Results of A Mobile Metal Ions (MMI-M) Soil Geochemical ...Mineral Services (Toronto) to monitor analytical accuracy and precision. Analytical blanks monitor laboratory-based contamination

Results of A Mobile Metal Ions (MMI-M) Soil Geochemical Survey On The Golden PineProperty of Namex Explorations Inc.: Interpretations and Recommendations

Prepared For:

Namex Explorations Inc.4333 Ste. Catherine Street West

Suite 610, Montreal, Quebec, H3Z 1P9Tel: 514-935-2445FAX:514-935-8161

E-mail: [email protected]

Prepared By:

Mount Morgan Resources Ltd.,50 Dobals Road North,

P.O. Box 629Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, Canada

R0E 1A0Tel./FAX: 204-284-6869

Cell: 204-998-0271E-mail: [email protected]

Namex MMI-M Geochemical Survey Golden Pine Mount Morgan Resources Ltd.2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Mobile Metal Ions (MMI-M) survey undertaken in 2006 and 2007 and based on the collection of

227 grid-controlled soil samples at the Golden Pine property in the Sudbury area of east-central

Ontario has delineated two significant MMI-M anomalies. The priority anomaly is characterized by

Au response ratios of up to 1076 times background and is associated with lesser but important

responses for Ag, As, Bi, Cd, Cu, Sb, Pb, Tl, Sn and Ta. This anomaly has a southeasterly-trend

and is open to the southeast. It has an overall strike length of 450 m but has no distinctive

lithologic signature indicating the host rocks, as interpreted from the MMI data, are likely felsic in

origin without significant differences in bulk chemical composition between individual units. The

second anomaly, comprising As, Bi, Sb, Cu and Sn in association with CaRR, MgRR and SrRR,

is developed in the north-central grid area. The association of the multi-element MMI-M anomaly

with the CaRR+MgRR+SrRR triplet indicates this anomaly is likely hosted by or associated with a

mafic lithology. The absence of Au from the constituent elements should not negate exploration

follow-up of this response.

Low response ratios for base metal elements in both anomalies suggest the mineralization is a

low-sulphide system and as such should respond well to induced polarization surveys. These

surveys can deduce depth to mineralization and orientation of the mineralized zone.

A review of the quality control data from this survey indicates the analyses are both accurate and

precise resulting from a methodical and consistent collection of soil samples. The 10-25 cm

sample depth is appropriate for MMI surveys on this property.


PREAMBLE

The exploitation of mineral commodities in the near-surface geological environment has become

increasingly difficult due to the exhaustion of mineralization exposed at surface and the mantling

of prospective bedrock by residual soil or glacially transported till and its derivatives. Thick

residual soils and glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine sediments topped by organic deposits make

mineral exploration in these terrains challenging. For this reason a plethora of innovative

exploration geochemical selective and partial digestions, coupled with state-of-the-art

instrumentation capable of measuring concentrations in the parts per billion (ppb) and sub-parts

per billion range, have been developed. These techniques offer the explorationist tools to "see

through" overburden and derive useful mineral exploration data for integration with geology and

geophysics and ultimately for drill-testing multivariate anomalies.

The proprietary Mobile Metal Ions Process (MMI) soil geochemical technique has been utilized on

a wide range of commodity types from base and precious metals to diamonds worldwide. The

Process is based upon proprietary partial extraction techniques, specific combinations of ligands

to keep metals in solution, and relies on strict adherence to sampling protocols usually

established during an orientation program. Geochemical data resulting from MMI analysis of

improperly collected soils cannot be ameliorated with univariate and/or multivariate statistical

and graphical solutions.

The recognition of anomalies in geochemical data has progressed from simple visual inspection

in small data sets to multivariate, parametric and non-parametric or robust statistical methods for

large datasets usually extracted from regional geochemical surveys. Derived parameters from

these statistical exercises, such as factor scores or discriminant functions, have been

successfully utilized in reducing a large number of potentially useful variables to a select few

variables that identify and localize anomalous geochemical signatures. These statistical


approaches have been required to manipulate accurate and precise, low-cost, multi-element

geochemical data.

The MMI technology uses a different approach to exploration geochemistry by analyzing soils,

subsequent to a proprietary partial extraction, for a select few commodity elements upon which to

base property evaluations. Having stated this, the demand from explorationists for a more

comprehensive package including pathfinder element suites resulted in the development of “MMI-

M”. The MMI-M multi-element suite was utilized to analyze inorganic soils from the Golden Pine

property and provides analyses for 45 elements. These are a multi-element suite that report ppb

and sub-ppb analyses for base and precious metals, pathfinder elements for these commodity

elements, as well as elements useful for mapping bedrock geology obscured by overburden and

its derivatives. The large number of elements in the database provides an opportunity to assess

an area of interest for a wide range of metallic mineral deposits with only minor drawbacks in

terms of lower limits of determination. The specific details of this assessment are described

below.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

This report assesses the geochemical responses in soil samples collected from the Golden Pine

property in 2006 and 2007 with subsequent analysis by MMI-M. The design of the sampling

program was the responsibility of Mr. Oliver Maki P.Geo. of Namex Explorations Inc. and Q.P. for

the project. The collection of soil samples was undertaken by Namex geological technicians Mr.

Trevor Pacaud and Ms. Sabrina Rabin subsequent to training provided by Mount Morgan

Resources Ltd.

The purpose of the MMI survey is to determine whether MMI Technology can be used to

elucidate Au-mineralization-related soil geochemical responses at the target property. A total of

227 samples were analyzed at SGS Mineral Services (Toronto, Ontario).


MOBILE METAL ION SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Sampling and analytical protocols for the Golden Pine (“GP”) survey are based upon information

available on the Mobile Metal Ions website and field demonstrations. A review of MMI sampling

protocols can be found there (www.mmigeochem.com). In MMI surveys there are some general

approaches that are used to guide sample collection including preferred depths of sampling and

these are described briefly here.

Soil samples, each weighing approximately 250 grams, are normally collected at 25-m stations in

precious metal exploration and up to 50-m in the case of base metals. Sample spacing should be

established on the basis of a “best-estimate” of the likely target being sought with estimates from

historical data or exploration results from nearby/adjacent programs. Sample locations are usually

documented according to grid coordinates and/or GPS readings at each station. Samples are

then collected from a consistent depth of 10-25 cm beneath the point at which soil formation is

initiated in the particular landscape environment where the survey is taking place. The optimum

depth of sample collection and the targeting of representative high-contrast base and precious

metal residence sites should be determined by an orientation survey, prior to the exploration

phase of this program. The orientation program can constitute a series of appropriately spaced

pits with samples collected from vertical profiles (base to top of pit) at each station. This approach

permits the documentation of the most representative signal and by so doing identifies the

optimum sampling depth for the survey area. The GP survey results for MMI soils was based

upon samples collected from depths of 10-25 cm below the point at which soil formation was

initiated in this landscape environment. Previously undertaken MMI surveys have demonstrated

that this depth of sample collection optimizes the most representative geochemical response as

detected with MMI Technology in the survey area. Samples are normally collected with a stiff

vinyl trowel after the initial sample pit was dug with a shovel. The shovel is clean without paint or

rust. In particularly hostile overburden scenarios where significant thickness of organic soils are

encountered, samples may be collected with an auger. A Dutch auger has been found to be

particularly useful for this purpose. Samples are bagged on site without preparation and shipped


to a licensed laboratory for MMI-M analysis. Analytical finish is by inductively coupled plasma-

mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).

The samples submitted for analysis should include field duplicates, replicates or internal

standards. Analytical duplicates and a standard MMI reference sample are utilized by SGS

Mineral Services (Toronto) to monitor analytical accuracy and precision. Analytical blanks monitor

laboratory-based contamination. Exploration survey analytical data are presented in Appendix 1;

sample descriptions are also presented in Appendix 1. Edited data and calculated RR and Quality

Assurance and Quality Control data (“QAQC”) are presented in Appendix 2. Table 2 is a complete

Spearman-Rank correlation coefficient matrix for the MMI-M database (it is appended to the CD-

ROM) and the distilled version of this matrix (Table 1) is given in the text. Both 25th

percentiles

and backgrounds used to calculate the RR are given in Appendix 2. All graphics are presented in

Appendix 3.

NATURE OF SAMPLING MATERIALS

Details of the nature of soil samples collected from the GP grid are given in Appendix 1. The soils

are predominantly sandy with lesser silty and clayey equivalents. Abundant pebbles and some

coarser fragments to cobble and boulder size were observed during sample collection.

ANALYTICAL PROTOCOL

Mobile Metal Ions (MMI) Process

The proprietary Mobile Metal Ions Process (MMI) soil geochemical technique has been utilized on

a wide range of commodity types from base and precious metals to diamonds worldwide. The

MMI Process is based upon proprietary partial extraction techniques and specific combinations of

ligands to retain metals in solution once they are stripped from individual soil particles. The MMI

method relies on strict adherence to sampling protocols usually established during an orientation

program. Geochemical data resulting from MMI analysis of improperly collected soils cannot be

ameliorated with univariate and/or multivariate statistical and/or graphical solutions. Samples


analyzed using the MMI methodology require no preparation subsequent to collection. The

method targets recently arrived “mobile metals” that have traveled from buried/blind mineralized

sources at depth and migrated to surface. Accordingly, the concentrations measured are those of

recently arrived mobile metal ions at the surface and as such are much lower in concentration

than the total metal concentration of the soil measured by strong partial digests or total digests.

The method is effectively substrate independent and analyses are presented at parts per billion or

sub-parts per billion concentrations. Exceptions are Al, Ca, Fe and Mg, which are quoted in ppm.

Since the MMI-M extraction was utilized for the MMI surveys there are a wide range of metals

reported including precious and base metals and related or “pathfinder” elements as well as

lithologically sensitive metals. Quality assurance, quality control, analytical blanks and standards

ensure analytical data is both accurate and precise.

DATA TREATMENT

Analytical data was examined visually for analyses less than the lower limit of detection (<LLD)

for ICP-MS. Data <LLD were replaced with a value ½ of the LLD for statistical calculations and

graphical representation. The 25th percentile for these data was determined using the software

program SYSTAT (V10) and the arithmetic mean of the lower quartile used to normalize all

analyses. The normalized data represent "response ratios" which can then be utilized in

subsequent plots or statistical applications. Zeros resulting from this calculation are replaced with

“1”. Response ratios are a simple way to compare MMI data collected from different grids, areas

and environments from year to year. This normalized approach also significantly removes or

"smoothes" analytical variability due to inconsistent dissolution or instrument instability.

Background when using response ratios is considered to be “1”.

DATA PRESENTATION

Analytical data from the GP property MMI-M exploration survey for the 10-25 cm soil samples are

presented in plan view as Vertical Mapper bubble plots based on response ratios. TIFF files are

also provided for integration with other geoscientific databases. Graphics are presented in


Appendix 3. The plan view or bubble plots depict the flux in geochemical response by plotting a

symbol (circle) with a diameter that corresponds to the magnitude of the elemental

analysis/response ratio at that site. The magnitude of the response is also color-coded for ease of

inspection with the “hotter” colors indicating higher metal concentrations. These plots are

prepared with Vertical Mapper, a module within MAPINFO software.

DATA DESCRIPTION

Appendix 1 contains all data from the SGS (Toronto) laboratory for this interpretation and report.

The 25th percentiles and backgrounds for each element used for the calculation of response

ratios for the exploration survey soil samples are also presented in Appendix 2.

The GP survey dataset is marked by a number of elements that are at or near the lower limit of

determination as noted from visual examination of the data. These include Au, Bi, Ca, Mg, Mo,

Pd, Sb, Sn, Ta, Te and W. Elevated concentrations for select elements are also present and

these include Au, Ag, Co, Cu, Mo, Pb, Ti and Zn. The observation of numerous MMI-M suite

elements that are at or below the lower limit of determination (“LLD”) is not cause for concern

since many of these elements have very low mobilities in the surficial geochemical environments.

Elements like Au are generally present in very low concentrations and the result is the presence

of three distinctive ligands in the extraction to acquire and maintain Au in solution so that accurate

and precise ICP-MS measurements of the extractant can be made. The premise of MMI

Technology is that metals are moving from source region to near-surface soils and as such in

areas where there are no mineralized or source regions of metals there will be no metals rising to

the surface. Accordingly there will be a large number of analyses that are <LLD resulting from a

lack of a source region and not from buffering of the soil by carbonate-rich soils.

The frequency distributions for selected elements including Au and Ag are presented below. Each

of these elements approximate normal distributions but are positively skewed with a small

number of samples significantly elevated metal contents defining the skewness of the histogram.


These samples represent an anomalous portion of the data population and indicate that there is a

suite of samples that have elevated concentrations and possibly form a recognizable anomaly.

This will be examined with the use of Vertical Mapper bubble plots and described in a later

section of this report.

Namex Golden Pine MMI-M Survey

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Ag (parts Per billion)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fre

que

ncy

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 Pro

po

rtion

pe

rB

ar



0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Au (parts Per billion)

0

50

100

150

200

Fre

que

ncy

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Pro

po

rtion

pe

rB

ar


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Au (parts Per billion)

0

50

100

150

200

Fre

que

ncy

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Pro

po

rtion

pe

rB

ar


QUANTIFYING MOBILE METAL ION RESPONSES

The determination of whether an MMI response is significant is largely determined by an

understanding of the landscape environment in which the survey is taking place and this includes

the nature of the materials being sampled, depth of overburden and the nature/composition of

expected mineralization. Orientation surveys will determine the range in concentration and

derived response ratios associated with the mineralized target and from this an appreciation of

common geochemical parameters such as background, threshold and anomalous can be derived

for individual survey areas.

A variety of methods are available for determining geochemical parameters for the determination

of bona fide anomalies and these vary from univariate to multivariate statistical and graphical

approaches to simple visual estimates. For the determination of anomalies in MMI data a first

simple step is often utilized that will provide an initial breakdown of responses from a survey

although it is often more useful to look at constituent elements in a geochemical anomaly, their

response ratio levels and the number of samples responding in the survey area and whether this

response is cohesive, that is whether it is a “one-line” anomaly or is more broadly/areally

developed.

A general rule of thumb utilized for the assessment of the NG MMI-M geochemistry is to assign a

low-contrast response to an RR of 20 or less, a moderate-contrast RR to one of between 21

and 50 and a high-contrast response to RR of >51. More detailed statistical graphics

methodologies can be brought to bear on these determinations and include cumulative frequency

plots to probability plots, all of which are available from commercial software statistical and

graphical packages. Examples of cumulative frequency/density plots are given below for selected

elements including the important commodity elements Au and Ag. These plots may be used to

select the upper limit of background variation (Threshold) and then all values greater than this

threshold are anomalous and can be plotted as such. The threshold is selected by picking the

inflection point on the graph.



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Ag (parts per billion)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Count

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 Cu

mu

lative

De

nsity


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Au (parts per billion)

0

50

100

150

Count

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cu

mu

lativ

eD

en

sity



0 2 4 6 8 10

Au (parts per billion)

0

50

100

150

Count

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cu

mu

lativ

eD

en

sity

DATA QUALITY

Analytical Duplicates

Every 12th

sample in the routine analysis of MMI samples is an “analytical duplicate” that provides

control for the reproducibility and accuracy of routine analyses. These duplicates are presented in

Appendix 2 as QAQC and demonstrate that excellent reproducibility is apparent in the GP

analyses across a wide range of concentrations for all MMI-M suite elements. Some variability is

apparent at the LLD or even at higher concentrations however this is not interpreted as a

significant problem for the recognition of bona fide geochemical anomalies. The results of simple

linear regression for Au and Ag indicate only a single analytical duplicate pair for Ag is recognized

as a geochemical outlier (see below). The majority of analytical duplicate pairs are both accurate

and reproducible defining a straight line through the origin. Both Au and Ag are not compromised

by the presence of outliers and accordingly the presence of any bona fide anomalies for these

elements, if present, will not be missed. It is noted that the geochemical pair identified as an

outlier is at low concentration levels.


NOTE: [The Cook's Distance is a commonly used estimate of the influence of a data point

when doing a regression analysis. Data points documented as outliers may distort the

results froma regression analysis and Cook’s Distances of 1 or more indicate that a

particular data point is problematic.]

Outlier

Influential Case

Outliers and Influence

0 10 20 30AG2

0

10

20

30

AG

1

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2

Cook's Distance

0 10 20 30AG2

0

10

20

30

AG

1

0 10 20 30AG2

0

10

20

30

AG

1

Outlier

Influential Case

Outliers and Influence

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2AU2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

AU

1

0123

Cook's Distance

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2AU2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

AU

1

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2AU2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

AU

1


Analytical Blanks

To monitor laboratory and sampling errors introduced into the sample analytical blanks are

inserted with each batch of MMI samples that are run through the ICP-MS. The results of these

replicate analyses are presented in Appendix 2 (“QAQC”) and demonstrate that there is no

detectable contamination being introduced into the sample as it passes from the sample bag to

the ICP-MS. There is no commodity element contamination (Au and Ag) in the blanks. This

observation is based on the assessment of 6 analytical blanks from the GP MMI-M dataset.

Analytical Standard MMISRM14

The standard MMISRM14 is included with each batch of soil samples as a check on analytical

accuracy and reproducibility. Very little variability exists for commodity and related MMI-M suite

elements in the GP survey (Appendix 2) although some variance is noted for Fe with a

recommended value for the standard of 1.7 ppm and an observed range in replicate analyses of

the standard of 2-4 ppm with a mean of 3.2 ppm. Results for Au are excellent with a

recommended value of 44.1 ppb and a range of 36-39.8 ppb with an arithmetic mean of 37.6 ppb.

Results for Ag are also excellent with a recommended value of 19 ppb with a range of 15-19 ppb

and an arithmetic mean of 17.3 ppb. The overall accuracy and reproducibility of the analyses is

interpreted to be excellent.

Spearman-Rank Correlation Coefficient Matrix

A particularly effective method of assessing unique element associations in the MMI-M dataset

from the GP MMI-M survey and providing an indirect assessment of data quality is with a

correlation coefficient matrix. The distilled Spearman-Rank matrix is presented in Table 1 below

and the entire matrix is reproduced in Table 2 (appended to CD-ROM). The MMI-M suite of

elements is populated by a number of lithologically sensitive metals that can be used to map

subsurface geology in the bedrock underpinning the survey area and to infer unique lithologies

such as kimberlite, carbonatite and other lithologies with distinctive bulk chemical compositions.


The majority of the significant element associations in the GP dataset are doublets related to Au,

Mo, Bi, Zn, Cd and Cu and to lithologically sensitive elements. These include doublets between

Au and the REE, Au and U and Au with Mo. All of which are suggestive of an association if not a

genetic link to felsic lithologies and possibly an intrusive origin. The strong association between

W and Ta can be used to infer that a felsic lithology, possibly intrusive is present in the survey

area. The elements Ca-Mg-Sr are highly inter-correlated and indicate that a mafic lithology occurs

on the survey grid and may be located in the north-central grid area where a Bi-Cu-As-Sb

anomaly is coincident with a Ca+Mg+Sr anomaly. Of particular interest in the associations are

those between Zn and Cd (0.687). This is a strong correlation strongly suggestive of a bedrock-

sourced zone of sphalerite mineralization. This association has been observed in MMI surveys

worldwide and as such has become a prerequisite for the interpretation of sphalerite

mineralization inferred from MMI survey results.

The high correlation coefficients for the REE indirectly indicate a quality analytical dataset exists

based on the geochemical coherence of the REE. Non-reproducible and inaccurate analyses

would be reflected by poor correlations between this suite of elements.

Table 1. Distilled significant MMI-M responses from a Spearman-Rank

correlation coefficient matrix, Namex Golden Pine project.

Doublet r Doublet r Doublet r

Au-Ce 0.499 Bi-Cu 0.566 Ca-Mg 0.719

Au-Dy 0.521 Bi-Fe 0.562 Ca-Sr 0.708

Au-Er 0.494 Bi-Mg 0.529 Mg-Sr 0.740

Au-Eu 0.508 Bi-Nb 0.479

Au-Gd 0.503 Bi-Sb 0.538 Nb-Ti 0.970

Au-La 0.478 Bi-Sn 0.649 Nb-W 0.637

Au-Nd 0.493 Bi-Sr 0.512 Nb-Zr 0.608

Au-Pr 0.494 Bi-Ti 0.429

Au-Sm 0.509 Bi-W 0.440 Mo-Nb 0.533

Au-Tb 0.508 Mo-Th 0.676

Au-Yb 0.478 As-Ba 0.494 Mo-Ti 0.522

Au-Mo 0.595 As-Bi 0.570 Mo-U 0.621

Au-Th 0.506 As-Cu 0.572 Mo-W 0.555

Au-Tl 0.399 As-Fe 0.753 Mo-Y 0.549

Au-U 0.490 As-Mg 0.510 Mo-Zr 0.615

Au-Y 0.484 As-Nb 0.652

Au-Zr 0.402 As-Sb 0.608 Sc-Th 0.674

As-Sn 0.621 Sc-U 0.679


Cd-Zn 0.687 As-Sr 0.516 Sc-Y 0.683

As-Ti 0.595 Sc-Zr 0.661

Ta-W 0.555

*rare earth elements are inter-correlated with r>0.8

NAMEX GOLDEN PINE EXPLORATION SURVEY

The results from the MMI-M-based geochemical exploration surveys undertaken at the GP 2006

and 2007 grids are presented below in a geochemical narrative accompanied by Vertical Mapper

bubble plots. It should be noted that the bubble plots are also presented in Appendix 3. Samples

collected from the adjacent 2006 and 2007 survey areas are presented on the same plot using

response ratios for each element of interest.

RESULTS

Precious Metals

AgRR (1-46RR): The Ag responses on the Golden Pine grid are primarily low- to moderate-

contrast 1-2 sample responses. The highest response of 46 times background occurs at the

southern extremity of a transect in the southeast grid area. It is possible this anomaly is open to

the south.


AsRR(1-65RR): A two-line, 2-sample AsRR anomaly occurs in the north-central grid area with

several elevated As responses in nearby sample sites. Elsewhere on the grid responses >20

times background are present as single sample and 2-sample anomalies, some of which occur in

the general location of the AgRR anomaly discussed above.


AuRR (1-1076RR): Strongly elevated AuRR to 1076 times background are documented from the

approximate center of the grid. The 1076RR is one of two very high-contrast responses in non-

truncated data from this area. Truncation of analyses at 100RR so that trends can be examined

at lower response ratios documents a multi-sample moderate- to high-contrast anomaly

extending for a distance of 450 m in a southeast orientation. The anomaly is irregular in shape

owing to background (1-10RR) responses interspersed with highly anomalous responses. There

could also be structural complications in the bedrock resulting in this distorted morphology of the

Au anomaly. The anomaly is truncated on the west but is open to the east and southeast. There

is limited correspondence with Ag and As anomalies.


NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2001) AuRR

SOl900mE _me 5OOlOO mE _me =~~ 5(].86SOm E 508800 mE 50095l1mE AuRR

~ 10r6.00

l H ! + w+. + + + + + , , , ~OO

I i , + + ! ! , ~OO

l ~ ! + + 400.00 , , •

I ~ ~OO

! + + ! 100.00 ,

~OO

0.00

~ l _umlS

l 060010 1 ,016 ! + + , O~_ ~ • 0400'" 000

O~_ .00

I 0100", ~

~- '00

! + + + + + + + + .- ~

, ~SOrnE =~~ ==~ ~~~ 5086S()mE 5OMOOmE

PIOI Projection:

'" '"' '" NADB3, Zone 17 Silmples (n,.227) ,,--~ Meters ....... __ u •. , --


Base Metals

BiRR (1-20RR): Scattered 1-2 sample low-contrast responses occur in the central grid area in

association with the Au-Ag-As anomaly described above. In addition there is a consistent 4-line Bi

anomaly in the northern grid area that corresponds with an As anomaly in this area.


CdRR (1-20RR): The CdRR responses are similar to those for Bi in terms of magnitude of

response and pattern of variation. The CdRR define an intermittent southeast-trending anomaly

marked by interspersed 1-5RR background responses with maximum responses to 20 times

background. There is some lesser correspondence with the Au-Ag-As-Bi anomaly.


CuRR (1-17RR): Very low-contrast Cu responses to 17 times background typify the Golden Pine

grid. There is some correspondence with the Au-Ag-As-Bi-Cd anomaly in the central and

southeast portions of the grid. The most significant response occurs in the north-central grid area

where a southeast-trending three-line anomaly is developed. This anomaly is coincident with the

As-Bi anomaly developed in this area. Elsewhere on the grid the responses are scattered and do

not define a diagnostic pattern of response.


SbRR (1-8RR): Very low-contrast Sb responses are present on the grid and despite the low RR

the patterns of variation documents two features previously observed on the grid. The first is a

three-line low-contrast anomaly from the north-central grid area that coincides with anomalies for

As-Bi-Cu in this area. The second is a poorly defined southeast-trending intermittent anomaly

corresponding with the trend of the Au-Ag-As-Bi-Cd anomaly.


PbRR (1-20RR): Low-contrast Pb responses (to 20 times background) characterize the Golden

Pine grid. There are 1-2 sample very low-contrast Pb responses associated with the Au-Ag-As-Bi-

Cd anomaly developed in the central grid area. Generally, the Pb responses are not diagnostic of

a bona fide or characteristic trend in the survey area.


MoRR (1-58RR): The eastern portion of the grid is marked by several 1-2-sample anomalies that

appear to be oriented along a north-northeast axis. These elevated responses are interspersed

with 1-10RR responses giving an intermittent anomalous pattern. There is a suggestion of a

southeast trending, albeit intermittent pattern of elevated MoRR that occurs in the southern grid

area. This orientation is consistent with that observed for the Au-Ag-As-Bi-Cd anomaly defined in

the core of the grid.


TlRR (1-11RR): Very low TlRR occur on the grid as scattered 1-2 sample responses. The

southwest grid area hosts a 5-sample weakly elevated response but there is no association with

the Au-Ag-As-Bi-Cd anomaly defined in the core of the grid. The southeast portion of the grid is

marked by the highest Tl response in the survey (RR11) and this response corresponds to the Au

anomaly in this area.


SnRR (1-12RR): Tin responses are very low-contrast (maximum to 12RR) but appear to define a

southeast-trending intermittent anomaly that corresponds to the orientation of the Au-Ag-As-Bi-Cd

anomaly defined in the core of the grid. There is also some correspondence with the As-Bi-Cu-Sb

anomaly in the north-central grid area.


TaRR (1-6RR): The Ta responses are very similar to those for Sn with an intermittent, southeast-

trending weak anomaly defined. The axis of the anomaly is parallel to the orientation of the Au-

Ag-As-Bi-Cd anomaly defined in the core of the grid although the majority of elevated Ta

responses occur in the eastern half of the grid.


WRR (1-10RR): Tungsten responses are non-descript and non-diagnostic of a trend or

anomalous pattern. The weakly elevated responses are more or less scattered across the entirety

of the grid. There is a tenuous association with the core area Au anomaly in the southeast grid

area.


Lithologically Sensitive Metals

A suite of lithologically sensitive elements is available in the MMI-M suite and these elements

provide the opportunity to assess changes in bulk chemistry in bedrock buried by overburden.

These metals can differentiate between mafic/ultramafic and felsic lithologies and discriminate

kimberlite and carbonatite from other surrounding rocks. In this way the mapping of bedrock

geology can be undertaken, MMI-M responses for base and/or precious metals placed in context

and a better appreciation for the geological setting of mineralization in the area of interest can be

obtained.

CaRR+MgRR+SrRR: This additive function has been demonstrated to be an efficient

discriminator of mafic and felsic lithologies in overburden-covered terrain. In the Golden Pine

survey there is no definitive lithologic break or anomaly defined by this function with the exception


of a three-line anomaly in the north-central portion of the grid. There is a documented As-Bi-Sb-

Cu-Sn anomaly coincident with this lithologic triplet in this area. The single element MgRR plot (1-

90RR) produces the same anomaly morphology as the CaRR+MgRR+SrRR plot.

NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI·M (2006 and 2007) CaRR+MgRR+SrRR

SOl900mE _me 5OOlOO mE _me =~~ 5(].86SOm E 508800 mE 50095l1mE CaRR+MgRR+SrRR

~ 184 .00

l H ! + w+. + + + + + , , 150.00 , I ! , + + ! ! ,

100.00

l ~ " 00 ! + + , , •

~oo

I ~ ! + + 25.00 ! ,

10.00 3.00

~ l _uMs

l 0 15010 1114 ! + + , 0 10010 1 50

• 0 1510 100

0 SOlo 75

I o 2510 50

TOIo 3

! + + + + + + + + 3\0 10

, ~SOrnE =~~ ==~ ~~~ 5086S()mE 5OMOOmE

PIOI Projection:

'" '" '" NADB3, Zone 17 Silmples (n ,.227) ,,--~ Meters ....... __ u •. , --


TiRR (1-52RR): Titanium results from the survey indicate primarily moderate-contrast responses

that typify the western and eastern portions of the grid marked by irregularly distributed elevated

values. The elevated TiRR are interspersed with responses <8RR giving the trends an

intermittent pattern of response. There is a possible north-northeast-trending TiRR anomaly

situated at the eastern edge of the grid in the same area as a previously described MoRR

anomaly. The TiRR anomaly is open to the northeast and southwest.


URR (1-67RR): Uranium responses are primarily at background (<20RR) over most of the grid

with the peak response of 67RR occurring in the north-central grid area. There is no pattern or

recognizable trend in the U data.


ThRR (1-18RR): The Golden Pine grid is marked by two low-contrast anomalies with north-

northwest and southeast orientations. The southeast orientation is parallel to that recognized for

the core area Au-Ag-As-Bi-Cd anomaly.


NbRR (1-38RR): Niobium responses >20RR are concentrated in the eastern half of the grid

where they form an intermittent anomalous response. The elevated responses are widely

separated and interspersed with RR of 10 or less. There is no diagnostic pattern in the data that

can be attributed to a distinct lithologic change in the bedrock.


LiRR (1-19): The Golden Pine grid is characterized by background responses of 4RR or less.

Single sample, very low-contrast responses are scattered across the survey grid and are

interpreted to be non-diagnostic of an anomalous pattern or trend.


Rare Earth Elements: Individual plots for the REE are provided for the Golden Pine survey.

These include La (1-142RR), Ce (1-81RR), Nd (1-166RR), Dy (1-65RR), Pr (1-165RR), Sm (1-

161RR), Er (1-36RR), Eu (1-107RR), Gd (1-130RR) and Tb (1-120RR). Despite significantly

elevated responses of >100RR for most of the REE the patterns from the individual plots fail to

detect a signature indicative of a diagnostic change in the bulk chemical composition of the

underlying bedrock. There are numerous clusters of up to 4 samples with elevated responses

oriented in a southeasterly trend but a geological contact or distinctive lithologic signature is

absent. The similarity of the responses between the individual REE is a consequence of similar

nuclear characteristics such as ionic radii and charge. The absence of a distinctive lithologic

signature is likely related to the fact that the lithologic units underpinning the survey area are of

similar composition.


NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2007) LaRR

SOl900mE _me 5OOlOO mE _me =~~ 5(].86SOm E 508800 mE 50095l1mE LaRR

~ 1" 2.00

l H ! + w+. + + + + + , , , I ! 100.00

, + + ! ! ,

75.00

l ~ ! + + , , ~OO

•

I ~ ~OO

! + + !

10.00 , '00 1.00

~ l _unils

l 0 10010 142 ! + + , 0 7510 100

• 0 SOlo 75

0 2510 SO

I 0 1010 2'5

510 10

! + + + + + + + + '" ,

, ~SOrnE =~~ ==~ ~~~ 5086S()mE 5OMOOmE

PIOI Projection:



NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2007) CeRR

SOl900mE 5OOOSOmE 5OOlOO mE _me =~~ 5G86SOm E _me 5009 511mE CeRR

~ 6UXl

l H ! + w-t-. + + + + + , 70.00 , , rooo

I ~ , + + ! ! rooo ,

40.00

l ~ ! + + , , ~OO

• ~OO

I ~ ! + + 10 .00 ! , 1.00

~ l _unils

l 0,0 1081

! + + , o OO Ia 70

• 050 10 60

o -<{I I0 5O

I o :10 10 40 o 211 10 30

! + + + + + + + + 10 10 20 I to 10

• 5OOOSOm E =~~ ==~ -~ 50865()mE ro=~

PIOI Projection:

'" '"' '" NADB3, Zone 17 Silmples (0 : 227) ~--~ Meters ....... __ u •. ,

~-


NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2007) NdRR

SOl900mE 5OOOSOmE 5OOlOO mE _me =~~ 5G86SOm E _me 5009 511mE NdRR

~ 166.00

l H ! + w-t-. + + + + + , , , 125.00

I ~ , + + ! ! 100.00 ,

l ~ 75.00

! + + , , • ~OO

I ~ ~OO ! + + ! , 10.00

1.00

~ l _unils

l 0 12510 166

! + + , 0 10010 1 25

• 0 7510 100

0 SOlo 75

I 0 2510 50

1010 ~

! + + + + + + + + 1 10 10

• 5OOOSOm E =~~ ==~ -~ 50865()mE ~=~

PIOI Projection:


~-


NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2007) DyRR

SOl900mE _me 5OOlOO mE _me =~~ 5(].86SOm E 508800 mE 50095l1mE OyRR

~ 65.00

l H ! + w+. + + + + + , , , ~OO

I ! , + + ! ! . 0 .00 ,

l ~ ~OO

! + + , , • ~OO

I ~ 10 .00 ! + + !

'00 , 1.00

~ l _unils

l 050 10 65 ! + + , O.cn to 5()

• 0:\0 10 40

o 2{) I0 3O

I o 10 10 20

Sto lO

! + + + + + + + + I to 5

, ~SOrnE =~~ ==~ ~~~ 5086S()mE 5OMOOmE

PIOI Projection:



NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2007) ErRR

SOl900mE SOOOSOmE 5OOlOO mE _me 500500 mE 5G86SOmE _me 5009 51lmE ErRR

~ ~OO

l H ! + w-t-. + + + + + , ~OO , ,

I i ~OO

, + + ! ! ,

~OO

l ~ 15.00 ! + + , , , 10 .00

I ~ ! + + 5 .00 ! , 1.00

~ l _un""

l 0:10 10 36 ! + + l 0:>5 10 30 ,

0;>0 10 25

o 15 to 2!l

I o 10 to1 5

5 to lO

! + + + + + + + I to 5

, SOOOSOrnE =~~ ==~ -~ 50865()mE 5OMOOmE

PIOI Projec!ion:

'" '"' '" NADB3, Zone 17 Silmples (0 : 227) Ji--~ Meters ...... __ u •. , --


NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2007) EuRR

SOl900mE _me 5OOlOO mE _me =~~ 5(].86SOm E 508800 mE 50095l1mE EuRR

~ 10HlO

l H ! + w+. + + + + + , , , I i 75.00

, + + ! ! ,

~ ~OO

l ! + + , , •

~ OO

I ~ ! + + ! 10.00 , 7 .50

rBS

~ l _unils

l 0 " to 10 7 ! + + , 050 to 7S

• 0 25 10 50

o 10 to 25

I 0 7.510 '" ) .510 " ! + + + + + + + + ' '" " ,

~SOrnE =~~ ==~ ~~~ 5086S()mE 5OMOOmE

PIOI Projection:



NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2007) PrRR

SOl900mE 5OOOSOmE 5OOlOO mE _me =~~ 5G86SOm E _me 5009 511mE PrRR

~ 165.00

l H ! + w-t-. + + + + + , , 130 .00 ,

I ~ , + + ! ! 100.00 ,

l ~ 75.00

! + + , , • ~OO

I ~ ~OO ! + + ! , 10.00

1.00

~ l _unils

l O t l!llo l 65

! + + , o !OO\O I l!l

• 0 7510 100

0 SOlo 75

I 0 2510 50

1010 ~

! + + + + + + + + 1 10 10

• 5OOOSOm E =~~ ==~ -~ 50865()mE ~=~

PIOI Projection:


~-


NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2007) SmRR

SOl900mE _me 5OOlOO mE _me =~~ 5(].86SOm E 508800 mE 50095l1mE SmRR

~ 16 1.00

l H ! + w+. + + + + + , , 130 .00 ,

I i , + + ! ! 100.00 ,

l ~ 75.00

! + + , , • ~OO

I ~ ~OO ! + + ! , 10.00

1 00

~ l _unils

l 0 1l!l10 16 1 ! + + , o l00\O I l!l

• 0 7510 100

0 SOlo 75

I o 2510 50

TOIo 3

! + + + + + + + + 1 10 10

, ~SOrnE =~~ ==~ ~~~ 5086S()mE 5OMOOmE

PIOI Projection:



NAMEX EXPLORATIONS GOLDEN PINE MMI-M (2006 and 2007) TbRR

SOl900mE SOOOSOmE 5OOlOO mE _me 500500 mE 5G86SOmE _me 5009 51lmE TbRR

~ 121100

l H ! + w-t-. + + + + + , 100.00 , ,

I i , + + 75.00 ! ! ,

l ~ ~OO

! + + , , ,

I ~ ~OO

! + + ! 10.00 ,

1.00

~ l _un""

l 0 100 101 20 ! + + , 0 15 10100 , a 51H o 75 0 ~ tQ 50

10 10 ?;

I I to 10

! + + + + + + + , SOOOSOrnE =~~ ==~ -~ 50865()mE 5OMOOmE

PIOI Projec!ion:

'" '"' '" NADB3, Zone 17 Silmples (0 : 227) Ji--~ Meters ...... __ u •. , --


OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION

There are two geochemically significant features observed on the Golden Pine grid and these are

attributed to the presence of bedrock-hosted mineralized zones and what is likely a southeast-

trending structural grain in the bedrock.


The first and most significant MMI-M anomaly is an extension of the Au anomaly first documented

in 2006 on the Golden Pine grid. As demonstrated by the extended survey and the analytical

results depicted in the AuRR and truncated AuRR data (truncated >100RR) plots this initial Au

anomaly has been extended an additional 450 m in a southeasterly direction. The range in AuRR

(up to 1076 RR or times background associated with numerous RR of >50) underscores the

significance of this anomaly.

The anomaly has an apparent southeast-trend and is open to the southeast. There is a multiple

element association with the Au in the anomaly and includes lesser responses for Ag, As, Bi, Cd,

Cu, Sb, Pb, Tl, Sn and Ta. This suggests a sulphide mineral association with the Au in a likely

felsic lithology. The relatively low-contrast responses for the associated elements suggest a

relatively low sulphide mineral content for this Au-bearing system. This could make this

mineralization an excellent target for induced polarization (“I.P.”) surveys and modeling the

responses so that any drill testing of the anomaly will be based upon a depth to mineralized

source as well as an orientation of the source region. In addition, the characteristics of the

chargeability and resistivity for the mineralized zone, if insignificant in terms of the magnitude of

the I.P. response, may preclude drill testing.

There is no unique assemblage of lithologically sensitive metals associated with this priority

anomaly suggesting the Au is developed within a structure or structures within a lithology or

series of lithologies that have similar bulk chemical compositions.

The second priority MMI-M anomaly on the Golden Pine grid occurs in the north-central grid area

and is characterized by an assemblage of As-Bi-Sb-Cu-Sn and is coincident with an additive

CaRR+MgRR+SrRR anomaly. This suggests mineralization is associated with or hosted by a

mafic lithology. The anomaly has an approximate strike length of 150 m and should also be

assessed either by I.P. surveys or excavator overburden removal.


A TiRR-MoRR north-northeast-trending anomaly is also present in the eastern segment of the

grid and may be related to a felsic dyke.

Despite the absence of a distinctive MMI-M lithologic anomaly on the grid other than the

CaRR+MgRR+SrRR triplet there is a distinctive and significant statistical association between Au

and the REE (cf. Table 1). The correlation coefficients for the Au-REE doublets are >0.500.

additional statistical associations between Au and other MMI-M suite elements include Mo

(0.595), Th (0.506), U (0.490) and Tl (0.399) although these associations are not graphically

distinctive.

A review of the QA/QC data for the GP MMI-M dataset does not indicate the presence of

background shifts that might account for poor quality data and a review of the nature of the soil

sample description likewise does not indicate a significant change in soil type that would account

for any distinctive pattern not related to mineralization. Based on the results of analytical

duplicates, replicate analyses of MMI standards, analytical blanks, simple linear regression of

analytical duplicates and plausible geological explanations for element doublets (Zn-Cd, etc) the

data quality upon which all of the above observations are based is considered to be excellent.

This observation is supported by the strong inter-correlation between the REE-an observation

that could not be made if inaccurate and non-reproducible analyses were used.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions flow from this MMI-M geochemical survey at the Namex Golden Pine

property:

1. The GP survey area is characterized by a significant linear, southeast-trending anomaly that

comprises extremely high-contrast Au responses and lesser but important responses for Ag,

As, Bi, Cd, Cu, Sb, Pb, Tl, Sn and Ta.


2. A secondary anomaly comprising As, Bi, Sb, Cu and Sn in association with CaRR, MgRR

and SrRR is developed in the north-central grid area. The association of the multi-element

MMI-M anomaly with the CaRR+MgRR+SrRR triplet indicates this anomaly is likely hosted by

or associated with a mafic lithology.

3. The absence of a distinctive lithologic signature in the vicinity of the southeast trending “main

Au anomaly” is indicative of a similarity in the bulk chemical composition of the lithologies

hosting this anomaly.

4. The rocks that underpin the broader survey area are likely dominated by felsic (granitic?)

lithologies. Overburden stripping, prospecting and geological mapping by Namex

Explorations indicates that this is likely the case.

5. The soil sampling depths utilized in the GP survey indicates that the 10-25 cm sampling

depth has produced a quality MMI-M dataset. This is the result of consistent and methodical

sample collection.

6. Sample spacing was adequate to assess MMI-M Technology response on the grid.

7. The MMI data is of excellent quality based on geologically plausible inter-element

correlations, excellent data reproducibility and accuracy. The data quality is not a hindrance

to anomaly recognition.

8. The materials sampled for the MMI-M survey are adequate for the definition of bona fide

geochemical anomalies.


RECOMMENDATIONS

1. An MMI anomalous response does not indicate the depth to source region nor the grade or

tonnage of the source region. As such it is highly recommended that prior to a diamond drill

test of any MMI-M anomaly, the area be surveyed with a geophysical method that can be

modeled. If recent geophysical surveys have already been undertaken then these results

should be modeled. The determination of the depth to source region can help define the

orientation of the drill hole (declination and inclination). Electromagnetic, magnetic and/or

induced polarization methods can be used for this purpose. Induced polarization has also had

good success in providing an assessment of the chargeability and resistivity characteristics of

the source region responsible for the production of the MMI anomalies. The nature of the

response ratios observed in this study indicates the mineralization accompanying the Au is

likely a low-sulphide zone. As such it may respond very well to I.P. surveys.

2. Any further MMI surveys undertaken in this landscape environment must be based on

sampling and analytical protocols defined by the original 2006 MMI-M orientation survey.

3. Prior to drill testing of anomalies in the survey area integration of geological, geophysical and

geochemical data should be undertaken. Historic mineral deposit information from past

exploration programs should also be included.

4. Overburden stripping with an excavator is a cost effective alternative or adjunct to I.P.

surveys however the orientation of the mineralized zone as well as the magnitude of the

chargeability and resistivity will not necessarily be reflected once overburden is removed. The

attitude of the mineralized zone may be modified at depth and indeed the mineralization

responsible for the production of the significant Au MMI-M anomaly may not be exposed

below the overburden and be blind. As such I.P. surveys are recommended prior to any drill

testing.


Mark Fedikow Ph.D. P.Eng. P.Geo. C.P.G.

Mount Morgan Resources Ltd.

Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA

March 18, 2008


CERTIFICATE of AUTHOR

Mark A.F. Fedikow, HB.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., P. Eng. P.Geo. C.P.G.

Consulting Geologist and Geochemist

Mount Morgan Resources Ltd.

50 Dobals Road North

P.O. Box 629

Winnipeg, Manitoba R0E 1A0

Tel: 204-284-6869 cell: 204-998-0271

Email: [email protected]

I, Mark A.F. Fedikow, HB.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., P.Eng. P.Geo., C.P.G., do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently a self-employed Consulting Geologist/Geochemist with an office at:

50 Dobals Road,

P.O. Box 629

Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, Canada R0E 1A0.

2. I graduated with a degree in Honors Geology (B.Sc.) from the University of Windsor

(Windsor, Ont.) in 1975. In addition, I earned a M.Sc. in geophysics and geochemistry from

the University of Windsor and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in exploration geochemistry

from the School of Applied Geology, University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia) in

1982.

3. I am a Member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba

where I am registered as a P.Geo. and P.Eng. I am also a Fellow of the Association of

Exploration (Applied) Geochemists, a Member of the Prospectors and Developers

Association of Canada and a Certified Professional Geologist registered with the American

Institute of Professional Geologists (Westminster, Colorado).


4. I have worked as a geologist for a total of thirty-two years since my graduation from

university; as a graduate student, as an employee of major and junior mining companies, the

Manitoba Geological Survey and as an independent consultant.

5. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-

101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as

defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a

“qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.

6. I am responsible for the preparation of the technical report titled “Results of A Mobile Metal

Ions (MMI-M) Soil Geochemical Survey On The Golden Pine Property of Namex Explorations

Inc.: Interpretations and Recommendations”.

7. I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of

the Technical Report that is not reflected in the Technical Report, the omission to disclose

which makes the Technical Report misleading.

8. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in section 1.5 of National Instrument

43-101.

9. I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchanges or other regulatory

authority and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company

files on the web sites accessible by the public, of the Technical Report.


10. Dated this 18th Day of March

2008.

M<orI< Fedikow

Mount Morgan Resour.:e. Ltd.

Winnipeg. Manitoba

Table 3. Complete Spearman-Rank correlation coefficient matrix, Namex Golden Pine project (n=227).

AGRR ALRR ASRR AURRAGRR 1ALRR 0.272 1ASRR -0.102 0.241 1AURR 0.279 0.126 0.058 1BARR 0.105 0.123 0.494 0.151BIRR -0.182 -0.074 0.57 0.241CARR 0.025 -0.145 0.314 0.182CDRR 0.171 0.282 0.163 -0.119CERR 0.13 -0.05 0.02 0.499CORR 0.181 0.188 0.288 0.173CRRR 0.072 0.273 0.391 0.338CURR -0.148 0.059 0.572 0.153DYRR 0.169 -0.028 -0.025 0.521ERRR 0.177 -0.005 -0.008 0.494EURR 0.123 -0.064 -0.022 0.508FERR -0.067 0.298 0.753 0.2GDRR 0.129 -0.066 -0.005 0.503LARR 0.097 -0.066 0.069 0.478LIRR -0.029 0.098 0.384 0.053MGRR -0.13 -0.008 0.51 0.192MORR 0.106 0.054 0.284 0.595NBRR 0.037 0.3 0.652 0.284NDRR 0.107 -0.078 0.001 0.493NIRR 0.232 0.343 0.396 0.028PBRR 0.203 0.068 0.145 -0.012PDRR . . . .PRRR 0.103 -0.09 0.009 0.494PTRR -0.222 -0.229 -0.085 -0.157RBRR 0.254 0.234 0.178 0.198SBRR -0.255 -0.149 0.169 -0.131SCRR 0.181 0.033 0.124 0.43SMRR 0.204 0.106 0.124 0.405SNRR -0.307 -0.191 0.244 -0.126SRRR 0.113 0.209 0.293 0.02TARR -0.065 -0.08 -0.008 0.051TBRR -0.091 -0.216 -0.02 0.32TERR -0.264 -0.2 0.017 -0.142THRR -0.224 -0.156 0.223 0.074TIRR 0.246 0.371 0.31 0.344TLRR -0.334 -0.216 0.065 -0.005URR 0.26 0.164 0.114 0.43WRR -0.269 -0.21 0.104 -0.018YRR 0.262 0.12 0.002 0.421YBRR -0.22 -0.241 -0.012 0.038ZNRR 0.353 0.317 0.151 0.101ZRRR 0.308 0.263 0.189 0.372

BIRR CARR CDRR CERRBIRR 1CARR 0.359 1CDRR 0.037 -0.06 1CERR 0.144 0.431 -0.375 1

CORR 0.221 0.302 0.305 0.262CRRR 0.261 0.287 -0.117 0.476CURR 0.566 0.266 0.29 -0.021DYRR 0.075 0.4 -0.335 0.889ERRR 0.084 0.373 -0.304 0.809EURR 0.115 0.436 -0.381 0.94FERR 0.562 0.274 0.055 0GDRR 0.133 0.456 -0.383 0.941LARR 0.188 0.486 -0.406 0.965LIRR 0.392 0.277 -0.038 0.092MGRR 0.529 0.719 0.054 0.314MORR 0.412 0.464 -0.293 0.617NBRR 0.479 0.333 -0.094 0.286NDRR 0.141 0.461 -0.393 0.955NIRR 0.191 0.231 0.644 -0.127PBRR 0.289 0.096 0.371 -0.178PDRR . . . .PRRR 0.158 0.457 -0.403 0.961PTRR 0.161 -0.071 -0.125 -0.207RBRR -0.004 0.207 0.206 0.265SBRR 0.362 0.069 -0.119 -0.075SCRR 0.118 0.392 -0.279 0.793SMRR 0.008 0.259 -0.138 0.598SNRR 0.494 0.148 -0.114 -0.144SRRR 0.098 0.478 0.154 0.154TARR 0.246 0.15 -0.219 0.191TBRR 0.18 0.268 -0.437 0.593TERR 0.249 0.026 -0.133 -0.081THRR 0.408 0.165 -0.301 0.14TIRR 0.102 0.218 0.084 0.344TLRR 0.322 0.152 -0.213 0.033URR -0.025 0.229 -0.109 0.523WRR 0.392 0.15 -0.257 0.062YRR -0.083 0.245 -0.124 0.618YBRR 0.252 0.055 -0.246 0.076ZNRR -0.111 0.08 0.417 0.127ZRRR -0.024 0.208 -0.052 0.454

CRRR CURR DYRR ERRRCRRR 1CURR 0.119 1DYRR 0.357 0.011 1ERRR 0.317 0.044 0.952 1EURR 0.401 0.004 0.954 0.901FERR 0.493 0.444 -0.02 0.017GDRR 0.408 0.024 0.958 0.903LARR 0.47 0.033 0.889 0.812LIRR 0.315 0.178 0.022 0.032MGRR 0.542 0.445 0.239 0.235MORR 0.498 0.165 0.586 0.555NBRR 0.73 0.285 0.201 0.197NDRR 0.428 0.012 0.937 0.875NIRR 0.126 0.419 -0.095 -0.052PBRR -0.196 0.367 -0.105 -0.041PDRR . . . .PRRR 0.424 0.013 0.929 0.863

PTRR -0.418 0.139 -0.28 -0.276RBRR 0.495 0.015 0.264 0.248SBRR -0.223 0.29 -0.158 -0.145SCRR 0.467 0.016 0.841 0.813SMRR 0.573 -0.056 0.634 0.592SNRR -0.132 0.297 -0.258 -0.246SRRR 0.495 0.191 0.131 0.127TARR -0.104 0.079 0.11 0.106TBRR 0.161 0.059 0.592 0.549TERR -0.357 0.206 -0.164 -0.173THRR -0.031 0.225 0.01 -0.033TIRR 0.692 0.033 0.338 0.338TLRR -0.21 0.303 -0.026 -0.03URR 0.525 -0.081 0.588 0.558WRR -0.137 0.235 -0.036 -0.029YRR 0.47 -0.098 0.741 0.734YBRR -0.286 0.171 0.071 0.075ZNRR 0.363 -0.042 0.168 0.163ZRRR 0.625 -0.118 0.465 0.433

FERR GDRR LARR LIRRFERR 1GDRR -0.014 1LARR 0.047 0.954 1LIRR 0.434 0.077 0.135 1MGRR 0.56 0.318 0.369 0.479MORR 0.426 0.607 0.64 0.361NBRR 0.758 0.241 0.317 0.424NDRR -0.012 0.989 0.972 0.089NIRR 0.297 -0.116 -0.126 0.094PBRR 0.052 -0.109 -0.141 0.195PDRR . . . .PRRR -0.013 0.983 0.981 0.096PTRR -0.179 -0.247 -0.171 0.112RBRR 0.255 0.272 0.231 0.078SBRR 0.024 -0.098 -0.012 0.273SCRR 0.107 0.841 0.789 0.105SMRR 0.192 0.637 0.586 -0.052SNRR 0.209 -0.185 -0.082 0.413SRRR 0.332 0.187 0.196 0.12TARR -0.092 0.16 0.228 0.306TBRR -0.002 0.62 0.622 0.02TERR -0.097 -0.12 -0.036 0.17THRR 0.153 0.055 0.18 0.207TIRR 0.477 0.35 0.332 0.179TLRR -0.001 0.01 0.085 0.237URR 0.207 0.556 0.505 -0.034WRR 0.034 0.018 0.112 0.325YRR 0.098 0.702 0.602 -0.084YBRR -0.079 0.07 0.117 0.114ZNRR 0.159 0.126 0.077 -0.035ZRRR 0.275 0.453 0.427 0.028

MORR NBRR NDRR NIRRMORR 1NBRR 0.533 1

NDRR 0.613 0.25 1NIRR 0.05 0.22 -0.13 1PBRR -0.029 -0.009 -0.129 0.333PDRR . . . .PRRR 0.621 0.251 0.995 -0.142PTRR -0.182 -0.329 -0.228 -0.109RBRR 0.256 0.434 0.269 0.283SBRR -0.022 -0.09 -0.073 0.02SCRR 0.56 0.345 0.827 -0.073SMRR 0.447 0.452 0.625 -0.022SNRR 0.046 0.077 -0.159 0.011SRRR 0.144 0.427 0.195 0.263TARR 0.153 -0.082 0.18 -0.039TBRR 0.348 0.097 0.62 -0.314TERR -0.062 -0.213 -0.108 -0.07THRR 0.172 0.123 0.074 -0.157TIRR 0.427 0.68 0.345 0.203TLRR 0.098 -0.125 0.029 -0.108URR 0.467 0.427 0.541 -0.016WRR 0.114 -0.031 0.047 -0.115YRR 0.428 0.313 0.674 -0.011YBRR 0.047 -0.191 0.072 -0.177ZNRR 0.095 0.274 0.11 0.404ZRRR 0.434 0.529 0.439 0.043

PDRR PRRR PTRR RBRRPDRR .PRRR . 1PTRR . -0.193 1RBRR . 0.237 -0.805 1SBRR . -0.042 0.857 -0.655SCRR . 0.819 -0.431 0.408SMRR . 0.602 -0.808 0.698SNRR . -0.132 0.818 -0.587SRRR . 0.169 -0.608 0.626TARR . 0.208 0.689 -0.458TBRR . 0.626 0.185 -0.172TERR . -0.072 0.898 -0.731THRR . 0.111 0.731 -0.585TIRR . 0.32 -0.791 0.797TLRR . 0.055 0.831 -0.673URR . 0.519 -0.811 0.679WRR . 0.078 0.846 -0.662YRR . 0.644 -0.791 0.656YBRR . 0.103 0.823 -0.723ZNRR . 0.078 -0.79 0.747ZRRR . 0.421 -0.809 0.723

SCRR SMRR SNRR SRRRSCRR 1SMRR 0.637 1SNRR -0.296 -0.653 1SRRR 0.315 0.52 -0.366 1TARR 0.017 -0.504 0.691 -0.35TBRR 0.335 0.352 0.18 -0.098TERR -0.291 -0.728 0.803 -0.571

THRR -0.098 -0.38 0.745 -0.4TIRR 0.509 0.748 -0.487 0.66TLRR -0.21 -0.581 0.789 -0.435URR 0.659 0.913 -0.679 0.528WRR -0.145 -0.586 0.874 -0.404YRR 0.713 0.937 -0.691 0.465YBRR -0.158 -0.466 0.725 -0.579ZNRR 0.341 0.536 -0.661 0.53ZRRR 0.639 0.844 -0.612 0.584

TBRR TERR THRR TIRRTBRR 1TERR 0.174 1THRR 0.481 0.788 1TIRR -0.061 -0.743 -0.48 1TLRR 0.354 0.822 0.742 -0.607URR 0.218 -0.745 -0.376 0.759WRR 0.339 0.822 0.79 -0.536YRR 0.329 -0.72 -0.47 0.712YBRR 0.562 0.791 0.796 -0.66ZNRR -0.389 -0.706 -0.666 0.673ZRRR 0.091 -0.76 -0.379 0.856

URR WRR YRR YBRRURR 1WRR -0.596 1YRR 0.892 -0.571 1YBRR -0.511 0.816 -0.437 1ZNRR 0.582 -0.718 0.559 -0.78ZRRR 0.91 -0.569 0.806 -0.57

ZRRRZRRR 1

Number of observations: 227

Table 3. Complete Spearman-Rank correlation coefficient matrix, Namex Golden Pine project (n=227).

BARR

10.3810.5210.0660.2560.3670.5240.31

0.1780.160.22

0.4960.2310.3020.3530.6230.3460.6020.2320.3140.074

.0.236

-0.2150.387

-0.0250.2950.3070.0690.5650.0040.053

-0.1650.0670.501

-0.0490.2830.0030.22

-0.1570.3040.395

CORR

10.340.23

0.2220.2250.2170.270.22

0.2350.1810.4330.2720.3120.2110.4740.163

.0.216

-0.2080.316

-0.0810.2450.176

-0.0550.27

0.053-0.129-0.115-0.0750.354-0.110.217

-0.0890.194

-0.1760.3960.277

EURR

1-0.0220.9910.9490.06

0.2970.6040.23

0.986-0.136-0.137

.0.98

-0.2470.271

-0.1050.8270.638

-0.1940.1760.1580.626

-0.1230.0540.3450.0090.5540.0140.6970.07

0.1220.445

MGRR

10.4860.5850.3280.3080.032

.0.324

-0.1780.3460.0680.3040.2690.2120.5390.0780.105

-0.0720.0640.4330.0930.2110.13

0.215-0.0930.1750.237

PBRR

1.

-0.1210.171

-0.0250.201

-0.053-0.2060.1820.0020.176

-0.1490.1830.044

-0.0940.104-0.140.136

-0.1480.1440.024

-0.129

SBRR

1-0.247-0.6740.847

-0.4020.73

0.2090.8390.716

-0.5930.819

-0.6820.885

-0.6660.747-0.65

-0.655

TARR

10.1950.715

0.558-0.4140.686

-0.4880.792

-0.4310.615

-0.473-0.448

TLRR

1-0.585

0.87-0.560.785

-0.714-0.634

ZNRR

10.634

Documents

Results of A Mobile Metal Ions (MMI-M) Soil Geochemical ...Mineral Services (Toronto) to monitor analytical accuracy and precision. Analytical blanks monitor laboratory-based contamination