association (e.g. quartz is associated with high resistivity, VMS are associated with low resistivity), the expected spatial characteristics and their relation with the other interpreted geological units.


QS-209 – November, 2007 14

the conceptual geological model provided by QUANTITATIVE SECTIONTM METHODOLOGY can be used as root model for the other geoscientific data, which can be easily integrated or modeled based on it. This is particularly important in areas that the geological knowledge is scarce or incomplete.

GRADIENT TDIP\RESISTIVITY SURVEY RESULTS

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

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

The gradient total chargeability responses at IRON MASK GRID are characterized by wide range in strength, varying between weak to strong but generally falling in the moderate category (avg. 8.7 mV/V) – consistent with mafic volcanics, having disseminate sulphide content, with the peaks corresponding to higher mineralization content. In addition, most of anomalous IP responses vary in weak to moderate range consistent to PGE type of IP responses.

The total chargeability plan map displays a number of polarizable zones, trending NE-SW, generally short, fractured and discontinued, suggesting possible post-faulting mineralization occurrence. The IP signatures at IRON MASK GRID are generally thin (less then 50 meters wide), with the exception of the most northern IP features that seems to form wide and round-shape responses, suggesting either different than dyke-type of IP anomalies or the edge of a broad IP zone. More reconnaissance gradient survey is strongly recommended to the grid N-NE (true N-E). Additionally, the gradient survey show increase of IP background from grid west (weak) to east (weak\moderate), suggesting either increased mineralization content to the grid east and\or different geological set.

The gradient survey shows that most of the anomalies show dyke-type characteristics and are mostly located to grid south and NW. These anomalies, as previously mentioned, are relatively thin and most likely sub-vertical or near vertical \ slightly dipping. The IP signatures are more scattered and fractures on the center of the grid and to the south, most likely due to local faulting. In addition, the gradient survey show the presence of a dyke-type IP anomaly to the grid N-W, most likely extending to the grid north and south; however more geophysical reconnaissance survey is required to define the plan extension.

The Total Chargeability results show the presence of a strong and wide anomalous zone to the grid N-NE, most likely suggesting increased mineralization content. The anomaly is very well defined along sharp chargeability contacts. The anomalous peaks seem to trend almost true E-W (grid NE-SW) and most likely represent observed data along an almost E-W causative body. The authors recommend surveying further N-NE on the actual grid and also perpendicular to actual grid.

The apparent resistivity data display a wide range, varying between 1.8 kohmm and 60 kohmm (avg. 29 kohmm); indicative of low porosity bedrock at depth – with the average consistent with shallow buried/outcropping volcanics. The apparent resistivities define the high resistivity NE-SW trending zones, the high resistivity rocks and alteration, interpreted as diabase \ quartz dykes or mafic volcanics. Generally, the apparent resistivity plan map shows more complicated distribution of geological units than induced polarization parameter. The very high resistivity values possibly reflect the outcropping and/or shallow occurrence of mafic volcanics or dykes.


QS-209 – November, 2007 15

The high resistivity zones are relatively wide (25 to 50 meters), short trending; however showing consistency from line-to-line. The apparent resistivity map shows that it is quite possible the geology at Iron Mask Grid is displaced and shifted along E-W faulting located in the center of the grid.

The combination of IP and Apparent Resistivity shows that most of the IP signatures are associated with nil\contact type resistivity, most likely suggesting mineralization along geological contacts and\or footwall. In addition, some of IP signatures are associated with high resistivity (offset dyke-type), most likely suggesting mineralization along brecciated dyke.

The FFT processing of apparent resistivity data shows the presence of several NS and NE-SW conductive lineament, interpreted as faults and\or MS\pyrite\IP\shear zones when associated with IP responses. In addition, an almost E-W low resistivity lineament is observed and interpreted as fault, clearly displacing resistivity units (observed in the IP data as well).

QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS DESCRIPTION

The Pole-Dipole (PDP) array (n=2a, a=25 meters) was used as follow-up detailing tool over the IRON MASK GRID gradient IP anomalies5. The PDP results are integrated with gradient results, and at the present time are represented in two (2) QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS (QS), in order to educe a geological model. The PDP arrays were design to cover the most intensive gradient anomalies over L.12+00S and L.5+00S. The absence of the topography integrated in the QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS might bring slight changes in the depth and angle of defined targets that must be considered prior the DH program.

The PDP survey shows the presence of several anomalous chargeabilities, generally sub-vertical; extended to the surface. The PDP IP anomalies correlate very well with the gradient results.

The QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS show that the geology, acquired from the quantitative interpretation of the specific resistivity parameter, is predominated by sub-vertical elements, likely continuing at greater depth. The sections are characterized by high specific resistivity values, ranging from 10 to 70 kohmm, implying the presence of low porosity units.

The interpreted chargeability signatures generally follow the high\nil resistivity hosts and seem to form a polarizable vein\dyke type of response, although high conductivity chargeability host are present. The PDP and Gradient surveys show that the interpreted mineralization might continue at greater depths (up to 250 meters depths). The QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS emphasize the idea that the mineralization most likely surges near surface or out-cropping, however some of anomalies are at depth.

QUANTITATIVE SECTION OVER L.12+00S: shows the predominance of high resistivity geological units constituting the section. The interpreted structure shows vertical \ near vertical and the high resistivity features most likely outcropping and\or extending near surface. The section is composed by relatively high to very high resistivity units, ranging from 1.0 kohmm to > 80 kohmm, suggesting volcanics presence or intensive qtz\carbonate alteration.

The QUANTITATIVE SECTION shows the presence of weak \ moderately increased IP responses, generally consistent to PGE group. The section show the presence of two weak IP signatures, centered at st.662.5W, st.587.5W and st.437.5W. The anomalies seem to extend at greater depths and most likely the anomaly centered at st.587.5W outcrops. The section shows that the most intensive IP anomaly most likely slightly dips to the east.

The anomalies are associated with low resistivity (st.662.5W), nil\contact resistivity (st.587.5W), likely representing mineralization along footwall and with high, dyke-type of resistivity responses (st.437.5W), likely representing mineralization in qtz\carbonate alteration.

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


QS-209 – November, 2007 16

The interpreted section shows the presence of a wide, weak IP anomaly to the east; however it is still open to the east and seems to be of geological nature. Finally it is important to emphasize that the anomalies are of deep nature, with most intensive responses at greater depths (>250 meters).

QUANTITATIVE SECTION OVER L.5+00S: shows the predominance of high resistivity geological units constituting the section. The interpreted structure shows vertical \ near vertical and the high resistivity features most likely outcropping and\or extending near surface. The section is composed by relatively high to very high resistivity units, ranging from 1.0 kohmm to > 80 kohmm, suggesting volcanics presence or intensive qtz\carbonate alteration.

The QUANTITATIVE SECTION shows the presence of weak \ moderately increased IP responses, generally consistent to PGE group. The section show the presence of two weak IP signatures, centered at st.500W and st.412.5W. Both anomalies seem to extend at greater depths and most likely the anomaly centered at st.412.5W outcrops. The both anomalies seem to be associated with nil\contact resistivity, most likely representing mineralization along footwall or breccieated dyke.

The interpreted section shows the presence of a wide, weak IP anomaly to the east; however it is still open to the east and seems to be of geological nature. Once again, it is important to emphasize that the anomalies are of deep nature, with most intensive responses at greater depths (>250 meters).


QS-209 – November, 2007 17

FOLLOW-UP TARGETS ANALYSIS

Following an evaluation of the Gradient and QUANTITATIVE SECTIONs results, at least twelve (12) priority targets (Table III) have been selected based on their chargeability strength, resistivity association and their characteristics, in terms of geometry, source depth and vertical \ horizontal extent. These are interpreted to represent zones of potential increased sulphide, in plan and section.

LINE STATION STRENGTH RES. ASSOC.

PRIORITY DEPTH COMMENTS

L.1+00N

925W

Moderate

Nil\Contact

2

--

Moderate IP signature centered in nil\contact resistivity axis. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program.

312.5W

Strong

Nil\Contact

2

--

Strong IP signature centered in nil\contact resistivity axis. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program.

L.0+00

287.5W

Moderate

High

2

--

Moderate IP signature centered in high resistivity axis. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program.

437.5W

Moderate

High

2

--


1012.5W

Moderate

Low

2

--

Strong IP signature centered in low resistivity axis. No detailing coverage. Geophysical detailing survey strongly recommended prior to DH program.

L.1+00S

137.5W

Moderate

High

2

--


187.5W

Moderate

Nil\Contact

2

--


L.2+00S

262.5W

Moderate

Nil\Contact

2

--


312.5E

Moderate

Nil\Contact

2

--


362.5W

Moderate

High

2

--


L.5+00S

412.5W

Moderate

Nil\Contact

1.5

>250

Moderate IP signature centered in nil\contact resistivity axis. Most likely mineralization in footwall or brecciated dyke. Geoscientific data to be reviewed prior to DH program.

L.12+00S

587.5W

Moderate

Nil\Contact

1.5

>250

Moderate IP signature centered in nil\contact resistivity axis. Most likely mineralization in footwall or brecciated dyke. Geoscientific data to be reviewed prior to DH program.

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


QS-209 – November, 2007 18

5. CONLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

In response to the survey objectives, twelve (12) priority targets have been identified in the surveyed grid, which are of significant strength and depth extension to warrant DH-testing or additional study.

The Total Chargeability responses range from questionable\weak to strong, however the majority of them fall in weak to moderate category consistent to weakly mineralized hosts and\or PGE group of IP responses.

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

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

• Sulphide-bearing \ contact type is characterized by increased chargeability associated to conductive\nil resistivity.

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

Taking into consideration the fact that some anomalous zones are still open to the N-NE, additional reconnaissance IP\Resistivity program is strongly recommended to fully explain their spatial extension. In addition, the authors suggest surveying perpendicular to the N-NE of actual grid.

The IP signatures show offset dyke-type (thin and line-to-line correlated) and radial-type (wide and round) of responses; most of them associated with nil\contact resistivity (footwall or brecciated dyke) and high resistivity (brecciated dyke).

The apparent resistivity shows very fragmented structural model in plan, most likely due to intensive pre and post-mineralization tectonic activity.

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

The QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS show that the mineralization is generally sub-vertical or slightly dipping to the section east and most likely it is a surface exposure over the most intensive IP anomalies. The QUANTITATIVE SECTIONS show the possible presence of disseminated mineralization, evidenced by increased chargeability hosted in contact/high resistivity host.

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


QS-209 – November, 2007 19

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

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

GENC KALLFA, B.SC., P.GEO. LUDVIG KAPLLANI. PH.D., A.I.P.G. Senior Geophysicist Senior Geophysicist Toronto, November 15TH, 2007


QS-209 – November, 2007 20

APPENDIX A

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

I, Ludvig Kapllani, declare that:

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

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

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

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

5. I am the author of this report and the statements contained represent my professional opinion based on my

consideration of the information available to me at the time of writing this report.

Toronto, Ontario November, 2007

Ludvig Kapllani, M.Sc., Ph.D., A.I.P.G. Senior Geophysicist

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd.


QS-209 – November, 2007 21

APPENDIX A

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

I, Genc Kallfa, declare that:

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

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

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

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

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

6. I am the author of this report and the statements contained represent my professional opinion based on my

consideration of the information available to me at the time of writing this report.

Toronto, Ontario November, 2007

Genc Kallfa, B.Sc., P.Geo. (ON) Senior Geophysicist

Matrix GeoTechnologies Ltd.


QS-209 – November, 2007 22

APPENDIX B

PRODUCTION SUMMARY


QS-209 – November, 2007 23

APPENDIX C

IRIS IP6 DIGITAL FORMAT

#1388 Aug 16 2004 12:58 dipole 4 trigger 1 domain Time T wave Programmable wind. Grad. RCTGL array V= 42.734 Sp= 6 I= 540.00 Rs= 15.46 Ro= 27563.8 Ohm.m M= 4.37 E= 0.1 M1= 12.11 M2= 10.29 M3= 8.50 M4= 7.12 M5= 6.10 M6= 5.09 M7= 3.88 M8= 2.95 M9= 2.49 M10= 2.14 cycl= 12 Time= 4000 V_D= 2620 M_D= 120 T_M1= 120 T_M2= 120 T_M3= 180 T_M4= 240 T_M5= 240 T_M6= 480 T_M7= 480 T_M8= 640 T_M9= 640 T_M10= 640 Spacing config. : Metric XP= -475.0 Line= 800.0 D= -25.0 AB/2= 650.0 #1389 Aug 16 2004 12:58 dipole 5 trigger 1 domain Time T wave Programmable wind. Grad. RCTGL array V= 140.057 Sp= -11 I= 540.00 Rs= 10.22 Ro= 97194.5 Ohm.m M= 4.16 E= 0.0 M1= 12.07 M2= 10.23 M3= 8.37 M4= 6.87 M5= 5.78 M6= 4.78 M7= 3.78 M8= 2.67 M9= 2.26 M10= 1.97 cycl= 12 Time= 4000 V_D= 2620 M_D= 120 T_M1= 120 T_M2= 120 T_M3= 180 T_M4= 240 T_M5= 240 T_M6= 480 T_M7= 480 T_M8= 640 T_M9= 640 T_M10= 640 Spacing config. : Metric XP= -500.0 Line= 800.0 D= -25.0 AB/2= 650.0


QS-209 – November, 2007 24

APPENDIX D

THEORETICAL BASIS AND SURVEY PROCEDURES

GRADIENT TDIP SURVEYS

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

A B

M

x-axis

y-axis

NY

X0

Figure C1: Gradient Array Configuration.

Using the diagram in Figure C1 for the gradient array electrode configuration and nomenclature:6, the gradient array apparent resistivity is calculated: where: the origin 0 is selected at the center of AB

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

Gradient Array Apparent Resistivity:

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


QS-209 – November, 2007 25

ρ

π

a P

= K VI

ohm - metres

where: K = 2

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

AM AN BM BN

AM a x b y

AN a x b y

BM x b a y

BN x b a y

− − − −− − +

= + − +

= + + +

= − − +

= + − +

1 1 1 1

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

Using the diagram in Figure C2 for the Total Chargeability:

TimeLine

One half of Transmit Cycle

“On Time”

Vp

MeasuredVoltage Line

negative

positive

0

Vs(t)(10 slices)

“Off Time”

td

tpt (0)

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

the total apparent chargeability is given by: Total Apparent Chargeability:7

M = 1

t V t

t millivolts per voltT

p p i

i 1

i 1 to 10Vs (t) dt +

=∫∑

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

More detailed descriptions on the theory and application of the IP/Resistivity method can be found in the following reference papers: Cogan, H., 1973, Comparison of IP electrode arrays, Geophysics, 38, p 737 - 761.

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


QS-209 – November, 2007 26

THEORETICAL BASIS AND SURVEY PROCEDURES

POLE-DIPOLE TDIP SURVEY

The collected data sets are reduced, using IP6 receiver, to apparent resistivity, total chargeability and metal factor as explained in the following figures and equations: Using the following diagram (Fig. C3) for the electrode configuration and nomenclature:8

DIPOLE-POLE ARRAY

C∞P2 P1 C1a na ∞

Figure C3: Pole-Dipole Electrode Array

the apparent resistivity is given by:

( ) metres-ohm I

VP a 1nn= 2a ×+πρ

where: “a” is the MN dipole spacing (metres) “n” is the separation parameter between C1 and P1P2 “VP” is the primary voltage measured between P1P2 (volts)

“I” is the output current between C1C2 (amperes) The Total Chargeability calculations are the same as the Gradient arrays as explained above:

The sets are then ready for plotting, profiling using the Geosoft SushiTM program. The Apparent Resistivity, Total Chargeability and Metal Factor (IP/Resistivity*1000) results of the Pole-Dipole surveys are presented in pseudo section format. All resistivities are in -metres and chargeabilities in mV/V. 8 From Telford, et al., Applied Geophysics, Cambridge U Press, New York, 1983..


QS-209 – November, 2007 27

APPENDIX F

INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS

IRIS ELREC 6 RECEIVER

Weather proof case Dimensions: 31 cm x 21 cm x 21 cm Weight: 6 kg with dry cells 7.8 kg with rechargeable bat. Operating temperature: -20°C to 70°C (-40°C to 70°C with optional screen heater) Storage: (-40°C to 70°C) Input channels: 6 Input impedance: 10 Mohm Input overvoltage protection: up to 1000 volts Input voltage range: 10 V maximum on each dipole 15 V maximum sum over ch 2 to 6 SP compensation: automatic ± 10 V with linear drift correction up to 1 mV/s Noise rejection: 50 to 60 Hz powerline rejection 100 dB common mode rejection (for Rs=0) automatic stacking Primary voltage resolution: 1 µV after stacking accuracy: 0.3% typically; maximum 1 over whole temperature range Secondary voltage windows: up to 10 windows; 3 preset window specs. plus fully programmable sampling. Sampling rate: 10 ms Synchronization accuracy: 10 ms, minimum 40 µV Chargeability resolution: 0.1 mV/V accuracy: typically 0.6%. maximum 2% of reading ± 1 mV/V for Vp > 10 mV Grounding resistance: 0.1 to 467 kohm Memory capacity: 2505 records, 1 dipole/record Data transfer: serial link @ 300 to 19200 baud remote control capability through serial link @ 19200 baud


QS-209 – November, 2007 28

APPENDIX F

INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Phoenix IPT1-B Transmitter

Input: 80 – 90 V AC 400 Hz / 3 Phase Powered by MG1 / MG2 / MG3 Output: 75V – 1200V in 5 steps 3 mA – 10 A 3 KVA Output Switching: Frequency Domain: DC – 4 Hz TD: Seconds on/off switching 1,2,4 and 8 seconds Size: 20cm X 40cm X 55cm Weight: 18 kg


QS-209 – November, 2007 29

APPENDIX E

LIST OF MAPS

• Posted/Contoured Plan Maps at scale of (1:2500)

PLAN TOTAL CHARGEABILITY APPARENT RESISTIVITY P209-PLAN-CHG-1 P209-PLAN-RES-1 TOTAL 1 1

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

LINE TOTAL CHARGEABILITY + APPARENT RESISTIVITY L0 Pseudosection Plot L0

L5+00W Pseudosection Plot L5+00W L12+00W Pseudosection Plot L12+00W TOTAL 3

• Interpretation Plan Map at scale of (1:2500): DWG: P209-PLAN-INT-1

o Scale 1 : 10,000

100

Metres UTM NAD 83 Zon. 17

Legend:

[--------J Claim boundary

1197718

1197716

Graphics by Walts, Griffis and

500

TIME DOMAIN IP SURVEY

Gradient Anray

TOTAL CHARGEABILITY AB= 2000 meters

Tranamitter Frequency 0.0625 Hz (50% duty cyda)

Transmitter Current Amps

Decay Curve: IP-6 Custom Semilogarithmic Wndows 10 Gales (60ms to 354Oms)

station Interval: 25 mel8rs

Chargee.bility Contour Interval: 0.5,2.5 mVN Colour Scale: Equal Area Zonilg

1249906

Gradient Array

-----AB-----

1210839

1163246

1229444

Survey Dal8:

Ins!nJmentaUoo:

Tx '" PHOENIX I

Figure#.

1179399

Chorge.bility (mYIY)

November 2OD7

Rx '" IRIS IP-6 (6 channels)

(15 kW) + MG-30(30 kVA)

CHAMPION BEAR RESOURCES LTD.

Iron Mask Property Sudbury Mining District, Ontario

Total Chargeability (mVIV)

o Scale 1 : 10,000

100

Metres lJlM NAD 83 Zoo. 17

Legend:

[----nnl Claim boundary

1197718

1197716

500

Graphics by Waltr, Griffis


Gradient Array

APPARENT RESISTIVITY AB= 2000 meters

Transmitter Frequency Transmitter CUlTllIlt

Decay Curve:

Station Interval:

ReslsUYIly ConiDur Interval:

Colour Scale:

0.0825 Hz (50% duty cycle) Amp.

IP-6 Custom Semilogarilhmic W.,dows 10 Gallas (6Om. to 3540ms)

25 ......

10 lavalllllog decade

Equal Area Zonilg

1249906

-----AB-----

j abi1

1210839

1163246

1229444

Survey Date:

-. .plotpoinlll

1179399

Res istivity (ohm_m)

InslnJmantallon:

November 2007

Rx '" IRIS IP-6 (6 channels)

+ MG-30(30 kVA) Tx = PHOENIX I

Figure #.

CHAMPION BEAR RESOURCES LTD.

Iron Mask Property Sudbury Mining District, Ontario

Apparent Resistivity (ohm-metres)

Ave""J< IP Re,j,;jrvty Re,j,;jrvty Av«_1P ... 0 .. • • 0 .. •• ... " ~ ~ " ,

~ ~ ,

" " "

~ ~

" " ~ ~ " " ~ ~ " • •

~ ~

" " " ,- ,- "

,., ,., Average IP ,., ,., Average IP .~ .~ ,., , • ,.,

,., • ,., , .. , , .. ,. , , ,. , .. , ..

,., ,., ResistMty ,., -'. ,., ,.,

,., ,., , .. - , .. ,. , .. , ..

Pseudo Section Plot 0+00 N

Dipole-Pole Array

• •• • Pant-leg

Filter M c"'= •• • • . . _ 2Sm • • •

• • plot point

Logarithmic Contours

1,1.5,2,3,5,7.5,10, ...

INTERPRETATION • strong increase in polarization

accompanied by marked decrease in resistillily.

o WeU defined increase in polarization wtthout marked resistillily decrease.

D Poorly defined polarization increase wtth no resistillily signature.

'I' Low resistillilyfeature.

Scale 1:2500

lmot .... )

CHAMPION BEAR RESOURCES L TO INDUCED POLARIZATION SURVEY

POLE-DIPOLE SURVEY

IRON MASK GRID Date: 15/1112007

Interpretation: MGT

MATRIX GEOTECHNOLOGIES LTD

Av«ogolf' Re,j,;jrvty , .. 0 .. ••

" ~

• ~

" ~

• ~

" ~

,-

.. , Average IP ,., • "~ ,-, • • -,-, • •

,-. .. ,-,

!.SOW !.ooW 5.SOW 5.ooW

"''''' = """ "'" """ (;3' ",m

"''''' ""'" ""'" "

• -• • • Gl

S.SOW s.ooW

Re,j,;jrvty 0 .. •• ~

~

~

~

~

,-

.. , ,-, ,-, ,-, ,-.

• • ,-. ,-,

4.SOW 4.ooW

Av«ogolf' , .. " •

" •

"

Average IP "~

Pseudo Section Plot 12+00 S

Pole-Dipole Array , "' ,

Pant-leg :="'J C"J Filter , • • • • • • • . · 2Sm

• • plot point

Logarithmic Contours

1,1.5,2,3,5,7.5,10, ...

•

o

o

•

INTERPRETATION strong increase in polarization accompanied by marked decrease in resistillily.

We~ defilled increase in polarization wtthout marked resistillily decrease.

Poorly defll\ed polarization increase wtth no resistillily signature.

Low resistillilyfeature .

Scale 1:2500 '00 'P

(mot .... )

'F

CHAMPION BEAR RESOURCES LTD

INDUCED POLARIZATION SURVEY

POLE-DIPOLE SURVEY

IRON MASK GRID Date: 14/1112007

Interpretation: MGT

MATRIX GEOTECHNOLOGIES LTD

S1il000N -

S16i lS0N -

S166S00N -

S1662S0N -

S166000N -

S1iSlS0N -

S16SS00N -

S1iS2S0N -

% l lS0E

I

+

+

% l lSOE

+

1197723

1197718

+ + +

+

1197716

( (

(

+ +

+ +

+ +

+

%100OE

•

+ + + + +

+ + +

•

•

•

•

INTERPRETATION PLAN MAP

%12!>11E

I

I I I

+

•

•

+

•

•

+ •

• •

•

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

%l!>110E

I

(

+ + +

+ +

( ( ,-' ,-'

+ +~~ + +

+ +

+

+ + 'W;1\ + +

+ +

+ . •

%l1SOE

I

1210839

+ +

+

+ .

+

+ + +

:--:-'-~+ + + ' d 1

+ + + +

+ + + + 1163246

+ + + +

+ +

+ +

1249906 1229444

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + +

%l!>110E

%2000E

I

%2000E

- S1il000N

S16i lS0N

S166S00N

S1662S0N

S166000N

- S1iSlS0N

- S16SS00N

- S1iS2S0N

LEGEND

CJ CJ

Low Resistillily Untts

Moderate Resistillily Untt

High Resistillily Untt

lone of Increased Chargeabilily _ Weak to Modera te IP Responses

lone of Increased Chargeabilily Moderate II' Res_ ponses

lone of Increased Chargeabilily strong IP Res_ ponses

Interpreted FauHs or Geological Contacts

Gradient Array

;::::=='":===::::; j firtJ ............. ... .. ... . ............. .

" . . ..... .'.-./.,y,.:,./:: ..

plot points

Scale 1 :2500 2S !>II IS 100 12S lSi

(metres)

CHAMPION BEAR RESOURCES LTD

IRON MASK GRID CARTIER TWP. ON


Gradient Array

INTERPRETATION PLAN MAP AS= 2000 meters

Trans mitte r Fre que ncy I .Oi 2S Hz (m'. duty _ Ie)

Trans mitte r Curren! Amps

De e .... Cur",,: IP_i Custom Semilogortthmi< Windows

10 Gates (60ms to lS40ms )

SIation Inte rvol: 2S mete rs

Inte rpretation by. MGT

Date : Nowember 2001

Instrume ntolion: Rx _ IRIS IP_i (i chonnels )

Tx _ PHOENIX IPT_2B (lS kW) + MG_lO(30 kVA)

Surveyed & Proc:essed by.

MATRIX GEOTECHNOLOGIES LTD. DWG. II< P2H_PLAN_INT_l

Documents

MGT MGT MGT MGT MGT - Ontario · 1:2500 scale. Interpretation Plan Map: Outlining anomalies, interpreted zones of thickened-mineralization, resistivity zones at 1:5000 scale (1 plan)