Midway Gold Corp.: Golden Eagle Project, Washington State,...

Midway Gold Corp.: Golden Eagle Project, Washington State, USA

Technical Report July 2009

Prepared by Eric Chapman

B.Sc. (Geology), M.Sc. (Mining Geology), C.Geol. Consultant, Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Dr. Thom Seal Ph.D., P.E. Principal and Chief Metallurgist, Differential Engineering Inc.

Office Locations

Perth 87 Colin Street West Perth WA 6005

PO Box 77 West Perth WA 6872 AUSTRALIA

Tel: +61 8 9213 9213 Fax: +61 8 9322 2576 ABN 99 085 319 562 [email protected]

Brisbane Level 15, 300 Adelaide Street Brisbane QLD 4000

PO Box 2207 Brisbane QLD 4001 AUSTRALIA

Tel: +61 7 3231 3800 Fax: +61 7 3211 9815 ABN 99 085 319 562 [email protected]

Vancouver Suite 600 1090 West Pender Street Vancouver BC V6E 2N7 CANADA

Tel: +1 604 683 7645 Fax: +1 604 683 7929 Reg No. 557150 [email protected]

Johannesburg Technology House Greenacres Office Park Cnr. Victory and Rustenburg Roads Victory Park Johannesburg 2195 SOUTH AFRICA

PO Box 2613 Parklands 2121 SOUTH AFRICA

Tel: + 27 11 782 2379 Fax: + 27 11 782 2396 Reg No. 1998/023556/07 [email protected]

London Abbey House Wellington Way Weybridge Surrey KT13 0TT, UK

Tel: + 44 (0) 1932 268 701 Fax: + 44 (0) 1932 268 702 [email protected]

Website www.snowdengroup.com Subsidiary of Downer EDI Ltd

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This report was prepared as a National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, in accordance with Form 43-101F1, for Midway Gold Corp. by Snowden. The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in Snowden’s services, based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended to be used by Midway Gold Corp., subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with Snowden. That contract permits Midway Gold Corp. to file this report as a Technical Report with Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities pursuant to provincial securities legislation. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities law, any other use of this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk.

Issued by: Vancouver Office Doc Ref: 090730_V624_FINAL_Golden_Eagle_TR.doc

Print Date: 4 August 2009

Number of copies Snowden: 2 Midway Gold Corp.: 2

Midway Gold Corp.: Golden Eagle Project, Washington State, USATechnical Report

July 2009 3 of 126

1 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16

3 Reliance on other experts ............................................................................................. 17

4 Property description and location .................................................................................. 18 4.1 Land tenure ................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Agreements and royalties ............................................................................. 19 4.3 Environmental liabilities ................................................................................. 23 4.4 Permits .......................................................................................................... 23 4.5 Historical mining activities ............................................................................. 23

5 Accessibility, climate, local resources, infrastructure and physiography ...................... 26 5.1 Accessibility ................................................................................................... 26 5.2 Topography, elevation, climate and vegetation ............................................. 26 5.3 Infrastructure and local resources ................................................................. 26

6 History ........................................................................................................................... 28

7 Geological setting ......................................................................................................... 34 7.1 Regional geology .......................................................................................... 34 7.2 Local geology ................................................................................................ 34 7.3 Property geology ........................................................................................... 37

7.3.1 Lithological units .............................................................................. 37 7.3.2 Structural geology ........................................................................... 39 7.3.3 Veins ............................................................................................... 40

8 Deposit types ................................................................................................................ 41

9 Mineralization ................................................................................................................ 42 9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 42 9.2 Description of mineralized zones .................................................................. 42 9.3 Alteration ....................................................................................................... 43

10 Exploration .................................................................................................................... 44 10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 44 10.2 Historical exploration conducted from 1914 to 2000 ..................................... 44 10.3 Midway Gold exploration ............................................................................... 45

10.3.1 Geological mapping ......................................................................... 45 10.3.2 Interpretation of exploration information .......................................... 45

11 Drilling ........................................................................................................................... 47 11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 47


July 2009 4 of 126

11.2 Drilling conditions .......................................................................................... 47 11.2.1 Drilling by Mountain Lion Consolidated, Knob Hill Mines, and

Day Mines from 1914 and 1979 ...................................................... 47 11.2.2 Drilling by Crown Resources from 1984 to 1988 ............................. 49 11.2.3 Drilling by Hecla Mining Company from 1987 to 1994 .................... 49 11.2.4 Drilling by Santa Fe Pacific Gold from 1994 to 1996 ....................... 49 11.2.5 Drilling by Echo Bay Mines in 2000 ................................................. 49

11.3 Drillhole collar surveys .................................................................................. 49 11.4 Downhole surveys ......................................................................................... 50 11.5 Extent of drilling ............................................................................................. 50 11.6 Midway Gold data compilation and grid conversions .................................... 51 11.7 Drillhole intersections .................................................................................... 52

12 Sampling method and approach ................................................................................... 53 12.1 Sampling methods ........................................................................................ 53

12.1.1 Sampling by Mountain Lion Consolidated, Knob Hill Mines, and Day Mines from 1914 and 1979 ...................................................... 54

12.1.2 Sampling by Crown Resources from 1984 to 1988 ......................... 54 12.1.3 Sampling by Hecla Mining Company from 1987 to 1994 ................ 54 12.1.4 Sampling by Santa Fe Pacific Gold from 1994 to 1996 ................... 55 12.1.5 Sampling by Echo Bay Mines in 2000 ............................................. 55

12.2 Sample quality ............................................................................................... 55 12.3 Sample preservation ..................................................................................... 55 12.4 Density determinations .................................................................................. 56 12.5 Geological and geotechnical logging............................................................. 56 12.6 Independent statement on sampling methods .............................................. 57

13 Sample preparation, analyses, and security ................................................................. 58 13.1 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by

Mountain Lion Consolidated, Knob Hill Mines, and Day Mines from 1914 and 1979 .............................................................................................. 58

13.2 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by Crown Resources from 1984 to 1988 ........................................................... 58

13.3 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by Hecla from 1987 to 1994 ............................................................................... 58

13.4 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by Santa Fe Pacific Gold from 1994 to 1996 ..................................................... 59

13.5 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by Echo Bay Mines in 2000 ............................................................................... 59

13.6 Quality control measures .............................................................................. 59 13.6.1 Certified standard samples .............................................................. 59 13.6.2 Blank samples ................................................................................. 60 13.6.3 Duplicate samples ........................................................................... 60


July 2009 5 of 126

13.7 Sampling study undertaken by Hecla Mining ................................................ 63 13.8 Independent statement on sample preparation, analyses, and security ....... 63

14 Data verification ............................................................................................................ 65 14.1 Data verification by Santa Fe Pacific Gold .................................................... 65 14.2 Data compilation and verification by Midway Gold ........................................ 65 14.3 Twin drillholes ............................................................................................... 66 14.4 Independent site inspection May 2009 .......................................................... 67

14.4.1 Independent review of mineralized intersections ............................ 67 14.4.2 Independent sampling of mineralized intersections ........................ 70 14.4.3 Independent review of drillhole collar coordinates .......................... 71 14.4.4 Independent review of original assay certificates ............................ 71

15 Adjacent properties ....................................................................................................... 74

16 Mineral processing and metallurgical testing ................................................................ 75 16.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 75 16.2 Mineral processing and metallurgical testing by Hecla Mining Company

and Santa Fe Pacific Gold ............................................................................ 75 16.3 Summary of process options ......................................................................... 76

16.3.1 Process option 1: Whole ore flotation with cyanidation carbon-in-leach of flotation tails ................................................................... 77

16.3.2 Process option 2: Whole ore bio-oxidation in heaps or ground slurry with cyanidation carbon-in-leach of the bio-oxidation tails .... 79

16.3.3 Process option 3: Whole ore pressure oxidation followed by cyanidation carbon-in-leach of the pressure oxidation tails ............. 81

17 Mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates .......................................................... 82 17.1 Disclosure ..................................................................................................... 82

17.1.1 Known issues that materially affect the mineral resources ............. 82 17.2 Assumptions, methods, and parameters – June 2009 mineral resource

estimates ....................................................................................................... 82 17.3 Supplied data, data transformations, and data validation ............................. 83

17.3.1 Supplied data .................................................................................. 83 17.3.2 Data preparation .............................................................................. 83 17.3.3 Data transformation ......................................................................... 85 17.3.4 Data validation ................................................................................. 85

17.4 Geological interpretation, modeling, and domaining ..................................... 85 17.4.1 Geological interpretation and modeling ........................................... 85 17.4.2 Definition of grade estimation domains ........................................... 85

17.5 Sample statistics ........................................................................................... 86 17.5.1 Sample grade bias analysis ............................................................ 86 17.5.2 Sample compositing ........................................................................ 87


July 2009 6 of 126

17.5.3 Extreme value treatment ................................................................. 88 17.5.4 Data declustering ............................................................................ 89

17.6 Variography ................................................................................................... 89 17.6.1 Continuity analysis .......................................................................... 89 17.6.2 Variogram modeling ........................................................................ 89

17.7 Estimation parameters .................................................................................. 90 17.7.1 Kriging parameters .......................................................................... 90 17.7.2 Block size selection ......................................................................... 90 17.7.3 Sample search parameters ............................................................. 90 17.7.4 Block model set up .......................................................................... 91 17.7.5 Boundary conditions and grade interpolation .................................. 91

17.8 Tonnage factor .............................................................................................. 92 17.9 Estimation validation ..................................................................................... 93

17.9.1 Domain statistics, slice validation plots, and visual validation ......... 93 17.10 Mineral resource classification ...................................................................... 94

17.10.1 Geological continuity ....................................................................... 94 17.10.2 Data density and orientation ............................................................ 94 17.10.3 Data accuracy and precision ........................................................... 94 17.10.4 Spatial grade continuity ................................................................... 95 17.10.5 Estimation quality ............................................................................ 95 17.10.6 Classification process ...................................................................... 95

17.11 Mineral resource reporting ............................................................................ 96 17.11.1 Reasonable prospects for economic extraction .............................. 96 17.11.2 Mineral resource tabulation ............................................................. 97

18 Other relevant data and information ............................................................................. 99

19 Interpretation and conclusions .................................................................................... 100

20 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 102

21 References .................................................................................................................. 105

22 Date and signatures .................................................................................................... 107

23 Certificates .................................................................................................................. 108

Tables Table 1.1 Golden Eagle June 2009 mineral resources ....................................... 12 Table 2.1 Responsibilities of each co-author ...................................................... 16 Table 4.1 Golden Eagle Project land tenure details ............................................ 18 Table 4.2 Newmont gross proceeds royalty ........................................................ 20


July 2009 7 of 126

Table 6.1 Crown Resources’ historical (1991) unclassified resource estimate of the South Penn Gold Project ............................................ 31

Table 6.2 Hecla’s historical (1990) unclassified resource estimate of the Golden Eagle Project .......................................................................... 32

Table 6.3 SFPG’s historical (1997) unclassified resource estimate of the Golden Eagle Project at a range of gold prices .................................. 32

Table 10.1 Summary of exploration programs on the Golden Eagle Property ..... 44 Table 11.1 Summary of drilling completed at the Golden Eagle Project ............... 48 Table 12.1 Sample number by drilling methodology ............................................. 53 Table 13.1 Check assay laboratories .................................................................... 63 Table 14.1 Assay certificates validated by Midway Gold ...................................... 65 Table 14.2 Mineralized drill core intersections reviewed by Snowden .................. 67 Table 14.3 Drillcore intersections unavailable for review ...................................... 68 Table 14.4 Snowden independent drill core sample assay results ....................... 70 Table 14.5 Assay certificates reviewed by Snowden ............................................ 72 Table 16.1 Summary of process options .............................................................. 77 Table 17.1 Summary of drillholes by operator used in the 2009 mineral

resource estimate ............................................................................... 84 Table 17.2 Undeclustered composite and top cut data statistics .......................... 88 Table 17.3 Variogram model parameters for gold, silver, and zinc by domain

for the 50th decile ................................................................................ 90 Table 17.4 Block model parameters ..................................................................... 91 Table 17.5 Grade interpolation methods by domain ............................................. 91 Table 17.6 Dry tonnage factors for the Golden Eagle deposit .............................. 92 Table 17.7 Tonnage factor applied by domain ...................................................... 92 Table 17.8 Comparison of mean estimated and input data grades by domain

for Indicated classified material ........................................................... 93 Table 17.9 Key pit optimization parameters .......................................................... 97 Table 17.10 Golden Eagle June 2009 mineral resources reported above a

range of gold cut-off grades ................................................................ 98 Table 20.1 Proposed budget for ongoing development at the Golden Eagle

Project ............................................................................................... 104

Figures Figure 4.1 Location map of Golden Eagle Property ............................................. 21 Figure 4.2 Golden Eagle Project land tenure map ............................................... 22 Figure 6.1 Map of mining operations in the Eureka Mining District ...................... 29 Figure 7.1 Regional geology map ........................................................................ 35 Figure 7.2 Local geology map modified from Fieferek et al (1995) ...................... 36


July 2009 8 of 126

Figure 7.3 Property geology map ......................................................................... 37 Figure 11.1 Golden Eagle drillhole location map ................................................... 51 Figure 13.1 Santa Fe Pacific Gold pulp duplicates ................................................ 61 Figure 13.2 Santa Fe Pacific Gold sample pulp re-assay results .......................... 62 Figure 14.1 Twin drillhole gold grade comparison by depth ................................... 66 Figure 17.1 Location map of validated drillholes available in the 2009 Golden

Eagle mineral resource ....................................................................... 84 Figure 17.2 Comparison by company of gold sample grades in the Sanpoil

high grade domain .............................................................................. 87

Appendices A Significant drillhole intercepts B Drillhole collar coordinates


Technical Report

July 2009 9 of 126

1 Summary This Technical Report refers to the Golden Eagle Project, a gold mineral exploration project located in Ferry County, Washington State, USA, operated by Midway Gold Corp. (Midway Gold). Midway Gold is a precious metals development and exploration company based in White Rock, British Columbia, and listed on the NYSE Amex (NYSE.A:MDW) and on the TSX Venture Exchange (TSX.V:MDW).

The Golden Eagle gold deposit is located in the Kettle River Range of northeast Washington. Mineralization is hosted in the Eocene aged Sanpoil Formation. This formation consists of a lower series of andesitic flows and an upper series of volcaniclastics and air fall pyroclastics. The Sanpoil is overlain by the Eocene aged Klondike Mountain Formation, a post mineral unit of lower lacustrine siltstone and upper sandstones and conglomerates. Minor placer gold mineralization occurs in the lower conglomerates as a result of erosion of the Golden Eagle and adjacent Knob Hill deposits. Both units are overlain by up to 300 ft of post mineral unconsolidated glacial till.

Gold mineralization trends roughly east-west, with a north to northeast plunge under the overlying Klondike Formation and glacial till. Gold mineralization is associated primarily with moderately to highly silicified volcanics that lie just beneath a sinter cap of hot springs system. The quartz veins are epithermal, while the main Golden Eagle gold deposit is disseminated in nature. Gold and silver mineralization occurs in arsenic-rich overgrowths on pyrite. Sulfide concentration averages approximately 3%. Higher grade gold veins lie underneath, to the west, and within the Golden Eagle mineralization. Historical underground mining along gold-silver rich quartz veins occurred at the Mountain Lion, Knob Hill, and the JO#3 workings, which are proximal to Golden Eagle.

Extensive historic drilling has occurred on the property from 1940 to 2000, by both historic producers (Knob Hill Mining, Day Mines, and the Hecla Mining Company (Hecla)) as well as large mining corporations (Santa Fe Pacific Gold (SFPG) and Echo Bay Mining). Small scale underground and surface production from the Mountain Lion Mine occurred from 1900 to 1947 to the west of the Golden Eagle deposit. Additional mining by Knob Hill Mines occurred to the east and below the Golden Eagle deposit on the JO#3 vein set. Limited historic vein mining occurred within the Golden Eagle deposit and has been depleted from the 2009 mineral resource estimate reported in this Technical Report.

A total of 171,163.4 ft of drilling from 835 holes was completed between 1940 and 2000 in the Golden Eagle resource area. Sampling from reverse circulation (RC) and core drilling at the deposit was carried out using industry standard practices and procedures at the time the holes were drilled and/or assayed. Verified original data, totaling 140,950.8 ft from 204 drillholes have been used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate. Verification was completed by comparison of gold sample grades on laboratory assay certificates and drill logs obtained from historic operators of the project. Gold sample grades that had laboratory assay certificates or drill log verification were utilized in the resource estimate.

Mineralized grade estimation domains were established by interpretation of geological, structural and sample assay information on sections and plans. Sample assays within the domains were composited into 5 ft intervals. Sample search distances and directions for resource estimation were established using spherical variogram models on the sample


Technical Report

July 2009 10 of 126

composites within the estimation domains. Extreme sample composite grades were capped from 0.10 opt to 0.50 opt Au depending upon the domain, and sample composite grades greater than the capping threshold were set to the capping value. Less than 0.2% of the sample composites were affected by the capping. A density factor of 13.7 cubic feet per short ton (ft3/st) was applied to the mineralized bedrock material, and a factor of 13.5 ft3/st to 14.3 ft3/st was applied to surrounding bedrock. A tonnage factor of 15.1 ft3/st was applied to overlying glacial till. A three dimensional block model was generated and composited sample grades were used to estimate gold grades within mineralized domains using an ordinary kriging estimation methodology.

Documents detailing the metallurgical test work conducted by several unverified laboratories and consultants on mineralized samples from the Golden Eagle deposit were reviewed and documented by Differential Engineering Inc. (Differential Engineering, 2009). The test work described in these reports have not yet been verified through independent test work, and it is unknown whether the samples are representative of the Golden Eagle deposit, however, the reported results indicate that the Golden Eagle deposit represents a refractory gold and silver target for further metallurgical testing, with the material types and grade similar to gold ore processed from the Carlin Trend in Nevada.

Hecla and SFPG conducted various metallurgical tests in the 1980s and 1990s which demonstrated that direct cyanidation is not a feasible process option for most of the samples, that the gold is finely and homogeneously disseminated in the samples, and that the mineralized material is generally refractory for gold extraction. Refractory gold refers to mineralized material that is naturally resistant to gold recovery by direct standard cyanidation and activated carbon adsorption processes.

Calculations based on estimated abundances of different types of pyrite in a metallurgical sample suggests that about 66% of the gold could be present in solid solution in arsenic-bearing, fine to medium grained pyrite. Gold extraction by direct cyanidation was limited to 11.8% to 27.8%, except in one composite which exhibited gold extraction up to 59.2% by direct cyanidation, for a composite weighted average of 22.4%. Whole ore cyanide extraction therefore does not appear to be a viable extraction process for the bulk of the deposit.

Due to the refractory properties of most of the Golden Eagle mineralized material, which does not exhibit any preg-rob tendencies (the adsorption of dissolved gold-cyanide by organic carbon present in the gold, rather than the activated carbon used to recover the gold), sulfide oxidation will improve gold extraction and recovery. Standard pre-treatment options for sulfide refractory ores include chemical pre-treatment, roasting, bio-oxidation, pressure oxidation (POX), ultra-fine grinding and concentration by gravity or flotation. The gold in the Golden Eagle mineralized material mostly occurs as solid solution within the pyrite matrix, which is generally impermeable to direct cyanidation, so the gold must be liberated by oxidation of the sulfides to yield permeable sulfates and oxides that are more readily leached. Thus the degree of sulfide oxidation will generally correlate with the success of extracting the gold via cyanidation.

Flotation tests were able to achieve gold recoveries at 82.4% to 95% into the flotation concentrate, which comprised 12.46% to 26.84% of the total weight. Flotation concentrate assays ranged from 0.143 opt to 0.905 opt. This large concentrate mass with relatively low gold grade may be challenging to transport, capitalize and process economically. Additional metallurgical testing on the flotation concentrate for bio-oxidation and pressure oxidation followed by cyanidation showed overall gold extractions using bio-oxidation at 71.7% to 82.6% and POX gold extraction at 88.5% to


Technical Report

July 2009 11 of 126

93.5%. Mather (1990) noted that bio-oxidation and pressure oxidation of the whole samples supplied by Hecla both enabled subsequent optimal extraction of 90% or more of the gold. The tests achieved a high degree of sulfur oxidation (>99%) and enabled gold extractions of 94% to 98%. At sulfur POX oxidation of 92%, gold extraction dropped to 89%.

Extensive grinding test work was performed for semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) and rod/ball setups. The rod/ball work index was determined to be 19.5 KWhr/st and 0.25 g2 for the Bond Abrasion Index. Densities of composites samples ranged from 2.62 g/cm3 to 2.67 g/cm3. It was reported that ground slurry pulps of the Golden Eagle material may exhibit high viscosity and difficult filtration issues.

Sample composites have been reported to contain significant quantities of arsenic, iron, mercury, selenium, and sulfides. The arsenic was stated to be concentrated in the grain rims, the rims ranging up to 4 um in thickness. Gold was detected in the arsenical rims of the fine grained pyrite, the gold/silver association was observed in every grain studied in detail, and the gold was stated to occur either as colloidal material or in solid solution.

In addition, samples of the Golden Eagle deposit have been noted to be potential acid generating (PAG) material. The fact that the Golden Eagle Property is a sulfidic deposit in a “net precipitation area” means all waste rock, dumps or storage of material should be mined and stacked in such a fashion to separate the material from the environment and to minimize the potential acid generation potential for the material.

This Technical Report is intended to disclose the first mineral resource for the Golden Eagle Project (Table 1.1) effective June 2009. Tons and grades have been reported above a range of gold opt cut-off grades. To date, no analysis has been made to determine the economic cut-off grade that will ultimately be applied to the Golden Eagle Project.

An economic pit analysis was performed on the Golden Eagle resource model in order to contain the resource within a reasonable pit boundary and to establish a reasonable expectation of economic extraction using a $750 per ounce gold price and 85% gold recovery. The parameters used in the pit optimization are detailed in Section 17.11.

No mineral reserves have been estimated at this time. Additional studies will be required to determine technical, economic, legal, environmental, socio-economic, and governmental factors. These modifying factors are normally included in a mining feasibility study and are a pre-requisite for conversion of mineral resources to, and reporting of, mineral reserves. The CIM Standards (CIM, 2005) describe completion of a Preliminary Feasibility Study as the minimum prerequisite for the conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves.


Technical Report

July 2009 12 of 126

Table 1.1 Golden Eagle June 2009 mineral resources

Classification Gold cut-off grade (opt) Tons (Mt) Gold (opt) Contained gold (Koz)

Indicated 0.01 43.0 0.045 1,915

0.02 31.4 0.055 1,744

0.03 23.4 0.066 1,545

0.04 17.9 0.076 1,355

0.05 13.8 0.085 1,173

Inferred 0.01 11.6 0.024 284

0.02 5.1 0.038 192

0.03 3.0 0.047 143

0.04 1.8 0.055 100

0.05 0.9 0.066 61

Notes: The most likely cut-off grade for this deposit is not known at this time and must be confirmed by the appropriate economic studies. Historical underground workings have been depleted from the mineral resource. Resources are reported within an ultimate pit shell generated with a $750 gold price and 85% gold recovery. The estimated metal content does not include consideration of any other mining, mineral processing, or metallurgical recoveries. Tons and ounces have been rounded and this may have resulted in minor discrepancies in the totals. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have been estimated. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.

The following recommendations are made for the further advancement of the Project and to improve confidence in the mineral resource estimate:

• Increase the number of tonnage factor measurements on existing drill core and any new drillholes to improve the confidence in resource tons. Samples should be selected according to a representative suite of lithologies, mineralization, and alteration types, through spatially representative locations throughout the deposit. The representativity can be confirmed by consulting the number of density determinations tabulated by grade estimation domain for each deposit and increasing the number of density samples in domains with low sample numbers relative to the number of sample assays in the domain. Spatial representativity can be confirmed by plotting the location of specific gravity samples on the drillhole trace in plan and in section.

• Increase the number of twin holes at the project to confirm data obtained by historical operators. The twin holes should test the full range of drilling campaigns


Technical Report

July 2009 13 of 126

used in the resource estimate by geology, date, company, and core diameter, through spatially representative locations throughout the deposit.

• Undertake exploration, twin, and metallurgical sample diamond drilling to provide samples for oxide definition, density analysis, metallurgical testing, and exploration for additional resources on the property.

• Undertake a detailed topographic survey of the project site and compare with drillhole collar coordinates to ensure drillholes are in the correct locations, and validate the transformation of coordinates to move drillhole data from the historic mine grid to the UTM grid.

• Further refine the geological interpretation by reviewing archived drillhole logs and comparing to drillhole core.

• Conduct surface mapping of the project area to clearly define major faults and geological controls on exposed mineralization.

• Conduct surface sampling of exposed bedrock to determine the extent and tenor of mineralization exposed on surface.

• Update the geology and mineralization model to include information gathered from surface mapping and sampling.

• Update the geology and mineralization model to reflect alteration and oxidation to better define metallurgical types and the amount of oxide material on the project. Oxide resource models should include estimates of sulfide sulfur, cyanide amenability, and carbonates.

• Estimate silver grades in the resource model to determine if sufficient silver concentrations exist in the deposit to allow mineral processing of silver as a by-product.

• Undertake slope stability studies to establish the maximum slope angles for an ‘ultimate’ pit shell design and to determine the extent of neighboring additional land required to realize the full potential of the mineral resource.

• Consider the purchase of additional land and mineral rights from Hecla Mining Co. to obtain neighboring land and undertake appropriate environmental and engineering studies on the extra land.

• Evaluate alternative mining technologies such as in-pit crushing and conveying (IPCC) in comparison to standard truck and shovel mining methods for an open pit mining scenario. IPCC has the potential to provide lower overall unit mining costs and therefore could increase the resource base and lower the overall stripping ratio for the Golden Eagle deposit. The low electrical rates in the project area may make this option fairly attractive if it can be incorporated into the overall site development plan and may reduce some project risk due to escalating diesel fuel prices in the future.

• Evaluate the underground mining potential and timing.

• Evaluate the current processing technologies and potential alternatives that may be applicable to the Golden Eagle deposit and develop scoping level capital and operating costs for those technologies.


Technical Report

July 2009 14 of 126

• Investigate potential locations of tailings impoundment areas and tailings storage options.

• Investigate potential locations for waste rock disposal.

• Evaluate the geotechnical input requirements and develop geotechnical testing programs to provide slope design parameters for open pit mine design.

• Determine bulk sampling alternatives for bench scale and pilot scale testing.

• Verify that all data and reports from metallurgical sampling, test work, analytical results, and quality control are valid and reliable. This includes verification of assays, metallurgical balances and reagent calculations.

• Verify metallurgical work completed by previous operators through independent test work conducted by project metallurgists.

• Attempt to correlate all the information from past metallurgical test work to specific locations in the deposit and to quantify the tons associated with each mineralized rock type.

• Undertake cost analysis of various metallurgical treatment options, developing a flow sheet and associated costs.

• The process flowsheet selected for the treatment of the mineralized material will require a companion economic analysis for process capital and operational costs coupled with reagent prices and logistics for concentrate shipment if warranted.

• All samples selected for metallurgical analysis should comprise freshly collected material (i.e., not collected from historical samples) and should be spatially and geologically representative of the resource material.

• Conduct mineral liberation analysis (MLA) on fresh samples to determine the minerals in the deposit as well as to determine which minerals and size fraction contain the gold distribution. Post extraction material should also be examined to determine the gold distribution for process optimization.

• Further test work on gravity separation of the larger sulfide fraction is needed in any grinding flowsheet to see if the quantity of gold recovered to a gravity concentrate warrants that relatively cheap concentration step prior to further processing.

• Using fresh samples of representative mineralized rock from the deposit, conduct column bio-tests to determine the change in mineralogy and gold extraction as a function of size, time, reagent concentration and sulfide oxidation.

• Using fresh samples of representative mineralized rock from the deposit, conduct a pilot plant test to determine the optimal recovery for gold extraction in the flowsheet.

• The projected waste rock material should be tested for potential acid generating (PAG) characterization, which may involve specific rock testing in humidity cells to determine.

Snowden further recommends that Midway Gold undertake a conditional simulation study to quantify risk associated with different portions of the deposit. The study can also be used to quantify the optimal drillhole spacing required to achieve a range of


Technical Report

July 2009 15 of 126

estimation qualities and identify targets for infill drilling. The outcome of this approach would be an understanding of the degree of grade estimation error associated with particular volumes of mineralization for a range of drillhole spacing patterns. The grade estimation error and other important aspects of the project data, as described in Section 17.10, are considered while assigning mineral resource confidence categories.


Technical Report

July 2009 16 of 126

2 Introduction This Technical Report has been prepared by Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Inc. (Snowden) for Midway Gold Corp. (Midway Gold), in compliance with the disclosure requirements of National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101), to disclose relevant information about the Golden Eagle Project. This information has resulted from exploration and sample data compilation and analysis, and mineral resource estimates.

Unless otherwise stated, information and data contained in this report or used in its preparation has been provided by Midway Gold. This Technical Report has been compiled from sources cited in the text by Mr. Eric Chapman, C.Geol., Consultant with Snowden, and under the supervision of Snowden by Mr. Don Harris, CP.Geo., Vice President of Advanced Projects for Midway Gold, and by Dr. Thom Seal, PE, Principal and Chief Metallurgist of Differential Engineering. Mr. Chapman, Mr. Harris, and Dr. Seal are Qualified Persons as defined by NI 43-101. Mr. Chapman visited the Golden Eagle Project in May 2009, and is independent of Midway Gold as defined by NI 43-101. Mr. Harris accompanied Mr. Chapman to the Project in May 2009. The responsibilities of each author are provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Responsibilities of each co-author

Author Responsible for section/s

Dr. Thom Seal 16: Mineral processing and metallurgical testing

Eric Chapman All other sections

This report is intended to be used by Midway Gold subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with Snowden. That contract permits filing this report as a Technical Report with Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities pursuant to provincial securities legislation. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws any other use of this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk.

Reliance on the report may only be assessed and placed after due consideration of Snowden’s scope of work, as described herein. This report is intended to be read as a whole, and sections or parts thereof should therefore not be read or relied upon out of context. Any results or findings presented in this study, whether in full or excerpted, may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without Snowden’s written authorization.

The following unit conventions have been used in this report:

1 foot (ft) = 0.3048 metres (m)

1 inch (in) = 0.0254 m

1 US short ton (t) = 0.9072 metric tonne

1 troy ounce per short ton (opt) = 34.2857 parts per million (ppm)

Au = Gold.

Ag = Silver


Technical Report

July 2009 17 of 126

3 Reliance on other experts There has been no reliance on experts who are not Qualified Persons in the preparation of this report, except for information regarding the land agreements, options and claims as well as the accuracy of title, where the authors have relied on the accuracy of the opinion of Mr. R.J. Smith of Midway Gold Corp.


Technical Report

July 2009 18 of 126

4 Property description and location The Golden Eagle Property is located in Ferry County, Washington State, USA, approximately three miles north-northwest of the town of Republic, Washington (Figure 4.1). The Property is situated in the Eureka Mining District, one mile west of the Knob Hill Mine (active from 1896 to 1998) and proximal to the Mountain Lion Mine (active from 1904 to 1947).

The Project is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Republic, Washington 1:100,000 scale, 30 × 60 minute series topographic map and the USGS Storm King Mountain 1:24,000 scale, 7.5 minute series quadrangle map. It is centered at latitude 48° 40’ North and longitude 118° 45’ West. The principal area of known mineralization on the Golden Eagle Property is located within the northwest quarter of Section 27, Township 37 North, Range 32 East (T37N, R32E), Willamette Meridian (W.M.). Mineralization also occurs at the South Penn target in Section 28, Township 37 North, Range 32 East (T37N, R32E), W.M. The main areas of mineralization covered by drilling are shown in Figure 4.2.

4.1 Land tenure The Golden Eagle Property encompasses an area of approximately 339.56 acres (137.41 ha). The Project consists of ten patented lode mining (some of which have been subdivided) and millsite claims, nine contiguous fee parcels, and three unpatented lode mining claims covering portions of Sections 22, 27 and 28, T37N, R32E, W.M (Figure 4.2).

Taxes payable to the Ferry County Treasurer on patented claims and fee parcels are due annually by May 1st if paid in full, or the first half by May 1st and the second half by November 1st for the current tax year. Unpatented claim assessment fees payable to the Bureau of Land Management are due annually by August 31st for the following assessment year. A complete listing of all patented claims, fee parcels and unpatented claims is provided in Table 4.1.

The Project is located within surveyed Townships. All of the property claims are located in Township 37 North, Range 32 East, W.M. Parcel boundaries are defined using aliquot parts, public mineral surveys and privately conducted property surveys on file with the Ferry County Assessor’s office. No public mineral surveys of the unpatented claims have been filed or are necessary.

Table 4.1 Golden Eagle Project land tenure details

Source Surface Minerals Sec. Serial No. Description Acres

EB, HL 100% 100% 27 - Mountain Lion Lode, M.S. 402-A 20.66

EB, HL 100% 100% 27 - Flat Iron Lode, M.S. 402-A 7.589

EB, HL 100% 100% 27 - Last Chance Lode, M.S. 402-A 20.66

EB, HL 100% 100% 27 - Mountain Lion Mill Site, M.S. 402-B 5.00

EB, HL 100% 100% 27 - Gopher Lode, M.S. 509 19.72

EB, HL 100% 100% 27 - Government Lot 1 41.13


Technical Report

July 2009 19 of 126

Source Surface Minerals Sec. Serial No. Description Acres



EB, HL 100% 100% 27 - Government Lot 4, less Tax Lot 4 7.26

EB, HL 100% 100% 27 - N½NE¼, less Tax Lot 12-02 77.36

PL 100% 100% 27 - Government Lot 8 8.80

EB 100% 100% 28 - Government Lot 1 36.00

PL 100% 100% 28 - South Penn Lode, M.S. 664, less Tax Lot 8 12.88

PL 100% 100% 28 - South Penn Fraction Lode, M.S. 664 3.27

PL 100% 100% 28 - Government Lot 4, less Tax Lot 9 10.88

PL 100% - 28 - Tax Lot 5 2.61

PL 100% - 28 - Vulcan No. 2 Lode, M.S. 606 19.53

PL 100% 100% 28 - Tax Lot 8 2.54

PL 100% 100% 28 - Tax Lot 9 3.27

PL 100% 100% 28 - Mormon Lode, M.S. 584 13.44

PL 100% 100% 28 - Government Lot 5 13.9

BLM 100% 100% 28 ORMC164710, County 273914

GEH 1 (unpatented lode claim)

5.38BLM 100% 100% 28 ORMC164711,

County 273915GEH 2 (unpatented lode claim)

BLM 100% 100% 22 ORMC164712, County 273916

GEH 3 (unpatented lode claim) 0.42

EB: Echo Bay Exploration Inc. HL: Hecla Limited (formerly known as Hecla Mining Company) PL: Private landholder(s) BLM: Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management

4.2 Agreements and royalties On August 9, 1995, Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corporation (SFPG) and Hecla Mining Company (Hecla) entered into an earn-in agreement granting SFPG the right to earn a 70% undivided interest in Hecla’s holdings in the Republic district (approximately 4,732 gross acres, or 1,915 ha), exclusive of limited surface inholdings and certain environmental exclusion areas. The agreement was later amended and restated to allow SFPG to earn a 75% interest in the same properties. SFPG completed the required obligations to earn a 75% interest in approximately 204.29 acres comprising the Golden Eagle Property (the “Property”) on September 5, 1996 and was granted the properties by means of a warranty deed effective of that date. The parties concurrently executed an


Technical Report

July 2009 20 of 126

agreement (the “Operating Agreement”) governing their respective interests in the Property which provides for joint funding of exploration and development expenditures, an area of interest provision, and pre-emptive rights in certain circumstances.

On February 15, 2000, SFPG merged and was acquired by Newmont Mining Company (Newmont). On July 7, 2000, Newmont sold its interest in the Property and assigned its rights and responsibilities under the Operating Agreement to Echo Bay Exploration Inc. (Echo Bay) in exchange for Echo Bay’s interest in the Kuranakh project in Russia. At that time, the property was burdened with a sliding-scale gross proceeds royalty (Table 4.2) payable to Newmont.

Table 4.2 Newmont gross proceeds royalty

Spot price per troy ounce gold Percentage

Less than $350 0.000

$350 to $400 0.375

Greater than $400 0.750

On November 8, 2006, Hecla Mining Company changed its name to Hecla Limited. Midway Gold acquired Echo Bay and Hecla’s interest in the Operating Agreement under the terms set forth below.

On May 28, 2008, Midway Gold entered into an agreement to acquire Echo Bay’s 75% interest in the Property, Operating Agreement, and an additional 36 acre parcel (100% owned) for a total purchase price of US$1,500,000. The terms of the agreement granted Echo Bay a 2% Net Smelter Returns royalty and a right of first refusal to toll mill any ore produced from the Property at their Kettle Mill facility. Closing was subject to a 60-day pre-emptive right in favor of Hecla Limited under the terms of the Operating Agreement. Hecla waived their right on July 17, 2008, and Midway Gold’s wholly-owned Washington subsidiary Golden Eagle Holding Inc. (GEH) closed the transaction on July 31, 2008.

On July 1, 2008, MGC entered into an agreement to acquire Hecla Limited’s 25% interest in the Property and Operating Agreement for a total purchase price of US$483,333. Closing was subject to a 60-day pre-emptive right in favor of Echo Bay under the terms of the Operating Agreement. Echo Bay waived their right on July 3, 2008, and GEH closed the transaction on August 1, 2008. Hecla did not reserve a royalty interest.

On April 22, 2009, GEH acquired 27.02 acres of fee lands comprising 100% surface and mineral interest known as the South Penn project and contiguous with the Golden Eagle Property for a sum of US$30,000 from a private landholder. No royalty interest was reserved.

On May 22, 2009, GEH acquired 64.09 acres of fee lands comprising 22.14 acres of 100% surface (the mineral interest is held by a private party and is not considered material to the resource area) and 41.95 acres of 100% surface and mineral interest contiguous with the Property for a sum of US$105,750 from a private landholder. No royalty interest was reserved.

Midway Gold has represented that the Golden Eagle Project is not subject to any other royalties, back-in rights, payments, agreements, or encumbrances. Snowden has not


Technical Report

July 2009 21 of 126

reviewed the land tenure situation and has not independently verified the legal status or ownership of the properties or any agreements that pertain to the Golden Eagle Project. Land tenure and agreements have been provided by Midway Gold; Snowden has reviewed the information and believes it is reliable.

Figure 4.1 Location map of Golden Eagle Property


Technical Report

July 2009 22 of 126

Figure 4.2 Golden Eagle Project land tenure map


Technical Report

July 2009 23 of 126

4.3 Environmental liabilities Historical surface and underground mining activities occurred on the property between 1896 and 1995 and the possibility exists of unidentified environmental issues. However, an environmental impact review by Hecla in 1990 (Hecla, 1990) identified no fatal flaws with the Golden Eagle Project. SFPG conducted an extensive environmental review in 1995 prior to completing their earn-in at Golden Eagle and signing of an option and sub-lease agreement at South Penn and identified a number of sites as exclusion areas in the Hecla land holdings. None of these exclusion areas are contained within Midway Gold’s current landholdings. The underground portal to the Mountain Lion Mine was sealed by Hecla in the mid 1990s and the surface mine workings re-contoured, re-seeded and allowed to be reclaimed naturally.

No environmental liability is known to exist at this time.

Mud Lake, located to the south-southeast of the project is a shallow pond that could potentially be impacted by operations at Golden Eagle. No hydrology studies have been completed at this time, but this area would be sensitive, with any wetlands loss requiring replacement.

4.4 Permits Exploration activities on lands with no direct ownership or other encumbrances by federal agencies fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Washington and Ferry County agencies.

Midway Gold’s exploration activities are permitted under the Washington Surface Mining Act (Chapter 78.44 RCW). A reclamation permit is required when mineral prospecting or exploration activities result in:

• More than three acres of disturbed area.

• Surface mined slopes greater than 30 ft high and steeper than 1 ft horizontal to 1 ft vertical; or

• More than one acre of disturbed area within an eight acre area, when the disturbed area results from mineral prospecting or exploration activities.

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has primary jurisdiction over reclamation permits under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). It is not anticipated that the activities recommended in Section 20 of this report would require a reclamation permit with the DNR.

All development and earth-moving activities requiring a local permit must be conducted in consultation with the Ferry County Planning and Building Department.

Historically, water for drilling purposes was obtained from Hecla mine wells, which are no longer accessible. In the future, Midway Gold’s activities would require acquisition of water from municipal or third party sources.

4.5 Historical mining activities Mining operations in the Eureka Mining District’s 100 year history produced nearly three million ounces of gold at an average grade of 0.58 opt Au. A plan of mining operations is shown in Figure 6.1.

The Mountain Lion claim, on the Golden Eagle Property, was located in March 1896. There were reported to be three parallel veins at the surface, but only one had


Technical Report

July 2009 24 of 126

commercial grade ore. The productive vein was followed downward for 800 ft from the surface. The Mountain Lion mine was developed with a tunnel 1,260 ft into the mountain, and a shaft sunk to 700 ft. The company built a 100 ton per day mill that used amalgamation and cyanide. This mill recovered only 64% of the gold, and the company shut the operation down in 1900. In 1902, the Mountain Lion Company installed a new cyanide circuit in their mill but again experienced unsatisfactory recovery rates and closed the mill, and shipped ore directly to smelters via new railroads. By 1910, the Mountain Lion was one of the principle producers in the district. Around 1914, the Mountain Lion underground mine shut down.

The first significant production from the Knob Hill vein, immediately east of the Golden Eagle Property, began in 1911. Production increased in 1918 when a new shaft allowed development of the 200 level. Small scale mining continued into the early 1930s.

Thomas Murray purchased the Mountain Lion claim on the Golden Eagle Property in 1927 and resumed operations. An explosion and fire in 1927 destroyed the surface facilities and allowed flooding of the mine to the 300 level. Murray pumped out to the 600 level the following spring and production resumed. Lessees operated the mine from 1930 to 1936 and made periodic shipments of ore to smelters. It was reported that 80% of the ore coming from the Republic area in 1936 came from the Mountain Lion, with 3,000 t shipped monthly. The mine shut down in mid-1937.

The Mountain Copper Company came to Republic when they acquired an option to purchase the Mud Lake claim southeast of Mountain Lion and west of Knob Hill in 1935. Mountain Copper vacated their lease in April 1936, removed their equipment, and surrendered their option.

Knob Hill Mining took over the Mud Lake Claims in September 1936. Knob Hill Mining built a 400 ton per day mill and brought in the first power line to the district. The mill utilized a fine grind and cyanide to recover 92% to 96% of the gold. Knob Hill mined the Mud Lake disseminated deposit as an open pit from 1937 to 1939 and discovered the smaller Stewart breccia deposit nearby. In 1939 the company discovered the high grade South Cross breccia vein in old underground workings at Knob Hill. The high grades discovered in the South Cross resulted in a switch from open pit to shaft mining. The termination of open pit mining was the result of a change in the dip of the deposit and “other natural restraints” (increasing strip ratio). The final Mud Lake pit was 80 ft deep on its south end. Production from the Knob Hill open pits was 48,623 oz gold (with an average grade of 0.1 opt Au) and 424,738 oz silver (with an average grade of 0.85 opt Ag). This production was later covered by tailings associated with the Knob Hill Mine.

Production from the Mountain Lion resumed in 1938. Operators mined the Mountain Lion using open pit methods from 1939 to 1945. On the adjacent Trevitt-Pierce property, open pit mining continued until 1947. Production from the Mountain Lion and Trevitt-Pierce has been estimated (Hecla, 1985) at 9,000 oz gold with an average grade of 0.12 opt Au and 18,750 oz silver, with an average grade of 0.25 opt Ag, by open pit methods and 16,300 oz gold with an average grade of 0.21 opt Au and 155,200 oz silver, with an average grade of 2 opt Ag, by underground methods.

Ore mined and developed from Mountain Lion open pits between 1937 and 1947 equaled the total district production from 1896 to 1937 (Wright, 1947).

From 1958 through 1967, Knob Hill Mines and Day Mines drove the lower levels (7 to 13) of the Knob Hill mine to the north to mine the JO#3 vein (Full, 1960). At their


Technical Report

July 2009 25 of 126

northern limit, they were mining veins beneath the Golden Eagle deposit, but the mine did not connect with the Mountain Lion workings. Total production from the JO#3 vein is not known at this time.

Day Mines was incorporated in 1947 and the company acquired Republic area properties when it merged with Aurum Mining Company in 1950. In 1953, Day Mines leased the Gold Dollar claim to Knob Hill Mines. When Knob Hill Mines closed operations in 1978, Day Mines acquired the company and re-opened the mine. This consolidated the Eureka District under one owner for the first time. In 1981, Day Mines, the fifth largest silver producer in America, was taken over by Hecla Mining Company, the second largest silver producer.

The Republic unit was Hecla’s only significant gold operation. Faced with declining reserves, the narrow, high grade Bailey vein was discovered in 1981, which extended mine life for two years. The Golden Promise gold deposit was discovered in 1983, and Hecla operations continued until 1998.

While Hecla was discovering and defining the Golden Eagle deposit, Crown Resources and Glamis Gold had identified a heap leachable gold deposit on their South Penn property south of the old Trevitt-Pierce/Mountain Lion open pits. The South Penn Gold Project now comprises the southern portion of the Golden Eagle Project. In 1987, Glamis Gold, through their subsidiary Chemgold, and Crown Resources mined 33,000 t of 0.03 opt Au from the South Penn pit and processed it on a small heap leach.

No other mining activity has taken place on the Golden Eagle Property since 1995.


Technical Report

July 2009 26 of 126

5 Accessibility, climate, local resources, infrastructure and physiography 5.1 Accessibility

The Golden Eagle Property is situated on the western edge of the Republic Graben within the Okanogan Highlands and is accessed from the south from Republic, WA via the Knob Hill-Trout Creek Road from North Clark Avenue (Washington State Highway 20). This paved county road, approximately 3 miles long, serves as the main access to the historic Knob Hill Mine (formerly operated by the Hecla Mining Company) and surrounding lands.

The nearest town to the property is Republic, Washington, which is situated at the intersection of Highways 20 and 21 and hosts a population of 954 (Census 2000 data). The greater Ferry County area hosts a population of 7,260 (Census 2000 data). The nearest city is Spokane, Washington, approximately 130 miles by road to the southeast, which hosts a population of 451,200 (2007 Washington Census Estimate).

5.2 Topography, elevation, climate and vegetation The Golden Eagle Project is located within a set of low rolling hills associated with the Kettle River Range of northeast Washington. The hills slope away from the project to the east towards the Knob Hill Mine, and drops off to the west along North Fork Creek. Elevation at the Property ranges from 2,950 ft to 3,930 ft above mean sea level, and the topographic relief can be characterized as moderate.

The vegetation covering the property includes grass, and birch and pine trees typical of the northeastern Washington area.

The climate in the Golden Eagle area is typical for northeastern Washington. Average monthly high temperatures range from 57.2° F to 81.4° F in summer (May through September) with low temperatures ranging from 15.1° F to 30.2° F in the winter. Yearly precipitation, in the form of rain and snowfall averages approximately 16.5 in per year, with an average annual snow fall of 50.3 in per year. December through February receives the bulk of the snowfall.

Exploration is possible year around, with access to the property via a plowed, paved County road. Snow levels in winter and wet conditions in spring can make travel within the property difficult at times.

5.3 Infrastructure and local resources The Golden Eagle Project is large enough to host an open pit mining operation and/or underground operation. The project would include an open pit, process plant, waste dumps, and tailings impoundment, should they be necessary. Midway Gold has secured the surface rights for the immediate area associated with the project. Additional land will need to be acquired if the full depth of the resource is to be extracted by an open pit operation. Power is available at the nearby (< 1 mile) Knob Hill Mine and sufficient water is potentially available as indicated by near surface water intersected by drilling.

Local resources necessary for the exploration and possible future development and operation of the Golden Eagle Project are located in Republic and surrounding area, as well as the nearby cities of Spokane, WA, Coeur d’Alene, ID, and Wenatchee, WA. The Republic area has a long mining history, and Kinross Gold Corporation currently operates the Buckhorn underground mine to the north. It is anticipated that personnel


Technical Report

July 2009 27 of 126

and resources for operations at Golden Eagle would be available from Republic and surrounding communities.


Technical Report

July 2009 28 of 126

6 History All of the resource estimates referred to in this section are historical in nature and have not been verified by a Qualified Person, and do not comply with the disclosure requirements of NI 43-101. They are mentioned here for completeness only and should not be relied upon.

The Golden Eagle Property is located at the northern end of the Eureka Mining District (Figure 6.1), which covers an area six miles long and about one mile wide. Mining operations over its 100 year history produced nearly three million ounces of gold at an average grade of 0.58 opt Au. The Golden Eagle Property is located near the historic Mountain Lion and Knob Hill mines.

The first claims in the district were made in 1896 after the Colville Indian Reservation was opened to mineral entry. Veins formed prominent outcrops, so many of the important veins were staked in the first weeks of prospecting. Initial samples from the veins showed weak to moderate gold values. That first summer, high grade mineralization was discovered on the Lone Pine vein that ran $320/t (16 opt Au).

The Mountain Lion claim, on the Golden Eagle Property, was located in March 1896 and the Mountain Lion Gold Mining Company formed in 1898. There were reported to be three parallel veins at the surface, but only one had commercial grade mineralization. The productive vein was followed downward for 800 ft from the surface. The Mountain Lion mine was developed with a tunnel 1,260 ft into the mountain, and a shaft sunk to 700 ft. The company built a 100 t per day mill that used amalgamation and cyanide. This mill recovered only 64% of the gold, and the company shut the operation down in 1900.

Following the arrival of two railroads in Republic in the summer of 1902, the Mountain Lion Company installed a new cyanide circuit in their mill. Recovery was still not satisfactory so the mill was shut down and ore shipped directly to smelters via the new railroads. By 1910, the Mountain Lion was one of the principle producers in the district. Around 1914, the Mountain Lion underground mine shut down.

The first significant production from the Knob Hill vein, immediately east of the Golden Eagle Property, began in 1911. Production increased in 1918 when a new shaft allowed development of the 200 level. Small scale mining continued in the early 1930s.

Thomas Murray purchased the Mountain Lion claim on the Golden Eagle Property in 1927 and resumed operations. An explosion and fire in 1927 destroyed the surface facilities and allowed flooding of the mine to the 300 level. Murray pumped out to the 600 level the following spring and production resumed. Lessees operated the mine from 1930 to 1936 and made periodic shipments of ore to smelters. It was reported that 80% of the ore coming from the Republic area in 1936 came from the Mountain Lion, with 3,000 t shipped monthly. The mine shut down in mid-1937.

The Mountain Copper Company came to Republic when they acquired an option to purchase the Mud Lake claim southeast of Mountain Lion and west of Knob Hill in 1935. They were drawn by reports of a wide, low grade quartz zone that previous operators had found but did not exploit. They discovered a lower grade disseminated gold deposit 100 ft wide by 1,800 ft to 2,000 ft long, at a higher than expected grade ($6/t or approximately 0.17 opt Au). However, Mountain Copper vacated their lease in April 1936, removed their equipment, and surrendered their option.


Technical Report

July 2009 29 of 126

Figure 6.1 Map of mining operations in the Eureka Mining District


Technical Report

July 2009 30 of 126

Knob Hill Mining took over the Mud Lake Claims in September 1936. Knob Hill Mining built a 400 t per day mill and brought in the first power line to the district. The mill utilized a fine grind and cyanide to recover 92% to 96% of the gold. Knob Hill mined the Mud Lake disseminated deposit as an open pit from 1937 to 1939 and discovered the smaller Stewart breccia deposit nearby. In 1939 the company discovered the high grade South Cross breccia vein in old underground workings at Knob Hill. The high grades discovered in the South Cross resulted in a switch from open pit to shaft mining. The termination of open pit mining was the result of a change in the dip of the deposit and “other natural restraints” (such as an increasing strip ratio). The final Mud Lake pit was 80 ft deep on its south end. Production from the Knob Hill open pits was 48,623 oz gold (with an average grade of 0.1 opt Au) and 424,738 oz silver (with an average grade of 0.85 opt Ag). This pit was later covered by tailings associated with the Knob Hill Mine.

Production from the Mountain Lion resumed in 1938. Operators mined the Mountain Lion using open pit methods from 1939 to 1945. On the adjacent Trevitt-Pierce property, open pit mining continued until 1947. Production from the Mountain Lion and Trevitt-Pierce has been estimated at 9,000 oz gold with an average grade of 0.12 opt Au and 18,750 oz silver by open pit methods and 16,300 oz gold with an average grade of 0.21 opt Au and 155,200 oz silver by underground methods (Hecla, 1985).

Ore mined and developed from Mountain Lion open pits between 1937 and 1947 equaled the total district production from 1896 to 1937 (Wright, 1947).

From 1958 through 1967, Knob Hill Mines and Day Mines drove the lower levels (7 to 13) of the Knob Hill mine to the north to mine the JO#3 vein (Full, 1960). At their northern limit, they were mining veins beneath the Golden Eagle deposit, but the mine did not connect with the Mountain Lion workings. Total production from the JO#3 vein is not known at this time.

Breccia-hosted disseminated gold mineralization, similar to that from the Mud Lake pit, was recognized over the years by various workers. Disseminated mineralization was reported at the Mountain Lion by Kingman in 1943 and Wright in 1947. Exploration drilling from 1967 to 1968 from the 11th and 13th levels of the Knob Hill identified a wide zone of veinlets and disseminated gold in the hangingwall of the JO#3 vein.

Day Mines was incorporated in 1947 and the company acquired Republic area properties when it merged with Aurum Mining Company in 1950. In 1953, Day Mines leased the Gold Dollar claim to Knob Hill Mines. For several years, this lease was the largest source of income for Day Mines. When Knob Hill Mines closed operations in 1978, Day Mines acquired the company and re-opened the mine. This consolidated the Eureka District under one owner for the first time. In 1981, Day Mines, the fifth largest silver producer in America, was taken over by Hecla Mining Company, the second largest silver producer.

The Republic unit was Hecla’s only significant gold operation. Faced with declining reserves, the narrow, high grade Bailey vein was discovered in 1981, which extended mine life for two years. The Golden Promise gold deposit was discovered in 1983, and Hecla operations continued until 1995.

When Day Mines took over Knob Hill Mines in 1978, they drilled 15 holes in the Mountain Lion area. Four years later, Hecla consultant D. Nielson evaluated the Mountain Lion for near-surface disseminated gold potential. As a result of that study, Hecla drilled 15 vertical holes in late 1982. Intercepts included 188 ft of 0.069 opt Au in drillhole ML-8 and 145 ft of 0.085 opt Au in drillhole ML-6. No further exploration


Technical Report

July 2009 31 of 126

work was done on the area until E. Braun recommended a bulk mineable exploration program in 1985.

A two hole drill program in 1986 was unsuccessful, as only one hole was drilled to bedrock. Drillhole ML-17 encountered 175 ft of 0.061 opt Au and 25 ft of 0.158 opt Au, associated with the Golden Eagle deposit. The following year, three holes were drilled to obtain metallurgical test material and to expand mineralization in the hanging wall of the JO#3 vein. Only one hole hit mineralization and had an intercept of 150 ft of 0.096 opt Au in drillhole 87-102. In 1988, the first hole of the year was drilled to test the hanging wall of the JO#3 vein and to follow up on underground drilling from the 1960s. Drillhole 88-111 encountered 158 ft of 0.087 opt Au in a black chalcedonic breccia with no quartz veining. This hole has been referred to as the discovery hole for Golden Eagle. Step out drilling that year completed 18 holes in the Golden Eagle resource. An additional 19 holes were drilled in 1989.

While Hecla was discovering and defining the Golden Eagle deposit, Crown Resources and Glamis Gold had identified a heap leachable gold deposit on their South Penn property south of the old Trevitt-Pierce/Mountain Lion open pits. The South Penn Gold Project now comprises the southern portion of the Golden Eagle Project. From 1985 to 1986 a total of 73 holes were completed and the project identified 278,000 t of 0.078 opt Au at a 0.04 opt Au cut-off grade (containing 21,680 oz gold) of oxide mineralization. In 1987, Glamis Gold, through their subsidiary Chemgold, and Crown Resources mined 33,000 t of 0.03 opt Au from the South Penn pit and processed it on a small heap leach. Recovery was expected at 900 oz gold (with a recovery of 91%) over a two year mine life.

In November 1991, Crown Resources hired Western Services Engineering to complete a resource appraisal on the South Penn Gold Project, which forms the southern portion of the Golden Eagle deposit (Western Services Engineering, 1991). Historical in-situ geological resources were estimated and are shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Crown Resources’ historical (1991) unclassified resource estimate of the South Penn Gold Project

Gold cut-off grade

(opt) Tons

Gold grade (opt)

Silver grade (opt)

Contained gold

ounces

Contained silver ounces

0.020 607,550 0.058 0.237 35,240 143,990

0.050 279,330 0.084 0.366 23,460 102,230

Note* These are historical figures only and should not be relied upon.

Based on these results a small open pit was designed, containing 186,650 t grading 0.094 opt Au and 0.45 opt Ag. No further action was taken by Crown Resources.

Cominco Engineering Services (CESL) completed a Prefeasibility study on the Golden Eagle Project for Hecla in March 1990 (CESL, 1990) that concluded the project was not economically viable with the reserves and mine plan at that time.

Hecla drilled an additional 30 core holes that year and completed an internal Prefeasibility study in December 1990 (Hecla, 1990). The assumptions used in the study included a gold price of $400, a silver price of $6.25, milling costs of $15.00/t, mining costs of $0.90/t, general and administrative costs of $3.40/t, an economic cut-off grade


Technical Report

July 2009 32 of 126

of 0.042 opt Au, a process cut-off grade of 0.054 opt Au, and process recoveries of 89.1% for gold and 50% for silver. The unclassified resources reported from this study above a range of cut-off grades are shown in Table 6.2. This study concluded that the ore had very homogenous grades but was refractory and could not be run in the existing oxide mill. They explored several options for gold recovery with recovery results ranging from 50% to 80%. Costs to treat the refractory ore were deemed uneconomic at a $400 gold price. Hecla shelved the project but recommended exploration for deep vein potential. In October 1994, Hecla announced closure of the Republic unit and stockpiled ore was processed until Jan 1995.

Table 6.2 Hecla’s historical (1990) unclassified resource estimate of the Golden Eagle Project

Gold cut-off grade (opt)

Tons Gold grade (opt)

Silver grade (opt)

Contained gold

ounces

Contained silver ounces

0.050 28,208,364 0.084 0.393 2,369,503 11,085,887

0.070 16,265,596 0.103 0.461 1,675,356 7,498,440

0.100 7,036,458 0.128 0.560 900,667 3,940,416


In 1995 and 1996, SFPG completed an earn-in to a 75% interest in a joint venture with Hecla for the Golden Eagle Project. SFPG believed that their proprietary nitrogen flotation process would treat the refractory ore and they saw the potential to enlarge the deposit. The company completed 10 RC holes and 46 core holes in 1995 and 1996 and did an extensive metallurgical testing program. They re-assayed sample pulps from previous drilling campaigns and assayed un-sampled core intervals from the Hecla drilling. SFPG acquired the South Penn property from Crown Resources in November 1995. A Prefeasibility scoping study was completed in 1996 (SFPG, 1996a). SFPG drilling doubled the size of the resource to an estimated 32.19 Mt grading 0.069 opt Au.

In 1997 SFPG completed a gold resource estimate using Lerch-Grossman pit optimizations (Table 6.3, SFPG, 1997). Cost assumptions used were gold prices between $150 and $600, mining costs of $0.80/t, processing costs of $7.46/t, general and administrative costs of $1.23/t, an economic cut-off grade of 0.024 opt Au, a process cut-off grade of 0.030 opt Au, and a process recovery of 77%.

Table 6.3 SFPG’s historical (1997) unclassified resource estimate of the Golden Eagle Project at a range of gold prices

Gold Price $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $600

Ore tons (Mt) 0.15 7.08 13.79 16.03 18.35 21.90 32.19

Gold grade (opt) 0.087 0.090 0.083 0.081 0.079 0.075 0.069

Contained gold ounces 12,779 636,912 1,144,695 1,298,703 1,449,731 1,642,277 2,221,198

Recovered gold ounces 9.853 491,059 882,560 1,001,300 1,117,743 1,266,196 1,712,544

Waste tons (Mt) 0.024 26.67 56.04 66.86 82.48 104.97 245.08

Strip ratio 0.2 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.8 7.6


Technical Report

July 2009 33 of 126

Gold Price $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $600

Cash cost/recovered ounce

$143 $180 $199 $205 $215 $230 $293


Newmont Mining acquired SFPG in 1997. No further work was done by Newmont, and the 75% share was traded to Echo Bay in 2000. During 2000, Echo Bay drilled four RC and two core holes, before deciding to focus on the K2 discovery. In 2003, Echo Bay was acquired by Kinross Gold Corp., and there appears to be no further work completed on the property. In 2008, Midway Gold acquired 75% of the property from Kinross and the remaining 25% from Hecla.


Technical Report

July 2009 34 of 126

7 Geological setting 7.1 Regional geology

The Republic region is located at the south end of the Omineca crystalline belt (Figure 7.1). This belt is characterized by metamorphic core complexes and intrusion of the Colville Batholith. Near Republic, the Okanogan and Kettle gneiss dome complexes are separated by a set of en echelon grabens filled with Eocene-age volcanics. The Republic Graben is the largest of these north-northeast trending grabens. Rocks in the graben include Mesozoic-age meta-sediments overlain by 47 Ma to 54 Ma volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks. Intrusion of the Colville Batholith occurred late in the gneiss dome uplift development, at a time of east-west extension that also formed the grabens. Intrusive rocks occur along and are cut by graben bounding faults. Eruption of volcanics in the grabens is nearly contemporaneous with intrusion of the batholith. Local basins likely developed as a result of extensional faulting at a time of waning volcanism. Hydrothermal activity driven by deep heat sources and channeled through structural conduits deposited mineral deposits near the paleosurface which were subsequently covered by lake bed sediments. The deposits were uncovered again by Pleistocene glacial scouring.

7.2 Local geology A map of the local geology is shown in Figure 7.2. The Republic Graben is 50 miles long and 5 miles to 6 miles wide. It is bounded on the west by the Bacon Creek Fault and on the east by the Sherman Fault. Eocene volcanics in the graben have been divided into the older tuffs of the O’Brien Creek Formation, overlain by thick porphyritic andesite lava flows with interbedded flow breccias, epiclastic breccias, and sediments of the Sanpoil Formation. Hypabyssal intrusive feeder dikes of the Scatter Creek Formation intrude the Sanpoil. An angular unconformity separates the Sanpoil from overlying lake bed sediments of the Klondike Mountain Formation. Klondike Mountain sediments include conglomeratic deltaic sequences and fine grained, layered lake-bed mud and siltstones with abundant carbon. Post-mineral amygdaloidal basalt dikes and sills intrude both the Sanpoil and Klondike Mountain Formations. Pleistocene-age glacial till is common over much of the region.

The bulk of the district’s historical production has been from gold bearing quartz veins that cross cut the Sanpoil Volcanics. This production is also associated with the northwest trending Eureka Fault zone, with most historic workings in the east (hangingwall) of the fault. Evidence suggests that the fault system developed contemporaneously with gold and silver mineralization.

The Golden Eagle deposit is located near the western margin of the Republic Graben, with the margin demarked by the Bacon Creek Fault. Rocks exposed to the west are Paleozoic- and Mesozoic-age metamorphic rocks from the Okanagan gneiss dome complex.


Technical Report

July 2009 35 of 126

Figure 7.1 Regional geology map


Technical Report

July 2009 36 of 126

Figure 7.2 Local geology map modified from Fieferek et al (1995)


Technical Report

July 2009 37 of 126

7.3 Property geology A property geology map is shown in Figure 7.3.

Figure 7.3 Property geology map

The Golden Eagle deposit is a tabular, steeply dipping hydrothermal breccia body hosted in Sanpoil Volcanics and overlain by the Klondike Mountain Formation and recent glacial gravels. The deposit is mostly covered by gravels, with outcropping mineralization on the south and west margins.

7.3.1 Lithological units Eocene O’Brien Creek Formation The O’Brien Creek Formation is the lower most lithological unit at the property. The formation underlies the Sanpoil, and is represented as bedded crystal lithic tuffs, and tuffaceous sandstone and shales with volcanic and metasediment fragments. Little work has been done on this unit, and it appears to be represented in only a small portion of the drilling at the base of the deposit. The maximum thickness is indicated at 3,900 ft


Technical Report

July 2009 38 of 126

(Holder and Gaylord, 1989). Age dates in northeastern Washington yield a K-Ar biotite age of 54.5 Ma (Pearson and Obradovich, 1977).

Eocene Sanpoil Volcanics The Sanpoil Volcanics are Eocene-age andesitic to dacitic lava flows, flow breccias, tuffs, and tuff breccias, and volcaniclastics. The Sanpoil can be divided into a lower series of massive andesite flows and flow breccia textured rocks, a middle fragmental unit of tuff breccias, and an upper volcaniclastic to conglomerate zone. This is the primary mineralization host at the Golden Eagle Project, and alteration is dominantly propylitic, argillic, and silicification. Correlation between individual beds and flows intersected in drillholes is difficult due to alteration and different geology logging criteria used by geologists working between 1940 and 2000. The thickness of the Sanpoil exceeds 8,200 ft, and is greater than 3,000 ft locally (Holder and Gaylord, 1989). K-Ar dates range from 53.8 Ma to 49.6 Ma (Pearson and Obradovich, 1977).

The primary host of mineralization at Golden Eagle is the 20° to 30° east-dipping Sanpoil Formation. Within the area of drilling, a lower massive bedded andesite porphyry flow is overlain by a middle fragmental unit of tuff breccia, conglomerates, and epiclastic sediments. This is topped by an upper transition zone of dark matrix, heterolithic conglomerate up to 200 ft thick. The dark matrix may be carbon-rich. The andesite porphyry has phenocrysts of plagioclase, biotite, and local hornblende, and becomes more intensely flow banded with depth. Discontinuous interbedded sediments occur locally.

Eocene Scatter Creek Dikes Several dikes of rhyodacitic composition have been noted in the drill logs, and assigned to the Scatter Creek Unit. These dikes and sills cross cut the Sanpoil and O’Brien Creek lithologies and are thought to be of similar age to the Sanpoil (Holder and Gaylord, 1989), but appear to be older than the Klondike Mountain Formation. The relationship to mineralization is unknown, as the area of noted Scatter Creek dikes does not contain any gold mineralization.

Eocene Klondike Mountain Formation The Klondike Mountain Formation consists of thinly bedded lacustrine silts and mudstones with abundant fossil and organic matter that grades upwards into sandstones and conglomerates. This unit overlies the Sanpoil, and is post mineralization. Some ‘placer type’ mineralization occurs as the result of erosion of the Golden Eagle and Knob Hill deposits, resulting in the inclusion of mineralized clasts in the lower parts of the formation. The Klondike is between 0 and 400 ft thick across the deposit. The Formation thickens to the east, where it has been down dropped along the Mud Lake Fault. The total thickness of the Klondike is estimated at 3,000 ft, although a full section is not present on the property as a result of erosion. K-Ar dates are inconclusive, but suggest a deposition date of between 50.4 Ma and 42.4 Ma (Pearson and Obradovich, 1977).

At Golden Eagle the Klondike Mountain Formation has a lower “rubble” unit of conglomerate with rounded clasts in a sand to mud matrix. Clasts of gold bearing vein material have been observed in the rubble unit. An upper unit of distinctive thin bedded, varved lacustrine silts and mudstone with abundant carbon and fossils grades upward into sandstones and conglomerates. The sediments are capped by glassy basalt flows. The lake beds strike N20-30W and dip 20° to 30° east. At Golden Eagle, the thickness of the Klondike Mountain Formation ranges from absent to up to 400 ft


Technical Report

July 2009 39 of 126

thick. The thickest part is to the east where rocks have been down-dropped by the Mud Lake Fault.

Tertiary un-named dikes Four major Tertiary aged dikes have been noted cross cutting both the Sanpoil and Klondike Mountain, and appear to be post mineralization. SFPG classified these based on visual appearance, but no dating or detailed whole rock analysis has been completed. These dikes are trachyandesite to basalt in composition, with amygdaloidal textures. Logging has identified amygdaloidal, basalt, and dacite dikes, which appear to fit into this unnamed dike classification. Thicknesses range from inches up to 200 ft.

Glacial till The deposit is covered by Pleistocene glacial till deposits up to 300 ft thick comprising an unconsolidated mix of boulders, gravels, sand, and clays.

7.3.2 Structural geology The district is dominated by northeast trending fault zones related to the edge of the Republic Graben. The graben bounding Bacon Creek Fault is 1,500 ft west of Golden Eagle. Sub-parallel faults such as the Mud Lake, Mountain Lion, and Flat Iron faults divide the area into discrete structural blocks. These faults cross cut sets of west-northwest, northwest, and north trending faults and veins. Detailed mapping in the underground workings show the Mud Lake and Mountain Lion faults are wide zones of multiple fractures.

The northeast trending faults consistently offset the other fault and vein sets. Fifarek et al. (1995) reports that for most of the district, displacement is right lateral with little dip displacement. In the underground mine workings along the JO#3 vein, the displacement appears to be left lateral. At Golden Eagle, there appears to be a significant vertical movement as well. The Mud Lake and Mountain Lion faults dip steeply to the northwest. The Bacon Creek Fault dips to the southeast. In earlier reports, the Mountain Lion Fault was identified as a west-northwest trending fault on the 300 level of the Mountain Lion mine. Eventually, the name became associated with a large northeast trending fault that displaces the JO#3 vein in the underground workings. The original Mountain Lion Fault is now considered part of the South Penn fault system.

A set of northwest and west-northwest trending faults and veins that are cut by the northeast faults includes the South Penn Fault. The South Penn Fault consists of multiple structures trending west-northwest at the south end of the Golden Eagle deposit. It was exposed at the surface in the old Trevitt-Pierce open pit and in the underground workings of the Mountain Lion mine. The Eureka Fault associated with gold deposits further to the southeast projects toward the Golden Eagle area but has not been identified west of the Mud Lake Fault.

The Golden Eagle deposit is cut by two major fault systems and terminates against the western margin of the Republic Graben. Most of the faulting appears to be related to the formation of the Republic Graben, with major trends at N20W and N40E.

The Bacon Creek Fault forms the western margin of the Republic Graben, and is located immediately to the west of the deposit. This fault follows the main drainage that borders the property, and emplaces granitic pluton rock against Sanpoil Volcanics. The Golden Eagle deposit outcrops prior to the fault, and appears to be younger in age.

The Mud Lake Fault does not have any surface expression, but bounds the deposit on the east side. The Mud Lake Fault strikes north-south, dips approximately 70° to 80° to


Technical Report

July 2009 40 of 126

the east, and is a wide (between 50 ft and 100 ft) structural zone. Golden Eagle appears to be offset by this fault, with both gold mineralization and Tertiary dikes offset by the fault. Movement is normal, with approximately 300 ft of throw.

The Mountain Lion/South Penn Fault system strikes N70W to N70E and dips from 30° to 70° northeast. The fault terminates against the Mud Lake Fault and also appears to form a boundary along the southern portion of the deposit. The deposit may be offset in the footwall of the fault zone. Movement appears to be strong right lateral, with minor reverse movement.

There are also several oblique structures running N60-80W that parallel the Tertiary dikes. Offset distances range from 10 ft to 100 ft, with apparent left lateral offset noted in quartz veins. These oblique faults are truncated by the Mud Lake and Mountain Lion faults.

7.3.3 Veins The JO#3 vein is parallel to the South Penn Fault but was only exposed in the underground workings of the Knob Hill mine. The JO#3 vein has an average width of 4.6 ft and dips from 45° to 85° to the northeast. The vein is broken into three main structural blocks by the Mud Lake and Mountain Lion faults and is displaced by numerous cross faults with left lateral offsets of between 5 ft to 50 ft. To the northwest, the vein steepens and rotates to a north-northwest strike.

The Mountain Lion vein strikes north-south and is steeply dipping. Historic mine maps show three to four low angle faults with displacements of 50 ft to 100 ft to the east. There is a vertical gap of 600 ft between underground development of the JO#3 vein on the 10 level and that on the Mountain Lion vein at the 700 level.


Technical Report

July 2009 41 of 126

8 Deposit types Gold mineralization at the Golden Eagle deposit occurs in epithermal veins and hydrothermal breccias developed from near-surface hot springs activity in the Eocene. Sinter and breccias have been identified at or near the paleosurface, indicating that the hot springs were venting to the surface. The hydrothermal breccias and stockwork vein zones are believed to grade downward and laterally into epithermal quartz veins. Pressure release as rising hydrothermal waters approached the surface resulted in boiling of the fluids and deposition of gold in epithermal quartz veins. Hydro-fracturing and brecciation at and above the boiling horizon resulted in deposition of gold in hydrothermal breccias and stockwork quartz veins. In this type of deposit, very high grades often occur at the boiling horizon.


Technical Report

July 2009 42 of 126

9 Mineralization 9.1 Introduction

The Golden Eagle deposit is associated with epithermal hot springs that have produced both high grade gold- and silver-rich quartz veins and a lower grade silicified hydrothermal breccia. The bulk of the Golden Eagle deposit consists of a strong to moderately silicified hydrothermal breccia. Black chalcedonic quartz supports silica flooded host rock fragments of Sanpoil Volcanics, with occasional vein clasts. Fragments are sub-rounded to angular and from 0.1 ft to 2 ft in diameter. Less than 10% of the deposit is composed of highly bleached and argillized Sanpoil Volcanics. This material can contain carbon-rich fracture fillings that helped concentrate gold. Gold is associated with arsenic-rich pyrite, with total sulfide content averaging 3% to 4%. Gangue minerals consist of chalcedony, white quartz, minor calcite, and green fluorite. The fine grained texture of the black chalcedony and the pyrite are suggest a shallow depth of formation, at or near the surface.

The Golden Eagle deposit is flat lying and trends N80E, with a strike length of approximately 2,500 ft, a variable width up to approximately 1,000 ft and depth of approximately 2,000 ft, as defined by three dimensional modeling of drillhole sample grades above cut-off grades of 0.006 opt Au, 0.030 opt Au, and 0.100 opt Au. Mineralization outcrops on the west and southwest portions and plunges between 15° to 20° under post mineralization cover to the east and north. The deposit has a well defined shape as the result of post-mineralization faulting along the South Penn, Mountain Lion, and Mud Lake faults.

Quartz veins are defined primarily at the Mountain Lion and JO#3 workings which are to the west and underlie the Golden Eagle deposit respectively. The Mountain Lion strike and dip direction, as recorded from underground mapping and three dimensional modeling, is N10W to N10E, and is near vertical. The vein is offset by low angle faults by 10 ft to 100 ft to the east at depth. Production grades averaged 0.210 opt Au, which has been confirmed with limited exploration drilling on extensions of the vein. The mined portion of the vein was 550 ft long and 600 ft vertically and outcropped on the surface. The JO#3 vein strike and dip direction, as recorded from underground mapping and three dimensional modeling, is N50W, 80-85NE. The vein has been offset by large north-northwest trending faults, and has not been tracked farther west than the South Penn Fault system. Grade was typically greater than 0.50 opt Au, with grades up to 4.3 opt Au noted in the drilling. The mined portion of the vein was 1,500 ft long and 850 ft high.

9.2 Description of mineralized zones Discrete veins have been identified at JO#3 workings and the Mountain Lion Mine. There are also numerous veins indicated in the geological logging drillholes in the Golden Eagle deposit. Veins range from less than 1 in to 10 ft thick and contain gold and silver grades up to 4 opt Au and 20 opt Ag. These veins account for <1% of the deposit volume, but should be modeled appropriately for resource estimation, to prevent the spread of high grade values to other portions of the model. Veins appear to have formed prior to the main deposit, as evidenced by vein fragments within the black chalcedonic breccia, and black chalcedonic stringers cross cutting veins.


Technical Report

July 2009 43 of 126

The majority of the Golden Eagle deposit is hosted in moderate to strongly silicified hydrothermal breccias. Distinct black chalcedony supports silica flooded Sanpoil rock fragments and occasional vein clasts. This unit is high in sulfide (3%), except where surface oxidation has reduced and/or removed the sulfide content.

According to a SFPG due diligence report (1995) approximately 10% of the deposit is composed of strongly bleached and argillized material, with little or no silica. These zones also contain organic carbon, which may have influenced gold location.

Placer type gold has been identified in the Klondike Mountain Formation. Mineralized fragments of veins and silicified breccias have been identified in the lower conglomeratic units, and small zones of mineralization can be identified. This represents <5% of the deposit.

9.3 Alteration Strong silica flooding is common in the black breccia zones, but the degree of silicification does not correlate with the gold content. Peripheral from the silica rich zone are strongly bleached and argillized volcanics with little or no silica. These zones have thin carbon-rich fracture fillings that carry gold both as free gold and in the carbon. According to a SFPG due diligence report (1995), approximately 10% of the deposit is composed of this strongly bleached and argillized material. Distal alteration includes propylitic alteration with disseminated pyrite in the andesite and local silicification of fine grain sediments. Hecla also recognized geochemical depletion haloes in major oxide elements around mineralized vein systems.

No known surface geochemistry is available.


Technical Report

July 2009 44 of 126

10 Exploration 10.1 Introduction

Exploration on the Golden Eagle Property has been a comprehensive effort using a number of different methodologies, including:

• Surface and underground geological mapping.

• Drilling within the resource area.

• Drilling on vein exploration targets at Mountain Lion and JO#3.

• Underground mining at the Mountain Lion and JO#3 Mines that bracket the Golden Eagle deposit.

• Small scale surface mining at the Mountain Lion on the west margin of the deposit.

10.2 Historical exploration conducted from 1914 to 2000 Exploration work carried out by previous operators is summarized in Table 10.1. The work includes primarily exploration drilling, with underground mapping of the Mountain Lion and JO#3 workings that border the Golden Eagle deposit. Surface geological mapping has also been completed. Only limited surface geochemical and rock chip samples have been located at this time.

A total of 835 drillholes, totaling 171,472.8 ft were completed at the Property by Mountain Lion Consolidated, Knob Hill and Day Mines, Hecla, SFPG, and Echo Bay from 1940 to 2000. No further drilling of the deposit has taken place since 2000. Of the 835 holes completed, 543 are blast holes related to the surface workings at Mountain Lion Mine.

Table 10.1 Summary of exploration programs on the Golden Eagle Property

Year Company Activity Description

1914-1917, and 1940-1942

Mountain Lion Consolidated Mining

Underground and surface mining at the Mountain Lion Mine. Poor production records exist. Estimated 77,600 t at 0.211 opt Au mined from underground, and 75,145 t at 0.120 opt Au mined from surface. 543 blastholes completed for 7,262 ft.

1940 Knob Hill Mines Drilling Three surface churn holes completed at Mountain Lion Mine for 135 ft.

1946-1947 Knob Hill Mines Drilling 14 underground core holes for 1,611 ft and 13 surface churn holes for 1,661.5 ft completed from Mountain Lion Mine workings.

1960-1964 Knob Hill Mines Drilling, Mining

19 underground core holes for 7,709.3 ft completed from the JO#3 workings (between the 800 and 1,100 levels) that traverse under the Golden Eagle Project. Mining activity on the JO#3 vein, accessed via Knob Hill Mine, with secondary access via Mountain Lion Mine.

1973-1974 Knob Hill Mines Drilling Two surface exploration holes were completed to the north of the Golden Eagle project, 855 ft rotary and 1,037 ft core.

1978-1979 Day Mines Drilling

Surface exploration was conducted by Day Mines at the Mountain Lion Mine. Drilling completed on the project includes 13 pre-collars completed with churn drilling (1,611 ft) and core tails (9,769 ft), as well as two surface core holes for 1,753 ft.


Technical Report

July 2009 45 of 126

Year Company Activity Description

1982-1994 Hecla Drilling

Surface exploration completed on Golden Eagle Project, discovery of Golden Eagle Project deposit and definition drilling completed in 91 holes. 16 churn holes for 3,180 ft were completed at Mountain Lion Mine, while 62 pre-collars were completed with rotary/reverse circulation methods for 9,150 ft and completed with core tails for 57,598.5 ft. An additional 13 core holes from surface for 5,692 ft were completed.

1985 - 1986 Crown Resources Drilling Crown Resources completed 73 exploration holes for 9817.6 ft on the

project. The records are incomplete.

1995-1996 SFPG Drilling, Metallurgy

Surface exploration completed on Golden Eagle Project. Deposit drilled to 100 ft to 150 ft nominal centers, 9 RC holes for 5,940 ft, 35 pre-collars for 5,020 ft with core tails for 28,701.8 ft, and 12 core holes from surface for 8,687.7 ft. An extensive metallurgical program was also conducted.

2000 Echo Bay Mines Drilling Surface exploration completed on project. For metallurgical testing, drilling left largely uncompleted, four RC holes for 2,010 ft, two RC pre-collars for 530 ft with core tails for 1,432 ft.

10.3 Midway Gold exploration Midway Gold acquired the Golden Eagle Property in the 3rd quarter of 2008; since this time and to the date of this report, exploration activities have been restricted to assembling and compiling historic surface and drilling data, and undertaking the 2009 mineral resource estimate.

10.3.1 Geological mapping Surface mapping has been carried out primarily by Knob Hill and Hecla geologists between 1960 and 1990. This mapping has been compiled into a surface geological map (Figure 7.2) by Midway Gold using MapInfo software.

Underground mapping at the Mountain Lion and JO#3 workings was completed by Mountain Lion Consolidated, Knob Hill and Hecla geologists between 1940 and 1990, at 1 inch to 25 ft and 50 ft scales. This mapping has been digitally compiled by Midway Gold for use in three dimensional modeling, and covers the main drifts, but not the stoping areas of the mine.

10.3.2 Interpretation of exploration information Midway Gold has identified the following as potential exploration targets:

• The Golden Eagle deposit remains open at depth and to the north. The bulk of the exploration drilling on the north portion of the deposit is on the east side of the Mud Lake Fault, while the deposit itself is almost entirely on the west side of the fault.

• Offset portions of the deposit along both the Mud Lake and Mountain Lion Faults. Both faults abruptly terminate higher grade portions of the deposit.

• Vein targets both contained within the Golden Eagle deposit and associated with the defined Mountain Lion Vein (to the north and at depth) are not drilled by previous exploration efforts.


Technical Report

July 2009 46 of 126

• Vein target connecting the JO#3 to the Mountain Lion vein. Between the ML 700 level and the Knob Hill 900 Level there is an un-mined gap of 400 vertical ft in the vein.

• Hecla reports indicate potential vein targets north of drillholes 88-118 and 89-136, which contained abundant quartz stringers and widespread alteration. Only one hole was completed between these two holes (CGE-0015) in the later years of exploration.


Technical Report

July 2009 47 of 126

11 Drilling 11.1 Introduction

There are a total of 835 drillholes on the Golden Eagle Property for 171,163.4 ft of drilling, completed between 1940 and 2000. Of this total, 543 holes for 7,262 ft are blastholes completed during surface mining at the Mountain Lion Mine. No assay certificates are available for samples selected from the Mountain Lion blastholes. An additional 73 holes were completed by Crown Resources, believed to be reverse circulation (9817.6 ft) which also have no historic records. A summary of the known drillholes are shown in Table 11.1.

11.2 Drilling conditions Surface topography at Golden Eagle is level to rolling terrain. Historic disturbances from surface mining remains, but all drill sites and exploration roads have been reclaimed. Drilling generally requires pre-collaring with reverse circulation through glacial till (covering 0 to 400 ft), with core or reverse circulation completion to depth.

The majority of drilling (72%) at the Golden Eagle Project was conducted using diamond drilling methods. Core drilling was carried typically carried out using 2.5 in diamond bits, with reduction to 1.875 in diameter as drilling conditions warranted. Core recovery has been reported at generally between 95% and 100%, with low recovery zones typically associated with hole collaring, old workings, and fault zones. All core holes from surface were generally pre-collared through glacial till using reverse circulation or rotary methods. The bulk of the core drilling was carried out from surface (115,286.9 ft), with a minor amount (9,214 ft) carried out from the underground workings at Mountain Lion and JO#3.

Reverse circulation holes were generally drilled using 5 ¼ in hammers. Most reverse circulation drilling was designed as pre-collars for deeper core tails. Reverse circulation comprises 14% of the drill footage (24,530 ft).

Based on water level readings in four RC drillholes completed in 1995, the bedrock ground water is between 250 ft and 650 ft below the surface and is associated with the fractured lava flows of the lower Sanpoil. For the Santa Fe effort, Golder Engineering estimated that natural inflows to the mine workings (JO#3 and Knob Hill) were on the order of 18 gallons per minute (Santa Fe Pacific Gold, 1997). Very little water data is included in old drill records.

11.2.1 Drilling by Mountain Lion Consolidated, Knob Hill Mines, and Day Mines from 1914 and 1979

Shallow surface drilling and underground core drilling was completed by Day Mines, Knob Hill Mines, and Mountain Lion Consolidated between 1940 and 1979. Drill records have not been well kept.

Between 1940 and 1942, Mountain Lion Consolidated completed 543 blastholes using a churn drill in support of open pit mining activity.

Between 1940 and 1947 Knob Hill Mines completed a number of surface churn holes and underground core holes from the Mountain Lion workings/area. Drill records including geology and sample assay values were located in the Hecla files. No further data was located for these drillholes.


Technical Report

July 2009 48 of 126

Table 11.1 Summary of drilling completed at the Golden Eagle Project

Operator Year Drill hole type Number of holes Length of holes (ft)

Mountain Lion Consolidated 1914 - 1942 Surface blastholes 543 7,262

Knob Hill Mines 1940 Surface churn holes 3 135

Knob Hill Mines 1946 - 1947 Underground core holes 14 1,611

Knob Hill Mines 1946 - 1947 Surface churn holes 13 1,661.5

Knob Hill Mines 1960 - 1964 Underground core holes 19 7,709.3

Knob Hill Mines 1973 - 1974 Surface rotary hole 1 855

Knob Hill Mines 1973 - 1974 Surface core hole 1 1,037

Day Mines Day Mines

1978 - 1979 1978 - 1979

Surface rotary holes with core tails Surface Core Holes

13 2

1,611 ft rotary, 9,769 ft core tails 1,753

Crown Resources 1985 - 1986 Churn holes 73 9,817.6

Hecla 1982 - 1994 Surface churn holes 16 3,180

Hecla Hecla

1982 - 1994 1982 - 1994

Surface rotary/RC holes with core tails Surface Core Holes

62 13

9,150 ft rotary/RC, 57,598.5 ft core tails 5,692

SFPG 1996 - 1996 Surface RC 9 5,940

SFPG 1996 - 1996 Pre-collars/core tails 35 5,020 ft pre-collars, 28,701.8 ft core tails

SFPG 1996 - 1996 Surface core holes 12 8,687.7

Echo Bay Mines 2000 Surface RC 4 2,010

Echo Bay Mines 2000 Surface RC/core tails 2 530 ft RC pre-collar, 1,432 ft core tails

Total 835 171,163.4


July 2009 49 of 126

Between 1960 and 1964 Knob Hill Mines completed 19 underground core holes from the JO#3 workings looking for extensions of the JO#3 vein and the Mountain Lion vein. These holes were completed using NX diameter core. Drill logs containing geology and sample assay values were located in the Hecla files, but no further data was located for these holes.

In 1973, Knob Hill Mines completed two surface exploration holes north of the Golden Eagle deposit using rotary drilling with HQ core tails. Drill logs with sample assay values hand posted in opt gold were located in the Hecla files, but no further data was located for these holes.

From 1978 to 1979 Day Mines completed ten surface rotary holes with core tails. Drill logs with hand posted sample assay data were located in the Hecla files, but no further information was noted.

11.2.2 Drilling by Crown Resources from 1984 to 1988 Crown Resources joint ventured the South Penn portion of the property to Glamis Gold between 1982 and 1988. During this period 73 reverse circulation holes were drilled by Crown Resources, however Midway Gold has been unable to locate any of the drillhole sample assay certificates. Glamis produced approximately 1,000 oz gold from a small scale heap leach facility, but did not apparently complete any known drilling. No further records of this effort have been located.

11.2.3 Drilling by Hecla Mining Company from 1987 to 1994 Hecla employed Boyles Christiansen for core drilling. NC (2.4”) diameter rods were primarily used, and reduced to NX (1.875”) diameter when poor drilling conditions were encountered.

11.2.4 Drilling by Santa Fe Pacific Gold from 1994 to 1996 SFPG employed Boart Longyear for core drilling at Golden Eagle. HQ (2.5”) diameter rods were used from surface, with pre-collars completed using reverse circulation through overlying glacial till. A limited number (10%) of holes were reduced to NQ diameter (1.875”) rods when poor drilling conditions or old mine workings were encountered. For reverse circulation work, SFPG employed Eklund Drilling using track mounted rigs with 10 ft rods and 5.25” drill bits.

11.2.5 Drilling by Echo Bay Mines in 2000 Echo Bay Mines completed four reverse circulation holes for 2,010 ft, and two core tail holes with RC collars for 530 ft of RC pre-collar and 1,432 ft of core tails. There is no further record of these holes.

11.3 Drillhole collar surveys A digital database of collar locations for the 543 blastholes completed during open pit mining at the Mountain Lion mine was provided to Midway Gold by SFPG. No laboratory assay certificates could be located, and none of the information obtained from these drillholes has been used in the current resource estimation.

Surface churn holes were completed by Knob Hill Mines between 1940 and 1947. Collar locations are noted on drill logs to an accuracy of the nearest 0.1 ft, although it is unknown how the collars were surveyed.

Underground core holes were completed by Knob Hill Mines from 1946 to 1947 and from 1960 to 1964. Collar locations are noted on drill logs to an accuracy of the nearest


July 2009 50 of 126

0.1 ft. Locations were also tied to underground working maps, which show the drillhole location. It is unknown how the locations noted on the drill logs were collected.

Day Mines completed 13 surface holes with core tails between 1978 and 1979 as well as two surface core holes. Collar locations are noted on drill logs to the nearest 0.01 ft in the Knob Hill Mines grid coordinates, but it is unknown how this data was collected.

Crown Resources completed 73 holes on the South Penn portion of the property. No documentation of collar locations could be found, so these holes were not used in the current resource estimation.

Hecla completed 91 holes on the property. Drill logs show northing and easting coordinates with accuracy to the nearest foot and elevation to the nearest 0.01 ft. This data was collected by the Knob Hill Mine survey department.

SFPG completed 56 holes on the property. Collar locations are noted on drill logs to the nearest 0.10 ft. This data was collected by a registered surveyor from Republic, WA.

Echo Bay completed 6 holes on the project. Collar locations were noted on a survey sheet to the nearest 0.001 ft. This data was collected by a registered surveyor from Republic, WA.

11.4 Downhole surveys Downhole surveys are available for 75 drillholes completed on the project.

Records of Hecla drilling show that single shot surveys were taken from between 1987 and 1989 (which remain on file in the Hecla office in Republic). Downhole surveys were taken by Boyles Brothers between 1988 and 1989, and by Hecla drillers between 1989 and 1994.

SFPG employed Silver State Surveys between 1995 and 1996 to complete downhole surveys using borehole tools. Echo Bay utilized International Directional Services in 2000 for downhole surveys.

The use of a track mounted rig by SFPG in difficult drilling conditions presents concerns about drillhole deviation. However, the majority of SFPG drilling was downhole surveyed to accurately locate the hole. Historical deviations in azimuth and dip are low, generally less than ± 2° for successive readings down the hole. Downhole survey measurements are generally taken at either 50 ft or 100 ft intervals, in accordance with industry best practice. For un-surveyed holes, Midway Gold entered the azimuth and dip noted on the drill log files into the drillhole database.

11.5 Extent of drilling The surface drillhole spacing ranges from 100 ft to over 400 ft, but is generally on nominal 100 ft centers. The azimuth and inclination of drillholes vary greatly. The majority of the surface drilling is focused in an area with an east-west trend that is approximately 2,500 ft long and 1,000 ft wide. A plan of existing drillholes on the Golden Eagle Property is shown in Figure 11.1.


July 2009 51 of 126

Figure 11.1 Golden Eagle drillhole location map

11.6 Midway Gold data compilation and grid conversions The drillhole collar and down hole survey information was compiled from digital and hardcopy information provided by Kinross, Hecla, and Newmont. This information included original drill logs with collar data, survey sheets with collar data, and a digital database compiled by SFPG containing collar and downhole survey information.

Midway Gold verified collar information from the digital database compiled by SFPG against drill logs and/or survey sheets where available. Most of the original drilling was surveyed in the Day Mines or Knob Hill Mines coordinate systems.

These coordinates were converted to UTM Feet, NAD 27 coordinates by a Licensed Surveyor of Granite Creek Survey and Mapping of Republic, Washington, who was retained to provide accurate field survey control. The surveyor located and surveyed three known points (HMC 11, 26, and 28) in the field. These three points are mine grid control points with known mine grid coordinates used by Hecla at Knob Hill. The surveyor also located the Mud Lake GPS survey control point placed by the USFS in 1990. This point was surveyed in both the Mine grid and UTM Feet coordinates using


July 2009 52 of 126

total station methods. Stolp also examined elevations related to two different vertical datum (~5 ft difference).

With the four points known in both UTM coordinates and mine grid coordinates, Midway Gold developed a grid conversion using both translation and rotation using MapInfo software. This collar information, along with older Knob Hill Mine coordinates, is maintained in the Golden Eagle database. The accuracy of the conversion is estimated at + 30 ft, but cannot be verified because all historic drill collars have been reclaimed.

11.7 Drillhole intersections Significant drillhole intercepts (greater than 20 ft and greater than 0.02 opt Au) are listed in Appendix A. This table includes all drillholes associated with the Golden Eagle Deposit. True thickness is +10% of the stated drill hole thickness, as the deposit is relatively flat lying and most drillholes were completed from surface at or along the strike of the mineralization. Underground holes may have been drilled from within the mineralized zones and therefore intersection thicknesses may not have intersected the entire mineralized zone.


July 2009 53 of 126

12 Sampling method and approach Core, churn, rotary, and reverse circulation drilling methods were employed from 1946 to 2000, and various sample protocols, techniques, and laboratories were utilized over this period. The sample spacing ranges from 100 ft to over 400 ft, but was generally on nominal 100 ft centers. Sample numbers by drill type are shown in Table 12.1. The sample numbers include unsampled downhole intervals which are more common in the reverse circulation pre-collar holes.

Churn drilling represents 12.8% of the drilling footage (22,056 ft); the bulk of which is from short blast holes associated with the open pit mining in the 1940s. Sample assay certificates for this data have not been located and sample data from the churn holes has not been used in the current resource estimate.

The extensive use of core drilling has minimized the potential for downhole sample contamination for this project, given the water table depth (approximately 250 ft to 650 ft below surface). As noted by SFPG, downhole sample contamination appears to be limited to drilling conducted by Crown Resources in the South Penn area. However, no assay or logging data could be located for these holes and this data has not been used in the current resource estimate.

Table 12.1 Sample number by drilling methodology

Drilling Method Number of Samples

Churn 3,264

Rotary/RC 2,327

Core 14,001

12.1 Sampling methods Diamond drill core was sampled in intervals up to 5 ft while honoring geological contacts where appropriate. The preferred sample interval was 5 ft and this was also the specified maximum sample length. Geological contacts or features were used as sample boundaries wherever possible. The core was cut in half with a saw if the rock was competent or broken in half with a mechanical splitter if it was fractured or friable.

Reverse circulation drilling at the Project was performed wet as the water table is typically 250 ft to 650 ft below the surface, according to data collected during drilling by SFPG. Water flow tests were only documented for five reverse circulation holes, and are not considered an accurate measure of the water table at this time. Water flow in the five holes tested varied between 5 gallons and 30 gallons per minute, with the higher flows generally found near surface (<700 ft) and lower flows at depth (700 ft to 800 ft). However, this data is limited and is not considered inclusive. Wet reverse circulation drilling increases the potential for downhole sample contamination. Most of the deeper drilling was conducted using diamond drilling methods.

Reverse circulation cutting samples were collected by a designated and trained sampler. Cuttings from each 5 ft sample interval were passed through a cyclone and into a rotary splitter with 16 openings. RC drill rods were 10 ft to 20 ft long, and drill samples were collected at 5 ft to 10 ft intervals. A representative split from the discharge material was placed into a plastic RC chip tray for geological logging. The chip tray was marked with the drillhole name and downhole depth interval.


July 2009 54 of 126

12.1.1 Sampling by Mountain Lion Consolidated, Knob Hill Mines, and Day Mines from 1914 and 1979

Shallow surface drilling and underground core drilling was completed by Day Mines, Knob Hill Mines, and Mountain Lion Consolidated between 1940 and 1979. Drill records have not been well kept, although geological logs with hand posted sample assay values were located for most of the underground drilling.

Between 1940 and 1942 Mountain Lion Consolidated completed 543 blastholes totaling 7,262 ft using a churn drill in support of open pit mining activity. The entire length of the blasthole, generally 5 ft to 10 ft long, was sampled as a single sample. This data was digitally captured by SFPG, but could not be validated with assay certificates or drilling logs. While historically interesting, this data has not been used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate.

Between 1940 and 1947 Knob Hill Mines completed a number of surface churn holes and underground core holes from the Mountain Lion workings/area. Drill records including geology and sample assay values were located in the Hecla files. Drillholes were generally sampled at 5 ft intervals. Sample assay values were hand posted in dollar values, using $35 gold and $0.905 silver prices. No further data was located for these drillholes.

Between 1960 and 1964 Knob Hill Mines completed 19 underground NX sized core holes from the JO#3 workings, looking for extensions of the JO#3 vein and the Mountain Lion vein. Sample intervals vary considerably from 0.5 ft to over 10 ft. Drill logs containing geology and sample assay values were located in the Hecla files, validated by Midway Gold and used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate. Assay values were hand posted in opt gold and silver. No further data was located for these holes.

In 1973, Knob Hill Mines completed two surface exploration holes north of the Golden Eagle deposit using rotary drilling and HQ core tails. Sample intervals are generally five ft in length. Drill logs with sample assay values hand posted in opt gold were located in the Hecla files. Only four assay values could be verified by Midway Gold and therefore these drillholes have not been used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate. No further data was located for these holes.

During 1978 to 1979 Day Mines completed thirteen surface rotary holes with core tails totaling 11,380 ft and an additional two surface diamond holes totaling 1,753 ft. Sample intervals vary considerably from 0.1 ft to 50 ft. Drill logs with hand posted sample assay data were located in the Hecla files, but no further information was noted. This data has not been used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate.

12.1.2 Sampling by Crown Resources from 1984 to 1988 Crown Resources provided their sample assay database to SFPG but no sample assay certificates or drill records could be located for their drilling campaign. Drilling methods are unknown but based on their age are thought to be churn drilling. The drillholes were generally sampled at 5 ft or 10 ft intervals but the sampling technique is unknown at this time. SFPG noted problems with downhole sample contamination and excluded sample assays deeper than 100 ft from their resource estimates. No data from the Crown Resources drill campaign has been used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate.

12.1.3 Sampling by Hecla Mining Company from 1987 to 1994 Hecla employed a variety of methods of core sampling, but were focused on veins and much of the core was only sporadically sampled. Hecla took rock chip samples of drill core intersections showing promising alteration and vein types to determine if more


July 2009 55 of 126

rigorous sampling was justified. Any visually promising zones or chip samples of the core returning good assay results were marked by the Hecla geologist and split in a jaw splitter. Sludge sampling of cuttings from the drill rig were used for zones of poor core recovery. However, zones of low recovery are very limited, so this poor sampling technique has a minimal impact to the project.

Hecla typically only sampled veins and alteration zones associated with the vein margins. SFPG completed sampling of remaining core during their tenure on the project. Core intervals were generally sampled on less than 5 ft intervals. Samples undertaken by Hecla have been used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate.

12.1.4 Sampling by Santa Fe Pacific Gold from 1994 to 1996 Reverse circulation drillholes were sampled continuously from surface to depth on 5 ft intervals. Drillholes were drilled with water injection from the surface and a 1/8th split was collected from a rotary wet splitter into an olefin (polypropylene) bag. Only one SFPG reverse circulation drillhole encountered substantial ground water flows while drilling. Drillhole DGE-0004 was abandoned when oxide rock fragments were noted below the redox boundary, suggesting possible downhole contamination.

Diamond drill core sample intervals were based on alteration and lithology, with average sample lengths ranging from 1 ft to 10 ft, and averaging 5 ft. Approximately half of the sample intervals were split with a hydraulic splitter, while the remainder was cut with a saw. Samples were bagged for shipment to various assay laboratories. Samples undertaken by SFPG have been used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate.

12.1.5 Sampling by Echo Bay Mines in 2000 Reverse circulation drillholes were sampled from surface to depth on 5 ft intervals. Drillholes were completed with water injection from the surface, and samples were collected using a rotary wet splitter.

Diamond drill core sample intervals were based on alteration and lithology boundaries with sample lengths ranging from 1 ft to 10 ft, averaging 5 ft. It is unknown how the core was split for assay, and no core or RC samples have been located from this program. Six drillholes from Echo Bay Mines have been used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate.

12.2 Sample quality Sample quality for drilling completed by Mountain Lion Consolidated, Day Mines, Crown Resources, and Knob Hill Mines is unknown. No core samples remain to evaluate cutting procedures.

Hecla’s reverse circulation/rotary samples were limited to pre-collars only. Core samples were split using a hydraulic splitter. Observation of the core cut with the hydraulic splitter indicates typically unequal sample splits and loss of fine material.

SFPG core samples were split using either a hydraulic splitter or a core saw. Observation of remaining core indicates that half core samples cut with the hydraulic splitter typically resulted in unequal sample splits and loss of fines. Samples cut with the saw resulted in a more representative sample for analysis.

12.3 Sample preservation Hecla has maintained a core storage facility at the Knob Hill Mine where Hecla and SFPG core and some underground core from Mountain Lion are located. The Hecla


July 2009 56 of 126

and SFPG core is kept inside the facility, stored in wax impregnated boxes that are well marked and ordered. The Mountain Lion core is stored in wood boxes outside. This material is not protected from weather and is in poor condition. Sample pulps from reverse circulation drilling completed by SFPG are stored on pallets inside the warehouse. The pulps appear to be in good order and stored by certificate number from the Chemex Laboratory. Chip trays containing drill cuttings from SFPG reverse circulation drilling are also stored inside the warehouse and appear to be in good order.

No other material has been identified or located for re-logging or sampling.

12.4 Density determinations A total of 1,171 whole boxes of core were measured and weighed by SFPG laboratory technicians to determine wet tonnage factors (TFs) for various alteration and rock types at the Golden Eagle deposit (SFPG, 1996b). Of these, 353 boxes were oven dried for three days at a temperature of 125° F and re-weighed, yielding a measured dry TF. A wet to dry conversion factor was calculated and applied to the remaining wet data set to establish calculated dry TFs.

The data for the calculated and measured TFs were then divided by three lithological supergroups, and subdivided by relative degree of clay alteration. The averages for the calculated and measured TFs within these subgroups were used to apply tonnage factor values.

There are a number of potential sources of error when determining tonnage factors using whole box methods. Snowden recommends that Midway Gold select a significant number of whole core samples for tonnage factor determinations from spatially and geologically representative areas of the resource for use in future mineral resource estimations.

12.5 Geological and geotechnical logging Geological logs were completed for each drillhole, both historically and through a re-logging campaign undertaken by SFPG. Approximately 60% of the geological logging database is from SFPG logs, 30% from Hecla log, and 10% from Knob Hill and Day Mines logs. Both the SFPG and Hecla geological logs were completed using consistent geological codes, although these codes differ between companies. A correlation between lithology and formations between these two companies was possible and utilized to develop the deposit geology model.

However, the older Knob Hill and Day Mines logs were completed using a different logging system and a correlation to lithology and formations to the SFPG and Hecla logs were generally not feasible. Drill logs have been obtained for all completed drillholes except for the Crown Resources campaign at South Penn, and Midway Gold has digitally captured logging codes for rock formation and lithology. Information also exists on the geology logs for alteration and oxidation; however this remains in hard copy only at this time.

Various geotechnical data has been collected for 81 core holes drilled on the property including sample recovery, rock quality designator (RQD), fracture frequency, rock mass rating (RMR), discontinuity type and angle to core axis, descriptions of discontinuity roughness and filling materials, and point load test results.

Hecla engaged Howard Consultants, Inc. (HCI) to complete a geotechnical evaluation at Golden Eagle in 1989 (Howard Consultants, 1989). HCI completed the majority of


July 2009 57 of 126

the geotechnical logging and point load testing on the 1989 core. HCI also completed two detailed mapping lines at the old Mountain Lion surface workings to obtain detailed information about rock discontinuities. The report also incorporated geological mapping from the Knob Hill Mine maps of level 12 and 13, which underlie the Golden Eagle deposit. The results of this study were focused primarily on underground ground support recommendations. Midway Gold has digitally captured the sample recovery, RQD, and point load test results in an Access database.

12.6 Independent statement on sampling methods Snowden was unable to verify historical drilling and sampling practices, but are of the opinion that drillhole logging and sampling procedures used for the project are sufficient to support the estimation of Inferred and Indicated resources. The Hecla and SFPG drillhole core is stored in cardboard boxes with the drillhole number and sample interval clearly marked on the exterior in permanent marker. The core boxes are stored in racks in a secure compound. The core examined by Snowden corresponded to the geological descriptions and recoveries reported in the drillhole database, although the core is highly oxidized and is likely to be inappropriate for metallurgical testing. Drill core identified as Mountain Lion drillholes are located in wooden boxes outside, under cover. The boxes were in a poor state of repair and selection of sample intervals for examination was not possible. Samples from Knob Hill Mines, Day Mines, Echo Bay, and Crown Resources drilling campaigns have not been located and were not available for review during Snowden’s site visit.

Sample availability, conditions of existing core, quality of the sample type, and tonnage factor measurements have been taken into consideration when applying resource classification categories.


July 2009 58 of 126

13 Sample preparation, analyses, and security Sampling has taken place by six different companies at the Golden Eagle Project, spanning the years from 1914 to 2000, and each sampling campaign utilized different sample preparation, analyses, and security protocols. Three primary laboratories have been utilized over the life of the project, including Silver Valley Labs Inc. of Kellogg, Idaho, Silver Valley Labs of Republic, WA (which later became Custom Analytical Services Inc.), and Chemex Laboratories of Vancouver, Canada and of Sparks, Nevada. No sampling has occurred since the 2000 campaign.

13.1 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by Mountain Lion Consolidated, Knob Hill Mines, and Day Mines from 1914 and 1979

Mountain Lion Consolidated drilling consisted of blasthole drilling using churn drills. No information has been located for sample preparation, analysis, or security of these samples.

Knob Hill Mines completed a number of surface churn holes and underground core holes on the project. Gold analysis results for both drillhole types were hand posted on drill logs. No information has been located for laboratory, sample preparation, analysis, or security of these samples.

Day Mines completed surface rotary holes with core tails on the project. Most of the assay information is hand posted on drill logs, with the exception of hole D-2. This drillhole was sampled by SFPG at Chemex in 1996, and an assay certificate is on file. No other information has been located for laboratory, sample preparation, analysis, or security of these samples.

13.2 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by Crown Resources from 1984 to 1988

Crown Resources submitted drillhole samples to Silver Valley Labs Inc. of Kellogg, Idaho for analysis. Samples were analyzed for gold and silver using fire assay methods. No assay certificates for the Crown Resource samples have been located at the time of this report.

13.3 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by Hecla from 1987 to 1994

Hecla submitted split core samples to Silver Valley Labs of Republic, WA, and Custom Analytical Services Inc. All samples were analyzed for gold and silver using fire assay methods, and selected intervals were later submitted for multi-element analysis methods. Paper copies of most assay certificates for the Hecla work has been located and is currently on file with Midway Gold. However, due to the age of the samples, no assay certificates could be obtained directly from the laboratory for the Hecla samples. Silver Valley Labs did not keep copies of data dating back to 1987 to 1990 and Custom Analytical Services is no longer in operation.

Two twinned drillholes were also completed by Hecla on the project. Drillholes 90-196 and 90-197 were completed as twin holes by Hecla and analyzed at Silver Valley


July 2009 59 of 126

Laboratory. The holes were twinned with drillholes ML-4 and ML-6, also completed by Hecla, and were either assayed at the local mine lab or at Silver Valley Laboratories.

13.4 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by Santa Fe Pacific Gold from 1994 to 1996

Chemex Laboratories of Vancouver, Canada and of Sparks, Nevada and Custom Analytical Services Inc. of Republic, WA collected drill core samples taken by SFPG from the project site and prepared and analyzed the samples. Approximately 40% of the core and 80% of the reverse circulation samples were submitted to Custom Analytical.

Samples were analyzed for gold and silver using 1 assay ton fire assay methods. Trace element composites of 20 ft nominal length for all drillholes were submitted to Chemex for TR-11 multi-element ICP analysis. This element suite includes Ag, As, Sb, Hg, Cu, Pb, Zn, Mo, Cd, Bi, and Se.

Samples from each SFPG drillhole containing gold values greater than 0.030 opt Au were composited to 10 ft nominal lengths and analyzed for carbon and sulfur by Chemex and American Assay (in Reno, Nevada) using LECO furnace methods. This information generates total sulfide, carbon, and carbonate totals for waste characterization and metallurgical determination.

A limited amount of hot cyanide soluble gold analyses were completed on samples containing visible iron oxides, and on samples with greater than 0.010 opt Au, and on two to five samples below the last interval coded as oxide.

SFPG geologist re-logged and re-sampled un-split intervals from the Hecla drill core and submitted the samples to the laboratories for gold fire assay and trace element work using the same methodologies described for SFPG’s drill core.

Two twinned drillholes were also completed by SFPG on the project. Drillholes CGE-0045 and CGE-0047 were completed as twin holes by SFPG and analyzed at Custom Analytical Laboratories. The holes were twinned with drillholes SPR8-6 and SPR8-8, completed by Crown Resources, and analyzed at Silver Valley Laboratory, although no assay certificates were located.

13.5 Sample preparation, analyses, and security of samples collected by Echo Bay Mines in 2000

Custom Analytical Services of Republic, WA collected reverse circulation and drill core samples taken by Echo Bay Mines from the project site and prepared and analyzed the samples for the Echo Bay drilling. Samples were analyzed for gold and silver using 1 assay ton fire assay methods. No further information is available on sample security.

13.6 Quality control measures The routine insertion of certified standards, blanks, and field duplicates with sample submissions as part of a sample assay quality assurance/quality control (QAQC) program is current industry best practice, but was not the case historically. Analysis of QAQC data is made to assess the reliability of sample assay data and the confidence in the data used for the resource estimation.

13.6.1 Certified standard samples Certified standard samples are used to measure the accuracy of analytical processes and are composed of material that has been thoroughly analyzed to accurately determine its


July 2009 60 of 126

grade within known error limits. No certified standards have been submitted with the Golden Eagle Project samples, and therefore there is no available measure of the accuracy of the analytical process.

13.6.2 Blank samples Blank samples are composed of material that is known to contain grades that are less than the detection limit of the analytical method in use. Analysis of blank samples is useful for determining if cross-contamination of samples is occurring in the sample preparation or analysis process. No blank samples have been submitted with the Golden Eagle Project samples, and therefore there is no available data to determine whether cross-contamination of samples had occurred.

13.6.3 Duplicate samples There are a number of different duplicate sample types which can be used to determine the precision of the entire sampling, sample preparation, and analysis process, or a part of the entire process.

Field duplicate samples are duplicate samples taken at the primary sampling point. If half diamond drillhole core is sampled, then a field duplicate is taken by submitting the remaining half of the core. If RC chips are sampled using a rotary splitter, then the rejected half of the sample is selected as the field duplicate. This type of duplicate sample measures the precision of the entire sampling, sample preparation, and analysis process, and also provides a measure of the inherent variability of the mineralization (the nugget effect).

Duplicate samples can also be taken of coarse reject or pulp samples from the laboratory. Coarse reject samples provide a measure of the sample precision from the sample crushing, pulverizing, and analysis stages of the process while pulp samples provide a measure of the sample preparation from the sample pulverizing and analysis stages of the process.

Midway Gold has identified 879 pulp duplicate samples (approximately 6% of the sample population) on the project. Most of these sample pulps were submitted by SFPG and prepared by Custom Analytical Services, who collected a pulp duplicate sample during the sample preparation process, using the protocol described below. Three of the duplicate pulp samples are from high grade vein intervals associated with the Mountain Lion and JO#3 and returned assays in excess of 0.500 opt Au, and have been excluded from the duplicate sample analysis as they were not considered representative of the Golden Eagle deposit. Of the remaining 876 samples, 403 were duplicate pulps prepared by Custom Analytical, 338 were pulps re-assayed by Custom Analytical during the initial analysis, 88 were re-assayed at different laboratories, and 48 were re-analyzed by Custom Analytical as part of their internal QAQC protocol, but using unknown techniques.

Samples submitted by SFPG to Custom Analytical were typically check assayed on nominal 25 ft to 50 ft intervals. Starting with the first check assay sample, two sample pulps were prepared for analysis for every second drillhole sample. These sample pulps were identified with a duplicate tag on the assay certificates. The original pulp of the remaining sample was re-assayed and identified as a re-assay on the assay certificate. In total there are 403 duplicate pulp samples and 338 re-assayed pulp samples included in the program.


July 2009 61 of 126

Pulp duplicates Overall comparison of assay results in the 0.005 opt Au to 0.500 opt Au range indicate a very good correlation between the samples (Figure 13.1). Quantile-quantile and probability-probability plots indicate a close correlation of sample grades for all grade ranges with minimal bias and acceptable levels of precision in pulp preparation and analysis for these samples.

Figure 13.1 Santa Fe Pacific Gold pulp duplicates

a b

c d

Note: a) Normal scatter plot; b) precision pair plot; c) log Q‐Q plot; d) P‐P plot


July 2009 62 of 126

Re-assay duplicates Custom Analytical also completed re-analysis on the alternate duplicate samples and this resulted in 338 sample pairs (Figure 13.2). Overall comparison of assay results in the 0.005 to 0.500 opt range indicate a very good correlation between the samples. The re-assayed pulp duplicates display good precision with no significant bias.

Figure 13.2 Santa Fe Pacific Gold sample pulp re-assay results

a b

c d Note: a) Normal scatter plot; b) precision pair plot; c) log Q‐Q plot; d) P‐P plot


July 2009 63 of 126

Umpire laboratories Field duplicate samples, coarse reject samples, and pulp samples can also be submitted to an alternative or umpire laboratory to gain a measure of any sample grade bias between laboratories.

Midway Gold has identified 88 sample pulps prepared by the original laboratory that have been re-assayed by an umpire laboratory. These pulps were submitted to the umpire laboratory by SFPG during the 1995 to 1996 drilling campaign. Original laboratories included Custom Analytical, Chemex, and Silver Valley Labs with check laboratories including Barringer (in Reno, Nevada), Custom Analytical and Silver Valley Labs (Table 13.1).

Table 13.1 Check assay laboratories

Original Lab Check Lab Sample Numbers Percentage of check samples

Custom Analytical Barringer 13 14.8

Chemex Barringer 48 54.5

Chemex Custom Analytical 22 25.0

Chemex Silver Valley Labs 3 3.4

Silver Valley Labs Barringer 2 2.3

Total 88 100

A comparison of the 88 sample pairs did not identify any significant bias between original assays and check assays and indicates an acceptable level of precision. However, the data set comprises less than 100 samples, and may not contain enough sample pairs to be statistically valid or to be spatially representative of the deposit. Comparison between Custom Analytical to other labs (Chemex and Barringer), indicate that Custom results maybe slightly elevated by 1% to 4%, while comparison between Chemex and Barringer were within 0.06%.

13.7 Sampling study undertaken by Hecla Mining Francis Pitard (1990), an independent sampling and quality control consultant, completed a study of the heterogeneity of gold in the Golden Eagle Deposit for Hecla. He concluded from tests on a large composite sample that the gold was finely and homogeneously disseminated in the mineralized rock. His recommendations were to simplify the existing sample protocol at Silver Valley Laboratories, and advised that metallic screen assays were unnecessary, and that 15 g fire assays were appropriate. Pitard also preferred whole core sampling for assay, although this protocol was not followed.

13.8 Independent statement on sample preparation, analyses, and security

The historical nature of the preparation, analyses, and security of samples from the Golden Eagle Project make it difficult to reliably assess whether the sample grades are suitable for use in mineral resource estimates. The lack of QAQC samples other than limited numbers of duplicate pulp sample assays and check re-assays prevents an


July 2009 64 of 126

assessment of the reliability of the sample assays, and Snowden has considered this during the classification of mineral resources. Samples from 613 drillholes were excluded from the 2009 mineral resource estimate due to a lack of QAQC information and the inability to verify the assays from assay certificates.


July 2009 65 of 126

14 Data verification 14.1 Data verification by Santa Fe Pacific Gold

According to SFPG’s Prefeasibility report (1996a), SFPG did not undertake a typical check assay program of existing samples at the project at the time of their report.

SFPG identified a total of 225 sample intervals assayed by Acme, Silver Valley, and the Republic laboratories which could be directly compared as check assays, and noted a good correlation between most of the samples. These samples appear to be pulps (analyzed by Acme and Silver Valley) and/or half core (analyzed by Republic) for use in the check assay. Midway Gold has been unable to obtain valid assay certificates from Acme, the primary check laboratory. Acme Labs is based out of Vancouver, BC, while the Republic Lab is in reference to the onsite Hecla Mine Lab, located at the Knob Hill Mine, Republic, WA. The mine lab did produce signed assay certificates, but no measure of the lab quality is included in report documentation.

14.2 Data compilation and verification by Midway Gold Midway Gold acquired the Golden Eagle Property in 2008, and obtained the SFPG digital database from Newmont Mining Corporation and Kinross Gold in early 2009. This database contained geology codes for rock formation, lithology, and alteration, and sample assays for gold, silver, multi-elements, and LECO data.

Midway Gold was unable to determine a useful correlation between the numeric geology codes in the digital database and the physical paper geology logs. As a result, Midway Gold re-entered all formation and lithology information into the database for all drillholes with logging information.

Midway Gold has converted drillhole collar coordinates from local mine coordinates to UTM coordinates using the methodology described in Section 11.6.

Midway Gold has validated a proportion of the drillhole samples through checking of assays entered in the database with original assay certificates where they are available; however assay certificates do not exist for all assays. Table 14.1 details the results of the assay certificate validation.

Table 14.1 Assay certificates validated by Midway Gold

Company Number of assays

Gold assays absent

Gold assays validated

Percentage validated

Mountain Lion 846 0 0 0

Knob Hill 1,085 229 856 100

Day Mines 457 149 23 7

Crown Resources 1,554 52 0 0

Hecla 8,265 431 6,474 83

SFPG 9,182 141 9,039 100

Echo Bay 464 0 464 100


July 2009 66 of 126

14.3 Twin drillholes Four shallow twinned drillholes have been completed on the Golden Eagle Project to verify the results of the original drillholes. Original holes were completed by Knob Hill Mines (ML-4 and ML-6), and Crown Resources (SPR8-6 and SPR8-8) with twin holes completed by Hecla (90-196 and 90-197), and Santa Fe (CGE-0046 and CGE-0047). Results of hole to hole comparisons are shown in Figure 14.1. Samples from the top 30 ft of drillhole SPR8-8 were eliminated from the comparison because no samples were collected from 0 to 15 ft in the twin hole CGE-0047, and a vein was intersected from 15 ft to 35 in drillhole SPR8-8 that was not encountered in CGE-0047.

Figure 14.1 Twin drillhole gold grade comparison by depth

Comparison of ML-4 and 90-196 Comparison of ML-6 and 90-197

Comparison of SPR8-6 and CGE-0045 Comparison of SPR8-8 and CGE-0047

The gold grades display a good general correlation between all drillhole twins (with the exception of ML-4 to 90-196) with similar high and low grades observed in twin pairs down the hole. However, the ML assay data tends to be consistently lower in grade than the twin sample assays, whereas the SPR assays tend to be consistently higher in grade than the twin CGE assays. Midway Gold has attributed the difference to the alternative


July 2009 67 of 126

sample preparation and analyses techniques. Snowden recommends additional twin drilling to provide sufficient samples for a meaningful comparison. The twin holes should be representative of the full range of drillhole samples used in the resource estimate, including by geology, date, company, sample type, and core diameter, through spatially representative locations throughout the deposit.

14.4 Independent site inspection May 2009 Mr. Chapman of Snowden conducted a site inspection of the Golden Eagle Project from 11 May to 14 May 2009. Mr. Chapman was accompanied on site by Mr. Harris of Midway Gold and undertook the following activities:

• Reviewed selected diamond drillhole logs and diamond drill core intersections.

• Selected mineralized intersections for independent analyses.

• Visited drillhole core and sample pulp storage facilities at the exploration site.

• Confirmed the approximate locations of major features on site by GPS. Only drillhole core from the Hecla and SFPG drilling campaigns were available for review at the drillhole core storage facilities. Snowden confirmed drillhole core from the Hecla and SFPG drilling campaigns is stored under cover at the core storage facilities at the Project. Drillhole core obtained by Mountain Lion was also available; however, the drill core has been stored outside adjacent to the core storage shed and is in a poor state of repair making identification of sample intervals difficult. Pulps of reverse circulation intervals drilled by SFPG were available within the warehouse. As the pulps have been organized by Chemex job number and not by drillhole numbers, retrieval of specific intervals was not possible at the time of Snowden’s visit.

14.4.1 Independent review of mineralized intersections Mr. Chapman examined mineralized intersections in 25 drillholes from the Golden Eagle Project (Table 14.2). A number of samples selected for review were no longer available (Table 14.3). These missing intervals were selected by SFPG during an extensive metallurgical sampling campaign conducted on the remaining half core samples. Alternative samples were selected by Snowden for independent analysis. Snowden selected samples to obtain a representative population based on operator, drilling year, spatial location, lithology, and sample grades.

Drill core is stored in cardboard boxes with the downhole depth interval denoted in marker pen on the exterior of the boxes and sample intervals marked with small blocks of wood. The core shed, although in a poor state of repair, was generally water tight and any water leaks did not impact directly on the core boxes. Snowden recommends that Midway Gold transfer the core to wooden boxes and affix a metal plate to the exterior of the box indicating the drillhole number, box number and downhole depth interval. Snowden also noted that some of the core had been sampled using a hydraulic splitter resulting in an uneven core splits which will form an unrepresentative sample. Snowden recommends that any other drill core samples selected from existing drill core should comprise whole core samples, and that any samples selected from future drilling campaigns should be cut in half with a diamond bladed saw, to reduce the potential of sample bias.

Table 14.2 Mineralized drill core intersections reviewed by Snowden

Hole number Company From (ft) To (ft)


July 2009 68 of 126


88-123 Hecla 1,454 1,455

88-125 Hecla 1,041 1,045

88-126 Hecla 1,907.4 1,909

89-147 Hecla 982.5 984.5

90-205 Hecla 153.8 155

90-213 Hecla 401 402.2

90-215 Hecla 425 430

90-217 Hecla 346.3 347.4

90-221 Hecla 590 594

90-226 Hecla 450 452

CGE-0012 SFPG 113 118

CGE-0019 SFPG 855 860.7

CGE-0025 SFPG 666.3 671.5

CGE-0026 SFPG 231 236

CGE-0026 SFPG 387.5 392

CGE-0028 SFPG 735.7 740.9

CGE-0029 SFPG 789.5 795

CGE-0030 SFPG 775 780

CGE-0031 SFPG 565 570

CGE-0034 SFPG 1,454 1,460.3

CGE-0035 SFPG 76 81

CGE-0038 SFPG 462 467

CGE-0038 SFPG 413 418

CGE-0042 SFPG 864 869

Table 14.3 Drillcore intersections unavailable for review


CGE-0017 SFPG 840 900

SPR8-8 South Penn 20 40

DH-11-1-6 Knob Hill Mines 500 520

88-128 Hecla 1,380 1,400


CGE-0022 SFPG 230 250

CDH-25 Knob Hill Mines 0 20

89-139 Hecla 1,180 1,200

88-118 Hecla 1,090 1,110


July 2009 69 of 126


GEOO-10 Echo Bay 660 680

89-150 Hecla 170 190

CD76B Knob Hill Mines 0 20

89-150 Hecla 410 430

CGE-0003 SFPG 500 520

DGE-0001 SFPG 90 110

90-205 Hecla 320 340

CGE-0001 SFPG 450 470


90-208 Hecla 50 70


90-204 Hecla 10 30

88-123 Hecla 1,786 1,806

89-139 Hecla 1,169 1,174

89-139 Hecla 1,040 1,044

89-150 Hecla 240 569

89-150 Hecla 218 222

CGE-0001 SFPG 431 442

CGE-0001 SFPG 509.2 515.5

CGE-0003 SFPG 490 495

CGE-0003 SFPG 520 565

CGE-0022 SFPG 466 473

CGE-0022 SFPG 550 555.3

CGE-0001 SFPG 321.7 326.3

CGE-0003 SFPG 700 705

CGE-0002 SFPG 364 400+

CGE-0002 SFPG 570 1115

CGE-0004 SFPG 623 627.5

CGE-0004 SFPG 639.8 644.3

CGE-0022 SFPG 365 370

CGE-0022 SFPG 240 245

88-127 Hecla 828 831

89-137 Hecla 630 632

90-202 Hecla 352 356

90-208 Hecla 0 330

89-149 Hecla 243 248


July 2009 70 of 126


89-149 Hecla 402 406

89-149 Hecla 355 361

90-197 Hecla 148 150

90-210 Hecla 493 498

CGE-0011 SFPG 1,036 1,041

89-154 Hecla 439 446

89-134 Hecla 438 440

CGE-0020 SFPG 498 502

CGE-0009 SFPG 561.5 566.5

14.4.2 Independent sampling of mineralized intersections Mr. Chapman collected 25 independent half core duplicate samples from 23 drillholes (Table 14.4) to verify the presence of mineralized intersections. Because of the limited number of samples, the variable nature of mineralization, and different sample preparation and analysis techniques used by the alternate laboratory, independent samples may indicate poor precision. The purpose of independent samples is to verify the presence and magnitude of mineralization, rather than act as a QAQC sample.

The 25 independent half core samples were shipped to Vancouver, where the samples were submitted to ALS Laboratories of North Vancouver, Canada. The samples were crushed to 70% passing -2 mm or better, and then a one kilogram crushed sample was pulverized to 85% passing 75 µm or better. A 30 g charge was digested then analyzed by fire assay with atomic absorption finish.

The results of the analyses are shown in Table 14.4. Snowden considers that the results of the independent samples are acceptable for duplicate samples for the style of mineralization.

Table 14.4 Snowden independent drill core sample assay results

Hole Name From (ft) To (ft) Company Year Original gold (opt)

Duplicate gold (opt)

88-123 1,454 1,455 Hecla 1988 0.308 0.239

88-125 1,041 1,045 Hecla 1988 0.118 0.086

88-126 1,907.4 1,909 Hecla 1988 0.293 0.330

89-147 982.5 984.5 Hecla 1989 0.258 0.243

90-205 153.8 155 Hecla 1990 0.106 0.025

90-213 401 402.2 Hecla 1990 0.742 0.790

90-215 425 430 Hecla 1990 0.352 0.312

90-217 346.3 347.4 Hecla 1990 0.444 0.630

90-221 590 594 Hecla 1990 0.230 0.268

90-226 450 452 Hecla 1990 0.238 0.239


July 2009 71 of 126

Hole Name From (ft) To (ft) Company Year Original gold (opt)

Duplicate gold (opt)

CGE-0012 113 118 SFPG 1995 0.121 0.111

CGE-0019 855 860.7 SFPG 1995 0.321 0.222

CGE-0025 666.3 671.5 SFPG 1996 0.054 0.043

CGE-0026 231 236 SFPG 1996 0.139 0.117

CGE-0026 387.5 392 SFPG 1996 0.104 0.098

CGE-0028 735.7 740.9 SFPG 1996 0.263 0.273

CGE-0029 789.5 795 SFPG 1996 0.205 0.150

CGE-0030 775 780 SFPG 1996 0.078 0.064

CGE-0031 565 570 SFPG 1996 0.430 0.059

CGE-0034 1,454 1,460.3 SFPG 1996 0.280 0.341

CGE-0035 76 81 SFPG 1996 0.143 0.085

CGE-0038 462 467 SFPG 1996 0.404 0.420

CGE-0038 413 418 SFPG 1996 0.244 0.231

CGE-0042 864 869 SFPG 1996 0.128 0.126

CGE-0044 732 736 SFPG 1996 0.098 0.062

14.4.3 Independent review of drillhole collar coordinates Mr. Chapman visited the Golden Eagle Project site and the approximate locations of drillhole collars. Due to natural reclamation from soil and vegetation and disturbance from surface operations, it was not possible to validate precise collar coordinates. Snowden recommends that for future drilling campaigns, Midway Gold affix cement collar blocks with a durable metal tag stamped with the drillhole information on every drillhole. In the period between the end of drilling the hole and installing the permanent cement collar blocks, Midway Gold should identify the drillhole number on the collar using a permanent marker pen.

Snowden undertook a comparison of the surveyed topographic surface and the drillhole collar coordinates entered into the database and noted numerous elevation discrepancies ranging up to 20 ft. The level of error is generally less than 2 ft. It was not possible to identify whether the error is in the topographic survey or the collar coordinate. Snowden recommends Midway Gold undertake a more detailed survey of the site using total station or differential GPS methods to more accurately define the collar coordinates.

14.4.4 Independent review of original assay certificates Original assay certificates were emailed directly to Snowden from the Chemex laboratory in Reno, Nevada for comparison against the database. Snowden reviewed 22 certificates for 3,428 drillhole core sample assays, and no discrepancies were noted. Details of the assay certificates reviewed are shown in Table 14.5.


July 2009 72 of 126

Table 14.5 Assay certificates reviewed by Snowden

Work order Date Drillhole intersection Number of

samples

A9529501 22/09/1995 CGE-004 (100 ft to 218.5 ft) 14

A9529507 22/09/1995 CGE-001 (55, 60, 65, 70) 4

A9529509 22/09/1995 CGE-003 (100, 105, 110, 115) 4

A9529510 22/09/1995 CGE-004 (45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100) 12

A9529511 22/09/1995 CGE-005 (25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100) 16

A9529512 22/09/1995 CGE-006 (120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 150) 7

A9529514 22/09/1995 CGE-008 (95, 100) 2

A9529517 22/09/1995 CGE-011 (135, 140, 145, 150, 155, 160) 6

A9529518 22/09/1995 CGE-001 (84 ft to 883 ft) 142

A9530680 03/10/1995 CGE-003 (245 ft to 730 ft) 94

A9531057 07/10/1995 CGE-003 (730 ft to 860 ft) 26

A9531059 07/10/1995 CGE-004 (218.5 ft to 1067.6 ft) 164

A9531061 07/10/1995 CGE-005 (101ft to 560 ft) 91

A9531249 11/10/1995 88-126 (1420 ft to 1490 ft) 6

A9531764 18/10/1995 88-133 (126.3 ft to 1480 ft) 80

A9531812 18/10/1995 CGE-005 (560 ft to 805 ft) 46

A9531818 18/10/1995 CGE-008 (100 ft to 185.5 ft) 16

A9531994 20/10/1995 CGE-005 (805 ft to 970 ft) 32

A9531996 20/10/1995 CGE-006 (150 ft to 400.5 ft) 45

A9532001 20/10/1995 88-133 (1480 ft to 1630 ft) 18

A9532302 24/10/1995 CGE-006 (400.5 ft to 620.5 ft) 42

A9532307 24/10/1995 CGE-005 (970 ft to 1116 ft) 29

A9532313 24/10/1995 88-116 (20 ft to 164 ft) 19

A9532314 24/10/1995 CGE008 (185.5 ft to 536 ft) 62

A9532533 27/10/1995 88-116 (164 ft to 566 ft) 50

A9532536 27/10/1995 CGE-006 (620.5 ft to 911.6 ft) 55

A9532751 31/10/1995 CGE-008 (536 ft to 817 ft) 54

A9532999 03/11/1995 CGE-008 (817 ft to 1050 ft) 44

A9533001 03/11/1995 CGE-011 (160 ft to 456.5 ft) 60

A9533005 03/11/1995 88-116 (566 ft to 840 ft) 33

A9533147 03/11/1995 CGE-017 (110 ft to 130 ft) 4


July 2009 73 of 126

Work order Date Drillhole intersection Number of

samples

A9533149 03/11/1995 CGE-018 (80 ft to 125 ft) 9

A9533453 09/05/1995 88-116 (566 ft to 1532 ft) 90

A9533458 09/11/1995 CGE-011 (456.5 ft to 1119 ft) 142

A9533928 16/11/1995 CGE-011 (1119 ft to 1264.4 ft) 30

A9533930 16/11/1995 88-127 (150 ft to 332.5 ft and 1062 ft to 1066 ft and 1127 to 1155 ft) 30

A9534329 21/11/1995 CGE-018 (120 ft to 916.7 ft) 160

A9534333 21/11/1995 CGE-017 (125 ft to 606 ft) 100

A9534805 28/11/1995 CGE-018 (916.7 ft to 1300 ft) 76

A9534813 28/11/1995 CGE-018 (606 ft to 1176 ft) 110

A9535381 05/12/1995 CGE-018 (1300 ft to 1459.2 ft) 32

A9535383 05/12/1995 88-127 (1155 ft to 1380 ft) 30

A9535384 05/12/1995 CGE-017 (1176 ft to 1286 ft) 22

A9535691 08/12/1995 CGE-021 (24 ft to 643 ft) 115

A9535694 08/12/1995 88-120 (731 ft to 1186 ft and 1342 ft to 1645 ft) 97

A9535701 08/12/1995 CGE-003 (121 ft to 245 ft) 16

A9535702 08/12/1995 88-127 (1390 ft to 1629 ft) 24

A9535996 12/12/1995 CGE-023 (6 ft to 651 ft) 108

A9536000 12/12/1995 88-128 (215 ft to 1250 ft and 1339 ft to 1355 ft and 1494 ft to 1741 ft) 131

A9536249 15/12/1995 89-147 (14ft to 197.5 ft and 212.5 ft to 428.5 ft and 591 ft to 798.4 ft and 801 ft to 897.5 ft and 901 ft to 918.5 ft and 984.5ft to 1100 ft) 122

A9536254 15/12/1995 88-118 (256 ft to 312 ft and 411 ft to 420.8 ft and 616 to 627 ft and 900 ft to 931.5 ft and 1007 ft to 1018 ft and 1085 ft to 1109 ft and 1171 ft to 1200 ft and 1228 ft to 1346 ft) 37

A9536256 15/12/1995 89-167 (20 ft to 32 ft and 70.5 ft to 94 ft and 174.5 ft to 185 ft and 325 ft to 401 ft)

A9610704 16/01/1996 CGE-027 (5 ft to 1000 ft) 195

A9610986 20/01/1996 CGE-024 (455 ft to 735 ft) 52

A9612076 09/02/1996 CGE-040 (10 ft to 146 ft) 24

A9612472 16/02/1996 CGE-040 (146 ft to 765.2 ft) 101


July 2009 74 of 126

15 Adjacent properties There are no known activities on adjacent properties significant to the Golden Eagle Project. The historic operations at Knob Hill, Mud Lake, and Mountain Lion mines are currently inactive. The Mud Lake open pit was used for the Knob Hill tailings impoundment. Hecla sealed the Mountain Lion underground mine, although the open pits remain accessible, but they are generally small and reclaimed naturally.


July 2009 75 of 126

16 Mineral processing and metallurgical testing 16.1 Introduction

Differential Engineering Inc. reviewed reports and data detailing the metallurgical test work conducted by several unverified laboratories and consultants on mineralized samples from the Golden Eagle deposit (Differential Engineering, 2009). The test work described in these reports have not yet been verified through independent test work, and it is unknown whether the samples are representative of the Golden Eagle deposit, however, the reported results indicate that the Golden Eagle deposit represents a refractory gold and silver target for further metallurgical testing, with material types and grades similar to gold ore processed from the Carlin Trend, Nevada.

16.2 Mineral processing and metallurgical testing by Hecla Mining Company and Santa Fe Pacific Gold

Hecla conducted various metallurgical tests in the 1980s, and SFPG core drilled for metallurgical samples in the Golden Eagle deposit during the fall and winter of 1995 to 1996.

A heterogeneity test performed on a large composite sample is reported to clearly demonstrate that gold is finely and homogeneously disseminated in the sample. A significant portion of the gold was considered by Mather (1990) to be refractory. Refractory gold refers to a naturally resistant mineralized material to recovery by direct standard cyanidation and activated carbon adsorption processes. Calculations based on estimated abundances of different types of pyrite in the Golden Eagle sample suggest that about 66% of the gold could be present in solid solution in arsenic-bearing, fine to medium grained pyrite. Gold extraction by direct cyanidation was limited to 11.8% to 27.8%, except in one composite which exhibited gold extraction up to 59.2% by direct cyanidation, for a composite weighted average of 22.4%. Whole ore cyanide extraction does not appear to be a viable extraction process for the bulk of the deposit.

Phase 2 metallurgical test work was undertaken in 1996 at Hazen Metallurgical Inc. (Hazen) on metallurgical composite sample types from drillhole MC 0-6 to confirm the refractory nature of the rock and to test other extraction alternatives. Gold recoveries were 27.4% from direct standard cyanide leaching in a carbon-in-leach (CIL) on ground mineralized rock (P80 of ≈ 80 um). This preliminary scoping metallurgical test work at Hazen showed that direct cyanidation is not a feasible process option for most of the samples, thus the mineralized rock is generally refractory for gold extraction (Oberg and Gathie, 1996).

The SFPG composites from the 1995 to 1996 drill campaign have been reported to contain significant quantities of arsenic, iron, mercury, selenium, and sulfides. The main constituents of the Golden Eagle samples are silicate gangue (largely quartz) and pyrite. A small amount of clay minerals and possibly some organic material also was present. Other minerals that are present in trace amounts include arsenopyrite, stibnite, sphalerite, galena, pyrargyrite, barite, and native gold. Pyrite was observed in two distinct size populations, 0.25 µm to 10 um and 1 mm to 2 cm. Most of the pyrite occurred in the fine fraction as framboidal particles in sericite or quartz. Both pyrite populations are arsenical with higher concentrations of arsenic in the finer fraction. The arsenic was stated to be concentrated in the grain rims, the rims ranging up to 4 um in thickness. Gold was detected in the arsenical rims of the fine grained pyrite, the


July 2009 76 of 126

gold/silver association was observed in every grain studied in detail, and the gold was stated to occur either as colloidal material or in solid solution (excerpted from Jenkins, 1990).

In addition, samples of the Golden Eagle deposit have been noted to be potential acid generating (PAG) material, with a negative net carbonate value (NCV) of -5.41. The fact that the Golden Eagle Property is a sulfidic deposit in a “net precipitation area” means all waste rock, dumps or storage of material should be mined and stacked in such a fashion to separate the material from the environment and to minimize the acid generation potential for the material. In addition, the material contains significant quantities of deleterious elements that potentially have an environmental impact to water and dust, which should be managed.

Extensive grinding test work was performed by McPherson Consultants for semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) and rod/ball setups. The rod/ball work index was determined to be 19.5 KWhr/st and 0.25 g2 for the Bond Abrasion Index. The density of the composite SFPG samples determined by Hazen ranged from 2.62 g/cm3 to 2.67 g/cm3. It was reported that ground slurry pulps of the Golden Eagle material may exhibit high viscosity and difficult filtration issues.

Due to the refractory properties of most of the Golden Eagle mineralized material, which does not exhibit any preg-rob tendencies, sulfide oxidation will improve gold extraction and recovery. Standard pre-treatment options for sulfide refractory ores include chemical pre-treatment, roasting, bio-oxidation, pressure oxidation (POX), ultra-fine grinding and concentration by gravity or flotation. The gold in the Golden Eagle mineralized material mostly occurs as solid solution within the pyrite matrix, which is generally impermeable to direct cyanidation, so the gold must be liberated by oxidation of the sulfides to yield permeable sulfates and oxides that are more readily leached. Thus the degree of sulfide oxidation will generally correlate with the success of extracting the gold via cyanidation.

The following process options were addressed by the metallurgical test work on the Golden Eagle material conducted by Hecla and SFPG:

• Most of the metallurgical test work centers on three processes including flotation with cyanidation of the flotation tails, bio-oxidation, and pressure oxidation.

• Hecla’s metallurgical tests on the mineralized material by atmospheric chemical pre-treatment of the mineralized rock only marginally improved the gold extractability compared to direct cyanidation.

• Limited gravity concentration test work was conducted by Hecla and needs to be revisited in future bench and pilot plant test work.

• It is conceivable that a small roasting plant could be built and operated economically, however, permitting of a roasting plant may present problems, so no significant metallurgical roasting test work was conducted on the drill composites.

16.3 Summary of process options Due to the challenging economic events today, with capital and energy cost escalation and a locally uncertain market for gold concentrates, a specific process flowsheet derived from the reviewed metallurgical test work could include one of the following:


July 2009 77 of 126

• Whole ore flotation with cyanidation carbon-in-leach (CIL) of the flotation tails. The concentrate can then be bio-oxidized, pressure oxidized or shipped for processing.

• Whole ore bio-oxidation in heaps or ground slurry with cyanidation CIL of the bio-oxidation tails.

• Whole ore pressure oxidation (POX) followed by cyanidation CIL (CN-CIL) of the POX tails.

Table 16.1 outlines a summary of recoveries for each process option.

Table 16.1 Summary of process options

Golden Eagle Composite Assays Recovery Recovery Total Cal. Recovery

SFGC – GE95 LG/HG MC 0-6 %W t. Opt Au %Au %Ag %Au %Ag

Whole ore CN-CIL 0.0673 27.4 29.0 27.4 29.0

Process 1 : Flotation Concentration 23.29 0.269 86.5 86.3 86.5 86.3

Add Flotation Tails Cyanidation – CIL 89.4 91.9

Flotation Concentrate Oxidation-Neut-CN %Au %Ag %Au %Ag

Conc. POX – complete sulfide oxidation CN 93.3 4.9 84.4 4.2

Conc. Biox. Using CSTR’a-90% Sulfide Oxidation-CN 91.2 70.0 82.6 85.7

Conc. Heap Biox. at 80% Sulfide Oxidation@Geobiotics-CN 88.5 70.0 80.2 66.3

Conc. And Whole Ore Heap Biox. at 80% Sulfide Oxidation-CN 88.5 65.7 75.1 62.0

Process 2: Whole or ore bio-oxidation, neutralization, CN-CIL 75.5 65.7

Process 3: Whole ore POX (Hecla Study), neutralization, CN-CIL 94 ?

16.3.1 Process option 1: Whole ore flotation with cyanidation carbon-in-leach of flotation tails

Flotation test work at Hazen Research Inc. on the 1995 to 1996 SFPG drill core metallurgical composites indicated that fine grinding would be required to achieve acceptable levels of gold recovery via flotation. The average flotation rougher grind size was P80 of 74 um to 80 um; the scavenger feed was re-ground to an average P80 of 33.4 um. Flotation tests were reported to achieve gold recoveries at 82.4% to 95% into the flotation concentrate, which comprised 12.46% to 26.84% of the total weight. Flotation concentrate assays ranged from 0.143 opt Au to 0.905 opt Au. This large concentrate mass with relatively low gold grade may be challenging to transport, capitalize and process economically. The flotation test work was conducted using standard reagents and fine grinding with the work conducted in nitrogen and air atmosphere. The flotation tails were then leached by cyanidation in CIL. The cyanide leach bottle roll test work was conducted using standard methods and up to 24 hours leach time.

Metallurgical testing undertaken at Hazen on the Phase 2 combined metallurgical composites (MC 0-6) showed the potential for overall gold extraction of 89.37% and silver at 91.94% with grinding of fresh mineralized rock to a P80 of ≈ 80 um, followed by flotation and cyanide leaching via CIL of the flotation tails. Because of the finely


July 2009 78 of 126

disseminated nature of the mineralized rock it is believed that it will be difficult to achieve both high gold grades and recoveries in concentrates. Generally flotation works well to collect sulfides in the 20 um to 625 um range. The two types of sulfides in this mineralized material are greater or less than this optimal size and thus fine or ultra fine grinding is needed to liberate and collect the fine sulfides.

A gravity concentration step could be included in the grinding circuit to collect the larger sulfides minerals with residual gold to a marketable concentrate before the next mineral extraction step. This would remove the larger sulfides that are difficult to remove in standard flotation and would also identify the gold concentration in the larger sulfide mineral fraction by assay.

Further metallurgical testing was done by McPherson Consultants on the Hazen composites samples for the grindability of the mineralized rock, which showed an average abrasion index of 0.25 g2 and a rod mill index of 13.6 and Ball mill at 18.5 [KWhr/st]. Thus this mineralized material is relatively hard to grind and will require extensive grinding and energy to obtain a P80 of ≈ 80 um for flotation. In addition it is mentioned that the ground pulp exhibits high viscosity. This should be investigated to correlate grind size as pulp viscosity and flotation concentrate gold recovery.

Following Process option 1, flotation of the mineralized rock followed by cyanidation of the flotation tails has reported to recover up to 86.5% of the gold and 86.3% of the silver. Cyanidation of the flotation tails and slimes increases the total reported calculated gold and silver recovery p to 89.4% and 91.9% respectively. The flotation concentrate must be sold or else oxidized, neutralized, and subjected to cyanidation. It is reported that POX recovers up to 93.3% of the gold in the flotation concentrate and only 4.9% of the silver in post oxidation CN-CIL. Bench scale bio-oxidation is reported to recover up to 91.2% of the gold in the flotation concentrate and 70.0% of the silver in post oxidation CN-CIL.

There appears to be three potential processes for gold extraction of the flotation concentrates:

• Ship the concentrates offsite for processing at smelters, roasters or autoclaves. There is currently a market in Nevada and possibly in Utah for sulfide concentrates due to the lack of sulfide sulfur for roasting and autoclave operations.

• POX of the flotation concentrates, neutralization, then cyanidation-CIL of the residue on site with the flotation slimes and tails. However, pressure oxidation plants are expensive to build and operate. If a used autoclave can be obtained then there could be a good opportunity to use this process. A detailed capital and operating cost analysis is needed prior to selecting this process as a mass of nearly 25% of the mineralized rock could report to a flotation concentrate. Some of the head ore could be mixed successfully with the flotation concentrate to increase POX tonnage throughput if required by the sizing of the autoclave. It appears this POX process had low silver recovery.

• Bio-oxidation of the flotation concentrates, neutralization, then cyanidation-CIL of the residue on site with the flotation slimes and tails. Bio-oxidation of the flotation concentrate achieved gold extraction of 71.7% to 82.6%. The overall gold extraction appears low, but a pilot plant could optimize the operation to maximize oxidation and gold extraction.


July 2009 79 of 126

Seven POX tests conducted at temperatures of 150°C to 210°C to investigate the relationships between autoclave temperature, sulfide sulfur oxidation, and subsequent CIL gold extraction were undertaken on the Hazen Flotation concentrate. The cyanidation CIL extractions were between 90.8% and 95.4% and the leach residues assayed 0.003 opt to 0.006 opt, showing no advantage for using temperatures higher than 180°C, which gave a gold extraction of 94.1% (Oberg, Gathie, and Hazen, 1996).

In Dr. Seal’s experience with flotation concentrate bio-oxidation plants, this mineralized material and respective flotation concentrate appears to be a prime candidate for the technology. The process takes up to 200 hours, depending on pyrite size and the degree of bio-oxidation, and requires large stirred, aerated tanks with temperature control. Care is needed to operate at the highest percent solids to increase retention time and sulfur oxidation. In addition, a water treatment plant is a necessary capital requirement, and due to the high As values present in the mineralized rock, permit requirements must be addressed. The use of large quantities of lime and cyanide is also a primary operational cost driver that should be reviewed.

Further study is required to evaluate the economics of this process, the success of bio-oxidation compared to POX, and to determine whether differences in percent oxidation and gold recovery noted in the two techniques are not due to differences in analytical techniques, sampling, variable sample types, and general calculation techniques. A pilot plant on fresh mineralized rock is warranted due to the unknown ageing factor in the SFPG work.

16.3.2 Process option 2: Whole ore bio-oxidation in heaps or ground slurry with cyanidation carbon-in-leach of the bio-oxidation tails

Whole ore bio-oxidation and pressure oxidation were also investigated by Hecla in 1988 to 1989 on unknown aged samples, which indicate that bio-oxidation may be the best choice for gold extraction on the project. Golden Eagle samples supplied by Hecla were found to be highly amenable to bio-oxidation with gold extractions of 93% at only 70% overall sulfide oxidation. In general, gold extractions recoveries of around 90% can be expected on bio-oxidation. Following Process 2, whole ore heap bio-oxidation followed by grinding and neutralization then CN-CIL had a reported gold recovery up to 75.5% and silver at 65.7%.

Whole ore bio-oxidation followed by cyanidation increases gold extraction and decreases cyanide consumption. This process option would involve construction of heaps of crushed ore through which bacteria carrying solution is passed. After a period of time (on the order of six to 12 months), when oxidation is optimized, the material is neutralized, then cyanide solution is applied on the heaps or else ground with post bio-ore for CN-CIL (Siddle, 1988). A concentrate step may be required to recover the gold values associated with the large sulfide grains. This bio-oxidation pretreatment is reported to show promising results, enabling a bench scale gold extraction of up to 82% after oxidation of 39% of the sulfur. Optimal oxidation of 69% of the sulfur can enhance the gold extractability to about 89%. Bio-oxidation can be conducted directly on ore with, at most, only modest requirements for acid makeup (Mather, 1990). Significant neutralization reagents and a water treatment plant may be required. It appears that no bio-oxidation columns were undertaken in the Hecla or SFPG test work.

The direct whole ore bio-oxidation flow sheet can be developed into two distinct processes:


July 2009 80 of 126

• Whole ore heap bio-oxidation, neutralization, grinding, gravity or flotation concentration of large pyrite and then cyanidation-CIL of the bio-oxidation residue on site.

• Whole ore grinding, gravity concentration, tank bio-oxidation, neutralization then cyanidation-CIL of the residue on site.

In Dr Seal’s experience with a whole ore crushing, inoculation, then heap bio-oxidation operation (at Newmont on the Carlin Trend), using a cut-off grade of approximately 0.05 opt, six months were required to obtain sulfide oxidation of approximately 30%. Large areas are required to create pads to a maximum height of 45 ft. Care should be taken to stack the ore with conveyors, and a water treatment plant is also required.

Good quality fresh metallurgical samples should be tested in columns to model the recovery and time required and to determine if the selected crush size will allow oxidation of the fine sulfides. The process if optimized, and if the mineralogy allows, neutralization then heap cyanidation could be a possibility, but doubtful with the smaller sulfides being encapsulated.

The best recoveries could be obtained by offloading the post bio-oxidation ore, then neutralizing in grinding, and recovering any large sulfides in a gravity concentrate, or a bulk flotation, then using cyanidation in a carbon-in-leach. Considering the significant differences in gold recovery projected from the Hazen work on heap bio-oxidation (63.9% to 74.6%) and the earlier Hecla work on direct bio-oxidation with projected gold recovery of 93%, these actual recoveries obtained should be resolved in column bio-oxidation leach tests, neutralization, then cyanide leach tests.

Whole ore grinding, gravity concentration or bulk flotation, then stirred tank bio-reactors could be a good alternative. The gravity concentrate or bulk flotation could remove most of the large sulfide fraction for either regrind or off property sale. The large sulfides take a long time to bio-oxidize. This process flow sheet will be % solid limiting for tank size capital requirements and appears to reach above 90% extraction. In addition a water treatment plant is required. Post bio-oxidation neutralization and then cyanidation-CIL could achieve acceptable 90% recovery. Test work on new fresh mineralized material is warranted to explain the differences in projected recovery obtained between Hecla and Hazen.

Elemental sulfur may build up to a significant concentration to affect the reagent usage in the cyanidation step for gold recovery. While it has been difficult to discern and quantify this issue in the available documentation, bio-oxidation test work did expose two bio-oxidized flasks to determine if treatment with elemental sulfur oxidizing bacteria lowers cyanide consumption of the bio-oxidized concentrate. It is unclear from the test work if success was achieved because the solids were finally dried and shipped to Hazen where cyanidation was undertaken, and the test work was stopped by SFPG. According to Oberg, Gathie, and Hazen (1996), reagent dosages were 4.6 lb NaCN/st to 12 lb NaCN/st, which is considered a high value. Two more samples arrived, labeled 90% and 5% bio-oxidized, but no further work was undertaken before the test work was stopped.

Ferrous iron and elemental sulfur are released during acid dissolution of pyrrhotite, and although the formation of elemental sulfur is reversed by the bacteria present in the culture, abnormally high pyrrhotite content and the formation of excessive elemental sulfur cannot be accommodated in the plant, which may increase cyanide requirements and result in lower gold recoveries (Van Aswegen, Van Niekerk and Olivier, 2007). There is no mention of significant quantities of pyrrhotite, but this issue should be


July 2009 81 of 126

investigated in future test work and mineralogy, quantifying the quantity of elemental sulfur as a byproduct of flotation concentrate bio-oxidation and its affect on cyanidation.

16.3.3 Process option 3: Whole ore pressure oxidation followed by cyanidation carbon-in-leach of the pressure oxidation tails

Pressure oxidation batch tests were conducted on whole mineralized samples of unknown age supplied by Hecla to both Lakefield Research Laboratories and Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories. The reported tests achieved a high degree of sulfur oxidation (>99%) and enabled gold extractions of 94% to 98%. At sulfur oxidation of 92% the gold extraction dropped to 89% (Mather, 1990). Bio-oxidation of the whole mineralized sample achieved 69% sulfide oxidation while pressure oxidation was able to reach near complete sulfide oxidation.

Based upon Hecla’s and SFPG metallurgical test work, autoclave pressure oxidation of the whole mineralized sample appears to have the best overall gold recovery, with extractions in the 88.5% to 98% range. Silver extraction appeared to not be tracked well. This whole ore oxidation process followed by neutralization then cyanidation-CIL of the residue on site would be capital expensive. If a used autoclave can be found then this flowsheet development will need to be examined closely. The sulfide sulfur is low in the whole mineralized sample and will need additional sulfide concentrates, or extra heat must be added. A detailed capital and operation cost study should be undertaken and compared with the previous flowsheets.


July 2009 82 of 126

17 Mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates 17.1 Disclosure

Mineral resources reported in this section were prepared by Mr. Eric Chapman, C. Geol., a Consultant of Snowden and a Qualified Person as defined under NI 43-101. The work was reviewed by Ms. P. De Mark, P. Geo., a Senior Consultant of Snowden.

Snowden is independent of Midway Gold as defined under NI 43-101.

Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves are reported in the Technical Report.

This report uses definitions from and follows the guidelines of the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral resources and mineral reserves and NI 43-101 Form F1. The Project has no defined mine design at this time.

17.1.1 Known issues that materially affect the mineral resources The June 2009 mineral resource estimate has been constrained within an ‘ultimate’ pit shell as detailed in Section 17.11. This ultimate pit shell extends outside Midway Gold’s present property boundary into property owned by Hecla. The full extent of the pit shell will be dependent on the slope angles of the pit walls, and a slope stability study should be undertaken to establish the maximum possible slope angles.

Midway Gold has entered into discussions for the potential purchase of the additional land and mineral rights with Hecla. Historical workings and tailings dumps are located in the area of the additional land, and should be considered for any environmental and engineering issues.

Snowden is unaware of any further issues that may materially affect the mineral resources in a detrimental sense. These conclusions are based on the following:

• Midway Gold has represented that there are no outstanding legal issues; no legal action, and injunctions pending against the Project.

• Midway Gold has represented that the mineral claims and surface rights have secure title and are in good standing.

• There are no known marketing, political, or taxation issues.

• There are no known infrastructure issues.

17.2 Assumptions, methods, and parameters – June 2009 mineral resource estimates

The estimates were prepared in the following steps:

• Compilation and verification of drillhole data, including independent data verification, and database verification. Data validation was undertaken by Midway Gold and reviewed by Snowden.

• Analysis of drillhole sample QAQC data.

• Verification of Midway Gold’s geology and mineralization models against drillhole information.


July 2009 83 of 126

• Coding of drillhole data within mineralized estimation domains.

• Sample length compositing.

• Analysis of extreme data values and application of top cuts, where necessary.

• Exploratory analysis of gold grades within mineralized estimation domains.

• Variogram analysis and modeling.

• Derivation of kriging plan and boundary conditions.

• Creation of block models and application of density values.

• Estimation of gold grades into blocks using ordinary kriging (OK) and inverse power of distance (IPD).

• Validation of estimated block grades against input sample composite grades.

• Confidence classification of estimates with respect to CIM guidelines.

• Application of appropriate mining and milling costs and revenue assumptions agreed to by Midway Gold; optimization and selection of the pit shell to best represent the economically viable resource.

• Resource tabulation and resource reporting.

17.3 Supplied data, data transformations, and data validation 17.3.1 Supplied data Midway Gold supplied raw drillhole data in Microsoft Access database format. Data stored in the database includes collar coordinates, downhole surveys, geology, and assay data. All assays from the assay laboratories were reported as gold in units of either opt or parts per billion (ppb). The ppb assays were stored in a separate column and converted to troy ounces per short ton as the database was being constructed. The conversion factor used by Midway Gold for the conversion of ppb to opt is:

34,285.7 ppb = 1 opt

Drillhole intervals without assay values were coded in the database with the value of -2 Au opt. All assays below detection limits of the analytical machine in use were set to a value of minus the detection limit. For example, an assay reported as < 10 ppb was recorded in the database as -10, which converts to -0.0003 opt Au.

Topography data was supplied in AutoCAD DXF format and geology, faults, and mineralized estimation domain wireframes in Surpac mining software format. Midway Gold also supplied relevant technical documentation including QAQC data, tonnage factor measurements, metallurgical reports, and geological reports.

17.3.2 Data preparation Snowden prepared desurveyed drillholes from collar, survey, lithology, and validated assay data provided by Midway Gold. A proportion of the historical sample grades have been validated by Midway Gold through checking of assays entered in the database with original assay certificates; however not all assays have been validated in this way, as discussed in Section 14.2.

All samples have been used for the interpretation of the geological model, but not all samples have been used for the estimation of grades in the resource model. Samples from drillhole campaigns which have a high percentage of assays that cannot be verified


July 2009 84 of 126

by original assay certificates have been excluded from the June 2009 mineral resource estimate, as Snowden and Midway Gold believe the accuracy and validity of the sample data from the non-validated holes cannot be reliably assessed. The majority of samples used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate are from the more recent drill programs undertaken by Hecla and SFPG. In addition to the lack of assay certificates, no QAQC data exists for the historical drillholes, no detailed procedures of the sample preparation and analyses methods exists, and none of the drill core is available for validation test work.

204 validated drillholes for 140,950.8 ft are available for use in the resource estimate. A location map of these drillholes is shown in Figure 17.1, and a list of the drillhole collar locations is detailed in Appendix B.

Figure 17.1 Location map of validated drillholes available in the 2009 Golden Eagle mineral resource

121

3000

E

1213000 E

121

3500

E

1213500 E

121

4000

E

1214000 E

121

4500

E

1214500 E

121

5000

E

1215000 E

121

5500

E

1215500 E

121

6000

E

1216000 E

121

6500

E

1216500 E

17692500 N 17692500 N

17693000 N 17693000 N

17693500 N 17693500 N

17694000 N 17694000 N

17694500 N 17694500 N

17695000 N 17695000 N

Golden Eagle Project - Midway Gold Corp.

Plan of drillhole locations

Date: 27/05/09 Drawn bySnowden Scale 1:15000

0 200 400 600 8001:15000

A summary of the drillholes and footage by operator is detailed in Table 17.1.

Table 17.1 Summary of drillholes by operator used in the 2009 mineral resource estimate

Operator No. of Drillholes Footage Percentage of total footage

Knob Hill Mines 51 13,008.8 9

Hecla 91 75,620.5 54

SFPG 56 48,349.5 34

Echo Bay 6 3972 3

TOTAL 204 140,950.8 100


July 2009 85 of 126

17.3.3 Data transformation The surface drillhole spacing ranges from 100 ft to over 400 ft, but is generally on nominal 100 ft centers. The azimuth and inclination of drillholes vary greatly. The majority of the surface drilling is focused in an area with an east-west trend that is approximately 2,500 ft long and 1,000 ft wide. Midway Gold rotated all data from mine coordinates to UTM grid coordinates and supplied Snowden with the data in UTM coordinates.

Snowden converted non-sampled intervals identified by a -2 Au opt value to a default value of 0 opt Au unless the entire drillhole had no gold assays, in which case the assays were left as absent. Sample intervals greater than 55 ft in the mineralized domains were assumed to be non-sampled and removed from the estimate; this affected a total of 14 samples. Samples with assays below detection limit were converted to 0 opt Au.

No other transformations or rotations have been performed by Snowden on the data or the models.

17.3.4 Data validation Validation checks in Datamine mining software included searches for overlaps or gaps in sample and geology intervals, inconsistent drillhole identifiers, and missing data. A number of errors were noted and corrections were made by Midway Gold.

Snowden also performed an analysis of the precision of drillhole collar surveys and an analysis of the number of downhole surveys available for each drillhole. Snowden considers the precision of the drillhole location during application of mineral resource confidence categories.

17.4 Geological interpretation, modeling, and domaining 17.4.1 Geological interpretation and modeling Snowden verified Midway Gold’s three dimensional geological models of the major lithological units present at the Golden Eagle Project. Major faults have also been modeled and taken into consideration during modeling. Geological and structural models are used to improve grade estimation domains and for the application of tonnage factors to the geological model.

For estimation of mineral resources, Midway Gold digitized mineralized domains around spatially continuous areas of mineralization greater than approximately 0.006 opt Au. Snowden notes that the boundary of the mineralized domain is distinct and well defined. The sensitivity of the mineralized domain to additional information has been considered while applying mineral resource confidence categories.

Alteration domains have not been modeled. Because mineralisation at the Golden Eagle deposit is associated with lithology and hydrothermal alteration, Snowden recommends that a model of alteration domains is used in future resource estimations.

17.4.2 Definition of grade estimation domains Grade estimation domains, which are subsets of sample data based on grade populations, ensure that samples used for estimating a block grade are from the same population as the point of estimation. A grade population may be defined by attributes such as spatial location, lithology, mineralization style, and structural boundaries.

Mineralization at the Golden Eagle deposit is associated with lithology and hydrothermal alteration, and because no alteration model exists, estimation domains


July 2009 86 of 126

were modeled based on lithology and gold grade. A mineralized cut-off grade of 0.006 opt Au was used based on drillhole sample grades and grade distribution. The process identified eight domains including glacial till, Klondike, Sanpoil (high grade), Sanpoil (low grade), Dike 1, Dike 2, Mountain Lion Dike, and Spenn Dike. The Sanpoil high grade domain contains the most significant gold mineralization, represents the largest volume of the deposit, and has the greatest density of sampling. The Klondike, Dike 1, and Sanpoil low grade domains also exhibit some elevated gold concentrations. All other domains are barren of gold mineralization and are regarded as waste domains.

17.5 Sample statistics 17.5.1 Sample grade bias analysis Samples from the Golden Eagle Project have been collected by a variety of drilling programs from numerous companies over a 60 year time span, using different drilling techniques, drill core diameters, sampling methodologies, and laboratories. The location and number of drillhole samples also differs between companies.

Snowden analysed the validated sample grades by company within the Sanpoil high grade domain for grade bias, and notes that sample grades vary between the different companies (Figure 17.2). Due to the different sampling techniques used by each of the companies, as well as their spatial location, it is not possible to identify if a sampling bias between companies exists. Due to the lack of information available for the Knob Hill and Echo Bay samples there is a lower confidence in these samples compared to the Hecla and SFPG samples, and this has been reflected in the resource categorization.


July 2009 87 of 126

Figure 17.2 Comparison by company of gold sample grades in the Sanpoil high grade domain

17.5.2 Sample compositing Snowden composited drillhole sample lengths to ensure that the samples used in statistical analyses and estimations have a similar support (i.e., length). Due to the long history and the number of companies that have selected samples at the Golden Eagle Project, samples interval lengths vary depending on the length of intersected geological features, and whether the sample is believed to be in mineralized or non-mineralized material. In geologically similar units within the mineralized domain, samples have generally been taken at 5 ft lengths. In geologically similar units outside the mineralized domain, samples have generally been taken at either 5 ft or 10 ft lengths.

Validated sample lengths within the mineralized envelopes were composited according to the most frequently sampled length interval. The most frequently sampled length interval within the mineralized domain is 5 ft, (45% of the samples) therefore all samples were composited to 5 ft lengths to avoid excessive splitting of samples (which artificially increases grade continuity between samples down the hole, resulting in an artificially lowered nugget). Several sample intervals in the mineralized domain are greater than 50 ft in length, however, the gold grades for these intervals are absent and therefore do not affect grade continuity. The composited and raw sample data were compared to ensure no sample length loss or metal loss had occurred.


July 2009 88 of 126

The Datamine COMPDH downhole compositing process was used to composite the samples within the estimation domains (i.e., composites do not cross over the domain boundaries). The COMPDH parameter MODE was set to a value of 1 to allow adjusting of the composite length while keeping it as close as possible to the composite interval (5 ft). This is done to minimize sample loss and to ensure equal sample support.

Core recovery treatment Drillhole core recovery values (which range from 0% to 100% of the drillhole sample recovered) are used when considering the reliability of the assay and how to assign grades to any missing sample portions. If sample recoveries are noted for each sample, then a correlation analysis may be performed on the recoveries and grades to evaluate whether a bias is present and how best to assign grades to missing samples.

Drillhole core recovery has been generally recorded on a drilling run basis (every 5 ft to 10 ft) and the average drillhole recovery is excellent at 98%. Snowden found no bias between drillhole recovery and sample grade and applied the grade of the existing sample portion (the portion that was assayed) to the missing portion of any sample with less than 100% recovery.

17.5.3 Extreme value treatment Whenever an estimation domain contains an extreme grade value, this extreme grade will overly influence the estimated grade. The influence of the extreme grade is controlled by resetting the extreme grade to a more stable grade.

Snowden has estimated resources using ordinary kriging and inverse power of distance, both of which requires the application of top cuts to reduce extreme variability in the domain. Snowden examined gold composite grades to identify the presence and nature of extreme grade values. This was done by examining the sample histogram, log histogram, log-probability plot, and by examining the spatial location of extreme values. If required, top cut thresholds were determined by examination of the same statistical plots and by examination of the effect of top cuts on the mean, variance, and coefficient of variation (CV) of the sample data. Composite data statistics and top cut data statistics are shown in Table 17.2. Top cutting affected less than 0.1% of the composites in each of the domains.

Table 17.2 Undeclustered composite and top cut data statistics

Domain Number of samples

Top cut grade

(Au opt)

Composited data Top cut data Decrease %

Mean (Au opt) CV Mean

(Au opt) CV Mean (Au opt) CV

Glacial Till 2,009 - 0.001 5.8 - - - -

Klondike 2,761 0.3 0.006 3.8 0.005 3.7 1 2

Sanpoil (low grade) 10,622 0.2 0.004 5.3 0.003 4.0 8 28

Sanpoil (high grade) 11,046 0.5 0.046 1.2 0.045 1.1 0.4 7

Dike 1 214 0.15 0.034 1.5 0.032 1.4 7 11

Dike 2 94 - 0.003 1.8 - - - -

Mountain Lion Dike 502 0.1 0.010 2.6 0.009 2.4 8 10

Spenn Dike 235 - 0.001 2.8 - - - -


July 2009 89 of 126

The effects of extreme grade values and mixed data populations can be mitigated through the use of multiple indicator kriging as a grade interpolation technique. Using multiple indicator kriging, variograms at a range of cut-off or threshold grades are calculated and modeled, preserving values in the higher grade ranges. Snowden has used multiple indicator kriging as a validation of the ordinary kriged estimates in the mineralized envelope.

17.5.4 Data declustering Descriptive statistics of sample populations within a domain may be biased by clustering of sample data in particular areas of the domain. To reduce any bias caused by clustering of sample data, Snowden declustered the input sample data using a nearest neighbor estimate. Declustered data statistics are used when comparing estimated grade values and input sample grades during model validation.

17.6 Variography 17.6.1 Continuity analysis Continuity analysis refers to the analysis of the spatial correlation of grade values between sample pairs to determine the direction of the major axis of spatial continuity. Snowden undertook continuity analysis for the Sanpoil high grade, Sanpoil low grade, and Klondike mineralized domains. Average grades were applied to the remaining domains and therefore no variogram analysis was required.

Horizontal, across strike, and dip plane continuity directions for gold were determined by examining variogram maps and their underlying variograms. Grade continuity in the Sanpoil high grade domain is greatest in an east-west direction with a shallow plunge of 25° towards the east and dipping steeply at 63° toward the southwest. The grade continuity of the Sanpoil low grade domain is greatest in a near vertical northeast-southwest direction. The Klondike domain exhibits greater variability, with grade continuity highest along strike in a northeast-southwest direction, with similar continuity displayed down dip and across strike.

Indicator variograms of the Sanpoil high grade domain were also analysed for multiple indicator kriging (MIK) as a validation of the ordinary kriged estimates. The indicators for the multiple indicator kriging estimation were selected using cut-off grades representing deciles and the 95th, 97th and 99th percentile for gold composite grades.

Global variograms for gold of the Klondike and Sanpoil low grade domains were analysed for the ordinary kriged estimation. A normal score transformation was undertaken on the variograms for the Klondike and Sanpoil low grade domains to improve the variogram quality.

Snowden has a high level of confidence in the variogram models for the Sanpoil high grade domain due to the high quality of the variogram. Variogram quality is lower in the other domains, which is considered during application of mineral resource confidence categories.

17.6.2 Variogram modeling Directional variograms were modeled for the three principal directions for gold based on the directions chosen from the variogram fans. Variograms were comprised of two structure nested spherical models for all domains. The nugget variance is very low at 6% of the total variance in the Sanpoil high grade domain. Ranges for the major axes of continuity vary from approximately 360 ft to 720 ft whereas the semi-major and minor axis varied between 190 ft to 310 ft.


July 2009 90 of 126

Once modeling was complete, Snowden back transformed any normal score transformed variograms and recorded the variogram model parameters for kriging. Table 17.3 gives details of the variogram model parameters used in the estimation.

Table 17.3 Variogram model parameters for gold, silver, and zinc by domain for the 50th decile

Domain Variable Major axis orientation

Semi-major axis

orientation

Minor axis orientation C0

§ C1§ Ranges (ft)† C2

§ Ranges (ft)†

Klondike Au opt 03→036 -20→124 -70→315 0.18 0.43 160, 160,15 0.39 360, 190, 190

Sanpoil low grade

Au opt 76→345 -10→300 -10→032 0.17 0.53 60, 220, 200 0.30 720, 300, 210

Sanpoil High

grade

Au opt -25→085 -10→350 -63→240 0.06 0.28 250, 40, 170 0.66 570, 310, 280

Note: § variances have been normalized to a total of one; † ranges for major, semi-major, and minor axes, respectively; structures two and three are modeled with a spherical model

17.7 Estimation parameters 17.7.1 Kriging parameters Kriging neighbourhood analysis (KNA) was performed to determine the optimum kriging parameters. KNA is the process of undertaking multiple ordinary kriged estimates using a variety of block sizes and search neighbourhood parameters (such as minimum and maximum sample numbers) and comparing the slope of regression, kriging efficiency, and kriging variance values produced from the estimates1. Kriging parameters were selected through examination of the results of the estimates in terms of slope of regression, kriging efficiency, kriging variance, and Snowden’s experience with similar deposits.

17.7.2 Block size selection Snowden considers the average drillhole spacing, the results of the KNA, the dimensions of the mineralized envelopes, and anticipated mining selectivity when determining the block model cell size. Midway Gold has not determined the mining method and mining selectivity at this time. Snowden selected a block model size of 40 ft Easting, 40 ft Northing, and 20 ft Elevation.

17.7.3 Sample search parameters The following sample search strategy was selected from the results of the KNA and from trial grade estimates:

• A primary search ellipse equal to approximately 90% of the variogram range.

1 Krige (1996) considers that kriging efficiency (KE) and regression slope (R) can be used to establish confidence in block estimates. KE=(BV-KV)/BV and R=(BV-KV+ │µ│)/(BV-KV+│2µ│), where BV= the theoretical variance of blocks within the domain (block variance), KV= the variance between the kriged grade and the true (unknown) grade (kriging variance), and µ = LaGrange multiplier obtained from kriging. A perfect estimation would return KV=0, KE=100%, and R=1.


July 2009 91 of 126

• A maximum selection of four samples per drillhole.

• A minimum of ten samples and a maximum of 16 samples per estimate.

A dynamic search ellipse involving two additional search passes was used to ensure the majority of cells within the mineralized wireframe returned an estimate if insufficient samples were encountered in the first search. The secondary search ellipse is 1.5 times the size of the primary search ellipse, and the tertiary search ellipse is three times the size of the primary.

17.7.4 Block model set up Table 17.4 details the block model parameters for the Golden Eagle mineral resource model. Block cells were sub-celled from the parent cell size (the block size increment) wherever necessary to fill the wireframes without loss of resolution. Grades were estimated within parent cells only.

Table 17.4 Block model parameters

Direction Minimum (ft) Maximum (ft) Increment (ft) Number of blocks

Easting 1212000 1217520 40 138

Northing 17691500 17695500 40 100

Elevation 800 4000 20 160

17.7.5 Boundary conditions and grade interpolation Domain boundaries were treated as hard. Samples coded as lying within a domain were used to estimate grades within that domain, and no other, to prevent smearing of grades. Grade interpolation was by ordinary kriging (OK) for the Klondike and Sanpoil high grade and low grade domains. In domains where insufficient samples are present for meaningful variogram analysis, grade interpolation was by inverse power of distance (IPD) with a power of two. In waste domains the mean sample grade was assigned to the block cell. Grade interpolation methods and mean values assigned in waste domains are detailed in Table 17.5.

Table 17.5 Grade interpolation methods by domain

Domain Grade interpolation method

Glacial Till Mean value (0.001 opt Au)

Klondike Ordinary kriging

Sanpoil (low grade) Ordinary kriging

Sanpoil (high grade) Ordinary kriging

Dike 1 Inverse power of distance

Dike 2 Mean value (0.003 opt Au)

Mountain Lion Dike Mean value (0.009 opt Au)

Spenn Dike Mean value (0.001 opt Au)


July 2009 92 of 126

A multiple indicator kriging (MIK) estimate was undertaken to validate grades estimated by OK in the Sanpoil high grade domain. Additionally, a nearest neighbor estimate was undertaken to validate all domains. Kriging efficiency, kriging variance, and regression slope were recorded in the OK model to assist with resource confidence classification and estimation optimization.

17.8 Tonnage factor A total of 1,171 whole boxes of core were measured and weighed by SFPG in house laboratory technicians to determine dry tonnage factors (TFs) for various alteration and rock types at the Golden Eagle deposit, using methods described in Section 12.4. The data for the calculated and measured TFs were then divided by three lithological supergroups, and subdivided by relative degree of clay alteration (ARG1, ARG2, ARG3, and ARG4). The averages for the calculated and measured TFs within these subgroups are summarized in Table 17.6.

Table 17.6 Dry tonnage factors for the Golden Eagle deposit

Supergroup

Subgroup

ARG1 ARG2 ARG3 ARG4

No. Cu ft/st No. Cu ft/st No. Cu ft/st No. Cu ft/st

Sediments 117 14.3 99 14.5 61 15.1 21 16.1

Volcanics 241 13.4 389 13.7 74 14.5 11 16.2

Dikes 97 13.5 - - - - - -

A strong correlation between lithology and the tonnage factor and a strong inverse correlation between density and clay content within the supergroups is evident. Tonnage factors become similar with high levels of alteration.

Tonnage factors are used for determining the in situ resource tons and vary according to lithology, the nature and intensity of alteration, mineralization, and sulfidation, and other factors. A significant number of measurements made of a representative suite of lithologies in representative portions of the mineral resource are required for reliable estimation of tons. Snowden recommends that Midway Gold considerably increase the number of tonnage factor determinations of whole drill core samples from spatially representative locations throughout the project, through representative suites of lithology, mineralization, and alteration types, for more reliable estimation of tons. The quantity and representivity of tonnage factor determinations are considered by Snowden during application of mineral resource confidence categories.

Snowden applied the tonnage factors detailed in Table 17.7 to the resource model.

Table 17.7 Tonnage factor applied by domain

Domain Tonnage Factor

Glacial Till 15.1

Klondike 14.3

Sanpoil – low grade 13.7

Sanpoil – high grade 13.7


July 2009 93 of 126

Domain Tonnage Factor

Dike 1 13.5

Dike 2 13.5

Mountain Lion Dike 13.5

Spenn Dike 13.5

17.9 Estimation validation Snowden validated the Golden Eagle model using three techniques:

• Comparison of global mean declustered sample statistics with the mean estimated grade, by domain.

• Visual inspection of block and sample composite grades in section, plan, and in three dimensions, by domain.

• Generation of slice validation plots of declustered sample composite grades with estimated block grades by domain, to compare sample and estimated grade trends.

17.9.1 Domain statistics, slice validation plots, and visual validation Snowden validated the Golden Eagle model by comparing the estimated grades by domain with the declustered input samples (Table 17.8) within proportions of the resource classified as Indicated. Discrepancies between input samples grades and estimated grades are higher for the Klondike because of the low global grades, which result in larger percent differences. Snowden considers that the estimated gold grades in domains categorized as Indicated are within acceptable limits of the declustered input sample grades.

Snowden created slice validation plots of estimated block grades and declustered input sample grades for the mineralized Sanpoil high grade domain (the most important domain) by easting, northing, and elevation to validate the estimates on a local scale. Estimated gold block grades generally correspond to input sample grades with the expected degree of smoothing from the kriging interpolation. Snowden also undertook visual inspection of block and sample composite grades in section, plan, and in three dimensions for all domains. No discrepancies were noted during visual validation, with estimated grades honoring the input sample grades with the expected degree of smoothing.

Table 17.8 Comparison of mean estimated and input data grades by domain for Indicated classified material

Domain Variable Mean

declustered input grade

Mean estimated

grade % difference

Klondike Gold opt 0.008 0.009 13

Sanpoil – low grade Gold opt 0.006 0.006 5

Sanpoil – high grade Gold opt 0.045 0.045 0

Dike 1 Gold opt 0.033 0.032 -2

All domains Gold opt 0.030 0.030 0


July 2009 94 of 126

17.10 Mineral resource classification The resource confidence classification process considers a number of aspects affecting confidence in the resource estimation, such as:

• Geological continuity, including geological understanding and complexity.

• Data density and orientation.

• Data accuracy and precision.

• Grade continuity, including spatial continuity of mineralization.

• Estimation quality.

17.10.1 Geological continuity Drillholes have been logged in detail including textural, alteration, structural, mineralization, geotechnical, and lithological properties. Confidence in geological continuity is good in most cases and could be increased by refining the geological interpretation, including an alteration model, and incorporating surface mapping information.

17.10.2 Data density and orientation Geological confidence and estimation quality are closely related to data density and this is reflected in the classification of resource confidence categories. The data density is considered sufficient to indicate geological and grade continuity. The Golden Eagle deposit has been drilled on a pattern ranging from 30 ft up to 200 ft along strike. The majority of the mineralized envelope is informed with a grid of drillholes approximately 90 ft apart with a greater density of drilling to the southwest, and this region of the resource has been classified with a higher level of confidence.

17.10.3 Data accuracy and precision Classification of resource confidence categories is also influenced by the accuracy and precision of the available data. The accuracy and precision of the assay and density data may be determined through QAQC programs and through an analysis of the methods used to measure the data.

Sample accuracy is unknown as no standard or blank samples have been submitted. Assay precision has been measured for some samples with the submission of pulp duplicates to the laboratory and check laboratories, but the submission numbers are much lower than current industry best practice of submitting one sample duplicate for every 20 samples.

Confidence classifications could be increased through the following means:

• Selecting a significant number of core samples for tonnage factor measurements through a range of representative lithologies in spatially representative areas throughout the prospects, particularly in the mineralized zone.

• Submitting additional duplicate drillhole core samples to measure the precision of the entire sampling, sample preparation, and analysis process, and to provide a measure of the inherent variability of the mineralization. This may not be possible due to missing core intervals and the high level of degradation and oxidation of the available historical core.


July 2009 95 of 126

• For future drilling campaigns Snowden recommends that field duplicates, coarse rejects, and pulp duplicates are submitted to the laboratory at a rate of 1 in 20 to quantify precision.

• Increasing the number of twin holes at the project to validate the results of historical data. The twin holes should test the full range of drilling campaigns used in the resource estimate by geology, date, company, core type, core diameter, through spatially representative locations throughout the deposit.

• Submitting blank and standard samples in future drilling campaigns, on the order of one for every 20 geological samples, particularly through the prospective mineralized zone.

• Undertaking a detailed topographic survey and comparing the results to drillhole collar coordinates to ensure a high level of confidence in the location of the drillholes on the UTM grid.

17.10.4 Spatial grade continuity Spatial grade continuity, as indicated by the variogram, has been considered when assigning resource confidence classifications. Variogram characteristics strongly influence estimation quality parameters such as kriging efficiency and regression slope.

The nugget and short range variance characteristics of the variogram are the most important measures of continuity. The variogram nugget effect of the mineralized Sanpoil is very low at 6% of the population variance, indicating a good correlation between samples at short distances.

17.10.5 Estimation quality Estimation quality is influenced by the variogram (specifically the nugget and the range), the scale of the estimation, and the data configuration. Measures such as kriging efficiency, kriging variance, and regression slope provide an indication of the quality of the local estimations.

Snowden used the estimation quality measures to aid in the assignment of resource confidence classifications.

17.10.6 Classification process The mineral resource confidence classification of the Golden Eagle resource has incorporated the confidence in the drillhole data, the density and location of tonnage factor measurements, the level of geological interpretation, geological continuity, data density and orientation, spatial grade continuity, and estimation quality. The resource model has been categorized by the generation of three dimensionally continuous wireframes representing Inferred and Indicated classification based on kriging efficiency, kriging variance, regression slope, drill density and geological continuity. Due to higher levels of uncertainty of the samples taken by Knob Hill and Echo Bay, resource blocks in areas of sampling undertaken by only these two companies have been categorized as Inferred.


July 2009 96 of 126

17.11 Mineral resource reporting 17.11.1 Reasonable prospects for economic extraction Historical underground workings have been modeled by 3D wireframes using historical level plans and volumes within these wireframes have been excluded from the mineral resource estimate.

The Golden Eagle deposit appears to be amenable to extraction by open pit, truck and shovel mining methods and the deposit model was evaluated using this assumption. No evaluation of underground mining potential or resources was undertaken.

An economic pit analysis was performed on the Golden Eagle resource model to constrain the resource within a reasonable pit boundary and to establish a reasonable expectation of economic extraction. Gemcom Software International’s Whittle 4.2 Strategic mine planning software was used to perform this analysis. Table 17.9 gives key economic parameters applied to the analysis.

A long-term average open pit mining unit cost of $1.25 per ton of material mined was used as an overall long-term mining cost. This cost was not adjusted for depth or haulage distance, but is instead applied as a long term average. At this stage of the project the location of waste rock facilities is unknown and therefore actual haulage productivities and costs are unknown.

The Golden Eagle deposit would be mined on 20 ft benches using typical open pit mining equipment and some degree of ore loss and dilution is expected to occur. The Whittle pit analysis has assumed a 5% ore loss and a 5% ore grade dilution for the pit evaluation and resource boundary pit.

Overall pit slopes for the pit analysis used a 35° slope in the Glacial Till rock type and 45° in the harder volcanics although most of the Glacial Till material is mined out in most cases resulting in 45° final walls in most cases. Pit walls were not adjusted for in-pit ramps at this level of analysis.

The Golden Eagle deposit is a refractory gold deposit and as such requires one of several alternative processing methods that involve oxidation of the sulfide minerals prior to standard cyanide leaching, carbon absorption, and gold recovery. Three different processing scenarios were evaluated in the pit analysis in order of increasing unit processing costs:

• Standard flotation recovery (FLOT).

• Stirred tank bio-oxidation (BIO).

• Whole ore pressurized oxidation (POX).

All produced economic pit shells for a range of gold prices. A significant amount of test work has been performed on the Golden Eagle deposit and some good process recovery information has been established. Most of this work is summarized in the metallurgical review report compiled by Differential Engineering (Differential Engineering, 2009) and provides the basis for metallurgical recoveries used in the pit analysis. A gold recovery of 85% was used for the base case BIO process; 90% gold recovery for the FLOT process and 92% gold recovery for the POX case.

A long term life-of-mine gold price was selected at $750/troy ounce, but pit shells were run between $200 to $1,500 to view the incremental pits and to determine the effect of


July 2009 97 of 126

higher and lower gold prices on the pit shell resources. As of the date of this Technical Report, gold is trading near $1,000 per ounce; therefore, the $750 gold price is somewhat conservative.

Table 17.9 Key pit optimization parameters

Parameter Value Description

Unit mining cost USD $1.25 /ton LOM average mining cost assuming a typical truck-shovel mining operation with drill and blast operations; no adjustment made for haulage distance or mining depth.

Unit processing cost (inc. general and admin costs)

USD $15.00 /ton Assumes creation of a flotation concentrate and bio-oxidation in stirred tank reactor. Gold recovery by carbon adsorption in CIL/CIP followed by electro- winning and creation of a doré product.

Long term gold price USD $750 / t. oz

Gold selling costs USD $7.00 / t. oz

Mining recovery 95%

Mining dilution 5%

Process recovery 85%

Slope angles (overall)

35° in Glacial Till; 45° elsewhere

Slope angles not adjusted for pit ramping and not based on a design pit shape.

All mineral resources were used in the pit optimization process. A mine life of slightly over ten years was achieved for the base case $750 pit using a processing rate of 3.2 Mtpa, which amounts to a total material movement of approximately 16 Mtpa to 18 Mtpa from an open pit.

17.11.2 Mineral resource tabulation Mineral resource estimates as of June 2009 for the Golden Eagle prospect are reported within an ultimate pit shell above a range of gold opt cut-off grades in Table 17.10. To date no analysis has been made to determine the economic cut-off grade that will ultimately be applied to the Golden Eagle Project.

No mineral reserves have been estimated at this time. Additional studies will be required to determine technical, economic, legal, environmental, socio-economic, and governmental factors. These modifying factors are normally included in a mining feasibility study and are a pre-requisite for conversion of mineral resources to, and reporting of, mineral reserves. The CIM Standards (CIM, 2005) describe completion of a Preliminary Feasibility Study as the minimum prerequisite for the conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves.


July 2009 98 of 126

Table 17.10 Golden Eagle June 2009 mineral resources reported above a range of gold cut-off grades

Classification Gold cut-off grade (opt) Tons (Mt) Gold (opt) Contained gold (Koz)

Indicated 0.01 43.0 0.045 1,915

0.02 31.4 0.055 1,744

0.03 23.4 0.066 1,545

0.04 17.9 0.076 1,355

0.05 13.8 0.085 1,173

Inferred 0.01 11.6 0.024 284

0.02 5.1 0.038 192

0.03 3.0 0.047 143

0.04 1.8 0.055 100

0.05 0.9 0.066 61

Notes: The most likely cut-off grade for these deposits is not known at this time and must be confirmed by the appropriate economic studies. Historical underground workings have been excluded from the mineral resource. Resources are reported within an ultimate pit shell generated with a $750 gold price and 85% gold recovery The estimated metal content does not include any consideration of mining, mineral processing, or metallurgical recoveries. Tons and ounces have been rounded and this may have resulted in minor discrepancies in the totals. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have been estimated. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.


July 2009 99 of 126

18 Other relevant data and information Snowden is not aware of any other relevant data or information concerning the Golden Eagle Project to report.


July 2009 100 of 126

19 Interpretation and conclusions The Golden Eagle deposit is an early stage gold mineral exploration project located in Republic, Washington State, USA and operated by Midway Gold Corp. The area is associated with a long history of mining, and the Golden Eagle project has been operated by numerous mining companies over the last seventy years.

The deposit occurs in epithermal veins and hydrothermal breccias developed from near-surface hot springs activity in the Eocene. The Golden Eagle deposit is a tabular, steeply dipping hydrothermal breccia body hosted in Sanpoil volcanics and overlain by the Klondike Mountain Formation. The deposit is mostly covered by recent glacial gravels, with outcropping mineralization on the south and west margins. Four major Tertiary-aged dikes have been noted cross cutting both the Sanpoil and Klondike Mountain formations and appear to be post mineralization. Thicknesses of the dikes range from inches to 200 ft. The geological model used for the mineral resource estimate comprises eight separate lithological domains, one of which, the Sanpoil, has been divided into high and low grade domains.

The deposit geological model has been defined using historical drillhole information from 835 drillholes. Some of the sample assay values within the drillhole database could not be verified by Midway Gold. To improve the confidence in the estimation of grades, unverified drillholes comprising 537 blastholes completed by Mountain Lion Consolidated and 73 holes completed by Crown Resources have been removed for use in the 2009 mineral resource estimate. Samples from a total of 204 drillholes from drilling campaigns conducted by Knob Hill Mines (1940 to 1974), Hecla (1982 to 1994), SFPG (1995 to 1996), and Echo Bay (2000) were used for the estimation of grades.

Mineral resource estimates are reported at the Golden Eagle Project in Table 17.10. Tons and grades have been reported above a series of gold opt cut-off values related to a range of gold prices as, at present, no analysis has been made to determine the economic cut-off grade that will ultimately be applied to the Golden Eagle Project. The resource is reported above an ‘ultimate pit’ to ensure reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

The reported mineral resource has the potential to be expanded depending on long term gold prices and future in-fill and expansion drilling. Using some reasonable quality information developed during previous ownership regimes, an economic pit analysis was performed that showed the potential for an economic mining operation even at relatively conservative gold prices.

The resource appears to be of sufficient quality and quantity to support further drilling, metallurgical testing and study, and the deposit is located in a fairly pro mining community with a history of mining culture. In addition, Kinross has had success in permitting the nearby Buckhorn Mountain operations.

Historical metallurgical test work on samples from the Project was undertaken by Hecla and SFPG in the late 1980s to the mid 1990s. These analyses determined that gold recoveries were low (approximately 27%) using direct standard cyanide leaching in a carbon-in-leach on ground mineralized material. Therefore direct cyanidation is not a feasible process option and the mineralized material is refractory for gold extraction.

Three potential process flowsheets have been identified, including whole ore flotation with cyanidation carbon-in-leach of the flotation tails, whole ore bio-oxidation in heaps or ground slurry with cyanidation carbon-in-leach of the bio-oxidation tails, or whole


July 2009 101 of 126

ore pressure oxidation followed by cyanidation carbon-in-leach of the pressure oxidation tails.

Bio-oxidation appears to hold the most promise and should probably be the base assumption until further scoping level analyses can be performed to provide refinement of this assumption. Care must be taken to select fresh, spatially and geologically representative samples for further metallurgical test work. The process flowsheet selected for this ore will need a companion economic analysis for process capital and operational costs coupled with reagent prices and logistics for concentrate shipment if warranted.

Sample composites were found to have a negative net carbonate value of -5.41, and so the mineralized material is potential acid generating (PAG). Care must be made in the mine planning to potentially contain the waste rock material from the environment. In addition, the material contains significant quantities of deleterious elements that could potentially have an environmental impact to water and dust, which should be managed.


July 2009 102 of 126

20 Recommendations The following recommendations are made for the further advancement of the Project and to improve confidence in the mineral resource estimate:

• Increase the number of tonnage factor measurements on existing drill core and any new drillholes to improve the confidence in resource tons. Samples should be selected according to a representative suite of lithologies, mineralization, and alteration types, through spatially representative locations throughout the deposit. The representativity can be confirmed by consulting the number of density determinations tabulated by grade estimation domain for each deposit and increasing the number of density samples in domains with low sample numbers relative to the number of sample assays in the domain. Spatial representativity can be confirmed by plotting the location of specific gravity samples on the drillhole trace in plan and in section.

• Increase the number of twin holes at the project to confirm data obtained by historical operators. The twin holes should test the full range of drilling campaigns used in the resource estimate by geology, date, company, and core diameter, through spatially representative locations throughout the deposit.

• Undertake exploration, twin, and metallurgical sample diamond drilling to provide samples for oxide definition, density analysis, metallurgical testing, and exploration for additional resources on the property.

• Undertake a detailed topographic survey of the project site and compare with drillhole collar coordinates to ensure drillholes are in the correct locations, and validate the transformation of coordinates to move drillhole data from the historic mine grid to the UTM grid.

• Further refine the geological interpretation by reviewing archived drillhole logs and comparing to drillhole core.

• Conduct surface mapping of the project area to clearly define major faults and geological controls on exposed mineralization.

• Conduct surface sampling of exposed bedrock to determine the extent and tenor of mineralization exposed on surface.

• Update the geology and mineralization model to include information gathered from surface mapping and sampling.

• Update the geology and mineralization model to reflect alteration and oxidation to better define metallurgical types and the amount of oxide material on the project. Oxide resource models should include estimates of sulfide sulfur, cyanide amenability, and carbonates.

• Estimate silver grades in the resource model to determine if sufficient silver concentrations exist in the deposit to allow mineral processing of silver as a by-product.


July 2009 103 of 126

• Undertake slope stability studies to establish the maximum slope angles for an ‘ultimate’ pit shell design and to determine the extent of neighboring additional land required to realize the full potential of the mineral resource.

• Consider the purchase of additional land and mineral rights from Hecla Mining Co. to obtain neighboring land and undertake appropriate environmental and engineering studies on the extra land.

• Evaluate alternative mining technologies such as in-pit crushing and conveying (IPCC) in comparison to standard truck and shovel mining methods for an open pit mining scenario. IPCC has the potential to provide lower overall unit mining costs and therefore could increase the resource base and lower the overall stripping ratio for the Golden Eagle deposit. The low electrical rates in the project area may make this option fairly attractive if it can be incorporated into the overall site development plan and may reduce some project risk due to escalating diesel fuel prices in the future.

• Evaluate the underground mining potential and timing.

• Evaluate the current processing technologies and potential alternatives that may be applicable to the Golden Eagle deposit and develop scoping level capital and operating costs for those technologies.

• Investigate potential locations of tailings impoundment areas and tailings storage options.

• Investigate potential locations for waste rock disposal.

• Evaluate the geotechnical input requirements and develop geotechnical testing programs to provide slope design parameters for open pit mine design.

• Determine bulk sampling alternatives for bench scale and pilot scale testing.

• Verify that all data and reports from metallurgical sampling, test work, analytical results, and quality control are valid and reliable. This includes verification of assays, metallurgical balances and reagent calculations.

• Verify metallurgical work completed by previous operators through independent test work conducted by project metallurgists.

• Attempt to correlate all the information from past metallurgical test work to specific locations in the deposit and to quantify the tons associated with each mineralized rock type.

• Undertake cost analysis of various metallurgical treatment options, developing a flow sheet and associated costs.

• The process flowsheet selected for the treatment of the mineralized material will require a companion economic analysis for process capital and operational costs coupled with reagent prices and logistics for concentrate shipment if warranted.

• All samples selected for metallurgical analysis should comprise freshly collected material (i.e., not collected from historical samples) and should be spatially and geologically representative of the resource material.


July 2009 104 of 126

• Conduct mineral liberation analysis (MLA) on fresh mineralized samples to determine the minerals in the deposit as well as to determine which minerals and size fraction contain the gold distribution. Post extraction material should also be examined to determine the gold distribution for process optimization.

• Further test work on gravity separation of the larger sulfide fraction is needed in any grinding flowsheet to see if the quantity of gold recovered to a gravity concentrate warrants that relatively cheap concentration step prior to further processing.

• Using fresh samples of representative mineralized rock from the deposit, conduct column bio-tests to determine the change in mineralogy and gold extraction as a function of size, time, reagent concentration and sulfide oxidation.

• Using fresh samples of representative mineralized rock from the deposit, conduct a pilot plant test to determine the optimal recovery for gold extraction in the flowsheet.

• The projected waste rock material should be tested for potential acid generating (PAG) characterization, which may involve specific rock testing in humidity cells to determine.

Snowden further recommends that Midway Gold undertake a conditional simulation study to quantify risk associated with different portions of the deposit. The study can also be used to quantify the optimal drillhole spacing required to achieve a range of estimation qualities and identify targets for infill drilling. The outcome of this approach would be an understanding of the degree of grade estimation error associated with particular volumes of mineralization for a range of drillhole spacing patterns. The grade estimation error and other important aspects of the project data, as described in Section 17.2.17, are considered while assigning mineral resource confidence categories.

The proposed budget for the ongoing development of the Golden Eagle Project is detailed in Table 20.1. This budget is estimated over three years, with the intention to complete a scoping study in 2009, and includes ongoing work in 2010 and 2011 for the completion of a prefeasibility study.

Table 20.1 Proposed budget for ongoing development at the Golden Eagle Project

Activity Year Cost ($USD)

Scoping study including surface mapping and sampling, density analysis and geological modelling.

2009 200,000

Exploration/twin/metallurgical drilling (20 holes – 1,500 to 2,000 ft length with 150 ft pre-collar and core tail. Assaying gold, silver and LECO)

2010-2011 3,000,000

Metallurgical study verification and cost analysis 2010-2011 40,000

Permitting 2010-2011 200,000

Waste/Ore characterization 2010-2011 150,000

Total 3,590,000


July 2009 105 of 126

21 References Author Title

CIM, 2005. CIM Definition Standards – For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. Prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions. Adopted by CIM Council on December 11, 2005.

Cominco Engineering Services Ltd., 1990 Prefeasibility Study Golden Eagle Project, Volume 1 and 2. Internal study prepared for Hecla Mining Company, Project No. HMB20.1, 32 p.

Differential Engineering., 2009 Metallurgical Review of existing reports, test work and analytical data on the Golden Eagle Property NE Washington State for Midway Gold Corp.

Fifarek, R.H., Devlin, B.D., and Tschauder, R.J., 1995

Au-Ag mineralization at the Golden Promise Deposit, Republic District, Washington: Relation to graben development and hot spring process. In Coyner, A.R., and Fahey, P.L., eds, Geology and Ore Deposits of the American Cordillera: Geological Society of Nevada Symposium Proceedings, April 1995, vol. 2, p. 1063-1088.

Full, 1960. Geologic Study of the No. 3 Vein, Knob Hill No. 2 Mine, Republic Washington, internal Knob Hill Mines report, Dec 27, 1960

Gaylord et al., 1996, Depositional History of the Uppermost Sanpoil Volcanics and Klondike Mountain Formation in the Republic Basin, Washington Geology, vol. 24, no. 2, p15.

Pearson, R., and Obradovich J., 1977 Eocene Rocks in northeast Washington, Radiometric ages and correlation, U.S.G.S. Bulletin 1433, 41p.

Hecla Mining Company, 1985 Republic District Production 1896-1993, Internal table prepared by Hecla Mining Company

Hecla Mining Company, 1990 Golden Eagle Project, Prefeasibility Study. Internal study prepared by Hecla Mining Company, December 1990, 34p

Holder, R., and Gaylord, D., 1989 Plutonism, Volcanism, and Sedimentation Associated with Core Complex and Graben Development in the Central Okanogan Highlands, Washington, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular 86, p189-196.

Howard Consultants Inc., 1989 Summary of HCI Geotechnical Engineering Activities, July-August, 1989, Hecla Golden Eagle Project, Internal report prepared by Howard Consultants for Hecla Mining Company, August 1989, 3p.

Jenkins, R., 1990 Preliminary Mineralogical Study: Golden Eagle Gold Ore, Interoffice Memo.

Mather, J., 1990 Golden Eagle Refractory Ore, Sherrit Technology.

Oberg, K.C., and Gathie, J.C., 1996 Hazen Research Inc., 4601 Indiana St., Golden Colorado, “Metallurgical Testing of a Gold Ore Sample from the Golden Eagle Property”, Sample ID HRI 47922, HRI Project 8582-01, November 19, 1996.

Oberg, K.C., Gathie, J.C., and Hazen, N., 1996

Metallurgical Testing of Gold Ore Samples from the Golden Eagle Property, Phase 2 – Draft, HRI Project 8582-01.

Pitard, F., December, 1990 Study of the Heterogeneity of Gold in the Golden Eagle Deposit. Internal report prepared for Hecla Mining Company, 5p.

Santa Fe Pacific Gold, 1995 Golden Eagle Due Diligence. Internal report prepared by Santa Fe Pacific Gold, 21p.

Santa Fe Pacific Gold, 1996a Golden Eagle Prefeasibility Report. Internal report prepared by Santa Fe


July 2009 106 of 126

Author Title Pacific Gold, June, 1996, 69p.

Santa Fe Pacific Gold, 1996b Tonnage Factor Analysis, Golden Eagle Property. Internal report prepared by Santa Fe Pacific Gold, 11p.

Santa Fe Pacific Gold, April 1997 Golden Eagle Project Summary. Internal report prepared by Santa Fe Pacific Gold, April, 1997, 87p

Siddle, J., 1988 Mt Lion Investigations, Internal Memorandum to Ralph Noyes, Hecla Mining Company, 4p, February 10, 1988.

Van Aswegen, P.C., Van Niekerk, J., Olivier, W., 2007

The BIOX Process for the Treatment of Refractory Gold Concentrates, Biomining, 2007.

Western Services Engineering, 1991 The South Penn Gold Project, A Resource Appraisal and Ultimate Pit Design. Internal report completed for Crown Resources Corporation, November 1991, 85p.

Wright, 1947 AIMME Technical Publication No 2197.


July 2009 107 of 126

22 Date and signatures

Technical Report


July 2009

Issued by:

Midway Gold Corp. [signed] Date

Eric N. Chapman 30th July 2009

[signed] Date

Thom Seal 30th July 2009

[signed] Date


July 2009 108 of 126

23 Certificates CERTIFICATE of QUALIFIED PERSON

(a) I, Eric N. Chapman, Consultant of Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Inc., 600-1090 W. Pender St, Vancouver, BC, V6E 2N7 Canada; do hereby certify that:

(b) I am the co-author of the technical report titled Midway Gold Corp.: Golden Eagle Project, Washington State, USA, dated July 2009 (the “Technical Report”).

(c) I graduated with a Bachelor of Science (Honours) Degree in Geology from the University of Southampton (UK) in 1996 and a Master of Science (Distinction) Degree in Mining Geology from the Camborne School of Mines (UK) in 2003. I am a Chartered Geologist of the Geological Society of London (Membership No. 1007330). I have worked as a mining and mineral resource geologist for a total of eight years since my graduation from university.

I have read the definition of ‘qualified person’ set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“the Instrument”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements of a ‘qualified person’ for the purposes of the Instrument.

(d) I am responsible for the preparation of the sections of the Technical Report as detailed in Table 2.1.

(e) I am independent of the issuer as defined in section 1.4 of the Instrument.

(f) I have had no prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

(g) I have read the Instrument and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.

(h) As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report contains all the scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical report not misleading.

Dated at Vancouver, BC, this 30th day of July 2009.

[signed]

Eric N. Chapman, M.Sc., C. Geol.


July 2009 109 of 126

CERTIFICATE of QUALIFIED PERSON

(a) I, Thom Seal, am a current professional mining-mineral process engineer in the State of Nevada # 15291. I am the principal owner of Differential Engineering Inc., a corporation registered in Nevada and Oregon.

(b) I am the co-author of the technical report titled Midway Gold Corp.: Golden Eagle Project, Washington State, USA, dated July 2009 (the “Technical Report”).

(c) I am a registered member of the Society of Mining & Metallurgical Engineers (SME), located in Denver Colorado. I graduate with a master degree in Metallurgical Engineering in 1988 and a Ph.D. in Mining Engineering – Metallurgy, from the University of Idaho in 2004. I have practiced my profession for over 20 years. I have been directly involved in metallurgical-mineral processes in North and South America, and in South Africa, including deposit evaluation, process test work, evaluation, design, construction and operation. I retired from Newmont Mining Corp. after more than 12 years of process metallurgy acting as a senior and manager of metallurgy. I have extensive refractory gold extraction experience including bio-oxidation, roasting and flotation. As a result of my experience and qualifications, I am a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure of Mineral Projects (NI 43-101, Part 10.1 on 12/30/05).

I have read the definition of ‘qualified person’ set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“the Instrument”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements of a ‘qualified person’ for the purposes of the Instrument.

(d) I am responsible for the preparation of the sections of the Technical Report as detailed in Table 2.1.

(e) I am independent of the issuer as defined in section 1.4 of the Instrument.

(f) I have had no prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

(g) I have read the Instrument and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.

(h) As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report contains all the scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical report not misleading.

Dated at Elko, Nevada, this 30th day of July 2009.

[signed]

Thom Seal, Ph.D., P.E., Q.P.


July 2009 110 of 126

A Significant drillhole intercepts


July 2009 111 of 126

Drillhole I.D. Au (opt) From (ft) To (ft) Thickness (ft) Comment

10-47 0.056 0 95 95 Underground Hole 11-47 0.061 0 102 102 Underground Hole 12-47 0.054 0 100 100 Underground Hole 1-46 0.059 0 98.5 98.5 Underground Hole 1-47 0.029 45 90 45 Underground Hole 1-47 0.025 140 240 100 2-46 0.039 0 106 106 Underground Hole 3-46 0.052 0 109.5 109.5 Underground Hole 4-46 0.044 0 106 106 Underground Hole 5-47 0.079 0 54 54 Underground Hole 6-47 0.042 0 96 96 Underground Hole 7-47 0.068 0 33 33 Underground Hole 8-47 0.063 0 24 24 Underground Hole 9-47 0.062 0 84 84 Underground Hole

87-102 0.028 0 25 25 87-102 0.088 45 269 224 87-96 0.113 5 25 20 87-96 0.023 65 108 43 87-96 0.027 125 155 30 88-111 0.090 542 694 152 88-111 0.026 715 735 20 88-111 0.029 853 930 77 88-113 0.049 576 964 388 88-116 0.026 520 545 25 88-116 0.069 960 1028 68 88-116 0.040 1052 1206 154 88-116 0.078 1230 1266 36 88-118 0.055 480 1165 685 88-118 0.086 1200 1233 33 88-120 0.064 1174 1347 173 88-120 0.046 1586 1618 32 88-121 0.042 293 316 23 88-121 0.049 1495 1559 64 88-121 0.038 1591 1636.5 45.5 88-121 0.038 1711 1751 40 88-123 0.030 1332 1460 128


July 2009 112 of 126


88-123 0.050 1620.5 1700 79.5 88-124 0.026 1740 1799.3 59.3 88-125 0.055 1029.5 1050 20.5 88-127 0.101 332.5 1074 741.5 88-128 0.029 480 570 90 88-128 0.090 1270 1489 219 88-129 0.093 499.3 621 121.7 88-130 0.073 416 442 26 88-130 0.083 590 668 78 88-130 0.038 763 1238.5 475.5 88-130 0.026 1298.2 1325 26.8 88-131 0.034 210 264 54 88-131 0.044 340 435 95 88-131 0.052 481 781 300 88-131 0.031 816 845 29 88-131 0.028 890 924 34 88-132 0.022 530 594 64 88-132 0.055 803.5 1203 399.5 88-134 0.131 372 729 357 89-136 0.041 625 660 35 89-136 0.042 742 1225.5 483.5 89-136 0.080 1260.5 1305 44.5 89-136 0.026 1360 1410 50 89-137 0.089 324 883 559 89-139 0.040 270 1174 904 89-144 0.035 317.5 340 22.5 89-144 0.105 400 1040 640 89-146 0.072 291 701.3 410.3 89-147 0.033 20 223 203 89-147 0.037 285 570 285 89-149 0.085 228 450 222 89-150 0.156 178 569 391 89-153 0.485 79 132 53 89-154 0.098 330 950 620 89-155 0.043 168 248.5 80.5 89-162 0.023 63 135 72


July 2009 113 of 126


89-164 0.067 200 225 25 89-164 0.073 257 685.6 428.6 89-165 0.052 110 145 35 89-165 0.096 139 568 429 89-167 0.040 377 401 24 89-168 0.074 90 243 153 89-169 0.029 90 120 30 89-169 0.084 246.5 448 201.5 89-169 0.077 484 555 71 89-170 0.046 290 550 260 89-170 0.061 595 750 155 90-181 0.031 1220 1287 67 90-196 0.036 0 45 45 90-196 0.031 70 192 122 90-196 0.037 234.5 290 55.5 90-197 0.077 0 280 280 90-197 0.027 340 385 45 90-199 0.076 10 139 129 Hole terminated in mineralization 90-200 0.026 45 78 33 90-201 0.105 0 189 189 90-202 0.062 40 466 426 90-203 0.067 60 299 239 90-203 0.074 346.8 448.6 101.8 90-204 0.063 10 110 100 90-205 0.024 50 246 196 90-205 0.084 315 376 61 90-208 0.096 40 350 310 90-210 0.045 70 375 305 90-210 0.042 452.8 514 61.2 90-211 0.076 62 480 418 90-212 0.093 90 402 312 90-213 0.090 230 690.3 460.3 90-214 0.099 180 625.5 445.5 90-215 0.153 132 434 302 90-217 0.055 240 685 445 90-218 0.133 166 414.5 248.5


July 2009 114 of 126


90-220 0.027 270 305.4 35.4 90-220 0.041 400.7 435.9 35.2 90-221 0.062 290 750 460 90-223 0.097 265 649.8 384.8 90-224 0.047 140 175 35 90-225 0.130 200 300 100 90-225 0.055 340 390 50 90-226 0.147 302 589 287 90-256 0.053 256.5 280 23.5 CD70 0.045 175 205 30 CD71 0.020 165 185 20 CD72 0.030 110 170 60 Hole terminated in mineralization

CD73 0.052 25 110 85 Hole terminated in mineralization



CD76B 0.074 0 42.5 42.5 Hole terminated in mineralization


CD78 0.080 0 87.5 87.5 Hole terminated in mineralization

CD79 0.087 0 77.5 77.5 Hole terminated in mineralization


CDH-25 0.112 0 43 43 Hole terminated in mineralization



CGE-0001 0.114 315.8 584.3 268.5 CGE-0002 0.041 356 395 39 CGE-0002 0.057 430 1115 685 CGE-0003 0.126 299 585 286 CGE-0003 0.060 680 720 40 CGE-0004 0.022 440 481 41 CGE-0004 0.025 586 660 74 CGE-0004 0.100 735.2 980.8 245.6 CGE-0005 0.085 379 613 234 CGE-0006 0.031 347.8 407 59.2 CGE-0006 0.031 489 520.4 31.4 CGE-0006 0.059 545 806.5 261.5 CGE-0007 0.059 485.6 710 224.4


July 2009 115 of 126


CGE-0008 0.040 291 438 147 CGE-0008 0.064 536 771 235 CGE-0009 0.048 84 131 47 CGE-0009 0.055 216.5 341.5 125 CGE-0009 0.047 531.5 768 236.5 CGE-0011 0.039 365 456.5 91.5 CGE-0011 0.037 655 710 55 CGE-0011 0.054 815 1187.7 372.7 CGE-0012 0.067 106.5 138 31.5 CGE-0013 0.045 11 44 33 CGE-0013 0.038 74.5 273.5 199 CGE-0013 0.045 337 374 37 CGE-0013 0.043 412 617.5 205.5 CGE-0013 0.031 661.5 748 86.5 CGE-0015 0.028 435 514 79 CGE-0017 0.041 348 376.2 28.2 CGE-0017 0.039 1246 1286 40 Hole terminated in mineralization CGE-0018 0.044 100 162.8 62.8 CGE-0018 0.036 362.9 392 29.1 CGE-0018 0.045 1173.6 1214.1 40.5 CGE-0019 0.024 244.5 311 66.5 CGE-0019 0.047 815.7 1003 187.3 CGE-0020 0.040 333 395 62 CGE-0020 0.039 548 880 332 CGE-0021 0.130 24 67 43 CGE-0021 0.060 120 325 205 CGE-0022 0.039 5 129 124 CGE-0022 0.044 183 477 294 CGE-0022 0.063 535 583 48 CGE-0023 0.064 497.5 556 58.5 CGE-0024 0.028 573 617 44 CGE-0025 0.031 591.6 675 83.4 CGE-0025 0.035 734.5 800 65.5 CGE-0026 0.071 159.5 464.3 304.8 CGE-0027 0.032 5 49 44 CGE-0027 0.048 114 144 30


July 2009 116 of 126


CGE-0027 0.064 195 460 265 CGE-0028 0.094 681.4 801.5 120.1 CGE-0029 0.027 145 187 42 CGE-0029 0.059 217.4 261.9 44.5 CGE-0029 0.049 320 410 90 CGE-0029 0.062 745 915 170 CGE-0030 0.023 120 185 65 CGE-0030 0.044 585 865 280 CGE-0031 0.073 340 379 39 CGE-0031 0.064 444 927 483 CGE-0031 0.099 987 1055 68 CGE-0034 0.047 473 498 25 CGE-0034 0.028 1005 1065.5 60.5 CGE-0034 0.024 1095 1130 35 CGE-0034 0.051 1275 1372.5 97.5 CGE-0034 0.080 1423.7 1460.3 36.6 CGE-0035 0.047 37.5 177 139.5 CGE-0037 0.031 110 155 45 CGE-0037 0.025 383.5 416.5 33 CGE-0038 0.109 308 691 383 CGE-0039 0.047 119.3 190 70.7 CGE-0040 0.035 146 193.2 47.2 CGE-0041 0.034 366 424 58 CGE-0041 0.053 580 620 40 CGE-0041 0.057 765 1133 368 CGE-0042 0.038 746 771 25 CGE-0042 0.064 834 926.5 92.5 CGE-0042 0.031 986 1228 242 Hole terminated in mineralization CGE-0044 0.031 9 90 81 CGE-0045 0.074 9 75 66 CGE-0046 0.030 79 149.3 70.3 CGE-0046 0.028 285 315 30 CGE-0046 0.043 784 825 41 CGE-0047 0.064 14 60 46

D-17 0.028 194 239.5 45.5 DGE-0001 0.074 0 130 130


July 2009 117 of 126


DGE-0003 0.036 100 165 65 DGE-0003 0.037 265 320 55 DGE-0003 0.024 375 445 70 DGE-0003 0.052 675 740 65 DGE-0004 0.025 80 135 55 DGE-0004 0.055 175 290 115 DGE-0005 0.043 355 375 20 DGE-0006 0.028 105 210 105 DGE-0006 0.045 320 515 195 DGE-0006 0.054 575 820 245 DGE-0007 0.037 90 125 35 DGE-0007 0.043 355 420 65 DGE-0008 0.076 5 90 85 DGE-0009 0.025 40 95 55 DH-11-1-6 0.467 499 522 23 Underground Hole DH-8-1-1 0.041 0 34 34 Underground Hole DH-8-1-1 0.176 243.5 285 41.5 DH-8-1-5 0.059 173.5 196 22.5 Underground Hole DH-8-1-6 0.203 227 249 22 Underground Hole DH-8-1-7 0.172 292.5 312.5 20 Underground Hole GE00-04 0.032 5 30 25 GE00-04 0.072 295 750 455 Hole terminated in mineralization

GE00-09 0.098 345 900 555 Hole terminated in mineralization

GE00-10 0.100 406 965 559 Hole terminated in mineralization

ML-1 0.022 160 200 40 Hole terminated in mineralization

ML-10 0.042 0 145 145 ML-10 0.032 230 250 20 ML-11 0.047 25 195 170 Hole terminated in mineralization


ML-2 0.051 0 70 70 ML-2 0.036 160 195 35 Hole terminated in mineralization





ML-7 0.038 0 55 55


July 2009 118 of 126



SP-1 0.042 0 45 45 Hole terminated in mineralization













SP3-1 0.051 4 104 100 Hole terminated in mineralization

SP3-10 0.044 3 53 50 SP3-10B 0.045 5 145 140 SP3-11B 0.025 20 80 60 SP3-15B 0.049 5 145 140 SP3-17B 0.067 45 75 30 Hole terminated in mineralization






SP3-24 0.028 55 95 40 SP3-2B 0.030 5 100 95 Hole terminated in mineralization

SP3-3B 0.054 0 60 60 Hole terminated in mineralization










July 2009 119 of 126


SPR8-1 0.052 55 195 140 SPR8-10 0.031 80 110 30 SPR8-10 0.024 150 195 45 SPR8-16 0.045 0 40 40 SPR8-17 0.022 30 75 45 SPR8-19 0.086 0 90 90 SPR8-2 0.046 45 190 145

SPR8-21 0.033 0 130 130 SPR8-5 0.073 0 175 175 SPR8-6 0.077 0 100 100 SPR8-7 0.040 0 75 75 SPR8-8 0.283 0 80 80 SPR8-9 0.054 0 125 125


July 2009 120 of 126

B Drillhole collar coordinates


July 2009 121 of 126

BHID Easting Northing Elevation

CDH-25 1213575.00 17693664.02 3102.5

CDH-26 1213572.92 17693614.08 3102.5

CDH-27 1213524.99 17693666.16 3102.5

CD68 1214726.55 17693189.89 3069.7

CD69 1214609.97 17693094.03 3075.1

CD70 1214595.22 17693459.19 3093.6

CD71 1214475.98 17693765.77 3100.8

CD72 1214388.43 17694085.73 3105.0

CD73 1213529.37 17693512.11 3130.9

CD74 1213581.77 17693573.89 3128.4

CD75 1213504.10 17693593.46 3108.0

CD76B 1213455.62 17693527.88 3095.4

CD77 1213415.68 17693718.66 3100.7

CD78 1213407.52 17693758.43 3088.0

CD79 1213449.52 17693755.57 3082.0

CD80 1213388.88 17693683.27 3104.5

CGE-0001 1214527.39 17693496.61 3095.0

CGE-0002 1214647.64 17693929.69 3104.0

CGE-0003 1214713.31 17693595.31 3087.0

CGE-0004 1214915.62 17694053.52 3067.0

CGE-0005 1215112.98 17693614.16 3059.0

CGE-0006 1214312.69 17693718.42 3099.9

CGE-0007 1214245.94 17693686.96 3098.0

CGE-0008 1214047.41 17693763.48 3074.0

CGE-0009 1213924.16 17693758.31 3074.0

CGE-0010 1214935.50 17693597.23 3056.0

CGE-0011 1214457.10 17694004.05 3107.0

CGE-0012 1213553.42 17693883.79 3085.0

CGE-0013 1213855.10 17693666.91 3077.0

CGE-0014 1215221.14 17693484.77 3063.0

CGE-0015 1215037.50 17694223.71 3082.0

CGE-0016 1214577.97 17693312.58 3089.0

CGE-0017 1214460.62 17694163.97 3105.0

CGE-0018 1214236.70 17694133.11 3081.0

CGE-0019 1214357.25 17693833.37 3105.0

CGE-0020 1214494.06 17693682.28 3098.0


July 2009 122 of 126


CGE-0021 1213468.65 17693574.77 3104.0

CGE-0022 1213695.41 17693828.54 3085.0

CGE-0023 1213554.40 17693882.76 3085.0

CGE-0024 1215321.81 17693736.31 3063.0

CGE-0025 1215101.24 17693985.27 3074.0

CGE-0026 1213837.87 17693565.34 3077.0

CGE-0027 1213568.97 17693630.46 3099.0

CGE-0028 1213889.46 17693912.08 3068.0

CGE-0029 1214110.81 17693962.00 3072.0

CGE-0030 1214193.87 17693869.11 3086.0

CGE-0031 1214615.54 17693835.45 3099.0

CGE-0032 1214373.54 17693299.25 3092.0

CGE-0033 1215168.65 17693732.82 3059.9

CGE-0034 1214724.72 17694065.90 3067.0

CGE-0035 1213292.00 17693601.80 3093.0

CGE-0036 1212854.43 17693570.81 2993.0

CGE-0037 1214240.04 17693966.04 3089.0

CGE-0038 1214687.54 17693470.97 3085.0

CGE-0039 1213159.13 17693662.83 3059.9

CGE-0040 1213035.43 17693703.65 3025.0

CGE-0041 1215119.64 17693957.86 3074.0

CGE-0042 1215300.63 17694130.66 3067.0

CGE-0043 1214356.68 17693989.36 3104.0

CGE-0044 1213285.08 17693791.94 3068.0

CGE-0045 1213040.82 17693562.55 3003.0

CGE-0046 1213821.15 17693993.65 3064.0

CGE-0047 1213133.03 17693519.45 3040.0

DGE-0001 1213459.04 17693778.95 3093.0

DGE-0002 1214010.80 17693370.48 3081.0

DGE-0003 1213766.00 17693943.91 3070.0

DGE-0004 1213169.31 17693670.59 3059.9

DGE-0005 1213864.98 17694121.65 3075.0

DGE-0006 1214112.97 17693831.97 3075.0

DGE-0007 1214114.20 17694116.93 3062.0

DGE-0008 1214114.20 17694116.93 3062.0

DGE-0009 1213443.86 17693400.40 3017.0


July 2009 123 of 126


DH-11-1-10 1214465.00 17693459.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-11 1213839.00 17694025.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-12 1213903.00 17693875.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-13 1213901.00 17693876.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-14 1214106.00 17693757.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-15 1214106.00 17693757.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-16 1213903.00 17693875.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-6 1214399.00 17693556.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-7 1214364.00 17693610.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-8 1214364.00 17693610.00 1765.0

DH-11-1-9 1214328.00 17693681.00 1765.0

DH-8-1-1 1214841.62 17693118.44 2188.1

DH-8-1-2 1214844.54 17693114.87 2188.1

DH-8-1-3 1214865.87 17693129.37 2188.1

DH-8-1-4 1215068.86 17692811.62 2185.9

DH-8-1-5 1215066.90 17692813.16 2185.9

DH-8-1-6 1214841.13 17693118.95 2188.1

DH-8-1-7 1214847.10 17693117.81 2188.1

DH-8-1-8 1214845.57 17693116.35 2188.1

GE00-03 1214399.68 17693434.97 3094.3

GE00-04 1214622.97 17693570.35 3095.4

GE00-05 1214735.77 17693419.91 3080.6

GE00-06 1214934.63 17693541.32 3053.7

GE00-09 1214915.38 17693696.54 3058.6

GE00-10 1214985.60 17693694.84 3053.3

ML-1 1213423.08 17693922.77 3052.0

ML-10 1213382.62 17693717.71 3072.0

ML-11 1213352.41 17693570.43 3095.0

ML-12 1213411.35 17693285.19 3135.0

ML-13 1213505.08 17693129.15 3160.0

ML-14 1213546.45 17692912.39 3175.0

ML-15 1213702.89 17693157.63 3135.0

ML-17 1213774.32 17693450.83 3094.0

ML-2 1213659.87 17693944.35 3073.0

ML-3 1213803.81 17693933.05 3068.0

ML-4 1213791.44 17693778.34 3082.0


July 2009 124 of 126


ML-5 1213786.65 17693557.51 3091.0

ML-6 1213768.60 17693372.00 3098.0

ML-7 1213544.90 17693721.00 3105.0

ML-8 1213547.37 17693510.99 3120.0

ML-9 1213534.13 17693315.38 3130.0

P-1 1216216.42 17694803.58 3175.0

P-1-RC 1216216.42 17694803.58 3175.0

10-47 1213755.46 17693628.90 2934.1

11-47 1213754.90 17693626.11 2934.1

12-47 1213756.03 17693632.08 2934.5

1-46 1213659.83 17693651.28 2928.1

1-47 1214067.61 17693918.50 2887.5

2-46 1213660.37 17693653.27 2928.1

2-47 1214068.03 17693914.99 2887.5

3-46 1213659.16 17693647.69 2928.1

4-46 1213607.76 17693512.11 2935.7

5-47 1213606.70 17693509.34 2935.7

6-47 1213607.60 17693513.91 2935.7

7-47 1213602.81 17693514.43 2937.2

87-102 1213660.53 17693512.41 3117.0

87-95 1213896.97 17693337.09 3092.0

87-96 1213439.49 17693708.41 3097.0

88-111 1215373.88 17693872.05 3072.0

88-113 1215373.88 17693872.05 3071.0

88-116 1215424.27 17694021.85 3066.0

88-118 1214807.05 17694131.80 3070.3

88-120 1215939.76 17694425.32 3125.0

88-121 1214462.73 17694486.99 3069.7

88-122 1215547.34 17694600.00 3085.0

88-123 1215547.34 17694600.00 3084.0

88-124 1215834.20 17694717.40 3119.0

88-125 1216133.77 17694821.50 3154.3

88-126 1214327.29 17694657.19 3037.0

88-127 1214737.04 17693853.66 3096.0

88-128 1214602.81 17694301.71 3104.0

88-129 1215026.98 17693886.00 3060.0


July 2009 125 of 126


88-130 1215227.26 17693982.38 3064.0

88-131 1214495.34 17693831.21 3101.0

88-132 1214581.40 17694012.20 3103.0

88-133 1215508.67 17693726.03 3085.0

89-134 1214882.62 17693694.39 3059.0

89-135 1215001.17 17693490.79 3065.0

89-136 1215156.75 17694140.97 3072.0

89-137 1214628.14 17693685.51 3100.4

89-138 1214794.07 17693523.50 3066

89-139 1214860.18 17693918.52 3059.9

89-144 1214991.19 17693761.87 3056.2

89-146 1214460.20 17693571.71 3096.4

89-147 1213730.66 17693745.74 3090.9

89-148 1215490.57 17693365.71 3114.6

89-149 1214582.39 17693453.98 3093.0

89-150 1214321.71 17693445.34 3090.0

89-154 1214882.22 17693694.50 3059.1

89-164 1214221.75 17693542.57 3090.6

89-165 1214184.87 17693343.82 3088.8

89-166 1214048.63 17693485.05 3091.5

89-167 1213852.41 17693547.91 3082.0

89-168 1213833.35 17693408.21 3090.8

89-169 1214052.09 17693597.63 3079.2

89-170 1214223.55 17693629.10 3093.5

8-47 1213602.78 17693513.43 2937.2

90-174 1215803.04 17694003.15 3145.0

90-180 1216931.15 17693614.84 3156.4

90-194 1218443.95 17694941.01 3729.8

90-196 1213790.19 17693757.37 3077.6

90-197 1213759.62 17693391.70 3095.2

90-198 1213421.04 17693646.74 3115.0

90-199 1213361.38 17693559.23 3106.1

90-200 1213447.32 17693458.19 3086.6

90-201 1213566.01 17693479.78 3131.7

90-202 1213888.00 17693485.93 3098.4

90-203 1213768.65 17693498.74 3088.3


July 2009 126 of 126


90-204 1213669.65 17693379.05 3115.1

90-205 1213279.90 17693653.67 3080.0

90-206 1213832.54 17693297.09 3099.9

90-207 1214617.23 17693381.93 3088.7

90-208 1213968.96 17693420.41 3082.2

90-209 1214071.59 17693303.23 3086.8

90-210 1213930.50 17693612.50 3074.5

90-211 1214001.58 17693539.60 3077.7

90-212 1214118.92 17693416.98 3080.0

90-213 1214436.74 17693547.05 3078.8

90-214 1214104.20 17693480.99 3082.3

90-215 1214272.29 17693400.59 3093.3

90-217 1214152.17 17693610.24 3087.0

90-218 1214401.06 17693385.77 3093.7

90-219 1214476.66 17693323.88 3091.9

90-220 1213964.86 17693949.35 3082.5

90-221 1214390.54 17693640.17 3098.6

90-222 1214652.39 17693388.22 3085.9

90-223 1214379.19 17693528.98 3096.2

90-224 1214331.57 17694154.64 3095.3

90-225 1214519.04 17693394.47 3093.1

90-226 1214451.43 17693460.26 3094.5

94-258 1214667.42 17693135.79 3070.3

9-47 1213606.19 17693509.15 2935.7

Midway Gold Corp.: Golden Eagle Project, Washington State,...

Documents

Transcript of Midway Gold Corp.: Golden Eagle Project, Washington State,...