6.

0 MINERALIZATION

Nickeliferrous laterite deposits are present over a broad region in the Agata Projects area
(Figure 4). They are divided into two (2) major areas known as the ANLP and the ASLP. Based
on mapping, the former has an area of approximately 286 hectares while the latter comprises
about 235 hectares. In the ANLP, drilling is concentrated in about eighty (80) percent of the
interpreted nickel laterite mineralization to date.

The laterites are developed over ultramafic rocks that lie along the Western Range. The rock
types within the ultramafics are harzburgite, serpentinized harzburgite, peridotite,
serpentinized peridotite, pyroxenite, serpentinized pyroxenite, serpentinite with localized
lenses of dunite/serpentinized dunite. The ultramafic bodies are of probable Cretaceous age,
and were emplaced as part of an ophiolite sequence during the Upper Eocene (Abrasaldo,
1999). Formation of the laterites is thought to have occurred during the Pliocene or early
Pleistocene. The largest of the laterite bodies overlies the central ultramafic body (Figure 7).

Initially, MRL undertook aerial photograph interpretations and field inspections, to define
areas of potential laterite formation. The soil profile is intensely ferruginous in this region,
and relic cobbles of intensely fractured and serpentinized ultramafic rock lie scattered
throughout the region of observed laterite development. At higher elevations along the
topographic divide, ferruginous pisolites and blocks of lateritic crust were observed
developed on an ultramafic protolith.

Nickel laterites are the products of laterization or intense chemical weathering of the
ultramafic rocks, especially the olivine-rich varieties like harzburgite and dunite. The high
rainfalls and intense weathering breaks down the easily weathered harzburgite and dunite
and the more mobile elements of Mg and Si tend to leave the profile at a much faster rate
than the less mobile Fe and Ni/Co. Thus high Fe laterite and limonite zones overlie the
weathering saprolite of the ultramafic rocks and where erosion of the upper Fe laterite is low
quite deep depths can be formed (<10m).

The Ni mineralization is predominantly at the base of the Fe laterite and the top of the
saprolite, as this mineral is concentrated in minerals that can hold it within their matrix
(limonite and to a lesser degree hematite, goethite and Fe-rich clays in the Fe Laterite, and
more primary Mg rich clays (saponite and stevensite) in the ultramafic saprolite. When
weathering is very deep, in zones of interpreted crush or fault zones, then more Ni can be
located in the Fe laterite, but predominantly the largest Ni enrichment is within the saprolite
of the underlying ultramafic rock near the contact zone with the Fe laterite.

Within the saprolitic ultramafic there are areas of more weathering resistant “boulders” and
these tend to carry less Ni mineralization than the surrounding more degraded saprolite – this
is related to the lower level presence of the Mg rich clays and their capacity to carry Ni and Co
within their structure.

Patches of garnierite are present within the saprolite. A bundant garnierite was observed in a
trench along the slopes on the western portion of ANLP.
7.0 EXPLORATION

All exploration work on the Agata Project carried out by Mindoro was under the direct supervision
of
James A. Climie, P.Geol., Exploration Manager. Local staff formed the exploration team
with qualified geologists logging all drill core and the site manager also being a qualified
geologist.

7.1 MRL General Exploration (1997-2000)

Initial work by MRL on the Agata Project from 1997 to 2000 comprised a geological evaluation
conducted by Marshall Geoscience Services Pty Ltd. It was part of a due-diligence assessment of
the property prior to entering into a Joint Venture with Minimax. This work suggested that
hydrothermal gold mineralization at Agata is related to andesitic or dioritic intrusives, that vein
mineralization is representative of the upper levels of a porphyry system and that there is
prospectivity for skarn mineralization within limestones on the property (Marshall, 1997; Climie
et al., 2000).

The 1st phase of exploration activity commenced in May 1997 in the Assmicor region and
consisted of grid establishment followed by soil geochemical survey (1,617 soil samples
analyzed for Au, Ag, Cu, Pb, Zn, As), geological mapping plus selective rockchip sampling and
petrographic studies. Furthermore, DOZ technologies of Quebec, Canada, interpreted a
RadarSat image of the Agata area and generated a 1:50,000 scale interpretation of the region.
In addition, MRL re-sampled by channel sampling, five test pits (ATP-1 to ATP-5) excavated by
La Playa Mining Corporation. These pits
encountered laterite thicknesses of 2.48 to 9.40 meters. The composited assay values for each
of the re-sampled test pits range from 0.43% to 0.94% nickel.

The 2nd phase of exploration activities on the Agata Projects was undertaken between June
1999 and December 1999. This included grid re-establishment, geological mapping within the
Assmicor Prospect and American Tunnels, ground magnetic survey, soil geochemistry (50
samples), rock/core sampling, petrography and drilling of 11 holes. (Climie et al., 2000).

The soil sampling survey generated widespread Cu and Au soil anomalies. Soil Cu anomalies
tend to be closely restricted to mapped intrusions at American Tunnels and Assmicor-Lao. Soil
Au anomalies are more widespread and extend into the surrounding and overlying carbonate
rocks. In contrast, soil As anomalies appear to be weakly developed over the intrusions but
more strongly developed over carbonates. The Cu and Au soil anomalies associated with the
Assmicor-Lao prospect region (Figures 10-11) are open to the east beneath the alluvial flood
plain sediments of the Tubay River. The potential for an extension of the Assmicor
mineralization to the immediate east beneath the Tubay River floodplain is strengthened by
the observation that the dikes and intrusives encountered in drilling at
Assmicor dip towards the east, that porphyry-like quartz veins were encountered in drillhole DH
99-
11, which lies east of the Assmicor prospect, and the evidence of a resistivity anomaly
developing on the edge of the IP survey east of the Assmicor prospect.
Nineteen surface channel samples were collected in the Limestone Prospect area (Figure 13).
Sixteen of these samples yielded grades ranging from 0.02 g/t Au to 0.85 g/t Au. Three of the
samples
graded 2.79 g/t Au over 3.7 meters, 3.77 g/t Au over 2 meters and 1.48 g/t Au over 3 meters.
The channel samples indicate a zone of anomalous gold above 0.1 g/t in rock samples that
extends over an area of 100m by 50m in oxidized limestone.

Petrographic analyses by Comsti (1997) and Comsti (1998) reveal that the intrusive rocks at
Agata consist of alkalic, silica-undersaturated plutonic rocks. These comprise of syenites and
monzonites that display varying degrees of sericitic and propylitic alteration. Potassic
feldspar is a primary mineral phase in many of these rocks.

An in-house ground magnetic survey was conducted in 1999. The magnetic data comprised a
series of semi-continuous magnetic highs, with values >40250nT, that broadly coincide with
the distribution of ultramafic rocks along the western margin of the Lao and Assmicor areas.
The magnetic signature decreases gradually westward where the ultramafics are thought to be
buried at deeper levels beneath the limestones.

MRL drilled eleven (11) diamond drill holes into the Assmicor and Limestone prospects in 1999
and encountered Au intersections associated with limonitic stockworks in biotite monzodiorite
intrusive. These include 18.8m @ 1.13 g/t Au and 24.2m @ 1.38 g/t Au in holes DH 99-05 and
DH 99-06, respectively. The intrusives comprise larger biotite monzodiorite bodies that are
cross-cut by younger diorite dikes, plagioclase diorite dikes, biotite diorites and quartz diorites.
These dikes and intrusive bodies dip predominantly eastward, suggesting that a deeper
magmatic source lies to the east, possibly along the trace of the Lake Mainit splay of the
Philippine Fault, beneath the alluvial floodplain of the Tubay River. Drillhole DH 99-11, collared
east of the Assmicor shaft, intersected porphyry-style quartz-magnetite veins in biotite diorite,
quartz diorite and in hornblende-quartz diorite.

7.2 MRL General Exploration (2004-2009)

MRL undertook a third phase of exploration activity in 2004 on the Agata Project. This activity
involved gridding, mapping and extensive grid-based pole-dipole induced polarization (IP)
geophysical surveying along 30 east-west-oriented survey lines that extend from 7,800 mN to
13,400 mN. The IP data were acquired by Elliot Geophysics International using a Zonge GGT-10
transmitter,
a Zonge GDP-32 receiver and a 7.5 KVA generator. A total of 77.10 km of grid were surveyed by
pole- dipole IP. The dipole spacing used in the survey was 150 meters. The data were modelled
by Dr Peter Elliot of Elliot Geophysics International using inversion modelling.

Induced polarization (IP) surveying on the Agata Project has identified numerous IP
chargeability anomalies that form finger-like apophyses at shallow levels, and which
amalgamate into larger anomalies at deeper levels. The IP chargeability anomalies tend to
strengthen with depth in the core anomaly regions (Southern Target anomaly and Northern
Target anomaly). The IP chargeability anomalies attain values that locally exceed 40 msecs, and
routinely exceed 20 msecs on most of the IP pseudo-sections from Agata. Weaker modeled IP
chargeability anomalies are associated with known mineralization at Assmicor (10-18 msec) and
in other satellite positions adjacent to the two cores Northern and Southern target anomalies.
There is an indication, from the four plan views of
the IP chargeability data, that NNW to NW faults may be important in controlling the
distribution and shape of many of the IP anomalies at Agata. Faults that lie along these
trends are expected to lie in a dilational orientation in relation to the regional stress field
associated with sinistral movement on the near north-trending Philippine Fault splay.

Preliminary drilling on the Agata Project was carried out between November 2, 2005 and October
28, 2006. This was conducted under a joint-venture among MRL, Panoro Minerals Ltd.
(Panoro), and Minimax. The prospects were highly recommended priority targets for drill
evaluation as these prospects exhibit classic stacking of geophysical, geological and
geochemical features associated
with Philippine porphyry copper-gold systems (Rohrlach, 2005). The preliminary drilling program
was
aimed to test the area of highest chargeabilities in the North and South Porphyry Targets.

Great operational difficulties were encountered in extraordinarily bad ground conditions. A

total of five drill holes with a combined length of only 756.45 meters were completed, four of
which were drilled within the North Porphyry Target and one at South Porphyry Target. All
five holes were prematurely terminated, not reaching target depths. The chargeability
anomalies were interpreted
to occur at around 375m below surface (N=4) based on IP geophysical inversion models. The
deepest hole bottomed at only 251.20m, a long way from the 500-meter target.

All drill holes have intersected and bottomed in strongly serpentinized ultramafics with very
minimal pyrite mineralization. Dr. Peter Elliot, Consulting Geophysicist, affirmed that the
serpentine was not the cause of the anomalies, and would only cause a weak IP anomaly.

From 2008 to 2009, underground mapping and sampling (continuous rock chip and grab
sampling) of the American Tunnels prospect was undertaken. To date, results of 48 rock
samples have been reported by Mindoro. Significant results include an aggregate of 26m @
1.94 g/t Au; 21.90m @ 3.67
%Cu; and 17.5m @ 2.01% Cu. Results of the underground sampling are incorporated in
the rock geochemistry map.

7.3 MRL Laterite Ni Exploration

Lateritic Nickel mineralization was known within the ANLP area since the early 1990's and grades
were confirmed in the development of test pits in 1997 (See Section 7.1). The project since this
initial definition has moved ahead so as to better define the resource and to provide better
technical information with regards to eventual exploitation.

In June 2004, Taganito Mining Corporation was selected from several interested parties and
granted the non-exclusive right to assess the nickel laterite potential of the Agata Project.
Taganito carried out two phases of evaluation and reported encouraging results. Forty-eight
surface laterite and rock samples were collected from an area of about 300 ha within a much
more extensive area of nickel laterite mineralization. Nickel contents range from very low to a
high of 2.09%, with most of the values exceeding 0.5%. Taganito considered these values to be
within the range that normally cap the secondary nickel enriched zone and have recommended
a detailed geological survey and drilling. However, MRL elected to allow Queensland Nickel
Phils., Inc. (QNPH) to proceed with a reconnaissance drill program in 2006.
Since Taganito, exploration has been carried out by the use of open core drilling on a drill
pattern that has been successively closed down with each subsequent drill program so as to
enhance the accuracy of the future reported lateritic Ni resource. All drilling to date has been
completed by the use of small mobile open hole NQ coring rigs, which are highly mobile in
difficult to access terrain. Recovery from these drill rigs is high, with losses generally occurring
where there are changes in the hardness of the drilled material, causing material to be
disrupted at the bit face. The major ore zone is generally a softer material and losses within
the ore zones have been minimal at all stages of the drilling programs. A variety of contractors
have been used over time, with the drilling rate being the only variation with regards to their
performance and sampling rate.

Each of the individual drill programs will be discussed and summarized.

BHP-Billiton (2006)

QNPH, a subsidiary of BHP-Billiton, conducted reconnaissance drilling over the ANLP from January
23, 2006 to April 26, 2006 at an initial drilling grid of 200m x 200m followed by in-fill drilling at
100- m grid spacing. A full report of the drilling program entitled “Evaluation of Preliminary
Exploration on Agata Nickel Laterite Prospect of MRL Gold Philippines, Inc, Agusan del Norte,
Philippines” was completed by QNPH in June 2006 and submitted to MRL immediately
thereafter. A total of 35 holes were drilled over an area of approximately 80 ha, which is 21%
of the 340-hectare ANLP. The drillhole locations are incorporated in the MRL's AGL Drillhole
Location Map (Figure 8).
Figure 8: ANLP Drillhole Location Map – BHP-Billiton and MRL (2007) Drilling.
This drilling program was subsequent to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed
between MRL and QNPH on December 5, 2005. The MOU allowed QNPH to conduct
exploration in the property, which also include technical review and geological mapping. It
was intended to evaluate and establish resource potential of the area and as a possible
Yabulu Refinery ore source, and to present a resource model. QNPH were looking for high Ni
/ high Fe ore and were not intending to formalise any agreements with MRL until the results
of the exploration proved positive.

To evaluate the potential of the ANLP for the Chinese market, MRL commissioned Denny
Ambagan to re-evaluate QNPH's data with the aim of estimating low-grade resources for the
Chinese market. Ambagan is a geologist, who worked for Crew Minerals in its Lagonoy and
Mindoro nickel laterite exploration areas for three years. An in-house estimate was tabled.
QNPH post this estimate did not take up an option with MRL with regards to the ANLP.

MRL Phase 1 (2007)

The first drilling program in the ANLP managed and developed by MRL was conducted from
February
22 to August 3, 2007 with 100 holes completed and a total meterage of 2267.12. Drilling was
confined to the area defined for an initial DSO operation. The drilling area related to areas
covered by initial Exploration Targets A and B. The drilling rate averaged 3.8m / day / drill rig
and the recovery of drill core over the program was 88.2%.

MRL Phase 2 (2007/08)

A follow-up infill drilling program in ANLP was started in December 17, 2007 to May 30, 2008,
completing 773.12 meters in 48 drill holes (37 new drill holes and 11 twin holes). The purpose
of this exercise was to better define the mineralization and extend the initial resource. The
drilling rate averaged 4.6m / day / drill rig and the recovery of drill core over the program was
93.9%.

MRL Phase 3 (2008)

From June 18, 2008 to September 26, 2008, step-out drilling was carried out with hole spacing
widened to 100m by 100m centers. Drilling totaled 3,601 meters in 225 holes. This program
was aimed to drill out the greater part of Agata North resource potential based on areas
covered by Exploration Targets C and D. The drilling rate averaged 11.5m / day / drill rig and
the recovery of drill core over the program was 95.0%.

A total of 408 vertical holes were completed during the first 4 phases of drilling in the ANLP,
including the previous BHP-Billiton drilling. The drilling patterns are all located on a 50m- to
100m- spaced grid. Total meterage is 7,300.83 with an average depth of 17.89m/per hole, a
maximum of
46.6m, and a minimum of 4.35m.
MRL Phase 4 (2010)

During 2010 the program continued to infill the resource so as to gain both a greater level of
accuracy for the resource estimate, but also to be able to study the variography of the
resource within a close spaced pattern combining both high grade limonite and saprolite ores.
From April 23,
2010 to July 10, 2010 infill drilling totalled 147 drill holes for 2682 meters of drilling. The drilling
rate
averaged 13.6m / day / drill rig and the recovery of drill core over the program was 91.5%.
Lower recovery is explained by the variably lithified ultramafic in the close spaced pattern to
be used for variographical purposes, this is not common throughout the deposit but the
location weighting in this program has skewed the recovery data.

For the resource being compiled in this report the total number of drill holes completed is
593 for
10,851.84m meters of drilling with an average drill hole depth being 18.30m. All drill
holes
completed within the ANLP area are located on Figure 9. All cross sections are in
Appendix 1.

Figure 9: ANLP Drillhole Location Map –

All Drilling
Summary

All exploration completed to date has been systematic and appropriate with regards to the
development of a resource estimate. The author considers the drilling methodology used
within the ANLP area and the various sample recovery rates appropriate and accurate with
regards to providing a sampling platform for resource estimation.

7.4 Drillhole Collars Survey

Surveying of drill hole collars' position and elevation was undertaken by MRL surveyors using
a Nikon Total Station DTM-332. This, together with the topographic survey of the ANLP is tied
to five National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) satellite/GPS points
and benchmarks with certified technical descriptions (Table 3). The Reference System used is
PRS 92 or WGS 84, used interchangeably by mathematical conversions.
Consequently, the baseline for the local gridlines is based on 51 MRL control stations. About
65,535 survey points, including drillhole collars, were established with varying shot distances.
These are downloaded into the computer by seamless data transfer, imported to MAPINFO,
which are then used for the Digital Terrain Modeling to derive the contour map.

Table 3: NAMRIA Tie Points Technical Description

STATIO LATITUDE LONGITUDE EASTIN NORTHIN LOCATION

N G G
SW-end corner of Sta. Ana
AGN_45 9°11'07.8873 125°33'39.0440 561636.2 1015703.0
Bridge, Tubay
8" 9" 87 65
NW-end corner of Sta. Ana
AGN_46 9°11'11.2948 125°33'39.2849 561643.4 1015807.7
Bridge, Tubay
0" 1" 76 56
AGN_48 562018.6 1019260.7
01 84
NW-end corner of Puyo
AGN_15 9°19'23.0276 125°33'15.9510 560907.6 1030913.1
Bridge, Jabonga
3 1" 8" 23 82
NW-end corner of
AGN_15 9°19'14.6825 125°33'13.7244 560840.0 1030656.7
Bangonay
4 9" 9" 77 07
Bridge, Jabonga

8.0 SAMPLING AND ASSAYING

8.1 MRL Sampling Procedure

The ANLP QA/QC Procedures for the whole ANLP drilling program was set up by MRL
geologists and was followed by all personnel involved in all stages of the program (Appendix
2). This was adapted from the QA/QC Protocols of QNPH for the 2006 drill program carried out
on the ANLP. Periodically, the protocols were evaluated and improvements implemented. The
core handling, logging and sampling procedures applied in the program are briefly described
below.

Core checkers, under the supervision of MRL technical personnel, are present on every drill
rig during operation. This is to record drilling activities from core recovery, core run, pull-out
and put- back, casing and reaming at the drill site. Once a core box is filled, it is sealed with a
wooden board then secured with a rubber packing band. This is placed in a sack and
manually carried to the core house some 300m to 1km m from the drill area.
Core logging was carried out in the core shed by MRL geologists. For standardization of
logging procedures, the geologists are guided by different codes for laterite horizon
classification, weathering scale, boulder size, and color.

After logging, the geologist determines the sampling interval. Core sampling interval is
generally at one (1) meter intervals down the hole, except at laterite horizon boundaries,
when actual boundaries are used. The sample length across the boundaries is normally in the
range of 1.0 ±
0.30m to avoid excessively short and long samples. In the saprolitic rocks and bedrock layers,
some sample intervals have lengths greater than 1.30 meters to a maximum of 2.00 meters.
 8.2 MRL Sampling Protocols

As in all stages of the program, the ANLP QA/QC Procedures (Appendix 2) were diligently
followed during the sample preparation and security procedures. The analyses for the first
2,689 core samples were performed by McPhar Geoservices (Philippines), Inc. (McPhar), which
follows internationally- accepted laboratory standards in sample handling, preparation and
analysis.

For the rechecking of the integrity of laboratory assays, independent consultant Dr. Bruce D.
Rohrlach, also a qualified person, provided MRL geologists with sampling procedures in May,
2007 after several site visits. This was incorporated into the QA/QC Procedures.

Following the recommendations of another qualified person, F. Roger Billington in May,

2008, the sampling protocols were slightly modified. The most important modification was
the insertion of pulp rejects in the same batch as the mainstream samples. This is to ensure
that all conditions in assaying are similar, if not completely the same for both the
mainstream and check samples. All of the analyses are completed by Intertek Testing
Services, Phils., Inc. (ITS) for analysis using the XRF analytical method, and thus all 8,411 core
samples since have been analysed by this group.

The ITS Phils. facility is among Intertek's global network of mineral testing laboratories. It
provides high quality assay analysis of mineral samples for nickel deposit exploration
projects. Intertek mineral testing laboratories implement quality protocols.

MRL Core Sampling

During the first two phases of drilling, whole core sampling was conducted for 132 drill holes,
and 17 holes were split-sampled. Whole core considering the relatively small core diameter,
and to achieve better precision by assaying the largest possible sample.

Whole core splitting was manually performed. The core was laid on a canvas sheet, pounded
and crushed by use of a pick, thoroughly mixed, quartered, then the split sample is taken from
2 opposite quarter portions. The other 2 quarters are combined and kept as a duplicate in a
properly- sealed and labelled plastic bag and arranged in core boxes according to depth. The
duplicates are stored in the core house at the Agata Base Camp, some 1.5 km from the drill
area.

For the third and latest drilling phase, split-sampling was conducted to ensure the availability
of reference samples in the future (except for 45 drillholes from the third drilling phase). The
cores were cut in half using either a core saw or spatula. The remaining half is stored in
properly-labelled core boxes at the Mindoro Camp site in Agata.

The sampling interval is marked in the core box by means of masking tape/aluminum strip
labeled with the sampling depth. The sample collected is placed in a plastic bag with
dimension of 35cm x
25cm secured with a twist tie. The plastic bag is labelled with the hole number and sample
interval.
After the samples are collected, they are weighed then sun-dried for about 5 hours and
weighed again before final packing for delivery to the laboratory. In cases where there is
continuous rain, the samples are pan-dried for 5-6 hours using the constructed drying facility
or wood-fired oven.

MRL prepared its own sample tags for all samples including pulp repeats, pulp standards, and
coarse rejects samples. The samples were placed in a rice sack and then in a crate to ensure
the security of the samples during transport.

For all of the 2007 cores and batch 2008 AGL 10, the prepared samples were sent to the
McPhar laboratory in Makati City, Metro Manila via a local courier (LBC Express). The samples
were carefully packed in craters with proper labels. This was accompanied by an official
Submission Form and a Courier Transmittal Form. The crates were transported to Butuan City
where LBC Express branches are present. The transportation of the crates containing the
samples is always accompanied by designated MRL staff. The courier received the package and
provided MRL with receipts indicating contents. For batches 2008 AGL 1, 3 and 6, the samples
were delivered by MRL to McPhar's sample preparation facility in General Santos City. The
assaying was performed in their laboratory in Makati City.

Counting and cross-checking of samples vis-à-vis the McPhar Submission Form were performed
by McPhar supervisors. Notice is given to MRL if there are discrepancies, otherwise it is
understood that sample preparation and analysis will be carried out as requested. A sample
tracking, quality control, and reporting system was maintained between MRL and McPhar.

For batches 2008 AGL-13, 16, 18 and onwards, the core samples were delivered to Intertek's
sample preparation facility in Surigao City. Likewise, checking of samples against the list was
done upon submission. Once prepared, Intertek-Surigao sends the samples to their assay
laboratory in Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila.

The core sampling and logging facility was under the supervision of MRL geologist or mining
engineer at all times. This facility was originally within the drill area and is about 300m to 1km
from the drill pads, however though logging of the core was completed at the drill rig for the
phase 4 drilling, core trays were delivered to Bgy. E. Morgado base camp for sample splitting
preparation under the guidance of MRL staff. A civilian guard secures the base camp premises
during the night.

The ANLP drilling was directly under the supervision of James A. Climie, P. Geol., Exploration
Manager of Mindoro.

Checking of Laboratory Performance

In addition to stringent sampling protocols, QA/QC procedures were also employed following
Dr. B. Rohrlach's and FR Billington's (MRL independent consultants) guidelines. Standard
reference materials, field duplicates, coarse rejects and pulp rejects were resubmitted to the
analysing laboratory to check the accuracy of the primary laboratory results. A total of 1269
analyses of check samples were used in confirming the accuracy and repeatability of all assays
to be used within the resource estimation of the ANLP. Selection of check samples are spread
throughout all holes and in various laterite horizons.
The field duplicates totalled 325 or 2.93% of the 11,100 mainstream core samples of MRL.
Normally,
1 in every 20 core samples is duplicated. The duplicate sample is selected to ascertain that the
full range of different laterite horizons is systematically covered. The samples were selected to
cover the full range of Ni grades at Agata, and to extensively cover the different stages and
spatial distribution of the drill program, so as to provide a representative check on the
reliability of the original sample splitting process undertaken by MRL at Agata North. Originally,
the splitting method is the same as for obtaining duplicates for storage but 1/4 part of the
prepared sample represents the field duplicate while the 3/4 part is the regular sample. For the
half-core sampling, the field duplicates were taken by cutting the remaining ½ core into 2.
These samples were sent to the laboratory in the same batch and were treated in the same
way as the mainstream core samples.

A set of 81 coarse reject samples, comprising 0.73 % of the 11,100 core samples, were
submitted to the laboratory where the original samples were analyzed for resampling and
assaying. Resampling was done by taking a duplicate split from the coarse rejects and then
placing it back into the assay stream for analysis. Again, as in all duplicates, the submitted
samples were chosen to cover the natural range of assays. The reanalysis of the coarse reject
samples was undertaken as an internal check on the crushing and sub-sampling procedures of
the laboratory to ensure that the samples taken for analysis were representative of the bulk
sample.

There were two sets of pulp rejects sent for re-assaying. One was sent to the laboratory where
it was originally analyzed. A total of 250 pulp rejects were sent under this category. The other
set was sent to an umpire laboratory wherein a total of 319 pulp rejects were analyzed. This is
to establish reproducibility of analysis and determine the presence or absence of bias between
laboratories. Samples were taken on all of the different laterite horizons. Originally, pulp rejects
were collected and sent in separate batches. Starting on June 2008, pulps were inserted
together with the mainstream samples (1 in each set of 40 samples). The pulp rejects for inter-
laboratory checking
were sent at a later date.

The umpire laboratory for the 2007 drilling program was Intertek in Jakarta. Selected pulp
samples were sent by MRL to Intertek's Manila office, after which they forward the samples
to Jakarta in Intertek Cilandak Commercial Estate 103E, JI Cilandak KKO, Jakarta 12560.
Intertek (Jakarta) has acquired an ISO 17025 2005 accreditation from KAN (National
Accreditation Body of Indonesia) denominated as LP 130_IDN. This is valid until 2010. With
the change of primary laboratory to Intertek Phils., Mcphar becomes the umpire laboratory.
In 2008, Mcphar samples/assays were checked by Intertek Phils. and vice-versa.

Nickel standards or certified reference materials are routinely inserted to the batches of
core samples sent for assaying. This is done as a double check on the precision of the
analytical procedures of Mcphar and Intertek on a batch by batch basis. The standards,
which have known
assay values for Ni, were provided by Geostats Pty Ltd of Australia in pulverized (pulp) form
weighing about 5 grams contained in 7.5cm X 10cm heavy duty plastic bags. Originally, one (1)
standard sample is inserted for every batch of 40 to 45 samples. However, there were some
standards
inserted in smaller intervals of 25-35 samples. Starting with Batch 2008 AGL-18, one
standard sample was included in every set of approximately 40 samples. In all, 294
standards equivalent to
2.65 % of the core samples were used.
Eighteen types of Ni standards were used with grade ranging from 0.01% to 2 % Ni. Each one
comes with a certificate that shows the accepted mean Ni value and standard deviation, which
are available in the website of Geostats (www.geostats.com.au). The specific nickel standards
and the frequency
of using each one are listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Ni Standards used at ANLP and frequency

# #
Ni Standard Assay %Ni Ni Standard Assay %Ni
s s

GBM305-9 3 0.2 GBM906-7 6 0.5

GBM307-13 2 5 GBM996-1 5 6
GBM901-1 1 2 GBM302-8 6 1.2
GBM903-2 6 0.8 GBM397-6 5 7

GBM905-13 5 0.1 GBM901-4 6 1.0

GBM906-8 5 1 GBM903-5 10 8

GBM398-4 2 1.5 GBM995-4 10 0.0

7 1 3
GBM900-9 GBM997-4 5
4 0.5 0.0
GBM901-2 GBM998-3 8
1 5 2
4 0.4 0.1
4 1 8
5 1.1 0.0
5 6 3
8 0.8 0.0
8 1
0.0
3

9 Standards 2 9 Standards 6
3 1
3

8.3 Laboratory Protocols

McPhar Geoservices (Phil.), Inc.
McPhar carries out high quality sample preparation and analytical procedures. It is an ISO 9001-
2000-accredited laboratory and has been providing assay laboratory services to both
local and foreign exploration and mining companies for more than 35 years. It served as
the primary laboratory for the ANLP drilling. Its address is 1869 P. Domingo St., Makati
City, Metro Manila.

Mcphar's sample preparation procedures and analytical processing are illustrated in the
flowcharts below. Each sample is analyzed for nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), magnesium
(Mg), aluminum (Al), silica (SiO2) and some samples for phosphorous (P). The Ni, Co, Fe, Mg
and Al are assayed by dissolving a 25g charge with a two acid digest using hot hydrochloric
(HCl) and nitric acid (HNO3) and reading the results by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS).
The SiO2 and P are analyzed by a gravimetric process.

McPhar has its own Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) program incorporated in their
sample preparation and analyses procedures. Every tenth sample and samples with
"anomalous" results, ie, samples having abnormally high or low results within a sample batch,
are routinely checked. This is done by preparing a solution different from the solution on the
regular sample taken on the same pulp of a particular sample.

Intertek Testing Services Phils., Inc.

Intertek Testing Services Phils., Inc. is among Intertek's global network of mineral testing
laboratories. It provides quality assay analysis of mineral samples for nickel deposit
exploration
projects. Measures are taken by Intertek mineral testing laboratories to ensure that correct
method development and quality protocols are in place to produce good quality results.

Each sample is analyzed for nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al),
silica (SiO2), CaO, Cr2O3, K2O, MnO, Na2O, P2O5, and TiO2. Whole rock analyses are done
using X-ray Fluorescence. The samples are fused using lithium metaborate. XRF analysis
determines total element concentrations that are reported as oxides.

For its internal QAQC, Intertek performs repeat analyses plus split sample analyses in every
15-20 samples. Furthermore, on the average, one standard reference material is inserted in
every 40 samples, and one blank in every 60 samples.

Flowcharts of McPhar and intertek sample preparation and analysis procedure

flowsheets are presented in Appendix 3.

8.4 Internal Check Assays (McPhar and Intertek)

The laboratories of Mcphar and Intertek in Manila have a Quality Assurance/Quality Control
programs incorporated in their sample preparation and analyses procedures. The two
laboratories regularly conduct duplicate analysis of Ni and other elements as a check on
analytical reproducibility within their own laboratories. Repeats are routinely conducted on all
elements being analyzed and are typically on every 10th sample for McPhar and on every 20 th
sample for Intertek. All in all there are 770 (6.94%) repeat analyses that are spread evenly
throughout the entire database.

In analyzing the correlation between the original and duplicate sample, the Variance between
the primary assay and the duplicate was computed as follows:

(
a
–
b
)
Var = x 100

Where: a - is the original sample analyzed

b - is the duplicate sample analyzed

and

Var - is the percentage relative

difference.

To interpret the Variance value, a value of zero means the two values are identical and the
duplication is perfect, a negative value means the duplicate is higher, while a positive value
means the original is higher. Values less than 10% variance (either negative or positive), are
considered excellent when reviewing comparative samples within lateritic Ni deposit assays.
[NB This methodology is used in all sections of Chapter 8.0 Sampling and Assaying within this
report.]

There is an excellent correlation for all of the elements within an internal repeat with all
below Variances <1% (0.03 – 0.28%) as shown in Table 5, which is consistent with high
precision repeatability. There is generally a very even spread of the check assay being both
higher and lower than the primary assay which indicates that there is no systematic bias
occurring in the check analyses routine.
Table 5: Variance of Original and Internal Laboratory Duplicate Analyses

Internal Laboratory Comparitive Statistics

McPhar
Ni Co Fe Al Mg S
0.05% -0.26% -0.15% -0.08% 0.28% i
Variance from 1st 0.03
Assay 98 204 4 98 23 %

84 38 146 94 137
Duplicates = 1st 90 30 122 80 112 1
Assay Duplicates < 6
1st Assay
Duplicates > 1st 1
Assay 2
0
Intert 1
ek 3
6
Ni Co Fe Al Mg S
-0.06% 0.36% 0.09% -0.04% 0.33% i
Variance from 1st 0.01%
Assay 15 74 0 5 0
100 73 98 107 105 2
Duplicates = 1st 117 85 134 120 127 115
Assay Duplicates <
115
1st Assay
Duplicates > 1st
Assay

8.5 External Check Assays (MRL)

MRL has also set up its own QA/QC protocols vis-à-vis the laboratories' sample
preparation and analytical procedures, which the author has observed in the field
and analysed the results for this report. The external laboratory checks determine
the assaying laboratories to replicate a known standard, the repeatability of the
assay from the field splitting and the pulp repeats (ie external and internal repeats of
the primary assays), the consistency of grade between laboratories, and the
determination of any bias within the sample preparation process through the
analyses of the coarse rejects. It is a comprehensive series of analyses compiled to
ensure grade estimates are of the highest calibre.

Nickel Standards

As a double check on the precision of the analytical procedures of both Mcphar and
Intertek laboratories, nickel standards were inserted by MRL into the sample runs at
approximately 1 to 45 samples on the average. A total of 303 nickel standards,
representing 2.73 % of the 11,100 core samples were sent. These standards were
purchased from Geostats Pty. Ltd of Australia. Twelve types of standards were used
for the whole drilling course to date, with grade ranging from 0.11 to
2.00 % nickel.

Table 6 presents the data standards for nickel for two of the Ni standards used by
MRL which were lateritic nickel standards and most closely related to the ANLP
samples submitted. From the statistical analyses it is confirmed that the external
standards submitted by MRL fell within a small range from the accepted mean, and
that comparative statistics were well within acceptable
standards. A point to note is that both McPhar and Intertek consistently
underestimated Fe for both standards, and though the variation is <3.2% of the Ni
standards Fe grade, it was the only example of a systematic variation encountered
within the dataset.

Table 6: Variance of Ni Standard and

Laboratory Assays

Ni Standard GBM901-1 Ni Standard GBM905-13

Ni Co Fe N C F
i o e
Variance from - - Variance from
Std 1.66% 8.68% 3.15% Std -0.33% -
4.25% 1.92%

# Assays = Std 0 0 0 # Assays = Std 0 2 0

# Assays > Std 46 4 0 # Assays > Std 25 2 0
5 0
# Assays < Std 9 10 55 # Assays < Std 16 19 41

The graphical representation of the standards data shows that the Ni grade is
extremely consistent within the standard and within both standards the check
assays vary above and below the standard's value (Figure 10). However, when a
new batch of the same standard was put into the sample runs the minor
elements within the standard varied (especially Co), and this indicates the
difficulty of ensuring an even spread of the minor elements within a product like
a Ni standard. The variation for the minor elements can therefore be explained by
batch variation rather than a systematic error within the assaying process.

Field Duplicates
The analytical reproducibility of field duplicate samples is a measure of the
representativity of the original split of the sample, a check on the reliability of
the sample reduction procedure (splitting) undertaken by MRL at the field area.

The field duplicates were sent together with the regular core samples for assaying.
A total of 325 core field duplicates (2.93% of the 11,100 core samples) were
analyzed. Of these, 134 were analyzed by Mcphar (1 in 20 cores) while 191
duplicates were by Intertek (1 in every 40 samples).

Table 7: Variance of Field Duplicate and Original Assays

 Field Duplicates Comparitive Statistics

Ni Co Fe Al Mg Si
Variance from Assay -0.16% -2.1% 0.1% 0.3% -0.6% -0.9% (Abs Variance from
Assay) 3.30% 7.2% 3.1% 6.1% 9.5% 6.2%

Field Duplicates = Assay 22 81 0 28 9 1

Field Duplicates < Assay 164 133 157 163 154 171
Field Duplicates > Assay 139 111 168 130 158 149
The results presented in Table 7 range from 0.1% to -2.1% for all elements, which
indicates that there is an extremely high repeatability for all field samples. When
reviewing the Absolute Variance, ie the maximum variance from the sample average,
all values for all elements are still under 10% of the average grade which supports the
consistency of the splitting method and the reliability of the assays. Reviewing the
split of duplicate samples being higher or lower in grade on average, the total count
indicates that there is an equal chance of any duplicate being higher or lower than
the original assay.

The author confirms that the field splitting and sampling protocol was excellent
and supports the validity of the samples to be assayed for use in estimation
purposes for all elements.

Coarse Rejects

The reanalysis of the coarse reject samples was undertaken as an internal check on
the crushing and sub-sampling procedures of McPhar and Intertek to ensure that the
samples taken for analysis were representative of the bulk sample. The Variance
results for the Coarse fraction post crushing in comparison to the primary assay is
shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Variance of Field Duplicate and Original Assays

Coarse Reject Comparitive

Statistics

Ni Co Fe Al Mg Si
Variance from Assay -0.04% 4.0% -0.4% -0.6% 1.9% -0.9% (Abs Variance from
Assay) 3.38% 10.0% 2.9% 11.3% 13.5% 4.8%

Coarse Rejects = Assay 5 19 0 3 1 0

Coarse Rejects < Assay 42 38 45 46 45 39
Coarse Rejects > Assay 34 24 36 32 35 42

The results presented in Table 8 range from -0.04% to -4.0% for all elements, which
indicates that there is an extremely good correlation of the coarse rejects with the
passing material that formed the pulp for assaying. When reviewing the Absolute
Variance, ie the maximum variance from the sample average, there are 3 elements
(Co, Fe, and Mg), that are more variable and this may be due to specific minerals that
may crush less evenly due to hardness or platiness (Corundum for Al as an example)
– but even with these minor variances for some minor elements the coarse sample
rejects are very similar to the fines material. Reviewing the split of coarse rejects
being higher or lower in grade on average, the total count indicates that there is an
equal chance of any duplicate being higher or lower than the original assay.

The author confirms that the crushing of the primary sample protocol was
excellent and supports the validity of the resultant pulps to be assayed for use in
estimation purposes for all elements.
Standard 901-1 Standard 905-13
Ni
Ni Repea
Repea ts
ts

Sample Sample Count

Count

Standard 901-1 Standard 905-13

Co
Repe Co

ats Repeat

s
 Sample Sample Count
Count

Standard 901-1 Standard 905-13

Fe Fe

Repea Repeat

ts s

Sample Sample Count

Count

Figure 10: Graphs of Nickel Standards Assays.

Pulp Rejects Analyzed by Primary Laboratory

A total of 30 of the McPhar pulp rejects during the first and second drilling phases
were re-sampled and analyzed representing 1.07% of the 2,793 core samples. These
were selected from previously submitted batches covering a range of sample grades,
a range of horizons and a range of holes from the core drilling programs, so as to be
representative of all the samples.

The method of pulp reject sampling for Intertek Laboratory was modified in June
2008. Starting with batch 2008 AGL-18, pulp rejects were randomly selected one in
every set of 40 and were pre- numbered. These pulps were inserted to its assigned
numbers right after sample preparation and were analyzed in the same batch as its
source. A further 220 pulp rejects were submitted to the completion of the 2010 drill
program.

The duplicate pulp analyses were conducted to test for homogeneity of the pulps
generated by the two laboratories. Insufficiently milled samples will lead to multiple
assaying of pulps with poor precision (ie poor repeatability). Inversely, agreement
between assays of duplicates of the pulp would indicate that the milling procedure
in the laboratory was efficient and generated a suitably homogeneous pulp.

Table 9: Variance of Pulp Duplicate and Original Assays

Pulp Duplicates Comparative Statistics

Ni Co Fe Al Mg Si
Variance from Assay 0.59% -2.6% 0.0% -0.6% -0.3% 0.4% (Abs Variance from
Assay) 1.97% 6.0% 1.3% 3.2% 4.5% 2.2%

Pulp Duplicates = Assay 13 58 0 8 1 1

Pulp Duplicates < Assay 102 108 117 147 119 117
Pulp Duplicates > Assay 135 84 133 95 130 132

The results presented in Table 9 range from 0.0% to -2.6% for all elements, which
indicates that there is an extremely high correlation of the repeat pulp assay with
the primary assay. When reviewing the Absolute Variance, ie the maximum
variance from the sample average, the range is extremely small at 1.97-6.0% which
indicates an extremely good repeatability for the pulps presented to the
laboratories prior to assaying. Reviewing the split of pulp repeats being higher or
lower in grade on average, the total count indicates that there is an equal chance
of any pulp duplicate being higher or lower than the original assay.

The author confirms that the pulp repeatability was excellent and supports
the validity of the primary pulps to be assayed for use in estimation purposes
for all elements.
Pulp Rejects Analyzed by Umpire Laboratory

Two laboratories have been used since the inception of the laterite Ni exploration at
ANLP, and during the drilling programs check pulps have been forwarded to the
alternate laboratory to confirm assay reliability. There are minor issues for some
element analyses due to the varying assay methodologies (McPhar use AAS process
and Intertek use an XRF), but this is predominantly within the minor elements and
not the Ni assay.

Table 10: Variance of Pulp Duplicate and Interlab Assays

Interlab Pulp Duplicates Comparative Statistics

Ni Co Fe Al Mg Si
Variance from Assay 1.97% -0.9% 1.2% 2.7% 2.4% 0.0% (Abs Variance from
Assay) 5.04% 10.4% 6.7% 20.5% 17.8% 1.0%

McPhar = Intertek 9 60 0 7 1 1
McPhar < Intertek 117 127 135 140 129 74
McPhar > Intertek 193 132 184 172 189 81

The results presented in Table 10 range from -0.9% to 2.7% for all elements, which
indicates that there is an extremely high correlation of the interlab repeat pulp
assay with the primary assay, and
in fact are very similar to the range of variance encountered within the single lab pulp repeats
(Table
9). When reviewing the Absolute Variance, ie the maximum variance from the
sample average, the range is larger at 1.0-20.5% which indicates that though their is
good repeatability for the pulps, the differing methodologies do provide some
contrast in the minor elements (Al and Mg especially). Reviewing the split of pulp
interlab repeats being higher or lower in grade on average, the total count indicates
that there is an equal chance of any pulp duplicate being higher or lower than the
original assay.

The author confirms that the pulp interlab repeatability was excellent and
further supports the validity of the primary pulps to be assayed for use in
estimation purposes for all elements.

8.6 Summary
In the authors opinion the sampling protocols, procedures and methods performed
by MRL, and their implementation are of acceptable standards. Assays performed at
the McPhar and Intertek in Metro Manila, are also of acceptable standards.
Variations encountered by the McPhar and Intertek QA/QC program on the Agata
samples were all within acceptable limits.
9.0 Data Verification

The author has visited site twice in the past 6 months and in each occasion has
reviewed protocols and processes set in place at the Mindoro base camp in Agata.
The datasets provided by Mindoro were checked and verified by comparing a random
portion against original field sheets and official Certificates of Analytical Results.
Selected core trays were visually inspected against the logs. In addition, the core
photos were viewed and compared with the cross sections showing laterite horizons
generated by MRL. The lithology was checked in the field and in the drill cores. The
digital file was checked for logical errors or data entry errors. There were a few but
very minor errors found.

Previously Dallas Cox who has compiled the 3 previous resource reports also completed
a series of random checks made in the field, to corroborate the acceptable quality of
the data. As a further test, he collected twelve field duplicate samples and sent them to
the same laboratory where they were originally assayed. Five samples come from the
limonite horizon, six are from the saprolite and one from the saprolitic rock horizon.
Table 11 and Figure 11 show the results and the correlation vis-à-vis original MRL assay
values.

Table 11: Results of Independent Check on Drill Core Assays

MR DM MR DM MR DM M DM MR DM
HOLE ID FRO TO RU
L C L C L C RL C L C
M N
Ni Ni Co Co Fe Fe Al Al Mg Mg
% % % % % % % % % %
AGL 2008-281 1.00 2.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 0.09 0.0 38.9 39.7 2.4 2.6 1.0 1.1
0 0 6 3 9 4 5 5 4 7 3
AGL 2008-355 2.00 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.07 0.0 30.4 31.5 2.5 2.6 2.2 1.4
0 0 2 1 7 7 5 7 1 8 4
AGL 2008-175 2.60 3.4 0.8 1.5 1.5 0.05 0.0 23.3 23.6 0.7 0.6 10.5 10.
5 5 9 8 5 2 0 4 6 1 32
AGL 2008-194 6.00 7.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.03 0.0 15.2 15.8 0.7 0.6 12.9 12.
5 5 2 5 3 2 9 1 9 3 64
AGL 2008-174 3.40 4.2 0.8 1.3 1.3 0.03 0.0 14.4 15.2 0.4 0.4 15.5 15.
0 0 1 5 3 5 5 6 5 7 63
AGL 2008-297 8.00 9.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.14 0.1 52.0 50.6 3.8 3.3 0.3 0.4
0 0 7 5 3 5 2 8 6 6 2
AGL 2008-299 1.00 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 0.14 0.1 47.5 44.5 1.8 1.6 2.7 3.8
0 0 0 2 3 7 0 2 9 5 9
AGL 2008-355 2.00 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.03 0.0 14.2 14.6 0.5 0.5 15.8 15.
0 0 7 2 3 4 4 2 5 9 65
AGL 2007-17 27.0 28.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 0.02 0.0 6.3 8.1 0.1 0.2 15.0 17.
0 0 0 3 1 2 8 4 1 1 2 24
AGL 2008-135 5.55 6.4 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.12 0.1 50.1 50.7 2.4 2.1 0.7 0.7
5 0 3 2 1 0 3 6 2 1 7
 AGL 2008- 17.4 18.4 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.01 0.0 5.4 6.0 0.1 0.1 14.6 15.
74A 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 7 5 6 6 43
AGL 2008- 13.5 14.8 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.02 0.0 8.4 10.2 0.1 0.1 14.5 15.
14A 5 5 0 0 7 2 8 0 6 9 3 15
* DMC - Dallas M. Cox
 Figure 11: Comparison of Independent Checks and MRL Assays

The graphs show good correlation between the MRL assays and that of Dallas Cox's samples.
This is attested by the values of the coefficient of determination R2, which range from 0.947
for nickel to
0.996 for iron.

The author has verified all aspects drill hole collar locations, sampling and assay procedures,
examined mineralized material in the field and in drill core, as well as the geological and
assay databases during two site visits in the Agata Project and meetings with MRL staff and
Dallas Cox a previous independent analyst of the Agata north Resource. With these factors,
as well as the evaluation of the results of assay rechecking, the writer is satisfied that all
data utilised in the resource estimate can be relied upon.

10.0 Bulk Density Determinations

MRL have completed a significant number of bulk density tests so as to provide data for
estimating the tonnages of each specific mineralized zone within the ore body. Samples were
predominantly taken from test pits prepared for the taking of density samples. A total of 30
samples from 15 test pits were used for the ferruginous laterite horizon; 37 samples from 19
pits for limonite; and 17 pit samples from 6 pits for saprolite. In addition 19 core samples
were tested from the saprolite zone. All primary data used for these determinations are
located in Appendix 4.

For BD measurements done on site, large samples ranging in volume from 0.005 m 3 to 0.08 m3
were collected from twenty test pits. The locations of these test pits are distributed around
the drilling area (Figure 12). The bulk samples were measured for volume, wet weight, and dry
weight. The description of the methodology is detailed in the ANLP QA/QC Procedures
(Appendix 2)
The BD and moisture content were computed with the following formulas.
 Weight (kg)
Bulk Density = ÷ 1000 (kg/ton)
Volume (m3)

Weight wet –
Weight dry
% Moisture Content = x 100
Weight wet

For the drill cores, relatively solid/less compressed portions of 10cm-20cm lengths were
selected from drill holes that are spatially distributed and coated in paraffin wax to preserve
the moisture. These were then dispatched to McPhar Laboratories wherein the samples were
measured using the water displacement method. It is standard practice for McPhar to check
the wax coating and perform re-waxing if needed.

Table 12: Summary of Bulk Density Measurements

Moistu
W Dr No.
HORIZO re
et y of
N Conte
Densi Densi Sampl
nt
ty ty es
%
FERRUGINOUS LATERITE 1.72 1.20 30.49 3
0
LIMONITE 1.81 1.24 31.74 3
7
SAPROLITE (Pit Samples) 1.98 1.46 26.11 1
7
SAPROLITE (Core Samples) 1.82 1.45 20.60 1
9

Table 12 shows the summary results of these measurements, and the dry density values used
in the resultant block model were 1.24 dt/m3 for Limonite and 1.45 dt/m3 for Saprolite. A dry
density of 1.6 dt/m3 for bedrock has been applied in the model, but there is no mineralised ore
within this defined region and as such is simply a differential figure to aid in planning and
design.
With the separation of the upper and lower limonite and the upper and lower saprolite within
the resource modelling a further refinement of the dry bulk density values was required. In
regards to the limonite values, the bulk density test work as shown in Table 12 successfully
allocated the upper limonite (ferruginous laterite), and lower limonite values (limonite).
However for saprolite there was no distinction and a review of all the saprolite data confirmed
that there was a significant difference between these two layers and a gross average could not
be applied.

Figure 13 is a graph of the dry bulk density data versus moisture levels for the two sets of
data obtained during the test work. In Figure 13 the red stars are 2007 data set, and the
black dots are the 2010. What is immediately noticeable is that in both data sets the dry
density is in a direct
correlation with moisture (R2 value for 2007 = 0.83 / 2010 = 0.93), with the improved
methodologies
used in 2010 showing a greater correlation but in effect exactly the same trend. As Agata North
has
no mine or pit to obtain larger density samples from, every test completed here is a corrupted
test in the sense that moisture has been added to the sample during collection (either by
drilling methodology or by opening up a small test pit) and as such the averages of these values
are not appropriate unless we consider moisture. The solution to this impasse is to interpret an
in situ moisture and then apply the moisture value to the best correlation (2010 in this case),
and define
the dry density in this format.

Based on the spread of the data and the presence of smectite mineralogy it can be assumed
that the moisture content will be approximately 24% in situ. This provides a bulk density of
1.32 t/m3 for the upper saprolite. One other factor needs to be considered and this is the
presence of boulders within the upper saprolite and used in the estimation, this lithology has a
greater density and forms ~19%
of the upper saprolite material. As it is impossible to accurately predict the tonnes of this
rock, or the actual density due to its varying level of hardness and weathered status, thus
we can only predict a small impact on overall density.

Considering all of these factors the following density values for the newly formed upper and
lower saprolite layers in the ANLP 2013 resource have been interpreted as below.

Upper Saprolite Dry Density = 1.34t/m3

Lower Saprolite Dry Density = 1.45t/m3

Figure 12: Agata North Bulk Density Test Pit Location Map
 Figure 13: ANLP Saprolite BD data graph – Dry Density vs Moisture All Data

11.0 Resource Estimate

The resource Estimate calculations were completed by Mike Job, Principal Consultant for
Quantitative Group based out of Fremantle, West Australia. All data was checked and
forwarded by the author, and all modelling methodologies were discussed prior to
commencement of developing the resource.

11.1 Geometric Interpretation

There is a total of 633 drillholes in the dataset. All of the holes are vertical and relatively
shallow, with the deepest hole ending at 46.6m depth. The UTM coordinates (rather than the
local grid) have been used. Basic validation of the dataset was previously conducted by QG in
2010.

As reported in Gifford (2010) the limonite/saprolite contact point was based on an abrupt
change in the level of Mg in limonite (usually less than 1% Mg) to saprolite (generally well over
10% Mg, although sometimes down to about 5% Mg). There is also an abrupt drop of Fe in
limonite (~40% to
50%) to saprolite (less than 10%). The saprolite/bedrock contact was identified by using the Ni
assay data (bedrock generally less than 0.4%) and the geological logging. The geological logging
provided
in the dataset matched these grade-determined boundaries extremely closely (Gifford, 2010).

As discussed in the introduction, the division of the limonite domain into sub-domains was
based on a 44% Fe grade boundary. The higher Fe grade occupies the greatest proportion of
the limonite domain and is positioned above the lower Fe grade sub-domain. Likewise for the
saprolite sub- domains, based on a 0.7% Ni boundary, the higher Ni grade occupies the upper
portion of the
domain and represents the greatest proportion of the total domain. The sub-domains are
shown graphically in Figure 14.

The topography surface was used to cut the base of limonite and base of saprolite wireframes,
which were in turn subdivided by the respective sub-domain wireframes (Figure 14). These 5
surfaces were used to select and flag the drill samples. The sample selection and flagging
processes were conducted using Datamine software.

Figure
14: Wireframe surfaces and drilling, Agata North (Ni on left, Fe on right side of drill trace).
Sample selection and flagging was checked on screen and demonstrated robust adherence
to the
interpretation parameters, with accurate selection and flagging of the samples.

The domain and sub-domain codes (DOMAIN and SUBDOM fields respectively) are shown in Table
13.

Table 13: Domain and Sub-Domain codes for Agata North Laterite.

Domain & Sub-Domain Domain Sub-Domain

Code Code
Limonite >44% Fe (Upper 1 11
Limonite)
Limonite <44% Fe (Lower 1 12
Limonite)
Saprolite >0.7% Ni (Upper 2 21
Saprolite)
Saprolite <0.7% Ni (Lower 2 22
Saprolite)
The same wireframe surfaces used for sample selection were also used for the construction of
a 3D block model. The parent cell size used by Gifford (2010) of 20m x 20m x 1m with 10m x
10m x 1m sub-blocking (see Table 4 and Figure 15) was used here. The model origin was
chosen so that the drillholes would mostly be located in the centre of a parent block (Gifford,
2010).
 Table 14: Block Model
Properties

Easting (m) Northing (m) RL (m)

Origin 775,625 1,025,225 0
Parent block size 50 50 1
Sub-block size 10 10 1
Extent 778,225 1,029,025 400

Figure 15: Block model sub-domains.

11.2 Exploratory Data Analysis

(EDA)

The flagged samples were composited to 1m to allow EDA on comparative, additive samples.
The majority of raw samples were at or less than 1m in length.

A number of drillholes had exactly the same collar coordinates; AGL 2008-196 and -196, and
holes AGL 2008-247and 248. Therefore, holes -196 and -248 were removed. Compositing was
conducted in Datamine using 'Mode = 1', which divides the down-hole intercept in each (sub)
domain equally to be as close to 1m as possible. A minimum composite length of 0.5m was
used.
More sample length is lost compositing in the sub-domains compared to compositing in just
the main domains, but the amounts lost are relatively small. Table 15 shows the raw and
composite lengths for both domains and sub-domains, and the percentage of the length lost.
 Table 15: Comparison by of raw sample lengths to composite sample lengths.

Domain / Raw Composite %

Sub- Sample Sample Length
Domain Lengt Lengt Lo
h h st

1 30 30 1
58 16 .
4

1 25 25 1
1 63 26 .
4

1 4 4 3
2 9 8 .
6 0 2

2 57 56 0
01 53 .
8

2 43 42 0
1 36 96 .
9

2 13 13 2
2 73 37 .
6

Preparation of the three additional variables, Cr2O3, CaO and MnO, included dealing with a
number of grade values given as <0.01%. This indicates the variable was below detection limit
for that sample. These values were converted to a grade of 0.01% to allow their consideration
in the analysis and prevent their loss in the case of subsequent estimation, which could allow
higher grades to possibly over inform the estimate in those areas.
Assessment of the validity of the sub-domains for each of the variables was conducted by
comparison of the basic statistics of the composited samples for each domain and sub-domain,
consideration of their distribution in the form of histograms and by contact analysis. The results
of each of these processes are given in Appendix 5.

Note that the variables of interest are not informed to the same levels; Ni, Co and Fe are best
informed and CaO, Cr2O3 and MnO are the least informed (Appendix 5).

Assessment of the main limonite and saprolite domains, including the additional 3 variables,
CaO, Cr2O3 and MnO, supports the use of a hard boundary between these domains as
concluded by Gifford (2010).

Basic summary statistics for each of the sub-domain composites within each domain are given
in
Tab
le
16.
 Table 16: Composite statistics for sub-
domains

There is a clear change in the mean and variance for some variables, most obviously the
variables providing the basis of the sub-domaining (Fe in limonite and Ni in saprolite) but also
for some of the other variables eg Fe in saprolite and Mg in limonite. These distribution changes
are reflected in the histograms (Appendix 5).

Care does need to be taken in some cases where isolated extreme values can affect the
statistics in one sub-domain or the other without necessarily indicating the validity of a sub-
domain boundary. An example of this is Cr2O3 in the saprolite sub-domains where a single high
grade sample in the upper saprolite has a significant effect on the variance of the distribution.
This is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Histograms for composited Cr2O3 for saprolite sub-domains (upper saprolite uncut on
left;
upper saprolite top-cut in middle and lower saprolite on
right).
CaO in the limonite domain appears to be problematic, particularly in the upper sub-domain,
with what appears to be two populations rather than a single population. This indicates there
may be a separate control on CaO distribution in the upper sub-domain. The histogram for CaO
in the upper limonite sub-domain is given in Figure 17.
Figure17. Histogram for composited CaO in the upper limonite sub-domain (histogram for
higher grade population inset).

Contact analysis considers two 'domains' at a time (one contact) - samples are 'binned'
according to their distance either side of the contact and the average grade of each bin is
calculated for each variable of interest. The mean grades across the contact are plotted,
providing a visual guide as to whether the transition is gradational or sharp.

Contact analysis plots are contained in the figures below and in Appendix 1 (Contact Analysis
worksheet). In the plots the mean grade by distance from the contact is represented by the red
line series; the interpreted contact itself is represented by the vertical black line (at zero
distance).

For the limonite domain, the contact analysis plots for the upper and lower sub-domain contact
shows two clear groupings of variables; those that demonstrate a trend of grade through the
sub- domain boundary, and those that show a distinct statistical shift either side of the
boundary.

Those that show a gradational trend in grade across the limonite sub-domain boundary are Ni,
Co, Al and (to a lesser degree) Mn. The contact analysis plots for these are shown in Figure18.

Variables demonstrating a distinct statistical shift either side of the boundary are Fe (as would
be expected), Mg and SiO2, and Cr2O3. The contact analysis plots for these are shown in
Figure19.
Figure18: Contact analysis for the upper and lower limonite sub-domains for Ni, Co, Al
and Mn respectively.

Figure19: Contact analysis for the upper and lower limonite sub-domains for Fe, Mg, SiO2
and Cr2O3
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.

The contact analysis for CaO is less clear, possibly affected by some other control on
distribution. The contact analysis for CaO in the limonite sub-domains is shown in Figure
20.
 Figure 20: Contact analysis for the upper and lower limonite sub-
domains for CaO.

For the saprolite domain, only three variables show evidence of an abrupt statistical
change across the 0.7% Ni sub-domain contact. The most distinct, was Ni, but Co and Fe
also displayed a marked change at the sub-domain boundary, as shown in Figure 21. Less
distinct or lower magnitude statistical shifts are shown by Al, Mg, Cr2O3 and MnO, given
in Figure 22. Gradational distributions across the contact are demonstrated by SiO2 and
CaO, shown in Figure 23.
Figure21: Contact analysis for the upper and lower saprolite sub-domains for Ni, Co and Fe
respectively.

Figure22: Contact analysis for the upper and lower saprolite sub-domains for Al, Mg, Cr2O3 and
MnO
respectively.

Figure23: Contact analysis for the upper and lower saprolite sub-domains for SiO2 and CaO
respectively.
From the statistical analysis and assessment of the validity of the Fe based sub-domains in the
limonite domain and the Ni based sub-domains in the saprolite domain, it is seems evident that
the sub-domains are valid for a number of variables. These variables would benefit from
separate estimation using the sub-domain contact as a hard boundary while others would not
benefit, and may in fact be adversely affected, by the imposition of a hard sub-domain
boundary. It also needs to be noted that for some variables in the lower limonite sub-domain
there is a significant reduction in the number of assays available for estimation, for example
CaO, Cr2O3 and MnO are reduced to 295 samples.

In the limonite domain, Fe, Mg and SiO2 would benefit from separate estimation into the sub-
domains while Ni, Co and Al would be more robust with estimation into the parent domain.

The cases for CaO, Cr2O3 and MnO are less clear cut, so these variables were estimated into the
domains and sub-domains in parallel for assessment (see the Final Model section).

For the saprolite domain, Ni, Co and Fe are likely to benefit from separate estimation into the
sub- domains, but CaO estimation will likely be more robust into the parent domain.

The cases for SiO2, Al, Mg, Cr2O3 and MnO are less clear cut and these variables were estimated
into the domains and sub-domains in parallel for assessment.

11.3 Variography and

Estimation

Experimental variograms were generated for the nine variables in the two main domains and
the four sub-domains. Given the orientation and geometry of the domains and sub-domains
variography was generated in the horizontal plane with an additional downhole direction to
help model short range structure and calculate the nugget. Little anisotropy is evident in the
horizontal plane so all but three of the variogram models are omni-direction in the horizontal
plane.

A lag value of 30m to 60m in the horizontal plane was used with 1m in the vertical direction.
Using a slicing height of 2m to 5m in the horizontal plane provided an improvement in
variogram structure. Experimental variograms and their associated models are contained in
Appendix 5. The models are tabulated in Table 17 and Table 18.

For the variables estimated into both the main domains and sub-domains in parallel the domain
variogram models were used for both estimates.

The grade variables showed relatively low nuggets being less than 10% for the limonite domain
rising to about 20% for the saprolite domain. The nuggets rose for the sub-domain up to 40% in
the case of Mg in the lower limonite and Co in the lower saprolite but were generally around or
below 20% otherwise (Table 17, Table 18).
The majority of the variance was taken up in the nugget and first structure with the range of
the first structure rarely exceeding 40m. The second structure ranges were generally below
150m with a very few exceeding that range (Table 17, Table 18).
 Table 17: Limonite Variogram Models

Estimation was performed using ordinary kriging (OK) and followed the general methodology
and parameters used in Gifford (2010). OK was run for each of the variables into either the
domains or sub-domains as determined by the Phase 1 assessment. The domains or sub-
domains estimated for each variable is given in Table 19.
 Table 18: Saprolite Variogram
Models

Saproli
te
Nugg Ran S
Variab et ge il Structu
le (C0) % Major Semi Minor l re

Sill %
SiO2 5 17.4% 22 20 3 18 62.6% 1
175 50 4 5.77 20.1% 2
CaO 0.032 33.7% 13 13 2 0.016 16.8% 1
140 140 9 0.047 49.5% 2
Al 0.025 10.0% 12 12 2 0.072 28.8% 1
125 125 8 0.153 61.2% 2
Mg 3.43 19.8% 20 20 2.5 11.46 66.1% 1
170 170 6 2.456 14.2% 2
Cr2O3 0.052 23.9% 25 25 2 0.111 50.9% 1
130 130 3 0.055 25.2% 2
MnO 0.003 19.2% 16 16 3 0.008 51.3% 1
85 85 5 0.0046 29.5% 2
Upper
Saprolite
Nugg Ran S
Variab et ge il Structu
le (C0) % Major Semi Minor l re

Sill %
Ni 0.025 14.5% 882 0.102 59.0% 1
60 60 3 0.046 26.6% 2
Co 0.0001 22.5% 10 10 2 0.00023 51.7% 1
18 18 3 0.000115 25.8% 2
Fe 6.7 22.2% 12 12 2 15.4 51.0% 1
85 85 4 8.1 26.8% 2
 Lower
Saprolite
Nugg Ran S
Variab et ge il Structu
le (C0) % Major Semi Minor l re

Sill %
Ni 0.006 16.0% 881 0.0241 64.1% 1
60 60 1.5 0.0075 19.9% 2
Co 1.7E-05 40.0% 20 20 2 1.36 E-05 32.1% 1
330 330 4 1.19E-05 28.0% 2
Fe 0.95 22.2% 15 15 4 1.55 36.3% 1
440 440 5 1.772 41.5% 2

Table 19: Domains and sub-domains estimated for each

variable

(Sub)Domains N Co F A Mg SiO2 CaO Cr2O Mn

3
i e l O

Limonite Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Upper Limonite Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Lower Limonite Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

 Saprolite Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Upper Saprolite Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Lower Saprolite Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

The search ellipses were oriented according to the local dip and dip direction using the
Datamine dynamic search feature, which allows the search neighbourhood ellipse dip and dip
direction to be defined separately for each block (in this instance, the variogram was also
rotated to align with the search, but this does not always need to occur). This has the
advantage of having a locally-varying orientation over a domain, where an 'average' dip and dip
direction would not necessarily honour the local grade geometry.

The local dips and dip directions were calculated from the orientation of the limonite/saprolite
boundary wireframe triangles, approximating the dip of each of the mineralised domains. Note
that tolerances can be set during this process, so that 'erroneous' points will not be generated,
such as vertical dips at the edges of the wireframe.

These points were then used to produce the dip and dip direction for each parent block -
essentially the dip and dip direction are treated as variables and estimated into the block model
using special parameters (to account for dip between 90° and -90°, and dip direction between
0° and 360°).

Then, during estimation of the grade variables, the search ellipse and variogram orientation is
rotated appropriately for each parent block.

To limit the effect of downhole drift evident for many of the variables a restricted search was
used for the vertical direction. Three estimation runs were conducted with less restrictive
parameters for each successive run to inform the maximum number of blocks as possible. The
main neighbourhood search parameters are given in Table 20 and a block discretisation of
5x5x1was used.

Table 20: Estimation neighbourhood parameters.

Estimation X Y Z Minimum Maximum

run number direction direction direction number number
( ( ( of of
m m m sample sample
s s
) ) )
Run 1 150 150 5 10 40
Run 2 300 300 10 4 40

Run 3 600 600 20 4 20

The results of the estimates into each domain or sub-domain are provided in Appendix 5
(Model Stats worksheet). This includes the number and percentage of uninformed cells and
negative kriging values.
The percentage of uninformed cells for each estimate was extremely low, being less than 0.3%
for the poorly informed variables and less than 0.05% for the well informed variables. The
exception to this was for lower limonite, which has the fewest sample numbers, and has up to
3% uninformed cells.

Five variables reported negative kriging results for all estimates. These negative results are an
artefact of grades receiving a negative weight at the periphery of the search ellipse. These were
very minor in number with a maximum of 0.37% cells for CaO in the upper limonite (Appendix
5).

For the final model these uninformed cells and those with negative kriging results were
assigned positive values. The assigned values were determined by visual inspection of the areas
affected in the model for each domain or sub-domain with a general value of the surrounding
grades used. These minor numbers of affected cells will not have affected the overall quality of
the estimation.

As an indication of the level of sample support, Table 21 shows the percentage of cells informed
in each estimation run and the mean number of samples used for Ni in the limonite and upper
and lower saprolite and Fe in the upper and lower limonite.

Table 21: Percent cells informed in estimation runs and mean number of samples
used

Dry bulk density was assigned to the model (limonite 1.24, saprolite
1.45).

Validation of the estimates was conducted by comparison of the estimate statistics to the
informing composite sample statistics, swath plots and on-screen visual validation.

Statistical comparison of the model to samples shows a very close match between means, and a
sensible reduction in variance. The comparison of sample to model means is given in Table 22
with a more comprehensive comparison provided in Appendix I (Model Stats worksheet).

Swath plots were generated for each variable on EW and NS slices at 50m spacings and
compared the mean grade of the block model and composites in each slice. The swath plots are
contained in Appendix II. An example is illustrated in Figure 24, which compares Ni in the
limonite domain. In all cases the block model follows the trends of the composites with the
expected reduction in variability.

To assist in assessment of the variables estimated using both the main domains and sub-
domains, the sub-domain swath plots for these variables also had the domain model (restricted
to the sub-
domain) plotted as well. An example is given in Figure 25, with all sub-domain plots given in
Appendix II.

Table 22: Composite vs. block estimate

comparison

Domain Variabl Sample Mean Model mean

e
Ni 0.97 0.95
CO 0.11 0.11
AL 3.34 3.34
Limonite CaO 0.22 0.21
Cr2O3 3.12 3.01
MnO 0.91 0.90
FE 47. 47.
80 93
MG 0.54 0.61

Upper SIO2 3.31 3.51

Limonite CaO 0.22 0.19
Cr2O3 3.21 3.14
MnO 0.93 0.92
FE 35. 36.
98 20
MG 3.75 3.83

Lower SIO2 16. 16.

Limonite 86 76
CaO 0.26 0.23
Cr2O3 2.56 2.59
MnO 0.80 0.83
SIO2 40. 40.
77 49
CaO 0.34 0.35
AL 0.43 0.49
Saprolite MG 17. 17.
45 52
Cr2O3 0.83 0.83
MnO 0.22 0.22
NI 1.17 1.12
CO 0.03 0.03
FE 11. 11.
57 89
Upper
AL 0.47 0.56
Saprolite
MG 16. 16.
73 64
Cr2O3 0.89 0.91
MnO 0.24 0.24
NI 0.52 0.52
CO 0.02 0.02
FE 7.63 7.61
AL 0.31 0.33
Lower
Saprolite MG 19. 20.
82 06
Cr2O3 0.61 0.59
MnO 0.16 0.16
Figure24: Comparison of composites against the block model for Ni in
limonite.
Figure25: Comparison of composites against the sub-domain and domain block models for
Cr2O3 in upper saprolite.
On the basis of the validation process it was evident that for variables estimated into both
domains and sub-domains both produced valid estimates with little difference between them.

11.4 Resource classification

As only 40 holes had been added to the previous estimation data set, and those were in 5
tightly spaces 'grade control' grids, the classification applied to the previous estimate
(Gifford, 2010) was applied in this study.
The resource classification reflects confidence in both geometric interpretation and
confidence in geostatistical grade estimates, and also classifies the resource in a spatially
coherent manner, avoiding small areas of different categories. The vast majority of the deposit
is drilled on 50m x 50m or 100m x 100m grids, which is sufficient to support an Indicated
Resource category. The only areas of Inferred Resource are around the steep-sided creek
systems, where the drilling is on a broader pattern and the laterite horizons thin out.
Measured Resource is restricted to that part of the resource where the drilling has been on
25m x 25m centres (Figure 26).

Figure
26:
Resourc
e
classific
ation,
Agata
North
Deposit.
Decisions on whether the variables were better estimated into domains or further divided into
sub- domains was made on the basis of the EDA, contact analysis and the validation of the
estimation results.

Ni, Co and Al for limonite and CaO for saprolite demonstrated clear continuous trends across
the sub-domain boundaries and were estimated into the main domains only. Fe, Mg and SiO 2 in
the limonite and Ni, Co and Fe in the saprolite showed a distinct statistical shift across the sub-
domain boundaries and were estimated into the sub-domains only.

For the other variables, CaO, Cr2O3 and MnO in the limonite and SiO2, Al, Mg, Cr2O3 and MnO in
the saprolite, the statistical shift across the sub-domain boundaries were less distinct or of
lower magnitude but did not exhibit a clear continuous trend. These variables were estimated
into both domains and sub-domains with validation indicating both approaches resulted in
acceptable results. However, the sub-domain validation appeared marginally superior and with
no evidence of an adverse effect from the hard sub-domain boundaries, the sub-domain
estimates for these variables were used in the final model.

The Mineral Resource Estimate figures above a 0.5% Ni cut-off for limonite and above a 0.8% Ni
cut- off for saprolite are presented in Table 23 (variable grades are in %).

Table 23: Agata North Mineral Resource Estimate as at 18th March 2013.

This is an increase of 3.6Mt in the Measured and Indicated compared to the 2010 Mineral
Resource Estimate (Gifford, 2010). The Ni grade also increases slightly compared to the
previous estimate (from 1.05% to 1.08%), so contained Ni metal for the Measured and
Indicated increases by 15% (from 340kt Ni to 391kt Ni).
Nickel grade-tonnage curves for the Measured plus Indicated resource at 0.05% incremental
cut-offs shown for the domains and sub-domains are shown in Figure 27 to Figure 32.
Figure 27: Grade-tonnage curve, Measured + Indicated, Limonite.

Figure 28: Grade-tonnage curve, Measured + Indicated, Saprolite.

Figure 29: Grade-tonnage curve, Measured + Indicated, Upper Limonite.

Figure 30: Grade-tonnage curve, Measured + Indicated, Lower Limonite.

Figure 31: Grade-tonnage curve, Measured + Indicated, Upper Saprolite.

Figure 32: Grade-tonnage curve, Measured + Indicated, Lower Saprolite.

12.0 Conclusions

The presence of large areas of an exposed Ultramafic along the Western Range, an upthrust
ridge east of the Philippine Fault, has provided a location for lateritic weathering of the
ultramafic. The area known as Agata North has been enriched within the laterite profile in
Ni and Co.

The ANLP has two distinct geomorphic features that have influenced laterite formation and
consequent nickel enrichment. The Eastern part of the delineated body has a moderate relief
whose bedrocks are exposed in ridge tops and in the nearby creeks. The Western laterite
occurs on a low relief terrain and with no exposures of bedrock on its hillcrests. In the Western
area, the laterite is well developed and contains thick and highly mineralized
limonite/saprolite. The Eastern Laterite Zones contain some boulders within the laterite
profile. Its limonite zone is usually thinner.

The laterite profile in the ANLP consists of the ferruginous laterite, limonite and saprolite
zones or horizons, and the saprolitic rock, from surface to increasing depth. The limonite zone
is characteristically iron oxide-rich, where the predominant minerals are hematite, goethite
and clays, and with moderate nickel content (over 1%), which overlies the saprolite zone that
has much less oxidised, is magnesium -rich, and has a slightly higher nickel content than the
limonite horizon, with grades in both zones generally at their highest near or adjacent to the
contact zone.

This report is based on the data that were produced and compiled by MRL. Data verification
performed by the author found no discrepancies in the sampling and analyses that biased the
data set. Hence the database is considered adequate to meet industry standards to estimate
mineral resources.

The resource was calculated by Quantitative Group using Ordinary Kriging as the estimation
method. Both the limonite zone and the saprolite zones were estimated independently as the
form of mineralisation in both zones were unique and could not be used for comparative
statistics. Each of the limonite and saprolite zones were further subdivided and specific
elements re-estimated to account for both geochemical and mineralogical variation seen within
the major lithologies. The measured and indicated resource estimated from this report is as
below:

33,938,000t ore @ 1.10%Ni, 0.05%Co, 22%Fe

The cut-offs applied to the resource were 0.5%Ni for Limonite and 0.8%Ni for Saprolite (as
per the previous estimates completed upon the ANLP, (Cox, 2008 2009a 2009b, Gifford
2010). The last resource calculated on the ANLP (Gifford, 2010), had the following tonnage
and grade:

29,790,000t ore @ 1.03%Ni, 0.05%Co, 23%Fe

Variations in grade can be explained by the application of a grade restrictive delineation

between the upper and lower saprolite and variation in tonnes are explained by the restriction
on the influence of lower grades within the lower saprolite thus giving a greater tonnage
>0.8%Ni estimated (Appendix 6). With the increase in tonnage there is also a tonnage increase
in total Ni tonnes (from
307kt to 391kt contained Ni).
13.0 References

Abrasaldo, EM 1999. Exploration Report Agata Project June 1997-April 1998. MRL Gold Phils.,
Inc., Internal Company Report (unpubl)

Ambagan, D. 2007. Notes on Resource Estimation of Agata Nickel Laterite Project of MRL Gold
Phils., Inc., Internal Report., (unpubl). January 2007.

Aurelio, MA and Peña RE 2002. Geology and Mineral Resources of the Philippines, Volume
1: Geology. (eds) Aurelio, MA and Peña, RE, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Philippines.

Bailey, DG 2003. Surigao Property Group, Northeastern Mindanao, Geology and Exploration
Potential. Bailey Geological Consultants (Canada), Technical Report for Panoro Minerals Ltd.

Buenavista, AG 2008. Notes on the Geology and Mineralization in the Surigao Western Range.
MRL Gold Phils., Inc. Internal Report, February 2008.

Buenavista, AG 2008. Geochemistry of the Agata Nickeliferrous Laterite Deposit. MRL Gold
Phils., Inc. Internal Report, May 2008.

Cox, DM 2008. Independent Geologic Report on the Nickel Laterite Resource at Agata
North Laterite Project Area, Agata Project, Agusan del Norte Province, Northern
Mindanao, Phillipines. MRL Gold Phils., Inc., September 2008, rev. Oct 2008.

Cox, DM 2009a. 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Agata North
Nickel Laterite Project of Mindoro Resources Ltd., January 22, 2009.

Cox, DM 2009b. 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Agata North
Nickel Laterite Project of Mindoro Resources Ltd., December 22, 2009.

Climie, JA, et,al. 2000. Accomplishment Report for the Period: June to December 1999. MRL Gold
Phils., Inc., Internal Company Report (unpubl). January 2000.

Climie, JA, et,al. 2005. Interim Exploration Program Report, Surigao Joint Venture Projects: March
1 to June 20, 2005. MRL Gold Phils., Inc., Internal Company Report (unpubl). July 2005.

De Luna, R., et.al., 2004. Report on the Reconnaissance Geologic Survey of the Nickeliferrous
Laterite Deposits at Barangay Tapian, Mainit, Surigao del Norte and Barangay E. Morgado,
Santiago, Agusan del Norte. Taganito Mining Corp. Report, July 2004.

Elliott, PJ 2005. Report on IP and Magnetic Surveys Over the: Agata Prospect, San Francisco
Project, Philippines. MRL Gold Phils., Inc. and Panoro Minerals Ltd,, Company Report, June
2005
Fang, EFE and CA Matilac. 2006. Evaluation of Preliminary Exploration on Agata Nickel Laterite
Prospect of MRL Gold Phils., Inc., QNPH Report, June 2006
Fetiza, IA Jr. 1999. Exploration Report: Tapian-San Francisco Project, May 1997 - May 1998.
MRL Gold Philippines Inc. Internal Company Report (unpubl.).

Gifford, MG 2010. Independent Geologic Report on the Nickel Laterite Resource at Agata
North Laterite Project Area, Agusan del Norte Province, Northern Mindanao,
Phillipines. MRL Gold Phils., Inc., August 2010.

Marshall, NJ 1997. Geological Report on the Agata, Mat-I, Nabago and Tapian Gold
Prospects, Northern Mindanao, Republic of the Philippines. Marshall Geoscience
Services Pty. Ltd., Australia.

Mitchell, AHG and Leach, TM 1991. Epithermal gold in the Philippines: Island arc
metallogenesis, geothermal systems and geology. Academic Press Geology Series.

Rangin, C. 1991. The Philippine Mobile Belt: A complex plate boundary. Journal of Southeast Asian
Earth Sciences, 6 (3/4), pp. 209-220.

Rohrlach, BD 2005. Independent Geological Report on the Surigao Property Group, Northern
Mindanao, Philippines. MRL Gold Phils., Inc. and Panoro Minerals Ltd., Company Report,
April
2005

Sajona, FG, et.al., 1994. Magmatic response to abrupt changes in geodynamic settings:
Pliocene- Quaternary calc-alkaline and Nb-enriched lavas from Mindanao (Philippines).
Tectonophysics,
237(1-2), pp. 47-72.

Sillitoe, RH 1988. Geotectonic setting of western Pacific gold deposits. In: MJ Bartholomew. DW
Hyndman, DW Mogk, and R. Mason, (eds), 8th International Conference on Basement
Tectonics, 8, pp. 665-678. Kluwer Publishers, Butte, Montana.

Tagura, F. et. Al. 2006. Comprehensive Report, MPSA-134-99-XIII, Agata Tenement Blocks. MRL
Gold
Phils., Inc. Internal Company Report (unpubl.), 2006

Tagura, F. et. Al. 2006. Report on the Preliminary Drill Evaluation on Canaga (MPSA-33-
95-X), Malimono, Surigao del Norte. MRL Gold Phils., Inc. Internal Company Report
(unpubl.), September 2006

Tagura, F. et. Al. 2007. Report on Agata Drilling Program, Agusan del Norte, Philippines (Phase 1
Year
2 Expenditure Period 2005-2006), MRL Gold Phils., Inc. Internal Company Report
(unpubl.), January 2007

UNDP. 1984. Geology of Northern Agusan, Mindanao, United Nations Technical Report
No. 2, DP/UN/PHI-79-004/6, New York.
UNDP. 1987. Geology and Gold Mineralization of Surigao del Norte, United Nations Technical
Report
No. 4, DP/UN/PHI-85-001/4, New York.

Zurkic, N. 2009. AGL-Vario_Report. Zurkic Mining Consultants Pty. Ltd., Internal Report (unpubl)
14.0 Date and Signature

CERTIFICATE OF
QUALIFICATION

I, Mark G. Gifford of 636 Bramley River Road, Margaret River, Western Australia hereby certify
that:

1. I am a Professional Geologist employed as a private consultant.

2. I am responsible for the preparation of the Technical Report titled “Independent

Report on the Nickel Laterite Resource – Agata North, Philippines.” And dated March
22nd 2013.

3. I am a Fellow in good standing of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

with membership number 108672

4. I am a graduate of the University of Waikato, New Zealand with a Masters Degree (1st Class
Honours) in Earth Sciences.

5. I have practiced my profession for 24 years, and have worked specifically on lateritic
Nickel deposits throughout the world for 5 years in a geological managerial position. I
have been operating as an Independent Consulting Geologist since 2005.

6. I certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as

defined by NI 43-101), and past relevant work experience, I fulfil the requirements to
be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. I am an independent qualified
person as defined by NI 43-101 and by the companion policy 43-101CP to National
Instrument 43-101.

7. This technical report is based on my review of the available published data, company
reports and data, and personal visits to the property. I have visited the property thrice
in 2010/2011 and have completed inspections of all aspects of the exploration process,
as well as consulting with MRL staff at all levels during the development of the report.
My visits were
in March - June 2010, and May 2011.

8. I have read NI 43-101 and form 101F1. The technical report has been
prepared in compliance with both of these documents.

9. I, Mark Gifford, do not expect to receive any interest (direct, indirect or contingent), in
the properties described herein, nor in the securities of Mindoro Resources Limited
or any of their affiliates. I am independent of the issuer under all criteria of Section
1.5 of NI 43-101.
10. I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject
matter of this Technical Report which is not reflected in this report. I am not aware of
any possible omissions that would deem this report misleading.

11. I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other
regulatory authorities, and any further publication by them for regulatory purposes. I
consent to the inclusion of parts of the Technical Report as electronic publication on
the companies' websites that are accessible to the public.
Signed in Margaret River, Australia. Dated 01 April 2013.

Signature of Qualified Person

Mark G. Gifford MSc (Hons), MAusIMM

Name of Qualified Person