Matthews Ridge Pre Feasibility Study W App Final

PREFEASIBILITYSTUDY
MATTHEWSRIDGE
MANGANESEPROJECT
Guyana

Report
ReunionGoldCorporation
1111,St.CharlesWest,Suite101
Longueuil,Quebec
CanadaJ4K5G4

EffectiveDate:July7,2013
ReportDate:August21,2013
Preparedby:
GMININGSERVICESINC.
7900TaschereauBlvd.
BuildingD,Suite200
Brossard,Qubec
Table of Contents Month, Year
CanadaJ4X1C2 Page i
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This report was prepared as a National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, in accordance
with Form 43-101F1, for Reunion Gold Corporation by G Mining Services Inc with the
collaboration of other qualified persons. The information, conclusions, and estimates
contained herein are based on: i) information available as of the effective date of this Report,
ii) certain data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and
qualifications set forth in this report.
The Technical Report is intended to be filed on SEDAR by Reunion Gold Corporation with
Canadian Regulatory Authorities to support the result of a Pre-feasibility Study on the
Matthews Ridge manganese project announced by Reunion Gold Corporation in a press
release on July 12, 2013.
Qualified Persons
Prepared by:
Date: 20\3 . 0 B' 'Z .\
Date: 2f13 -tJ<J .. ZI

, ean Sirois, ing.,
Vice President, Geology & Resources
G Mining Services Inc.
-=i <~J8
med BouaJlla, mg., M. Sc.,
Date:
Vice President, Metallurgy & Mineral Processing

u. Date: 20 13 -Of! - 2 {
Date: 6J:>l3,.cf-'L1
Claude Du
President
Canmet Metallurgy Inc.
Reunion Gold Corporation Pre-feasibility Study
Matthews Ridge Manganese Project
Table of Contents
1. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Property Description and Ownership............................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources and Infrastructures......................................... 1-2
1.4 History............................................................................................................................ 1-3
1.5 Geology and Mineralization ........................................................................................... 1-4
1.6 Exploration ..................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.7 Validation ....................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.8 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testwork ............................................................ 1-5
1.9 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................... 1-6
1.10 Mineral Reserve ............................................................................................................ 1-9
1.11 Mining .......................................................................................................................... 1-11
1.12 Processing ................................................................................................................... 1-14
1.13 Infrastructure, Service Facilities and Concentrate Transportation .............................. 1-17
1.14 Environment and Social Impact Assessment .............................................................. 1-17
1.15 Capital and Operating Costs ....................................................................................... 1-18
1.15.1 Initial Capital ................................................................................................... 1-18
1.15.2 Sustaining Capital........................................................................................... 1-19
1.15.3 Operating Costs.............................................................................................. 1-21
1.16 Economic Analysis ...................................................................................................... 1-23
1.17 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 1-25
1.18 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 1-25
2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Scope of Technical Report ............................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Sources of Information .................................................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Qualifications and Experience ....................................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Site Visit ......................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.5 Definition and Terms ..................................................................................................... 2-6
2.6 Units of Measure, Abbreviations and Nomenclature ..................................................... 2-7
3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Reliance on Other Experts ............................................................................................ 3-1
4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Location ......................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Property Description ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Property Title ................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.4 Legal Surveys ................................................................................................................ 4-2
4.5 Rights and Obligations Associated with Mineral Rights ................................................ 4-2
4.6 Property Ownership and Agreements ........................................................................... 4-3
4.7 Surface Rights ............................................................................................................... 4-3
Table of Contents August, 2013 Page i

4.8 Royalties and Other Encumbrances .............................................................................. 4-4

4.9 Environmental Liabilities ................................................................................................ 4-4
5. ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURES AND
PHYSIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Accessibility ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Climate........................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Local Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-3
5.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 5-3
5.4.1 Roads ............................................................................................................... 5-3
5.4.2 Service Buildings and Ancillary Facilities ......................................................... 5-4
5.4.3 Fuel ................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.4.4 Communications ............................................................................................... 5-5
5.4.5 Power Supply and Distribution ......................................................................... 5-5
5.4.6 Land and Transportation Infrastructure ............................................................ 5-6
5.4.7 Marine Transportation Infrastructure ................................................................ 5-6
5.4.8 Water Supply .................................................................................................... 5-6
5.4.9 Camp and Accommodation .............................................................................. 5-7
5.5 Physiography ................................................................................................................. 5-7
6. HISTORY ................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Prior and Current Ownership ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Exploration History ........................................................................................................ 6-1
6.3 Historic Operation .......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.4 Previous Economic Evaluation ...................................................................................... 6-2
7. GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ............................................................... 7-1
7.1 Regional and Local Geology ......................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Property Geology........................................................................................................... 7-3
7.2.1 Prospecting Licenses 2 to 4 Matthews Ridge and Arakaka Prospects ......... 7-3
7.2.2 Prospecting License 1 Pipiani Hills Prospect .............................................. 7-22
8. DEPOSIT TYPES .................................................................................................................... 8-1
9. EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Current Exploration Program ......................................................................................... 9-1
9.1.1 Matthews Ridge Prospect (Footprint) Exploration ......................................... 9-2
9.1.2 Arakaka Prospect Exploration .......................................................................... 9-3
9.1.3 Pipiani Prospect Exploration ............................................................................ 9-4
9.2 Topographic Surveys, Coordinates and Datum ............................................................ 9-5
9.3 Geological Mapping and Outcrop Sampling .................................................................. 9-6
9.4 Trenching and Pitting..................................................................................................... 9-6
9.5 Geophysical Program .................................................................................................... 9-7
10. DRILLING .............................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.1 Drilling Program ........................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Drilling Methodology .................................................................................................... 10-3
10.3 Drill Hole Survey .......................................................................................................... 10-3
10.4 Drill Core Recovery ..................................................................................................... 10-4
10.5 Reverse Circulation Recovery ..................................................................................... 10-4
Table of Contents August, 2013 Page ii

11. SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ................................................... 11-1

11.1 Sampling ...................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.1 Trenches and Pits........................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.2 Diamond Drill Core Sampling, Security and Chain-of-Custody ...................... 11-3
11.1.3 Reverse Circulation Logging and Sampling ................................................... 11-4
11.1.4 Banka Drilling for Tailings Sampling............................................................... 11-4
11.1.5 Metallurgical Sampling ................................................................................... 11-5
11.2 Analytical Laboratories ................................................................................................ 11-8
11.3 Sample Preparation and Analytical Procedures .......................................................... 11-9
11.4 Specific Gravity Measurements ................................................................................. 11-12
11.5 QA/QC Procedures .................................................................................................... 11-14
11.5.1 Database and QA/QC Management ............................................................ 11-14
11.5.2 Inter Laboratory QA/QC Umpire Assays ...................................................... 11-16
12. DATA VERIFICATION........................................................................................................... 12-1
12.1 Database ..................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.2 Database Content........................................................................................................ 12-1
12.3 Core Recovery Data .................................................................................................... 12-2
12.3.1 Density Measurements on Core and Relationship to Manganese Grade ...... 12-3
12.3.2 Survey Control ................................................................................................ 12-4
12.4 Comparison of RC and DDH Assays .......................................................................... 12-4
12.5 Check Sampling Program ........................................................................................... 12-5
12.6 Analysis of Assay Quality Control Data ....................................................................... 12-5
12.6.1 Standards ....................................................................................................... 12-6
12.6.2 Blanks ............................................................................................................. 12-9
12.6.3 Pulp Duplicates and Umpire Analysis .......................................................... 12-11
12.7 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 12-13
13. MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ............................................ 13-1
13.1 Scope of Testwork ....................................................................................................... 13-1
13.2 Materials and Lithologies ............................................................................................. 13-2
13.3 Sample Preparation and Representativity ................................................................... 13-3
13.4 Historical Testwork Summary ...................................................................................... 13-4
13.5 Recent Testwork Summary ......................................................................................... 13-7
13.5.1 Bateman Jigging (January to October 2011) ................................................. 13-7
13.5.2 SGS Characterization (June to December 2011) ........................................... 13-8
13.5.3 SGS HLS Samples Characterization (May - August 2012) ............................ 13-8
13.5.4 GMSI-FILAB On-site Bench-scale Jigging (June-December 2012) ............. 13-13
13.5.5 Process Flowsheet Development ................................................................. 13-14
13.5.6 Metallurgical Models ..................................................................................... 13-16
13.5.7 BMF Saprolite Metallurgical Models ............................................................. 13-17
13.5.8 Detrital Processing Models ........................................................................... 13-21
13.5.9 Saprock Processing Models ......................................................................... 13-26
13.5.10 Tailings Processing Models .......................................................................... 13-31
13.6 Crushing Testwork ..................................................................................................... 13-35
13.7 Scrubbing Testwork ................................................................................................... 13-35
Table of Contents August, 2013 Page iii

13.8 Solid / Liquid Separation Testwork ............................................................................ 13-35

14. MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1 Data ............................................................................................................................. 14-1
14.2 Modeling ...................................................................................................................... 14-2
14.2.1 Geological Modeling ....................................................................................... 14-3
14.2.2 Mineralization Modeling .................................................................................. 14-7
14.2.3 Topography .................................................................................................... 14-7
14.2.4 Oxidation Model.............................................................................................. 14-8
14.3 Statistical Analysis ..................................................................................................... 14-12
14.3.1 Statistics of Original Assays ......................................................................... 14-12
14.3.2 Compositing .................................................................................................. 14-13
14.3.3 Statistics of the Composites ......................................................................... 14-13
14.4 Dry Bulk Density Data ............................................................................................... 14-16
14.5 Variography ............................................................................................................... 14-17
14.6 Block Modeling .......................................................................................................... 14-21
14.7 Grade Estimation Methodology ................................................................................. 14-25
14.8 Grade Estimation Validation ...................................................................................... 14-30
14.9 Classification and Resource Reporting ..................................................................... 14-30
14.10 Global Resources ...................................................................................................... 14-32
15. MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ....................................................................................... 15-1
16. MINING METHODS ............................................................................................................... 16-1
16.1 Resource Model Description ....................................................................................... 16-1
16.2 Pit Optimization ........................................................................................................... 16-2
16.2.1 Input Parameters ............................................................................................ 16-2
16.2.2 Geotechnical Parameters ............................................................................... 16-4
16.3 Optimization Results.................................................................................................... 16-5
16.4 Mine Design ............................................................................................................... 16-12
16.4.1 Ramp and Haul Road Design ....................................................................... 16-12
16.4.2 Final Pit Designs........................................................................................... 16-14
16.4.3 Waste Dump Designs ................................................................................... 16-15
16.4.4 Ore Stockpile Designs .................................................................................. 16-16
16.5 Life of Mine Plan ........................................................................................................ 16-22
16.6 Mine Operations & Equipment Selection................................................................... 16-25
16.6.1 Drilling and Blasting ...................................................................................... 16-25
16.6.2 Loading and Hauling .................................................................................... 16-28
16.6.3 Equipment Availability & Usage ................................................................... 16-32
16.6.4 Support Equipment ....................................................................................... 16-33
16.7 Mine Manpower ......................................................................................................... 16-34
16.7.1 Work Schedule ............................................................................................. 16-34
16.7.2 Mine Department Organizational Charts ...................................................... 16-34
16.7.3 Manpower Requirements ............................................................................. 16-35
16.8 Mine Infrastructure..................................................................................................... 16-38
16.8.1 Explosives Depot .......................................................................................... 16-38
16.8.2 Mine Offices.................................................................................................. 16-38
Table of Contents August, 2013 Page iv

16.8.3 Truck Shop Facilities .................................................................................... 16-38

16.8.4 Fuel Storage and Refueling Facilities........................................................... 16-38
17. RECOVERY METHODS ........................................................................................................ 17-1
17.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................. 17-1
17.2 Flow Sheets Development and Plant Description ....................................................... 17-1
17.2.1 Run-of-Mine Ore ............................................................................................. 17-5
17.2.2 Reclaim and Primary Crushing ....................................................................... 17-5
17.2.3 Scrubbing and Screening Circuit .................................................................... 17-5
17.2.4 Jigging Circuit ................................................................................................. 17-6
17.2.5 Rejects Thickening and Pumping ................................................................... 17-7
17.2.6 Concentrate Storage and Loading ................................................................. 17-7
17.2.7 Air Services .................................................................................................... 17-7
17.2.8 Water Services ............................................................................................... 17-7
17.2.9 Reagents ........................................................................................................ 17-8
17.3 Process Control ........................................................................................................... 17-8
17.3.1 General ........................................................................................................... 17-8
17.3.2 Description ...................................................................................................... 17-8
17.3.3 I/O Instruments ............................................................................................... 17-9
17.3.4 Motor Control Centers .................................................................................... 17-9
17.3.5 Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) ......................................................... 17-9
17.3.6 Process Control Supervision .......................................................................... 17-9
17.3.7 Fiber Optic Cables .......................................................................................... 17-9
17.3.8 Safety and Equipment Protection ................................................................. 17-10
17.4 Operating Modes ....................................................................................................... 17-10
17.4.1 Manual / Auto ............................................................................................... 17-10
17.4.2 Local / Remote ............................................................................................. 17-10
17.4.3 Lockout Equipment Information .................................................................... 17-11
17.5 Grades and Recoveries ............................................................................................. 17-11
17.6 Power Requirements ................................................................................................. 17-13
18. PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURES ......................................................................................... 18-1
18.1 Existing Installations .................................................................................................... 18-1
18.2 Roads and Accesses ................................................................................................... 18-1
18.2.1 Access Road .................................................................................................. 18-1
18.2.2 Site Services Roads ....................................................................................... 18-3
18.2.3 Haul Road ....................................................................................................... 18-3
18.2.4 Air Strip ........................................................................................................... 18-3
18.3 Camp Facilities ............................................................................................................ 18-4
18.3.1 Kitchen ............................................................................................................ 18-4
18.3.2 Laundry / Welcome Center ............................................................................. 18-4
18.3.3 Recreational Room ......................................................................................... 18-4
18.3.4 Dormitories ..................................................................................................... 18-4
18.4 Maintenance Facilities ................................................................................................. 18-8
18.4.1 Truck Shop / Warehouse ................................................................................ 18-8
18.4.2 Washbay......................................................................................................... 18-8
18.5 Offices and Support Buildings ..................................................................................... 18-8
Table of Contents August, 2013 Page v

18.5.1 Administration Offices .................................................................................... 18-8

18.5.2 Mill Offices ...................................................................................................... 18-9
18.5.3 Assay / Metallurgical Laboratory .................................................................... 18-9
18.5.4 Fuel Storage and Handling ............................................................................. 18-9
18.6 Power and Electrical .................................................................................................... 18-9
18.6.1 Power Plant .................................................................................................... 18-9
18.6.2 Power Distribution ........................................................................................ 18-10
18.7 Water Management ................................................................................................... 18-10
18.7.1 Rejects Pond and Reclaim Water ................................................................ 18-10
18.7.2 Potable Water ............................................................................................... 18-13
18.7.3 Sewage Water .............................................................................................. 18-13
18.7.4 Fire Water ..................................................................................................... 18-13
18.8 Port Kaituma Facilities ............................................................................................... 18-13
18.8.1 LFO Storage ................................................................................................. 18-14
18.8.2 Workshop / Storage Area ............................................................................. 18-14
18.8.3 Concentrate Handling and Storage .............................................................. 18-14
18.8.4 Wharf and Mooring Basin ............................................................................. 18-16
18.8.5 Camp and Offices ......................................................................................... 18-16
18.8.6 Power Plant .................................................................................................. 18-16
18.9 Concentrate Transportation ....................................................................................... 18-16
18.9.1 Land Transportation ..................................................................................... 18-16
18.9.2 Marine Transportation .................................................................................. 18-22
19. MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS .............................................................................. 19-1
19.1 Major End-use Industries............................................................................................. 19-1
19.2 Manganese Ore Supply and Production ..................................................................... 19-2
19.3 Manganese Ore Demand and Consumption ............................................................... 19-5
19.4 Manganese Ore Historical Prices ................................................................................ 19-8
19.5 Sales Strategies ........................................................................................................ 19-10
19.6 Price Forecasts for Manganese Ore ......................................................................... 19-13
19.7 Pricing Products ........................................................................................................ 19-14
20. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACTS 20-1
20.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 20-1
20.2 Geology and Geomorphology ..................................................................................... 20-3
20.3 Acid Rock Drainage Potential ...................................................................................... 20-3
20.4 Environmental Baseline Study .................................................................................... 20-4
20.5 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 20-6
20.6 Noise............................................................................................................................ 20-6
20.7 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 20-6
20.8 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 20-9
20.9 Soil Quality .................................................................................................................. 20-9
20.10 Biodiversity .................................................................................................................. 20-9
20.10.1 Flora ............................................................................................................. 20-10
20.10.2 Fauna ........................................................................................................... 20-10
20.11 Landscapes and Ecosystems .................................................................................... 20-10
Table of Contents August, 2013 Page vi

20.12 Socio-Cultural ............................................................................................................ 20-11

20.12.1 Culture .......................................................................................................... 20-11
20.12.2 Demographics .............................................................................................. 20-13
20.12.3 Indigenous People ........................................................................................ 20-13
20.12.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 20-16
20.12.5 Employment .................................................................................................. 20-16
20.12.6 Income .......................................................................................................... 20-17
20.12.7 Education ...................................................................................................... 20-17
20.12.8 Public Health ................................................................................................ 20-17
20.13 Archeology ................................................................................................................. 20-17
20.14 Environmental Management Plan ............................................................................. 20-18
20.15 Closure, Decommissioning and Reclamation............................................................ 20-19
20.16 Legal Framework ....................................................................................................... 20-21
20.16.1 The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment............................. 20-21
20.16.2 Mineral Exploration and Mining License ...................................................... 20-22
20.16.3 Restricted Areas ........................................................................................... 20-22
20.17 Acts and Regulations Governing Mining Aspects ..................................................... 20-22
20.18 Permitting Process .................................................................................................... 20-23
21. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS................................................................................... 21-1
21.1 Initial Capital Expenditures .......................................................................................... 21-1
21.1.1 Infrastructures and Roads .............................................................................. 21-3
21.1.2 Power and Electrical ....................................................................................... 21-3
21.1.3 Water and Rejects Management .................................................................... 21-3
21.1.4 Rejects Storage Facilities (RSF) .................................................................... 21-3
21.1.5 Mobile Equipment ........................................................................................... 21-6
21.1.6 Project Specifics ........................................................................................... 21-10
21.1.7 Process Plant and Related Infrastructures ................................................... 21-11
21.1.8 Construction Indirects ................................................................................... 21-12
21.1.9 General Services .......................................................................................... 21-13
21.1.10 Pre-Production and Commissioning Expenditures ....................................... 21-15
21.1.11 Exclusions .................................................................................................... 21-16
21.2 Sustaining Capital...................................................................................................... 21-17
21.3 Closure Costs ............................................................................................................ 21-19
21.4 Operating Costs ......................................................................................................... 21-19
21.4.1 Mining Costs ................................................................................................. 21-22
21.4.2 Processing Costs.......................................................................................... 21-26
21.4.3 Power Costs ................................................................................................. 21-28
21.4.4 General Services .......................................................................................... 21-30
21.4.5 Concentrate Transportation .......................................................................... 21-32
22. ECONOMIC ANALYSES....................................................................................................... 22-1
22.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 22-1
22.2 Key Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 22-1
22.3 Capital Expenditures ................................................................................................... 22-2
22.4 Metal Production and Revenues ................................................................................. 22-3
22.4.1 Manganese Concentrate Production .............................................................. 22-3
Table of Contents August, 2013 Page vii

22.4.2 Gross Revenues ............................................................................................. 22-4

22.5 Royalties ...................................................................................................................... 22-5
22.6 Operating Costs ........................................................................................................... 22-5
22.6.1 Mining Costs ................................................................................................... 22-5
22.6.2 Processing and Power Costs ......................................................................... 22-5
22.6.3 General Services Costs .................................................................................. 22-6
22.6.4 Concentrate Transportation Costs ................................................................. 22-6
22.6.5 Operating Costs Summary ............................................................................. 22-6
22.7 Closure Costs .............................................................................................................. 22-7
22.8 Taxation ....................................................................................................................... 22-7
22.9 Financial Results ......................................................................................................... 22-7
22.9.1 Base Case ...................................................................................................... 22-7
22.9.2 Financial Sensitivities ................................................................................... 22-10
23. ADJACENT PROPERTIES ................................................................................................... 23-1
24. OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ............................................................... 24-2
24.1 Project Implementation ................................................................................................ 24-2
24.1.1 Project Development Organisation................................................................. 24-2
24.1.2 Project Controls .............................................................................................. 24-4
24.1.3 Procurement and Logistics ............................................................................. 24-4
24.1.4 Construction ................................................................................................... 24-4
24.2 Construction Schedule ................................................................................................ 24-5
24.3 Operations Organization Structure ........................................................................... 24-7
24.3.1 Mining Department ......................................................................................... 24-7
24.3.2 Process and Metallurgy Department .............................................................. 24-8
24.3.3 General Services Department ........................................................................ 24-9
24.3.4 Transport Department .................................................................................. 24-11
25. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 25-1
26. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 26-1
26.1 Exploration and Resources ......................................................................................... 26-1
26.2 Commodity Pricing and Marketing .............................................................................. 26-2
26.3 Metallurgy and Processing .......................................................................................... 26-2
26.4 Geotechnical and Geochemical Surveys .................................................................... 26-3
26.5 Concentrate Handling and Transportation .................................................................. 26-3
26.6 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 26-3
26.7 Mine Pit Slopes ............................................................................................................ 26-3
26.8 Investigation of Construction Materials ....................................................................... 26-4
26.9 Other Technical Studies .............................................................................................. 26-4
26.10 Environment, Social..................................................................................................... 26-5
26.11 Cost ............................................................................................................................. 26-5
27. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 27-1
Table of Contents August, 2013 Page viii

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Matthews Ridge Location Map ................................................................................................ 1-2
Figure 1.2: Simplified Flow Sheet ............................................................................................................ 1-15
Figure 4.1: Matthews Ridge Location Map ................................................................................................ 4-1
Figure 5.1: Precipitation ............................................................................................................................. 5-2
Figure 5.2: Public Road Barima River Crossing ..................................................................................... 5-4
Figure 5.3: View of Defunct Operating Facilities ........................................................................................ 5-5
Figure 7.1: Schematic Geological Map of Northwest Guyana Location of Prospecting Licenses held by
RMI ............................................................................................................................................................. 7-2
Figure 7.2: Schematic Stratigraphic Column of MRF (Goulet, 2012) ........................................................ 7-5
Figure 7.3 Partially Weathered Phyllite with Remobilized Manganese into Layers and Fractures (core from
ddh 11MR1112 at 55 m depth) .................................................................................................................. 7-6
Figure 7.4: BMF Unit on Hill 5W. Outline of Panel Sample for Metallurgical Testing Identified in Orange 7-7
Figure 7.5: Bands of Braunitell (black colour) with Quartz-filled Fractures in Purple Phyllite (Core from ddh
133A, 51 m Depth) ..................................................................................................................................... 7-8
Figure 7.6: Micro Diapirs of Manganese Oxides/Hydroxides Filling Fractures, Fed by Manganese-rich
Bed (Hill 5W) .............................................................................................................................................. 7-9
Figure 7.7: Folded Chert Beds with Manganese Oxides/Hydroxides Intercallated with Phyllites (Hill 5W)....
................................................................................................................................................................. 7-10
Figure 7.8: Quartz diorite. Euhedral Crystals of Hornblende (dark brown), Interstitial Chlorite (green),
Euhedral Crystals of Saussuritized Plagioclase (dark grey) and Interstitial Quartz (colorless). Sample from
Drill Hole 11MR-109/65,0 m, 25X, Plane Polarized Light ........................................................................ 7-11
Figure 7.9: Diorite Sill Intruding BMF & MMF Units (Note post intrusion normal faults - Hill 9) .............. 7-12
Figure 7.10: Typical Lateritic Profile (Freyssinet, 1997) .......................................................................... 7-13
Figure 7.11: Outcrop of Manganiferous Duricrust Covered with Nodular Detritic Material on Trench 91 (Hill
1). (Note pen for scale). ........................................................................................................................... 7-14
Figure 7.12: Nodular and Fragmental (after BMF) Detritic Material Overlying Saprolitized Diorite. (Note
geological hammer for scale Hill 5W) ...................................................................................................... 7-15
Figure 7.13: BMF Affected by Typical Anticline and Syncline Structure Gently Inclined at Hill 5W (Note
PVC pipe for scale). ................................................................................................................................. 7-17
Figure 7.14: Tight Recumbent Fold in MPH, Hill 3 (Interval between yellow flags is 1 m) ..................... 7-17
Figure 7.15: Stereographic Projection of Structural Measurements of Matthews Ridge Footprint Deposits
................................................................................................................................................................. 7-18
Figure 7.16: Schematic Structural Map of Anticline and Syncline Axial Traces along the Matthews Ridge
Footprint Deposits (Goulet, 2012). ........................................................................................................... 7-20
List of Figures August, 2013 Page ix

Figure 7.17: Compilation Map of Arakaka Prospect Showing Mineralized Zones Displaced en echelon.
................................................................................................................................................................. 7-21
Figure 7.18: Late Normal Faulting with 2 m Vertical Displacement Affecting Folded Banded Manganese
Unit, Hill 6 ................................................................................................................................................. 7-22
Figure 7.19: Schematic Geological Map of Pipiani Hills Area .................................................................. 7-23
Figure 7.20: Specimen of Manganiferous Duricrust from Pipiani Hills .................................................... 7-24
Figure 8.1: Geological Section along UTM Easting 708750E on Hill 9 ..................................................... 8-2
Figure 8.2: Geological Section along UTM Easting 814000E on Hill 5C ................................................... 8-2
Figure 8.3: Alternating Bands of Braunite (black) and Spessartite-Rich Purple Phyllite, Forming Typical
BMF Protore (N-size core from ddh 12MR2123). ...................................................................................... 8-3
Figure 8.4: Sample of MMF Formed by Indistinct Manganese Oxide and Hydroxide Minerals still Showing
Original Bedding (Hill 5W). ......................................................................................................................... 8-4
Figure 8.5: Detritic Nodular Material on the Surface at Hill 1, including Fragments of Duricrust .............. 8-5
Figure 8.6: Tailings Material Showing Layering of Mineralized Fragments ............................................... 8-6
Figure 9.1 Location Map of Prospect Areas Covered by Detailed Exploration in Prospecting Licenses
held by RMI ................................................................................................................................................ 9-1
Figure 9.2: Map of the Footprint Area, Schematic Location of Manganiferous Zones Explored by
Trenching and Drilling ................................................................................................................................ 9-2
Figure 9.3: Map of Arakaka Prospect Area showing Trenching Work ....................................................... 9-4
Figure 9.4: Map of Pipiani Prospect Area showing Trenching Work ......................................................... 9-5
Figure 9.5: Typical Mechanized Trench Next to Former Mining Bench (to the right Hill 5). ................... 9-7
Figure 10.1: Diamond Drill Rig on Hill 6 Operated by AK Drilling ............................................................ 10-2
Figure 11.1: Photo of Metallurgical Panel Sample MRMS 09W-002 on Hill 9 ...................................... 11-6
Figure 11.2: Photo of Detritic Channel Sample MRDT 1204 at Hill 9 ...................................................... 11-7
Figure 11.3: Bruker XRF Unit Operated by FILAB at Matthews Ridge Laboratory ............................... 11-11
Figure 11.4: Bulk Density Measurement ................................................................................................ 11-13
Figure 12.1: Control Chart of Average & Standard Deviations of Recoveries by Drill Hole Ordered by Date
of Drilling (Beaudry, 2013) ....................................................................................................................... 12-3
Figure 12.2: Scatterplot of Dry Density vs. Wet Density and Regression of Dry Density on Wet Density ....
................................................................................................................................................................. 12-3
Figure 12.3: Scatterplot of Wet Density vs. Mn% for Mineralized Samples (Beaudry, 2013) ................. 12-4
Figure 12.4: Comparison of Interval Weighted Average Mn% in Original (DDH) and Twinned (RC) Holes
................................................................................................................................................................. 12-5
Figure 12.5: Graphs of Analytical Results of AMIS SRM Control Sample by Laboratory over Time ...... 12-8
Figure 12.6 Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard HG by Laboratory over Time ................. 12-8
Figure 12.7: Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard LG by Laboratory over Time ................. 12-8
Figure 12.8: Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard ISL by Laboratory over Time ............... 12-8
List of Figures August, 2013 Page x

Figure 12.9: Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard ISM by Laboratory over Time ............... 12-9
Figure 12.10 Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard ISH by FILAB over Time (not used for
other labs) ................................................................................................................................................ 12-9
Figure 12.11: Graphs of Analytical Results of Coarse and Fine Blank Analysis by Laboratory over Time
............................................................................................................................................................... 12-11
Figure 12.12: Scatterplot Graphs of Pulp Duplicate and Umpire Analysis Among Laboratories........... 12-12
Figure 13.1: Typical Samples of the Various Lithologies ......................................................................... 13-3
Figure 13.2: HLS Testing Scheme ........................................................................................................... 13-9
Figure 13.3: Photograph of the Laboratory-Scale Batch Jig Unit used during Trials ............................ 13-13
Figure 13.4: Potential Processing Scheme ............................................................................................ 13-14
Figure 13.5: Slimes, Lump and Fine Deportment as a Function of the Head Grade. ........................... 13-18
Figure 13.6: SWS Upgrading Capability as Function of the Head Grades ............................................ 13-18
Figure 13.7: Overall Upgrading Performances of SWS vs. SWS+JIG. ................................................. 13-19
Figure 13.8: SWS+JIG Upgrading Capability as Function of the Head Grade. ..................................... 13-20
Figure 13.9: SWS+JIG Mass Pull as a function of Head Grade ............................................................ 13-20
Figure 13.10: Upgrading Characteristics (SWS vs. SWS+HLS) of Drill Core Samples as Compared to
Bulk BMF Processed Samples .............................................................................................................. 13-27
Figure 13.11: SWS+HLS Upgrading Characteristics as Function of the Head Grade- Comparison with
SWS+JIG Upgrading Model of Bulk BMF Material ................................................................................ 13-28
Figure 13.12: SWS+HLS Head Grade Mass Pull Relationship of Drill Core Samples- Comparison with
SWS+JIG Model of Bulk BMF Material .................................................................................................. 13-29
Figure 13.13: SWS+JIG Tailings Processing Models ............................................................................ 13-33
Figure 14.1: General Plan View of Drilling and Sampling Density (in orange) inside the Footprint Hills and
Tailings Model Outline (in blue) ............................................................................................................... 14-2
Figure 14.2: Location of the Different Modeling Subprojects ................................................................... 14-3
Figure 14.3: Cross Section View of the Geological Polyline Interpretation in Hill 5 (Section 813575H5
Looking West) .......................................................................................................................................... 14-4
Figure 14.4: Plan View of Lithology Polylines in Hill 5 Block Model Location of Cross-section 813575H ......
................................................................................................................................................................. 14-4
Figure 14.5: Isometric View of the Geological 3D Model in Hill 5 Polylines and Solids ....................... 14-5
Figure 14.6: Isometric View of Geological Solids Created in Hill 9 Model ............................................... 14-7
Figure 14.7: Schematic 2D Cross-section View of the Detrital Surface Creation .................................. 14-10
Figure 14.8: Plan View of the 14 Detrital Surfaces Created in Target 5 Model ..................................... 14-11
Figure 14.9: Organization of the Block Models on Matthews Ridge Footprint ....................................... 14-21
Figure 14.10 Grade-Tonnage Curves of Unconstrained Measured and Indicated Resources Estimates for
the Hills 1 to 9 at Selected % Mn Cut-Offs............................................................................................. 14-35
Figure 16.1: Mining Schedule Configurations .......................................................................................... 16-6
List of Figures August, 2013 Page xi

Figure 16.2: Double Lane Ramp Design................................................................................................ 16-13

Figure 16.3: Single Lane Ramp Design ................................................................................................. 16-14
Figure 16.4: Double Lane Out of Pit Haul Road Profile ......................................................................... 16-14
Figure 16.5 Hill 1 Pits and Dumps ......................................................................................................... 16-17
Figure 16.6: Hill 3 (Hill 4 to Hill 2 ) Pits and Dumps ............................................................................... 16-18
Figure 16.7 Hill 5 ext to Hill 3 Pits and Dumps....................................................................................... 16-19
Figure 16.8: Hill 7 to Hill 5 ext Pits and Dumps...................................................................................... 16-20
Figure 16.9: Hill 9 Pits and Dumps ........................................................................................................ 16-21
Figure 17.1: Simplified Flow Sheet .......................................................................................................... 17-3
Figure 17.2: General Arrangement .......................................................................................................... 17-4
Figure 18.1: Access Road to Project Site ................................................................................................ 18-2
Figure 18.2: Airstrip .................................................................................................................................. 18-3
Figure 18.3: Room Arrangements ............................................................................................................ 18-6
Figure 18.4: Type C Room General Arrangement ................................................................................... 18-7
Figure 18.5: Rejects Pond Plan View .................................................................................................... 18-11
Figure 18.6: Rejects Pond Embankment Cross Section..................................................................... 18-12
Figure 18.7: Proposed Port Location ..................................................................................................... 18-15
Figure 18.8: Example of Road Train ...................................................................................................... 18-17
Figure 18.9: Concentrate Transportation Road Alignment Typical Section........................................ 18-18
Figure 18.10: Concentrate Transportation Road Alignment Typical Section (Passing Area) ............. 18-19
Figure 18.11: Location Plan Section 1 Haul Road Typical Section .................................................... 18-20
Figure 18.12: Location Plan Section 2 Haul Road Typical Section .................................................... 18-21
Figure 18.13: Damen Stan Tug 1606 Delivered in February 2013 ........................................................ 18-23
Figure 18.14: Tug Transfer Facility Set-up ............................................................................................ 18-24
Figure 18.15: Tug Transfer Facility Located Near Waini Point .............................................................. 18-24
Figure 18.16: Example of Existing Transhipment Facility ...................................................................... 18-25
Figure 19.1: Manganese Ore Consumption Route .................................................................................. 19-1
Figure 19.2: Manganese Alloy uses in Steel............................................................................................ 19-2
Figure 19.3: Manganese Ore Production by Country .............................................................................. 19-3
Figure 19.4: Global Share of Manganese Ore Production ....................................................................... 19-4
Figure 19.5: Product Market Shares in 2011 Manganese Production ..................................................... 19-4
Figure 19.6: Manganese Ore Top Ten Country of Export ....................................................................... 19-5
Figure 19.7: Manganese Ore Consumption vs. Crude Steel Production ................................................. 19-6
Figure 19.8: Manganese Ore Consumption in Manganese Alloy by Region ........................................... 19-7
Figure 19.9: Consumption of Manganese Ore by Uses ........................................................................... 19-7
Figure 19.10: Average Manganese Content in Crude Steel vs. BRICs Share of Global Output ............. 19-8
Figure 19.11: Silico Manganese Producers in Relation to their Distance to Guyana ............................ 19-12
List of Figures August, 2013 Page xii

Figure 19.12: BHPs Mn Pricing CIF China (USD/dmtu) ........................................................................ 19-16

Figure 20.1: RMI PLs and Exploration Area in Relation to the Community ............................................. 20-2
Figure 20.2: Surface and Groundwater Locations ................................................................................... 20-8
Figure 20.3: Matthews Ridge Community .............................................................................................. 20-12
Figure 20.4: Matthews Ridge Population Age and Gender Composition .............................................. 20-13
Figure 20.5: Amerindian Lands .............................................................................................................. 20-15
Figure 20.6: Population Settlement Timeline ......................................................................................... 20-18
Figure 21.1: Operating Costs Summary ................................................................................................ 21-20
Figure 21.2: Mining Cost Summary ....................................................................................................... 21-24
Figure 21.3: Major Mining Costs ............................................................................................................ 21-25
Figure 21.4: Road Train Example .......................................................................................................... 21-32
Figure 21.5: Concentrate Shipping Summary ........................................................................................ 21-35
Figure 22.1: Annual Lump Concentrate Production ................................................................................. 22-3
Figure 22.2: Annual Fine Concentrate Production ................................................................................... 22-4
Figure 22.3: Total Concentrate Production .............................................................................................. 22-4
Figure 24.1: Project Management Organizational Chart ......................................................................... 24-2
Figure 24.2: Construction Management................................................................................................... 24-3
Figure 24.3: Construction Schedule ......................................................................................................... 24-6
Figure 24.4: Organizational Structure ...................................................................................................... 24-7
Figure 24.5: Mining Department Structure ............................................................................................... 24-7
Figure 24.6: Process and Metallurgy Structure........................................................................................ 24-9
Figure 24.7: General Administration and Services Structure................................................................. 24-10
List of Figures August, 2013 Page xiii

List of Tables
Table 1.1: Unconstrained Resources by Classification and Rock Type for each Target Area in Matthews
Ridge .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-8
Table 1.2: Unconstrained Inferred Resources for Pipiani and Arakaka Prospects All from Detrital Material
................................................................................................................................................................... 1-9
Table 1.3 Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve .................................................................................... 1-10
Table 1.4: Matthews Ridge Pit Content ................................................................................................... 1-11
Table 1.5: Mining Schedule...................................................................................................................... 1-13
Table 1.6: Percentage of Tonnage Mined per Area ................................................................................. 1-13
Table 1.7: Processing Schedule .............................................................................................................. 1-16
Table 1.8: Total Capital Expenditures ...................................................................................................... 1-19
Table 1.9: Sustaining Capital Costs ......................................................................................................... 1-20
Table 1.10: Operating Cost Summary ..................................................................................................... 1-21
Table 1.11: Total Operating Costs Summary (USD) ............................................................................... 1-22
Table 1.12: Financial Results ................................................................................................................... 1-24
Table 1.13: Manganese Benchmark Price Sensitivity ............................................................................. 1-24
Table 1.14: Initial Capital Expenditure Sensitivity .................................................................................... 1-24
Table 1.15: Operating Cost Sensitivity..................................................................................................... 1-25
Table 2.1 Responsibilities of Each Qualified Person ................................................................................. 2-5
Table 2.2: List of Main Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 2-7
Table 3.1: Contributors Area of Reliance .................................................................................................. 3-1
Table 4.1: Coordinates of Prospecting Licenses ....................................................................................... 4-2
Table 12.1: Content of Database Available for the Resource Estimate for Matthews Ridge Prospect ... 12-2
Table 12.2: Content of Database Available for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects ................................ 12-2
Table 12.3: Statistics for SRM and Internal Standard Control Samples .................................................. 12-7
Table 12.4: Summary of Statistics for the Analysis of Blank Control Samples throughout the Program ......
............................................................................................................................................................... 12-10
Table 13.1: Metallurgical Sampling Scope-Hills and Head Grades ......................................................... 13-4
Table 13.2: Metallurgical Sampling Scope Distribution by Material Types ........................................... 13-4
Table 13.3: Historical Performances from the Previous Operations ........................................................ 13-5
Table 13.4: HLS Testing Summary (part 1 of 2) .................................................................................... 13-11
Table 13.5: Analysis by Size Class of Selected Feed Samples ............................................................ 13-16
Table 13.6: Percentage of Qualified Lump Product (@ 36% Mn) and Fine Product (@34% Mn)
Concentrates .......................................................................................................................................... 13-19
Table 13.7: SWS+JIG Processing Models for BMF Hills 1-4 ................................................................. 13-22
Table 13.8: SWS-JIG Hill 5 Processing Models..................................................................................... 13-23
List of Tables August, 2013 Page xiv

Table 13.9: SWS+JIG Hill 9 Processing Models .................................................................................... 13-24

Table 13.10: SWS+JIG Hills 1-9 Processing Models............................................................................. 13-25
Table 13.11: SWS+JIG Saprock Processing Models ............................................................................ 13-30
Table 13.12: Tailings Processed Samples............................................................................................. 13-31
Table 13.13: Tailings Upgradability ........................................................................................................ 13-32
Table 13.14: SWS+JIG Tailings Processing Models ............................................................................. 13-34
Table 14.1: List of Geology Solids Created for each Target Hill Area ..................................................... 14-6
Table 14.2: Topography Surfaces Description for the Target Hills and Tailings ..................................... 14-8
Table 14.3: Topography Surface for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects ................................................ 14-8
Table 14.4: Weathering Surfaces Description and Rock Coding for the Target Hills .............................. 14-9
Table 14.5: Description of Detrital Surfaces Created for each Target Hill ............................................. 14-11
Table 14.6: Description of Detrital Surfaces Created for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects ............... 14-12
Table 14.7: Summary of Statistics Results for Assays from Target Hills and Tailings Area Manganese and
Other Elements (%)................................................................................................................................ 14-12
Table 14.8: Summary of Statistic Results for Assays from Pipiani Prospect Manganese and Other
Elements (%) .......................................................................................................................................... 14-12
Table 14.9: Summary of Statistic Results for Assay from Arakaka Prospect Manganese and Other
Elements (%) .......................................................................................................................................... 14-13
Table 14.10: Summary Manganese Statistics of the 1.5 m Composites per Geology Domain for the
Target Hills (%) ...................................................................................................................................... 14-14
Table 14.11: Statistical Analysis of the 1.5 m Composites per Geology Domain for the Target Hill other
Elements (%) .......................................................................................................................................... 14-15
Table 14.12: Summary Manganese Statistics of the 0.5 m Composites for the Tailings Model (%) .... 14-16
Table 14.13: Summary Manganese Statistics of the 0.5 m Composites in the Detrital Material in the
Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects (%) ....................................................................................................... 14-16
Table 14.14: Statistical Analysis of the 0.5 m Composites for the Tailings Model other Elements (%) 14-16
Table 14.15: Statistical Analyses of the 0.5 m Composites in Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects other
Elements (%) .......................................................................................................................................... 14-16
Table 14.16: List of Average Dry Bulk Densities Applied Classification and Resource Reporting ........ 14-17
Table 14.17: Correlograms by Orientation and Lithological Domain from Manganese Composites ..... 14-19
Table 14.18: Correlograms by Orientation and Lithological Domain From Composites on Non-economic
Elements ................................................................................................................................................ 14-20
Table 14.19: Block Models Parameters for Matthews Ridge Target ..................................................... 14-22
Table 14.20: Block Model Parameters for Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects ........................................... 14-23
Table 14.21: Rock Codes used in the Rock Type Models ..................................................................... 14-24
Table 14.22: List of Attributes Found in the Block Model ...................................................................... 14-25
Table 14.23: Interpolation Profile Settings Mn .................................................................................... 14-26
List of Tables August, 2013 Page xv

Table 14.24: Sample Search Ellipsoid Settings ..................................................................................... 14-26

Table 14.25: Semi-Variogram Profile Settings ....................................................................................... 14-27
Table 14.26: Interpolation Profile Settings used in the Exploration Models All Elements .................. 14-28
Table 14.27: Sample Search Ellipsoid Settings for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects ....................... 14-28
Table 14.28: Semi-variogram Profile Settings for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects .......................... 14-29
Table 14.29: Unconstrained Resources by Classification and Rock Type for each Target in Matthews
Ridge ...................................................................................................................................................... 14-33
Table 14.30: Unconstrained Inferred Resources for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects all from Detrital
Material................................................................................................................................................... 14-34
Table 14.31 Unconstrained Resources Sensitivity for Matthews Ridge Hills 1 to 9 ............................. 14-34
Table 14.32 Unconstrained Resources Sensitivity for Tailings.............................................................. 14-35
Table 14.33 Unconstrained Resources Sensitivity for Pipiani and Arakaka Prospects ......................... 14-36
Table 15.1 Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve .................................................................................. 15-2
Table 16.1: Manganese Pricing per Concentrate Type ........................................................................... 16-3
Table 16.2: Optimization Costs ................................................................................................................ 16-4
Table 16.3: Pit Shell Content ................................................................................................................... 16-8
Table 16.4: Constrained Resources - Ore Tonnage and Content ........................................................... 16-9
Table 16.5: Constrained Resources - Lump Concentrate Tonnage and Content ................................. 16-10
Table 16.6: Constrained Resources - Fine Concentrate Tonnage and Content ................................... 16-11
Table 16.7: Constrained Resources - Total Concentrate Tonnage ....................................................... 16-12
Table 16.8 Matthews Ridge Pit Content ................................................................................................ 16-15
Table 16.9 Matthews Ridge Waste Dumps............................................................................................ 16-16
Table 16.10 Mining Schedule ................................................................................................................ 16-23
Table 16.11 Percentage of Tonnage Mined per Area ............................................................................ 16-23
Table 16.12 Milling Schedule ................................................................................................................. 16-24
Table 16.13 Blast Pattern Parameters ................................................................................................... 16-25
Table 16.14: Drill Productivity ................................................................................................................ 16-26
Table 16.15: Production Drilling Physicals............................................................................................. 16-27
Table 16.16: Explosive Requirements ................................................................................................... 16-28
Table 16.17: Loading Unit Productivity Estimates ................................................................................. 16-30
Table 16.18 Average Ore Haulage Profiles ........................................................................................... 16-31
Table 16.19: Haulage Truck Productivity and Truck Requirements ...................................................... 16-32
Table 16.20: Equipment Usage Breakdown .......................................................................................... 16-33
Table 16.21: Mine Operation Manpower Requirements (Staff Employees) .......................................... 16-36
Table 16.22: Mine Operation Manpower Requirements (Hourly Employees) ....................................... 16-37
Table 17.1 Process Plant Design Criteria ........................................................................................... 17-12
Table 17.2 Expected Average Final Product Rates and Specifications ................................................ 17-13
List of Tables August, 2013 Page xvi

Table 19.1: Benchmark Price for Manganese Ore, 2001-2012 ............................................................... 19-9
Table 19.2: Key Markets Manganese Ore Consumption Forecasts for Alloys Production .................... 19-10
Table 19.3: Forecasted Sales per Market Areas ................................................................................... 19-13
Table 19.4: Long-term Forecast of Benchmark Price, 2013-2025 ......................................................... 19-14
Table 19.5: Trailing Average of Benchmark Price, 2010-2012 .............................................................. 19-14
Table 19.6: Average FOB Trinidad Forecasted Price for Lump and Fine Concentrate ......................... 19-17
Table 20.1: Summary of Meteorological Parameters .............................................................................. 20-5
Table 21.1: Total Capital Expenditures .................................................................................................... 21-2
Table 21.2: Infrastructure Capital Expenditures....................................................................................... 21-4
Table 21.3: Power and Electrical Capital Costs ....................................................................................... 21-5
Table 21.4: Rejects and Water Management Capital Expenditures ........................................................ 21-6
Table 21.5: Major Equipment Capital Expenditures per Unit (USD) ........................................................ 21-7
Table 21.6: Support Equipment Capital Expenditures (per Unit (USD) ................................................... 21-8
Table 21.7: Major Equipment Schedule ................................................................................................... 21-8
Table 21.8 Support Equipment Schedule ................................................................................................ 21-9
Table 21.9: Mobile Equipment Capital Expenditures ............................................................................. 21-10
Table 21.10: Project Specifics Capital Expenditures ............................................................................. 21-11
Table 21.11: Processing Plant Capital Expenditures ............................................................................. 21-12
Table 21.12: Construction Indirects ....................................................................................................... 21-13
Table 21.13: General Services Expenditures ........................................................................................ 21-15
Table 21.14: Pre-Production and Commissioning Expenditures ........................................................... 21-16
Table 21.15: Sustaining Capital Costs ................................................................................................... 21-18
Table 21.16: Operating Cost Summary ................................................................................................. 21-19
Table 21.17: Total Operating Costs Summary (USD) ........................................................................... 21-21
Table 21.18: Mining Cost Summary Total (USD)................................................................................... 21-23
Table 21.19: Top Three Mining Costs .................................................................................................... 21-25
Table 21.20: Total Yearly Processing Costs (USD) ............................................................................... 21-27
Table 21.21: Power Plant Operating Costs (USD) ................................................................................ 21-29
Table 21.22: General Services Labor Costs Assumptions .................................................................... 21-30
Table 21.23: General Services & Administration Cost Summary (USD) ............................................... 21-31
Table 21.24: Land Concentrate Road Transportation Operating Costs ................................................ 21-33
Table 21.25: Ocean Freight Rate Based FOB Trinidad ......................................................................... 21-34
Table 21.26: Concentrate Shipping Costs Summary (USD) .................................................................. 21-35
Table 22.1: Dry Bulk Freight Rates ex-Trinidad ....................................................................................... 22-2
Table 22.2: Exchange Rates .................................................................................................................... 22-2
Table 22.3: Working Capital ..................................................................................................................... 22-3
Table 22.4 Mining Cost by Activity ........................................................................................................... 22-5
List of Tables August, 2013 Page xvii

Table 22.5: Unit Processing Costs ........................................................................................................... 22-6

Table 22.6: Unit Power Costs .................................................................................................................. 22-6
Table 22.7: Matthews Ridge Financial Model (1 of 2) ............................................................................. 22-8
Table 22.8: Financial Results ................................................................................................................. 22-10
Table 22.9: Manganese Benchmark Price Sensitivity ............................................................................ 22-10
Table 22.10: Initial CAPEX Sensitivity ................................................................................................... 22-10
Table 22.11: Operating Cost Sensitivity................................................................................................. 22-11
Table 25.1: Matthews Ridge Mineral Reserves ....................................................................................... 25-1
Table 25.2: Production Plan Summary .................................................................................................... 25-2
Table 25.3: Capital Cost Summary .......................................................................................................... 25-3
Table 25.4: Operating Costs Summary.................................................................................................... 25-3
Table 25.5: NPV at Variable Discount Rates ........................................................................................... 25-4
Table 25.6: Project IRR Sensitivity to Manganese Price ......................................................................... 25-4
Table 26.1: Feasibility Study Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 26-5
List of Tables August, 2013 Page xviii

AP P ENDICES
INFRASTRUCTURES
Appendix INF A: Drawings and Layouts (11 pages)
Appendix INF B: GUMR-TM-13-05-22-Golder-Process Plant Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation PFS (9 pages)
Appendix INF C: GUMR-TM-13-07-17-Golder-Preliminary Aggregate and Soil Investigation and Transportation

Corridor Assessment (64 pages)
MINING & MINERAL RESERVES
Appendix MIN A: Mineral Agreement, March 24, 2011 (44 pages)
Appendix MIN B: GUMR-TM-13-05-23-Golder-Pit Slope Design PFS (73 pages)
OPERATING & CAPITAL COSTS
Appendix OPE A: Manpower Schedule (7 pages)
Appendix OPE B: Capital Costs (4 pages)
Appendix OPE C: Construction Unit Costs (3 pages)
Appendix OPE D: GUMR-RE-12-11-13-Worley Parsons-Transportation Pre-feasibility Study-Final (247 pages)
PROCESSING
Appendix PRO A: GUMR-DC-R-0001-04 Process (2 pages)
Appendix PRO B: Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) (7 pages)
Appendix PRO C: Process Plant Layout (9 pages)
RSF & WATER MANAGEMENT
Appendix RSF A: GUMR-TM-13-07-19-Golder-Water Balance and Potential Alternate RSF (11 pages)
Appendix RSF B: GUMR-TM-13-08-08-Golder-Geochemical Characterization Waste Rock and Jig Reject (60 pages)
Appendices August, 2013 Page xix

1. SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
Qualified Persons at G Mining Services Inc. (GMSI) have completed this Report of the Matthews Ridge
Project located in Guyana as mandated by Reunion Gold Corporation (RGC), to support the
Pre-feasibility Study (PFS) results announced by RGC in a press release issued on July 12, 2013. The
purpose of the current Report is to provide an independent account of the technical and economic viability
of the Matthews Ridge Project in compliance with the standards of the Canadian Securities
Administrators National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and Form 43-101F.
1.2 Property Description and Ownership
The Matthews Ridge Manganese Project (the Project) is centered in and around the site of the
abandoned Matthews Ridge manganese mine in the North West District of Guyana. The community of
Matthews Ridge is located approximately 240 km from the capital, Georgetown.
The Matthews Ridge Project consists of four Prospecting Licenses (PLs), and two Permissions for
Geological and Geophysical Surveys (PGGSs) issued to Reunion Manganese Inc., (RMI) a wholly-
2
owned subsidiary of RGC. As presented in Figure 1.1, the PLs cover an area of 185 km (45,729 acres) in
North West District of Guyana and encompass the sites of the abandoned manganese mine at Matthews
Ridge and the Pipiani prospect. For the purpose of this PFS, the Project area is within the 4 PLs.
Section 1 August, 2013 Page 1-1

Figure 1.1: Matthews Ridge Location Map
1.3 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources and Infrastructures
The Matthews Ridge Project can be accessed directly by light aircraft using the unsealed airstrip at
Matthews Ridge. The Project can also be accessed through a sealed 1,100 m long airstrip at Port
Kaituma and unsealed roads which connect Port Kaituma to Matthews Ridge. Port Kaituma connects to
the Atlantic Ocean via the Port Kaituma canal to the Kaituma and Barima Rivers, then through the Mora
Passage to the mouth of the Waini River; an approximate total distance of 54 nautical miles. The mouth
of the Waini River is approximately 250 km north-west of Georgetown.
The Project is situated in the tropical rainforest region of Guyana and experiences annually two wet
seasons from May to July and from October to January, and two dry seasons from August to September
and from February to April. The average annual precipitation is 2,701 mm. Though daytime temperatures
0
are hot, nights tend to be cooler. During the recorded period, mean air temperatures averaged 26.3 C,
with a maximum monthly average of 43.7 C in April 2012 and a minimum monthly average of 19.8 C.
0 0
The Project site is a remote mining site with little other local resources. The district around Matthews
Ridge is supported by supplies flown in or barged through Port Kaituma and transported to site by road.
Current land transport routes are rudimentary and difficult of access. They are occasionally impassable in

rainy weather and require a high degree of maintenance. RMI inherited the old mine infrastructure, some
of which can be repaired and put in use.
The topography of the prospect area is rugged and elevations range from 34 m above mean sea level
(AMSL) to 235 m AMSL in the central part of the concession. The geomorphology of the area consists
of a rugged topography and chains of steeply sloping hills, gullies, and peneplained tops. Abrupt changes
in elevation are related to lithology and geological structures. Rocks are highly weathered and exposed
only along the resistant crest of ridges, river valley and road side cuts. Soils are developed over depths
ranging from less than a meter to over 10 m.
1.4 History
The historical information indicates that Union Carbide, through subsidiaries, the African Manganese
Company (AMC) and Manganese Mines Management (MMM) operated the Matthews Ridge mine and
shipped concentrates out of Guyana between 1962 and 1968.
In 1962, resources were estimated at 3.6 million short tons of manganese concentrate.
The resources were based on numerous pits, trenches and adits together with 110 diamond drill
holes aggregating to 5,800 m in five of the nine hills. At the time of closure in 1968, the known
resources base was reported to be approximately one million short tons of recoverable
concentrate at 37% Mn.
At Pipiani, which is south-east of Matthews Ridge and north of the Barama River, the historically-
calculated resource of available concentrate was estimated at 642,000 t of 42% Mn on the basis
of 38 drill holes, numerous pits and trenches.
Manganese ore was processed to concentrate and exported via railroad and a fluvial port. Mining
was done on five of a series of nine hills extending for 15 km and striking northeast-southwest.
The records indicate that during that period, some 1.7 million short tons of manganese
concentrate (37% Mn) was recovered and shipped. The concentrate was delivered to Port
Kaituma by rail.
The total resource was further increased to 3.6 Mt of 33.4% Mn recoverable concentrate, based on
exploration conducted by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), and the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 1985, which included five additional holes totaling 326 m.

1.5 Geology and Mineralization
The Matthews Ridge region is underlain by rocks of the Barama Group of the Barama-Mazaruni
Supergroup, dated of Proterozoic age. The Mazaruni part of the Supergroup essentially defines more
continental style correlatives of the principally marine sequence defined for the Barama Group.
Consequently, the Mazaruni Group would have highly differentiated calc-alkaline volcanics and intrusives
and a coarser sedimentary sequence, as its dominant rock types. Basic intrusives occur in the middle and
lower Barama areas. In the Matthews Ridge region, doleritic intrusives of both the Older Basic Intrusive
and Younger Basic Intrusive Group occur. Apart from dykes, dolerite sills occur in conformity with the
bedding of the country rock. At the centre of the basinal sequences, the low-metamorphic grade
sediments and volcanics, known as the greenstones of Guyana, are to be found. At the local level, the
beds show various levels of steepening, even overturning and thrusting. The Barama Group is formed by
rocks deposited in a basin environment and is conventionally subdivided in three formations: the Arakaka
Formation at the top, followed by the Matthews Ridge Formation (MRF), underlain by the Tenapu
Formation. The manganese mineralization at Matthews Ridge is confined to the MRF, which is principally
a low metamorphic grade, predominantly sedimentary sequence of fine-grained clastic (pelitic) and
chemical nature, showing evidence of deposition in a marine basin. The manganese mineralization at
Matthews Ridge is clearly related to lateritic weathering of a complex geological sedimentary succession,
which was metamorphosed, tectonically deformed, modified by igneous activity and partially obliterated
by intense hydrothermalism.
1.6 Exploration
RMIs exploration program was designed to identify and measure the manganese resources in the four
Prospecting Licenses. The work was initiated along an area 15 km in length encompassing nine hills
numbered 1 to 9, referred to as the footprint in PLs 2 and 3. The program was extended in 2012 to the
east of Hill 1, into an area denominated Arakaka (PL 4), and further southeast to the Pipiani Hills
area (PL 1). The Arakaka prospect holds the eastern continuation of the Matthews Ridge footprint
manganese mineralization. The Pipiani prospect is located at approximately 65 km to the southeast of
Matthews Ridge. The exploration program confirmed the occurrence of detrital and saprolitic manganese
mineralization in a NW-SE trending area 5 km in length.
Trenching has been the principal tool used by RMI to initially expose the saprolitic manganese and
st
detrital mineralization. RMI launched a drilling program from April 1 , 2011 to August 2012. By the end of
this program, a total of 735 diamond drill (DD) and 283 reverse circulation (RC) holes had been drilled,
for total lengths of 47,570 m and 17,332 m, respectively. RMI used three different laboratories to analyze
the samples generated by the Project.

There have been two QA/QC phases of programs for the Project:
a) Program implemented by geologist Grantley Walrond, and supervised by engineer Franois

Viens, P.Eng for all the work done in 2010 and 2011. Francois Viens was the Project QP for
exploration work until December 31 , 2011. This QA/QC program was observed for all drill core
st
and trenching samples obtained in 2011, even if the assaying of such material was done only in
2012.
b) Geologist Carlos Bertoni, became the Project exploration QP on January 1 , 2012 and
st
implemented revised QA/QC procedures for the new work done in 2012.
GMSI is of the opinion that the drill hole and assay database for the Matthews Ridge Project is of
sufficient quality to permit the completion of a NI 43-101 compliant Resource Estimate and provide the
basis for the conclusions and recommendations reached in this Pre-feasibility Technical Report.
1.7 Validation
RMI provided GMSI data files for the Matthews Ridge Project and the exploration projects of Pipiani and
Arakaka. GMSI imported the files into a MS Access database using GEMS software. The database was
reviewed and corrected if necessary prior to final formatting for resource evaluation. The following
activities were performed during database validation:
Validate total hole lengths and final sample depth data.
Verify for overlapping and missing intervals (correction as necessary).
Check drill hole survey data for out of range or suspect down-hole deviations.
Visual check of spacial distribution of drill holes and trenches.
Validate lithology and weathering codes.
The database includes different types of drill holes, trenches, augers and pit samples that were collected
over a period of three years, from 2010 to 2012.
1.8 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testwork
This PFS is based on a completed metallurgical test program aimed at developing and optimizing the
process flowsheet needed to economically produce a marketable manganese product. The processing
steps tested and developed since the beginning of the PFS have been guided by the processing plants at
other operations.

Results from the PFS testwork were used to determine process performance parameters such as ore
throughput, product granulometries, manganese and weight recoveries, manganese final concentrate
grade and content of product impurities such as SiO2, Al2O3, Fe and P. Those key process parameters
were used as the basis for establishing mine and mill production schedules, sizing of equipment and
ultimately to estimate Project capital and operating costs.
Based on the metallurgical testwork and characterization by material type, a relationship was established
between the feed grades of the material and its resulting concentrates quantities and qualities. This was
done by associating the feed grade of the material, the concentrate recovery and the concentrate grades
while applying minimum concentrate grade requirements.
GMSI concluded that the Matthews Ridge ore is upgradable to a marketable concentrate. Two distinct
types of concentrate can be produced: (1) a higher valued lump concentrate (-19 mm + 6 mm), and (2) a
lower valued fine concentrate (-6 mm + 0.85 mm). The lump product represents approximately 62% of the
total concentrates produced while the fine product represents 38% of the total. All average impurity levels
are within current industry acceptable maximum values for similar concentrates destined to silico-
manganese furnaces.
1.9 Mineral Resources
GMSI has prepared an initial mineral resource estimate for the Matthews Ridge manganese deposit,
which has been tested by drilling, trenching and test pits. The resource estimate was prepared in
accordance with CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves and is reported in accordance with
the NI 43-101. Classification, or assigning a level of confidence to Mineral Resources, has been
undertaken with strict adherence to the CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves. In the
opinion of GMSI, the resource evaluation is a reasonable representation of the global mineral resources
found in the Matthews Ridge deposit at the current level of sampling. The effective date of the mineral
th
resources is February 20 2013. The mineral reserves are included in the mineral resources. Mineral
resources that are not mineral reserves have not demonstrated economic viability.
Based on the geological information contained in the drill hole database, six different geology units were
identified for modeling purposes. The following units were interpreted: banded manganese formation
(BMF), massive manganese formation (MMF), manganiferous phyllite (MPH), detrital (DET)
chert (CHE), and diorite (DIO). The different weathered horizons present in the deposits and exploration
projects were interpreted, modeled and then used in the block models.

Ordinary kriging (OK) interpolation method was used for grade interpolation since the coefficient of
variation of the various grade populations is relatively low. The grade estimates were generated using
1.5 m composites. A capping limit of 30% for manganese was determined from the statistical study of the
composites.
Measured resources are limited to the blocks interpolated in the first estimation pass and only within
areas of good geological continuity and high confidence level of the estimated grades and tonnages such
as for Hill 5, 5 Ext, 7, 8 and 9. Indicated resources correspond to the blocks which were not classified as
measured, and to the blocks that were not estimated during the first interpolation pass and that satisfied
the criteria for the second estimation pass. Inferred resources are the blocks estimated from the third
estimation pass.
The unconstrained resource estimation by category for the Matthews Ridge area is tabulated in Table 1.1
for a cut-off grade of 8% Mn. Table 1.2 presents classified unconstrained detrital resources for the
Pipiani and Arakaka prospects.

Table 1.1: Unconstrained Resources by Classification and

Rock Type for each Target Area in Matthews Ridge
Measured Indicated Total M&I Inferred

Target Domain Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade
('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn
DET - - 384 13 384 13 - -
BMF - - 2,888 11 2,888 11 26 13
Hill 1 MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH - - 185 10 185 10 44 10
PHY - - 15 10 15 10 7 10
DET - - 735 13 735 13 7 11
BMF - - 5,366 13 5,366 13 141 16
Hill 3 MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH - - 564 10 564 10 47 11
PHY - - 90 9 90 9 31 11
DET - - 394 13 394 13 29 17
BMF 6,181 14 41 20 6,222 14 41 21
Hill 5 MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH 316 10 90 10 405 10 27 11
PHY 98 10 35 11 133 10 590 18
DET - - 347 15 347 15 123 15
BMF 3,636 16 341 15 3,977 16 326 15
Hill 5 Ext MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH 867 10 142 11 1,009 10 54 10
PHY 84 9 46 10 130 10 126 9
DET - - 51 12 51 12 - -
BMF 947 12 0 12 947 12 - -
Hill 7 MMF 424 23 6 20 430 23 2 27
MPH 33 9 9 10 43 9 0 11
PHY 24 9 - - 24 9 7 11
DET - - 42 10 42 10 - -
BMF 405 12 4 16 409 12 0 18
Hill 8 MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH 21 9 0 9 21 9 - -
PHY 15 10 10 10 25 10 11 13
DET - - 1,556 14 1,556 14 152 10
BMF 1,640 17 4 16 1,644 17 7 16
Hill 9 MMF 488 22 36 20 524 22 2 25
MPH 411 10 26 10 437 10 22 11
PHY 1,398 11 926 12 2,324 11 1,536 15
Tailings Tailings - - 1,055 18 1,055 18 10 15
Total 16,987 14 15,388 13 32,375 14 3,368 15

Table 1.2: Unconstrained Inferred Resources for Pipiani and Arakaka Prospects
All from Detrital Material
Inferred
Tonnage Grade
('000 t) % Mn
Arakaka 168 13
Prospect
Pipiani 1,756 15
Total 1,924 15
1.10 Mineral Reserve
The PFS defined parameters that allowed the estimation of total proven and probable mineral reserves by
area, which are presented in Table 15.1. The total proven and probable mineral reserves are 26.3 Mt at
an average grade of 14.2% Mn corresponding to an estimated production of 2.76 Mt of fine concentrate at
36.4% Mn and 4.45 Mt of lump concentrate at 39.1% Mn. The lump concentrate represents 62% of the
entire production. The effective date of the mineral reserves is July 7, 2013.

Table 1.3 Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve

Proven Concentrate
Reserves Fine Lump
Area Ore Manganese Mass Pull Manganese AL2O3 SiO2 P2O5 P Fe Mass Pull Manganese AL2O3 SiO2 P2O5 P Fe
(kt) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Hill 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hill 2,3 &4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hill 5 ext 3,902 15.3% 406,316 36.4% 7.3% 27.4% 0.1% 0.050% 4.1% 742,749 39.2% 6.3% 23.2% 0.1% 0.050% 4.0%
Hill 5 & 6 5,801 14.6% 564,663 36.2% 7.2% 27.2% 0.1% 0.053% 4.3% 1,055,463 38.9% 6.2% 23.0% 0.1% 0.053% 4.2%
Hill 7 1,313 15.9% 141,976 37.1% 7.7% 22.2% 0.2% 0.080% 5.2% 265,281 39.9% 6.7% 18.8% 0.2% 0.080% 5.0%
Hill 9 3,040 15.3% 352,512 37.2% 7.9% 22.6% 0.1% 0.051% 4.7% 571,477 40.2% 6.8% 19.2% 0.1% 0.051% 4.6%
Tailings - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 14,056 15.1% 1,465,467 36.6% 7.4% 25.9% 0.1% 0.055% 4.4% 2,634,970 39.3% 6.4% 21.9% 0.1% 0.055% 4.3%
Probable Concentrate
Reserves Fine Lump
(kt) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Hill 1 2,493 11.9% 198,086 35.9% 7.7% 26.8% 0.1% 0.046% 5.7% 342,093 38.7% 6.7% 22.7% 0.1% 0.046% 5.6%
Hill 2,3 &4 5,847 13.2% 543,302 36.1% 7.6% 27.6% 0.1% 0.036% 4.7% 922,634 39.0% 6.5% 23.4% 0.1% 0.036% 4.6%
Hill 5 ext 751 14.4% 96,884 36.0% 7.3% 26.8% 0.1% 0.055% 5.0% 134,598 38.4% 6.3% 22.6% 0.1% 0.055% 4.9%
Hill 5 & 6 476 12.9% 52,786 36.1% 7.8% 22.0% 0.2% 0.066% 7.1% 73,980 38.2% 6.8% 18.7% 0.2% 0.066% 7.0%
Hill 7 60 12.4% 6,239 36.1% 8.1% 19.4% 0.2% 0.088% 7.4% 8,870 38.1% 7.1% 16.5% 0.2% 0.088% 7.3%
Hill 9 2,079 13.6% 265,786 36.2% 8.2% 19.7% 0.1% 0.052% 6.6% 331,486 38.5% 7.2% 16.7% 0.1% 0.052% 6.5%
Tailings 532 18.3% 134,619 37.1% 7.9% 19.7% 0.1% 0.040% 6.3% - 0.0% 6.8% 16.7% 0.1% 0.040% 6.2%
Total 12,238 13.3% 1,297,703 36.1% 7.7% 25.7% 0.1% 0.044% 5.5% 1,813,662 38.8% 6.7% 21.8% 0.1% 0.044% 5.4%
Proven & Probable Concentrate

Reserves Fine Lump
(kt) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Hill 1 2,493 11.9% 198,086 35.9% 7.7% 26.8% 0.1% 0.046% 5.7% 342,093 38.7% 6.7% 22.7% 0.1% 0.046% 5.6%
Hill 2,3 &4 5,847 13.2% 543,302 36.1% 7.6% 27.6% 0.1% 0.036% 4.7% 922,634 39.0% 6.5% 23.4% 0.1% 0.036% 4.6%
Hill 5 ext 4,653 15.1% 503,200 36.4% 7.3% 27.3% 0.1% 0.051% 4.3% 877,347 39.0% 6.3% 23.1% 0.1% 0.051% 4.1%
Hill 5 & 6 6,277 14.5% 617,449 36.2% 7.3% 26.8% 0.1% 0.054% 4.6% 1,129,443 38.8% 6.3% 22.7% 0.1% 0.054% 4.5%
Hill 7 1,373 15.8% 148,215 37.1% 7.7% 22.1% 0.2% 0.080% 5.3% 274,151 39.8% 6.7% 18.7% 0.2% 0.080% 5.2%
Hill 9 5,119 14.6% 618,298 36.8% 8.0% 21.5% 0.1% 0.051% 5.6% 902,963 39.5% 7.0% 18.2% 0.1% 0.051% 5.5%
Tailings 532 18.3% 134,619 37.1% 7.9% 19.7% 0.1% 0.040% 6.3% - 0.0% 6.8% 16.7% 0.1% 0.040% 6.2%
Total 26,293 14.2% 2,763,170 36.4% 7.6% 25.8% 0.1% 0.049% 5.0% 4,448,631 39.1% 6.6% 21.9% 0.1% 0.049% 4.9%

1.11 Mining
Mining at the Matthews Ridge Project will be done by conventional open pit method with operations and
maintenance activities performed by the owner. The primary mining fleet will consist of 5 x 50 t
excavators, 14 x 35 t articulated haul trucks and all the ancillary equipment required to operate in a
equatorial environment. The ore control program will consist of establishing ore/waste boundaries in the
field to guide loading unit operators. Ore control sampling will be done through manual sampling of
drillhole cuttings. Very little blasting is anticipated.
Open pit optimization was conducted to determine the optimal economic outlines for the open pits in three
dimensions. This task was undertaken using the Whittle software (version 4.4.1) and considered only
measured and indicated resources. Mine costs were derived from first principles while metallurgical
equations derived during the test program guided the recovery relationships and the metallurgical cut off
of 8% Mn. Material below 8% is not considered capable of generating a marketable concentrate in
sufficient volume. Final pit designs for the various deposits were determined considering the equipment
selection and the geotechnical parameters established by material type. Total tonnes per pit are
presented in Table 1.4. The overall strip ratio (W:O) is 1.59:1.
Table 1.4: Matthews Ridge Pit Content
Total Waste
Ore Tonnage Strip Ratio
Area (*) Tonnage Tonnage
('000 t) W:O
('000 t) ('000 t)
Hill 01 6,414 2,493 3,921 1.57
Hill 03 14,834 5,847 8,987 1.54
Hill 05 16.315 6,277 10,037 1.60
Hill 05 Ext 15,180 4,653 10,527 2.26
Hill 07 3,873 1,373 2,500 1.82
Hill 09 10,911 5,119 5,792 1.13
Tailings 565 532 33 0.06
Total 68,091 26,293 41,798 1.59

(*) Hill 8 does not contain in-pit resources.
Multiple waste dumps were designed in order to accommodate waste from the multiple Matthews Ridge
pits. Due to the distance between pits, multiple waste dumps will allow for reduced cycle times. The total
3
waste dump capacity must equal at least 28 M m when accounting for a 20% swell factor.

The life-of-mine (LOM) plan was optimized to maximize the discounted operating cash flow of the
Project subject to various operating constraints. The peak mining rate is 8.16 Mt/y in Year 2. The total
tonnage mined from the pits is 68 Mt over the mine life.
The various stockpiles reach a total peak level of 1.1 Mt at Year 6 of production. The active feeder
stockpile with a capacity of 200,000 t allows for blending of the ore to produce a concentrate with
contaminant levels below maximum acceptable levels. The mining schedule is presented in Table 1.5 and
Table 1.6.

Table 1.5: Mining Schedule
Year -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Total Tonnage (kt) 640 7,473 8,160 7,702 7,622 6,861 6,344 6,466 7,180 7,388 2,256 68,091
Total Waste Tonnage (kt) 461 4,829 5,044 5,258 5,009 4,085 3,228 3,482 4,401 4,840 1,162 41,798
Strip Ratio 2.57 1.83 1.62 2.15 1.92 1.47 1.04 1.17 1.58 1.90 1.06 1.59
Total Ore Tonnage (kt) 179 2,645 3,116 2,444 2,613 2,776 3,116 2,984 2,778 2,548 1,094 26,293
Total Manganese (%) 16.9% 14.8% 13.5% 15.2% 15.2% 15.8% 14.4% 12.6% 13.2% 13.5% 14.4% 14.2%
Total AL2O3 (%) 12.5% 13.7% 14.5% 14.6% 14.6% 15.1% 15.6% 15.9% 14.6% 13.9% 14.0% 14.7%
Total SiO2 (%) 52.5% 44.8% 45.0% 42.5% 43.4% 40.1% 42.1% 44.7% 47.6% 50.0% 50.2% 44.7%
Total P (%) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Fe (%) 4.2% 5.5% 6.7% 5.8% 5.5% 6.1% 6.0% 6.4% 5.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.8%
Table 1.6: Percentage of Tonnage Mined per Area
Area -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Hill1 - - - - - 4.4% 11.2% 29.8% 16.7% 23.5% 23.8% 9.4%
Hill3 - - - - - 10.7% 32.7% 39.0% 57.2% 60.6% 40.5% 21.8%
Hill 5 ext - 17.6% 22.8% 39.0% 33.0% 47.4% 32.0% 9.3% 3.7% 2.7% 6.0% 22.3%
Hill 5 100.0% 76.8% 52.6% 36.2% 34.3% 3.5% - - - - - 24.0%
Hill 7 - - 12.9% 4.5% 13.0% 14.1% 6.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% - 5.7%
Hill 9 - 3.5% 8.9% 19.2% 18.5% 19.9% 17.4% 21.1% 21.8% 13.0% 29.7% 16.0%
Tailings - 2.1% 2.8% 1.1% 1.2% - - - - - - 0.8%

1.12 Processing
The proposed processing flowsheet does not contain any technological issues. The mechanical
components selected are well established in industrial processing plants. The simplified flowsheet is
presented in Figure 1.2.
The plant location has been chosen and is positioned in the center of gravity of the numerous mineralized
areas. The rejects pond is also located in the vicinity of the process plant. The processing schedule is
shown below in Table 1.7.

Figure 1.2: Simplified Flow Sheet

Table 1.7: Processing Schedule
Year -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Total Ore Tonnage (kt) 179 2 644 3 114 2 443 2 511 2 281 2 630 3 130 2 941 2 906 1 515 26 293
Total Manganese (%) 16.9% 14.8% 13.5% 15.2% 15.2% 15.8% 14.4% 12.8% 13.3% 13.7% 14.6% 14.2%
TOTAL
Total AL2O3 (%) 12.5% 13.7% 14.5% 14.6% 14.6% 15.1% 15.6% 15.8% 14.7% 14.1% 14.3% 14.7%
Total SiO2 (%) 52.5% 44.8% 45.0% 42.5% 43.4% 40.1% 42.1% 44.5% 47.2% 48.9% 47.7% 44.7%
Total P (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Fe (%) 4.2% 5.5% 6.7% 5.8% 5.5% 6.1% 6.0% 6.4% 5.6% 5.1% 5.3% 5.8%
Mass Pull (%) 13.1% 10.8% 10.0% 12.2% 11.8% 12.7% 10.8% 8.8% 9.4% 9.5% 9.8% 10.5%
Manganese (%) 37.0% 36.4% 35.9% 36.6% 36.5% 37.0% 36.4% 36.2% 36.4% 36.3% 36.2% 36.4%
AL2O3 (%) 7.0% 8.1% 8.8% 9.0% 8.8% 8.6% 8.5% 8.7% 8.6% 8.2% 8.8% 8.6%
Fine
SiO2 (%) 31.2% 27.8% 27.7% 25.0% 25.7% 23.0% 23.9% 24.2% 25.1% 26.1% 24.8% 25.4%
P (%) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fe (%) 3.3% 5.1% 6.7% 5.8% 5.4% 5.6% 5.4% 5.8% 5.1% 4.7% 4.8% 5.5%
Mass Pull (%) 23.6% 18.5% 15.2% 19.2% 18.7% 20.2% 17.7% 15.2% 16.1% 16.4% 16.4% 17.3%
Manganese (%) 39.9% 39.0% 38.4% 39.4% 39.1% 39.7% 39.2% 38.9% 39.3% 39.2% 38.5% 39.1%
Lump
AL2O3 (%) 7.0% 7.7% 8.1% 8.2% 7.9% 7.7% 7.5% 7.6% 7.4% 7.1% 7.6% 7.7%
SiO2 (%) 30.6% 26.2% 25.7% 20.8% 21.8% 18.4% 19.1% 18.2% 18.8% 21.5% 19.8% 21.1%
P (%) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fe (%) 2.8% 4.4% 6.1% 5.0% 4.8% 5.2% 4.9% 5.2% 4.6% 4.3% 4.3% 4.9%
Fine Concentrate (%) 36% 38% 41% 40% 39% 39% 38% 37% 37% 37% 37% 38%
Lump Concentrate (%) 64% 62% 59% 60% 61% 61% 62% 63% 63% 63% 63% 62%
Fine Concentrate (kt) 24 286 311 297 296 290 285 275 276 275 148 2 763
Lump Concentrate (kt) 42 464 439 453 454 460 465 475 474 475 248 4 449
Total Concentrate
66 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 396 7 212
Produced (kt)

1.13 Infrastructure, Service Facilities and Concentrate Transportation
In addition to the mine and process facilities, supporting infrastructures and facilities such as roads, a
250-person camp, maintenance shops, warehouses, offices, fuel storage, power plant, rejects storage
facilities and concentrate handling equipment are required. While certain facilities will be salvaged from
the previous operation, significant investment is required in preparing the concentrate transportation road,
the concentrate storage and barge loading equipment at the fluvial berth at Port Kaituma.
Following trade-off studies, it was selected to perform the land portion of the concentrate transportation
using road trains hauling four trailers with a total capacity of 140 t of concentrate. The PFS conceived a
53 km road made of a lime-treated laterite sub-base covered by a cement treated aggregate base and a
double surface treatment wearing course. The road will be built on an 80% single-lane / 20% double-lane
design. The single lane sections will be 6.2 m wide. The double lane sections will be 10.3 m wide. The
road will link the Matthews Ridge site to the concentrate storage and barge loading facility located on the
Port Kaituma canal. Once the construction of this road is completed, it will become the Projects main
access road.
The transportation of concentrate from Port Kaitumas river loading facility to the final discharge port will
be operated by a specialized maritime contractor. The plan includes river barging, ocean barging, barge
to ship transfer, and ocean freight to the final destination. The barges are unpropelled dump barges
designed for shallow draft and are suitable for river transport as well as ocean transport with higher free
board and hatch cover. The barges are handled by river and ocean tugs. Overall, the system is to use
eight barges. The planned loading rate at Port Kaituma is expected to be 1,000 tph. Once the barge is
fully laden, it is pushed 54 nautical miles down the river to the barge transfer facility at the river mouth. A
second set of tugs is employed for the second part of the barge transport to Trinidad for transshipment to
handymax / supramax size vessels.
1.14 Environment and Social Impact Assessment
In order to support the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) to be completed during the
Feasibility Study (FS), monitoring of environmental and social baseline conditions for the Project has
been ongoing since Project inception. Data collection and monitoring of the following parameters are
being conducted:
Air quality.
Meteorology and weather.
Noise.

Hydrology and hydrogeology.
Soils and sediment quality.
Biodiversity.
Socio-cultural conditions.
Cultural heritage.
1.15 Capital and Operating Costs
1.15.1 Initial Capital
The capital cost estimate has been developed according to the Association for the Advancement of Cost
Engineering International (AACEI) standards, and is assumed to be accurate to a -15% / +15% range.
Costs are based on an owner / self-perform construction approach.
The capital cost estimate is a detailed, built-up effort by major facility and discipline. Each discipline
performed material take offs from the basic engineering drawings, layouts and concepts. Each discipline
executed a detailed cost buildup by cost type including labor, material, construction equipment,
consumables, construction materials, and services costs. Each discipline cost estimate with complete
cost type details and quantities is in accordance with the Project Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The
WBS was then accumulated in a master estimate summary. A roll-up of the major capital expenditure
(capex) groups is presented in Table 1.8.

Table 1.8: Total Capital Expenditures
Description 2Q 2013 USD
100 Infrastructures 43,526,636
200 Power and Electrical 10,382,761

300 Rejects and Water Management 6,221,285
400 Mobile Equipment 22,854,587
500 Project Specifics 41,936,356

600 Process Plant 34,054,558
700 Construction Indirects 20,436,346
800 General Services 30,200,145

900 Preproduction, Startup and Commissioning 7,542,729
900 Preproduction Revenues (5,919,390)
990 Contingency 21,723,798

Total 232,959,379
Locally available material was used when possible for estimation purposes and prices were sourced from
regional suppliers. No escalation was built into the capital cost estimates. The estimates are as at
2nd Quarter 2013 (2Q 2013).
1.15.2 Sustaining Capital
Sustaining capital is presented in Table 1.9 and is mainly required for the additional and replacement
mining equipment, progressive dam construction of the rejects storage ponds and the overhaul of the
concentrate transportation road surface.

Table 1.9: Sustaining Capital Costs
Sustaining Capital Cost

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Total
(USD 000)
Mobile Equipment - - 502 5,639 5,252 5,206 - - - - 16,599
Additional Equipment Purchase - - - 412 - 458 - - - -
Replacement Equipment Purchase - - 470 4,811 4,826 4,372 - - - -
Associated Costs (Freight, Assembly etc.) - - 32 416 426 375 - - - -
Process Infrastructure 1,742 1,742 1,404 1,142 - 308 - - - - 6,338
Rejects Storage Ponds 1,742 1,742 1,404 1,142 - 308 - - - -
Concentrate Transportation - - - - 2,000 - - - - - 2,000
Matthews Ridge to Port Kaituma Road Overhaul - - - - 2,000 - - - - -
Total Sustaining Capital Costs 1,742 1,742 1,906 6,781 7,252 5,514 - - - - 24,938

1.15.3 Operating Costs
Operating costs (opex) were built from first principles and are summarized in Table 1.10. Operating
costs are based on a total of 26.1 Mt of ore processed during the life of mine.
Table 1.10: Operating Cost Summary
Total LOM Cost Unit Cost

Item
(USD/y) (USD/t Milled)
Mining 184,454,438 7.06
Processing 47,316,006 1.81
Power 61,525,268 2.36

General Services 85,340,588 3.27
Concentrate Shipping 260,260,894 9,97

Total 638,897,193 24.47
A summary of the total operating costs including mining, processing, power, general services and
concentrate transportation as well as total cost per tonne milled are presented in Table 1.11.

Table 1.11: Total Operating Costs Summary (USD)
Description Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Total
Mining 19,299,732 19,383,774 19,320,249 19,791,995 19,742,018 19,674,445 19,331,464 19,485,020 20.126,114 8,299,627 184,454,438
Processing 4,926,515 4,972,951 4,905,331 4,912,203 4,889,920 4,924,199 4,959,828 4,939,144 4,916,901 2,969,013 47,316,006
Power 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 3,794,588 61,525,268
General Services 10,089,163 9,099,175 8,791,377 8,791,378 8,793,834 8,813,892 8,836,406 8,661,407 8,570,491 4,893,464 85,340,588
Concentrate
27,869,410 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 26,678,620 13,728,374 260,260,894
Shipping
Total Opex 68,599,341 67,296,399 66,857,456 67,336,074 67,268,912 67,253,034 66,968,196 66,926,068 66,706,646 33,685,066 638,897,193
Total Cost/Tonne
25.97 21.61 27.37 26.82 29.49 25.57 21.40 22.75 22.96 22.24 24.47
Milled
Total Cost/Tonne
91.47 89.73 89.14 89.78 89.69 89.67 89.29 89.23 88.94 85.06 88.59
Concentrate

1.16 Economic Analysis
The financial analysis is performed on an after-tax basis in constant dollar terms as of 2Q 2013, with the
cash flows estimated on a project basis. Economic parameters defined in the Mineral Agreement have
been included in the analysis.
The key economic variables include the price of manganese concentrate, the price of diesel fuel, the cost
of dry bulk freight and the Guyana dollar to US dollar exchange rate. The base price for manganese
concentrate was determined at USD 6.00 per dry metric tonne unit (dmtu) CIF China. Further discounts
were applied. These discounts include a value-in use discount, a fine concentrate discount, and a
discount for lower manganese concentrate grades vs. benchmark. The price per dmtu was then
converted to FOB Trinidad using quotations from dry bulk providers. A weighted average freight price was
used based on the Projects assumed client locations.
The local delivered price of fuel is linked to the crude oil price. Brent crude oil price for the Base Case was
fixed at USD 100/bbl. From that basis, the landed diesel fuel price in Georgetown, Guyana is estimated at
USD 0.91/L to which further barging and land transportation costs are added.
Quotations for dry bulk freight costs were received from bulk freight providers and are based on Q2 2013
rates.
The working capital was derived from estimates based on similar sized operations, expected product
inventory levels and expected Incoterms for the sale of concentrate. The working capital is estimated at
USD 15.4M.
The Project Net Present Value (NPV) discounted at 8% is USD 81.4M while the Internal Rate of Return
(IRR) is calculated at 15.7%. The Payback period is calculated at 4.4 years. The summarized financial
results are presented in Table 1.12.

Table 1.12: Financial Results
Description Units Base Case
Total Concentrate Produced (000 t) 7,212
Mine Life (y) 9.5
Gross Revenue USD 1,237 M
Operating Cost (including. royalty) USD 657 M
Initial Capital USD 233 M
Sustaining Capital USD 24.9 M
Closure Costs USD 8.0 M
Income Taxes USD 79.4 M
NPV (0%) USD 234.7 M
NPV (8%) USD 81.4 M
Payback Period years 4.4
IRR % 15.7%
Sensitivities to certain key parameters were undertaken in the financial model to quantify impacts to the
Base Case results. The sensitivity to manganese benchmark price can be viewed on Table 1.13:
Table 1.13: Manganese Benchmark Price Sensitivity
Manganese Price
5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75
(USD/dmtu CIF China)
NPV (8%) After Tax (USD M) -10.4 20.1 51.2 81.4 111.4 141.0 170.5
IRR After Tax 7.0% 10.0% 12.9% 15.7% 18.4% 21.0% 23.6%
Base Case Sensitivities to initial Capex and Operating Costs are in Table 1.14 and Table 1.15
respectively:
Table 1.14: Initial Capital Expenditure Sensitivity
Initial CAPEX (USD M) 200 210 220 233.0 240 250 260
NPV (8%) After Tax (USD M) 106.7 99.0 91.4 81.4 76.0 68.3 60.5
IRR After Tax 19.4% 18.2% 17.0% 15.7% 15.0% 14.1% 13.2%

Table 1.15: Operating Cost Sensitivity
Operating Cost
79.00 82.50 85.00 88.59 91.00 93.50 96.00
(USD/tonne concentrate)
NPV (8%) After Tax (USD M) 117.4 105.5 97 81.4 76.7 68.3 59.7
IRR After Tax 19.0% 17.9% 17.2% 15.7% 15.3% 14.5% 13.7%
1.17 Conclusion
The PFS results provided in this Report demonstrate a technical platform and economic justification for
RGC and RMI to advance the Matthews Ridge Project through to the FS stage. RMIs plan for 2013 is to
complete the resource definition program on the Pipiani, Arakaka and North Prospects, upgrade the
inferred resources already identified on these prospects and in the Footprint area and carry out
complementary technical studies for the full FS.
On the basis of all the engineering studies, cost estimates, price scenarios and economic analyses
performed as part of this PFS, we believe that the financial returns are sufficiently robust to justify the
required investment to progress the Matthews Ridge Project to the full FS.
1.18 Recommendations
Several recommendations are listed in Section 26. The primary recommendations to add value and
reduce risk include:
Additional drilling on Footprint, Arakaka and Pipiani.
Consider off take agreements to secure pricing.
Evaluate alternative development approach to gradually ramp up concentrate production.
Execute a variety of technical studies to bring the project to the Feasibility level of confidence.

2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Scope of Technical Report
G Mining Services Inc. (GMSI) has prepared this Report of the Matthews Ridge Project located in
Guyana as mandated by Reunion Gold Corporation (RGC) , to support the Pre-feasibility (PFS) results
announced by RGC in a press release issued on July 12, 2013. The purpose of the current Report is to
provide an independent account of the technical and economic viability of the Matthews Ridge Project in
compliance with the standards required by Canadian Securities Administrators
National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and Form 43-101F.
The mineral resource estimate utilized in this Technical Report was prepared by Rejean Sirois, ing of
GMSI with an effective date of February 20, 2013 and the technical report supporting the resource
estimate was filed on SEDAR on April 5, 2013. The resource estimate complies with the CIM Definition
Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves (2010) and the technical report on Matthews Ridge
resources complies with NI 43-101.
The preparation of this Report was done in collaboration with Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI) personnel.
The individual scopes of work are enumerated below:
Reunions Scope of Work
Provide an exploration database of the Matthews Ridge Project containing drill holes, trenches
and test pits information such as assay results and detailed log data.
Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QA/QC) of the exploration database on assay results and
proper location of all the data.
Produce the geological interpretation of the manganiferous units on 2D cross-section for each
deposit.
Bring support on the preparation of this Technical Report.
Support on-site technical information gathering and studies.
G Mining and QPs Scope of Work
Review RMIs exploration procedures and practices.
Audit exploration data and QA/QC results contained in the resource database.

Provide technical support during data collection and process.
Generate 3D wireframes of the various rock units to be used in the estimation process.
Generate statistics and variogram analysis.
Perform grade interpolation and validation of the results.
Classification of the mineral resources.
Assess reasonable prospect for economic extraction to assist in the preparation of an audited
mineral resource statement.
Preparation of a mineral resource and mineral reserve estimate.
Conduct metallurgical test work of the various ore types.
Establish the process flow sheet and process schedule.
Evaluate market trends and establish pricing of manganese ore.
Generate economic Whittle pits.
Design pits, dumps, haul roads and stockpiles.
Establish the mining schedule.
Establish mine operating and capital costs.
Supervise basic engineering of the process plant.
Establish capital and operating cost estimate for the process plant and power plant.
Supervise concentrate transportation studies and establish capital and operating costs for product
shipment.
Establish capital costs for other required infrastructure.
Complete financial analysis.
This Technical Report is based on information known as of July 7, 2013 and was prepared to support the
Pre-feasibility results announced by RGC in a press release issued on July 12, 2013 and is intended to be
filed on SEDAR by RGC with Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities.
2.2 Sources of Information
This Report is based in part on internal company technical reports and maps, sub contracted technical
reports by specialized consultants, published government technical reports, company letters and

memorandum, and public information listed in Section 27 References at the end of this Report. GMSI
held discussions with RMI technical personnel regarding pertinent aspects of the Project. GMSI has not
conducted detailed land status audits and verifications, and has relied on previous qualified reports, public
documents and statements of Reunion regarding the Project status and legal title to the Project.
GMSI imported the RMI database into Gemcom software and the database files were reviewed and
verified for errors such as missing data and overlapping intervals. No significant errors were detected.
GMSI reviewed RMI cross-sections showing the diamond drill hole traces, assay intervals, lithological
intervals, interpreted mineralized zone intervals, surface trace and saprolite/non-oxidized rock surface
trace.
The existence of reported work sites was confirmed during site visits to the Project as detailed in
Section 2.4. Logging, sampling and core handling procedures were found to be compliant with industry
and NI 43-101 standards. GMSI found the independent preparation and laboratory facilities of FILAB to
be compliant with industry standards.
The authors believe that information and data presented to GMSI by RMI are a reasonable and accurate
representation of the Matthews Ridge manganese deposit. As stated in the previous Technical Report,
sufficient quality to permit the completion of a NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate and provide the basis
for the PFS conclusions and recommendations prepared in this Report.
2.3 Qualifications and Experience
The authors acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Carlos Bertoni, M.Sc., P. Geo, a consultant to RMI, as
well as RMI professional staff that provided information during the preparation of this Report. The authors
consider the information to be of good quality and have no reason to believe that any of the information is
other than accurate.
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, ing. (OIQ #127804) is Vice President, Projects with GMSI. He has been practicing
his profession continuously since 2001 and has extensive experience in the mining engineering and
operation management. He provides expertise in open-pit engineering, operation, financial modeling and
economic evaluation.
Mr. Rjean Sirois, ing. (OIQ #38754) is Vice President, Geology and Resources with GMSI. He has
been practicing his profession continuously since 1985 and has extensive experience in estimating
mineral resources in South and North America as well as in Southern and West Africa.

Mr. Ahmed Bouajila, ing, (OIQ #106943) is Vice-President, Metallurgy and Mineral Processing with
GMSI and has been practicing his profession continuously since 1992. He has over 20 years of
experience in the mining industry. He provides significant mineral processing expertise.
Mr. Nicolas Menard, ing, (OIQ # 130840) has been practicing his profession since 2002 and has over
11 years experience in the mining industry. He provides expertise in engineering and construction
management.
Mr. Philip R. Bedell BESc, MESc. P. Eng. (APEO # 03046018) is President of Bedell Engineering Inc.
and has over 46 years of related geotechnical engineering experience. Of specific relevance to this
Project, Mr. Bedell has been extensively involved since 1996 with mining projects in the tropical
environments of Guyana, Suriname, French Guyana, and Costa Rica. He provides geotechnical expertise
in pit slopes, rejects disposal facilities, port and plant infrastructure, and haul road design.
Ms. Jennifer Cole, P.Geo. (APEO #1552) has been practicing geology continuously since 2005 with
extensive experience in mine waste geochemistry. She conducts geochemical assessments at mine sites
to characterize acid rock drainage and metal leaching potential of mining waste and water quality impact
evaluation studies.
Mr. Claude Dufresne, ing (OIQ #106351) is President of Camet Metallurgy Inc. He has been practicing
his profession continuously since 1991 and has 10 years experience in mineral processing, including
5 years in Guyana, and more than 12 years in the sales and marketing of metals and minerals directly or
indirectly related to the steel industry.

The responsibilities of each author are provided in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Responsibilities of Each Qualified Person
Author Responsible for Sections
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, ing. 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16.1 to 16.2.1, 16.3 to 16.7,
18.9, 20.1, 20.2, 20.4 to 20.18, 21.1.5, 21.1.6,
21.1.9 to 21.1.11, 21.2,21.3, 21.4, 22, 23, 24.3,
25, 26.1, 26.2, 26.6, 26.7, 27
Mr. Rjean Sirois, ing. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14
Mr. Ahmed Bouajilla, ing. 13, 17, 26.3
Mr. Nicolas Menard, ing. 16.8, 17, 18.1 to 18.6, 18.7.2 to 18.8, 21.1.1 to
21.1.4, 21.1.7, 21.1.8, 24.1, 24.2
Mr. Philip R. Bedell BESc, MESc. P. Eng.. 16.2.2, 18.7.1, 26.4, 26.5
Ms. Jennifer Cole, P.Geo 20.3
Mr. Claude Dufresne, ing. 19
2.4 Site Visit
Mr. Mathieu Gignac visited the site of Matthews Ridge Project seven times since the beginning of 2012
th th th th th rd
(February 6 to February 10 , 2012, March 12 to March 16 , 2012, April 16 to April 23 , 2012,
rd th th th th th
July 23 to July 27 , 2012, October 14 to October 19 , 2012, December 4 to December 7 , 2012,
th st
January 29 to February 1 , 2013). The purpose of the visits was to gain additional knowledge of the
current conditions and advance technical analysis of mine design options, infrastructure planning, and
coordination of site geotechnical analysis and concentrate transportation options. While on site Mr.
Gignac also examined drill core, examined trenches, visited all mineralized hills, visited all known historic
infrastructure from the previous operations, visited the FILAB laboratory and witnessed on-site
metallurgical tests. While on site, Mr. Gignac was accompanied by Mr. Carlos Bertoni or Mr. Joachim
Bayah representing RMI.
th
Mr. Rjean Sirois visited the Matthews Ridge Project on three occasions (between October 16 and
th th th th th
18 , 2012, between November 13 and 15 , 2012 and between January 28 and 30 2013)
accompanied by Mr. Carlos Bertoni representing RMI. The purpose of this visit was to ascertain the
geology of the Project area with a specific emphasis on the delimited mineralized zones. He also
examined drill core, visited all the hills where outcrops are exposed and the Arakaka and Pipiani
prospects. He also spent time at FILABs sample preparation facilities and analytical laboratory located at
the Project site and reviewed the sample preparation and assaying procedures.

th th
Mr. Ahmed Bouajila visited the Matthews Ridge Project five times (February 13 to February 16 2012,
th th rd th th th
June 24 to June 28 , 2012, July 23 to July 28 2012; September 16 to September 28 , 2012 and
th st
November 19 to December 1 2012). The purpose of the visit was to supervise metallurgical testwork
on the different ore types encountered on site.
th th
Mr. Nicolas Menard visited the Matthews Ridge Project twice (November 4 to November 7 2012,
2012). The purpose of the visit was to inspect the site and review the existing
rd th
July 23 to July 27
infrastructures.
th th
Mr. Philip Bedell visited the Matthews Ridge site between April 16 and April 20 , 2012. The purpose of
the site visit was to examine the current conditions of the open pit slopes as well as cuts and fills along
the former railway corridor, the Port Kaituma facility and the Barima River Bridge. In addition, locations for
potential aggregate sources were visited together with possible rejects storage areas. Mr. Bedell was
accompanied by GMSI and RMI staff.
Mr. Claude Dufresne did not visit the Matthews Ridge site during the PFS period.
2.5 Definition and Terms
The currency used for all costs is in US Dollar (USD), unless specified otherwise. The costs were
st
estimated based on quotes and cost data as of the 1 Quarter 2013. Costs of equipment and materials
with exception of fuel are free of Custom Fees and Duties.
The following economic parameters to convert other currencies to the US Dollar are:
USD 1.00 = 1.00 CAD
USD 1.00 = 200 GUD
The Technical Report includes technical information which requires subsequent calculations to derive
sub-totals, totals and weighted averages. Such calculations inherently involve a degree of rounding and
consequently introduce a margin of error. Where these occur, GMSI does not consider them to be
material.

2.6 Units of Measure, Abbreviations and Nomenclature
Table 2.2: List of Main Abbreviations
Abbreviations Full Description
AMC African Manganese Company Ltd.
AMSL Above mean sea level

BMF Banded Manganese Formation
CAD Canadian Dollar
CoG Cut-off grade

d Day
d/y Days per year
d/w Days per week

DET Detrital manganese
DD Diamond drilling
DDH Diamond drill hole

DMTU Dry Metric Tonne Unit
EBS Environmental Baseline Study
EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Ft Foot
FS Feasibility Study
Fe Iron
g Gram
gal Gallons
GGMC Guyana Geology and Mines Commission

GMSI G Mining Services Inc.
HLS Heavy liquid separation
ha Hectares
h Hour
h/d Hour per day
h/y Hour per year

hp Horsepower
k Kilo (000s)

kg Kilogram
2
kg/m Kilogram per square metre
3
kg/m Kilogram per cubic metre
km Kilometre
km/h Kilometres per hour

2
km Square kilometre
kV Kilovolts
kVA Kilovolts-ampere
kW Kilowatt
kWh/y Kilowatt hours per year
kWh/t Kilowatt hours per tonne
L Litres
LoM Life of mine
M Mega or Millions (000,000s)
m.a.s.l Metre of sea level
m Metre
mm Millimetres
3
m Cubic metre
Mt Million tonnes
Mn Manganese
m/s Metres per second

ML Mining License
MMM Manganese Mine Management Ltd.
MMF Massive manganiferous formation

MPH Manganiferous phyllite
MRF Matthews Ridge Formation
MW Megawatt
MVA Megavolt-ampere
OK Ordinary kriging methodology
PL Prospecting License

ppb Parts per billion

ppm Parts per million
PFS Pre-Feasibility Study
PHY Phyllite
PGGS Permission for Geological and Geophysical Surveys
QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control
QP Qualified Person
RQD Rock quality designation
RC Reverse Circulation
RMI Reunion Manganese Inc.
RGC Reunion Gold Corporation
sec Second
SP Specific gravity
t Tonne (1,000 kg)
TLS Manganese tailings
tpd Tonne per day
tpy Tonne per year
tph Tonne per hour

2
t/m Tonne per square metre
3
t/m Tonne per cubic metre
UPHY Upper phyllitic unit

USD U.S. Dollar
wk Week
XRD X-ray defraction

XRF X-ray fluorescence
y Year

3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
3.1 Reliance on Other Experts
G Mining Services Inc. (GMSI) and the authors of this Report, as qualified persons (the QPs), have
prepared this Pre-Feasibility Study Technical Report of the Matthews Ridge Project located in Guyana as
mandated by Reunion Gold Corporation (RGC) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Reunion Manganese
Inc (RMI). GMSI and the QPs have relied on information provided by experts who are not QPs including
experts in socio-economic studies, environment and taxes, civil works, dry bulk transportation, logistics,
market studies and price of manganese. The relevant QPs believe that it is reasonable to rely on these
experts, based on the assumption that the experts have the necessary education, professional
designations, and experience on matters relevant to the Technical Report.
GMSI and the QPs have also relied on the information and technical documents listed in the references
(Section 27). The relevant QPs believe that it is reasonable to rely on this information and these
documents.
Finally, GMSI relied on the professional staff of RMI during the preparation of this Technical Report for
matters pertaining to the property title and mineral rights (Section 4), history (Section 6), geology and
drilling (Sections 7 to 11), environmental matters (Section 20), taxes (Section 22). The authors consider
the information to be of good quality and have no reason to believe that any of the information is other
than accurate. Table 3.1 provides the contributing experts and RMI staffs area of reliance.

Table 3.1: Contributors Area of Reliance
Qualified Person Report Sections Name of Professional Contributor Company Position Area of Expertise
Mathieu Gignac, ing. 4.3 to 4.9, 5.3, 6.1 to 6.4, 20.16 to 20.18, 23 Joachim Bayah, M.Sc. (Eng.) Reunion Gold Corporation COO General Management
Mathieu Gignac, ing. 20.2, 26.1 Carlos Bertoni, M.Sc. P. Geo. (Ontario) Reunion Gold Corporation Consultant, Exploration Manager Exploration and Geology
Mathieu Gignac, ing. 20.4 to 20.15 Abdellah Benkhalti Reunion Gold Corporation Environment and Social Manager Environment and Social Relations
Mathieu Gignac, ing. 22.2, 22.8, 22.9 Alain Krushnisky, CPA, CA Reunion Gold Corporation CFO Finance
Mathieu Gignac, ing. 18.9, 21.4.5 Michael Petro Worley Parsons Principal Consultant Logistics
Mathieu Gignac, ing. 18.9.1 Michael Maher Golder Associates Leader Mine Infrastructure Services Civil Infrastructure and Pavement Design
Rejean Sirois, ing. 7.1, 7.2, 9, 10, 11, 12.1 to 12.5 Carlos Bertoni, M.Sc., P. Geo (Ontario) Reunion Gold Corporation Consultant Exploration Manager Exploration and Geology
Rejean Sirois, ing. 7.1, 7.2 Grantley Walrond Ph.D Reunion Manganese Inc. Regional Exploration Manager Exploration and Geology
Claude Dufresne, ing. 19 John McNeil CRU Consultant Commodity Marketing
Nicolas Menard, ing. 17.2, 21.1.7, 21.4.2 Mary Jean Buchanan, Eng. M. Env. Met-Chem Canada Inc. Senior Project Manager Process Plant Preliminary Engineering

4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
4.1 Location
The Matthews Ridge Manganese Project is centered in and around the site of the abandoned Matthews
0 0
Ridge Manganese mine in the North West District of Guyana, at Latitude 30 N and Longitude 60 15 W.
Guyana is located on the northern coast of the South American continent. The community of Matthews
Ridge is located approximately 240 km from the capital, Georgetown.
4.2 Property Description
The Matthews Ridge Project consists of four Prospecting Licenses (PLs), serially numbered PL 14/2010
to PL 17/2010 and two Permissions for Geological and Geophysical Surveys (PGGSs). The PLs cover
2
an area of 185 km (45,729 acres) in North West District of Guyana and encompass the site of the
abandoned manganese mines at Matthews Ridge and the Pipiani prospect.
Figure 4.1: Matthews Ridge Location Map

The coordinates of the Prospecting Licenses are found in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Coordinates of Prospecting Licenses

Prospecting License 1 - PL14/2010 Prospecting License 2 - PL15/2010
Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude
Point A 59d50'2"W 7d22'25"N Point A 60d9'44"W 7d32'9"N
Point B 59d45'51"W 7d26'10"N Point B 60d9'44"W 7d29'21"N
Point C 59d45'51"W 7d26'10"N Point C 60d12'9"W 7d29'4"N
Point D 59d46'5"W 7d22'14"N Point D 60d14'54"W 7d29'12"N
Point E 59d48'10"W 7d21'49"N Point E 60d14'52"W 7d32'5"N
Prospecting License 3 - PL16/2010 Prospecting License 4 - PL17/2010

Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude
Point A 60d9'44"W 7d29'21"N Point A 60d4'11"W 7d32'12"N
Point B 60d9'44"W 7d32'9"N Point B 59d60'0"W 7d32'16"N
Point C 60d4'11"W 7d32'12"N Point C 59d60'0"W 7d30'9"N
Point D 60d4'12"W 7d29'46"N Point D 60d4'12"W 7d29'46"N
2
The PGGSs, originally referred to as Reconnaissance Permits, cover an area of 19,770 km surrounding
the four Prospecting Licences.
4.3 Property Title
Titles to the PLs and PGGSs have been granted to Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Reunion Gold Corporation.
4.4 Legal Surveys
The PLs and the PGGSs granted to RMI are exempt from the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
(GGMC) requirement of a legal survey due to the extensive sizes and general remoteness of the subject
areas of the mineral titles. Their annually amended boundary descriptions mining licences when obtained,
will not be exempted and will require that corner boundaries be established and surveyed appropriately.
4.5 Rights and Obligations Associated with Mineral Rights
The mineral rights granted to RMI are complemented by a Mineral Agreement between the Government
of Guyana, the GGMC and RMI signed on March 4, 2011. This agreement binds the separate licenses

granted to RMI and maps out the stages along with the general rights and obligations associated with
each stage. The continuity of the process from PGGS to PL to mining licence is explained therein.
The PLs that RMI holds have an initial term of three years, expiring September 5, 2013, and may be
renewed for two additional periods of one year each. The PLs give RMI the exclusive right to occupy and
explore the subject lands for manganese. RMI may apply for a mining license covering areas defined by
the exploration effort during the exploration period by submitting with the mining license application a
positive Feasibility Study (FS), an Environmental and Social Impact Statement and a mine development
plan.
The PGGSs give RMI the exclusive right to occupy the subject lands to conduct geological and
geophysical surveys for manganese. The term of the PGGSs is 36 months, expiring on June 19, 2014,
with no provision for extension. The two PGGSs secured by RMI, known as Cuyuni and Barima, initially
2
covered a total area of 19,770 m in the North West District, and surround and augment the area covered
by RMI's PLs. Excluded from the PGGSs are the areas covered by licenses held by other parties for the
same mineral; no application for manganese overlaps the RMI licenses. RMI had to relinquish 25% of the
2 2)
PGGS area (from 19,770 km to 14,830 km by the first anniversary of the PGGS. RMI may apply for up
to 10 PLs for manganese during the PGGS period, subject to satisfying the conditions provided under the
Mining Act.
4.6 Property Ownership and Agreements
The mineral licences comprising the Matthews Ridge Manganese Project are vested in RMI, a company
incorporated in Guyana under the Companies Act 1991 with its registered office at Roraima Tower, Ogle
International Airport, East Coast Demerara, Guyana. There are no known agreements or other external
encumbrances which may compromise the rights accruing from the PLs to RMI.
4.7 Surface Rights
The rights for manganese held by RMI are not in conflict with any other permit holder for the same
mineral in the license areas. Rights within the RMI lands for timber (Timber Sales Agreements) are held
by other parties. These rights appear to have been dormant for several years. The obligations of RMI in
relation to the surface rights of any other party are specified in Part IX of the Mining Act.

4.8 Royalties and Other Encumbrances
The fiscal regime for the Project is spelled out by the Mineral Agreement executed between RMI, the
GGMC and the Government of Guyana. The Project will be subjected to a mineral royalty regime of 1.5%
of the gross value of manganese concentrates exported during production. In the calculation of taxable
income, RMI will be entitled to deduct the royalty paid as an expense.
Outside of the annual license fee payments for the PLs and PGGSs, no other payments to third parties
are to be made with respect to the properties.
4.9 Environmental Liabilities
The Matthews Ridge site and surroundings consist of a brown field site as it was the subject of a previous
mining operation. No known historical environmental liabilities were assumed in the granting of the PLs.
The current liability is limited to the activities of exploration and is governed by a plan managed by an
environmental department which works closely with the exploration teams.
The Environmental Protection Agency has produced and disseminated Impact Assessment Guidelines for
the mining industry in general, and for Environmental Baseline Studies in particular. Work has been
initiated early in the exploration cycle to document a credible baseline for environmental management of
the site water management, water sampling and analysis, sediment and erosion control and biodiversity
studies (wet season and dry season) within the Project Footprint and beyond. The work executed by the
RMI environmental staff is in conformity with the published guidelines. Further detail is presented in
Section 20.

5. ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURES AND

PHYSIOGRAPHY
5.1 Accessibility
Guyana has two international airports. The Cheddi Jagan International Airport is approximately 40 km
south of the nations capital Georgetown, and is serviced by international carriers. Ogle International
Airport, the smaller of the two international airports, is located 10 km east of Georgetown and primarily
provides access to the interior regions of Guyana and to adjacent countries.
The Matthews Ridge Project can be accessed from the Ogle airport directly by light aircraft using the
unsealed airstrip at Matthews Ridge. The Project can also be accessed through a sealed 1,100 m long
airstrip at Port Kaituma via unsealed roads which connect Port Kaituma to Matthews Ridge.
Port Kaituma connects to the Atlantic Ocean via the Port Kaituma canal to the Kaituma and Barima
Rivers, then through the Mora Passage to the mouth of the Waini River; an approximate total distance of
54 nautical miles. The mouth of the Waini River is approximately 250 km north-west of Georgetown.
Port Kaituma is serviced by a government-operated cargo and passenger boat service

(draft 2.13 m -1000 t), which also serves the communities of Morawhanna and Mabaruma/Kumaka.
Privately operated charter barge services, which generally move bulk cargo including heavy earth moving
machinery and construction materials, are also available.
Local air transportation companies offer charter services to the airstrips at Matthews Ridge, Port Kaituma
and to the surrounding communities at Mabaruma and Baramita. Aircrafts, such as the Cessna Caravan
(capacity 2,800 lbs) and the Britten Norman Islander (capacity 1,650 lbs) are generally used for local
transportation. A daily passenger service to Port Kaituma and Mabaruma, and a daily (except Sunday)
service to Matthews Ridge are also offered by the three local air transportation companies from the Ogle
airport.
5.2 Climate
The Matthews Ridge Manganese Project is situated in the equatorial rainforest region of Guyana and
annually experiences two wet seasons from May to July and from October to January, and two dry
seasons from August to September and from February to April. On average, rainfall occurs on a daily
basis with the duration and intensity varying between the wet and the dry seasons.

Golder Associates provided the regional statistical data concerning monthly precipitations (based on a
25-year period) in their water balance technical memorandum, (Water Balance and Alternative Rejects
Storage Facility, Golder Associates, 2013) which corresponds well with recent data collected at site. The
annual precipitation averaged 2,701 mm, with the highest generally occurring in the May to July wet
season (with a peak at 393 mm in July), and the lowest during the dry season with a first peak in February
(136 mm) and a second peak in September-October (145 mm).
Figure 5.1: Precipitation
The readings collected by the RMI weather station show that during the period July 2011 to June 2012,
the winds were consistently from the East South East direction with higher wind values recorded from July
to December. The average wind speed was approximately 1.46 m/s with maximum values of 15.12 m/s
during the windy months and less than 0.5 m/s during the calmer months.
The area has an equatorial rainforest type climate, with gradual changes from the rainy seasons to the
dry seasons. Though daytime temperatures are hot, nights tend to be cooler. During the recorded period,
mean air temperatures averaged 26.3 C, with a maximum monthly average of 43.7 C in April 2012 and a
0 0
0
minimum monthly average of 19.8 C in June 2012.
Relative humidity averaged 87.4% over the monitoring period. The variation is approximately 18.8%
throughout the year with the monthly averages ranging between 76.6% in March to 94.4% in June.

5.3 Local Resources
The Matthews Ridge site is a remote mining site with little local resources to note. The district around
Matthews Ridge is supported by supplies flown in or barged through Port Kaituma and transported to site
by road. This situation is not expected to change as the Project will need to develop a self-supporting
supply chain for all needs.
Road building materials, with the exception of sand, have been identified and can be obtained in
adequate quantities for construction of the required infrastructure at both Port Kaituma and Matthews
Ridge.
5.4 Infrastructure
5.4.1 Roads
The Project area centered at Matthews Ridge is connected to nearby communities via a number of
unpaved dry-weather roads. The major road link is between Matthews Ridge and Port Kaituma and is
approximately 56.5 km long through the Arakaka/Pipiani junction. This road crosses the Barima River at
Eclipse Falls, approximately 26 km from Port Kaituma. However, since its rehabilitation by RMI in 2012,
the alternative link through the Big Creek Community is now the preferred option. The Arakaka
community, which is situated on the right bank of the Barima River, is approximately 27.5 km from
Matthews Ridge and 29 km from Port Kaituma. Sections of these roads deteriorate quickly in rainy
weather and become impassable. Additional drainage and road surfacing will be required to make these
roads reliable during the construction period.
The water crossing at the Barima River is a Bailey bridge with a wooden deck. The decking is in poor
condition and requires repairs. The bridges capacity is unknown. It has been used by RMI to haul
material and equipment to site. The largest equipment to be trucked to site using this bridge are the
Hyundai 305 excavators, with weights estimated at 29.5 t.

Figure 5.2: Public Road Barima River Crossing
A network of roads is also available within the Matthews Ridge property. These roads where built by the
previous owner and all the pits are linked by roads. The roads are in acceptable condition and were used
during the exploration campaign.
5.4.2 Service Buildings and Ancillary Facilities
RMI inherited old mine infrastructure some of which is salvageable.
The old mine warehouse has been converted to camp accommodation for workers.
The locomotive shop is now a core shed and storage area.
The old workshop is now a modern laboratory with XRF and ICP analytical equipment.
The old administration building is used for the site kitchen/dining area and office complex.
The old power house serves as the mechanical workshop and power center.
The gate house is built on the south side of the existing infrastructure.
Additional facilities have been provided for current use as warehouse, modern core laboratory and
pulp/rejects storage facility and also a security shed.

Figure 5.3: View of Defunct Operating Facilities
An unsealed 1,100 m long airstrip is also still available. The airstrip is located approximately 2.5 km
south-west of Matthews Ridge original plant site. Chartered planes carry material, consumables and
personnel on a daily basis. An existent airport terminal building is also available near the airstrip.
5.4.3 Fuel
Fuel is currently trucked to site from Port Kaituma. Two tanks with a total storage capacity of 7,000 gal
(2,000 + 5,000 gal) are used on site to refuel mobile equipment. Nine 5,000 gal horizontal fuel tanks have
been supplied by RUBIS for storing fuel in Port Kaituma, but are not currently installed.
5.4.4 Communications
The site is equipped with an antenna that provides internet and telephone services to the administration
building and to one guest house on Hill B. During the exploration work, mobile phones were used to allow
communications throughout the property.
5.4.5 Power Supply and Distribution
Power generation for remote projects such as Matthews Ridge has to be done at site. Current power
supply comes from generators positioned as required throughout the site. A total power generating
capacity of some 1.3 MW is available at the site to support current activities. During the mining phase,
RMI has an option to apply for and develop two hydropower sites - Eclipse Falls (6 MW) and Towakaima
Falls (11 MW). These will be the subject of future studies.

The centrally-generated electric power from GPLs diesel generators is considered adequate to meet both
current and anticipated future load demands generation for the communities of Matthews Ridge and
Port Kaituma. Near-future increased load demands are anticipated from increases in the housing and
services sectors.
The old power plant used when the mine was in operations is not functional. The building, even though in
poor condition, is still standing; the generators, however, are not considered re-usable.
5.4.6 Land and Transportation Infrastructure
Current land transport routes are rudimentary and difficult of access. They are occasionally impassable in
rainy weather and require a high degree of maintenance.
5.4.7 Marine Transportation Infrastructure
The delivery of heavy goods and machinery to the Project is by barge from Georgetown through the
Atlantic Ocean, the Waini-Barima river system into Port Kaituma via the Port Kaituma Canal (a man-made
canal linking the Kaituma River to land at Port Kaituma). Barges and delivery boats ply this route
regularly.
The wharfing facilities at Port Kaituma are rudimentary, overcrowded and unregulated. Craning and
mechanical offloading facilities are non-existent and all other pieces of infrastructure, which served the
previous operations, are unsalvageable.
5.4.8 Water Supply
The mineral rights of the Project are bound by two large water bodies the Barima and the Barama
Rivers. Their tributaries crisscross the sites and would provide ample water for a mining operation. The
previous operation at Matthews Ridge had two large water reservoirs, created to impound water and
pump it to the washing plant. The reservoirs are located at Pakera and Hill 8 and are still available for
water storage. The former has a surface area of 6 ha and is located approximately 4.5 km from the
original plant site at Matthews Ridge. The latter is located 2.7 km from the plant and covers an area of
8 ha. These facilities appear large and amenable to rehabilitation. The pumping station built at that time is
no longer operational and new equipment will be required. The sectors existing topography and
hydrology makes this reservoir an interesting alternative since little work is required to render it functional
as the primary water storage for the processing plant. Several other water sources are available including
precipitation and natural spring water sources (three identified around the site) that run year round.

Potable water will be obtained by passing spring water through a potable water treatment system prior to
distribution. The quality of the spring water is good requiring minor treatment and sterilization before use.
Additional wells may be drilled to achieve sufficient volume
Water is also available through a borehole located next to the laboratory. There are no pumps installed.
The water is moved by way of a water truck from the borehole to the laboratory, the dormitory sanitary
quarters, or to the kitchen and administration building.
5.4.9 Camp and Accommodation
The Project inherited the old mine bungalows from the previous operations, which have been renovated
for the exploration staff. Portable camp quarters have been added to support the exploration work. Rooms
in guest houses are equipped with air conditioning.
Six guest houses are built on Hill A. Guest houses A2, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 provide a total of 14 rooms,
each with a private bathroom. In addition to those four guest houses, the Guyana house offers three large
rooms with private bathrooms.
A total of five houses are built on Hill B. (B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5) and offer a total of 32 rooms with private
bathrooms. Fourteen pre-fabricated modules have been added. Three modules are used as sanitary
quarters and 11 modules are used as double occupancy.
Additional sleeping quarters have been arranged inside the old mine warehouse. The dormitory has
30 rooms with a capacity of four beds each. Six single occupancy rooms are also available.
A recreational building is also available on Hill B. This building houses a TV room and game room.
The kitchen and lunchroom are located in the administration offices complex. The lunch room is
17 m long x 10 m wide and the kitchen is 18 m long x 12 m wide.
5.5 Physiography
The topography of the prospect area is rugged and elevations range from 34 m above mean sea level
(AMSL), in the Manikuru Creek, to 235 m AMSL at Oh-me-mama Hill in the central part of the
concession. The geomorphology of the area consists of a rugged topography and chains of steeply
sloping hills, gullies, and peneplained tops.

Abrupt changes in elevation are related to lithology and geological structures. Rocks are highly weathered
and exposed only along the resistant crest of ridge, river valley and road side cuts. Soils are developed
over depths ranging from less than a meter to over 10 m.
In the Project area, first and second order streams drain towards the north, north east and south in line
with the general dip of the topographic surface and transverse structures. The third or higher order rivers
drain towards the east depending on the lithological trends, contacts, thrust and shears zones.

6. HISTORY
6.1 Prior and Current Ownership
The mineral licenses were granted to Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI) by the Government of Guyana.
Previous license owners were with Union Carbide Corporation through two subsidiaries the African
Manganese Company (AMC) and Manganese Mines Management (MMM). Operation ceased in 1968.
There is no evidence that the manganese properties were the subject of any licences since their
abandonment by Union Carbide until they were taken up by RMI in 2010. The Essar Steel Company of
India initiated an application in 2008 for manganese over the area, but never completed it as they
withdrew from their proposed steel plant project in Trinidad and Tobago.
6.2 Exploration History
Exploration for manganese in Guyana was conducted by geologists of the British Geological Surveys and
documented in mineral exploration bulletins from the colonial days. The works on the Matthews Ridge
Project were done in the 1950s and included pitting and some drilling as well as extensive geological
mapping.
6.3 Historic Operation
The historical information indicates that Union Carbide(DPRK/GGMC, 1984-1985), through subsidiaries -
AMC and MMM operated the Matthews Ridge mine and shipped concentrates out of Guyana between
1962 and 1968 (Westerman, 1969 and GGMC, 1985).
Manganese ore was processed to concentrate and exported via railroad and a fluvial port. Mining
was done on five of a series of nine hills extending for 15 km and striking northeast-southwest.
The records indicate that during that period, some 1.7 million short tons of manganese
concentrate (37% Mn) was recovered and shipped. The concentrates were delivered to Port
Kaituma by rail.
In 1962, resources were estimated at 3.6 million short tons of manganese concentrate.
The resources were based on numerous pits, trenches and adits together with 110 diamond drill
holes aggregating to 5,800 m in five of the nine hills. At the time of closure in 1968, the known
resources base was reported to be approximately 1 million short tons of recoverable concentrate
at 37% Mn.

At Pipiani, which is south-east of Matthews Ridge and north of the Barama River, the historically-
calculated resources of available concentrates, based on the mining and beneficiation methods
used at Matthews Ridge, were 642,000 t of 42% Mn on the basis of 38 drill holes, numerous pits
and trenches. No reporting of the lower-grade, bedded material was included in the resources, and
many areas were still to be evaluated.
The total resource was further increased to 3.6 Mt of 33.4% Mn recoverable concentrate, based
on exploration conducted by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), and the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 1985, which included five additional holes
totaling 326 m. The GGMC/DPRK exploration effort uncovered additional manganese
occurrences, on trend, which were not evaluated.
6.4 Previous Economic Evaluation
There is no data on a previous economic evaluation of the manganese properties after Union Carbide
closed in 1968. It is apparent that when the GGMC/DPRK re-evaluated the prospects in 1985, they did
not see sufficient potential as they were staying with the old mining and processing model that involved
only washing and screening of run-of-mine ore to produce lump concentrates for sale.

7. GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
7.1 Regional and Local Geology
The Matthews Ridge region is located on the northwestern part of the Guiana Shield and underlain by
rocks of the Barama Group of the Barama-Mazaruni Supergroup, dated as of Proterozoic age. The
Mazaruni part of the Supergroup essentially defines more continental style correlatives of the principally
marine sequence defined for the Barama Group (Figure 7.1.) Consequently, the Mazaruni Group would
have highly differentiated calc-alkaline volcanics and intrusives and a coarser sedimentary sequence, as
its dominant rock types. Basic intrusives occur in the middle and lower Barama areas. In the Matthews
Ridge region, doleritic intrusives of both the Older Basic Intrusive and Younger Basic Intrusive Group
occur. Apart from dykes, dolerite sills occur in conformity with the bedding of the country rock. At the
centre of the basinal sequences, the low-metamorhic grade sediments and volcanics, known as the
greenstones of Guyana, are to be found. These low-metamorphic grade rocks are openly folded and
lenticular in shape at the regional level. At the local level, the beds show various levels of steepening,
even overturning and thrusting, depending on the rheology of the rocks and the forces in the Trans-
Amazonian orogeny (2,400 Ma to 2,000 Ma) to which they were subjected. The sequences described
above are similar to the Pastora-Carichapo Supergroup of Venezuela, and the Birimian of West Africa,
where significant sedimentary-hosted manganese and gold deposits have been developed.

Figure 7.1: Schematic Geological Map of Northwest Guyana

Location of Prospecting Licenses held by RMI
The Barama Group is formed by rocks deposited in a basin environment and is conventionally subdivided
in three formations: the Arakaka Formation at the top, followed by the Matthews Ridge Formation
(MRF), underlain by the Tenapu Formation. The manganese mineralization at Matthews Ridge is
confined to the MRF, which is principally a low metamorphic grade, predominantly sedimentary sequence
of fine-grained clastic (pelitic) and chemical nature, showing evidence of deposition in a marine basin.
There are accessory amounts of chlorite schists (presumably after mafic volcanics) in the sequence.
Overlying this sequence, is a sequence of coarser sediments composed of (meta-) arenites and rudites,
intercalated with a predominantly differentiated volcanic pile and intrusives of mafic to acidic affinity. This
latter sequence is referred to as the Arakaka Formation. It should be noted that it is only after the sixties
that the relative position of the Tenapu and Arakaka Formation sequences in relation to the MRF were
correctly defined (Walrond, 2012). Prior to that period, the chlorite schist-rich (after basic volcanics)
Tenapu Formation was thought to overlie the MRF, which in turn was underlain by the predominantly
meta-sedimentary Arakaka Formation. The former thinking posed insuperable difficulties for the
recognition of the source of the manganese, which is best construed as the cafemic-rich volcanics of the
basal sequence from which the manganese was leached. The later interpretation of the Barama

stratigraphy, has opened a new view in the exploration for sedimentary-hosted manganese
accumulations in Guyana, as the source of the manganese is now more located in the underlying meta
basites of the Tenapu-type formation as seen in Brazil, Venezuela, Ghana and Gabon. This new
understanding therefore calls for a redirection of the exploration effort and in part, has increased the
potential for additional manganese discovery and hence a revisiting of the geological mapping of relevant
sections of the Barama stratigraphy.
7.2 Property Geology
Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI) holds four Prospecting Licenses (PLs) and two Permissions for
Geological and Geophysical Surveys (PGGSs). The four PLs are entirely surrounded by the Barima
Permission encompassing an area of approximately 2,660 km . The Cuyuni Permission area is further to
2
the south-east and encompasses an area of approximately 846 km . The total aggregate area of
2
favorable Barama Group rocks to be investigated by RMI is approximately 3,508 km .

2
This Report is concerned only with the four PLs (PL 1 to 4) covering the Matthews Ridge area proper
(PL 2 to 4) and PL 1, covering the Pipiani Hills area. Because of their physical separation, the two areas
will be described in distinct sections.
7.2.1 Prospecting Licenses 2 to 4 Matthews Ridge and Arakaka Prospects
The MRF rocks have been explored over the entire length of PL 2 to 4, along a succession of elongated
hills for a strike extension of 20 km in a general SW-NE direction. This area has been subdivided in two
prospects:
Matthews Ridge - within PLs 2 and 3 also referred as the Footprint, comprising a series of nine
hills numbered nine to one from west to east.
Arakaka - within PL 3 and 4, essentially the eastern extension of Hill 1, comprising another five
hills numbered ASW1, ASE1, ASE2, ASE3 and ASE4.
The MRF rocks are assembled along narrow belts occupying and holding positive topographic reliefs up
to 150 m.a.s.l. in elevation and formed exclusively by sediments. These belts seem to be floating on and
are flanked to the north and south by mafic intrusives with batholitic dimensions. The sediments are
folded inside keels and axial planes are usually subparallel to the strike of the belts, causing the
repetition of units across the strike. The MRF stratigraphy remains tentative, with few observations made
so far of sedimentary polarity, but because the orebodies correspond directly with certain stratigraphic

units, stratigraphic understanding and control are of fundamental importance in the discovery of
manganese rich material.
Marker beds, such as the so-called banded manganese formation (BMF), are easily recognizable and
can be traced over long distances on each hill, allowing stratigraphic correlation and structural
interpretation. Based on surface exposure in trenches, road cuts and a tight drill hole grid, an attempt at
lithostratigraphic interpretation of the Matthews Ridge deposits is presented below (Goulet, 2012).
It is thought that the sedimentary sequence is composed of a thick basal lower phyllitic unit (LPHY),
which contains thin and very local manganiferous and occasional chert beds. This unit appears to be
more than 75 m thick. The cherty beds were at first thought to be marker beds but were eventually seen
to have little lateral continuity as they are a competent unit and affected by boudinage. The sequence
progressively grades into a manganiferous phyllitic unit (MPH), dominantly composed of phyllite,
interlayered with manganese-rich centimetric-scale beds. Typically, this unit thickness is less than 10 m
and stratigraphically overlain by a BMF characterized by well-stratified interlayered phyllite and
manganese-rich beds, which locally grade upward into thick massive manganiferous unit (MMF). The
BMF thickness is estimated from 10 to 15 m whereas MMF is typically 1 to 3 m thick. Contact between
MMF and an upper phyllitic unit (UPHY) is usually sharp. This UPHY unit is estimated to be more than
100 m thick and contains no manganiferous beds, and is considered to be barren. Late diorite intrusions
crosscut the whole sedimentary sequence, forming dikes, sills and dome-like structures. This proposed
MRF stratigraphy differs from that proposed by Westerman (Westerman, 1969), who identified two
mineralized units separated by barren phyllite. Further study could focus on the detailed stratigraphy of
the deposits in order to better characterize the lithostratigraphic units. Geological mapping by RMI
indicates that the MRF is flanked to the south by pyroclastic rocks (tuffs and agglomerates) and to the
north by coarse clastic sediments (greywackes and arenites).

Figure 7.2: Schematic Stratigraphic Column of MRF (Goulet, 2012)
The following is a more detailed description of the key stratigraphyc units forming the MRF:
Phyllite
The phyllites are the most abundant lithology of the MRF. They are mostly purple in colour, but also grey,
cream and white, finely bedded with slight to strong cleavage, locally manganous as thin beds or fracture-
filled with manganese oxides and hydroxides. This unit is obviously derived from the sedimentation of
very fine-grained clastic material as claystones or siltstones. Bedding is very thin, distinguishable only by
slight color differences between beds (Figure 7.3). The only sedimentary structures observed by
Westerman (Westerman, 1969) are microscopic in scale and are related to erosional features and current
beds. The field name used by RMI for this unit is simply phyllite (code PHY), while the Manganese
Mines Management Ltd. (MMM) geologists and Westerman (Westerman, 1969) used purple slate. On
outcrop, the weathered phyllites differ little from the fresh ones, except for variations of color and a higher
proportion of manganese oxide-filled fractures.

Figure 7.3 Partially Weathered Phyllite with Remobilized Manganese into Layers and Fractures
(core from ddh 11MR1112 at 55 m depth)
On thin sections (Marchetto, 2012), the phyllites are a fine-grained banded rock, displaying parallel
banding and a granoblastic texture. Spessartite garnet occurs as very fine-grained xenoblastic crystals
forming granular aggregates and parallel bands, pale brown in color. Cummingtonite of probable
manganese-rich variety occurs as very fine-grained fibrous crystals, completely colorless, associated with
garnet and forming sparse parallel bands. Biotite forms small rounded and ocellar aggregates (spots) and
occurs finely disseminated in garnet-rich bands. Clay minerals are concentrated bands associated with
biotite spots and occur finely disseminated in the garnet-rich bands. Carbonate, of rodocrosite variety
(Mn-rich) was locally observed associated with spessartite-rich bands. Given their intrinsic manganese
content, these rocks can be classified as gondites.

Mineralized Phyllite
When the phyllites contain a reasonable proportion (i.e. 5%) of manganous material either as thin beds or
fracture filling, RMI created the field name manganiferous phyllite (code MPH), with transitional contacts
with the non-mineralized and more strongly mineralized phyllite. The mineralized units consist of phyllites
containing various proportions of beds composed of manganese oxides/hydroxides. The frequency of
beds and their thickness is highly variable, ranging from a few millimeters to several decimetres.
Westerman (Westerman, 1969) observed that the number of individual beds is in inverse proportion to
individual thickness. When weathered, the bedding creates a distinct stripped aspect of cream-colored
and black beds, appropriately called tiger beds by the MMM miners (Figure 7.4). RMI uses the field
name banded manganiferous formation (code BMF) for this unit. When thicker beds are encountered,
they have been called massive manganiferous formation (code MMF), with no precise system of ranking
beds by thickness (Figure 7.5).
Figure 7.4: BMF Unit on Hill 5W.

Outline of Panel Sample for Metallurgical Testing Identified in Orange
The fresh protoliths of this unit show sharp contacts between the manganous and clayey beds
manganese oxides always seem to be concentrated in beds and not disseminated in the sediment. The
manganese oxides macroscopically appear massive, black to dark grey either dull or bright, and in

obvious rheological contrast with the clayey beds, with a much higher proportion of fractures often filled
with quartz (Figure 7.5). Under the hand lens, the clayey beds show sub-milimetric bedding, with
persistent composition continuity. The weathering of this unit shows dramatic changes, demonstrating the
high mobility of manganese, which invades the adjacent sediments by replacement, micro diapirs,
fracture filling, etc. (Figure 7.6).With such intense interactivity, the phyllites become less purple and the
contacts of manganous and clayey beds are much more diffuse, although the manganous beds continue
to be clearly identifiable.
Figure 7.5: Bands of Braunitell (black colour) with Quartz-filled Fractures in Purple Phyllite (Core
from ddh 133A, 51 m Depth)

Figure 7.6: Micro Diapirs of Manganese Oxides/Hydroxides Filling Fractures, Fed by

Manganese-rich Bed (Hill 5W)
Chert
The chert members are usually seen as discrete beds, stratiform and stratabound, varying in thickness
from a few centimetres to a few meters (Figure 7.7). They are usually light grey, but also purple and
bluish, usually very fractured and present in much smaller proportion than the manganous beds. The
cherts were called quartzites or purple cherts by the MMM miners, while RMI calls them simply chert
(code CHE). The rock is aphanitic, composed essentially of quartz.These members would be considered
as good marker horizons, but they seem to have limited lateral continuity. These rocks show little reaction
to weathering, but act as hosts to manganous minerals because of the abundant space created by their
brittle fracturing. The chert beds are not to be confused with quartz veins, which cross cut the sediments
and usually show glassy quartz.

Figure 7.7: Folded Chert Beds with Manganese Oxides/Hydroxides

Intercallated with Phyllites (Hill 5W)
Mafic Intrusive
The extensive mafic intrusives apparently underlying and intruding the entire MRF sedimentary sequence
have been referred to as diorite by RMI (code DIO). The MMM geologists called this unit dolerites
(Westerman, 1969). These rocks are usually massive, dark grey-green, finelly crystalline to porphyritic,
appearing in both cross-cutting and concordant contacts with the sediments, i.e. dikes and sills. The
porphyritic portions could represent phases of an intrusive event or coarsely crystalline central parts of
the intrusives. The porphyritic minerals are usually euedral feldspars, which weather to white clay. In thin
section (Marchetto, 2012), these rocks show no deformation, having the original igneous panidiomorphic
granular texture well preserved, and are weakly altered (chloritization, saussuritization, amphibolization
and microclinization (Figure 7.8).

Figure 7.8: Quartz diorite. Euhedral Crystals of Hornblende (dark brown), Interstitial Chlorite
(green), Euhedral Crystals of Saussuritized Plagioclase (dark grey) and Interstitial Quartz
(colorless). Sample from Drill Hole 11MR-109/65,0 m, 25X, Plane Polarized Light
There is clear evidence that these instrusives are younger than the MRF sediments, but their timing and
relationship with deformation events is not yet understood. Locally, these rocks are probably confused
with diabase dikes, which are suspected of cutting through the area (Figure 7.9). The diorites weather
intensively to orange-colored clays often with manganous oxides filling fractures, forming boulders from
onion skin exfoliation. The weathering of these rocks can be so intense as to cause bauxitization, as
observed on Hill 1 (trench 118, with 35% Al2O5), and Hill 5 (trench 9).

Figure 7.9: Diorite Sill Intruding BMF & MMF Units

(Note post intrusion normal faults - Hill 9)
Lateritic Profile
As the presence of manganese deposits is closely related to weathering, the study and understanding of
the lateritic profile is of key importance. The nomenclature for the lateritic profile in this Report is adopted
from Freyssinet (Freyssinet, 1997), subdividing the profile on the following horizons (Figure 7.10) from
surface:
Duricrust and its detrital equivalents: nodular material and /or colluvium.
Mottled zone.
Saprolite.
Saprock or transition zone.

Figure 7.10: Typical Lateritic Profile (Freyssinet, 1997)
The profile is the result of the progressive development of each horizon by a transformation of that
immediately underlying. The duricrust marks the ultimate level of development for the profile, where
seasonal meteoric water stopped flowing, allowing the cementing of the pisolitic material previously
formed into an indurated mass. This horizon is often the surface of peneplains and is the first to be
attacked by erosion usually holding the topography because of its nature. The existence of duricrust
horizons is considered important because it indicates the lateritic profile was well developed and capable
of leaching manganese from the protorocks and depositing it elsewhere in the profile.
The existence of bauxitized diorite occurrences suggest that the weathering process in the Footprint
lasted long enough for the thoroughly leaching of the profile, probably associated to a former peneplain.
A complete profile is observed in few locations, like at Hill 1, cut by Trench 91, where an in-situ
manganiferous duricrust can be observed (Figure 7.11).

Figure 7.11: Outcrop of Manganiferous Duricrust Covered with Nodular Detritic Material on
Trench 91 (Hill 1). (Note pen for scale).
Elsewhere along the Footprint area, the duricrust has been eroded or decomposed by the current
environment and only detrital material remains to be observed, either as nodules or boulders. This detrital
cover has also been referred to as pellets of manganese oxide and as granzon by Nagell (Nagell,
1962)or pebbly manganese layer by Nahon (Nahon, 1990) for equivalent material in Brazil and Gabon,
respectively. The manganiferous nodules were widely mined by MMM and have a more limited presence
on Hills 5 to 9, mostly on the hill flanks and depressions. RMI gave the nodular material the field name
detrital, abbreviated as DET. The colluvial remains of the physical breakdown of BMF units sitting on top
of the saprolite horizons is also refered as detritial (Figure 7.12).

Figure 7.12: Nodular and Fragmental (after BMF) Detritic Material Overlying Saprolitized Diorite.
(Note geological hammer for scale Hill 5W)
The mottled zone was locally observed only on Hills 1, 2 and in an area south of Hill 9N, at the bottom of
trenches and as usual, disguises well the protolith. The lateritic profile horizon mostly observed on outrop
and core is saprolite. The saprolitized rockss mineralogy, texture and structure remain fully observable
on outcrop and core. On Hills 5 to 9, the upper part of the saprolite was mined by MMM and what remains
are lower saprolitized rocks, probably not considered sufficiently mineralized at the time. Hills 4 to 1 and
the Pipiani Hills, however, show an entirely preserved saprolite as no mining took place there.
Metamorphism
The rocks observed in the Footprint area and Pipiani Hills show mineralogy and textures typical of a low
to medium metamorphic grade environment. The phyllites usually show very poorly developed platy
minerals along cleavages. At the eastern end of Hill 1 and at the Arakaka area, however, the phyllites
show marked cleavage and could be described as slates. Locally (core from drill hole 11MR05 at 100 m
depth), Marchetto (Marchetto, 2012) observed what was called spotted slate, consisting of
cummingtonite-bearing spessartite hornfels, probably related to contact metamorphism with diorite
intrusions. Westerman (Westerman, 1969) describes a green schistose calc-silicate rock south of Hill 2 of
probable tuffaceous origin, which, in his opinion, puts the regional metamorphism at Matthews Ridge
within the lower greenschist facies. Recent work by Costa (Costa, 2012) indicates that braunite was

formed in the primary or hydrothermal to metamorphic environment, likewise hausmannite and bixbyite.
Spessartite is clearly linked to the metamorphic event, while rhodochrosite appears to be a hydrothermal
phase or related to low metamorphism domain, together with quartz veinlets. The veinlets and veins of
quartz, quartz + rhodochrosite +/- calcite +/- dolomite and kaolin are ubiquitous, and underline a
hydrothermalism associated with deformation (quartz-carbonate microveinng along braunitic beds is the
most important feature of this event because it caused the introduction of external silica in the mineralized
units).
Geological Structure
Although local structural discontinuities were observed, deformation along the Matthews Ridge deposits
generally shows the same structural characteristic, in accordance with the intensity of deformation,
orientation of structure and kinematic histories. Two main phases of deformation are recognized and both
modified the position of the mineral deposits. The first phase of deformation is associated with a ductile-
brittle style of deformation, whereas the second phase is characterized by a brittle style of deformation.
The orientation of the bedding along the Footprint and Arakaka, trends east-west (averaging N081) and
shows various dip orientations as it is affected by tight folding. Fold structure are characterized by an
east-west oriented axial surface dipping to the south, moderately to gently inclined (35 to 60 degrees) and
locally recumbent. Fold hinges plunge gently at 15 degrees to the east. Tight anticline fold structures are
typically characterized by south limb dipping at a relatively low angle (40 degrees), whereas the northern
limb dips at a high angle (75 degrees) (Figure 7.13). Folds of the sedimentary beds are characterized by
thickening in the hinge zone and thinning in the flanks. This is interpreted as being the product of a first
phase of deformation, which had considerable impact on the mineralization as it is repeated several times
by the folding. The same manganese beds were thickened by the anticline and syncline fold structures,,
which generally had axial planes dipping south 40 degrees, trending east-northeast. The phase is well
demonstrated by stereographic projections of the structural measurements along the Footprint
(Figure 7.14).

Figure 7.13: BMF Affected by Typical Anticline and Syncline Structure Gently Inclined at Hill 5W
(Note PVC pipe for scale).
Figure 7.14: Tight Recumbent Fold in MPH, Hill 3

(Interval between yellow flags is 1 m)

Figure 7.15: Stereographic Projection of Structural Measurements of

Matthews Ridge Footprint Deposits

The contour plot represents the density of measurements (pole plot) in a given area, and the legend to
the right gives the standard deviation (S), and the number of entries (N) (the software used for the
contour plot calculation is SpheriStat).
Local structural discontinuities are observed near diorite dome intrusions, occurring punctually along the
ridge. These restricted zones, typically less than 100 m away from the diorite contact, are characterized
by an increase of deformation and a modification of general orientation of fold structures in the sediment.
Such structural discontinuities are well exposed by the stereographic projection of structural
measurements. At larger scales, mineralized trends are oriented east-west in the westernmost part
(Hill 9), whereas in the central part (Hill 7 to Hill 5E), mineralized trends show a slight bifurcation around a
large diorite dome (Figure 7.15). In this central part of the deposit, folding is more pronounced and shows
more variable plunging directions and tighter folding. As one moves away from the contact, the fold
structures becomes again gently inclined toward the south and plunges east at 15 degrees. Such large
scale structural discontinuities in the central most part of the Matthews Ridge area may be due to the
proximity of the kilometric scale diorite dome-like intrusion, located to the south, which potentially acted
as a buttress during deformation. These observations imply that both sediment and diorite were involved
during the deformation. In the easternmost part of the deposit (Hill 5E-ext to Hill 1W), mineralized trends
show two continuous zones. These two zones represent stratigraphic repetition by one tight gently
inclined syncline (Hill 5E-ext to Hill 3W) and one tight recumbent anticline structure (Hill 3E to 1). By
contrast, the easternmost part of deposit (Hill 5E-ext to 1W and Arakaka) is located at a greater distance
from the intrusion, and is thus characterized by less structural discontinuity and more continuous
orientation of the mineralized trend.

Figure 7.16: Schematic Structural Map of Anticline and Syncline Axial Traces
along the Matthews Ridge Footprint Deposits (Goulet, 2012).

The second phase of deformation is characterized by late brittle structures and is considered to have less
impact on the mineralization. Associated structures are characterized by a north-northwest oriented
steeply dipping west cleavage. At the local scale, apparent sinistral movement along these faults, typically
less than 10 cm, displaces the mineralized units. At a larger scale, more important displacement along
these structures is observed along a typically north-northwest sinistral fault, which displaces manganese
mineralization. These larger structures are well outlined by topographic depression between Hill 5E-ext
and Hill 2, as well as from Hill 2 to Hill 1W and create an en echelon displacement of the Arakaka
mineralized units (Figure 7.17).
Figure 7.17: Compilation Map of Arakaka Prospect

Showing Mineralized Zones Displaced en echelon.
Late normal faulting is also present, characterized by down dip striation on the mirror fault plane, which
indicates a normal sense of movement, typically less than 2 m of vertical displacement. An example of
these normal faults is well exposed at Hill 6, where a sequence of banded manganese is displaced by a

2 m normal fault near the contact of diorite (Figure 7.18). Although these late brittle structures have
minimal displacement, they are important as they could express sudden shift of mineralized beds.
Figure 7.18: Late Normal Faulting with 2 m Vertical Displacement Affecting Folded Banded
Manganese Unit, Hill 6
7.2.2 Prospecting License 1 Pipiani Hills Prospect
The geology of Pipiani prospect, as currently mapped from trenches, is comprised of a predominantly
sedimentary sequence of phyllite with varying proportions of manganiferous content (BMF and MPH),
chert, but also with units that appear to be pyroclastic and chemical (Figure 7.19).

Figure 7.19: Schematic Geological Map of Pipiani Hills Area
The phyllite unit is fine-grained with a variable range of colours from dark grey to purple. These rocks,
especially purple colour horizons are found bounding the mineralization unit from the north and the south.
The grey phyllite is found south of the central mineralized zone. The general strike of the units varies from
290 to 350 degrees with a dip of between 25 to 78 degrees towards north. BMF is not exposed often due
to duricrust cover and limited depth of trenches. It is mainly exposed in Zone 1 in trenches 10, 11 and 12
and in Zone 2 in trench 16. MPH is observed in all zones. It has a colour varying from brown to black.
Manganese-filled shears are observed in Zone 3. It occurs as cement in the fractures and breccias and
was named fracture crust.
The lateritic profile is well developed and duricrust is abundantly exposed in the current trenches,
covering hill tops in situ or broken in large boulders mixed with detritic material. There are compositional
variations to this unit from the manganese cemented nodular duricrust to the iron-dominated ones
(Figure 7.20).

Figure 7.20: Specimen of Manganiferous Duricrust from Pipiani Hills

8. DEPOSIT TYPES
Using the classifications suggested by Holtrop (1965), the Matthews Ridge deposits are of mantle and
nodular types hosted by mineralized lateritic profile formed after a protore deposited as bedded
manganese-rich sediments in a marine environment (hydrogenous according to (Nicholson, 1992). They
would be classified by both Nicholson (1992) and Swindell and Harrison (2009) as supergene-enriched
deposits.
In this Report and for practical purposes, the Matthews Ridge deposits are grouped in three types:
saprolitic, detritic and tailings.
Saprolitic Deposits
These saprolitic deposits consist of the mineralized rocks in the saprolite horizon of the lateritic profile.
These rocks are characterized by intense weathering and the development of mineralogy typical of
meteoric water flow. The degree of weathering is directly dependent on the history of the profile and
systematically decreases with depth. At the depths where the weathering was not thorough and
consistent, there is a transition zone characterized by the so-called saprocks, immediately above the
contact with fresh rocks/protore.
The figures below (Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2) are of geological sections showing the distribution of
mineralized and non-mineralized units in the weathered profile, identifying the limit between the saprolitic
zone and fresh protore material. They also illustrate the strong deformation affecting the mineralized
sequence and the irregular nature of the dioritic intrusions. In both cases the detritic material and upper
part of the saprolitic zone were largely mined out.

Figure 8.1: Geological Section along UTM Easting 708750E on Hill 9
Figure 8.2: Geological Section along UTM Easting 814000E on Hill 5C

The partially weathered rocks still contain manganese silicates / carbonates, albite and chlorite, while the
highly weathered saprolite carry manganese and iron oxyhydroxides (OHMn, OHFe) and abundant clay
minerals. The X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis and petrography work by Costa (2012) reveals that the
manganese silicates braunite [MnMn3+6SiO12, Mn2+Mn3] and spessartite [Mn2+3Al2(SiO4)3] are
primary manganese minerals. Spessartite is typical of phyllitic rocks (PHY) while braunite is a main
constituent of the black beds of the banded manganese formation (BMF) units, in this case alternating
with spessartite/rhodochrosite-rich beds (Figure 8.3).
Figure 8.3: Alternating Bands of Braunite (black) and Spessartite-Rich Purple Phyllite, Forming
Typical BMF Protore (N-size core from ddh 12MR2123).
The competent braunitic beds have a significant rheological contrast with the incompetent phyllitic bands,
showing brittle and ductile deformation, respectively, the results produce boudinages and prominent
quartz-filled tensional micro fractures orientated perpendicular to the braunitic beds. Braunite appears to
be the most stable primary mineral, beside hausmannite and bixbyite, which are rare. Spessartite is quite
unstable, originating a plasma of OHMn and OHFe (as veinlets of goethite) (Costa, 2012). It always
occurs as micrometric crystals, with rounded shape due to the typical dodecahedral morphology
invariably surrounded by such cryptocrystalline OHMn, like a diffuse opaque cloud. Spessartite seems to
be a major source for the formation of OHMn at Matthews Ridge. Rhodochrosite [MnC03] is the primary
manganese carbonate, changing quickly into OHMn and producing voids (i.e. porosity), but it does not
appear to be abundant, except in certain units of phyllitic rocks. The key minerals forming the saprolitic
deposits are OHMn of weathering origin: birnessite [(Na,Ca,)Mn7O14 3H2O], todorokite
[(Mn,Ca,Mg)Mn3+4O7 H2O], cryptomelane-hollandite [K(Mn+2,Mn+4)8O16] and lithiophorite, but
pyrolusite and nsutite are less frequent. These minerals form manganese-rich beds
(Banded manganese formation - BMF and massive manganese formation - MMF units Figure 8.4 ),
nodules and fracture filling. They are black, opaque micro to cryptocrystalline and intergrown with each
other. Although individually characterized by XRD, they are delineated with difficulty in hand specimen
and optical microscopy due to their micro to cryptocrystalline nature. They are present in almost all
specimens investigated by Costa (2012).

Figure 8.4: Sample of MMF Formed by Indistinct Manganese Oxide and Hydroxide Minerals still
Showing Original Bedding (Hill 5W).
Given the typically silicate nature of the protominerals, the saprolitic deposits could also be classified as
low grade siliceous (Harrison, 1965), suitable for silicomanganese alloys. On the other side, the
deleterious aluminum content of this mineralized material is largely derived from the phyllites, but also
from the mineral lithiophorite, which is found in the weathered rocks.
It is evident from the mapping of Hills 5 to 9 on the Footprint that the mining done in the sixties took away
a considerable proportion of the saprolitic high-grade deposits, leaving behind mostly transition material
on several pits. Hills 1 to 4 show preserved lateritic profiles.
Detritic Deposits
The detritic or nodular deposits form blanket-like colluvium over the saprolitic rocks, usually on hill tops
and flanks and highly dependent on the degree of erosion forming the local topography. There are two
types of detritic material:
a.) Manganiferous pisolites generated from the breakdown of the duricrust horizon that once capped
the lateritic profile. The pisoids or nodules are usually fairly loose, cemented by soil clays, show
spherical shapes with concentric layers, ranging in diameter from a few millimeters to a few
centimeters (Figure 8.5). The topographic control of these deposits is the result of the formation

of hard, relatively insoluble capping of cemented OHMn-rich pisolites at the top part of the lateritic
profile. Cryptomelane appears in detrital samples and its more weathered form appears
sporadically as the series cryptomelane-hollandite.
Figure 8.5: Detritic Nodular Material on the Surface at Hill 1, including Fragments of Duricrust
b.) Manganiferous fragments from the physical breakdown of mineralized saprolitized rocks and
duricrust. These fragments are of irregular shape and can reach sizes of a few centimeters to
over one metre (boulder).
The distribution of detritic deposits in the various prospect areas varies considerably, depending on the
completenes of the weathered profile, erosional level and previous mining activities. Nodular detritic
material is abundant and well preserved on Hills 1 to 4, but largely mined-out on the crest of Hills 5 to 9,
where it is found mostly on the hill flanks. At the Arakaka prospect area, there is a predominance of
fragmental material (probably because of the deeper erosional level), whereas at Pipiani, the detritic
material is essentially nodular after a very well developed lateritic profile.

Tailings Deposits
The tailings deposits at Matthews Ridge consist of fine-grained manganesiferous rock fragments
deposited in a shallow valley downstream from the Manganese Mines Management Ltd. (MMM)
processing plant, much like an artificially created alluvial deposit (Figure 8.6). Most of the fragments are
angular and less than 1 cm in length.
Figure 8.6: Tailings Material Showing Layering of Mineralized Fragments
Interpretation of Manganese Mineralization
For the generic understanding of the Matthews Ridge manganese deposits, it becomes necessarily a
comprehensive study of the various lithologies, the tectonic and metamorphic history, the hydrothermal
activity and igneous contribution that overlapped or was contemporaneous to the formation of the
deposits. Current geological understanding of the region enables the proposal of a stratigraphic sequence
and the relative chronology of its complex deformation history. Based on the sequencing of the
sedimentary unit, it is proposed that a lower argillite unit was deposited at the base of the sequence with
little and sporadic manganese input. Toward the top, manganese input became more intense, forming a
manganiferous argillite unit. Large amounts of manganese dominate the top of the sequence, forming the
banded and massive manganiferous units. Manganese input then reduced drastically and an upper
argillite unit was deposited, hosting no manganese beds and is thought to be essentially barren. The

manganese deposits formed are hosted by very fine-grained clastic sedimentary rocks interpreted to have
been deposited in low energy, deep marine basins. The environment would have been oxidized, not
favorable to the formation of carbonates, receiving slow-settling sedimentary particles and chemical
solutions, possibly of volcanic origin. The alternating intercalation of clastic and chemical sediments
suggests that the latter were produced as pulses of more or less intensity. Throughout the history of this
part of the basin, the presence of manganese in the environment was pervasive as most sediments have
some manganese content, thus forming manganese-rich protores susceptible to release manganous
solutions upon weathering (the meaning of protore here is that defined by Holtrop (1965) as the mother
rock from which manganese compounds are dissolved). As pointed out by Westerman, the overriding
purple colour of all the rock types of the Matthews Ridge Formation (MRF) is consistent to be due to the
omnipresent manganese. The relative proportion of manganese in the sediments defines the
lithostratigraphic members of the sedimentary sequence. The MMFs, for example, could be the result of
particularly intense volcanic pulses, creating a thick deposition of manganous material. The manganese
and chert beds are thus believed to be the intercallations of chemical manganese or silica in a
continusoulsly deposited sequence of manganous clastic sediments.
After its consolidation, the entire sedimentary package was cut by diorite domes, dykes and sill intrusions
and all were later affected by a folding phase in a ductile-brittle style of deformation (D1). In the Guiana
Shield, the compressional tectonic regime which characterized the first stage (D1) of the Main
Transamazonian orogeny (2.2 b.y.) could be responsible for the occurrence of such structures. Later
brittle deformations (D2) crosscut the previous structure. Such structures could be interpreted to be
related to either Late-Transamazonian orogeny, subsequent Proterozoic events or Paleozoic events.
These structural observations and interpretations help in the understanding of the geometry of the
Matthews Ridge deposits and are also being applied for the discovery of other manganese deposits in the
surrounding area. Much later in Tertiary times (60 m.y.), the exposure of the manganese-rich proto rocks
to intense weathering, under a tropical climate, caused the enrichment of manganese by supergene
alteration. During weathering of the proto rocks, the manganese is believed to have gone in solution as
Mn2+ and precipitated as Mn4+ from colloidal solutions.
In summary, the manganese mineralization at Matthews Ridge is clearly related to lateritic weathering of
a complex geological sedimentary succession, which was metamorphosed, tectonically deformed,
modified by igneous activity and partially obliterated by intense hydrothermalism.

9. EXPLORATION
9.1 Current Exploration Program
The Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI) exploration program was designed to identify and measure the
manganese resources in the four Prospecting Licenses (PL). The work was initiated along an area
15 km in length encompassing nine hills numbered 1 to 9, partially mined in the sixties (Hills 5 to 9) and
referred as Footprint. The Footprints center of gravity is Hill 5, where the former processing plant was
located and where current exploration facilities are installed (office, core shed, laboratory, etc.). The
program was extended in 2012 to the east of Hill 1, into an area denominated Arakaka in PL 4, and
further southeast to PL 1, at the Pipiani Hills area (Figure 9.1).
Figure 9.1 Location Map of Prospect Areas Covered by

Detailed Exploration in Prospecting Licenses held by RMI

9.1.1 Matthews Ridge Prospect (Footprint) Exploration
The exploration program for the mineralized saprolite of this area began in November 2010, with the
mechanized trenching of all hills. The trenching program was completed in 2011 with 130 trenches
totalling 12,429 m in length and over 15,000 samples. As trenching advanced, diamond drilling (DD)
st
was initiated on April 1 , 2011, and continued until August 2012. A total of 735 DD holes and 235 reverse
circulation (RC) holes were completed for a total of 47,570 m and 17,361 m drilled, respectively.
The exploration program for mineralized surficial detrital material began in 2012, with sampling of
specifically dug pits and re-sampling existing trenches. A total of 365 locations were sampled.
Figure 9.2: Map of the Footprint Area,

Schematic Location of Manganiferous Zones Explored by Trenching and Drilling
The exploration program for tailings began in 2011 with drilling by hand augers, which failed to properly
sample the material. In September 2012 a manual Banka drill was brought to the Project and the
sampling of this material was done successfully, for a total of 119 holes.

Interpretation and results of the exploration on the Footprint are discussed in Section 14 (Mineral
Resources).
9.1.2 Arakaka Prospect Exploration
The Arakaka prospect holds the eastern continuation of the Matthews Ridge Footprint manganese
mineralization, located mostly on PL 4. Exploration of this area started in 2012 and demonstrated the
occurrence of detrital and saprolitic manganese mineralization in a NE-SW trending sets of hills
immediately to the east of Hill 1, extending for approximately 5 km in length.
A soil geochemistry program covered 10.86 km of lines. This was followed by a program comprised of
182 pits to sample the mineralized detrital and duricrust materials. The program indicated that the
manganese detrital cover is developed on the hill tops and on slopes, distributed over the prospect as
patches 100 m to 200 m wide, following the ridge crests. A trenching program excavated 20 trenches with
total length of 1,642 m and exposed significant manganese intersections in saprolite. This indicated a
strike length of approximately 3 km (Figure 9.3). The objective of this stage of the program was to
generate enough sampling to complete a resource estimate of detritic material and demonstrate the
presence of mineralized saprolite, to be explored later by further trenching and drilling.

Figure 9.3: Map of Arakaka Prospect Area showing Trenching Work
9.1.3 Pipiani Prospect Exploration
The Pipiani prospect is located in PL 1, approximately 65 km to the southeast of Matthews Ridge. The
exploration program confirmed the occurrence of detrital and saprolitic manganese mineralization in a
NW-SE trending area 5 km in length. The first phase program focused on the delineation of the spatial
extent and grade of the detrital material, while recording the presence of mineralized saprolite, principally
by pitting and trenching. The detrital material is developed on the top surfaces and on slopes of hills in
Pipiani Zones 1, 2 and 3. It is distributed widely over the ridges in patches 100 m to 400 m wide, for an
aggregate strike length of about 2.5 km. Sampling of the detrital material was done on trenches
approximately 200 m apart and sampled every 50 m along their length. This was further augmented by
pits spaced roughly 50 m x 50 m covering the area. The detrital zones are subdivided into five separate
sub-zones due to the non-uniform depth distribution of this material (Figure 9.4).
The first phase trenching program, oriented transverse to the prevailing structures, was designed to
establish the existence of saprolitic mineralization along strike, while attempting to define controls on its

localization. Sixteen trenches, dug to an average depth of 2.5 m and totaling 3,139 m, were sampled on
Zones 1 to 3. The exposed saprolitic mineralization in Pipiani is 30 to 60 m wide and with an aggregate
length of approximately 2,000 m. A second phase exploration program will comprise of further trenching
and DD / RC drilling to demonstrate the down-dip extent and geometry of saprolitic mineralization,
allowing the estimation of resources.
Figure 9.4: Map of Pipiani Prospect Area showing Trenching Work
9.2 Topographic Surveys, Coordinates and Datum
The Project topographic surveying was established in 2011 from two geodesic monuments located at
each end of the Matthews Ridge airstrip. Unfortunately, the official coordinates for these monuments were
never found and their position was initially established with a hand held GPS. They were used,
nevertheless, as starting points for a series of survey loops using Leica TC1100 and TC1600 total station
instruments.

The detailed surveying of drill hole collars, trenches and pits, bulk metallurgical samples, and access
roads has been done by an independent Guyanese contractor, J. Singh Surveying Services. Until a high-
resolution LiDAR survey was flown in mid-2012, the work done on the Footprint area was plotted on a
topographic map generated originally by Manganese Mines Management Ltd. (MMM) in the sixties,
which was digitized and georeferenced, but known to be inaccurate. The LiDAR survey covered PL 2
and 3 (partially 4) and was organized by ATLIS Geomatics Inc. partnered with McElhanney
Consulting Services Ltd. (owner of the LiDAR sensor) of Canada, and GeoAir SA of Mexico. This survey
used the Leica ALS50-II system and the flight height ranged from 1,300 to 2,500 m AGL, while field view
2
was set to 50 degrees and the average point density planned at 1 pts/m . The base station was placed at
the Matthews Ridge airstrip and the coordinates were processed in WGS84 with the following geodetic
coordinates: Lat. 7 degrees, 29 minutes and 10.35 seconds north, Long. 60 degrees, 11 minutes and
32.40 seconds west. Once the LiDAR data became available, all information was re-plotted on new maps
with accurate two meter-spaced contours.
The surveying of the work conducted at Arakaka and Pipiani prospects was done using the total station
described above, by the same contract surveyor. RMI had additional lines cut parallel to the
mineralization strike in order to obtain more survey points and generate a contour map. The location of
geological points and general mapping is done on a day-to-day basis with the use of Garmin Csx GPS
instruments with XY accuracy of about 3 m.
All surveyed information in the Project has been handled using the PSAD56-20N datum, except for
Pipiani which is located in zone 21N. This is a UTM coordinate system that uses the Provisional South
American datum of 1956 and has been commonly used in Guyana.
9.3 Geological Mapping and Outcrop Sampling
The geological mapping was concentrated along artificially-created exposures, in trenches and road cuts.
There is limited outcrop available elsewhere because of soil and alluvial cover. All mapping has been
systematically registered on logs and the information loaded to the Project geological database.
9.4 Trenching and Pitting
Trenching has been the principal tool used by RMI to initially expose the saprolitic manganese and detrital
mineralization. RMI purchased five Hyundai 210LC and, two 305LC excavators, one Caterpillar D5 and
four D6 bulldozers for this purpose. The trenches opened with excavators are usually one meter wide and
deep enough to reach saprolite. They were dug perpendicular to the known strike of mineralized

units/bedding, thus generally north-south, and are usually restricted to the crest of the hills, where the
equipment could maneuver efficiently and safely (Figure 9.5).
Figure 9.5: Typical Mechanized Trench Next to Former Mining Bench (to the right Hill 5).
Detrital Exploration
The purpose of this program was to measure the geometry and volume of the detrital cover on each hill
through the systematic sampling of pits and trenches. Pits were done either mechanically or manually,
depending on the topographic conditions of the site. The deployed methodology attempted to sample the
existing detrital cover on a density of points suitable for accurate volume determination. A representative
number of detrital samples were initially processed in a jigging circuit to determine their metallurgical
characteristics. This was followed by denser grid sampling (100 x 50 m) and analysis of the material for
volume and average grade determination.
9.5 Geophysical Program
Magnetic Susceptibility
Magnetic susceptibility measurements of drill hole samples were done using a KT-9 instrument
manufactured by Terraplus. Because most of the core drilled in 2011 was fragmented after sampling and
only chips were available for the RC holes, it was decided to make these measurements on pulp rejects,
which are very homogeneous and easily handled. A total of 10,637 susceptibility readings of RC pulps did
not provide a good correlation with manganese grade.

Magnetometric Survey
RMI purchased a pair of GEM System GSM-19T proton magnetometers and covered 85.4 km of lines
with a magnetometric survey measuring stations at every 25 m in an attempt to map geological contacts
and determine if manganiferous units gave a response to the method. Results demonstrated that certain
units, like diorite intrusions, can be mapped, but manganese mineralization in phyllitic sediments cannot
be detected.
Induced Polarization
From October 2011 to August 2012, RMI carried out 72.5 line-km of gradient DC/IP and about 42 line-km
of dipole-dipole DC/IP surveys over the Footprint and Arakaka areas using its own equipment. The first
method was chosen because data acquisition is relatively faster. It was found that gradient array DC/IP
data is useful for delineating the mineralized zones associated with carbonaceous horizons, but has
difficulties figuring out the depth of such zones. This work was done under supervision of
Dr. Thomas Armah of University of Ghana and geophysicist Kwame Barko from Canada.

10. DRILLING
10.1 Drilling Program
Once a sufficient number of trenches demonstrated on-strike continuity of mineralization, Reunion

st
Manganese Inc. (RMI) launched a drilling program from April 1 , 2011 to August 2012. By the end of
this program, a total of 735 diamond drill (DD) and 283 reverse circulation (RC) holes had been
executed, for total lengths of 47,570 m and 17,332 m, respectively. The average length of all drill holes is
approximately 64 m. The diamond drilling program generated 24,207 core samples, while the
RC generated 11,536 chip samples for analysis.
Major Drilling (Major) initiated the program with two Sandvik DE710 wireless, track-mounted rigs and
tooling to drill HQ and NQ core sizes. Major drilled 311 holes, designated 11MR0001 to 11MR0241, for a
total length of 20,229 m. The alternating hard/soft nature of the saprolitized banded manganese units
initially caused serious recovery problems (less than 60% recovery) and Major had to re-drill 72 holes
using triple-tube core barrel the re-drilled holes received A or AA suffixes to their number and most
of the original core was not sampled. Major drilled until December 2011, when the contract was
terminated and their equipment demobilized early in 2012.
In order to boost productivity, AK Drilling International (AK), a Peruvian company, was hired in May 2011
and started drilling on August 16, 2011, also using two Sandvik DE710 rigs fitted with a Boyles B20
rotation unit, plus an EDM track-mounted support vehicle (Figure 10.1). AK drilled 285 holes designated
11MR1001 to 12MR1285, of NQ and HQ in diameters and using triple-tube core barrel, for a total length
of 17,933 m. Their contract was terminated in August 2012 and the equipment demobilized.

Figure 10.1: Diamond Drill Rig on Hill 6 Operated by AK Drilling
A third diamond drilling company, Drillex Guyana (Drillex), was hired and started drilling on
st
September 1 , 2011, using two Korean-made track-mounted Cortech Drill Equipment CSD 1300G rigs.
Drillex bored 139 holes designated 11MR2001 to 12MR2138, of NQ and HQ diameters and using triple-
tube core barrel, for a total length of 9,409 m. This contract was terminated in September 2012 and the
equipment demobilized.
In order to further advance the in-fill drilling, AK was given a RC drilling contract and a Foremost
Prospector 750 Buggy rig with 900 CFM/350 PSI Sulair compressor was mobilized to site and started
drilling on February 3, 2012, using 4 x 3 m dual wall pipe. This rig drilled 280 holes designated
12MR3001 to 12MR3280. Drilling of Footprint targets ended in May 2012 and the rig moved to the
Northern Prospect.
The tailings of manganese material occur in the valley downstream from the plant run by the former
operator, Manganese Mine Management Ltd. (MMM). This material was deposited as an alluvium and
consists of mineralized fragments of a size fraction that was not commercial at the time. The area flooded
by tailings and covered by low vegetation is large, but only one fourth of the area actually holds tailings
material thicker than 0.5 m. The remaining area is covered by a layer of clays with some manganous

content. The objective of this sampling program was to determine the volume and nature of the tailings by
taking samples of the material on a 50 x 50 m grid pattern from surface to bedrock at one meter intervals
with a manual Banka rig, mapping its extent. Banka rigs are typically used on alluvial exploration and
consist of steel pipes (6 diameter) driven in the ground by a team of six persons, which also sample the
material trapped inside the pipes with a bailer at every meter of penetration. The rig used was rented
from the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) and operated by RMI employees under the
guidance of GGMC technicians.
10.2 Drilling Methodology
Since the trenching program provided much geological information on the surface of the hills, the drilling
program was conceived to test the down-dip and lateral extensions of the mineralized bodies exposed by
the shallow trenches. A few areas with known and / or suspected presence of mineralization could not be
drilled because of access problems, particularly along the steep flanks of hills. Most DD holes were thus
initially placed along lines in between adjacent trenches, giving an average distance of 100 m between
drill hole lines. Once it became obvious that the mineralized sequence is strongly folded, the drill density
was increased, reaching approximately 50 x 50 m on the western hills. The RC rig was largely used on
Hills 4 to 1 to do in-fill drilling, but not along the trenches, as the chips provide less geological information
than core. The RC rig was also used to do several in-fill and isolated holes at the edges of the Footprint
area due to its higher mobility. In order to compare results from different drilling methods, 22 twin holes
were done (at least two pairs per hill), by drilling DD and RC holes one meter apart. The two drilling
techniques gave results with excellent correlation (see discussion in Section 12).
Core logging follows all the prescriptions contained in standard drilling templates, as applicable, including
lithological codes, structure, etc. and using the template menus. Logging was done at the Matthews Ridge
core shed by use of netbooks hosting templates on Excel format and logs uploaded to the appropriate
place in the database server at the end of every day. Core logging in 2011 was done by manually
describing the lithologies, etc. on a paper template. It was later observed that there were inconsistent
coding and formatting. This information was then digitized and validated by re-logging all critical drill holes
in 2012. These were then consolidated with the information on the template format designed for the
current database.
10.3 Drill Hole Survey
The surveying of drill hole collars was done by an independent Guyanese surveyor contractor,
J. Singh Surveying Services, who uses Leica TC1100 and TC1600 total station instruments. This

surveying is done based on loops tied to pre-surveyed monuments and results are delivered as Excel
spreadsheets certified correct by the surveyor.
rd
The down-hole survey of holes 11MR0001 to 43 (June 3 , 2011) was done with a Tropari instrument
made by Pajari Instruments, with readings at approximately every 30 m. From hole 11MR0044 onwards,
three Reflex EZ-TRAC multi shot digital instruments were used, also with readings at every 30 m. As the
drilled lithologies do not have significant magnetism, the measurements made by these instruments are
considered accurate. A total of 3,580 down-hole orientation measurements were recorded.
RC and Banka bore holes were not surveyed down-hole.
10.4 Drill Core Recovery
DD core recovery measurements were executed at the drill site, while the core was still held by the inner
tube. The length of an interval is equivalent to the length of the advancement made during the drilling
maneuver of the bore hole, disregarding the geological limits. The maneuvers were identified in the core
boxes by a wooden marker block displaying the information on depth, advancement and recovery of the
cores. A maneuver interval is the one comprised between two marker blocks. Such data (depth,
advancement and recovery) were written down on a drill control spreadsheet by a trained geotechnician,
witnessed by the driller. Drillers were encouraged to drill short runs when core recovery was less than
90% to minimize core loss. This technique allows the immediate identification of recovery problems and
reduces controversies if recovery is measured at the core shed after handling, transportation, etc.
Average recovery was 83%.
All maneuvers also had their rock quality designation (RQD) determined. This measurement consists in
the division of the sum of the length of the fragments larger than 10 cm by the total length of the
maneuver interval, and subsequent multiplication of the result by 100. Discontinuities caused by the
operation of the drill or subsequent ruptures are disregarded. These measurements are also recorded on
a specific template and transferred to the database.
10.5 Reverse Circulation Recovery
RMI estimated recovery of these holes by the weighing of the mass of chip samples produced for each
meter of advance and comparing this to the expected one. This weighing of sample bags was done at
the core shed to obtain higher accuracy. As almost all RC holes were drilled along hill crests, they did not
encounter water and thus did not face recovery problems. The average recovery of RC was 85-90%.

Core recovery was generally good and G Mining Services Inc. (GMSI) is confident that there are no
sampling or recovery factors that would negatively impact the sampling procedures.
Overall, core sampling methods are to industry standards for mineralization of this type. GMSI is of the
opinion that the sampling methods meet National Instrument 43-101 standards.

11. SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY
11.1 Sampling
11.1.1 Trenches and Pits
The following procedures have been used for preparing and sampling trenches:
Trenches are excavated perpendicular to the strike of the bedding and mineralization.
The trenches are to be excavated deep enough to penetrate into saprolite, although in a few cases
they stopped in detrital or duricrust material.
The trench wall is cleaned by removing soil smeared on the wall.
The geologist marks the start and finish points of trench and channel, which are not necessarily
the same. The trench starts at the beginning of excavation, while the channel starts from the 0 m
of sampling, on exposed outcrop. The start and finish of the trench and channel are marked by
pegs (color painted) and flagging tape.
By convention, all trenches are sampled from the north to the south.
Sampling is done taking continuous channels of 1 m length along the eastern side of the trench
immediately above the floor of the trench.
The trench number and the sample interval are marked on the surface of the sample bags and on
a label placed inside the bag. The sample tags and QA/QC controls are inserted by the core shed
staff.
Every attempt is made to sample at right angles to the bedding. As the bedding / mineralization
generally are near vertical in orientation, most samples are horizontal. However, when the bedding
flattens out, that is, dips less than 45 degrees either to the north or south, a vertical sample is
taken from the center point of the 1 m interval. This sample is one meter in length measured from
the floor of the trench.
A field duplicate is taken at every 20 samples, from the same channel as the original sample by
deepening the original sample.
The cut channel is as uniform in width and depth as possible.
Soil and obviously transported material are not sampled where these are present in small
lengths, an interval of no sample (NS) is recorded. In case of such a larger interval, the trench
ends and a new one should start where exposed rock is once again observed.

Any mineralized detrital material overlying the saprolite is sampled, but the sampling for this
material is done with a specific procedure.
A sketch of the lithologies and their structure are hand drawn at a scale of 1:100 along the entire
trench. In 2012 and 2013, the entire trench was also to be photographed on a sample by sample
basis.
The trench data is handled as if it belonged to a semi-horizontal drill hole and as such the surveyor
records the down-hole changes by measuring XYZ data at each point where the azimuth and/or
dip of the trench changes, starting from start point
The logging of the observed geological features is recorded by the geologist on templates, which
is very similar to a drill hole log.
After each trench is finished, all relevant data is immediately loaded to the database.
The detrital mineralization has been sampled using channels in pits and trenches, following the
procedures below:
If the detrital material is visually homogeneous, there is only one sample collected from each
sample point.
If the detrital material is not homogeneous and non-mineralized colluvial material might be
present, then a sample is collected of each type of material. The organic soil cover is not sampled.
If no trench is available, a pit is dug to the saprolite contact. The saprolite is identified as an
outcrop and a rock point created. If the bedrock is mineralized, a sample is collected.
The detrital material is sampled by digging a vertical channel on the wall of the pit/trench 30 cm
wide and a sample proportionally taken along the channel so that the total length is equally
sampled. As the channel is dug, the material is placed in a bag held inside a 20 L plastic
bucket / pail, which is used to hold the bag and measure the sampling volume/weight. The entire
length of the channel is sampled, assuring a proportional sampling for each bucket, if more than
one bucket is collected (like for metallurgical testing).

11.1.2 Diamond Drill Core Sampling, Security and Chain-of-Custody
Core is brought from drill sites at the end of every shift by Reunion Manganese Inc (RMI) personnel,
conditioned in boxes with all markings of length, advances, etc. and put on logging tables for inspection
before photographing, logging, etc. The following procedures have been used for core sampling:
Sample intervals do not exceed 1.5 m.
Sample intervals observe contacts of mineralized intervals and do not cross significant lithologic
contacts (phyllite/diorite for example).
Lithologies not hosting manganese mineralization, like diorite and phyllite, are usually not
sampled. Small (i.e. 2 m) non-mineralized intervals contained in mineralized intervals are sampled
so as to provide sampling continuity. Sampling of mineralized intervals includes reasonable
shoulders of non-mineralized material to clearly define the mineralization contacts.
Samples are not combined across areas of core loss.
The left half () of the core is sampled for analysis. The remaining half () is retained for future
reference or re-sampling if needed.
Where soft saprolite is to be sampled, cutting with a knife is the preferred method. Samples are
cut utilizing a rock saw where the rock is hard and competent.
The core is cut so as to render a representative sample of that particular zone.
In the case where a duplicate sample is taken, a half of the remaining half of the core is cut and
sent for analysis, while the other residual half, now representing one-quarter of the original core, is
to be kept for reference in the core library.
The core sampling is done according to a sampling plan prepared by the geologist who logs the
core. This plan determines the sampling intervals to be observed and is kept as a physical copy on
file.
The core shed team is responsible for the sampling itself. They will first take the geologists
sample plan and incorporate into it the control samples according to the QA/QC parameters. They
will physically organize the samples, with the insertion of those control samples in the batch while
introducing sequential sample tags in the bags.
Once the samples are put in the bags, there is no further handling of the samples and they are tied
individually and in groups of five in a larger bag, on which the batch and individual sample
numbers are recorded. The bags, composing a batch, are delivered to the laboratory together,
never separately, accompanied by a dispatch document listing all the samples in the batch and

with the relevant instructions for their analysis. The dispatch of core samples to the sample
preparation laboratory in Georgetown is made by an independent air charter company, which
handles the samples during transport to the Ogle Airport, where they are picked-up by the
laboratory personnel against signed receipts.
11.1.3 Reverse Circulation Logging and Sampling
Reverse circulation (RC) samples are collected in buckets at the exiting point of the cyclone and
immediately passed once through a Jones splitter, with the collection of half the sample in a bag marked
with the drill hole number and the interval drilled. A small hand-size sample is also collected, sieved in
water to eliminate fines and to allow the identification of the rock type by a geologist at the drill site, using
a hand lens. These logging chips are then stored in a chip tray for future reference. The lithology is
identified and other pertinent information recorded by hand on a template and later digitized. The logging
chips are often reviewed by the geologist when doing the interpretation of sections, etc., to confirm the
lithologies described.
The samples are weighed in their original bags and then organized in the core shed as per instruction of
the geologist in charge. Non-mineralized lithologies are not sampled and the sample bags of such
intervals withdrawn from the sample batches and kept. Sample tags and control samples are then
introduced as per the QA/QC program and the bags sealed for handing over to the FILAB laboratory on
site, against a signed receipt.
11.1.4 Banka Drilling for Tailings Sampling
There was an attempt in 2011 to sample this material with an auger, but sampling was not successful
below the water table. Given the characteristics of the material, RMI sampled it with a manual Banka drill
with 6-diameter casing, following the procedure below:
Sampling is done from surface to the bottom of the tailings using the bailer tool. A sample was
collected every meter of advance and the entire content of the sample put in a bag marked with
the hole and interval.
The samples were transported to the sample shed and placed over a dry surface to let the excess
water drain away. Sample tags and control samples were then attached as per the QA/QC
program and the bags are handed over to the FILAB laboratory on site, against a signed receipt.
Drill hole nomenclature used is 12MR6000 and sample nomenclature is 12MR6000 0-1 m, 1-2 m,
etc.

11.1.5 Metallurgical Sampling
Metallurgical samples of saprolitic and detritic material have been collected mostly on trench walls and
road cuts, where there is abundant and well exposed mineralized material. The following procedures are
used for this sampling:
Identify a representative site for the geological unit being sampled, preferably a vertical wall face
intersecting the bedding at right angle.
Measure and mark a panel on the wall forming a square with sizes measuring 1 m and avoid
biases on the proportion of mineralized and un-mineralized material.
Clean the surface of the panel by removing mud, moss, etc.
Collect sample evenly over the entire surface of the panel by chipping with a geological hammer.
The mass of the sample is determined by the metallurgical test to be done. If three samples of
equal mass are to be collected, each one is created by equally chipping the entire surface and
putting it in separate bags. All three samples should be essentially the same because they
represent the deepening of the panel.
Place a sample identification tag on the NE corner of the panel using a large nail to which
aluminium and flagging tape tags are attached showing the sample number.
Photograph the panel, ensuring the sample number written on the tag is visible and legible
(Figure 11.1).
The sample location is recorded as an outcrop point, with a full description in the appropriate log,
including a GPS reading. The sample point is subsequently surveyed accurately.

Figure 11.1: Photo of Metallurgical Panel Sample MRMS 09W-002 on Hill 9
The sampling of detritic material is collected using the same procedure as regular detritic samples,
through a vertical channel sample, except for the mass requested by the tests envisaged (Figure 11.2).

Figure 11.2: Photo of Detritic Channel Sample MRDT 1204 at Hill 9

G Mining Services Inc (GMSI) is of the opinion that the security and integrity of the RMI samples
submitted for analyses is un-compromised, given the adequate record keeping, storage locations, sample
transport methods, and the analytical laboratories chain of custody procedures.
11.2 Analytical Laboratories
RMI used three different laboratories to analyze the samples generated by the Project. This was mainly
due to the large number of samples taken over short periods of time in 2012 and the difficulty for any
single lab to cope with the sample volumes in question. The three laboratories are:
a) Activation Laboratories (Actlabs) is a Canadian laboratory based in Ancaster, Ontario, which

has a sample preparation unit in Georgetown. Actlabs is accredited to international quality
standards through the International Organization for Standardization / International Electro-
technical Commission (ISO/IEC) 17025 (which includes ISO 9001 and 9002 specifications). It
also holds the CAN-P-1579 accreditation for mineral analysis from the Standards Council of
Canada. Assay certificates are signed by an Ontario certified assayer. All analysis done by RMI in
2010 and 2011 used this lab, for both trench and core samples, with the preparation of pulps in
Georgetown and XRF analysis in Canada. Long turn-around periods and QC issues early in 2012
led RMI to look for alternative lab services and reduced the use of this laboratory. RMI used
Actlabs in 2012 mostly for umpire assays.
b) FILAB SAS (FILAB) is a French laboratory headquartered in Dijon, with subsidiaries in

Suriname, French Guiana and Guyana. FILAB SAS is accredited for ISO/IEC 17025 through the
French COFRAC system (www.cofrac.fr ), and also by SNECMA (Safran Group), EDF and the
French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development. Assay certificates have been issued by
either a French certified assayer or a graduated Guyana chemist. The Guyana unit is undergoing
accreditation. It was invited by RMI to establish a full laboratory service on site at Matthews Ridge
to improve turn-around and provide more flexibility to assay scheduling. It works independently
from RMI, assuring arms-length analytical services tailored to the project needs, with complete
XRF and ICP systems. Filab started commercial operations on February 4, 2012. FILAB did some
2011 diamond drill core analysis, analyzed all samples from the reverse circulation drill program
as well as samples from trenches and pits done in 2012 and 2013. This laboratory is housed in a
dedicated building just across the sample shed facility on site and transportation of samples
between the two buildings is usually done by a RMI pick-up.
c) Acme Analytical Laboratories (Acme-Labs) is a Canadian laboratory member of the Bureau

Veritas Group headquartered in Vancouver with subsidiaries in several countries, including a
sample preparation facility in Georgetown. The Vancouver laboratory holds an ISO/IEC 17025
2005 accreditation from Standards Council of Canada and the Georgetown facility holds an

ISO 9001 2000 registration. Assay certificates are signed by a British Columbia certified assayer.
Pulps are generated in Georgetown and analyzed in Vancouver. ACME analyzed all Project
diamond drilling core done in 2012 and re-assayed certain DDH core from holes previously done
in 2011. ACME also analyzed several batches of umpire assays. The transportation of samples
from Matthews Ridge to the Georgetown facility is always done by chartered plane, an Acme-
Labs representative picking-up the samples from the chartering company office at Ogle airport.
11.3 Sample Preparation and Analytical Procedures
RMI asked the three laboratories processing samples from the Project to use identical sample preparation
and analytical procedures so that results were as comparable as possible. There are, however, inevitable
variations on equipment and chemical consumables among them. All laboratories were also asked to
provide assay results on certificates of analysis following specific format as Excel spreadsheets and
signed PDF files. This format includes summarized sample preparation and analytical procedures,
detection limits, internal reference materials, etc. on a lay out that facilitates validation and upload to the
database. The following analyses are reported as percentages by the XRF analysis, on this order: SiO2,
Al2O3, Fe, Mn, MgO, CaO, Na2O, K2O, TiO2, P2O5, Cr2O3, V2O5, BaO and LOI. Besides these oxides and
elements, Acme Labs also reports copper, nickel, lead, SO3, strontium, zinc, zirconium, total carbon and
total sulfur. The following is a description of the sample preparation and XRF analysis as practiced by
each laboratory.
Acme-Labs (Group 4X Method)
a) After drying the sample, crushing is done with a TM Engineering Terminator jaw crusher and a
Rocklabs Boyd Combination crush and split unit. Three percent of the samples in every batch are
subjected to granulometric testing to ensure that at least 80% of the material is passing the 2 mm
mesh. If there is a granulometric failure, the machines are adjusted in order to facilitate a finer
crush. Cleaning is done with the use of compressed air (between 90-120 Psi) after passing every
th
sample and 1 kg of blank pre-certified granite is passed through the crushers after every 10
sample in order to flush them.
b) Splitting 250 to 300 g is either done manually by a Jones riffle splitter supplied by Labtech or by a
Rocklabs Boyd Combination crush and split unit.
c) Pulverizing is done with the Labtech LM2 pulverizer and the samples are either pulverized in the
Essa B300 (ring and puck set up) bowls or the Essa B1000 bowl (disc and bowl set up). The
samples are pulverized for approximately two minutes each and a granulometric test of 3% of
each batch is done. The required passing percentage is 85% passing the 200 mesh (75 microns).

Cleaning of the bowls is done using compressed air after every sample and the bowls are wiped
with alcohol after every 10 samples. Cleaning with sand is not used for the Project samples.
d) A predetermined amount of sample is roasted to determine the loss on ignition (LOI). The
roasted sample is then fused in a platinum crucible with a commercial lithium tetraborate flux. The
molten material is cast in a platinum mold. Fused discs are analyzed by XRF. Total carbon and
sulfur are determined by the Leco method.
FILAB (as per MOP 004 and 005, Revision 001)
a) After drying the sample, crushing is done with either a SAVONA (gladiator model) jaw crusher or
a Rocklabs Boyd RSD combination crush and rotating split combination unit. At every
50 samples, a granulometric testing is done to ensure that at least 75% of the material is passing
the 2.5 mm mesh. Cleaning is done with the use of compressed air (between 90-120 Psi) after
passing every sample and with a brush at every 50 samples.
b) Splitting of 300 g is either done manually using a Humboldt H-3985 12 chutes riffle splitter or by a
Rocklabs Boyd Combination crush and split unit.
c) Pulverizing is done with either the BICO disk pulverizer, TM Engineering (model STLX) vibratory
pulverizer or the Rocklabs (SRM model) vibratory pulverizer. The samples are pulverized for
approximately two minutes each and a granulometric test at every 50 samples is done. The
required passing percentage is 90% passing 100 microns. Cleaning of the bowls is done using
compressed air after every sample and by pulverizing sand at every 50 samples. Future
pulverization will use only ring and puck pulverizers, which provide a consistently better
granulometry than the BICO one.
d) A predetermined amount of sample is roasted on a Muffle furnace to determine the LOI at

1040 C. The roasted sample is then fused in a platinum crucible with a premix flux of 50% lithium
o
metaborate, 50% lithium tetraborate with 0.2% lithium bromide, a releasing agent
(SOCACHIM LT50/LM50). The molten material is cast in a platinum mold. Fused discs are
analyzed by a Bruker Tiger 8 3 kW XRF spectrometer (Figure 11.3). Total carbon and sulfur are
determined by the Leco method.

Figure 11.3: Bruker XRF Unit Operated by FILAB at Matthews Ridge Laboratory
Actlabs (Code 4C)
a) After drying the sample, crushing is done with a TM jaw crusher. At every 30 samples a
granulometric testing is done to ensure that at least 100% of the material is passing the 2.0 mm
mesh. Cleaning is done with the use of compressed air after passing every sample and with
barren material at every 10 samples.
b) Splitting of 250 g is done manually using a Jones riffle splitter.
c) Pulverizing is done with TM and LM pulverizers. The samples are pulverized for approximately
three minutes each and a granulometric test at every 50 samples is done. The required passing
percentage is 95% passing #200 mesh. Cleaning of the bowls is done using compressed air and
by pulverizing silica at every sample.
o
d) A predetermined amount of sample is roasted on a furnace to determine the LOI at 1050 C. The
roasted sample is then fused in a platinum crucible with a premix flux of lithium metaborate,
lithium tetraborate with lithium bromide. The molten material is cast in a platinum mold. Fused
discs are analyzed by a Panalytical Axios advanced wavelength dispersive XRF spectrometer.
Total carbon and sulfur are determined by the Leco method.

ICP - Sample Preparation and Analytical Procedures
The induced coupled plasma (ICP) analysis have the objective of detecting the levels of deleterious
elements in the mineralized materials, particularly of arsenic, boron, selenium, zinc, chromium and
sulphur. Chromium is reported as an oxide on all XRF analysis and Acme-Labs also reports zinc and total
sulfur in their XRF reports.
A representative number of ICP analyses have been performed by FILAB Suriname and Guyana. Sample
preparation is the same used for XRF analysis, as described above. Digestion of sample is done with
aqua regia and the solution analyzed by ICP-OES using a Perkin Elmer OPTIMA 5000 or
8000DV spectrometer. The average values obtained are: Arsenic, 34.59 ppm; boron, 40.49 ppm;
selenium, 66.43 ppm; zinc, 160.74 ppm and chromium, 112.73 ppm.
It is GMSIs opinion that security, sample collection, preparation and analytical procedures undertaken by
RMI on the Matthews Ridge Project during its exploration programs are appropriate for the sample media
and mineralization type and conform to industry standards.
11.4 Specific Gravity Measurements
RMI did systematic specific gravity measurements on all mineralized materials composing the Project
deposits.
a) Core Samples: Both wet and dry densities have been measured. Wet density (or relative density)
is obtained by calculating the hydrostatic weight of the sample. Dry density, or the density of the
sample after drying it, is calculated by measuring its water content as per the formula:
Dry Density = Wet Density

Water Content +1
The core measurements were made at approximately every five meters on a frequency dictated
by the availability of substantially homogeneous and consolidated pieces of core. For core drilled
in 2011, only half core was available, often as relatively small pieces that survived sampling.
b) Bulk Density: This technique aims to reduce the inherently poor lithological representativity of a
small core sample. The method consists essentially in digging a small hole (about seven liters) on
the outcrop of the desired lithology, weighing the material removed and filling the hole with a
known volume of water, thus obtaining the mass and the volume needed to calculate the density
(Figure 11.4). These measurements are made for each lithology on all hills. This is also the only
density method available for the detritic and tailings materials, which are unconsolidated.

Figure 11.4 in Surface Pits. a): Setup in the Back of a Pickup Truck; b): Initial Placement of
40 cm ring and Lining of Ring with Plastic Sheet c): to Hold Water used to Measure Volume;
Afterwards a Pit is excavated in Center of Ring and Volume Determined Again; d): Final Pit Once
Ring is Removed.
Figure 11.4: Bulk Density Measurement

11.5 QA/QC Procedures
There have been two QA/QC phases of programs for the Project:
c) Program implemented by geologist Grantley Walrond and supervised by engineer

Franois Viens, P. Eng. for all the work done in 2010 and 2011. Franois Viens was the Project
QP for exploration work until December 31 , 2011. This QA/QC program was observed for all drill
st
core and trenching samples obtained in 2011, even if the assaying of such material was done
only in 2012.
d) Geologist Carlos Bertoni, P. Geo., became the Project exploration QP on January 1 , 2012 and
st
implemented revised QA/QC procedures for the new work done in 2012. The QA/QC program
implemented included:
Review of 2011 data: it was observed that QA/QC instructions had not always been
rigorously observed and sampling errors were observed and corrected.
Introduction of new batching and nomenclature system.
Introduction of new control sample system, including use of coarse blanks, random
positioning of control samples in batches, systematic use of check samples, etc.
Introduction of acQuire software to manage database and conduct QA/QC routines.
The Project QA/QC procedures and results were audited by independent geologist Charles Beaudry
(2013), who issued a conformity report.
11.5.1 Database and QA/QC Management
From early 2012, RMI reorganized its database and QA/QC management by using the acQuire software
(www.acquire.com.au), which is considered the state-of-the-art for this purpose. The installation and
configuration was made by an acQuire representative and the software has been managed by
geographer Kelly Azevedo, who has more than ten years of experience on the subject both with large and
junior companies. The following configurations are in place:
The database is hosted by Microsoft SQL Server 2008R software.
An active directory was put in place to manage access permissions.
The database is only accessible within the Reunion Gold domain and there is currently no
possibility of external access via VPN.

The geological team uses the database by accessing Excel files available at a Geoserver
directory, which uses ODCB resources to connect the SQL database, thus assuring data integrity.
RMI technical management does not have write or delete permissions for the database.
QA/QC routines are performed on every sample batch to find problems as quickly as possible, but are
also run over longer time intervals to identify potential long term trends. QA/QC routines, including
graphing, assay validation, etc. are performed using acQuire modules, following the steps prescribed
below:
1) The assay certificates received in Excel format from the laboratories is imported immediately into
the active acQuire module and respective QA/QC objects for validation.
2) The validation of duplicate assays generates a duplicate data report and graph.
Pulp duplicates are considered to have failed if r value <0.9 10%.
Coarse reject duplicates are considered to have failed if r value < 0.8 20%.
3) The validation of standards generates a data report. SRM assays should fall within two standard
deviations when analyzed at the same lab using the same method. Internal standards assays
should fall within three standard deviations. The standard deviation for the precision of the lab
data is determined by selecting data over a continuous time period from present, far enough back
to achieve at least 20 data points and the value is calculated using an Excel spreadsheet.
th
4) The validation of blanks generates a duplicate data report and graph. Fail criteria is if 1/20 of the
anticipated cut off grades (e.g. 4% Mn) = 0.2%.
5) An external Excel spreadsheet is used to register non-conformities.
6) Assays importing to database. The following priority codes are in use to import data:
1 - Accepted, 2 - Pending, 3 - Rejected, 5 - Re-issued and failed again. During import, assays can
be loaded into a Pending compound definition table. Assays imported to "CorpAssay" are then
assigned an initial priority value of 2, indicating that they have not passed through QA/QC, and
are therefore not marked as accepted (priority 1). After having been analyzed for QA/QC, the
priority will be changed to 1 if the results are accepted, and 3 or greater if the results are rejected.
The priority for a given sample is stored in the "Priority" field. Since only data with Priority=1 is
visible using standard views, data loaded into the Pending compound definitions table cannot be
accessed with standard views or imported using other applications until subjected to a QA/QC
procedure. The Pending compound definitions, however, exposes data with Priority=2, making
the priority field editable. The CorpAssay ADM allows multiple instances of a single sample to

exist in the database with different priority values. This may be necessary where a single sample
is subjected to multiple tests, e.g. for laboratory comparisons or batches failed.
11.5.2 Inter Laboratory QA/QC Umpire Assays
In order to compare and correlate lab precision and accuracy so that consistent results are used in the
project database, QA/QC umpire assay exercises have been conducted, with inter-lab check analysis
covering 2% of the analysis done by each laboratory.
Reject Repeat Assay
To verify the reproducibility of assay results from coarse rejects, 2% of samples are selected to be re-
assayed by changing the sample numbers and re-submitting them to the laboratories that had originally
assayed them. Coarse and pulp rejects are also routinely used as control samples in every new batch
submitted to all labs, at a rate of one coarse and one pulp reject per group of 40 samples, the standard
batch size.
QA/QC Methodology of Sample Stream
The QA/QC system adopted by RMI for all drill and trench sampling done from January 2012 revolves
around a batch concept. The control samples are distributed randomly (except for field duplicate used in
trench) among the original ones and in each batch occupy a different position in the sample stream. As
control samples, RMI has used two commercial standard reference materials (SRM), three internal
standards (high, medium and low grade) made with local mineralized materials, one coarse blank
(granite from local quarry) and one fine blank (Berbice white sand). One batch is composed of
40 samples, of which five are control samples and 35 are original samples, following these criteria:
Drill Core and RC Chip Samples: Includes two standards (one SRM and one high and/or
medium, and/or low grade internal standard), one fine or coarse blank, and one or two
duplicates/repeat (coarse and pulp) control samples.
Trench Samples: Includes two standards (high and/or medium, and/or low grade), one fine or
coarse blank, and one or two duplicates/repeat control samples. Field duplicate are taken every
20 samples. In case of a missing low-grade standard, it is replaced by a blank.
To secure an accurate use of control samples in the batch organization, the following steps are observed:
Sample Plan: The insertion of control samples is done only at the sample shed by a group of

trained geotechnicians under the supervision of a geologist. This is also when sample tags are
introduced in the sample bags, in a continuous sequential order according to a written sample plan
prepared beforehand. The sample plan shows the exact location of each control sample, and their
random position is determined beforehand. The geologist includes in the sample plan the original
sample being duplicated.
Sample Tags: These tags are kept in a locked cabinet and are issued to the core shed personnel
on an as-needed basis and a log of tag disbursement is maintained. The sample tag stubs are
completely filled-out and the books used are kept in a sample book library for future perusal and
control.
Laboratory Sample Flow Management
RMI uses more than one laboratory, but the management of sample flow is necessarily the same,
following these steps:
Once the batch is complete, an assay requisition form is filled, listing the samples and the sample
preparation / assay technique to be used by the laboratory. Along with the requisition form, a
receipt form is submitted, listing the samples included in the batch and containing a space for
signature by a lab representative.
A batch shipping log is used by the core shed staff to record the batch submittal to labs and assign
the sequential batch number.
Bagging - Samples submitted display the sample number and are individually tied with plastic
string and conditioned in raffia bags (five samples per raffia bag), which lists the project initials
(MR), the batch number and the from-to sample numbers included. The raffia bags are also
securely tied. The laboratory is instructed to recycle the sample bags, returning the rejects on the
same bags and showing the original batch numbers. In the case of damaged bags, the lab is to
replace them, re-writing the same labels on a new bag.
Sample Tags
o RMI sample tags are printed in triplicate, the first stub containing all the details
related to the sample, including date, target, hole/trench, samplers name and from-to
interval in meters (see example in attachment).
o The first stub is filled out in each and every sample, not only the first of a sequence.
o The second and third stubs are inserted in the sample bag, still attached to each
other. The laboratory will detach these, placing one in the coarse reject bag and
another in the pulp reject bag.

o The laboratory is instructed to return the rejects with these stubs in the bags, even if
there is no sample in the bag, like in the case of bags that contained SRM.
Rejects Management
The proper storage of sample rejects received from the lab is essential for a proper QA/QC system, thus
assuring the integrity of samples and their easy retrieval. The laboratory is instructed to return rejects
quoting their original batch numbers, as these rejects will be stored by batch groups. Laboratories create
their own batch numbers, which are used for storage records.
Pulps are stored in Kiva plasticized cardboard NQ core boxes by batch of 40 samples.
Coarse rejects are stored in raffia bags at the reject library on shelves by batch groups, protected
from sunlight.
GMSI notes that the QA/QC program followed by RMI is adequate for the commodity investigated (Mn)
and conforms to industry standards. There is no indication of periodicity in analytical bias or poor
precision. Results demonstrate that assay values are sufficiently accurate to be used in resource
estimation.

12. DATA VERIFICATION
12.1 Database
From November 2012 until February 2013, Reunion Manganese Inc (RMI) provided to G Mining
Services Inc. (GMSI) data files for the Matthews Ridge prospect and the exploration prospects of Pipiani
and Arakaka. The information consisted of a suite of diamond drilling (DD), trenching and test pits data
files in comma-separated-values format, being exported from RMIs acQuire database. The files received
consisted of the following tables and fields:
Collar information: Hole ID, XYZ coordinates of collar, maximum depth, target information.
Down-hole survey: Hole ID, down-hole depth, dip, azimuth.
Geotech: Hole ID, depth from and to, recovery, rock quality designation.
Assay: Hole ID, depth from and to, sample ID, Mn values in %, Al2O3, Fe, P2O5 and SiO2 values.
Geology: Hole ID, depth from and to, lithology type, weathering profile.
GMSI imported the files into a MS Access database using GEMS software. The database was reviewed
and corrected if necessary prior to final formatting for resource evaluation. The following activities were
performed during database validation:
Validate total hole lengths and final sample depth data.
Verify for overlapping and missing intervals (correction as necessary).
Check drill hole survey data for out of range or suspect down-hole deviations.
Visual check of spatial distribution of drill holes and trenches.
Validate lithology and weathering codes.
12.2 Database Content
The database includes different types of drillholes, trenches, augers and detrital samples that were
collected over a period of four years, from 2010 to 2013. The content of the database is summarized in
Table 12.1 and Table 12.2.

Table 12.1: Content of Database Available for the Resource Estimate for Matthews Ridge Prospect
Number of Average
Total Length Number of
Work Type Holes/Trench/ Length
(m) Assays
Samples (m)
Auger 45 3.12 140.30 56
Banka 117 1.86 217.20 208
Diamond Drillhole 664 64.91 43,097.42 22,237
Detrital Samples 454 1.75 794.92 308
Reverse Circulation Drillhole 283 61.24 17,332 11,536
Trench 217 87.58 19,005.80 16,665
Table 12.2: Content of Database Available for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects
Number of Average Length Total Length Number of

Prospect Work Type
Trench/Samples (m) (m) Assays
Detrital Sample 351 1.15 405.39 362

Pipiani
Trench 18 192.35 3,462.38 2,294
Detrital Sample 182 0.99 180.95 119

Arakaka
Trench 15 80.61 1,209.10 897
12.3 Core Recovery Data
Recovery of diamond drill core was generally deficient throughout the drilling program, with an overall
average of 83%. This is explained by the rheologically contrasting alternation of hard/brittle
(manganiferous material) and soft (phyllite) beds of the saprolitic material, in particular the BMF horizons.
Average recoveries by hole improved from February 2012 with the introduction of new recovery control
practices (Figure 12.1 upper plot) and, just as important, the variance of recoveries decreased
(Figure 12.1 lower plot). A database review by Beaudry, (2013) showed that core density measurements
do not vary with recovery, but density increases with increasing manganese and decreases with
increasing Al2O3 (i.e. higher phyllite content). This suggests that all grade categories have high and low
recoveries and that lost material has same grade as recovered material.
Beaudry, (2013) also demonstrated that reverse circulation (RC) weight recovery data is consistent with
3
variations in density due to variations in manganese (positive correlation with density) and Al2O (negative
correlation with density) grades.

Figure 12.1: Control Chart of Average & Standard Deviations of Recoveries by Drill Hole Ordered
by Date of Drilling (Beaudry, 2013)
12.3.1 Density Measurements on Core and Relationship to Manganese Grade
A regression analysis for 4,708 wet and dry densities was done (Beaudry,2013), and results are shown in
Figure 12.2. Wet density is an excellent predictor of dry density with an R-Square of 93.8%. Only about 6.2% of
the variation of dry density is caused by anything else than the actual wet density measurement.
Figure 12.2: Scatterplot of Dry Density vs. Wet Density and Regression
of Dry Density on Wet Density
The regression equation is

Scatterplot of Dry_Density vs Wet_Density
Dry_Density = - 0.882 + 1.27 Wet_Density
14 LITHOCODE
BMF
CHE
12
DET Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
DIO
MMF
Constant -0.88200 0.02043 -43.18 0.000
10
MPH Wet_Density 1.26540 0.00945 133.91 0.000
PHY
Dry_Density
6
S = 0.115418 R-Sq = 93.8% R-Sq(adj) = 93.8%
4
Analysis of Variance
2
Source DF SS MS F P
0 Regression 1 238.87 238.87 17931.49 0.000
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Residual Error 1179 15.71 0.01
Wet_Density Total 1180 254.58

Figure 12.3 shows a plot of wet density determinations vs. manganese. Although a clear pattern is present of
increasing density with increasing manganese content, the slope is very shallow and the band of data is quite wide
making the relationship much less defined, suggesting that density is affected by other factors than manganese
grade in the samples.
Figure 12.3: Scatterplot of Wet Density vs. Mn% for Mineralized Samples (Beaudry, 2013)
12.3.2 Survey Control
The surveying of drill hole collars, trenches and pits has been done by an independent contractor as
detailed in Section 9. The detailed survey methods and results are considered to be industry standard.
12.4 Comparison of RC and DDH Assays
A total of 22 RC holes are considered twins of diamond drill holes, with close proximity and orientation.
Results of the average manganese for each original and twinned hole are shown Figure 12.4, showing
that results are mostly quite close. A paired t-test by (Bea13) gives a p-value of 0.73, indicating that there
is no bias between the diamond drill and RC results. Paired t-tests were also done on other elements and
indicate that results are different for Fe (p-value= 0.0042) and Al2O3 (p-value = 0.0048), but that no
difference was found in SiO2 (p-value = 0.3340). In practice, the average iron difference between the two
datasets averages 0.56% in favor of RC drill holes out of an average iron content of 5.71% or about 10%
more. For Al2O3 the difference is about 0.703% in favor of the diamond drill holes out of an average of
15.44% Al2O3 or about 4.5%. These results show that the RC drill holes are giving the same results as the

diamond drill holes. Moreover, with 22 twin holes, there are a sufficient large number of observations to
make the conclusion robust.
Figure 12.4: Comparison of Interval Weighted Average Mn% in

Original (DDH) and Twinned (RC) Holes
12.5 Check Sampling Program
The manganiferous mineralization is easily recognizable at Matthews Ridge. Samples were collected by
GMSI during the independent metallurgical work performed on Matthews Ridge in the second half of 2012
(see Section 13). The testing program was used to design a flow sheet using scrubbing and wet
screening followed by separate fines and lump jig processing. The test program confirmed the presence
of significant manganiferous mineralization at Matthews Ridge.
12.6 Analysis of Assay Quality Control Data
Considering the QA/QC procedures described in Section 11.6 and three laboratories used for the Project,
the following sections provide an analysis of the assay quality control data. This analysis is based on
graphs and tables generated by the software acQuire from the Project database.

12.6.1 Standards
RMI was able to procure only two high-grade commercial standard reference material (SRM), both with
a much higher manganese content and different mineralogical composition than the usual high-grade
mineralization from Matthews Ridge. Only one of the SRM (from AMIS) was used by all three laboratories
and will consequently be used as the basis for the analysis.
To make-up for the paucity of commercial standards with grades similar to those of the Project and to use
standards with identical mineralogy, RMI had two sets of internal standards made: (a) the first set
consisted of one high-grade (label HG) and one low-grade (label LG) standards, which were
prepared at the FILAB laboratory in Suriname and used in 2011 and the first half of 2012, and (b) the
second set consisted of one high (label ISH), one medium (label ISM) and one low-grade (label
ISL or GGMC) standards. The ISH and ISM standards were prepared by the FILAB laboratory on site
under RMIs supervision; the ISL standard was prepared by the GGMC laboratory in Georgetown. Both
sets of internal standards were tested in round-robin exercises, which included the FILAB on-site
laboratory, the Actlabs and Acme-Labs laboratories in Canada and the SGS, Acme-Labs and ALS
laboratories in Brazil. The values used as correct for the internal standards were the averages from the
round-robin exercises. These correct values were then recalculated by moving averages as the internal
standards were analyzed routinely.
Table 12.3 provides the statistical information on the analysis of the AMIS SRM and internal standards by
the three laboratories. Figure 12.10 shows corresponding graphs. Data for Acme-Labs and Actlabs show
some significant bias, but levels are always less than a few percent, as expected. Data for FILAB,
however, is only reasonable in the central part of the grade curve (15 to 30%), with an acceptable bias
(Beaudry, 2013). FILAB had known XRF equipment calibration issues, with high and low manganese
values always reporting on the upper and lower limits, respectively, of the appropriate parameters and
required several re-analyses of sample batches.

Table 12.3: Statistics for SRM and Internal Standard Control Samples
Laboratory and Statistics SRM Internal Standards
Acme-Labs AMIS HG LG ISL ISM ISH

Total 231 157 199 35 34 -
Total (without outlier) 229 155 198 32 32 -
Number outlier 2 2 1 3 2 -
Lab average Mn% 35.30 31.51 1.24 3.32 16.34 -
Lab standard deviation 0.34 0.20 0.02 0.03 0.15 -
Reference average Mn% 35.31 32.32 1.31 3.34 16.51 -
Outlier - % 1% 1% 1% 9% 6% -
Lab average % to reference value 99.96% 97.49% 94.91% 99.25% 99.01% -
Pass 2 STD - % 100% 83% 100% 100% 100% -
Pass 3 STD - % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% -
FILAB AMIS HG LG ISL ISM ISH

Total 358 239 273 169 190 167
Total (without outlier) 337 230 270 157 187 143
Number outlier 21 9 3 12 3 24
Lab average Mn% 36.51 32.52 0.776 2.98 16.72 40.16
Lab standard deviation 0.64 1.07 0.11 0.13 1.08 0.99
Reference average Mn% 35.31 32.32 1.305 3.34 16.51 38.82
Outlier - % 6% 4% 1% 7% 2% 14%
Lab average % to reference value 103% 101% 59% 89% 101% 103%
Pass 2 STD - % 91% 63% 2% 3% 70% 92%
Pass 3 STD - % 100% 87% 6% 9% 78% 97%
Actlabs AMIS HG LG ISL ISM ISH

Total 7 306 295 7 11 -
Total (without outlier) 7 293 294 7 10 -
Number outlier 0 13 1 0 1 -
Lab average Mn% 35.12 32.77 1.31 3.28 16.30 -
Lab standard deviation 0.09 0.26 0.06 0.02 0.07 -
Reference average Mn% 35.31 32.32 1.31 3.30 16.51 -
Outlier - % 0% 4% 0% 0% 9% -
Lab average % to reference value 99% 101% 100% 99% 99% -
Pass 2 STD - % 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% -
Pass 3 STD - % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% -

Figure 12.5: Graphs of Analytical Results of AMIS SRM Control Sample by Laboratory over Time
Figure 12.6 Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard HG by Laboratory over Time
Figure 12.7: Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard LG by Laboratory over Time
Figure 12.8: Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard ISL by Laboratory over Time

Figure 12.9: Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard ISM by Laboratory over Time
Figure 12.10 Graphs of Analytical Results of Internal Standard ISH by FILAB over Time
(not used for other labs)
12.6.2 Blanks
Fine blanks were used throughout the exploration program, using white sand from the Berbice Formation,
imported from the Linden/Georgetown area. This sand has very high silica content and is uniformly fine-
grained. Coarse blanks were introduced in the 2012 program and either a granitic aggregate from the
Bartica area or commercial bentonite (drilling-quality, produced by MI Swaco) used depending on
availability, both averaging 1 cm diameter. No coarse blanks were used by the 2011 programs.
Table 12.4 shows the statistical information from the use of blank control samples and Figure 12.11
illustrates the results obtained by each laboratory. FILAB had the most consistent results. All laboratories
performed well.

Table 12.4: Summary of Statistics for the Analysis of Blank Control Samples
throughout the Program
Fine Coarse
Acme-Labs
BLK BLK
Total 386 204
Total Passing 385 204
Number of Failure 1 0
Failure Limit 0.20 0.20
Passing % 99.74% 100%
Average Grade % Mn 0.02 0.03
Expected Average Grade % Mn < 0.2 < 0.2
Fine Coarse
FILAB
BLK BLK
Total 609 337

Total Passing 609 337
Number of Failure 0 0
Failure Limit 0.20 0.20

Passing % 100.00% 100%
Average Grade % Mn 0.05 0.05
Expected Average Grade % Mn < 0.2 < 0.2
Fine Coarse
Actlabs
BLK BLK
Total 331 -
Total Passing 329 -
Number of Failure 2 -
Failure Limit 0.20 -
Passing % 99.40% -
Average Grade % Mn 0.01 -
Expected Average Grade % Mn < 0.2 -

Figure 12.11: Graphs of Analytical Results of Coarse and Fine Blank Analysis
by Laboratory over Time
12.6.3 Pulp Duplicates and Umpire Analysis
Given the use of three different laboratories for Project samples, it was important to ensure that the
results obtained from each one were comparable. As described in Section 11.3, there was an allocation of
specific sample types to particular laboratories, like Acme-Labs doing all 2012 diamond drilling samples,
FILAB performing all reverse circulation drilling and detritic samples, and Actlabs doing all the assaying
from trenches done in 2011. Moreover, coarse and pulp rejects have been extensively used as inserts in
the control sample program. There were 2,519 duplicate and umpire analysis among all three
laboratories, the compilation of their correlation shown as graphs below (Figure 12.12).
A review of the duplicate and umpire data (Beaudry, 2013) showed that precision for standards vary over
a narrow interval and are generally below 1% for ore grade samples analyzed at Actlabs and Acme-Labs.
FILAB samples, however, show almost twice the amount of variance in the standards. Precision of pulp
and coarse rejects is generally low and ranges from 2 to 7%. For core duplicates the results are more
consistent with the three labs, ranging between 23.3 and 38.2% RSD.

Figure 12.12: Scatterplot Graphs of Pulp Duplicate and Umpire Analysis Among Laboratories
Actlabs (original) and FILAB Actlabs (original) and Acme-Labs
Scatter : Mn_XRF_pct_BESTGN Scatter : Mn_XRF_pct_BESTGN
51.00 45.00
48.00
42.00
45.00
39.00
42.00
36.00
39.00
36.00 33.00
33.00 30.00
30.00 27.00
Check
Check
27.00 24.00
24.00 21.00
21.00 18.00
18.00
15.00
15.00
12.00
12.00
9.00
9.00
6.00 6.00
3.00 3.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32.00 36.00 40.00 44.00
Original Original
X=Y OLS Regression Warning Error X=Y OLS Regression Warning Error
Threshold Normal Warning Error Threshold Normal Warning Error
Acme-Labs (original) and Actlabs Acme-Labs (original) and FILAB

42.00
39.00
39.00
36.00
36.00
33.00
33.00
30.00
30.00
27.00
27.00
24.00
24.00
Check
Check
21.00
21.00
18.00
18.00
15.00 15.00
12.00 12.00
9.00 9.00
6.00 6.00
3.00 3.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32.00 36.00 40.00 0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32.00 36.00 40.00
Original Original
FILAB (original) and Acme-Labs FILAB (original) and Actlabs

60.00 60.00
56.00 56.00
52.00 52.00
48.00 48.00
44.00 44.00
40.00 40.00
36.00 36.00
Check
Check
32.00 32.00
28.00 28.00
24.00 24.00
20.00 20.00
16.00 16.00
12.00 12.00
8.00 8.00
4.00 4.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Original Original

12.7 Conclusions
GMSI has conducted a spot check comparison of approximately 5% of the drill hole database assays
against digital scans/PDF files of original lab certificates to verify the databases accuracy and
completeness. No errors were detected.
Drill hole collar, assay, survey, geology and recovery data were provided by RMI as electronic files in
Microsoft Access database and csv formats. These data files were imported into Gemcom GEMS
software and interrogated via GEMS validation functions. Key fields within critical drill hole database data
files were validated for potential numeric and alpha-numeric errors. Data validation, cross referencing
collar, survey, assay and geology files, was performed in GEMS to confirm drill hole depths, inconsistent
or missing sample/logging intervals and survey data. No significant errors were detected during data
validation.
sufficient quality to permit the completion of a NI 43-101 Mineral Reserve Estimate and provide the basis
for the conclusions and recommendations reached in this PFS.

13. MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
This Pre-feasibility Study (PFS) describes and analyses the metallurgical test program completed, which
aimed at developing and optimizing the process flowsheet needed to economically produce a marketable
manganese product. It should be noted that there had been no previous metallurgical study since the
closure of the previous operation in the late 1960s. The processing scheme tested and developed since
the beginning of the PFS has been guided by the processing steps in use at existing operations and the
preliminary test work conducted in 2011-2012 (Bateman and SGS, 2011).
Results from the PFS testwork were used to determine process performance parameters such as ore
throughput, product granulometries, manganese and weight recoveries, manganese final concentrate
grade and main product impurities such as SiO2, Fe and P. Those key process performance parameters
were used as the basis for establishing ore requirements from the mine, sizing of equipment and
ultimately to estimate project capital and operating costs. In developing the process design, the PFS aims
to satisfy the following project criteria;
Minimize project risk by using simple and proven processing steps.
Minimize project initial capital cost.
Minimize operating costs.
Maximize product marketability by producing a high quality concentrate that can be used by
customers for a wide range of applications.
13.1 Scope of Testwork
Four metallurgical testwork programs were designed over the period of 2010-2013 to assess the
resources at Matthews Ridge:
A preliminary test work was conducted on two samples at the Bateman Engineering (Bateman)
facilities in South Africa to assess the amenability of jig processing for mineralized material
(Bateman, 2011).
A first heavy liquid separation (HLS) testing program was carried out at SGS Mineral Services
(SGS) at Lakefield, Ontario, to provide mineralogical characterization, weight recovery and
concentrate quality data on individual samples from drill holes and trenches. Twenty-two samples
were used for this test program (SGS, 2011).

A second HLS test program was completed at SGS on selected drill core samples to: 1) assess
upgradability of saprolite material as a function of depth (weathering intensity), and 2) investigate
the upgradability of saprock material. The results from this metallurgical test program were used to
further define the mineral resource. Thirty-three samples were analyzed in this program
(SGS, 2013).
A fourth on-site test program at the FILAB facility was designed to characterize the mineralization
of Matthews Ridge ore types to produce a flow sheet that would maximize weight recovery and
produce a marketable manganese concentrate. Sample preparation and X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) assay were performed by FILAB Guyana at a modern laboratory installed at the Project site
(Bouajila, 2013).
13.2 Materials and Lithologies
Manganese mineralization at the Matthews Ridge Project has been classified in four distinct categories
for metallurgical testing purposes:
Detrital manganese (DET) representing discrete manganese pebbles produced from weathering
and enrichment this material type can be washed and screened to produce concentrate.
Massive Manganese Formation (MMF) showing thick high-grade manganese bands that can be
crushed, washed, and screened to produce acceptable concentrate grades.
Banded Manganese Formation (BMF) representing inter-layered bands of manganese and

phyllite requiring crushing, washing, screening and further concentration.
Manganese Tailings (TLS) from the previous operations consisting of minus 6 mm material in the
tailings basin this material is mostly de-slimed, but will require further treatment to produce an
acceptable concentrate.
It must be noted also that both saprolite and saprock BMF ore types have been covered in metallurgical
testing.
The Manganiferous Phyllite (MPHY) material, composed dominantly of phyllite, interlayered with
manganese-rich millimetric-scale beds or typically occurring as phyllite with fractures filled by manganese
minerals was tested and showed no significant upgradability; consequently, it was excluded from the
resources.

13.3 Sample Preparation and Representativity
The metallurgical processing assessment used for the PFS is mostly based on manganese assays
supplemented with metallurgical work performed on bulk surface and drill core samples from Hill 1 to
Hill 9 deposits. Bulk samples were collected from existing tailings, trenches, and exposed faces according
to specific protocols (described in the Metallurgical Sampling Section 11.1.5) designed with the RMI
exploration team and under the supervision of Mr. Carlos Bertoni. Sampling points were recorded and
photographs were taken during the sampling. Typical sampling faces of various lithologies are shown in
Figure 13.1.
Figure 13.1: Typical Samples of the Various Lithologies
Drill core individual samples were collected for HLS processing. For the core samples, the hole ID, the
sample ID and the location and from-to of each sample have been recorded.

Samples selection was performed by GMSI in collaboration with the RMI geology group with the objective
of insuring reasonable representation of the different ore types and hills within the manganese deposit.
Samples distribution is relatively well spread throughout the entire ore body (Table 13.1) and the samples
used are considered representative of the deposits various lithologies as shown in Table 13.2.
Table 13.1: Metallurgical Sampling Scope-Hills and Head Grades
% Met. Test
Ore grade Hill 01/2 Hill 03/4 Hill 05 Hill 05 Ext Hill 07 Hill 08 Hill 09 Tailings TOTAL Distribution
Performed
Mn 1000 MT
6% -8% 365 691 1 071 621 179 77 991 0 3 997 11% 12%
8% -10% 779 1 107 938 838 120 32 1 205 21 5 040 14% 5%
10% -12% 793 1 478 1 299 726 305 119 1 296 138 6 153 17% 7%
12% -14% 465 1 446 1 149 782 237 98 1 428 151 5 756 16% 7%
14% -16% 354 957 1 140 662 139 61 954 120 4 387 12% 11%
16% -18% 132 664 1 211 894 94 26 957 76 4 053 11% 6%
18% -20% 37 444 647 782 69 6 465 80 2 530 7% 14%
20% + 54 167 795 647 349 1 1 084 418 3 516 10% 39%
TOTAL 2 979 6 954 8 251 5 952 1 491 420 8 382 1 004 35 433 100% 100%
Distribution 8% 20% 23% 17% 4% 1% 24% 3% 100%
% Met. Test
26% 20% 13% 4% 4% 7% 19% 6% 100%
Performed
Table 13.2: Metallurgical Sampling Scope Distribution by Material Types
% of
% Met. Test
Ore Lithology Constrained
Performed
Resources
Detrital 8% 12%
Saprolite 70% 79%
Transition 19% 6%
Tailings 3% 4%
13.4 Historical Testwork Summary
The historical records and data are extracted from reports issued by the Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission (GGMC, 1985). Central to the ground held by RMI is the former Matthews Ridge
manganese mine, which was in operation between 1960 and 1968. The African Manganese Mining
Company (AMC), a subsidiary of Union Carbide, had conducted extensive exploration for manganese in
the northwest of Guyana commencing in 1952. The mining operations at Matthews Ridge recovered and
shipped in excess of 1.7 Mt of manganese concentrate by rail, barge and ship to the Chaguaramas Bay in
Trinidad, from where it was distributed, with a large proportion sent to the Stavanger smelter in Norway.
The manganese was concentrated in a washing plant, which employed primary and secondary roll
crushers, rotary trommels and, by 1967, Remer jigs were introduced to remove adhering clays and rock

waste. At the start of the mining and processing operations in 1962 manganese recovery was reportedly
as high as 94%. By the closure of the mine in 1968, manganese recovery was reported at approximately
71%, on a run-of-mine ore feed of 17.6% Mn, producing a concentrate at 36.7% Mn with 28.3% Mn in the
jig tails (mostly in fine - less than 6 mm). The rejects basin for all the jig tails was identified and has been
evaluated by RMI as a potentially mineable resource. Table 13.3 summarizes the previous operations
statistics and indicates that metallurgical recovery and grade were variable.
Table 13.3: Historical Performances from the Previous Operations
Concentrated Average Manganese Recovery (%)

Year Ore (Mt) Grade (% Mn)
Lowest Month Highest Month
1959 100,000 -
1960 140,000 -
1961 185,814 -
1962 261,687 42.3 89.9 94.4
1963 163,407 42 87.0 93.6
1964 126,801 39.4 52.0 91.9

1965 162,100 39.4 64.9 70.7
1966 170,843 37.6 58.3 72.5
1967 215,657 36.2 69.4 74.1

1968 200,000 36.2 59.2 71.1
A report authored by Westerman (1969) highlighted some metallurgical performances and findings from
an audit executed by a consultant from the US Bureau of Mines (Heising, 1969) and confirmed that most
of the high-grade mineralization was extracted and processed mainly using a simple washing plant.
During the last years of mining, the owner purchased and operated jig units to further upgrade the
concentrate. The historical infrastructure of the washing area and the jigs are still visible at the old mine
site. The following are some reported process audit data and highlights:
At the washing plant, there was two similar plants in parallel, giving great flexibility of operation.
The company mined two shifts per day and the product was washed in two shifts at the washing
plant. Repairs were carried out during the third shift.
The wash plant results in January 1968 have been reported as example of mill performance taken
from the company records and quoted by a consultant as follows:

Crude ore 43,350 t at 17.6% Mn.
Concentrates 15,492 t at 36.37% Mn.
Waste rock 95 t at 3.3% Mn.
Sludge 26,067 t at 3.4% Mn.
Jig tails 5,244 t at 28.3% Mn.
Recovery 71.1% of the originally contained manganese.
Between 1960 and 1968, there was an increase in the amount of clay to be removed from the
crude ore, resulting in a recovery drop from 55% to 36%.
The auditor at that time mentions that the ore acquired notoriety for its muddiness, whilst carefully
cleaned specimens could be seen to be of good grade. Obviously, a better removal of mud, rotted
slate and the less common quartz, would improve the grade of the product, and lessen the
penalties in AL2O3 and SiO2.
It was concluded from previous operation that the answer to the problem of muddiness was better
washing using more water; and preferably with the elimination of recycled water. The problem of
rotted slate and quartz separation was slightly more complex. A brief test run of the mill was carried
out in the presence of the auditor.
The abovementioned testwork results supported Heisings opinion that heavy media would improve
the grade. Heising also suggested that another possibility would be a steel bounce plate held at an
experimentally determinable angle to vertical. Washed ore, dropped upon such a plate would
bounce variously according to individual hardness of its components. The clayed portion would be
separated off on the half volley.
The company attempted to improve the grade of product in 1964 by the addition of one Wemco
Remer jig and two cyclone classifiers to each plant. A comparison of product tonnages and assays
for 1963 and 1965, confirmed the beneficial effect on grade not only in the increase in manganese
grade, but also in the removal of the penalty elements (Fe, Si02 and Al2O3).
Only the 3/4" mesh fraction was jigged so that the drop in rubble values across the same period
reflects the general decrease in ore grade over the whole period of operations, and the relations
between grade and topography. Thus the beneficial effect of jigging was great, although it only
applied to the lower tonnage fraction of the product, the 3/4" mesh fraction.

13.5 Recent Testwork Summary
There is no official report on any metallurgical testing performed on the Matthews Ridge materials since
the closure of the previous operation up to the acquisition by RMI; the recent metallurgical test on the
deposit was initiated early in 2011. A detailed test program was designed to evaluate the chemical,
physical and metallurgical characteristics of each ore type from different deposits (hills) so that a blending
program could be developed to ensure consistent feed and concentrate. Furthermore, the testing results
were required to select and design appropriate process equipment to upgrade the material to the required
specifications.
The tests were conducted in different independent laboratories (SGS, Bateman) and on-site (FILAB)
under the supervision and review of Mr. Ahmed Bouajila, metallurgical engineer, from G Mining Services
Inc. (GMSI) acting as a Qualified Person (QP) for the present section.
13.5.1 Bateman Jigging (January to October 2011)
A metallurgical testing program of the mineralized materials was initiated in early 2011 at the Bateman
laboratories in South Africa. The selected material for this initial test program was the banded manganese
mineralization collected from trenches. Two samples of 700 kg each labeled low and high grade
material were sent for testing.
The high grade sample consisted of a blend of BMF material designed to be at a grade of approximately
10-12% Mn that resembles the average grade of the banded beds encountered in the trenches. The term
high grade refers to the higher of the two samples tested, and is not representative of the high grade
BMF material.
The objective of this test work was to test the amenability of a normal run-of-mine banded ore to gravity
separation techniques, and quantify the level of deleterious elements. The low grade sample was below
an informal cut off grade mineralized material (<4% Mn). The objective for testing this material was to
confirm that the sub economic material could not be upgraded to produce a commercial product
Bateman used the J-TUBE batch jig with the purpose of determining the ability to jig the material. Timed
batch tests were undertaken on the samples, with layers extracted for density analysis and assay and the
data was fitted using the ASTRAD stratification model to define the rate and quality of separation of the
material.

Test results indicate that the high-grade banded manganese materials could be upgraded to produce a
saleable product grading more than 40% Mn at acceptable yields and with low deleterious elements. The
conclusions were limited to the material supplied, and can be extended only to material of similar
characteristics (Bateman, 2011).
13.5.2 SGS Characterization (June to December 2011)
Mineralogical characterization test work was conducted by SGS on 22 trench and core samples from
Hills 5 and 9. The samples were also subjected to sink-float testing using HLS. Results are consistent
with jigging test results performed by Bateman, which concluded that concentrates with acceptable high
grades could be upgraded to produce a saleable product at acceptable yields using gravity separation
methods.
SGSs study also noted the relatively variable and complicated mineralogy of the Matthews Ridge
deposits (SGS, 2011).
13.5.3 SGS HLS Samples Characterization (May - August 2012)
Some 51 drill core samples from Hills 1-4 and Hill 5 and 5-Ext were processed via a typical HLS scheme
as shown in Figure 13.2. The objective of this test program was to investigate the weathering effect on
the upgradability and to see how far the specific gravity (SG) of subsequent HLS processing could
improve the upgrading factor. The detailed results are discussed in Section 13.2.

Figure 13.2: HLS Testing Scheme
Feed Sample
O/S
Weigh and Screen at
Stage-Crush to 19 mm
19 mm
U/S
Float Dry, Weigh and Submit O/S

Weigh and
for HLS Testing at 2.7 Screen at 6.3 mm
Assay for WRA
g/cm3
Sink U/S
Float O/S Dry, Weigh and Submit Float

Weigh and Submit for HLS Weigh and
Screen at 0.85 mm for HLS Testing at 2.7
Assay for WRA Testing at 2.8 g/cm 3 Assay for WRA
g/cm3
Sink U/S Sink
Float Submit for HLS Submit for HLS Testing Float

Weigh and Weigh and Weigh and
Assay for WRA Testing at 2.9 g/cm 3 Assay for WRA at 2.8 g/cm 3 Assay for WRA
Sink Sink
Float Submit for HLS Submit for HLS Testing Float

Weigh and Weigh and
Assay for WRA Testing at 3.0 g/cm 3 at 2.9 g/cm 3 Assay for WRA
Sink Sink
Submit for HLS Testing Float

Weigh and Weigh and
Assay for WRA at 3.0 g/cm 3 Assay for WRA
Sink
Weigh and
Assay for WRA
Each sample was submitted for wet screening, size-by-size analysis, and multi-stage heavy liquid
separation (HLS) testing. Detailed results are reported in SGS, 2013. The results are summarized in
Table 13.4, with the following highlights:
The manganese head grades of the fifty one studied samples vary from 0.76% to 33.1% Mn.
Out of the studied samples, only thirty one were able to generate concentrates with acceptable
manganese grades (above 36% Mn in the -19+6 mm fraction and above 34% Mn in the
-6+0.86 mm fraction).
Out of the thirty one samples that were upgraded with qualified products, twenty one samples
were above the 20% mass yield, corresponding to manganese recoveries between 54.2% and
94.9% of the total manganese content in the samples. Typically, a higher proportion was
concentrated in the -19+6 mm fraction rather than the -6+0.85 mm fraction.
Five samples were able to generate a concentrate in the -6+0.85 mm fraction, but not in the -
19+6 mm through the tested scheme. These -6+0.85 mm fraction concentrates recovered below
20% of the original mass and 30% of the manganese content.
Six samples did not require HLS, as wet screening to remove the -0.85 mm material was enough to
generate an acceptable manganese concentrate grade.

Three samples yielded less than 6.34% of the original mass in the final concentrate, with less than
8.3% Mn recovery.

Table 13.4: HLS Testing Summary (part 1 of 2)

Head -19.0, +6.3 mm -6.3, +0.85 mm Combined Fractions
Grade Recovery Grade Recovery Grade Recovery Grade
Sample ID From and to Mn % Wt % Mn % Mn % Wt % Mn % Mn % Wt % Mn % Mn %
11MR0104A 5-6M 4.14 0.2 2.5 47.8 0.5 5.7 47.3 0.7 8.3 47.5
11MR054A 2-3M 33.1 65.3 76.0 38.5 11.8 12.7 35.7 77.1 88.7 38.1
11MR054A 33-34M 15.1 16.5 46.0 42.2 4.0 9.4 35.2 20.6 55.4 40.8
11MR0071 37.5-38.5M 26.1 26.5 47.3 46.7 23.3 34.0 40.7 49.7 81.3 43.9
11MR2011 64.64.1M 1.56 - - - 0.1 3.0 40.3 0.1 3.0 40.3
11MR2033 1.20-2.40M 25.0 43.1 72.5 42.1 13.3 18.4 34.5 56.5 90.9 40.3
11MR2035 44.40-45.50M 13.4 8.1 22.0 36.3 12.4 32.2 34.7 20.6 54.2 35.4
11MR2036 32-33M 17.7 24.7 57.1 40.9 7.2 17.4 43.0 31.9 74.5 41.4
11MR2036 100-101.50M 8.85 2.5 10.4 36.7 13.6 57.5 37.5 16.1 67.9 37.3
11MR2040 101-101.6M 12.2 8.0 25.9 39.6 4.3 12.3 34.5 12.3 38.2 28.9
12MR2052 72-73M 20.3 30.5 59.9 37.0 7.5 16.3 38.3 38.0 76.2 37.2
11MR0233 19.5-22M 5.70 4.5 4.5 37.0 1.9 1.9 37.2 6.3 6.3 37.1
12MR2111 6.3-9.5M 18.2 - - - 14.6 28.9 36.2 14.6 28.9 36.2
12MR2102 3.88-6.0M 21.8 33.9 63.4 40.7 15.0 23.7 34.4 49.0 87.1 38.8
12MR1261 16.2-18.8M 30.5 - - - 17.4 19.4 34.1 17.4 19.4 34.1
12MR2113 3.14-6.0M 18.1 - - - 14.2 27.5 35.0 14.2 27.5 35.0
12MR1250 4.5-7.5M 20.3 - - - 16.9 28.5 34.3 16.9 28.5 34.3
12MR2058 47.0-49.6M 14.8 19.6 49.4 37.3 9.1 21.3 34.8 28.7 70.7 36.5
12MR2058 1.7-4.9M 25.7 12.6 19.5 39.9 23.9 38.2 41.1 36.5 57.7 40.7
12MR0241 59-63M 20.2 32.6 59.7 36.9 14.6 27.1 37.3 47.3 86.8 37.0
12MR1255 40.06-44.9M 18.9 - - - 11.1 20.1 34.2 11.1 20.1 34.2
12MR2056 11.0-13.4M 30.0 53.6 70.9 39.7 18.1 21.4 35.3 71.8 92.3 38.6
12MR1222 26.8-31.85M 13.0 12.4 34.1 36.0 11.4 30.7 35.1 23.8 64.8 35.6
12MR1198 7.6-18.7M 16.3 25.6 59.5 38.0 11.3 24.0 34.7 36.9 83.5 37.0
12MR1255 16.6-20.1M 18.2 15.7 36.5 42.2 15.2 29.0 34.8 30.8 65.5 38.6
12MR2061 17.6-20.0M 31.3 65.7 77.6 37.0 14.7 17.3 36.8 80.4 94.9 36.9
12MR1218 2.15-4.1M 26.2 44.5 64.3 37.7 15.7 20.7 34.5 60.2 85.0 36.9
12MR2071 3.24-6.3M 21.3 40.3 68.4 36.2 11.2 18.4 35.0 51.6 86.8 35.9
12MR2106 29.75-31.1M 20.7 12.2 26.8 45.5 20.7 42.7 42.7 32.9 69.5 43.7
12MR2056 43.3-47.93M 31.2 62.4 77.1 38.5 13.8 17.5 39.4 76.2 94.6 38.7
12MR1229 5.8-11.1M 19.8 20.8 51.2 48.7 11.5 23.2 39.8 32.3 74.4 45.5

Table 13.4.: HLS Testing Summary (part 2 of 2)
Head -19.0, +6.3 mm -6.3, +0.85 mm Combined Fractions

Grade Recovery Grade Recovery Grade Recovery Grade
Sample ID From and to Mn % Wt % Mn % Mn % Wt % Mn % Mn % Wt % Mn % Mn %
11MR0104A 34-35M 7.22 1.4 6.2 32.5 0.7 3.2 31.3 2.1 9.5 32.1
11MR054A 46-47M 11.6 26.7 62.3 27.2 3.2 6.4 23.8 29.8 68.8 26.8
11MR055 73-74M 6.97 0.7 2.5 25.7 4.1 12.7 21.7 4.7 15.2 22.3
11MR071A 62.5-68M 7.73 21.6 44.3 15.8 10.2 21.6 16.3 31.9 65.9 16.0
11MR2014 88-89M 1.94 1.0 8.3 16.2 0.7 9.4 24.4 1.7 17.7 19.7
11MR2033 52.60-53.0M 7.80 3.0 9.6 24.7 2.0 8.5 33.7 5.0 18.1 28.2
11MR2036 7.6-8.1M 14.5 19.5 25.1 18.7 22.4 29.1 18.8 9.8 21.1 31.2
12MR2052 76.5-77M 27.0 68.0 73.4 29.1 12.2 14.2 31.4 80.2 87.6 29.5
12MR2055 39.0-40.0M 18.6 40.5 49.4 22.6 14.7 18.1 22.8 55.2 67.5 22.7
11MR0138 59-60M 3.76 10.5 32.4 11.6 1.2 4.1 13.0 11.7 36.5 35.1
12MR1145 50-51M 16.8 39.8 52.0 21.9 18.8 29.8 26.6 58.7 81.8 23.4
11MR1014 98.90-99.90 0.76 3.6 4.4 0.94 0.3 0.6 1.39 3.9 5.0 0.98
11MR1014 77.40-79.30 3.54 0.5 3.5 24.6 1.1 8.2 26.6 1.6 11.8 25.9
11MR1014 68.00-69.50 6.44 6.8 16.5 15.6 1.8 5.4 19.0 8.6 21.9 16.4
12MR1249 12.6-14.8M 6.83 10.3 19.3 12.8 6.2 23.8 26.3 16.4 43.0 17.9
12MR1263 45.3-48.0M 8.80 16.2 61.0 33.1 6.5 22.5 30.3 22.8 83.5 32.3
12MR1273 52.15-54.0M 12.7 37.9 75.0 25.2 10.8 20.3 24.0 48.7 95.3 24.9
12MR2120 23.0-26.0M 20.6 39.6 52.3 27.2 18.4 25.4 28.3 58.0 77.6 28.1
12MR1249 55.9-57.2M 8.80 16.5 58.1 31.1 3.1 10.9 31.2 19.5 69.0 31.1
12MR1245 11.4-13.2M 15.6 28.7 62.6 34.0 9.7 18.3 29.5 38.3 80.9 32.9
Sample generates acceptable grade, but recovers less than 10% mass
Sample generates acceptable grade with >20% mass recovery
Sample generates acceptable grade by removal of fines, no HLS required
Sample generates acceptable grade in -6, +0.85mm fraction only
Sample with unsufficient concentrate grade

13.5.4 GMSI-FILAB On-site Bench-scale Jigging (June-December 2012)
Considerable metallurgical work was performed in the second half of 2012. The testing program was
used to design a flow sheet using scrubbing and wet screening followed by separate fine and lump jig
processing.
On-site jig testing trials were performed on mineralized samples using an Allminerals alljig laboratory
scale test rig (Figure 13.3) that was selected and successfully commissioned to perform the test program.
The objective of the program was mainly to evaluate the ability to jig the different lithologies of the
deposit.
Figure 13.3: Photograph of the Laboratory-Scale Batch Jig Unit used during Trials
This extensive program was completed at the Matthews Ridge FILAB facility under the direct supervision
of Mr. Ahmed Bouajila and covered the following periods:
January 2012: Site visit and FILAB facility auditing for sampling and testing capabilities.
June 2012: Commissioned the jig test rig and performed the preliminary scrubbing-wet screening
(SWS) and jig testing to optimize testing conditions. Initiated the first testing trial.
July 2012: Completed the first testing campaign.

September 2012: Performed second testing campaign with increased sample population, examined
variability and increased confidence and accuracy in the average results for the various ore types.
November 2012: Performed third testing campaign including samples from Hills 1 to 4 as well as
old tailings and lower grade samples from other Hills.
The test program was designed to simulate the potential flow sheet as described in Figure 13.4. Main
results are reported in two reports (Bouajila, 2012). The first report summarizes the commissioning of the
Alljig test rig and preliminary jig testing, as well as the first testing campaign performed on bulk samples.
The second report summarizes the optimized jig testing results for all bulk samples selected for deposit
geo-metallurgical mapping and mass recovery and concentrate qualifications respectively.
13.5.5 Process Flowsheet Development
Samples from different hills and lithologies were subjected to a preparation procedure to simulate and
assess the potential processing scheme described in Figure 13.4.
Figure 13.4: Potential Processing Scheme

Separate sample preparation protocols were established for each testing program objective. The different
testing procedures include:
Full material balance: This sample preparation procedure was performed to obtain the complete
material and water balance including the characterization of slimes for the geo-chemistry
evaluation of slime tailings.
Partial material balance: This procedure was performed to obtain the material balance but excluded
the characterization the slimes.
Jig sample production: This procedure aims to produce subsamples for jig testing by size class.
The pulp and solid samples were hand-screened using (24 x 18) screens to generate the different size
fractions:
+ 19 mm: Referred to as material to be re-crushed.
- 19 mm +6.3 mm: Referred to as lump material.
- 6.3 mm + 0.850 mm: Referred to as fine material.
- 0.850 mm: Referred to as slime material.
The product targets used are silica-manganese concentrates of fine (-6.3 mm +0.85 mm) and lump
(-19 mm +6.3 mm) sizes. Different size splits may be considered for potential pilot plant testing in part of
the Feasibility Study (FS) phase. The lump top size determined for metallurgical testing was dictated by
the jig rig testing restriction and could be increased to as high as 70 mm acceptable in industrial units.
This opportunity is supported by size analysis reported in Table 13.5.
Sample MRMS-02-001R contains 17% of the weight in the +19 mm fraction grading 56.6% MnO
which is already an extra lump product.
The other three samples are reporting 8-47% weight in the +19 mm fraction grading
30.8-33.5% MnO which are in the range of upgradable BMF saprolite material.

Table 13.5: Analysis by Size Class of Selected Feed Samples

Sample ID Sample SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 BaO LOI Tot Weight
%
+19 MM 23.59 15.94 12.39 30.80 0.03 0.08 <0.001 0.23 0.60 0.13 0.16 15.95 99.89 47.14
LUMP 28.31 10.33 2.92 44.23 0.04 0.11 0.30 1.49 0.30 0.18 0.56 11.15 99.92 17.66
FINES 27.79 10.47 4.00 43.16 0.05 0.11 0.29 1.47 0.27 0.20 0.72 11.40 99.93 16.96
SLIMES 56.55 21.03 6.30 4.46 0.16 0.09 0.47 1.78 0.66 0.08 0.39 8.00 99.99 18.24
MRMS-01-01R Head 31.15 14.95 8.19 30.46 0.06 0.09 0.19 0.94 0.50 0.14 0.37 12.88 99.92 100.00
%
+19 MM 24.36 7.27 15.32 40.43 0.03 0.07 0.14 1.04 0.34 0.05 0.25 10.65 99.94 8.36
LUMP 28.44 8.35 16.71 34.07 0.04 0.08 0.16 1.20 0.38 0.06 0.25 10.20 99.95 9.63
FINES 36.74 10.17 20.18 21.06 0.06 0.08 0.19 1.37 0.49 0.06 0.28 9.25 99.94 6.44
SLIMES 69.11 17.63 4.46 <0.050 0.13 0.09 0.27 1.75 0.73 <0.001 0.29 5.55 99.99 75.57
MRMS-01 -002R Head 59.37 15.39 7.56 8.02 0.11 0.08 0.24 1.61 0.65 0.01 0.28 6.66 99.98 100.00
%
+19 MM 21.48 6.08 1.98 56.62 0.01 0.14 0.18 1.12 0.15 0.18 0.36 11.65 99.94 17.27
LUMP 23.41 18.50 11.37 27.00 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.85 0.70 0.13 0.29 17.45 99.90 14.48
FINES 23.56 19.50 9.96 26.59 0.10 0.09 0.02 0.79 0.73 0.13 0.33 18.10 99.89 11.25
SLIMES 41.11 22.74 8.42 11.82 0.17 0.10 0.10 1.20 0.92 0.13 0.31 12.90 99.92 57.01
MRMS-02-001R Head 25.39 12.30 5.30 41.20 0.06 0.12 0.12 1.06 0.43 0.16 0.34 13.45 99.92 100.00
%
+19 MM 44.32 8.05 3.28 33.49 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.71 0.22 0.04 0.04 9.65 99.94 11.28
LUMP 40.41 8.91 3.79 35.35 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.84 0.30 0.05 0.08 10.10 99.95 21.65
FINES 41.67 9.73 4.55 31.99 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.78 0.42 0.05 0.08 10.55 99.94 22.28
SLIMES 48.98 19.01 8.07 11.16 0.10 0.08 0.01 1.11 0.62 0.05 0.12 10.65 99.96 44.79
MRMS-03-002R Head 44.97 13.52 5.82 23.56 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.93 0.46 0.05 0.09 10.40 99.95 100.00
13.5.6 Metallurgical Models
Based on the metallurgical test work, relationships were determined between the manganese head grade
and the process mass pull, as well as between the manganese head grade and the manganese
concentrate grade. Relationships were also established to estimate the level of impurities in the
concentrate based on the feed grade of impurities. These mathematical relationships are suitable for use

in the resource model and allow estimation of the process performance in terms of mass pull, manganese
grade and impurities grade in the concentrates.
Certain Hills were grouped into clusters based on similarities in their metallurgical performance and
geographic proximity.
In order to ensure that the concentrate was of sufficient marketable grade, two minimum sets of product
requirement were used:
Manganese grade concentrate cut-off at 36% Mn for the lump product and 34% Mn for the fine
product.
Manganese grade concentrate cut-off at 38% Mn for the lump product and 36% Mn for the fine
product.
13.5.7 BMF Saprolite Metallurgical Models
Seventy BMF saprolite (SP) bulk samples were processed. Figure 13.5 to Figure 13.7 are compiled
from data simulating lump and fine separate jig units operated based on product cut-off set at 36% Mn
and 34% Mn respectively for lump and fine.
As reported in Figure 13.5, BMF Saprolite samples from Hills 1-9 processed via Scrubbing and Wet
Screening (SWS) variably lose 85-40% of their mass as slimes when their manganese content varies
from around 5% to 30%, respectively. The higher the manganese content, the lower the slime portion,
the greater the quantity (proportion) of material available for jigging.

Figure 13.5: Slimes, Lump and Fine Deportment as a Function of the Head Grade.
BMF (SP) Hills 1-9 BMF (SP) Hills 1-9

70 100
90
60
80
50 70
SLIMES CONTENT (%w/w)

L&F SWS Mass Pull (%)
60
40
50
30
40
20 30
20
10
10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
% Mn in the Feed % Mn in the Feed
A significant portion of the BMF material is upgradable to marketable grade by simple SWS processing.
Figure 13.6 indicates that SWS could upgrade samples with 10% Mn to up to 3.5 times while samples
with 20% Mn could lead to a lump product grading around 40% Mn.
Figure 13.6: SWS Upgrading Capability as Function of the Head Grades

5 5
4 4
Lump SWS Mn UGF
Fines SWS Mn UGF
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

A sustained marketable product, with an average manganese grade superior to 36% for lump and 34%
for fine, requires further upgrading. This requirement is particularly motivated by the high ROM variability
that seems to be driven by the variable mineralogy within the main lithologies.
The SWS vs. SWS+JIG Upgrading factors suggested that a significant number of processed
BMF samples are further upgraded by jigging. As reported in Figure 13.7 all points above the 1:1 slope
line have been further upgraded by jigging. Table 13.6 shows the statistics of upgradability among the
70 processed samples from BMF and Detrital materials.
Figure 13.7: Overall Upgrading Performances of SWS vs. SWS+JIG.

4 4
y = 1.1925x - 0.1241
y = 1.0278x + 0.0632 R = 0.8269
R = 0.9286
3 3
Fines SWS-JIG Mn UGF

Lump SWS-JIG Mn UGF
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Lump SWS Mn UGF Fines SWS Mn UGF
Table 13.6: Percentage of Qualified Lump Product (@ 36% Mn) and Fine Product (@34% Mn)
Concentrates
LP-Qualified FP-Qualified
SWS
57% 43%
SWS+JIG
81% 77%
Overall process (SWS+JIG) upgrading capability, as shown in Figure 13.8, indicates that saprolite BMF
can be upgraded by 1.34 to 5.98 times for lump materials and 1.32 to 4.88 times for fine materials
depending on the feed manganese grade.

Figure 13.8: SWS+JIG Upgrading Capability as Function of the Head Grade.

5 5
y = 17.839x -0.722 y = 22.399x -0.821
R = 0.7559 R = 0.9339
4 4
Mn UGF
Mn UGF
3 3
Lump SWS-JIG
Fines SWS-JIG
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
As shown in Figure 13.9, SWS+JIG mass pull for both the lump and fine products are correlated to the
run-of-mine head grade (% Mn). SWS+JIG processed BMF saprolite samples generate more lump than
fine product. It should be noted here that lump and fine concentrates requirements were set respectively
at 36% and 34% Mn. These mass pulls would decrease if a higher product requirement for manganese
were fixed.
Figure 13.9: SWS+JIG Mass Pull as a function of Head Grade

45 45
40 40
y = 1.8509x 0.8555
35 R = 0.5967 35
y = 0.7498x
Lump SWS-JIG Mass Pull (%)
Fines SWs-JIG Mass Pull (%)
30 30
R = 0.6513
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

In order to improve the resources definition and to accommodate potential ROM blending, a metallurgical
upgrading model was developed for each ore type and cluster of hills.
It should be noted that the minimal concentrate grades were fixed at 38% and 36% Mn respectively for
lump and fine products for the purpose of this Pre-Feasibility Study; the subsequent mathematical models
to determine mass pulls and concentrate grades were established on that basis.
Hills 1-4 Cluster
Twenty-seven BMF bulk samples representing Hills 1-4 deposits were processed through the
SWS+JIG flowsheet. Table 13.7 summarizes the main mass recovery and grade models used for
resources definition and mine plan development.
Hills 5 -8 Cluster
Twenty-one BMF bulk samples representing Hill 5-8 deposits were processed through the
resources definition and mine plan development.
Hill 9 Cluster
Nine BMF bulk samples representing Hill 9 deposit were processed through the SWS+JIG flowsheet
Table 13.9 summarizes the main mass recovery and grade models used for resources definition and
mine plan development.
13.5.8 Detrital Processing Models
Thirteen detrital bulk samples representing Hills 1-9 deposits were processed through the
resources definition, mine plan development and to establish potential blending strategy.

Table 13.7: SWS+JIG Processing Models for BMF Hills 1-4
Mass Pull
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0 8 = 0
between y = -0.0331x2 + 2.5581x - 13.514 y = -0.0204x2 + 1.6792x - 9.6016
more than 30 = 34 32 = 24
Concentrate Grade
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0 8 = 0
between y = -0.0005x3 + 0.03x2 - 0.1355x + 37.058 y = -0.0007x3 + 0.0483x2 - 0.6602x + 38.011
more than 38 = 48 34 = 44
Contaminant Grades
LUMP FINE
SiO2 less than 16 = 4 SiO2 less than 16 = 5.7
more than 16 y = 14.518ln(x) - 33.486 more than 16 y = 19.153ln(x) - 46.928
Al2O3 less than 3 = 2.9 Al2O3 less than 4 = 3.6

more than 3 y = 2.1546ln(x) + 0.7481 more than 4 y = 2.4103ln(x) + 1.0957
Fe less than 3 = 1.2 Fe less than 2 = 1.2


Table 13.8: SWS-JIG Hill 5 Processing Models
Mass Pull
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0 8 = 0
between y = 0.0005x3 - 0.0807x2 + 3.9831x - 22.635 y = -0.0223x2 + 1.7346x - 10.331
more than 36 = 40 34 = 23
Concentrate Grade
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0 8 = 0
between y = -0.0007x3 + 0.0503x2 - 0.5768x + 38.715 y = -0.0008x3 + 0.0613x2 - 0.8933x + 38.43
more than 34 = 50 40 = 50
Contaminant Grades
LUMP FINE
SiO2 less than 24 = 10.8 SiO2 less than 17 = 11

Fe less than 3 = 0.8 Fe less than 3 = 1


Table 13.9: SWS+JIG Hill 9 Processing Models
Mass Pull
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0 8 = 0
between y = -0.043x2 + 3.0627x - 16.257 y = -0.0005x3 + 0.0026x2 + 1.5057x - 9.35
more than 36 = 38.5 35 = 25.5
Concentrate Grade
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0 8 = 0
between y = -0.0007x3 + 0.0498x2 - 0.605x + 40.092 y = 0.0058x2 + 0.0594x + 34.855
more than 40 = 51 34 = 44
Contaminant Grades
LUMP FINE
SiO2 less than 13 = 1.8 SiO2 less than 14 = 4.6
Al2O3 less than 7 = 3.9 Al2O3 less than 11 = 7

more than 7 y = 0.555x more than 11 y = 0.6279x


Table 13.10: SWS+JIG Hills 1-9 Processing Models
Mass Pull
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0 8 = 0
between y = -0.0409x2 + 2.6998x - 12.115 y = -0.0334x2 + 2.2689x - 16.876
more than 29 = 32 30 = 21
Concentrate Grade
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0 8 = 0
between y = -0.0012x3 + 0.0769x2 - 1.2013x + 43.074 y = 0.0852x + 34.951
more than 32 = 44 36 = x
Contaminant Grades
LUMP FINE
SiO2 less than 17 = 4 SiO2 less than 19 = 5.6



13.5.9 Saprock Processing Models
Three drill core samples representing upper saprolite (USP), middle saprolite (MSP) and deep
saprolite (DSP) levels as well as saprock (SR) samples were submitted to HLS testing as per the
scheme shown in Figure 13.2.
As shown in Figure 13.10, Figure 13.11 and Figure 13.12, the upgrading characteristics of the DSP and
SR samples are in the same range as the BMF saprolite bulk samples (SP). Nevertheless, prior to
initiating a FS, more tests on saprock material need to be performed to increased the level of confidence
and evaluate the variability of results within this rock type.
Nine drill core samples of saprock type materials with various manganese grades have been processed
by SWS-HLS. Based on the obtained results, equivalent SWS+JIG processing models have been drawn,
as summarized below.

Figure 13.10: Upgrading Characteristics (SWS vs. SWS+HLS) of Drill Core Samples
as Compared to Bulk BMF Processed Samples

Figure 13.11: SWS+HLS Upgrading Characteristics as Function of the Head Grade- Comparison with SWS+JIG Upgrading Model of Bulk
BMF Material
Hills 1-9 Hills 1-9

5 5
y = 17.839x -0.722
R = 0.7559 SP
4 USP 4 y = 22.399x -0.821

MSP R = 0.9339
Mn UGF
Lump SWS-JIG Mn UGF
DSP
3 3
SR
SP
Fines SWS-JIG
USP
2 2
MSP
DSP
1 1 SR
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

Figure 13.12: SWS+HLS Head Grade Mass Pull Relationship of Drill Core Samples- Comparison with SWS+JIG Model of Bulk BMF
Material
Hills 1-9 Hills 1-9

70 40
SP USP
SP
60 MSP DSP 35
USP y = 0.7498x
R = 0.6513
SR 30 MSP
50
y = 1.8509x 0.8555
Lump SWS-JIG Mass Pull (%)
Fines SWs-JIG Mass Pull (%)

DSP
R = 0.5967 25
40 SR
20
30
15
20
10
10 5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

Table 13.11: SWS+JIG Saprock Processing Models
Mass Pull
LUMP FINES
less than 11 = 0 11 = 0
between y = 0.0036x3 - 0.3136x2 + 9.3148x - 65.127 y = -0.0353x2 + 2.4996x - 20.079
more than 30 = 30 30 = 24
Concentrate Grade
LUMP FINES
less than 11 = 0 11 = 0
between y = -0.0015x3 + 0.1143x2 - 2.1866x + 49.641 y = 0.0082x2 - 0.1524x + 36.29
more than 32 = 48 36 = 42
Contaminant Grades
LUMP FINE
SiO2 less than 31 = 15 SiO2 less than 33 = 15
more than 31 y = 22.744ln(x) - 63.122 more than 33 y = 0.4638x

more than 7 y = 6.4244ln(x) - 10.629 more than 5 y = 2.6336ln(x) + 0.1104


13.5.10 Tailings Processing Models
Four composite samples from the November 2012 Banka drilling campaign were tested to better
characterize their metallurgical response to the process flowsheet. Table 13.12, Table 13.13 and
Figure 13.13 suggest the following highlights:
The four composite samples are suggesting very similar grades for the tailings with an average
grade of 21.84% Mn, 27.70% SiO2, 15.65% Al2O3 and 8.30% Fe.
Only a fine product is produced with an average mass pull of 27.52%, 36% Mn concentrate grade,
14.6% SiO2, 11.06% Al2O3, 7.06% Fe, 0.06% P and 15.2% LOI.
Due to relatively high alumina content, the tailings materials may need to be blended with ore from
other Hills.
Higher concentrate grade cut-off (i.e. 40% Mn) will lower the average mass pull to about 16% and
decrease the Al2O3 content to about 9.2%.
Table 13.12: Tailings Processed Samples

Feed
HOLEID Sample FROM TO Mn SiO2 Al2O3 Fe
m %
12MR6001 840705 0 1 27.31 17.08 15.73 8.20
12MR6001 840706 1 1.5 24.11 26.78 14.08 8.37
12MR6095 840707 0 1 19.15 29.83 16.28 8.58
COMPOSITE 1 22.38 25.74 15.68 8.43
12MR6005 840708 0 1 29.70 20.30 13.76 8.43

12MR6005 840709 1 1.5 23.86 30.29 13.00 7.43
12MR6054 840710 0 1 11.16 38.59 19.54 8.50
12MR6054 840711 1 2 13.06 38.79 17.86 8.37
COMPOSITE 2 19.97 31.29 15.99 8.22
12MR6006 840712 0 1 26.67 21.19 14.26 7.95

12MR6008 840713 0 1 28.84 19.56 13.97 8.44
12MR6010 840714 0 0.5 1.73 47.09 24.28 7.83
12MR6021 840715 0 1 7.14 43.53 20.75 8.63
COMPOSITE 3 21.98 26.62 16.13 8.23
12MR6005 0 1 28.41 18.76 14.18 8.28

12MR6005 1 2 16.86 37.00 15.80 7.94
12MR6005 2 3 25.59 24.75 13.73 8.46
12MR6006 0 1 18.33 29.75 16.72 8.88
COMPOSITE 4 23.03 27.14 14.79 8.34
Composites
Average 21.84 27.70 15.65 8.30
STD 1.32 2.46 0.60 0.10
Min 19.97 25.74 14.79 8.22
Max 23.03 31.29 16.13 8.43

Table 13.13: Tailings Upgradability
Fines Jig
Feed SWS-MP Product cut off at 34% Mn Product cut off at 36% Mn Product cut off at 40% Mn
SAMPLE ID Mn SiO2 Al2O3 Fe Slime Fines Lump SiO2 Al2O3 Fe* Mn* P LOI PMP SiO2 Al2O3 Fe* Mn* P LOI PMP SiO2 Al2O3 Fe* Mn* P LOI PMP
% % % % %
MR-TL-C1 22.38 25.74 15.68 8.43 53.12 42.37 4.51 16.14 12.31 7.16 34.00 0.06 14.77 34.58 15.37 11.26 6.99 36.00 0.06 14.25 25.77 13.81 9.66 6.56 39.30 0.07 13.80 14.84
MR-TL-C2 19.97 31.29 15.99 8.22 65.90 31.98 2.12 16.07 11.52 6.79 34.00 0.06 16.31 26.43 14.52 10.50 6.65 36.00 0.06 16.50 20.78 11.62 8.63 6.13 39.49 0.07 17.60 12.72
MR-TL-C3 21.98 26.62 16.13 8.23 62.91 34.27 2.82 14.14 12.96 7.48 34.19 0.06 15.52 34.27 13.46 11.81 7.27 36.00 0.07 15.25 27.32 11.28 9.64 6.99 40.34 0.08 14.35 14.71
MR-TL-6006 23.03 27.14 14.79 8.34 54.47 43.52 2.01 16.27 11.48 7.42 34.00 0.06 15.21 43.10 15.05 10.67 7.32 36.00 0.06 14.78 36.19 12.31 8.77 7.03 40.50 0.07 14.07 23.99
Averages 23.53 25.03 15.13 8.03 50.90 44.27 4.85 14.91 12.01 6.98 34.04 0.06 16.18 37.18 14.60 11.06 7.06 36.00 0.06 15.20 27.52 12.26 9.17 6.68 39.91 0.07 14.95 16.57

Figure 13.13: SWS+JIG Tailings Processing Models
Tailings SWS-JIG models

(Product Cut off at 36% Mn)
40
MP Mn SiO2 Al2O3 Fe
35
Av=36%
30
% In the Fines concentrate
y = 0.001x 3.3067
R = 0.799
25
20
15
Av=11.06%
Av=14.6%
10 Av=7.06%
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
% in the feed
Table 13.12 summarizes the main mass recovery and grade models used for resources definition, mine
plan development and to establish potential blending strategy.

Table 13.14: SWS+JIG Tailings Processing Models
Mass Pull
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0
between None y = 4.3x - 26.2
more than 10 = 26
Concentrate Grade
LUMP FINES
less than 8 = 0
between None y = 0.2121x + 33.251
more than 32 = 40
Contaminant Grades
FINES
SiO2 invariable in homogeneous material
average = 12.5
Al2O3 invariable in homogeneous material

average = 10
Fe invariable in homogeneous material

average = 6.4

13.6 Crushing Testwork
Since the objective of the Project is to produce mainly lump concentrate and considering that previous
operation did not use any crushing other than a sizer with a main function of accommodating the washing
plant, no crushing tests have been performed. An average value of CWI of 2.5 kWh/t derived from
previous literature data base of similar manganese projects has been used. If the use of a secondary
crusher is confirmed by future JIG pilot testing as recommended for the FS, CWI of ore will need to be
determined through laboratory testing.
13.7 Scrubbing Testwork
The design parameters (% solid, water quality, residence time and RPM) used for the scrubber design
were determined from the testing conditions experienced using a cement mixer as scrubber at the lab
testing stage. Considered as sufficient at this time, those parameters have to be validated through
scrubber design testing program generally recommended by scrubber suppliers at the FS stage.
13.8 Solid / Liquid Separation Testwork
No settling testing program has been undertaken at this stage. Considering the need of a thickener to
reduce the water flow rate to the TSF and to increase the water reclaim to the scrubber, a solid/liquid
separation test is recommended at the FS stage.

14. MINERAL RESOURCES
G Mining Services Inc. (GMSI) has prepared an initial mineral resource estimate for the Matthews Ridge
manganese deposit, which has been tested by drilling, trenching and test pits. Resource estimation
methodologies, results and validations are presented in this section of the Report.
The resource estimate (effective date: February 20, 2013) was prepared in accordance with CIM
Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves (adopted November 27, 2010) and is reported in
accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument NI 43-101 (NI 43-101).
Classification, or assigning a level of confidence to Mineral Resources, has been undertaken with strict
adherence to the CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves. In the opinion of GMSI, the
resource evaluation reported herein is a reasonable representation of the global mineral resources found
in the Matthews Ridge deposit at the current level of sampling.
The mineral resource estimate was prepared by Mr. Rjean Sirois, ing. GMSI, Vice President, Geology
and Resources, an independent qualified person as defined in NI 43-101. GEMCOM software was
used to facilitate the resource estimation process.
The mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are normally considered too
speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them and that would enable them to
be categorized as mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will
be converted to the measured and indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves,
once economic considerations are applied.
Mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, have potential but unproven economic viability. The
estimate of mineral resources may be affected by marketing, fiscal, permitting, legal, or other relevant
issues.
14.1 Data
Raw data incorporated into this Report consists of all trenching, pitting, and diamond / reverse circulation
(DD / RC) drilling data obtained from the Matthews Ridge Project between 2010 and 2012. GMSI has
reviewed and discussed sample collection methodologies adopted by Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI)
and is satisfied that they are of a satisfactory standard. A review of findings pertaining to input data are
presented in the Report sections below and issues regarding the suitability of this data for inclusion in
current and future resource estimates are discussed in Section 14.9 - Resource Classification. The
current resource estimate is derived exclusively from the database described in Section 12.1. The

database was found to be in very good condition. No significant errors were detected during data
validation.
The drillhole grid spacing (Figure 14.1) is generally 50 x 50 m but is often narrowed down to 40 m along
strike by 30 m in several areas of the Matthews Ridge Footprint area. The drill spacing is judged
adequate to develop a reasonable model of the mineralization distribution, and to quantify its volume and
quality with an acceptable level of confidence.
Figure 14.1: General Plan View of Drilling and Sampling Density

(in orange) inside the Footprint Hills and Tailings Model Outline (in blue)
The Pipiani and Arakaka exploration prospects were sampled for detrital material using trenches
approximately 200 m apart and sampled every 50 m along their length. Locally, the sampling density was
increased by pits spaced roughly 50 m x 50 m.
14.2 Modeling
The 3D geological modeling performed for the resource estimate was produced by GMSI based on the
2D geological interpretation (cross-sections) and the database supplied by RMI. The modeling of the
main geological units, weathering profiles and some topography surfaces were carried out using the
3D geological modeling software Leapfrog Mining (version 2.5.2.27). The solids and surfaces were then
transferred into Gemcom software for further block modeling work.
As the entire Project covers a series of hills, the Matthews Ridge prospect has been divided into
eight different subprojects for geological modeling and block modeling purposes. Each subproject
corresponds to a hill, a combination of small hills, or to the tailings area. The different areas located in the
Matthews Ridge Footprint are presented in Figure 14.2: Hill 1, Hill 3, Hill 5, Hill 5 Ext, Hill 7, Hill 8, Hill 9
and Tailings.

The modeling of the different lithological units, weathering profiles and surfaces was performed for each
area individually.
Figure 14.2: Location of the Different Modeling Subprojects
The modeling for the Pipiani and Arakaka exploration prospects was also performed using the same
methodology and tools as for the Matthews Ridge Footprint, but in this case, limited to the detrital cover
only.
14.2.1 Geological Modeling
Based on the geological information contained in the drillhole database, six different geology units were
identified for modeling purposes and five of them were interpreted on 2D cross-sections by RMI.
Figure 14.3 presents an example of the geological interpretation done on a cross-section of the Hill 5
model, and Figure 14.4 shows the location of the section. The sixth unit, the phyllite, was not modeled as
it was considered as the background lithology unit. The following units were interpreted: banded
manganese formation ("BMF"), chert, diorite, massive manganese formation ("MMF") and manganeferous
phyllite ("MPH"). The interpreted lithology outlines were then transferred to GMSI in files in mesh format.
The polylines were imported into the Leapfrog Mining software for the creation of the 3D solids.
Figure 14.5 summarizes the different steps of the solid creation process.
Figure 14.6 presents the lithology solids that were generated for the different models. All solids were used
in the block models for rock coding purposes. An example of the resultant solids created for Hill 9 is
shown in Table 14.1.

Figure 14.3: Cross Section View of the Geological Polyline Interpretation in Hill 5
(Section 813575H5 Looking West)
Figure 14.4: Plan View of Lithology Polylines in Hill 5 Block Model

Location of Cross-section 813575H

Figure 14.5: Isometric View of the Geological 3D Model in Hill 5 Polylines and Solids

Table 14.1: List of Geology Solids Created for each Target Hill Area
Target Hill Description Solid Name Lithology Code Block Model Code
Diorite Rocks H1 / DIO2 / 25Nov2012 DIO 100

Chert Rocks H1 / CHE / 25Nov2012 CHE 110
Hill 1 Phyllite Rocks - PHY 120
Banded Manganese Formation H1 / BMF3 / 12Dec2012 BMF 210
Massive Manganese Formation H1 / MPH2 / 25Nov2012 MPH 220
Chert Rocks H3 / CHE2 / 25Nov2012 CHE 110
Banded Manganese Formation H3 / BMF2 / 25Nov12 BMF 210
Massive Manganese Formation H3 / MPH2 / 22Nov2012 MPH 220
Massive Manganese Formation H5 / MPH / 22Nov2012 MPH 220
Diorite Rocks H5 / DIO / 22Nov2012 DIO 100
Hill 5 EXT Phyllite Rocks - PHY 120
Banded Manganese Formation H5 / BMF / 11Dec2012 BMF 210
Phyllite Rocks - PHY 120
Hill 7
Massive Manganese Formation H7 / MMF / 25Nov2012 MMF 200
Banded Manganese Formation H7 / BMF / 11Dec2012 BMF 210
Hill 8
Banded Manganese Formation H8 / BMF2 / 25Nov2012 BMF 210
Hill 9
Massive Manganese Formation H9 / MMF / 25Nov2012 MMF 200
1
No solid was created for phyllite rocks as this unit was identified as the background geology

Figure 14.6: Isometric View of Geological Solids Created in Hill 9 Model
A background of phyllite rocks was used for the tailings model and the Pipiani and Arakaka exploration
models.
14.2.2 Mineralization Modeling
The geological domains described previously in Section 14.2.1 were used as hard boundaries to
constrain the mineralization during the grade interpolations.
14.2.3 Topography
A topographic survey of the different areas by airborne and stationary LiDAR method ("Light Detection
and Ranging") was performed in 2012. LiDAR topography surfaces are high-resolution digital elevation
maps. The survey covered most of the hills area (hills and tailings), and RMI provided GMSI with the
surfaces. For the areas which were not covered entirely by the survey (Hill 9W and tailings) the
topographies were completed by GMSI with triangulated surfaces created from drillhole collar information.
Table 14.2 lists the surfaces that were used in each model.

Table 14.2: Topography Surfaces Description for the Target Hills and Tailings
Target Hill Description Surface or Solid Name Origin
Hill 1 Topography Lidar / H1 Lidar
Hill 5 Topography Lidar / H5&6 Lidar

Hill 5 EXT Topography Lidar / H5Ext Lidar
Hill 7 Topography Lidar / H7 / Oct14 Lidar

Hill 9 Topography Lidar / H9 Lidar and Hole Collars
Tailings Topography Tailings / TOP / Merg_CLIP Lidar and Hole Collars
For the Arakaka and Pipiani prospects, the topographies were created by GMSI from the hole collar
information. The triangulated resulting surfaces are listed in Table 14.2 and Table 14.3.
Table 14.3: Topography Surface for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects
Prospect Description Surface or Solid Name Origin
Pipiani Topography Pipiani Test Pits

Arakaka Topography Arakaka Test Pits
14.2.4 Oxidation Model
The different weathered horizons present in the deposits and exploration projects were interpreted,
modeled and then used in the block models.
14.2.4.1 Weathering Profiles
Based on the logged weathering information, RMI interpreted weathering profiles according to two
categories: strong weathering or saprolite material and moderate weathering or transitional material, for
which respective 2D interpretation was completed on cross-sections along all the hill projects. GMSI
received the weathering outlines from which was generated the saprolite base and top-of-fresh rock
surfaces with Leapfrog software; Table 14.4 lists the weathering surfaces created for the hills area and
the rock codes used in the block models.

Table 14.4: Weathering Surfaces Description and Rock Coding for the Target Hills
Target Hill Description Surface or Solid Name Block Model Code
Saprolite base H1 / CSR Adds +1 to geology rock code

Hill 1
Top of fresh rock H1 / Rock / MIN Adds +2 to geology rock code

Hill 3
Top of fresh rock H3 / Rock Adds +2 to geology rock code
Saprolite base H5 / SAP Adds +1 to geology rock code

Hill 5
Top of fresh rock Rock / MIN with / SAP Adds +2 to geology rock code
Saprolite base 5ext / sap / tran Adds +1 to geology rock code

Hill 5 EXT
Top of fresh rock 5ext / tranrock Adds +2 to geology rock code

Hill 7
Saprolite base SAP / H8 / Oct10 Adds +1 to geology rock code

Hill 8
Top of fresh rock ROCK / H8 / Oct10 Adds +2 to geology rock code
Saprolite base H9 / SAP Adds +1 to geology rock code

Hill 9
No weathering surfaces were created for the Pipiani and Arakaka prospects. Both models are entirely
within saprolitic material, according to the current information.
14.2.4.2 Detrital Material
The detrital material is composed of manganese nodules derived from the erosion of lateritic duricrust
material and forms blankets overlying the target hills. Surfaces delimiting that material type were created
and used in the block models.
In 2012, RMI dug more than three hundred mechanized and manual test pits to observe the true
thickness of the detrital material covering the hills area. Average thicknesses were collected from the
measurements taken from the test pits. Several detrital regions were mapped in the different hills areas.
RMI provided GMSI with the 2D mapped areas of detrital material through Shapefile format files and
those were imported into Gems software. For each detrital region, the corresponding portion of the
topography was subtracted by the estimated average thickness estimated by RMI, for a resulting surface
delimiting the lower limit of the detrital material. Figure 14.7 illustrates the creation steps followed.

Figure 14.7: Schematic 2D Cross-section View of the Detrital Surface Creation
Table 14.5 lists the average thicknesses used for the creation of the detrital surfaces for every hill model.
An example of the several detrital regions that can be modeled in one target hill is presented in
Figure 14.8.

Table 14.5: Description of Detrital Surfaces Created for each Target Hill
Average Block Model

Target Hill Number of Region Surface or Solid Name
Thickness Code
Hill 1 3 H1 / DET-1.65 / [zone#] 1.65 310
H2 / DET-1.11 1.11 310
Hill 3 4 H3 / DET-1.03 1.03 310
H4 / DET-0.75 / [zone#] 0.75 310
Hill 5 14 H5 / DET / [zone#] 1.54 310
Hill 5 ext 5 H5E / DET / [zone#] 1.54 310
Hill 7 6 H7 / DET-1.64 / [zone#] 1.64 310
Hill 8 1 H8 / DET-1.19 / Clip 1.19 310
H9 / DET / H9W-1.65 1.65 310
Hill 9 3 H9 / DET / H9N-1.32 1.32 310
H9 / DET / 9E-1.68 1.68 310
Figure 14.8: Plan View of the 14 Detrital Surfaces Created in Target 5 Model
The detrital surfaces modeled for the prospect projects resulted from the same creation process as the
one used for detrital material for the hill models. Table 14.6 presents those surfaces.

Table 14.6: Description of Detrital Surfaces Created for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects
Number of Block Model

Area Surface or Solid Name Average Thickness
Region Code
Zone [#] / B [zone#] / Varies between 0.9 and

Pipiani 5 310
Thickness? 1.32
DET / B [zone#] / Varies between 0.63

Arakaka 5 310
Thickness and 1.19
14.3 Statistical Analysis
14.3.1 Statistics of Original Assays
Statistical analyses were conducted using the assays available in the drilling database of the various
footprint hills and tailings area. The drilling database includes all types of holes and excludes trench data.
Summaries of the statistics results for the various projects are presented in Table 14.7, Table 14.8 and
Table 14.9.
Table 14.7: Summary of Statistics Results for Assays from Target Hills and Tailings Area
Manganese and Other Elements (%)
Number of
Element Min. Max. Mean Standard Deviation CoV
Assays
Mn 34,344 0.00 51.97 6.72 8.00 1.19
Al2O3 33,854 0.28 40.93 15.63 4.50 0.29
Fe 34,343 0.01 45.52 6.53 3.63 0.56
P2O5 33,772 0.00 2.25 0.12 0.11 0.96
SiO2 33,718 5.19 97.70 53.77 13.51 0.25
Table 14.8: Summary of Statistic Results for Assays from Pipiani Prospect
Number of
Element Min. Max. Mean Standard Deviation CoV
Assays
Mn 362 0.05 45.78 11.91 10.21 0.86
Al2O3 362 7.36 30.03 17.64 4.34 0.25
Fe 362 2.72 38.51 16.34 5.83 0.36
P2O5 362 0.00 0.66 0.13 0.10 0.74
SiO2 362 2.55 73.16 28.51 14.25 0.50

Table 14.9: Summary of Statistic Results for Assay from Arakaka Prospect
Number of Standard
Element Min. Max. Mean CoV
Assays Deviation
Mn 107 0.05 29.99 8.99 7.66 0.85
Al2O3 107 7.15 23.88 15.34 3.29 0.21

Fe 107 3.65 28.09 10.19 3.65 0.36
P2O5 107 0.01 0.34 0.11 0.06 0.57
SiO2 107 15.48 79.28 46.59 12.86 0.28
No extreme values were observed and no capping limit was applied on raw-assays. Raw assays were
then composited to a regular 1.5 m length for the various hills, and to 0.5 m length for the tailings and
exploration projects.
14.3.2 Compositing
For the 9 hills Footprint, the raw samples were composited into a regular 1.5 m run length (down-hole)
within each lithology domain described in the drillhole logging database. Composites which contained
less than half of the full 1.5 m length (<0.75 m) were discarded from the database. Each composite was
coded using the lithology code from the pertaining domain as explained in Section 14.3.3.
For the Pipiani, Arakaka and Tailings models, the raw samples were composited into a regular 0.5 m run
length in order to achieve a more uniform sample support. Composites which contained less than half of
the full length were discarded from the database. Each composite was coded with the detrital material
code or as tailings code.
14.3.3 Statistics of the Composites
Statistical analysis for each target hill was undertaken to describe the characteristics of manganese
grades within each of the geological domains, and to assess the need for grade capping. The summary
statistics of the 1.5 m composites by lithology domain for all hills is presented in Table 14.10.

Table 14.10: Summary Manganese Statistics of the 1.5 m Composites

per Geology Domain for the Target Hills (%)
Rock Number of Standard

Element Rock Description Min. Max. Mean CoV
Code Composites Deviation
Detrital Material 310 1,868 0.04 42.93 10.22 9.30 0.91
Diorite Rocks 100 3,821 0.00 36.19 1.66 3.30 1.99

Chert Rocks 110 345 0.01 26.97 2.22 3.41 1.53
Mn Phyllite Rocks 120 14,868 0.00 34.22 2.45 3.50 1.43
Banded Manganese
210 8,852 0.05 47.72 12.88 8.26 0.64
Formation
Massive Manganese
220 8,923 0.03 41.09 5.77 4.96 0.86
Formation
Other non-economic elements from the composites were statistically analyzed as well: Al2O3, Fe, P2O5
and SiO2. The statistical results are presented in Table 14.11.

Table 14.11: Statistical Analysis of the 1.5 m Composites per Geology Domain for the Target Hill
other Elements (%)
Rock Number of Standard

Element Rock Description Min. Max. Mean CoV
Code Composites Deviation

Diorite Rocks 100 3,723 2.83 35.99 20.20 4.34 0.21
Chert Rocks 110 301 0.46 25.51 8.58 4.89 0.57
Al2O3 Phyllite Rocks 120 13,189 0.01 34.09 17.06 4.63 0.27
Banded Manganese
210 8,752 2.60 32.63 14.82 4.09 0.28
Formation
Massive Manganese
220 8,739 1.31 32.86 15.52 4.29 0.28
Formation
Detrital material 310 1,868 0.04 56.47 12.35 8.51 0.69

Diorite Rocks 100 3,821 0.95 37.53 8.60 3.27 0.38
Chert Rocks 110 345 0.50 37.94 5.75 4.72 0.82
Fe Phyllite Rocks 120 14,860 0.15 39.06 6.55 3.35 0.51

Banded Manganese
210 8,851 0.56 30.58 5.79 3.42 0.59
Formation
Massive Manganese
220 8,923 0.73 34.99 6.68 3.63 0.54
Formation

Diorite Rocks 100 3,715 0.00 1.07 0.14 0.09 0.66
Chert Rocks 110 301 0.00 0.91 0.14 0.15 1.09
P2O5 Phyllite Rocks 120 13,131 0.00 1.43 0.10 0.09 0.88
Banded Manganese
210 8,627 0.00 1.27 0.13 0.12 0.93
Formation
Massive Manganese
220 8,720 0.00 2.25 0.12 0.12 1.01
Formation

Diorite Rocks 100 3,693 13.26 89.71 50.11 9.13 0.18
Chert Rocks 110 301 37.60 97.21 73.85 13.31 0.18
SiO2 Phyllite Rocks 120 13,015 8.18 98.17 58.63 10.01 0.17
Banded Manganese
210 8,680 6.46 94.54 46.06 13.57 0.29
Formation
Massive Manganese
220 8,682 11.93 91.80 55.78 10.67 0.19
Formation
The summary statistics of the 0.5 m composites from the Tailings, Pipiani and Arakaka models are
presented in Table 14.12 and Table 14.13 present statistics for manganese. Statistics for composites of
other non economical elements are presented in the Table 14.14 and Table 14.16.

Table 14.12: Summary Manganese Statistics of the 0.5 m Composites

for the Tailings Model (%)
Rock Rock Number of Standard

Description Code Composites Deviation
Mn Tailings 50 432 0.05 38.27 15.86 10.25 0.65
Table 14.13: Summary Manganese Statistics of the 0.5 m Composites in the Detrital Material in the
Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects (%)
Number of Standard
Element Prospect Min. Max. Mean CoV
Composites Deviation
Pipiani 1,739 0.05 57.15 14.85 12.83 0.86

Mn
Arakaka 269 0.05 33.35 10.74 8.31 0.77
Table 14.14: Statistical Analysis of the 0.5 m Composites for the Tailings Model
other Elements (%)
Number of Standard
Al2O3 432 8.41 27.75 17.16 3.71 0.22
Fe 432 4.52 24.34 8.71 2.57 0.30
P2O5 432 0.00 0.19 0.08 0.04 0.44

SiO2 432 9.07 69.65 35.18 12.14 0.35
Table 14.15: Statistical Analyses of the 0.5 m Composites in Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects
other Elements (%)
Number of Standard
Element Prospect Min. Max. Mean CoV
Pipiani 1,739 4.60 35.63 19.00 5.49 0.29

Al2O3
Arakaka 269 7.27 29.70 16.45 4.00 0.24
Pipiani 1,739 2.37 45.45 18.55 7.85 0.13

Fe
Arakaka 269 4.20 28.09 9.99 2.91 0.29
Pipiani 1,739 0.00 1.25 0.14 0.13 0.94

P2O5
Arakaka 269 0.01 0.31 0.11 0.06 0.53
Pipiani 1,737 0.43 73.16 18.63 13.06 0.70

SiO2
Arakaka 269 18.29 69.95 42.74 12.72 0.30
14.4 Dry Bulk Density Data

Over the past two years, density samples were collected from the various material types composing the
footprint hills and tailings deposits. Each sample was coded according to the geological units and
weathering types. The average resulting dry bulk densities used in the models are presented in
Table 14.16 and are grouped by lithology and weathering zones. The same density values were used for
the Pipiani and Arakaka exploration prospects.
Table 14.16: List of Average Dry Bulk Densities Applied Classification and Resource Reporting
Lithology Weathering Rock Average Number of

Rock Description 1
Code Type Codes Density samples
Air AIR - 500 0 -

Tailings TAI - 50 1.70 NA
Detrital DET Saprolite 310 1.73 NA
DIO Saprolite 100 1.52 62

Diorite DIO_T Transition 101 1.88 21
DIO_R Fresh Rock 102 2.35 7
CHE Saprolite 110 2.19 NA

Chert CHE_T Transition 111 2.35 NA
CHE_R Fresh Rock 112 2.74 NA
PHY Saprolite 120 1.62 494

Phyllite PHY_T Transition 121 2.09 130
PHY_R Fresh Rock 122 2.37 27
MMF Saprolite 200 2.32 NA

Massive Manganese
MMF_T Transition 201 2.50 NA
Formation
MMF_R Fresh Rock 202 3.00 NA
BMF Saprolite 210 1.96 320

Banded Manganese
BMF_T Transition 211 2.12 24
Formation
BMF_R Fresh Rock 212 2.95 6
MPH Saprolite 220 1.67 354
Manganeferous Phyllite MPH_T Transition 221 1.94 60
MPH_R Fresh Rock 222 2.40 4
14.5 Variography

Grade variography was generated in preparation for the estimation of manganese grades as well as the
following non-economic elements Al2O3, Fe, P2O5 and SiO2. The variography was completed based on
the 1.5 m down-hole composite data. The geostatistical software Sage 2001 was used for that purpose.
A series of correlograms was generated per set of model orientation, per main geological units and per
element, economic and non-economic. Two main strike orientations were defined among the hill and
tailings models:
1) East-West which includes Hills 1, 3, 5, 5 ext, 9 and tailings,
2) North 70 degrees which includes Hills 7 and 8. The optimal anisotropy directions were
determined through regression by Sage 2001.
The minimum number of composites required for variography of models oriented East-West and North
70 degrees were respectively 50 and 100. The variography modeled for each orientation set, geological
domain and element included a nugget effect and two spherical structures.
The resulting correlograms modeled are presented in Table 14.17. The rotation angles around axes XYZ
follows the Gemcom convention and are based on the orientation of the block model. The orientation
results were brought into Gems for visualization to confirm the rotation axes with corresponding
geological domains interpreted.
The nugget effect among the different target hills is relatively low, the variation occurs mainly between
each geology domain with nugget effects low in massive phyllite, moderate in detrital, phyllite and MMF,
and moderately high in BMF.
Table 14.18 presents the resulting correlograms parameters used for the non-economic elements which
were modeled following the same methodology as for the manganese element, by groups of orientation
and by geological domains.

Table 14.17: Correlograms by Orientation and Lithological Domain from Manganese Composites
Semi- Ranges of Influence (m) Rotation

Litho Domain Variogram
Element Target Nugget 1st Structure 2nd Structure
Domain Codes Profile Z Y Z
Name X Y Z Sill X Y Z Sill
BMF 210, 211, 212 MN_BMFEW 0.451 75 35 100 0.322 500 240 80 0.227 -30 16 19
MPH 220, 221, 222 MN_MPHEW 0.123 25 25 20 0.709 70 500 75 0.168 84 50 -10
East-West
MMF 200, 201, 202 MN_MMFEW 0.231 50 35 10 0.579 65 500 500 0.19 -78 -70 6
Hills 1, 3, 5, 9
PHY 120, 121, 122 MN_PHYEW 0.311 30 15 30 0.575 110 115 320 0.114 -75 -83 32
DET 310 MN_DETEW 0.301 50 195 10 0.253 285 435 220 0.446 0 4 -13
Mn BMF 210, 211, 212 MN_BMF70 0.616 45 30 250 0.206 75 500 500 0.178 -10 24 48
MPH 220, 221, 222 MN_MPH70 0.074 15 10 25 0.799 70 440 220 0.127 54 39 7
North 70
MMF 200, 201, 202 MN_MMF70 0.490 20 10 85 0.225 40 425 450 0.285 -51 -24 75
Hills 7, 8
PHY 120, 121, 122 MN_PHY70 0.268 30 15 30 0.619 120 110 500 0.113 -65 -87 -30
DET 310 MN_DETEW 0.301 50 195 10 0.253 285 435 220 0.446 0 4 -13
Tailings TAI 50 TAILS_MN 0.486 20 210 190 0.164 100 500 500 0.35 -39 15 58
Section 14 August 2013 Page 14-19

Table 14.18: Correlograms by Orientation and Lithological Domain From Composites on Non-economic Elements
Ranges of Influence (m) Rotation
Element Target Domain Domain Codes Semi-Variogram Profile Name Nugget 1st Structure 2nd Structure
Z Y Z
X Y Z Sill X Y Z Sill
BMF 210, 211, 212 AL_BMFEW 0.270 90 38 27 0.433 500 500 150 0.297 -9 -5 8
MPH 220, 221, 222 AL_MPHEW 0.292 110 70 40 0.484 500 500 125 0.224 -31 -11 15
East-West - Hills 1, 3, 5, 9 MMF 200, 201, 202 AL_MMFEW 0.154 20 10 95 0.548 500 175 125 0.298 -87 50 74
PHY 120, 121, 122 AL_PHYEW 0.311 30 15 30 0.575 110 115 320 0.114 15 -83 32
DET 310 AL_DETEW 0.139 30 10 25 0.361 500 140 70 0.500 28 9 -11
Al2O3 BMF 210, 211, 212 AL_BMF70 0.341 20 55 40 0.164 40 330 160 0.495 89 -31 -15
MPH 220, 221, 222 AL_MPH70 0.196 20 65 30 0.393 25 180 160 0.411 62 7 -7
North 70 Hills 7, 8 MMF 200, 201, 202 AL_MMF70 0.043 20 15 20 0.759 30 500 205 0.198 99 39 -28
PHY 120, 121, 122 AL_PHY70 0.295 15 45 30 0.304 50 500 115 0.401 19 -10 49
DET 310 AL_DETEW 0.139 30 10 25 0.361 500 140 70 0.500 28 9 -11
Tailings DET 310 AL_DETEW 0.483 180 15 40 0.451 180 225 300 0.066 -17 -28 52
BMF 210, 211, 212 FE_BMFEW 0.206 165 25 60 0.586 480 175 135 0.208 -15 1 -1
MPH 220, 221, 222 FE_MPHEW 0.312 160 35 60 0.464 500 260 425 0.224 -54 -17 38
East-West Hills 1, 3, 5, 9 MMF 200, 201, 202 FE_MMFEW 0.112 15 340 10 0.659 445 480 50 0.229 -4 -28 2
PHY 120, 121, 122 FE_PHYEW 0.311 30 15 30 0.575 110 115 320 0.114 15 -83 32
DET 310 FE_DETEW 0.290 335 120 100 0.358 335 120 100 0.358 20 58 -37
Fe BMF 210, 211, 212 FE_BMF70 0.413 45 215 60 0.303 45 290 105 0.284 9 18 68
MPH 220, 221, 222 FE_MPH70 0.264 30 30 60 0.165 135 45 370 0.571 -23 -67 -15
North 70 Hills 7, 8 MMF 200, 201, 202 FE_MMF70 0.312 20 35 15 0.387 30 130 15 0.301 32 31 20
PHY 120, 121, 122 FE_PHY70 0.475 30 60 90 0.256 35 500 90 0.269 -23 -10 80
DET 310 FE_DETEW 0.290 335 120 100 0.358 335 120 100 0.358 20 58 -37
Tailings DET 310 FE_DETEW 0.483 180 15 40 0.451 180 225 300 0.066 -17 -28 52
BMF 210, 211, 212 P_BMFEW 0.218 50 20 45 0.494 500 100 75 0.288 -30 1 24
MPH 220, 221, 222 P_MPHEW 0.123 25 25 20 0.709 70 500 75 0.168 84 50 -10
East-West Hills 1, 3, 5, 9 MMF 200, 201, 202 P_MMFEW 0.505 430 40 20 0.242 500 500 115 0.253 -105 17 95
PHY 120, 121, 122 P_PHYEW 0.311 30 15 30 0.575 110 115 320 0.114 -75 -83 32
DET 310 P_DETEW 0.144 55 10 44 0.298 500 135 160 0.558 19 -15 -14
P2O5 BMF 210, 211, 212 P_BMF70 0.246 475 50 80 0.384 500 90 125 0.370 -54 36 51
MPH 220, 221, 222 P_MPH70 0.305 35 30 105 0.239 55 500 205 0.456 109 -44 -39
North 70 Hills 7, 8 MMF 200, 201, 202 P_MMF70 0.442 15 50 40 0.238 45 60 65 0.320 30 -29 24
PHY 120, 121, 122 P_PHY70 0.268 30 15 30 0.619 120 110 500 0.113 -65 -87 30
DET 310 P_DETEW 0.144 55 10 44 0.298 500 135 160 0.558 19 -15 -14
Tailings DET 310 P_DETEW 0.144 55 10 44 0.298 500 135 160 0.558 19 -15 -14
BMF 210, 211, 212 SI_BMFEW 0.342 85 40 40 0.435 500 500 55 0.350 -34 4 24
MPH 220, 221, 222 SI_MPHEW 0.327 100 40 50 0.416 500 500 60 0.257 30 -6 -40
East-West Hills 1, 3, 5, 9 MMF 200, 201, 202 SI_MMFEW 0.074 85 10 60 0.55 500 500 65 0.376 -69 16 86
PHY 120, 121, 122 SI_PHYEW 0.311 30 15 30 0.575 110 115 320 0.114 15 -83 32
DET 310 SI_DETEW 0.087 35 10 55 0.273 395 245 175 0.640 -13 22 -14
SiO2 BMF 210, 211, 212 SI_BMF70 0.292 35 15 205 0.374 325 500 440 0.334 -89 21 122
MPH 220, 221, 222 SI_MPH70 0.238 15 40 125 0.531 385 105 500 0.231 48 -56 58
North 70 Hills 7, 8 MMF 200, 201, 202 SI_MMF70 0.350 40 15 115 0.34 45 320 500 0.31 -41 -20 58
PHY 120, 121, 122 SI_PHY70 0.425 75 75 40 0.364 110 500 140 0.211 75 -6 24
DET 310 SI_DETEW 0.087 35 10 55 0.273 395 245 175 0.64 -13 22 -14
Tailings DET 310 SI_DETEW 0.483 180 15 40 0.451 180 225 300 0.066 -17 -28 52

14.6 Block Modeling
A series of eight individual block models were constructed for the Matthews Ridge Footprint area, one for
each hill or group of hills and the tailings area. Individual block models were created for the Pipiani and
Arakaka prospects.
Each block model covers an area large enough to manage pit optimizations and associated pit slopes.
The location and configuration in space of the series of block models for Matthews Ridge is presented in
Figure 14.9. Each models delimitation was designed to be separated from one to another except for Hill 7
and tailings models, whose areas were partly superimposed. In all cases, there was no ore material
overlapping. Figure 14.9 shows the extent and organization of the block models on Matthews Ridge.
Figure 14.9: Organization of the Block Models on Matthews Ridge Footprint
The drilling pattern (50 m x 50 m) and the mine planning considerations (bench height of 3 m) guided the
choice of block dimensions. The same block dimension (3 m x 6m x 3 m) was utilized throughout the
seven models of hills. The tailings block model used a vertical dimension of 0.5 m since the material was
deposited in a plain area. Because of their mineralized content located in detrital material only, the
exploration projects were developed with a different block size (5 m x 5 m x 1 m). Block model
parameters for Matthews Ridge and the two prospect areas are respectively summarized in Table 14.19
and Table 14.20.

Table 14.19: Block Models Parameters for Matthews Ridge Target
Number of Block Size 1

Description Origin Rotation
Blocks (m)
East 819,600 367 3
Hill 1 North 832,100 405 6 -90
Elevation 240 80 3
East 816,490 340 3
Hill 3 North 831,500 519 6 -90
Elevation 240 80 3
East 812,700 190 3
Hill 5 North 830,500 316 6 -90
Elevation 240 80 3
East 814,600 227 3
Hill 5 ext North 830,800 315 6 -90
Elevation 240 80 3
East 812,001.721 130 3
Hill 7 North 829,722.543 112 6 -55
Elevation 240 80 3
East 810,269.782 110 3
Hill 8 North 829,160.428 230 6 -70
Elevation 240 80 3
East 807,665 350 3
Hill 9 North 829,250 322 6 -90
Elevation 240 80 3
East 812,500 350 3
Tailings North 829,800 400 3 -90
Elevation 150 180 0.5

1
For a negative value, the direction of rotation is clockwise around the elevation axis

Table 14.20: Block Model Parameters for Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects
Number of Block Size 1

Description Origin Rotation
Blocks (m)
East 189,360 728 5
Pipiani North 815,960 760 5 0
Elevation 200 200 1
East 822,400 500 5
Arakaka North 834,200 800 5 -90
Elevation 160 150 1

1
For a negative value, the direction of rotation is clockwise around the elevation axis
The rock type model relied on multiple wireframe constraints presented in Section 14.2. Table 14.21
describes the coding and the associated domains developed from the different wireframes, surfaces and
solids used in the block models.

Table 14.21: Rock Codes used in the Rock Type Models
Rock Description Lithology Code Weathering Type Rock Codes
Air AIR - 500
Tailings TAI - 50
Detrital DET Saprolite 310
DIO Saprolite 100
Diorite DIO_T Transition 101

DIO_R Fresh Rock 102
CHE Saprolite 110
Chert CHE_T Transition 111
CHE_R Fresh Rock 112
PHY Saprolite 120
Phyllite PHY_T Transition 121
PHY_R Fresh Rock 122
MMF Saprolite 200
Massive Manganese Formation MMF_T Transition 201
MMF_R Fresh Rock 202
BMF Saprolite 210
Banded Manganese Formation BMF_T Transition 211
BMF_R Fresh Rock 212
MPH Saprolite 220
Manganeferous Phyllite MPH_T Transition 221
MPH_R Fresh Rock 222
Also, a number of additional codes were incorporated into each block model to capture the various
attributes needed during block modeling estimation. Table 14.22 presents the list of attributes found in a
typical block model. The origin of the last four items of the list is explained in Section 13 of this Report.

Table 14.22: List of Attributes Found in the Block Model
Model Name Description
Rock Type Domain coding
Density Specific Gravity
Mn Ordinary kriging Mn%
AL2O3 Ordinary kriging Al2O3
FE Ordinary kriging Fe
P2O5 Ordinary kriging P2O5
SIO2 Ordinary kriging SiO2
NB_CMP Number of composites used for a block estimation
CLASS Resource classification
MN_FINE Mn% grade - Fine ores
MN_LUMP Mn% grade - Lump ores
MP_FINE Mass pull % Fine ores
MP_LUMP Mass pull % Lump ores
14.7 Grade Estimation Methodology
Ordinary kriging was used for grade interpolation since the coefficient of variation of the various grade
populations is relatively low (generally below 1.0). Gems 6.4.1 software was used for the estimates.
The grade estimates were generated using the 1.5 m composites. A capping limit of 30% for Mn was
determined from the statistical study of the composites presented in Section 14.3.2. The blocks included
in one specific lithology domain are interpolated only with the composites coded within this domain (hard
boundary).
The sample search approach used for the estimate of all block models is summarized below:
First Pass: A minimum of 6 and maximum of 20 composites within the search ellipse ranges.
A maximum of two composites per hole could be used for any block estimate.
Second Pass: A minimum of 4 and maximum of 20 composites within the search ellipse ranges.
A maximum of two composites per hole could be used for any block estimate. Only blocks which
were not estimated during the first pass could be estimated during the second pass.

Third Pass: A minimum of one and maximum of 20 composites within the search ellipse ranges. A
maximum of two composites per hole could be used for any block estimate. Only blocks which
were not estimated during the first and second pass could be estimated during the third pass.
The various profiles of interpolation, search ellipses and semi-variograms utilized in the estimation of the
resources of the hills and tailings block models are respectively tabulated in Table 14.23, Table 14.24 and
Table 14.25.
Table 14.23: Interpolation Profile Settings Mn
Sample
Profile Name Block Model Name Pass High Grade Limit
Min Max Max per Hole
[#]MN HILL [#] 1 6 20 2 30
[#]MN_IND HILL [#] 2 4 20 2 30
[#]MN_INF HILL [#] 3 2 20 2 30

TAIL Tailings 1 6 15 2 30
TAIL_IND Tailings 2 4 15 2 30
TAIL_INF Tailings 3 1 15 1 30
Table 14.24: Sample Search Ellipsoid Settings
Domain Ellipse Profile Anisotropy Range (m) Rotation

Hills Domain
Codes Name X Y Z Z Y Z
BMF 210, 211, 212 MN_BMFEW 250 120 50 -30 16 19
MPH 220, 221, 222 MN_MPHEW 30 250 35 84 50 -10
1, 3, 5, 9 MMF 200, 201, 202 MN_MMFEW 30 250 250 -78 -70 6
PHY 120, 121, 122 MN_PHYEW 55 55 160 -75 -83 32
DET 310 MN_DETEW 140 215 110 0 4 13
BMF 210, 211, 212 MN_BMF70 35 250 250 48 24 -10
MPH 220, 221, 222 MN_MPH70 35 220 110 54 39 7
7, 8 MMF 200, 201, 202 MN_MMF70 20 110 130 -51 -24 75
PHY 120, 121, 122 MN_PHY70 60 55 250 -65 -87 30
DET 310 MN_DETEW 140 215 110 0 4 13

Reunion Gold Corporation Pre-Feasibility Study
Table 14.25: Semi-Variogram Profile Settings
Block Model Element Sample High Grade

Profile Name Pass
Name Estimated Min Max Max per Hole Limit
PI_MN BM_PIPI Manganese 1 6 20 2 30
PIMNIND BM_PIPI Manganese 2 4 20 2 30
PIMNINF BM_PIPI Manganese 3 2 20 2 30
PI_AL BM_PIPI Al2O3 1 2 20 2 -
PI_FE BM_PIPI Fe 1 2 20 2 -
PI_P BM_PIPI P2O5 1 2 20 2 -
PI_SI BM_PIPI SiO2 1 2 20 2 -
1MN BM_ARA Manganese 1 6 20 2 30
1MN_IND BM_ARA Manganese 2 4 20 2 30
1MN_INF BM_ARA Manganese 3 2 20 2 30
1AL BM_ARA Al2O3 1 1 12 - -
1FE BM_ARA Fe 1 1 12 - -
1P BM_ARA P2O5 1 1 12 - -
1SI BM_ARA SiO2 1 1 12 - -

The various interpolation profiles, search ellipses and semi-variograms used in the resource estimation of
the exploration projects Pipiani and Arakaka models, are respectively summarized in Table 14.26,
Table 14.27 and Table 14.28.
Table 14.26: Interpolation Profile Settings used in the Exploration Models All Elements
Sample
Block Model Element High Grade
Profile Name Pass Max per
Name Estimated Min Max Limit
Hole
PI_MN BM_PIPI Manganese 1 6 20 2 30

PIMNIND BM_PIPI Manganese 2 4 20 2 30
PIMNINF BM_PIPI Manganese 3 2 20 2 30
PI_AL BM_PIPI Al2O3 1 2 20 2 -
PI_FE BM_PIPI Fe 1 2 20 2 -
PI_P BM_PIPI P2O5 1 2 20 2 -
PI_SI BM_PIPI SiO2 1 2 20 2 -
1MN BM_ARA Manganese 1 6 20 2 30
1MN_IND BM_ARA Manganese 2 4 20 2 30
1MN_INF BM_ARA Manganese 3 2 20 2 30
1AL BM_ARA Al2O3 1 1 12 - -
1FE BM_ARA Fe 1 1 12 - -
1P BM_ARA P2O5 1 1 12 - -
1SI BM_ARA SiO2 1 1 12 - -
Table 14.27: Sample Search Ellipsoid Settings for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects
Domain Anisotropy Range (m) Rotation

Hills Domain Ellipse Profile Name
Codes X Y Z Z Y Z
Pipiani DET 310 MN_DETEW 140 215 110 0 10 13
Arakaka DET 310 MN_DETEW 100 100 10 0 0 0

Table 14.28: Semi-variogram Profile Settings for the Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects
Ranges of Influence (m) Rotation

Domain Semi-Variogram
Element Prospect Domain Nugget 1st Structure 2nd Structure
Codes Profile Name Z Y Z
X Y Z Sill X Y Z Sill
Pipiani DET 310 MN_DETEW 0.301 50 195 10 0.253 285 435 220 0.446 0 4 -13
Al2O3
Arakaka DET 310 AL_DETEW 0.300 122 122 122 0.35 244 244 244 0.350 0 0 0
Fe
Arakaka DET 310 FE_DETEW 0.300 122 122 122 0.350 244 244 244 0.350 0 0 0
P2O5
Arakaka DET 310 FE_DETEW 0.300 122 122 122 0.350 244 244 244 0.350 0 0 0
SiO2
Arakaka DET 310 P_DETEW 0.300 122 122 122 0.35 244 244 244 0.350 0 0 0

14.8 Grade Estimation Validation
Validation was thoroughly completed on all block models including all hills and tailings areas from
Matthews Ridge and the Pipiani and Arakaka prospects. The validation process included visual and
statistical reviews of the models against the input composite data.
The visual checks consisted of visualization of the slices of the block models, geological domains,
weathering zones and drillhole database. Slicing was performed vertically on 25 and 50 m intervals
(depending on the area) and horizontally on 3 m intervals. The data source was visually compared with
the attributes (rock type, density, Mn grade) throughout the strike length of the various areas. The
geological and weathering wireframes are well represented in the block models, and the ordinary kriging
based manganese resource estimate was found to be a good representation of the drillhole grades.
A statistical review comparing the average block grades to the average composite grades per geological
domain was produced as an additional validation of the interpolated manganese grades in each block
model. This method of average grade comparison between the estimated results and the composite data
source is indicative of possible distortion in the grade distribution. All the block models displayed
comparable mean grades (manganese blocks and manganese 1.5 m composites) for each individual
lithology domain, which means that there were no irregularities between the populations analyzed.
14.9 Classification and Resource Reporting
The CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, prepared by the CIM
Standing Committee on Resource Definitions and adopted by the CIM council on November 27, 2010,
provide standards for the classification of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserve estimates into various
categories. The category to which a resource or reserve estimate is assigned depends on the level of
confidence in the geological information available on the mineral deposit, the quality and quantity of data
available, the level of detail of the technical and economic information which has been generated about
the deposit and the interpretation of that data and information. Under CIM Definition Standards:
An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality
can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but
not verified, geological or grade continuity. The estimate is based on limited information and sampling
gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and
drill holes.

An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality,
densities, shape and physical characteristics can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to
allow appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and
evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable
exploration and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as
outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough for geological and grade
continuity to be reasonably assumed.
A Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality,
densities, shape, and physical characteristics are so well established that they can be estimated with
confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to
support production planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based
on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate
techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced
closely enough to confirm both geological and grade continuity.
In addition, the classification of interpolated blocks is undertaken by considering the following criteria:
Quality and reliability of drilling and sampling data.
Distance between sample points (drilling density).
Confidence in the geological interpretation.
Continuity of the geologic structures and the continuity of the grade within these structures.
Variogram models and their related ranges (first and second structures).
Statistics of the data population.
Quality of assay data.
The resources were classified according to the above mentioned criteria which also directed the choice of
the search parameters for each interpolation pass during the block estimation.
Measured resources are limited to the blocks interpolated in the first estimation pass and only within
areas of good geological continuity and high confidence level of the estimated grades and tonnages such
as for Hill 5, 5 Ext, 7, 8 and 9.

Indicated resources correspond to the blocks which were not classified as measured, and to the blocks
that were not estimated during the first interpolation pass and that filled the criteria for the second
estimation pass.
Inferred resources are the blocks estimated from the third estimation pass.
14.10 Global Resources
The unconstrained resource estimation by category for the Matthews Ridge footprint area is tabulated in
Table 14.29 for a cut-off grade of 8% Mn. Table 14.30 presents classified unconstrained resources for
the Pipiani and Arakaka prospects.

Table 14.29: Unconstrained Resources by Classification and

Rock Type for each Target in Matthews Ridge

Target Domain Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade
('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn
DET - - 384 13 384 13 - -
BMF - - 2,888 11 2,888 11 26 13
Hill 1 MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH - - 185 10 185 10 44 10
PHY - - 15 10 15 10 7 10
DET - - 735 13 735 13 7 11
BMF - - 5,366 13 5,366 13 141 16
Hill 3 MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH - - 564 10 564 10 47 11
PHY - - 90 9 90 9 31 11
DET - - 394 13 394 13 29 17
BMF 6,181 14 41 20 6,222 14 41 21
Hill 5 MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH 316 10 90 10 405 10 27 11
PHY 98 10 35 11 133 10 590 18
DET - - 347 15 347 15 123 15
BMF 3,636 16 341 15 3,977 16 326 15
Hill 5 Ext MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH 867 10 142 11 1,009 10 54 10
PHY 84 9 46 10 130 10 126 9
DET - - 51 12 51 12 - -
BMF 947 12 0 12 947 12 - -
Hill 7 MMF 424 23 6 20 430 23 2 27
MPH 33 9 9 10 43 9 0 11
PHY 24 9 - - 24 9 7 11
DET - - 42 10 42 10 - -
BMF 405 12 4 16 409 12 0 18
Hill 8 MMF - - - - - - - -
MPH 21 9 0 9 21 9 - -
PHY 15 10 10 10 25 10 11 13
DET - - 1,556 14 1,556 14 152 10
BMF 1,640 17 4 16 1,644 17 7 16
Hill 9 MMF 488 22 36 20 524 22 2 25
MPH 411 10 26 10 437 10 22 11
PHY 1,398 11 926 12 2,324 11 1,536 15
Tailings Tailings - - 1,055 18 1,055 18 10 15
Total 16,987 14 15,388 13 32,375 14 3,368 15

Table 14.30: Unconstrained Inferred Resources for the

Arakaka and Pipiani Prospects all from Detrital Material
Inferred
Tonnage Grade
('000 t) % Mn
Arakaka 168 13
Prospect
Pipiani 1,756 15
Total 1,924 15
Table 14.31, Table 14.32 and Table 14.33 summarize the sensitivity of the resources of the Hills 1 to 9,
the Tailings, and Pipiani and Arakaka prospects estimates for selected cut-offs. The sensitivity analysis
was done using cut-off grades between 2 and 20% Mn. Overall the results indicate a certain degree of
sensitivity to cut-off change. Figure 14.10 illustrates the grade-tonnage curves for Measured and
Indicated Resources for Hills 1 to 9.
Table 14.31 Unconstrained Resources Sensitivity for Matthews Ridge Hills 1 to 9

Cut Off
Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade
% Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn
20% 2,205 23 438 22 2,643 23 462 24
15% 6,968 19 3,200 18 10,169 19 1,587 19
10% 13,426 16 10,243 14 23,669 15 2,846 16

8% 16,987 14 14,333 13 31,319 14 3,357 15
6% 23,760 12 19,036 11 42,796 12 4,406 13
4% 43,419 9 27,248 9 70,667 9 7,080 10

2% 81,352 6 53,856 6 135,208 6 16,135 6

Figure 14.10 Grade-Tonnage Curves of Unconstrained Measured and Indicated Resources

Estimates for the Hills 1 to 9 at Selected % Mn Cut-Offs
Table 14.32 Unconstrained Resources Sensitivity for Tailings
Cut Off Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade Tonnage Grade
% Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn ('000 t) % Mn
20% - - 415 24 415 24 2 29

15% - - 627 22 627 22 3 26
10% - - 977 19 977 19 6 20
8% - - 1,055 18 1,055 18 10 15
6% - - 1,119 17 1,119 17 39 9
4% - - 1,142 17 1,142 17 42 9
2% - - 1,179 16 1,179 16 46 8

Table 14.33 Unconstrained Resources Sensitivity for Pipiani and Arakaka Prospects
Inferred
Cut Off Grade
Tonnage Grade
% Mn ('000 t) % Mn
20% 270 23
15% 764 19
10% 1,649 16
8% 1,924 15
6% 2,127 14
4% 2,346 13
2% 2,412 13

15. MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
Mineral reserve statements must be reported according to the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleums (CIM) standards. According to these standards, Resource classified as Measured and
Indicated are reported as proven and probable reserves respectively. Owing to the above reporting
standards, the Inferred Resources cannot be declared as mineral reserve or included in a LOM schedule.
Key assumptions, input parameters and methods utilized to constrain the mineral resource to an
economic shell and estimate the mineral reserve are presented in Sections 16.1 to 16.4.
The total proven and probable mineral reserves (effective date of July 7, 2013) by area are presented in
Table 15.1. The total proven and probable mineral reserves are 26.3 Mt at an average grade of 14.2% Mn
for 2.76 Mt of fine concentrate at 36.4% Mn and 4.45 Mt of lump concentrate at 39.1% Mn. The lump
concentrate represents 62% of the entire production. All estimated proven and probable mineral reserves
are derived from the measured and indicated mineral resources presented in Section 14.

Table 15.1 Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve

Proven Concentrate
Reserves Fine Lump
Area Ore Manganese Mass Pull Manganese AL2O3 SiO2 P Fe Mass Pull Manganese AL2O3 SiO2 P Fe
(kt) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Hill 1 - - - - - - - - - - -
Hill 2,3 &4 - - - - - - - - - - -
Hill 5 ext 3,902 15.3% 406,316 36.4% 7.3% 27.4% 0.050% 4.1% 742,749 39.2% 6.3% 23.2% 0.050% 4.0%
Hill 5 & 6 5,801 14.6% 564,663 36.2% 7.2% 27.2% 0.053% 4.3% 1,055,463 38.9% 6.2% 23.0% 0.053% 4.2%
Hill 7 1,313 15.9% 141,976 37.1% 7.7% 22.2% 0.080% 5.2% 265,281 39.9% 6.7% 18.8% 0.080% 5.0%
Hill 9 3,040 15.3% 352,512 37.2% 7.9% 22.6% 0.051% 4.7% 571,477 40.2% 6.8% 19.2% 0.051% 4.6%
Tailings - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 14,056 15.1% 1,465,467 36.6% 7.4% 25.9% 0.055% 4.4% 2,634,970 39.3% 6.4% 21.9% 0.055% 4.3%
Probable Concentrate
Reserves Fine Lump
(kt) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Hill 1 2,493 11.9% 198,086 35.9% 7.7% 26.8% 0.046% 5.7% 342,093 38.7% 6.7% 22.7% 0.046% 5.6%
Hill 2,3 &4 5,847 13.2% 543,302 36.1% 7.6% 27.6% 0.036% 4.7% 922,634 39.0% 6.5% 23.4% 0.036% 4.6%
Hill 5 ext 751 14.4% 96,884 36.0% 7.3% 26.8% 0.055% 5.0% 134,598 38.4% 6.3% 22.6% 0.055% 4.9%
Hill 5 & 6 476 12.9% 52,786 36.1% 7.8% 22.0% 0.066% 7.1% 73,980 38.2% 6.8% 18.7% 0.066% 7.0%
Hill 7 60 12.4% 6,239 36.1% 8.1% 19.4% 0.088% 7.4% 8,870 38.1% 7.1% 16.5% 0.088% 7.3%
Hill 9 2,079 13.6% 265,786 36.2% 8.2% 19.7% 0.052% 6.6% 331,486 38.5% 7.2% 16.7% 0.052% 6.5%
Tailings 532 18.3% 134,619 37.1% 7.9% 19.7% 0.040% 6.3% - 0.0% 6.8% 16.7% 0.040% 6.2%
Total 12,238 13.3% 1,297,703 36.1% 7.7% 25.7% 0.044% 5.5% 1,813,662 38.8% 6.7% 21.8% 0.044% 5.4%
Proven & Probable Concentrate
Reserves Fine Lump
(kt) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (t) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Hill 1 2,493 11.9% 198,086 35.9% 7.7% 26.8% 0.046% 5.7% 342,093 38.7% 6.7% 22.7% 0.046% 5.6%
Hill 2,3 &4 5,847 13.2% 543,302 36.1% 7.6% 27.6% 0.036% 4.7% 922,634 39.0% 6.5% 23.4% 0.036% 4.6%
Hill 5 ext 4,653 15.1% 503,200 36.4% 7.3% 27.3% 0.051% 4.3% 877,347 39.0% 6.3% 23.1% 0.051% 4.1%
Hill 5 & 6 6,277 14.5% 617,449 36.2% 7.3% 26.8% 0.054% 4.6% 1,129,443 38.8% 6.3% 22.7% 0.054% 4.5%
Hill 7 1,373 15.8% 148,215 37.1% 7.7% 22.1% 0.080% 5.3% 274,151 39.8% 6.7% 18.7% 0.080% 5.2%
Hill 9 5,119 14.6% 618,298 36.8% 8.0% 21.5% 0.051% 5.6% 902,963 39.5% 7.0% 18.2% 0.051% 5.5%
Tailings 532 18.3% 134,619 37.1% 7.9% 19.7% 0.040% 6.3% - 0.0% 6.8% 16.7% 0.040% 6.2%
Total 26,293 14.2% 2,763,170 36.4% 7.6% 25.8% 0.049% 5.0% 4,448,631 39.1% 6.6% 21.9% 0.049% 4.9%

16. MINING METHODS
Mining at the Matthews Ridge Project is to be done by the conventional open pit method with operations
and maintenance activities performed in-house.
This section presents results and supporting details of the mining engineering study including:
Pit optimization.
Detailed pit and dump designs.
Production scheduling.
Equipment selection and requirements.
Mine manpower requirement.
16.1 Resource Model Description
The resource model utilized for mine design and planning purposes was prepared by Rjean Sirois of
G Mining Services Inc. (GMSI) and formed the basis of a resource estimation included in a
National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) Technical Report dated February 20, 2013. The resource
modeling was done using GEMS (Version 6.5) software by Gemcom. The resource model uses
regularized blocks constructed on the basis of a selective mining unit (SMU) of 3 m x 6 m x 3 m.
The Matthews Ridge resource models cover eight main areas:
Hill 1.
Hill 3, which includes Hills 2, 3 and 4.
Hill 5 extension.
Hill 5, which includes Hills 5 and 6.
Hill 7.
Hill 8.
Hill 9.

16.2 Pit Optimization
Open pit optimization was conducted to determine the optimal economic shapes for the open pits in three
dimensions. This task was undertaken using the Whittle software (version 4.4.1), which is based on the
Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm. The method works from a resource block model of the ore body, and
progressively constructs lists of related blocks that should, or should not, be mined economically. The
method uses the values of the blocks to define a pit outline that has the highest possible total economic
value, subject to the required pit slopes defined as structured arcs in the software.
At this stage of the Project, for a Pre-feasibility Study (PFS), only ore blocks classified in the measured
and indicated categories were utilized in the optimization process.
This analysis requires several input parameters such as slope constraints, concentrate prices, process
recoveries and operating costs. The optimization parameters are different for each deposit, principally
because of the specific metallurgical recovery models.
16.2.1 Input Parameters
The following conceptual mining parameters were used to calculate block values in Whittle:
A 1.5% royalty was applied, which is payable to the Government of Guyana.
An overall 42 degree pit slope angle was used in the optimization process.
No mining loss.
No mining dilution was considered.
Table 16.1 shows the different manganese concentrate prices per dry metric tonne unit ("dmtu")
used for different grade bins.
Metallurgical equations detailed in Section 13 were applied.
An average mining cost of USD 2.11/t mined for saprolite and USD 2.51/t mined for transition ores
was applied and the total ore-based cost for processing, power and G&A is USD 6.86/t. The
concentrate transportation cost is split between land operations and marine operations, with costs
of USD 2.70/t and USD 26.00/t respectively. A summary of the costs used in the optimization is
presented in Table 16.2. These costs are presented on a basis of FOB Trinidad. The FOB prices
are derived from a benchmark price of USD 5.50/dmtu using the conversion methodology
described in Section 19.

Table 16.1: Manganese Pricing per Concentrate Type
Lump Lump
Fine Concentrate
Concentrate Concentrate
Manganese Price USD/dmtu
Price USD/dmtu
Grade (FOB Trinidad)
(FOB Trinidad)
46% + 5.17 4.20
44% - 46% 5.05 4.06

42% - 44% 4.92 3.92
40% - 42% 4.80 3.77
38% - 40% 4.67 3.61

36% - 38% 4.53 3.45
34% - 36% 3.90 2.78
32% - 34% 3.65 2.50

30% - 32% 3.41 2.22

Table 16.2: Optimization Costs
Site Costs (USD/t)
Mine
Saprolite mine cost (USD/t mined) 2.11
Transition mine cost (USD/t mined) 2.51
Process Plant
Process cost (USD/t milled) 1.20
Energy cost (USD/t milled) 2.80
G&A
G&A cost (USD/t milled) 2.86
Concentrate Transportation Costs (USD/t conc)
Land Operations
Mobile equipment 1.90
Material transfer 0.80
Subtotal 2.70
Marine Operations
Maintenance dredging 1.00
Port Kaituma & material transfer 2.00
Barging 20.00
Trans-ship 3.00
Subtotal 26.00
16.2.2 Geotechnical Parameters
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was mandated to produce a pre-feasibility level pit slope design study.
The conclusions of this study have been used as an input to the pit optimization and design process.
The scope of the Golder mandate included assessment of large-scale slope stability of overall slope
angles, assessment of bench-scale and multi-bench stability and inter-ramp slope design, assessment of
potential risks to stability and operations, recommended design inter-ramp and design bench
configurations and other recommendations.
Slopes in saprolite less than 40 m in height can be designed to have 45 degree overall angle. Slopes in
saprolite greater than 40 m in height can have a 42 degree overall angle. The inter-ramp angle can be

45 deg; however, a 5 m wide bench should be provided at 40 m depth and every 20 m interval beyond
this depth. Pit slopes in saprock will have the same slope geometry as the saprolite.
16.3 Optimization Results
Using the Whittle software program, a series of optimal pit shells based on incremental revenue factors
were generated. The amount of waste and ore was determined for each shell along with the ore grade
and total in-situ metal or concentrate.
The results consisting of pit shells and pit by pit values are presented for each deposit. The pit by pit
results consist of estimating discounted operating cash flow at 6% with two values calculated for each
shell. The best-case value assumes that each internal pit shell is mined out sequentially and the worst-
case value assumes mining takes place on a bench by bench for the given pit shell. The best case
provides the upper net present value (NPV) boundary limit, while the worst case provides the lower NPV
boundary limit. A practical phasing of the pit provides an intermediate value. The schematic
representation of these mining schedule configurations is presented in Figure 16.1.

Figure 16.1: Mining Schedule Configurations
Worst case
Bench by bench
Best case
Shell by shell
Specified case
Lag between a limited
number of shells
Because each individual pit is relatively small, the phasing options are limited. It was concluded that each
pit will be mined to final pit limits bench by bench from surface downwards. It will therefore be important to
plan definition drilling in advance of mining each pit to assure that the optimal mining limits are finalized
when mining is initiated.
The cut-off grade was fixed to 8% Mn to maximize the concentrate grade. Figure 16.2 demonstrates the
sensitivity of ore tonnes to benchmark manganese pricing. Total ore tonnes do not vary significantly
above a benchmark manganese price of USD 4.00 / dmtu (CIF China 44% Mn).

Figure 16.2: Ore Tonne Sensitivity to Manganese Pricing
700 30
Ore Tonnage
Cashflow 28
650 26
24
Ore Tonnage (M tonnes)

Total Cashflow M US$
600 22
20
550 18
16
500 14
12
450 10
Benchmark Mn Price (US$ / dmtu for 44%Mn CIF China)
Total constrained Measured and Indicated resources stand at 25.2 Mt. Table 16.3 shows the resources
by pit. Hill 3 forms the largest pit with 5.84 Mt (23%) followed by Hill 5-6 with 5.83 Mt (23%). Hill 8 was
removed from the constrained resources due to very low tonnage.

Table 16.3: Pit Shell Content
Total Waste
Area Tonnage Tonnage
('000 t) W:O
('000 t) ('000 t)
Hill 01 5,038 2,487 2,552 1.03
Hills 02-03-04 12,197 5,844 6,353 1.09

Hill 05-06 11,508 5,833 5,674 0.97
Hill 05 Ext 10,521 3,544 6,977 1.97
Hill 07 3,110 1,346 1,764 1.31

Hill 09 9,159 5,143 4,016 0.78
Tailings 1,039 1,017 22 0.02
Total 52,571 25,213 27,358 1.09
As detailed in Table 16.4, measured and indicated resources represent 98.8% of the constrained
resource with an average feed grade of 14%. The average grades of contaminants in the feed are 15%
Al2O3, 44% SiO2, 0.05% P and 6% Fe.
Saprolite material represents 71% of the resource. Transition or saprock material represents 12%.
Detrital and tailings, respectively, account for 13% and 4% of the constrained resource.
Table 16.5 to Table 16.7 provide details on the anticipated average concentrate production for lump
(-19 mm + 6 mm) and fine (-6 mm + 1 mm) products. The lump and fine concentrate have an average
manganese content of 39% and 36%, respectively. The average concentration of the contaminants is
8% Al2O3, 22% SiO2, 0.06% P, 5% Fe and 12% of loss on ignition ("LOI").

Table 16.4: Constrained Resources - Ore Tonnage and Content
Resource Volume Density Tonnage Head Grade

Rock Group
Classification '000 m
3
t/m
3
'000 t (%) Mn (%) Al2O3 (%) SiO2 (%) P (%) Fe
Measured - - - - - - - -
Detrital Indicated 1,949 1.73 3,372 14% 18% 33% 0.05% 10%
Inferred 6 1.73 11 10% 19% 37% 0.03% 11%
Measured 5,496 1.92 10,548 15% 14% 44% 0.06% 5%
Saprolite Indicated 3,842 1.91 7,343 12% 15% 50% 0.04% 5%
Inferred 142 1.72 243 15% 16% 44% 0.06% 5%
Measured 938 2.11 1,982 16% 12% 47% 0.05% 4%
Transition Indicated 451 2.11 952 16% 14% 48% 0.04% 5%
Inferred 21 2.08 44 15% 17% 42% 0.06% 6%
Tailings Indicated 598 2 1,017 18% 17% 32% 0.04% 8%
Measured 7,032 1.93 13,546 16% 14% 43% 0.05% 5%
Subtotal Indicated 6,243 1.87 11,667 13% 16% 45% 0.04% 7%
Inferred 169 1.76 298 15% 16% 43% 0.06% 6%
Measured &
13,275 1.90 25,213 14% 15% 44% 0.05% 6%
Total Indicated
Inferred 169 1.76 298 15% 16% 43% 0.06% 6%

Table 16.5: Constrained Resources - Lump Concentrate Tonnage and Content
Lump Concentrate (+6 - 19 mm)

Resource
Rock Group
Classification Mass Pull Tonnes
(%) Mn (%) Al2O3 (%) SiO2 (%) P* (%) Fe (%) LOI*
(%) ('000t)
Measured 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0.09% 0% 14%
Detrital Indicated 16% 556 38% 11% 15% 0.09% 10% 14%
Inferred 11% 1 38% 11% 17% 0.09% 12% 14%
Measured 20% 2 078 40% 8% 23% 0.06% 4% 12%
Saprolite Indicated 15% 1 095 39% 7% 25% 0.05% 5% 12%
Inferred 20% 49 40% 7% 21% 0.05% 5% 13%
Measured 18% 349 38% 1% 23% 0.06% 3% 12%
Transition Indicated 17% 164 38% 6% 21% 0.05% 3% 12%
Inferred 14% 6 38% 7% 21% 0.05% 3% 14%
Tailings Indicated 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 0%
Measured 18% 2 427 40% 7% 23% 0.06% 4% 12%
Subtotal Indicated 16% 1 815 39% 8% 22% 0.06% 7% 12%
Inferred 19% 56 40% 7% 21% 0.05% 5% 13%
Measured &
17% 4 242 39% 7% 22% 0.06% 5% 12%
Indicated
Total
Inferred 19% 56 40% 7% 21% 0.05% 5% 13%

Table 16.6: Constrained Resources - Fine Concentrate Tonnage and Content
Fine Concentrate (+1 - 6mm)

Resource
Rock Group
Classification Mass Pull Tonnes
(%) Mn (%) Al2O3 (%) SiO2 (%) P* (%) Fe (%) LOI*
(%) ('000t)
Measured 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0.09% 0% 15%
Detrital Indicated 14% 476 36% 10% 15% 0.09% 12% 15%
Inferred 7% 1 36% 11% 17% 0.09% 12% 15%
Measured 11% 1 138 37% 9% 25% 0.06% 5% 12%
Saprolite Indicated 8% 590 36% 9% 26% 0.05% 6% 12%
Inferred 12% 29 37% 9% 24% 0.05% 5% 14%
Measured 11% 218 36% 8% 25% 0.06% 3% 11%
Transition Indicated 11% 100 36% 8% 22% 0.05% 3% 12%
Inferred 9% 4 36% 8% 23% 0.05% 3% 15%
Tailings Indicated 26% 260 37% 10% 13% 0.00% 6% 12%
Measured 12% 1 616 37% 9% 23% 0.05% 5% 12%
Subtotal Indicated 10% 1 166 36% 9% 21% 0.07% 8% 13%
Inferred 11% 33 37% 9% 23% 0.05% 5% 14%
Measured &
11% 2 782 36% 9% 22% 0.06% 6% 12%
Indicated
Total
Inferred 11% 33 37% 9% 23% 0.05% 5% 14%
* Arithmetic average of testwork indicated. Post processing relationships to head grade are pending.

Table 16.7: Constrained Resources - Total Concentrate Tonnage
Total Concentrate
Rock Group Resource Classification
Tonnes
Mass Pull (%)
('000t)
Measured - -
Detrital Indicated 31% 1,032

Inferred 18% 2
Measured 30% 3,216
Saprolite Indicated 23% 1,685

Inferred 32% 77
Measured 29% 566

Transition Indicated 28% 264
Inferred 23% 10
Tailings Indicated 26% 260
Measured 30% 4,043

Subtotal Indicated 26% 2,981
Inferred 30% 89
Measured & Indicated 28% 7,024

Total
Inferred 30% 89
16.4 Mine Design
The pit design process consists of designing ramp access to the bottom of the pit using the geotechnical
recommendations guiding the bench geometry.
The geotechnical parameters have been described in Section 16.2.2.
16.4.1 Ramp and Haul Road Design
The ramps and haul roads are designed for the largest equipment, being a 32 t class articulated truck.
For double lane traffic, industry best-practice is to design a travelling surface of at least 3.5 times the
width of the largest vehicle. Maximum ramp gradients will be established at 10%.

A shoulder barrier or safety berm on the outside edge will be constructed to a height equal to the rolling
radius of the largest tire using the ramp. The rolling radius of the truck tire is 0.76 m. These shoulder
barriers are required wherever a drop-off greater than 3 m exists and will be designed at 1.1H:1V.
A ditch planned on the highwall side will capture run-off water from the pit wall surface and assure proper
drainage of the running surface. The ditch will be 1.0 m wide. To facilitate drainage of the roadway, a
2% cross slope on the ramp is planned.
The double lane ramp width is designed to be 18 m wide (Figure 16.2) and the single lane ramp width is
designed to be 11.7 m wide (Figure 16.3). The out-of-pit double lane haul road with a berm on each side
will measure 18.9 m wide (Figure 16.4).
The haul roads from the pits to the dumps or the crusher will have to be constructed during the
construction and pre-production periods. The required quantity of cut and fill to create these roads is
respectively 1.6 M m and 2.3 M m. Every road was limited to a 10% maximum grade. The cost for this
crushed rock was added to the CAPEX.
Figure 16.2: Double Lane Ramp Design

Figure 16.3: Single Lane Ramp Design
Figure 16.4: Double Lane Out of Pit Haul Road Profile
16.4.2 Final Pit Designs
The mineralization at Matthews Ridge is very extensive; from Hill 5 ext to Hill 1 the strike length is
exceeding 6.5 km. The distance between Hill 9 to Hill 1 is 13 km.
There are final pits for each mining block. For this PFS, all pits in a sector were considered as a single pit
that will be mined bench by bench.
The ramp for each pit was located on the lowest wall to minimise the hauling distance and to reduce
activities along the highwall.
Mining the detrital material was designed with the same geotechnical parameters as saprolite. However,
since this type of material is found near the surface, the mining will be done, first, by a dozer that will pile

the material and then by the loading equipment that will load the material. This technique will respect the
overall slope angle of 45 degrees.
Table 16.8 shows the Matthews Ridge pit content. Hill 05 has the largest total tonnage and ore tonnage.
Hill 9 has the lowest strip ratio at 1.13. Regarding tailings, only material with sufficient manganese
content will be mined at a depth of less than 5 m from the surface.
Table 16.8 Matthews Ridge Pit Content
Total Waste
Area Tonnage Tonnage
('000 t) W:O
('000 t) ('000 t)
Hill 01 6,414 2,493 3,921 1.57
Hill 03 14,834 5,847 8,987 1.54
Hill 05 16.315 6,277 10,037 1.60
Hill 05 Ext 15,180 4,653 10,527 2.26
Hill 07 3,873 1,373 2,500 1.82
Hill 09 10,911 5,119 5,792 1.13
Tailings 565 532 33 0.06
Total 68,091 26,293 41,798 1.59
16.4.3 Waste Dump Designs
Multiple waste dumps were designed in order to accommodate waste from the multiple Matthews Ridge
pits. Due to the distance between pits, multiple waste dumps will allow for reduced cycle times. Dumps
with ramps were held to the same design criterion:
21.9 degree overall slope angles (2.5:1).
3 m lift offsets.
3 m lift heights.
Maximum height of 30 m (from high elevation to valley bottom).
Location of dumps away from villages, settlements and rivers.
Dumps in a valley will have an overall slope angle of 37 degrees since the material will be dumped
from a higher elevation than 3 m.

3
The total waste dump capacity must total at least 28 Mm when accounting for a 20% material swell
factor. Each waste dump is assigned specific pits, and consequently the waste dump sequencing will
naturally follow the sequencing of the pits. This waste dump volumes and waste removal scenario is
conservative. Once the Matthews Ridge mineralized zones are fully defined and final pit designs are
completed, it would be expected that some mined-out pits would be backfilled with waste from adjacent
pits, which would reduce haulage distances and mining costs.
Table 16.9 shows the total volume for each dump.
Table 16.9 Matthews Ridge Waste Dumps
Associated Volume
Waste Dump #
Pits (M m)
1 Hill 1 1.2
2 Hill 1 1.2
3 Hill 1 1.4
4 Hill 3 3.4
5 Hill 3 0.9
6 Hill 3 0.9
7 Hill 5 ext 4.7
8 Hills 5 ext + Hill 5 4.4
9 Hill 5 4.5
10 Hill 7 1.6
11 Hill 9 1.5
12 Hill 9 1.2
13 Hill 9 1.4
Figure 16.5 through Figure 16.9 present the locations of the final pits with their corresponding waste
dumps.
16.4.4 Ore Stockpile Designs
It will be possible to stockpile about 200,000 t of ore at the feeder stockpile. The feeder stockpile acts as
active stockpile where all material from the pits will be dumped, blended and fed to the process plant. A
dozer is assigned to the feeder stockpile and pushes the material to a 349D excavator. The excavator
feeds the ore through a grizzly and onto a feeder conveyor.
When more ore will need to be stockpiled, other stockpiles will be built next to the pits and will be hauled
to the feeder stockpile as required..

Figure 16.5 Hill 1 Pits and Dumps

Figure 16.6: Hill 3 (Hill 4 to Hill 2 ) Pits and Dumps

Figure 16.7 Hill 5 ext to Hill 3 Pits and Dumps

Figure 16.8: Hill 7 to Hill 5 ext Pits and Dumps

Figure 16.9: Hill 9 Pits and Dumps

16.5 Life of Mine Plan
The life of mine (LOM) plan was conceived to maximize the discounted operating cash flow of the
Project subject to various operating constraints.
The objectives of the LOM plan are:
Maximize discounted operating cash flow (or NPV) using a discount rate of 8%
Supply sufficient ore to the process plant to produce 750 kt/y of concentrate
The constraints of the LOM plan are:
Limit the mining capacity to 8 Mt/y.
Limit the vertical advance rate to fourteen benches per phase per year (42 m vertical).
Limit the ore stockpile to 1.0 Mt.
Allow for a two-month pre-production period.
Limit the contaminant concentration to the following values:
AL2O3 < 9%.
SiO2 < 28%.
P < 0.1%.
The optimized mining and milling schedules are presented in Table 16.10, Table 16.11 and Table 16.12.
The total ore tonnage mined is 26,293 kt with an overall strip ratio at 1.59: 1. The peak mining rate is
8.16 Mt/y in Year 2. The total tonnage mined from the pits is 68 Mt over the mine life.
The stockpile reaches a peak level of 1.1 Mt at Year 6 of production. The stockpile allows for blending to
produce a concentrate with contaminant within maximum levels. In fact, it is essential to blend the ore
between different areas, since the contaminant grades vary between hills. For example, Hills 6 to 5 ext
are near the process plant and consequently, will be mined first. However, their concentration in SiO2 is
high with 48%, while their concentration in AL2O3 is low with 13%. So, they will be mined along with Hill 9
which has high AL2O3 concentration (17.9%) and low SiO2 concentration (35.6%).

Table 16.10 Mining Schedule
Mining Schedule -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Total Tonnage (kt) 640 7,473 8,160 7,702 7,622 6,861 6,344 6,466 7,180 7,388 2,256 68,091
Total Waste Tonnage (kt) 461 4,829 5,044 5,258 5,009 4,085 3,228 3,482 4,401 4,840 1,162 41,798
Strip Ratio 2.57 1.83 1.62 2.15 1.92 1.47 1.04 1.17 1.58 1.90 1.06 1.59
Total Manganese (%) 16.9% 14.8% 13.5% 15.2% 15.2% 15.8% 14.4% 12.6% 13.2% 13.5% 14.4% 14.2%
Total AL2O3 (%) 12.5% 13.7% 14.5% 14.6% 14.6% 15.1% 15.6% 15.9% 14.6% 13.9% 14.0% 14.7%
Total SiO2 (%) 52.5% 44.8% 45.0% 42.5% 43.4% 40.1% 42.1% 44.7% 47.6% 50.0% 50.2% 44.7%
Total P (%) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Fe (%) 4.2% 5.5% 6.7% 5.8% 5.5% 6.1% 6.0% 6.4% 5.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.8%
Table 16.11 Percentage of Tonnage Mined per Area
Area -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Hill1 - - - - - 4.4% 11.2% 29.8% 16.7% 23.5% 23.8% 9.4%
Hill3 - - - - - 10.7% 32.7% 39.0% 57.2% 60.6% 40.5% 21.8%
Hill 5 ext - 17.6% 22.8% 39.0% 33.0% 47.4% 32.0% 9.3% 3.7% 2.7% 6.0% 22.3%
Hill 5 100.0% 76.8% 52.6% 36.2% 34.3% 3.5% - - - - - 24.0%
Hill 7 - - 12.9% 4.5% 13.0% 14.1% 6.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% - 5.7%
Hill 9 - 3.5% 8.9% 19.2% 18.5% 19.9% 17.4% 21.1% 21.8% 13.0% 29.7% 16.0%
Tailings - 2.1% 2.8% 1.1% 1.2% - - - - - - 0.8%

Table 16.12 Milling Schedule
Milling Schedule -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Total Manganese (%) 16.9% 14.8% 13.5% 15.2% 15.2% 15.8% 14.4% 12.8% 13.3% 13.7% 14.6% 14.2%
TOTAL
Total AL2O3 (%) 12.5% 13.7% 14.5% 14.6% 14.6% 15.1% 15.6% 15.8% 14.7% 14.1% 14.3% 14.7%
Total SiO2 (%) 52.5% 44.8% 45.0% 42.5% 43.4% 40.1% 42.1% 44.5% 47.2% 48.9% 47.7% 44.7%
Total P (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Fe (%) 4.2% 5.5% 6.7% 5.8% 5.5% 6.1% 6.0% 6.4% 5.6% 5.1% 5.3% 5.8%
Mass Pull (%) 13.1% 10.8% 10.0% 12.2% 11.8% 12.7% 10.8% 8.8% 9.4% 9.5% 9.8% 10.5%
Manganese (%) 37.0% 36.4% 35.9% 36.6% 36.5% 37.0% 36.4% 36.2% 36.4% 36.3% 36.2% 36.4%
AL2O3 (%) 7.0% 8.1% 8.8% 9.0% 8.8% 8.6% 8.5% 8.7% 8.6% 8.2% 8.8% 8.6%
Fine
SiO2 (%) 31.2% 27.8% 27.7% 25.0% 25.7% 23.0% 23.9% 24.2% 25.1% 26.1% 24.8% 25.4%
P (%) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fe (%) 3.3% 5.1% 6.7% 5.8% 5.4% 5.6% 5.4% 5.8% 5.1% 4.7% 4.8% 5.5%
Mass Pull (%) 23.6% 18.5% 15.2% 19.2% 18.7% 20.2% 17.7% 15.2% 16.1% 16.4% 16.4% 17.3%
Manganese (%) 39.9% 39.0% 38.4% 39.4% 39.1% 39.7% 39.2% 38.9% 39.3% 39.2% 38.5% 39.1%
Lump
AL2O3 (%) 7.0% 7.7% 8.1% 8.2% 7.9% 7.7% 7.5% 7.6% 7.4% 7.1% 7.6% 7.7%
SiO2 (%) 30.6% 26.2% 25.7% 20.8% 21.8% 18.4% 19.1% 18.2% 18.8% 21.5% 19.8% 21.1%
P (%) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fe (%) 2.8% 4.4% 6.1% 5.0% 4.8% 5.2% 4.9% 5.2% 4.6% 4.3% 4.3% 4.9%
Fine Concentrate (%) 36% 38% 41% 40% 39% 39% 38% 37% 37% 37% 37% 38%
Lump Concentrate (%) 64% 62% 59% 60% 61% 61% 62% 63% 63% 63% 63% 62%
Fine Concentrate (kt) 24 286 311 297 296 290 285 275 276 275 148 2,763
Lump Concentrate (kt) 42 464 439 453 454 460 465 475 474 475 248 4,449
Total Concentrate
66 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 396 7,212
Produced (kt)

16.6 Mine Operations & Equipment Selection
16.6.1 Drilling and Blasting
16.6.1.1 Production Blast Patterns
Drilling and blasting on 6 m benches will be undertaken with 89 mm holes (3 in). Saprock material and
an estimated 20% of the saprolite material will require blasting. The blast pattern parameters are
presented in Table 16.13.
The blast pattern, with a 3.5 m burden and 4.2 m spacing and explosives column height of 3.00 m and
4.40 m for saprolite and transition, result in a powder factor of 0.15 kg/t for saprolite and 0.18 kg/t for
3
transition. The blast pattern yields are based on an in-situ bulk density of 1.65 t/m for saprolite and
3
2.09 t/m for transition. The pattern yield is respectively 22 and 28 t/m drilled.
Table 16.13 Blast Pattern Parameters
Saprolite Saprock
Drill Pattern
Pattern Pattern
Explosive type Emulsion Emulsion
Explosive density
3
g/cm 1.20 1.20
Hole Diameter (D) m 0.089 0.089
Burden (B) m 3.50 3.50
Spacing (S) m 4.20 4.20
Subdrill (J) m 0.50 0.50
Stemming (T) m 3.50 2.10
Bench height (H) m 6.00 6.00
Blasthole length (L) m 6.50 6.50
Pattern Yield
Bulk density t/bcm 1.65 2.09
BCM/hole bcm/hole 88 88
Yield per hole t/hole 146 184
Yield per meter drilled t/m drilled 22 28
Blasting
Explosive column (LE) m 3.00 4.40
Powder factor kg/t 0.15 0.18

16.6.1.2 Drilling
Drill rig requirements were established from the yield per meter drilled, the pure penetration rates, and the
actual drilling time described by an overall drilling factor. The instantaneous penetration rate is a function
of the bit size and the rock mass unconfined compressive strength.
The drilling cycle includes the time for drilling the hole, retracting the drill steel and tramming and levelling
between holes. Other factors affect drilling efficiency such as reaming the hole, waiting on patterns to be
laid out, moving between patterns, bit changes, walk around inspections and moving in and out for
blasting. Weighing all these factors, and comparing with other operations, drill productivity is captured by
the overall drilling factor to arrive at an overall penetration rate that is achievable over the long term.
The overall drilling factor is considered to be 45% for drilling on a 6 m bench. Table 16.14 summarizes
the drilling productivities assumed.
Table 16.14: Drill Productivity
Saprolite Saprock
Drill Productivity
Pattern Pattern
Pure Penetration Rate m/h 85.0 70.0
Overall Efficiency Factor (%) % 45.0% 42.5%
Drilling Production Rate m/h 38.3 29.8

Drilling Efficiency t/h 856 844
The production holes would be drilled with a diesel powered, self-propelled crawler mounted blast-hole
drill for mining. This drilling rig will use a down-the-hole (DTH) hammer.
A re-drill factor of 4% has been assumed in estimating the number of drill holes and total meters to be
drilled. This re-drill percentage is deemed adequate given the type ground.

Table 16.15: Production Drilling Physicals
Tonnage Nb. Drill

Year
(kt) Holes Meters
-1 345 2,463 16,009
1 3,296 23,223 150,950
2 3,706 25,957 168,722
3 3,452 23,699 154,046
4 4,024 26,390 171,533
5 3,829 25,584 166,296
6 3,725 24,788 161,123
7 3,187 22,325 145,112
8 3,388 24,028 156,184
9 3,968 26,726 173,721
10 1,869 11,183 72,691
Total 34,789 236,367 1,536,386
16.6.1.3 Blasting
A high-energy packed emulsion explosive specifically developed for surface mines will be used in wet or
dry conditions with an in-hole density of 1.20 g/cm. Initiation of the bulk emulsion requires direct contact
with a 120 g booster. Production blasting will use a system of non-electric detonators. The explosive
requirement is shown in Table 16.16. Blast hole loading and firing activities would be performed on day
shift only.

Table 16.16: Explosive Requirements
Bulk Emulsion
Year
(kg)
-1 19,497
1 179,684
2 218,011
3 254,963
4 407,516
5 332,558
6 328,762
7 179,069
8 168,245
9 332,155
10 285,066
Total 2,705,525
16.6.1.4 Ore Control
The ore control program will consist of establishing ore/waste boundaries in the field to guide loading unit
operators. Ore control sampling will be done through manual sampling of blasthole cuttings. All blastholes
drilled in ore according to the block model and 20% of blastholes in adjacent waste material will be
sampled. The sampling cost is estimated at USD 3/sample, which includes sample preparation and
assaying.
Drill helpers will perform the sampling operation. A minimum sample of 5 kg will be prepared at the
laboratory for assaying. Sampler duties will be to record the sample and document the sample locations
(sample ID, drill hole, depth, etc) as well as ensuring that the retained sample is put into a labeled
polyethylene sample bag and placed beside the drill pads for collection.
16.6.2 Loading and Hauling
The primary loading equipment will consist of five hydraulic excavators. The diesel powered hydraulic
excavator on tracks would be fitted with a 3.2 m bucket, sized for a 1.53 t/m loose density.
3 3
One front-end wheel loader (FEL) will complement the primary loading fleet. Should ore feed from the
pit be interrupted by weather for extended periods, the plant will be fed solely from the dozer and

excavator working at the feeder stockpile. In the event that the feeder stockpile is low, the FEL will feed
ore from the other stockpiles located near the pits.
A fleet of articulated haul trucks with an approximate 32 t payload would be required to provide a good
match with the primary loading units. The loading unit would then require six passes on average, which is
dependent on the bucket fill factor and swell factor.
The front end loader will be configured with a standard lift arrangement, which easily clears the sideboard
3
of the 32 t class truck. The FEL will be equipped with a 5 m bucket requiring four passes to load the
trucks to capacity. The bucket is again sized according to density of material. The loading productivity
assumptions for both primary and secondary loading units are presented in Table 16.17.
The swell factor used to determine loose density is an important factor in estimating loading unit
productivities. A typical swell factor for saprolite of 20% has been assumed for determining loading
cycles.
Fleet productivity and unit requirements were estimated using Talpac, a software developed by Runge to
calculate cycle times. A basic profile for each hill from the middle of the pit to the ore pad was estimated
in three dimensions. The basic cycle times are presented in Table 16.18. Then, depending if the mining
activities were taking place above or below the planned ramp crest, an incremental hauling time of
0.06 min/m was added to the basic cycle time. For Hills 1 to 3, it is assumed that haul trucks will use the
concentrate road (old rail road). However, a parallel road was designed as a second option for year 5
and beyond.
The waste haul is influenced by the waste dump development strategy. For some dumps (Hill 3, Hill 7 and
Hill 9), the development of the waste dump assumes the establishment of an entire lift before increasing
the dump height. The advantage of this strategy is that it enables progressive rehabilitation of the waste
dump over time. Under this strategy, the ramp segment of the waste dump haul progressively increases
over time.
For the other dumps, the dumping activities will take place in a valley. The waste material will fill the
valley with time and no ramp is required in those cases.

Table 16.17: Loading Unit Productivity Estimates
Ore Waste Ore Waste

Loading Unit
Wheel Wheel
Excavator Excavator
Loader Loader
Loading Unit Net Flywheel Power kW 1880 1880 1880 1880
Loading Unit Weight T 45,375 45,375 30,519 30,519
Articulated Articulated Articulated Articulated
Haulage Unit
Truck Truck Truck Truck
Rated Payload T 32 32 32 32
3
Heaped Volume m 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Production Parameters
3
Bucket Capacity m 3.2 3.2 5 5
Bucket Fill Factor % 105% 105% 105% 105%
In-situ Dry Density t/bcm 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5
Swell % 20% 20% 20% 20%
Actual Load per Bucket T 5.15 4.83 8.05 7.55
Passes (decimal) # 6.21 6.63 3.98 4.24
Passes (whole) # 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0
Actual Truck Dry Payload T 26.9 25.2 28.0 26.3
3
Actual Heaped Volume m 20.2 20.2 21.0 21.0
Payload Capacity 97% 91% 101% 94%
Heaped Capacity 102% 102% 107% 107%
Cycle Time
Hauler Exchange Min 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
First Bucket Dump Min 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Average Cycle Time Min 0.70 0.83 0.70 0.83
Load Time Min 4.30 4.97 2.90 3.30
Cycle Efficiency % 80% 80% 80% 80%
Number of Trucks Loaded / h # 11.2 9.7 16.6 14.5
Production / Productivity
Productivity Dry Tonnes / op. h t/hr 300 244 463 382
Effective Hours / y hrs/y 4 809 4 809 4 809 4 809
Dry Annual Production Capacity t/yr/unit 1,442,968 1,171,201 2,228,723 1,836,164

Table 16.18 Average Ore Haulage Profiles
Haul System Name Hill 9 Hill 7 Hill 5 Hill 5ext Hill 3 Hill 1
Loader Wait Time per Truck min 0.84 0.58 1.32 0.81 0.64 0.75
Truck Avg. Load Queue Time min 3.02 1.85 0.44 2.50 3.36 3.57
Truck Avg. Spot Time at Loader min 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Truck Avg. Loading Time min 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
Truck Avg. Travel Time min 22.45 7.30 5.13 17.72 21.00 26.60
Truck Avg. Spot Time at Dump min 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Truck Avg. Dumping Time min 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Truck Avg. Cycle Time min 30.88 14.56 10.97 25.62 29.76 35.57
Table 16.19 presents the haulage truck productivity achieved by period. The number of haulage hours
increases slightly over time as the haulage cycle increases with a total of 15 trucks required by the fourth
year of operation.

Table 16.19: Haulage Truck Productivity and Truck Requirements
Waste Ore Haul Stockpile Haulage Trucks

Year
Haul (TPH) (TPH) Haul (TPH) Hours Required
-1 113 121 196 5,612 14
1 108 99 196 67,874 14
2 133 102 196 67,326 14
3 131 94 196 64,099 14
4 137 92 196 68,619 15
5 145 71 196 72,373 15
6 148 64 196 70,475 15
7 181 57 196 70,447 15
8 181 60 196 71,092 15
9 186 60 196 70,163 15
10 174 57 196 29,162 15
Average / Total 149 77 196 657,243 15
16.6.3 Equipment Availability & Usage
Primary mining equipment availability assumptions vary between 85% and 80%. A lower availability of
78% has been assumed for production drill rigs. An availability of 85% for the primary loading units has
been assumed given that they are diesel powered. A constant 85% availability has been assumed for the
haulage trucks, which is an industry acceptable value for the life of the mining equipment selected.
Usage for the major mining fleet, including drills, assumes a 365-day per year operation with two 12 hour
shifts less the following time lost per day:
Mobilize and start-up checks: 30 min/shift.
Meal break including start and stop: 60 min/shift.
End of shift blast and demobilize: 30 min/shift.
Total time lost per shift 120 min/shift (2 h/shift).
Total time lost per day 240 min/d (4 h/d).

It is assumed that twenty days will be lost to weather and other stoppages during the year for an off time
loss of 5.5% (480/8,760). Using the above assumptions for time lost per day, an average utilization of
83% is calculated (6,900/8,280). With an anticipated mechanical availability of 85%, 5,865 operating
hours per year are planned. Finally, a job efficiency factor is applied in order to estimate effective work
hours or ready hours. A typical hourly usage breakdown for major equipment is presented in Table 16.20.
Table 16.20: Equipment Usage Breakdown

Off Time Loss (0.055)
Utilization (0.833)
Machine Availability (0.85)
Ready Hours Efficiency (0.85)
4,809 880 1,035 1,380 480
Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs
Machine Operating Hours (5865 hrs) incl. delays
Machine Scheduled Hours (6900 hrs) incl. standby
Site Scheduled Hours (8280 hrs) incl. down time
Total Annual Hours (8760 hrs) incl. weather
16.6.4 Support Equipment
Support equipment requirements are based on a typical open pit mine operation and maintenance
requirements to safely support the loading, hauling and drilling fleets.
Support equipment includes several units as follows:
2x motor graders (14 ft blade) for roadway maintenance.
6x tracked dozers (208 hp) with single shank ripper for bench face and stockpile management.
2x compactor (130 hp) for roadway maintenance.
1x water truck (26 kL capacity) for bench face and roadway dust suppression.
1x tool carrier and 1x lowboy (100 t).
1x boom truck and 1x flat bed with a tractor for material handling.
1x forklift for maintenance shop work support.
1x maintenance service truck for field repairs.
1x fuel and lube truck for servicing in the field.

8x portable light towers.
3x water pump (1700 GPM).
9x pickup trucks.
6x ATV.
4x diesel welding machines.
16.7 Mine Manpower
16.7.1 Work Schedule
The manpower requirements for both the operation and maintenance departments are based on a
28-days on / 14-days off schedule with 12-hour shifts for the national workforce. The higher management
staff employees and expatriate employees will be on a 30 days on 26 days off schedule. Mine technical
staff will also work on a 28 day / 14 off rotation schedule.
16.7.2 Mine Department Organizational Charts
16.7.2.1 Mine Operations
The mine is headed by a Mine Manager who is responsible for the overall management of the mine.
The operations team is responsible for achieving production targets in a safe manner. The operations
department is composed of one superintendant, one general foreman, and six supervisors (two on each
shift).
16.7.2.2 Mine Maintenance
The Matthews Ridge Project does not intend to enter into a maintenance and repair contract (MARC) for
its mobile equipment fleet. Consequently, the maintenance department has been structured to fully
manage this function, performing maintenance planning and training of employees. However, the Project
will rely on dealer and manufacturer support for major components and would seek to enter into a
component exchange program with suppliers for major components such as engines, transmissions and
final drives.
A maintenance management software will be used to manage maintenance and repair operations. This
system will keep up to date status, service history and maintenance needs of each machine. The specific

software package is yet to be selected as this software package will require an interface with the parts
management and inventory system.
Similar to the Mine Operations department, Mine Maintenance will be lead by a Superintendant. A
General Foreman will cross shift with the Superintendant.
16.7.2.3 Technical Services
The engineering and geology team will provide support to the operations team by providing short term
and long term planning, grade control, surveying, mining reserves estimation and all other technical
functions.
16.7.3 Manpower Requirements
Table 16.21 presents the mine staffing levels over the mine life. The total mine department workforce is
226 during the first year of operation and reaches a peak of 231 individuals by the Year 8. The
superintendant and general foreman positions will be filled by expatriate workers.
The mine operation staff is relatively constant over the mine life, with 117 people required.
In the maintenance department, there will be 78 employees. Among those, the superintendant, the
general foreman and two mechanical trainers (for the first 3 years) will be expatriates.

Table 16.21: Mine Operation Manpower Requirements (Staff Employees)
STAFF EMPLOYEES Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10
MANAGEMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine Manager 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
OPERATIONS 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Mine Superintendent 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine General Foreman 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine Supervisor 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Clerk 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
ENGINEERING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Engineering Superintendent 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Senior Mine Planner 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Production Engineer 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Technician Planning 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Senior Surveyor 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Surveyor 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
GEOLOGY 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Senior Geologist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Geologist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Grade Control Technician 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Geological Technician 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
MAINTENANCE 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mine Maintenance Superintendent 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine Maintenance General Foreman 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine Maintenance Trainer 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Planning Supervisor 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Maintenance Supervisor 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Maintenance Planner 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total Mine Staff 46 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

Table 16.22: Mine Operation Manpower Requirements (Hourly Employees)
HOURLY EMPLOYEES Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10

OPERATIONS 117 117 117 117 117 120 123 123 123 123
Shovel Operator 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Loader Operator 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Truck Driver 42 42 42 42 42 45 48 48 48 48
Dozer Operator 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Grader Operator 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Compactor Operator 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Water Truck Operator 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Driller 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Drill Helper 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Labourer 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
MAINTENANCE 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63
Mechanic Heavy Duty Equipment 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mechanic Light Duty Equipment 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Welder 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Electrician 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Tireman 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Crane/Toolcarrier Operator 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Fuel Truck / Fuel Farm Operator 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total Hourly 180 180 180 180 180 183 186 186 186 186
Ratio of Hourly MAINT. / OPS. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Mine Employees 226 225 225 225 225 228 231 231 231 231

16.8 Mine Infrastructure
16.8.1 Explosives Depot
Because of the low quantity of explosives needed for this Project, only an explosive storage facility will be
required.
The explosives storage will be located at a safe distance. The final installation will conform to applicable
requirements. The current design consists of three storage magazines surrounded by a safety berm in a
fenced area with a guarded gate.
16.8.2 Mine Offices
The mining department will require several offices, which will be in the main administration building near
the truckshop. Its requirements will represent approximately 285 m, a third of the total admin building
surface.
16.8.3 Truck Shop Facilities
A mobile equipment maintenance shop is required for the mine fleet. This maintenance facility will consist
of two drive-through double length repair bays. The area is delimited by double stacked 40 ft long sea
containers, covered by two Megadome-like structures (galvanized steel frame and UV resistant
polyethylene fabric). Each area of 16 m x 26 m can accommodate two to three equipment. The containers
located on the second level will be used as offices and the ones located on the ground level will serve as
spare parts storage area, workshop, and as mechanical rooms (bulk oil storage, compressor room, etc.)
A double sided wash-bay will be used to wash and clean all the mining, support, and concentrate
transportation equipment prior to maintenance activities.
16.8.4 Fuel Storage and Refueling Facilities
A fuel storage facility is planned to support the mine fleet. Five 50,000 L diesel fuel ISO tanks will be used
to refill the mine fleet. Two tanks providing 26,000 L of storage tank will be used to refill the light vehicles.
This storage will also be used for the power generation. Annual fuel consumption for the mine only will
peak at about 4.7 ML. Total annual consumption including the power plant will be 10.4 ML.

17. RECOVERY METHODS
This section explains the processing methods to recover the manganese concentrates from the ore fed to
the processing plant. A description of the process, including characteristics of the major process
equipment, is provided. Design criteria and expected recoveries are also provided in this section.
17.1 Design Criteria
The design criteria for the Matthews Ridge processing plant have been based on the quantity and quality
of concentrates that would be acceptable to the manganese consumers.
The design criteria for the processing plant reflect a continuous and homogenous feed of ore coming from
the open pits. However, some mechanical components have been oversized to handle fluctuations in the
feed. The processing plant was designed for a daily throughput of 10,000 t/d. However, based on
targeted concentrate production to match current market opportunities, the plant will be operated at
7,500 t/d according to the following operating parameters.
Plant throughput: 2,737,500 Mt/yr (7,500 t/d).
Plant operating schedule: 365 d/y.
Crushing and screening circuit availability: 70%.
Crushing circuit throughput: 446 t/h.
Jigging circuit availability: 92%.
Jigging circuit throughput: 172 t/h.
Lump manganese concentrate: -19 mm / +6.3 mm.
Fine manganese concentrate: -6.3 mm / +0.85 mm.
17.2 Flow Sheets Development and Plant Description
The simplified flow sheet is presented in Figure 17.1. The proposed flowsheet does not contain any
technological issues. The mechanical components selected are well established in typical industrial processing
plants. The general arrangement plan view is presented in Figure 17.2. Met-Chem Canada Inc. provided
technical assistance in process plant engineering including; equipment sizing, material take-offs for civil and
structural works, plant layout drawings and cost estimate. The plant location has been chosen as it is
positioned in the center of gravity of the numerous mineralized areas and it will also be located beside the

existing infrastructures, which will be used to support the process plant. The rejects pond is also located in the
vicinity of the process plant.

Figure 17.1: Simplified Flow Sheet

Figure 17.2: General Arrangement

17.2.1 Run-of-Mine Ore
Run-of-mine ore will be dumped at the feeder stockpile, located on the western side of the plant. The
feeder stockpile pad will be located on high grounds at elevation 130. The stockpile is designed to
accommodate up to 200,000 t of ore. The feeder stockpile serves as a temporary or active stockpile
where run of mine ore is blended and pushed by a dozer to an excavator which then feeds the ore
through a grizzly onto the process plant feed hopper.
17.2.2 Reclaim and Primary Crushing
The reclaim equipment will be located in a concrete tunnel. One apron feeder, 7 m long x 1.5 m wide will
reclaim the material and feed the primary roller crusher feed conveyor. A grizzly will be installed above
the apron feeder. The grizzly openings will be set at 450 mm x 450 mm.
The ore will then be fed into a 510 mm x 1,220 mm primary roller crusher. The primary roller crusher will
reduce the particle size going into the scrubbing and screening circuit. The desired product size at the
discharge of the roller crusher is 100 mm.
17.2.3 Scrubbing and Screening Circuit
The scrubbing and screening circuit is designed to segregate the following product sizes:
-19 mm / +6.3 mm.
-6.3 mm / +0.85 mm.
-0.85 mm.
The scrubber is used to de-agglomerate lumps and chunks of material to facilitate screening. Water is
added to the ore so that washing of the material is optimized. A 3.6 m diameter x 10 m long 450 kW
scrubber would allow the scrubbing and washing of 450 t of ore per hour.
Once the scrubbing is completed, the material will be discharged onto a double deck vibrating screen,
2.4 m wide x 6.1 m long. A protective deck will be required in order to avoid that oversized particles
(+75 mm) fall directly on the finer screening media. The upper screen will consist of a screening media
with 20 mm square openings. The bottom deck consists of a screening media with 6.5 mm square
openings.

The protective deck and the top screen oversized material (+19 mm) will be discharged into a conveying
circuit. This system will recirculate all oversized material into a 915 mm x 915 mm secondary roller
crusher. This equipment will crush the larger particles to minus 30 mm. The material will then be
discharged onto the scrubber feed conveyor and will be re-introduced into the scrubbing and screening
circuit.
The oversize of the lower deck (-19 mm / +6.3 mm) will be sent to the lump jigging circuit. The undersize
of the lower deck (-6.3 mm) will contain both the rejects and the fine manganese concentrate. Additional
screening is required to classify the -0.85 mm (rejects) and the fine jig feed. A bank of four stack sizers,
each with five decks, will be used for the screening of fine manganese ore. The -6.3 mm / +0.85 mm
material will be sent to fine jigging, while the minus 0.85 mm will be pumped to the rejects thickener.
17.2.4 Jigging Circuit
The jigging circuit is made of two independent circuits. One is dedicated to the lump manganese
concentrate (-19 mm / +6.3 mm) while the second one is dedicated to the fine manganese concentrate
(-6.3 mm / +0.85 mm).
The mechanical availability for the jigging circuits is estimated at 92% while it is estimated at 70% for the
scrubbing and screening circuit. As jigs operate better under steady conditions, each jigging circuit will be
fed from a 555 t storage bin. The bins will allow the jigs to be fed with a constant feed rate.
The lump jigging circuit will consists of a 2.5 m wide x 3.0 m long, three chamber jig. The jig uses the
difference in specific gravity of the various minerals of the feed to allow the heavier material (such as
manganese oxide) to be collected at the bottom discharge of the equipment. Dewatering screens will be
used to recover water from the tails and from the concentrate. The concentrate dewatering screen will be
a single deck, 1.8 m wide x 4.8 m long vibrating screen, while the tails dewatering screen will be a single
deck, 2.4 m wide x 4.8 m long vibrating screen. For transportation reasons, the maximum water content
desired in the final product is below 8%.
The fine jigging circuit will be similar to the lump circuit. The jig will be 4.0 m wide x 3.0 m long. The
dewatering screens will be the same size as the lump circuit. The work done by the jigs allows the
concentration of manganese to increase to above 36% for the fine product and 38% for the lump product.

17.2.5 Rejects Thickening and Pumping
Before being pumped to the rejects storage pond, the rejects will be sent to a thickener, in order to
recover water and reduce water content in the rejects. The rejects density (% solids by weight) will
increase from 14% to 40%. A 25 m diameter high rate thickener will be used for this purpose. The
thickened rejects will be pumped to the rejects pond, while water in the overflow will be collected into the
process water tanks and pumped back into the process.
17.2.6 Concentrate Storage and Loading
Once concentrate comes out of the jigging and dewatering screens, it is conveyed to four storage silos.
The silos will be split in two lines of two silos. Each silo will hold 400 t of concentrate. This equates to a
total storage capacity of 800 t per product. The silos will be emptied by gravity, through rotary valves, and
dumped into the concentrate haul trucks. Trucks will transport the plant concentrate production on a daily
basis to the Port Kaituma concentrate storage and barge loading facilities.
17.2.7 Air Services
Compressed air will be required for instrumentation and services throughout the process plant. Two screw
compressors will be installed along with an air dryer and air receivers. One compressor will be in
operation and one as a backup.
The jigging circuit also requires large volume of air input for jigging pulsation and each jig will be serviced
by a dedicated blower. Two blowers will be in operation while a third one will be on stand-by.
17.2.8 Water Services
3
Total water requirements for the process plant is estimated at 1,500m /h. The main water source for the
processing plant will be the rejects pond. Water will be collected from rain and tailings decant water. A
barge will be installed in the rejects pond. Water for process and services will be stored in two tanks next
3
to the rejects thickener. Each tank will have a volume of 400 m . Process water will be recovered from the
thickener overflow, while reclaim water will be pumped from the rejects pond. Water will also be
recovered from the jigs concentrate and tails dewatering screens. A pump box will be installed on the
bottom floor of the jigging building to recover this water. Most of the recovered water from the dewatering
screen will be pumped back to the jigging circuit.

17.2.9 Reagents
17.2.9.1 Flocculant
Flocculant will be the only reagent required to operate the plant. One tonne bags will be used with a
typical flocculant wetting system. Two mixing and distribution tanks will be installed and the system will be
located next to the thickener. The consumption is expected to be around 30 g/t of ore. Settling tests will
be required to confirm this value.
17.3 Process Control
Mill operation will be monitored by electronic control and instrumentation. A versatile

PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) interface will be installed in the mill control room.
17.3.1 General
The process control system is designed to support the following design objectives:
Safety of personnel and equipment (protection from harm and physical damage).
High plant availability and generation of data required for optimal maintenance management.
17.3.2 Description
The process control system is organized in three categories (levels):
Level 0 - Field Networks and Instruments: (I/O Instruments, motor starters and drives, local
control panels, remote I/O racks, PLCs provided with mechanical package).
Level 1 - Equipment Control and Measurements: Consists of the gathering and diffusion of field
signals and the processing of these signals for control purposes. (Integration functions,
sequencing, timing, calculations, discrete logic, analogue and data acquisition).
Level 2 - Process Control and Supervision: Consists of the Human Machine Interface (HMI)
that will allow the operator to communicate with Equipment, transmitting commands via the main
PLC processor. This also comprises the system that monitors trending and development, and will
archive process data for later retrieval / analysis.

17.3.3 I/O Instruments
Field instruments (inputs and outputs) are connected to PLCs to allow process monitoring (sensors) and
control (actuators). A decentralized I/O architecture employs a series of standardized remote I/O racks
located in proximity of field components (reducing control cable lengths). They are interconnected with
optic fiber communication cables to a centralized PLC. This reduces the overall cable trays requirements.
Remote I/O cabinets will respond to the corresponding Main PLC.
17.3.4 Motor Control Centers
Motor Control Centers (MCCs) are used to control full voltage motors and Variable Frequency Drives
(VFDs) are used for variable speed motors. Motors are remotely controlled by the process control PLC
via Ethernet communication. Every MCC bucket is provided with a communications device allowing full
remote motor monitoring, control and protection.
17.3.5 Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC)
The PLC monitors status of all equipment and instruments. A program executes all functions and logic
sequencing to operate the equipment as required and execute commands coming from the process
control supervision. Programs are fully documented using tags and descriptors. Comments are included
to clarify the programming, which is structured to simplify maintenance.
17.3.6 Process Control Supervision
Process Control Supervision is achieved by the human-machine Interface (HMI). The HMI is installed in
the main control room to permit the remote control of the process plant area. Every PLC panel and
remote I/O will have a local HMI installed on the panel door. This HMI is used to control motors locally.
17.3.7 Fiber Optic Cables
The optic fibre cables are used as the plant communications backbone. It is not affected by the electro-
magnetic interference (EMI) produced by power cables. Optic fibre cables can be installed in the same
cable trays as the power cables, reducing installation and cable tray cost. Every PLC and remote
I/O panel is interconnected with optic fibre cables.

17.3.8 Safety and Equipment Protection
Control systems shall be designed such that failures of any component or process equipment will cause
the system to react in such a way that damage to equipment and injury to personnel will be prevented and
operational equipment will not be left in an unsafe condition.
No equipment, motor or process shall automatically restart after a fault or after the clearance of an
emergency stop. The control circuits shall be designed with safety in mind and therefore all controls shall
be fail-safe.
17.4 Operating Modes
All equipment will have a pop up window indicating the operating mode, amps and status of motor. On
major equipment, the process interlocks will be listed and unsatisfied interlocks will be indicated. If a
motor trips due to motor protection, the fault will be displayed on a pop up window.
The status of motor starters will be identified on the motor control pop up window.
17.4.1 Manual / Auto
When operating on Manual Mode, the control room operator will operate equipment using the HMI screen
start and stop button. This mode considers safety and process interlocks. The Local/Remote selector
must be set to Remote mode.
When operating on Auto mode, the equipment is operated by the PLC based on field conditions. This
mode considers safety and process interlocks. The Local/Remote selector must be set to Remote mode.
17.4.2 Local / Remote
The Remote mode is used by the control room operator. In this mode the operator will select between the
Auto mode or Manual mode. The control room operator is the only person to operate this function.
The Local mode permits operation of the equipment locally without any process interlocks. Safety
interlocks remain. The local mode is used primarily for maintenance purposes. In order to transfer
equipment into local mode, the maintenance technician must communicate with the control room operator
and request that the control room operator make the switch to Local mode. When maintenance is
completed, the control room operator must be contacted again to return to remote mode.

17.4.3 Lockout Equipment Information
The maintenance technician will request the control room operator to switch the equipment to local mode
(for maintenance). Motor Starter status shall be indicated on the local touch screen. If the motor starter is
energized, the message In Service shall be visible in black on green background. If the motor starter is
de-energized Out of Service shall be visible in black on red background. This information is useful when
equipment need to be locked out. The same information is displayed on the control room HMI pop up
window for each individual motor.
This information screen should be consulted in the lockout procedure to ensure the correct equipment has
been locked out. Final confirmation of lockout should be an attempt to start the equipment in local mode
which bypasses all operation interlocks.
17.5 Grades and Recoveries
The wash plant and jigging circuit will allow the grade of the ore to be increased from 15% Mn at the feed
end of the process plant to 36 to 40% Mn. Ore blending of the plant feed on the feeder stockpile will be
required to homogenize the feed grades. The mass pull of the plant (concentrate / feed) is estimated at
27.4% (2,055 tpd). The manganese recovery is expected to be about 73%.
Table 17.1 summarizes the plant design criteria derived from the mass and water balance.

Table 17.1 Process Plant Design Criteria
Criteria Units Value
Ore Reclaim / Crushing

Availability % 70
Throughput tph 446.43
Crushing Size mm 100.00
Scrubbing / Screening
Availability % 70
% solids at scrubber output % w/w 45.00
Particle size distribution out of scrubber (passing 19 mm) % 88.00
3
Water consumption m /hr 1,220.00
Jigging
Availability % 92.00
Throughput - Lump Jigging (design) t/hr 86.25
Throughput - Fines Jigging (design) t/hr 86.25
Lump JIG mass pull (design) % 85.00
Fines JIG mass pull (design) % 85.00
Lump Jig product dimension mm -19, + 6.3
Fines Jig product dimension mm -6.3, +0.85
Max Final Product Moisture % 8.00
3
Water consumption m /hr 1,300.00
Thickening
3 2
Rate m /m /h 4.44
Underflow Density % w/w 40.00
Concentrate Storage
Lump Storage Capacity tons
Fines Storage Capacity tons
Thickening
Flocculant (pet ton of rejects) g/t 30.00
Based on metallurgical test works and on variability tests performed on samples from across the deposit,
the average expected specifications of the final products are listed in Table 17.2.

Table 17.2 Expected Average Final Product Rates and Specifications
Mn Moisture LOI Fe SiO2 Al2O3 P

Description t/h t/d
(%) (% H2O) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Lump (-19 mm / +6.3 mm) 57.5 1,265 39.1 8 12 4.9 21.2 7.7 0.050
Fine (-6.3 mm / +0.85 mm) 35.9 790 36.4 8 12 5.5 25.4 8.6 0.049
Although test works limited the lump concentrate to 19 mm, further optimization is required to evaluate the
possibility to increase the top limit of lump concentrate to 50-70 mm.
17.6 Power Requirements
The expected average power demand at the Matthews Ridge site is estimated at 3 MW. Additional detail
on the power plant and distribution network is provided in Section 18.

18. PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURES
In addition to the mine and process facilities described in Sections 16 and 17, infrastructures and service
facilities such as roads, camp, maintenance shops, warehouses, laboratories and offices, power
generation equipment, rejects storage facilities and concentrate handling equipment are required. This
section summarizes the proposed specifications and development of those infrastructures and support
facilities.
18.1 Existing Installations
As described in Section 5, this property was exploited in the 1960s. Some facilities still exist and will be
salvaged to facilitate the Project start-up and reduce capital expenditures.
Dormitories and guest houses were built by the previous owner. A functional kitchen built beside the
administration offices is currently used to cater the staff working on site. The laboratory located on site
has been used to support the metallurgical testworks throughout this Study and is well equipped to
support the Project going forward. The administration offices are in good condition and provide sufficient
office space to meet the Project needs. In addition to these buildings, an airstrip was built in the 60s and
is currently used to fly personnel and material to site.
Other buildings, such as the locomotive maintenance shop, the power plant building and the gate house
can be found on site. These buildings can be used at the beginning of construction for storage purposes
but need to be dismantled to allow for the installation of the process plant.
Roads are also readily available on site. The Project is accessible by a 65 km road from Port Kaituma.
This road passes over the Barima River on a Bailey type bridge. A network of roads within the property is
also available to access the pits and the existing infrastructures. In addition, the foundation of the railroad
used to transport concentrate from Matthews Ridge to Port Kaituma is still in good condition. The bridge
over the Barima river will need to be replaced as it is not in good condition.
18.2 Roads and Accesses
18.2.1 Access Road
Access from Port Kaituma to site is via an existing laterite road, which is presently used by local pork
knockers and logging companies. This road is 65 km long and is considered in poor condition. Drainage

and the laterite surface need improvement. The alignment of the road can be seen on Figure 18.1. This
road will be used during construction to haul material and equipment from Port Kaituma to site.
Figure 18.1: Access Road to Project Site

18.2.2 Site Services Roads
The site is well serviced by existing roads, which will require minimum upgrades. All pits are currently
linked by an existing network of roads. All infrastructures (existing and new) will be accessible by the
existing roads already used by the exploration crews on site.
18.2.3 Haul Road
All haul roads will be 18.9 m wide to accommodate two 32 t class articulated trucks in double lane traffic.
To reach the Hill 1 Area the haul road will merge into the concentrate road.
For further details refer to Section 16.4.1 and Figure 16.5 to Figure 16.9.
18.2.4 Air Strip
An air strip, located approximately 4 km from the future process plant location, is currently used by the
Project (Figure 18.2). The landing surface is 1,100 m long and is currently capped with manganese
tailings. The air strip is oriented North-East / South-West.
Figure 18.2: Airstrip
A small waiting room is built on the west side of the strip.

18.3 Camp Facilities
In order to support the operation of Matthews Ridge, a 250 man camp will be required. The existing
accommodation will be used and will be complemented by additional buildings and services.
18.3.1 Kitchen
The kitchen currently used on site is located away from Hills A and B, where the camp will be centralized.
The kitchen will be transferred closer to the camp site on Hill B. The lunch room will be setup in an old
guest house and will have a capacity of 104 persons. The kitchen will be fully equipped with fridges,
ovens, fryers, cooking plates and stainless steel working counters for food preparation. A grease trap will
be installed to collect waste from the kitchen before final discharge into the sewage system. The kitchen
2
will be built adjacent to the lunch room and will have 347 m of floor space.
18.3.2 Laundry / Welcome Center
The laundry and welcome center will be setup in an existing guest house, located close to the new
2
kitchen. Some 84.5 m of floor space will be used to set-up the laundry, which will include washers, dryers
2
and working counters. Another 84.5 m of floor space will be used to accommodate the welcome center,
the camp management offices and the induction room.
18.3.3 Recreational Room
A recreational room is currently available to all camp residents on site. The building is built on Hill B and
2
is considered in good condition. The building has 275 m of floor space and has billiard tables and a
television viewing room. A gymnasium will be added in the existing staff rooms.
18.3.4 Dormitories
To support the operations, the Project will build a camp suited for 250 residents. The camp will be located
around the existing guest houses, located at Hills A and B.
Three types of sleeping quarters will be constructed. Type A will be built for senior staff; each room will
have a private bathroom and shower. Type B will be built for foremen and leaders; rooms will have a
private sleeping area and will share the bathroom and shower with another room. Type C will be built for
workers; rooms will be used for double occupancy.

Type A rooms will be built inside two of the existing guest houses located on Hill A. Re-arrangement of
the interior will be required to have six rooms per house.
Type B rooms will be built inside six of the existing guest houses, four located on Hill A and two located
on Hill B. Re-arrangement of the interior will be required to have seven to twelve rooms per house. One
new Type B dormitory comprised of 20 rooms will be built to increase the quantity of this type of
accommodation.
Type C rooms will be added to the current buildings found on site. Four dormitories with 18 rooms each
will be built on Hill B. Each room will have two beds. One sanitary quarter will be built at the end of each
dorm and will be shared by the residents. Fourteen existing pre-fabricated modules are installed on the
south side of Hill B. Three modules are being used as sanitary quarters. The remaining eleven quarters
are being used as double occupancy dorms with private bathroom and shower. These buildings will be
reused as Type C rooms.
Figure 18.3 shows the room arrangement and Figure 18.4 shows the general arrangement of typical
C dorms.
The accommodation capacity per type of room is listed below:
Type A: 12 rooms.
Type B: 79 rooms.
Type C: 83 rooms.
The total capacity of the camp will be 257. During construction, the Type C rooms will be used in
quadruple occupancy, which will increase the camps capacity to 401.

Figure 18.3: Room Arrangements

Figure 18.4: Type C Room General Arrangement

18.4 Maintenance Facilities
18.4.1 Truck Shop / Warehouse
The truck shop will consist of two bays measuring 26.3 m x 16 m each. The structure will be made of
40 containers, stacked on two levels. A light structure will be installed on top to avoid rain to fall on the
maintenance slab. No overhead crane and no support equipment are planned for this facility. The offices,
tool crib and part storage will be setup in the containers.
18.4.2 Washbay
The washbay will provide the washing of both heavy and light vehicles. Water cannons will be fed by
pressure pumps. The pressure pumps will recycle the water from the sump. Sedimentation recovery
equipment will be used to filter the water before being re-used. Oil and lube spill will be recovered by an
oil / water separator, installed besides the water sump.
Two lanes will be provided; one lane will be 15 m long x 7.8 m wide and will service the heavy vehicles.
Steel rails will be casted in the concrete slabs to allow tracked equipment to be serviced without
damaging the concrete. A smaller slab will be located beside the heavy vehicle lane. Small vehicles and
support equipment will be washed by a hand operated pressure washer.
18.5 Offices and Support Buildings
18.5.1 Administration Offices
The site has an office building suitable to setup the administration offices. The existing kitchen will be
converted into offices space. Re-arrangement of the building interior will be required to provide the
necessary office space to support the following departments:
Human Resources.
Accounting.
Geology.
Exploration.
Mining.
Health and Safety.
Clinic.

2
A total of 970 m will be available in this building.
18.5.2 Mill Offices
The dormitory building, located near the future location of the process plant, will be converted into the mill
offices building. This building will house the staff dedicated to the operation and maintenance of the
2
processing facility. A lunch room will be setup inside this building. A total of 715 m will be available in this
building.
18.5.3 Assay / Metallurgical Laboratory
The laboratory currently used to execute the metallurgical testworks for the Project is well equipped and
can support the Project going forward. The laboratory building is located next to the processing plant. It
provides a sample preparation area, office space and houses the equipment required for assays
determination and metallurgical testing. Only minor works will be required on the building. The building
2 2
accounts for 580 m of floor space for sample storage and preparation, and 140 m of floor space for
offices and assaying and metallurgical testing area.
18.5.4 Fuel Storage and Handling
To support the Project, fuel will be barged in to Port Kaituma. Seventeen self-contained tanks of 50,000 L
will be installed at Port Kaituma. Tankers will haul fuel to site using the concentrate transportation road. At
the site, a fuel farm of five self-contained tanks of 50,000 L will support the operation of the mine fleet, as
well as the power plant. Two tanks (5,000 gal and 2,000 gal) already on site will be reused to support light
vehicles.
18.6 Power and Electrical
The expected average power demand at the Matthews Ridge site is estimated at 3 MW. The following
items will be built to support the process plant and the ancillary facilities.
18.6.1 Power Plant
Six portable 910 kW generators will be installed next to the fuel storage farm at Matthews Ridge. Each
generator will be installed in trailer-type enclosures. The generators will operate on light fuel oil (LFO)
and will generate power at 480 V. Voltage will be increased to 13.8 kV for power distribution. The power
plant will be setup using an N+2 philosophy.

18.6.2 Power Distribution
Overhead power lines will be installed throughout the site to connect the process plant and the ancillary
facilities to the power plant grid. Power lines will distribute power at 13.8 kV. Power lines will be built
between the power plant and the following areas:
Camp facility.
Rejects pond and reclaim water pumping station.
Processing facility.
Administration offices.
18.7 Water Management
18.7.1 Rejects Pond and Reclaim Water
The main water source for the processing plant will be the rejects pond. Water will be collected from rain
and tailings decant water. A barge will be installed in the rejects pond. Two pumps with pumping
3
capacities of 500 m /h each will pump water back to the processing plant.
The rejects pond will consist of three phases where ponds will be built progressively with a meter
difference of elevation between them so that decanting water will cascade to the lower pond area. The
lowest pond will hold the reclaim pumps and barge. Dams will have a crest of 8 m at final elevation and a
3
height ranging from 4 m to 8.5 m. The initial capacity of the rejects pond will be 3.5 Mm . The total
3
capacity of the rejects pond, once the dams are built to their final elevation, will be 11.8 Mm .
Figure 18.5 shows the land surfaces identified for rejects storage and water reclaim. Figure 18.6 shows a
typical dam for the rejects storage facilities.

Figure 18.5: Rejects Pond Plan View

Figure 18.6: Rejects Pond Embankment Cross Section

18.7.2 Potable Water
Potable water will be required at the camp site. Boreholes will be drilled in the vicinity of the camp. Water
will be pumped from these boreholes to a containerized potable water treatment system. The water
3
treatment system will be sized to treat 70 m /d of water, based on a camp consumption of 250 L/d per
person and consumption at plant site will be 50 L/d per person.
18.7.3 Sewage Water
Waste water will be collected at the camp site and at the offices and support buildings. Only one sewage
treatment system will be installed on the property. The system will be setup near the camp facilities. The
system will be a rotating biological contactor type sewage treatment plant that will be installed into
concrete tankage and covered by a fabricated shelter to protect the plant from UVs and rain. The shelter
will be opened at both ends to facilitate venting.
Waste water from the sanitary collection system for the offices and the laboratory will be collected inside
an underground concrete tank. Wastewater will be pumped by a vacuum truck and discharged in the
camp sewage treatment plant.
18.7.4 Fire Water
3
One reservoir with a 400 m capacity will be located near the administration offices. Three fire pumps will
be positioned next to this reservoir. One pump will be diesel fired, while the two others will be electrical
pumps. Fire water will be distributed using underground piping. Fire hydrants will be located around the
process plant and besides the offices buildings, the truck shop, the diesel storage area and the
laboratory.
Fire cabinets will also be installed inside the buildings and on operation floors of the processing plant. The
camp site will not be protected by this system. Fire extinguishers will be provided in the camp for fire
protection.
18.8 Port Kaituma Facilities
The Project will need to develop infrastructures along the Port Kaituma canal to supply the mine with fuel
and ship concentrate by barge. The Project has identified potential locations along the canal where these
infrastructures can be built. The proposed location for this Study is shown on Figure 18.7. Follow up
geotechnical investigation is required to confirm the suitability of the selected site.

18.8.1 LFO Storage
As described in Section 18.5.4, seventeen horizontal, self-contained reservoirs will be installed on the
Port Kaituma property, which will amount to 850,000 L of storage. Fuel unloading pumps will be located
close to the barge mooring area. Pumps and fuel filters will be used to transfer fuel from the fuel farm to
the tankers.
18.8.2 Workshop / Storage Area
A small workshop will be setup to allow repairs of trucks and equipment. The workshop will consist of sea
containers and a light roof; offices will be setup in the containers. A dome type structure will also be
assembled at Port Kaituma for dry storage. This dome will be used to store the cement bags during
construction and can be used to store spares and other consumables during operations.
18.8.3 Concentrate Handling and Storage
Manganese concentrate will be stored at Port Kaituma. The concentrate storage building will allow to
stock up to a capacity of 70,000 t of concentrate. This is equivalent to 35 days of production. The building
will be 190 m long x 55 m wide. The height of the facility will be 32 m from ground level.

Figure 18.7: Proposed Port Location
Road trains will discharge the manganese concentrate on a concrete slab, covered by a roof. The trucks
will discharge the manganese from a 2 m high ramp. Wheel loaders will reclaim the product and feed a
luffing stacker mounted on a tripper cart and rails. This system will allow the stockpiling of manganese
concentrate throughout the length of the storage building. A good management of the stockpiles will be
required to avoid the mixing of lump and fine concentrate.
During loading of the barge, a 1,000 tph cantilever reclaim system will be used to feed a 250 m long
reclaim conveyor. The reclaim conveyor will then feed the barge loader, located besides the barge
mooring basin. To allow for quality control, an ISO compliant sampler will be located at the drop point
between the reclaim conveyor and the barge loader.

18.8.4 Wharf and Mooring Basin
A 72 m long sheet piling wall will be built for loading and unloading material with cranes. A 28 m wide
roll-on / roll-off ramp will be built right next of the sheet piling wall for unloading material and equipment
from the barges.
The mooring basin will be 31 m wide x 175 m long x 5 m deep and will be dredged outside of the main
canal bed to avoid the obstruction of the canal when a barge is moored. Rip-rap will be placed to protect
the riverbank from erosion. Steel piles will be placed along the mooring basin to tie-in barges and to avoid
collision with the wharf.
18.8.5 Camp and Offices
To support the operations at Port Kaituma, a 20 man camp will be required. One 10-room,
2-bed Type C dormitory will be built. One sanitary quarter will be built at the end of the dorm which will
shared by the residents. One services building will be built next to the dormitory. This 120 m building will
2
include a kitchen/lunchroom section, a laundry and a recreation room with a small commissary. A
22 room wooden dorm will also be built for construction. Each room will have four beds.
During construction, the camp will have a 98-person capacity. A gate house will be setup in a container
and it will be located at the site entrance.
18.8.6 Power Plant
Two 300 kW generators operating on an N+1 basis will be installed to supply electrical energy to the port
facilities. During barges loading, an additional diesel generating set, rated at 910 kW, will be required to
meet the increased load from the barge loading system. Two electrical rooms will be implemented to
distribute power at the Port Kaituma facilities.
18.9 Concentrate Transportation
18.9.1 Land Transportation
Worley Parsons (2012) conducted a Pre-feasibility level trade-off between the options land transportation
of the concentrate by train or by truck. Based on their findings, the option of using road trains hauling four
trailers with a total capacity of 140 t of concentrate has been retained for this Study (Figure 18.8).

Due to the lack of quality sand sources in the area, the Project decided to consider the option of building
a 53 km road made of lime treated laterite sub-base covered by a cement-treated aggregate base and a
double-surface treatment wearing course. The road will be built on an 80% single-lane / 20% double-lane
philosophy. The single lane sections will be 6.2 m wide. The double lane sections will be 10.3 m wide.
Road sections, as designed by Golder Associates, are provided in Figure 18.9 and Figure 18.10. The
proposed road alignment is shown in Figure 18.9 and Figure 18.10; it will follow the old railway corridor.
The slope of this road will vary from 0% to 2%. Road trains should operate on roads with the lowest
possible slope. The road will link Matthews Ridge site and the concentrate storage and barge loading
facility located on the Port Kaituma canal. Once the construction of this road is completed, this road will
become the main access road.
Figure 18.8: Example of Road Train
A single lane bridge will be built to replace the old railway bridge crossing the Barima River. This bridge
will be 79.5 m long and 7.35 m wide. The bridge will be made of steel and the driving surface will be lime
stabilized material. The bridge will be designed to support the weight of one road train, hauling four
trailers of 35 t each.

Figure 18.9: Concentrate Transportation Road Alignment Typical Section

Figure 18.10: Concentrate Transportation Road Alignment Typical Section (Passing Area)

Figure 18.11: Location Plan Section 1 Haul Road Typical Section

Figure 18.12: Location Plan Section 2 Haul Road Typical Section

18.9.2 Marine Transportation
The logistics sequence for the transport of the manganese concentrate from Port Kaitumas river loading
facility to final discharge port has been designed and will be operated by a specialized shipping firm. To
date no contract has been awarded. This will require further review as the project advances.
The sequence includes river barging, ocean barging, barge to ship transfer, and ocean freight to the final
destination. The cargo of manganese concentrate is expected to have a Transportable Moisture Limit of
15% based on current industry practices and the annual tonnage will be 750,000 t.
The barges are un-propelled dump barges designed and built for this specific transport. The dimensions
of these barges are approx. 70 m long x 23 m wide and 4.5 m high. The intake on 3.5 m draft is
approximately 4,000 t. These barges are similar to the barges operating in other transshipment projects in
Guyana.
The barges are shallow draft and are suitable for river transport as well as ocean transport with higher
free board (distance between water line and deck) and hatch cover. The hatch covers allow for ocean
transit as well as providing protection from external water during transit and storage. The lead time for
the construction of these barges is 12-14 months, including delivery to site.
The barges are handled by river and ocean tugs. Overall the system uses eight barges. At the loading
port, berthing facilities for three barges are required. The empty barges are moored at the waiting berth
and moved to the loading berth by the tug. The proposed standard configuration tugs are more readily
available on the market with short lead times.
The loading rate is expected to be 1,000 tph, resulting in a net load time of 4 hours. Mooring and
unmooring times are factored in with additional time to the net loading time.
Once the barge is fully laden, it is pushed about 54 nautical miles down the river to the barge transfer
facility at the river mouth. For this river passage a shallow drafted river tug is employed (Figure 18.13).
This tug is well able to navigate the river however it would be unsuitable for the longer distance ocean
tow. Hence a second set of tugs is employed for the second part of the barge transport.

Figure 18.13: Damen Stan Tug 1606 Delivered in February 2013
Source: http://www.damen.com/en/markets/stan-tugs
The river tug will be able to navigate the river passage with a speed of approx six knots whilst pushing a
laden barge. This results in a one way steaming time of about 9 hours. The river tug will work in rotation
between the tug transfer facility and the loading berth and move laden and empty barges in rotation.
At the tug transfer facility, laden and empty barges are passed over between the river tug and the ocean
tugs. The ocean tugs will be of a larger size than the river tug, owing to greater steaming range as well as
greater requirements for towing power, accommodation space and general seaworthiness.
As demonstrated Figure 18.14, the tug transfer facility can accommodate the barges and the physical
transfer between tugs. The tug transfer facility will be located at Waini River mouth near Waini Point
(Figure 18.15).
The laden barge will be idle at the tug transfer facility until one of the three ocean tugs is available for
transport to Trinidad.
The ocean distance to the planned transshipment site in the Gulf of Paria in Trinidad is about 250 nautical
miles, the one way transit time is estimated to be around 42 hours.
In Trinidad, the barges will be moored at a special mooring arrangement. The barges will wait there until
the ocean going vessel (handy size bulk carrier of about 32,000 - 43,000 dwt) arrives and is ready for
loading.

Figure 18.14: Tug Transfer Facility Set-up
Source: Reunion Manganese - Matthews Ridge Transportation -Tug Transfer Facility Concept,
by Worley Parsons, October 2012
Figure 18.15: Tug Transfer Facility Located Near Waini Point
Source: Reunion Manganese-Matthews Ridge Transportation- Tug Transfer Facility Concept

by Worley Parsons, October 2012

The transshipment between barges and vessel will be done via floating cranes, currently operating and
transshipping other commodities. Figure 18.16 illustrates the current infrastructures. Due to the time
required to transport one barge from the barge loading berth to the transshipment site in Trinidad as well
as the high transfer rate (up to 30,000 mt) between barge and vessel, barges have to be collected in
Trinidad prior of the arrival of the vessel.
Figure 18.16: Example of Existing Transhipment Facility
Source: Oldendorff Carriers
A specialized firm will handle the entire ocean freight of the manganese concentrate ex Port Kaituma,
Guyana to the final destination ports. There are various advantages to a single specialized firm including
better scheduling downstream of Port Kaituma, less demurrage risks, easier communication and a much
more efficient and reliable organization.
This selected water transportation system takes different restricting factors into account. The biggest
technical and operational challenge is the shallow draft in Waini River, especially at the river entrance. In
addition, the river is also width-restricted, thus allowing only one-way traffic. Other restricting factors are
load rate at the load berth, weather and swell factors on the ocean and currents.

The following equipment is required to perform the marine transportation portion from Port Kaituma to the
transshipment facility:
8 x barges of 4000 t.
3 ocean tugs.
1 river tug.
1 harbor tug.

19. MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
19.1 Major End-use Industries
Manganese ore can be classified into two broad categories, which determine its ultimate end use, and
hence its market:
Metallurgical grade: Typically insensitive to the mineral formation, manganese contents generally
38-55%.
Battery or chemical grade: Naturally occurring manganese dioxides (NMD) can be used in
standard cells. Improved manganese dioxide grades required in high performance cells are
obtained synthetically through electrolysis or purely chemical process.
The manganese industry is divided into three segments of actors, which are ore (or concentrate)
producers, alloys producers and steelmakers. This information originates from the CRU report regarding
the manganese industry. CRU is an international London-based firm specialized in market analysis for the
mining, metals, and fertilizer industries.
Figure 19.1: Manganese Ore Consumption Route
Adapted from CRU, ENRC

Steelmaking is the most important market for manganese, consuming between 85% to 90% of global ore
produced. The second largest application of manganese as an alloying agent is in the production of
aluminum, yielding an alloy that is more resistant to corrosion. Beverage cans contain between 0.8% to
1.5% Mn. Other uses for manganese are in the production of copper alloy, alpha-beta titanium base alloy
and zinc alloy. It can also be added to gold, silver and bismuth, but quantities involved are very small.
The most important non-metallurgical application of manganese is in the form of manganese dioxide,
which is used as a depolarizer in dry-cell batteries. In the chemical grades, potassium permanganate is
one of the best known manganese products. Other important applications for manganese are
manganese-ethylene bisdithiocarbonate (Maneb) , methycyclo-pentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl
(MMT). Finally, manganese oxide is also used as an oxiding agent in treating uranium ore, coloring
bricks and tiles, driers and as a pigment in paints. Manganese sulfate is widely used as an end product in
fertilizers and animal feed and as an intermediate product in the chemical industry.
Matthews Ridge ore is most suitable for use in silico-manganese furnace because of its high silica
content. Figure 19.2 shows the manganese alloy distribution in steelmaking, by steelmaking facilities and
steel products. Generally, silico-manganese is used by mini-mills and the quality of steel determines the
share of silico-manganese in alloying.
Figure 19.2: Manganese Alloy uses in Steel
Source: ENRC
19.2 Manganese Ore Supply and Production
Manganese ore production has been growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.9%
over the past five years. In terms of tonnage, world production reached 49.3 Mt on a gross weight basis in
2012, which translated to 16.2 Mt on a contained weight basis. It also represents a 1.9% year-on-year
(y-o-y) growth from 2011 global output. Medium-term supply forecasts predict manganese ore

production to continue its growth at a CAGR of 4.4% through 2017 to reach 61.1 Mt, as mine expansions
and new projects enter the market. This will represent an increase of nearly 11.8 Mt gross weight and
4.1 Mt contained weight, relative to 2012.
China and South Africa are the largest producers and at a smaller scale Australia, India, Gabon, Ukraine,
Brazil and Ghana are also considered as large producers.
North America has not been a producer since 1970. Figure 19.3 depicts manganese ore production
(gross weight) by region from 2007 to 2017. Figure 19.4 shows their respective share of world
production.
Figure 19.3: Manganese Ore Production by Country
Source: CRU

Figure 19.4: Global Share of Manganese Ore Production
Source: CRU
Figure 19.5: Product Market Shares in 2011 Manganese Production
Source: CRU

Several greenfield operations are expected to come on stream over the next five years as well as a
number of brownfield expansions. Australia, and particularly Africa, are becoming the key targets for
exploration companies. In South Africa, some major greenfield projects, located in the Kalahari Desert are
in the pipeline. However, South African projects will be largely constrained by the expansion of Transnets
rail and port capacity and power issues in general. Most projects will have to rely on road networks in the
early years of operation, raising transport cost. Looking ahead, the lack of capacity in the logistics
network will limit South African exports.
The trade statistics show that South Africa and Australia dominates the export market with respectively
7,131 and 6,254 Kt Mn ore (gross weight basis) in 2012. Figure 19.6 identifies the main net exporters of
ore.
Figure 19.6: Manganese Ore Top Ten Country of Export
Source: IMnI, GTIS
19.3 Manganese Ore Demand and Consumption
As mentioned previously, manganese ore is principally used in the production of manganese alloy, which
are then used in steelmaking. Figure 19.7 shows the relationship between manganese ore consumption
and steel production over the past 12 years.

Figure 19.7: Manganese Ore Consumption vs. Crude Steel Production
Source: World Steel Association, CRU
Manganese ore demand has doubled since 2000, rising from 7.1 Mt of contained manganese to 16.5 Mt
in 2012. According to forecast outlook on manganese alloy and metal production over the next five years,
it is projected that ore consumption will increase at a compound average growth rate of 4.4% per annum
until 2017. This would represent a global offtake of 20.3 Mt of manganese ore in 2017, on a contained
unit basis. Of the additional 3.8 Mt, Asia should account for 2.8 Mt, driven by Chinas growing demand, as
illustrated in Figure 19.8. Recent trends in manganese ore consumption are shown in Figure 19.9. Silico-
manganese alloy production is the fastest growing manganese alloying market.

Figure 19.8: Manganese Ore Consumption in Manganese Alloy by Region
Source: CRU
Figure 19.9: Consumption of Manganese Ore by Uses
Source: CRU

A significant trend during the past decade has been the increase in in silico-manganese unit consumption
at the expense of high carbon ferro-manganese. Silico-manganese has become more popular as an
alloying agent and deoxidizer for steel in electric arc furnace steelmaking.
Over the next five years, global ferroalloy production is forecasted to expand by 3.6 Mt to 19.8 Mt. Silico-
manganese is expected to dominate this increase by 2.6 Mt, which would represent a 25% increase
relatively to the current supply base. With demand for construction grade steel set to remain intense, it is
projected that silico-manganese unit consumption in China will continue to follow an upward trend.
Intensity usage of silico-manganese, currently at almost 7 kg/t of crude steel, is also much higher than
other manganese alloys and will contribute to growth in manganese ore consumption. In parallel, average
manganese content in global steel output (currently at around 0.75%) will also continue to rise as shown
in Figure 19.10, which puts it in relation with the BRICs growth in global steel output.
Figure 19.10: Average Manganese Content in Crude Steel vs. BRICs Share of Global Output
Source: Alloy Consult
19.4 Manganese Ore Historical Prices
Having traded at around USD 2/dmtu for almost a decade and exhibiting very little volatility,
manganese ore price started rising in 2005 before taking off from the second half of 2007 and into 2008,
reaching a monthly peak of USD 18.40/dmtu CIF China for medium-grade lumpy ore. There was a
sudden tightening in the global market balance due to a combination of rapid growth in global demand

against a backdrop of tight supply. Global demand reached new records as smelting facilities
worldwide ramped up output to new highs and Chinas demand for imports soared. This put immense
pressure on the supply chain, which was already working at full capacity. In addition, the takeover of
Consolidated Minerals and Ghana Manganese by t h e Privat Group diverted manganese ore supply
away from China, further exacerbating the market shortage.
Triggered by the financial crisis, the earlier gains in prices rapidly unwound and prices fell to a floor of
around USD 3.50/dmtu in May 2009. A swift return of Chinese import demand and a gradual
recovery in alloy production around the world, however, underpinned a recovery in prices over
H2 2009 and H1 2010. Since then, prices have tracked a declining, or at times, steady path. In late
2011, the benchmark price for 44% Mn lump dropped by 12.4% month-on-month to USD 4.60/dmtu
CIF China, which extended into Q2 2012. Most recently however, the benchmark price has risen, with
current prices for June loading at around USD 5.30/dmtu, CIF China.
Table 19.1: Benchmark Price for Manganese Ore, 2001-2012

1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FOB Australia,
48% Mn lump 2.45 3.99 3.01 2.70 12.83 7.72 - - - -
(USD/dmtu)
Y-O-Y Change 16% 63% -25% -10% 375% -40% - - - -
Annual average value

of monthly price of
5.67 14.38 5.32 7.33 5.46 5.03 5.65
44% Mn lump, CIF
China (USD/dmtu)
Y-O-Y Change % 153.9% -3.0% 37.9% -5.6% -7.8% 12.3%

Data: CRU
1
March 2013

19.5 Sales Strategies
The strategy surrounding the sales of Matthews Ridge manganese concentrate will be based toward
accessing the closest end-market in order to maximize the FOB Guyana prices. As Matthews Ridge
concentrates contain high silica and alumina contents, it cannot be used as raw material of high carbon
ferro-manganese, however it is well suited for the production of silico-manganese. Matthews Ridge
targeted end-users are therefore silico-manganese producers.
Table 19.2 represents the forecasted demand for manganese ore/concentrate in Matthews Ridge key
selected market areas.
Table 19.2: Key Markets Manganese Ore Consumption Forecasts for Alloys Production
Areas Year
('000 tonnes cont. Mn) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2016 2017
India 604 956 1,351 1,932 2,001 2,100
China 1,661 3,729 6,137 7,993 8,301 8,882
Brazil 272 366 232 324 338 338
Mexico 183 181 197 211 211 211
Venezuela 41 23 37 76 84 84
Europe/CIS 2,042 2,155 2,205 2,197 2,282 2,380
United States 175 168 152 224 242 250
World 7,143 9,859 13,103 16,490 16,970 17,399

Source: CRU
It is possible to switch between manganese ferro-alloys in many steel making applications and
steelmakers increasingly prefer silico-manganese over ferro-manganese. In 1995, the split between
silico-manganese and high carbon ferro-manganese was 55:45 in favor of high carbon ferro-manganese.
The split has been reversed and is 65:35 in favor of silico-manganese. The recent change toward silico-
manganese usage vs. ferro-manganese impacted the availability of ferro-manganese slag used in the
manufacturing of silico-manganese. The ferro-manganese slag is an important source of silica and
therefore its total output tends to decrease over time, creating preference for manganese ore with higher
silica content.
The size in which concentrate is used as a feedstock is another factor considered. Ferroalloy
production process will demand certain forms for the feedstock e.g. lumps and/or fines, or rather suffer

for consuming ore in a form disadvantageous to the process. A lumpy ore is ideal in all circumstances.
Matthews Ridge concentrate will have a ratio of lumps to fines of approximately 62:38. As fines require a
sintering phase prior to being added as feedstock, Matthews Ridge targeted customers for fines will need
to be equipped with a sintering furnace. Most silico-manganese sintering furnaces are either located in
India or China.
Figure 19.11 illustrates manganese concentrate consumption by the silico-manganese producers in

relation to their distance to Guyana. Silico-manganese producers from India and China are not illustrated
on the figure as the numbers of producers and total capacity far exceed the scale of the graph. Sale
forecasts focus on the closest end-users, while considering their manganese ore consumption in the
manufacturing of silico-manganese.

Figure 19.11: Silico Manganese Producers in Relation to their Distance to Guyana
Source: CRU, Companies websites, Netpas Distance

The strategy for sales is to focus the lump concentrate on American and European markets, while excess
lump and all fine material would be sold in India or China. Sales forecasts per market areas are listed on
Table 19.3.
To date, no sales contracts for manganese ore have been arranged or planned by RMI. This could be an
option to consider at a later time.
Table 19.3: Forecasted Sales per Market Areas
Areas Year Estimated Market Share

('000 tonnes Mn ore) 2016 2017 2018 (%)
India 175 175 175 3.2
China 176 176 176 0.8
Mexico 67 67 67 12.0
Venezuela 50 50 50 22.6
Europe/CIS 182 182 182 3.0
United States 100 100 100 15.2
Total 750 750 750 1.6
19.6 Price Forecasts for Manganese Ore
The prospects for ore prices are slightly more bullish for 2013 due to an anticipated acceleration in
crude steel production growth both in China and elsewhere. Global supply of manganese ore will also
continue to expand; including contributions from planned mine expansions, as well as from marginal
suppliers that have been re-incentivized by the price recovery. Amidst uncertainty, supply is
expected to grow to slightly lag demand growth, which will provide the conditions for price increases
(on an average annual basis). By 2014/15 the market will likely s t a r t feeling the impact of some of
the newer projects entering the market, particularly those in South Africa. For this reason, it is expected
the upward momentum in manganese ore prices to subside, amid robust demand.
Beyond the medium-term, forecasting prices on the basis of supply and demand becomes more
unreliable because supply imbalances and short term business cycles become less predictable.
Accordingly, forecasts a r e b a s e d on the assumption that prices will tend to converge to the long run
marginal cost of production.
Table 19.4 below provides CRU annual forecasts until 2025. In the long-term, ore prices ar e no t
ex p ec te d to return to the highs seen over 2007 and 2008 within the timeframe considered. This price

boom was the outcome of a specific set of circumstances, which saw the seaborne supply chain come
under immense strain. Subsequently, a great deal of new capacity has come onto the market, with more
projects in the pipeline. It should be noted that the long term forecast average is comparable to the
three year lagging average.
Table 19.4: Long-term Forecast of Benchmark Price, 2013-2025
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
5.57 5.48 5.37 5.21 5.49 5.81 6.13 6.47 6.56 6.64 6.69 6.72 6.77
CIF China,
44% Mn Lump 3 Year Avg 5.47
(USD/dmtu)
5 Year Avg 5.42
LOM 6.25
Data: CRU
Table 19.5: Trailing Average of Benchmark Price, 2010-2012
5 Year
CIF China, 1 2 3 Year Lagging
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Lagging
44% Mn Lump Average
Average
(USD/dmtu)
14.02 5.32 7.33 5.46 4.93 5.58 5.53 6.57
1: Q3 and Q4 2008
2: Q1 and Q2 2013
19.7 Pricing Products
CRU average price forecasts during the Life-of-Mine (LOM) is equivalent to USD 6.25/dmtu CIF China in
constant 2013 dollars. It was elected to use a more conservative price of USD 6.00/dmtu CIF China
throughout the life of mine. A discount of 2% was built in the pricing in relation to impurities contained in
the concentrate and the ability to utilize Matthews Ridge product in alloying furnaces. This discount is
known as value-in-use (VIU) discount. Pricing forecasts are summarized in Table 19.6.

Table 19.6: Matthews Ridge Price Forecasts
CIF Adjusted Price 3Y - 5Y -

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
(USD/dmtu) LAG LAG
CRU Forecasts 5.53 6.57 5.21 5.49 5.81 6.13 6.47 6.56 6.64 6.69 6.72 6.77
CRU Average 6.25
PFS Forecast 6.00
VIU Discount (2%) 0.12

MR Net CIF Price 5.88
In order to give Matthews Ridge concentrates a representative value on a FOB Trinidad basis, ocean
freight is deducted from the CIF China discounted price. Ocean sea freight quotations were received from
a numbers of carriers / operators. Freight rates used are based on 2013 prices and are summarized in
Table 19.7.
Table 19.7: Ocean Freight Rate based FOB Trinidad
40,000 Mt Shipment
(USD / tonne)
SUPRA
USA 14.75
Mexico 13.00
1
Europe 17.50
China 48.00
India 43.00
1
Venezuela 5.00
1. Camet Metallurgy Estimates
Furthermore, since Matthews Ridge product grades are lower than the benchmark reference of 44% Mn,
an adjustment must also be applied to the reference price for the lower manganese content. The
discounts associated with the lower manganese ore content has reduced over the last years from
USD 0.09/dmtu per % Mn to USD 0.06/dmtu per % Mn as shown on below. Although the reduction of
discounts for lower grade manganese ore reduced by 33% over the last two years, there is no clear
indication that the trend will continue nor change course. It was therefore decided to use a discount of
USD 0.06/dmtu per % Mn or ~ USD 0.36/dtmu in our case for lump concentrate (44% Mn to 38% Mn).
Figure 19.12 represents BHPs pricing for high grade manganese ore (45-46% Mn) and lower grade
manganese ore (37-38% Mn).

Figure 19.12: BHPs Mn Pricing CIF China (USD/dmtu)
The market for fine concentrate in China carries a discount that buyers expect to receive as there is a
need to sinter for additional handling of concentrates and dust problems. A discount of the order of 10%
will be virtually mandatory. Table 19.6 represents the FOB Trinidad prices for both lump and fine when
considering:
Benchmark assumption of USD 6.00/dmtu CIF China.
Ocean freight rates.
Discounts associated to the lower manganese content.
2% value-in-use discount.
10% discount on fines.
The tables also include the 3 and 5 year lagging averages. Note that average life of mine forecast is
comparable to the lagging averages. The average freight rate for the lumps concentrate is much lower
than for fines as markets for fines are mainly in Asia while most lumps will be sold in Americas and
Europe.

Table 19.6: Average FOB Trinidad Forecasted Price for Lump and Fine Concentrate
Avg. FOB Trinidad 3 Year Lagging Average 5 Year Lagging Average Life of Mine Forecast
Mn Lumps / Fines (USD/dmtu)
Lump Fine Lump Fine Lump Fine
Benchmark CIF China 5.53 4.98 6.57 5.91 6.00 5.40
VIU Discount (2%) 0.12 0.11

Adjustment for lower Mn Content 0.29 0.46
Average Freight Rate 0.55 1.17
Total FOB Trinidad 5.06 3.66

20. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY

IMPACTS
20.1 Introduction
In order to support the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), monitoring of
environmental and social baseline conditions for the Project and potential impact areas has been ongoing
since Project inception. Data collection and monitoring of the following parameters are being conducted:
Air quality.
Meteorology and weather.
Noise.
Surface water and groundwater hydrology.
Soil and sediment quality.
Biodiversity.
Socio-cultural conditions.
Cultural Heritage.
This document presents the findings of Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI) in regards to the status of the
environment (physical, biological, social and cultural) as obtained within the three Prospecting Licenses
(PLs) that span the area known as Matthews Ridge Footprint and surroundings (Figure 20.1). In
addition, this document discusses the issues that have already arisen and those that may arise due to the
presence of the Project in close contact with the Matthews Ridge community.
In order to compile this report, several studies were undertaken in-house, while biodiversity and hydrology
were outsourced to a local private consulting firm.
This Report also includes a concise description of the natural environment which remains partially
undisturbed by RMIs activities. A separate subsection includes an environmental management plan,
which outlines the Project commitments and actions aimed at mitigating any potential impacts on the
environment. The local legal framework for mining activities is presented, as well as permitting
requirements and procedures. Provisions for closure, decommissioning and reclamation are also outlined
and discussed.

Figure 20.1: RMI PLs and Exploration Area in Relation to the Community

20.2 Geology and Geomorphology
The Project region is confined between the Barima and Barama River valleys, showing a mature
topography characterized by rolling hills and a few ridges held by late felsic or mafic intrusions and
remaining peneplains capped by duricrust. The predominant strike of elevations in the region is east-
west, the topography depending on the underlying rocks and their resistance to weathering and
geological structures. Fine-grained sedimentary rocks, like phyllites, are particularly vulnerable to erosion,
unless they have a significant manganese, iron or silica content. At Matthews Ridge, the long string of
hills forming the so-called Footprint is caused by the manganese and chert content of the sediments and
elevations range from 130 m on Hill 3 to 240 m.a.s.l on Hill 5.
20.3 Acid Rock Drainage Potential
A geochemistry program was initiated by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) to define the acid rock
drainage (ARD) and metal leaching (ML) properties of both waste rock and jig reject samples. This
was to allow a prediction of future mine contact water quality and assist in mine waste management.
The waste rock program focused on the dominant rock types and weathering zones (Saprolite and
Transition) from Hills 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, with samples collected by Golder staff in 2013. Jig reject samples
were comprised of composite samples from various hills and lithologies and represent slimes from the
initial wash and jig rejects from the fine and lump tests, as well as associated decant waters and were
collected from site by RMI staff in 2012 (slimes) and 2013 (jig rejects). All 29 samples of waste rock
(n=20) and jig rejects (n=9) were submitted for static testing including chemical composition, acid base
accounting (ABA), short-term leach test, and chemical testing of decant water. All testing was completed
at SGS in 2012 and 2013.
Based on the test results to date, all waste rock and jig reject samples, regardless of their lithology,
exhibit similar solid chemistry trends including low calcium, high iron and high manganese values
indicative of extensive weathering processes. Samples report minor total sulphur content (< 0.04 wt%),
with most of the samples exhibiting higher sulphate sulphur values compared to the reactive sulphide
sulphur, suggesting sulphides may have oxidized previously during the weathering process. As a result
of weathering, samples also have minimal amounts of available neutralization potential (NP) and low
carbonate content (<0.07 wt% CO3).
With respect to bulk ARD potential, the diorite saprolite, phyllite transition and the jig rejects groups all
have no potential to generate acid as defined by the guidance criteria of the Global Acid Rock Drainage
Guide (GARD; INAP 2012), while both the phyllite and manganiferous phyllite saprolites have a potential

to generate acid. However, because of low sulphide sulphur content in these latter materials, if ARD
conditions were to be generated, they would be short in duration.
Results from the short term leach test show that most lithologies, including the jig rejects, are not
expected to leach metals at concentrations above IFC effluent guidelines (IFC, 2007) when the material is
in contact with fresh water. However, the diorite saprolite lithology reported dissolved iron concentrations
in leachate that exceed IFC guidelines in two of three samples tested; chromium and nickel
concentrations are above IFC effluent criteria (2 mg/L total iron) in one sample and may be associated
with suspended particles. Three jig reject decant water samples also report total iron greater than effluent
guidelines and dissolved low iron concentrations; these samples also exhibit high total suspended solid
values (TSS 49-1060 mg/L). Consideration should be given to the use of a settling pond for decant water
to allow for the precipitation of TSS and associated metals and monitoring of water quality is
recommended prior to discharge of this water from the rejects impoundment.
Potentially acid generating (PAG) material should be managed to minimize contact between the waste
material and both oxygen and water in order to reduce the likelihood for development of ARD conditions
within the pile. Lastly, the geochemical tests completed to date demonstrate that there are no variation
trends in chemical composition between the various hills or for each lithology and weathering horizon,
such that material from each area is generally homogeneous and can be handled in the same manner.
20.4 Environmental Baseline Study
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Guyana is responsible for the regulation of all
environmental issues countrywide. Volume 3 of the EPAs Impact Assessment Guidelines on mining
outlines the protocols and procedures of the Environmental Baseline Studies to be undertaken in Guyana.
The contents of those regulations will be discussed further in the legal framework subsection below. The
guidelines, as well as international best practices, were used as a foundation for all of the studies
conducted by and for RMI.
As part of the Baseline Study, a meteorological characterization of the site was done using two
WeatherHawk Signature Series by Davis Instruments weather stations to collect data on the following
parameters: precipitation, wind (speed and direction), air temperature, evaporation, barometric pressure,
relative humidity and solar radiation. Data is collected every five minutes and then averaged hourly and
then daily once downloaded. Table 20.1 presents a summary of the meteorological conditions of
Matthews Ridge, as recorded between July 2011 and June 2012. This monitoring is ongoing. There are
some noticeable difference between this data and the historic data presented in section 5 due to the short
observation period on site.

Table 20.1: Summary of Meteorological Parameters
Air Temperature Extreme Mean Net Mean Wind Speed

Barometer Evaporatio Precipitatio
Month Year Radiation Humidity
Max. Min. Mean 2 Kappa n (mm) n (mm) Maximum Mean
(W/m /day) (%)
(C) (C) (C) (m/s) (m/s)
July 2011 34.78 21.11 25.15 184.70 89.78 101.57 89.92 190.25 15.12 2.78
August 2011 36.72 20.50 26.05 216.86 83.95 101.56 115.83 73.91 13.27 1.59
September 2011 40.89 21.11 26.27 192.43 84.16 101.53 100.58 86.87 14.56 1.64
October 2011 35.11 20.72 25.27 188.18 89.03 101.33 93.73 337.57 14.40 1.27
November 2011 33.50 20.78 25.04 178.58 90.43 100.75 40.64 201.93 13.32 1.24
December 2011 33.72 20.20 31.11 162.00 90.00 100.00 43.20 170.00 11.83 1.28
January 2012 32.55 20.12 25.55 149.39 91.31 100.01 75.79 344.00 10.60 1.26
February 2012 34.84 20.03 26.07 183.714 83.29 100.01 94.45 187.00 12.36 1.53
March 2012 38.00 19.85 27.07 213.08 76.61 99.78 101.41 102.00 12.67 1.61
April 2012 43.68 20.84 25.55 178.77 84.73 99.88 101.81 133.00 10.45 1.21
May 2012 38.73 21.14 24.96 152.53 91.17 100.07 85.47 317.00 14.10 1.12
June 2012 40.62 19.82 27.73 177.81 94.42 99.91 80.97 103.00 12.97 1.04
Average 43.68 19.82 26.32 181.50 87.41 100.54 1023.79 2246.52 15.12 1.46

20.5 Air Quality
A description of the existing air quality in the Project area is required to allow an appropriate assessment
of the Projects potential impacts.
No ambient air quality standards are available in Guyanas Environmental Protection Air Quality
regulations. The World Bank Environment, Health and Safety Guidelines for Mining and Milling Open Pit
were used as reference.
Given the remote location of the Project and the absence of industrial development in the vicinity,
combustion-derived compounds such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and carbon
monoxide (CO) are deemed negligible and were not considered for baseline monitoring and only PM10
was recorded and monitored. Ten monitoring stations were established, where air quality sampling for
PM10 was conducted using an AirMetrics Minivol Portable Sampler SN: 3452. Measurements were taken
in each of the nine hills forming the Footprint and one station at the office area. The sampler was run
each time between 8 to 10 hours once a month.
All sites monitored have the same air quality on average. Minor differences were measured and can be
explained either by the degree of vegetation clearing around the measuring site or relatively more traffic
(office area). All results are maintained in a database and will be available to establish the baseline for the
ESIA.
20.6 Noise
The baseline noise monitoring consisted of thirteen sites within the Footprint (all nine hills, office area,
and main yard, entrance of Matthews Ridge village, the village market and near the hospital). Recordings
were made every other month at each location for an average of two hours at different times of the day
and at night. A Sper Scientific Sound Meter 840005 was used to do this monitoring. The instrument has
an accuracy of 3.0 dB Baseline noise monitoring results were consistent with expectations for relatively
natural an d community areas.
20.7 Hydrology
Since no recent or precise data on the drainage network of the region is available, a reconnaissance and
surveying program of all streams and water bodies within the Footprint and in the vicinity was conducted.
A portable Marsh-McBirney model 2000 Flo-Mate flow meter was used to measure the velocity of the
water in the various streams in the area.

Baseline hydrologic conditions were developed based on field work conducted within and adjacent to the
boundaries of the concession and also on desktop studies of the concession and its immediate vicinity.
Data collection on site hydrology focused on surface water and groundwater hydrology.
Surface water levels were fairly consistent over the monitoring period, with little monthly or seasonal
variation observed. Stream flow in the area is expected to follow the same pattern as rainfall, e.g., lower
flows occurring in August and September (coincident with low rainfall), with highest flows in January and
October (coincident with high rainfall).
A groundwater hydrology program was initiated to define the regional groundwater flow regime. The
program is ongoing and analysis is pending. Groundwater levels were recorded at all wells.

Figure 20.2: Surface and Groundwater Locations

20.8 Water Quality
Water quality studies began in July 2011 and continue to date. At the end of August 2012, there were a
total of twenty sampling locations. RMI used a HACH DR/890 portable colorimeter to measure pH,
turbidity (in FAU units instead of NTU), total suspended solids, manganese, cyanide, sulfide, ammonia,
nitrate, total nitrogen, aluminum, hexavalent chromium, copper, iron and molybdenum. Samples were
also sent to FILAB to be analyzed by ICP-OES for trace metals and calcium, magnesium, sodium and
potassium. The database of water quality results will be available to serve as ESIA baseline information.
20.9 Soil Quality
Sediment quality was analyzed in order to see if there was any relation between the chemical
composition of the soil on the waterbed and the chemical composition of the water flowing over it. For soil
and sediments analysis, a portable Thermo Scientific Niton XRF analyser was used for 43 elements
From all samples tested, nine elements were below the limit of detection, including uranium and tungsten.
Gold, cadmium, cobalt and selenium were mostly below the limit of detection. The results showed that
silicon, manganese, iron and aluminium predominated in the sediment samples. Mercury, arsenic, lead,
cadmium and selenium were among the toxic elements tested. All samples tested were below the
respective soil guidelines for each of these elements.
20.10 Biodiversity
As part of the base line work, a biodiversity study was carried out on the Footprint area and its vicinity.
This was done in two phases covering both the dry and the wet seasons. To characterize the biodiversity,
sample plots were selected based on topography, forest/vegetation type ecosystems present in the area,
the level of disturbance and accessibility. Sampling was conducted in relatively undisturbed areas within
the project area that will be disturbed, areas that are presently disturbed and areas that are likely to
remain undisturbed.
The area was observed to be divided into the following landscapes or ecosystems: (a) Undisturbed and
disturbed areas on hills; (b) undisturbed and disturbed areas on flats/low gradients, and (c) wet land
areas.
To characterize the biodiversity within the landscapes described above, flora, mammals, amphibians and
reptiles, birds, bats/terrestrial macro-invertebrates and aquatic fauna were surveyed.

20.10.1 Flora
The wet and dry season surveys recorded no significant difference in the floral composition and carbon
stock. Six survey plots were established for the floral survey, each with a cluster of five 18 m-diameter
circular plots spaced at 100 m of each other. W et and dry season surveys documented 146 plant species
belonging to 57 families. The area was dominated by the families Lecythidaceae, Leguminosae-Papil,
Bombacaceae and Chrysobalanaceae. Tree species made up 50% of the plant species recorded. Other
plant species recorded, many of which are used for commercial timber. Other plant species recorded by
the surveys were shrubs, palms, herbs, lianas, epiphytes and hemi-epiphytes.
Guyana has no adopted or proposed list of threatened or endangered species. Therefore, the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of threatened species was used in this
analysis. Review of this list revealed that no plant species recorded in the PLs is listed as endangered or
critically endangered.
20.10.2 Fauna
Six terrestrial/wildlife sampling transects, each 2 km long, were established for the faunal biodiversity
survey, and were located in the general vicinity of the plots for the floral survey. Different vertebrate
groups were sampled at discrete intervals along the 2 km long transect. Additional sampling was
undertaken in sections of each transect that exhibited micro-habitat cues/features for the vertebrate group
surveyed. All transects surveyed exhibited evidence of human disturbance. Hills 5 to 9 were highly to
moderately altered and are classifiable as a modified habitat as defined by the International Finance
Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard (PS) number 6. The faunal surveys will serve as baseline to
the ESIA. However, neither the wet season nor dry season surveys recorded the presence of any
critically endangered fauna. The only IUCN-listed endangered fauna species known to occur in the
general area is the giant otter, but this species is only found in larger streams and rivers, habitats which
are not present within the mine Footprint.
20.10.3 Landscapes and Ecosystems
The results of the biodiversity surveys indicate that most of the Footprint area has been subject to
significant disturbance and habitat degradation. The habitats and biodiversity components within the
concession would primarily be considered modified habitats in accordance with the IFC PS 6. Based on
data collected to date, the concession does not contain habitats that would be considered Critical Habitat
as defined by the IFC PS 6 (2012).

20.11 Socio-Cultural
20.11.1 Culture
Culturally, Matthews Ridge displays all of the signs characteristic or common to a small mining
community. These are displayed in daily life in the form of a unique blend of behavioral norms and values
evident among the population.
The abrupt closure of the previous mine, the main economic stimulus in the area, severely affected the
communitys progression. The lack of technical expertise and training in the management and
maintenance of the systems designed for utilities and other forms of infrastructure resulted in the
communitys inability to collectively move forward. The high level of dependency created by the role of the
previous mine operation in the communitys historical development fuelled some of the expectations of
the community surrounding the current Projects success.
Criminal activity is found to be minimal; most crimes involving drunken fist fights and juvenile delinquency.
There also exists a culture of drug use within the community. Figure 20.3 shows an outline of the
community and its proximity to the Project Footprint.

Figure 20.3: Matthews Ridge Community

20.11.2 Demographics
Based on demographic survey results, the communitys population is approximately 1,400 residents and
2
occupies a land mass of 7 km as seen in Figure 20.3 the community is divided into eight residential
areas.
Survey results showed 41% of the population is within the age ranges of 0-14 and 48% are within the
ranges 15-54. This is illustrated in Figure 20.4 below. It is noted that such trends created the potential for
development at the same time increasing levels of dependency and vulnerability.
Ethnically, the community can be characterized as mixed, since 71% classified themselves as such, 12%
as Afro-Guyanese and 15% as Amerindian. Among the Amerindian population, the majority is of Carib
descent, while some Arawak and Akawaio heritage also exist. Concurrently, religious characterization
suggests that the community is mostly Christian, with three major denominations active within the village.
Figure 20.4: Matthews Ridge Population Age and Gender Composition
20.11.3 Indigenous People
According to the Amerindian Act 2006, an Amerindian Community is defined as a group of Amerindians
organized as a traditional community with a common culture and occupying or using the State lands
which they have traditionally occupied or used. None of the communities in and around the RMI licences
and have the land rights under the Amerindian Act.

It has been confirmed through Ministry of Amerindian Affairs documents (Figure 20.5) that there are no
IP designated areas within the RMI licences. There are currently three IP designated areas with new
extensions in Region 1 area of Guyana, none of which are within RMIs licences or its potential impact
areas. In addition, analysis of demographic, historical and cultural data on the Matthews Ridge
community shows that RMIs Project does not trigger Performance Standard 7 (PS7) of the International
Finance Corporation (IFC) Sustainability Framework. Demographic data confirmed that 15% of the
population is of Amerindian Heritage, in accordance with Government of Guyana standards. However,
issues of self-identification among the Amerindians may cause a reduction in the average.
Historical settlement patterns also confirm that the area was populated following the discovery of
manganese by a surveyor in the 1950s. As part of the development of a manganese operation by the
African Manganese Company, the Matthews Ridge community was built for housing the companys
employees, which subsequently remained after mine closure. Therefore, there is no evidence to support
the notion that PS7 of the IFC Sustainability Framework would be applicable to RMIs Project in the
Matthews Ridge, Region 1 area.
RMI does not anticipate that rights of indigenous people will have an impact on the development of the
Project.

Figure 20.5: Amerindian Lands

20.11.4 Infrastructure
Utility services which were originally provided by the manganese operation fell in disrepair for lack of
maintenance and technical expertise. Reports received confirm that the community has not received
electricity from the industrial site since January 1998. The original layout of the water system setup was
modified through privatization by Guyana Water Inc. (GWI) some 8-10 years prior. However, this system
was also in poor condition upon RMIs arrival in 2010. Other modifications and remedial work were
undertaken by RMI in conjunction with GWI in 2011 to remove the need for pumping, thereby reducing
the cost of operation and the need for technical support. Upon RMIs arrival, contractual arrangements
were made with cellular service provider Digicel and in April, 2011, cellular services were established.
Housing design and quality deteriorated over the years. Most of the residential housing that was built as
part of the original settlement remained. On the other hand, most of the official residences and office
buildings were in ruin. Rehabilitation was done to properties within RMIs Footprint; however, official
residences and office buildings in the community remain untouched. It is important to note that 42% of
the population could be categorized as squatters. This category includes all persons who claim to be
unable to provide sufficient documentation supporting their claim of ownership of their properties, during
the interviews.
There is one major access road which links Matthews Ridge to the nearby communities. It is through this
roadway that most of the commodities needed in the community and for surrounding mining operations,
are transported after shipment from Georgetown. This results in high resale prices for these commodities,
thereby increasing the cost of living in the area. Air travel to the community remains a common means of
travel from Georgetown for individuals accessing the gold fields.
20.11.5 Employment
Employment analyses suggested that 48% of the population is within working age of 15-55 years old.
While labour force participation rates are relatively higher at 84% compared to national standards;
unemployment rates were found to be 27%. Gold mining remains as the main source of employment for
many years after the closure of the manganese operation. Private sector employment is also an
important source of income with two other major mining companies based within Matthews Ridge.
Meanwhile, the maintenance of the small scale mining industry is dependent on many shops and small
businesses within the area; these provide employment to 18% of those employed. Agriculture and public
sector provide the least amounts of employment with a combined total of 11%.

20.11.6 Income
Income is found to be mainly generated through mining activities. Those activities however, are not on a
large scale considering most persons involved in the industry are small scale artisanal miners. Inevitably,
levels of income and expenditure are affected. Because of inflated cost of commodities, cost of living is
characterized as high.
20.11.7 Education
Results of the surveyed population suggest low rates of academic achievement among the population.
The data analysis shows that 20% of the population completed nursery level education while 39%
completed primary level education. 13% went on to complete secondary schooling and a mere 2% of the
studied population completed tertiary education. A total of 21% had no formal schooling and an additional
5% did not record any educational training.
20.11.8 Public Health
The main health issue within the population is malaria. A total of 75% of households interviewed reported
that malaria has affected at least one person within their household. Some 60% reported hypertension as
a cause of illness within their households, while 28% reported there was at least one diabetic case in their
household. In addition, results show of the population 20% have been affected by typhoid and 13% by
dengue. Common illnesses, such as seasonal diarrhea and influenza, seem to have the smallest effect,
recording 10% and 8%, respectively.
20.12 Archeology
Based on research and observation, it is safe to say there are no findings of archaeological significance
on or around the Project area. Archaeological and historical records of this region show that human
habitation is relatively very recent. Major population settlement of this area can be dated back to the
1950s when surveyors came in search of gold in this region. The subsequent discovery of manganese led
to the development of a mine which included housing developments by Union Carbide for its workforce;
prior to which this area was uninhabited.
Demographic survey results have confirmed the settlement and population timeline of this area as seen
below in Figure 20.6.

Figure 20.6: Population Settlement Timeline
20.13 Environmental Management Plan
An Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) will be developed for implementation during
the different phases of the Project. The ESMP will describe how RMI proposes to manage and control the
environmental and social aspects of the Project and provides performance-based environmental and
social specifications for the protection of biophysical and community values within the Project area. The
ESMP will be the guideline for conducting the Project in accordance with the Project ESIA, RMI policies
and commitments, regulatory requirements, international guidelines and best management practices and
protocols.
In general the ESMP will:
Describe the environmental and social management responsibilities.
Describe the necessary organizational lines of reporting and communication.

Outline applicable legislation, guidelines and ESIA commitments and recommendations.
Provide the environmental precautions and actions to be implemented for the Project.
Outline monitoring requirements to inspect, evaluate and report on work practices, environmental
and social mitigation procedures and recommend improvements as necessary.
Outline reporting requirements.
Determination of environmental and social aspects and impacts will be achieved during the ESIA study
through a risk management process and will result in the development of a list of environmental and
social risks (aspects and impacts) and a corresponding risk mitigation strategy.
20.14 Closure, Decommissioning and Reclamation
Reclamation of the site will meet Guyana environmental regulations and those of the International
Finance Corporation (IFC) Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Mining.
The reclamation and closure plan presented here is conceptual in nature and deals with the mine facilities
as currently proposed at this level of Project Pre-feasibility. It is recognized that the degree of detail of the
reclamation and closure plan will improve as the Project moves through advanced technical studies,
permitting, construction, and into operations.
The primary reclamation and closure objectives are:
Minimize adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts and maximize socio-economic

benefits to the local communities.
Ensure that future public health and safety are not compromised.
Ensure that the after-use of the site is beneficial and sustainable to the affected communities in
the long term.
Return the areas disturbed by mining operations to their pre-mining land use, where practical.
To ensure that the above primary objectives are met, the following site specific objectives are developed:
Ensure that the local community needs, values, concerns and aspirations are taken into account
regarding closure and develop the appropriate transition strategies.

Communicate and consult stakeholders, including relevant regulatory agencies with respect to
closure objectives, closure completion criteria and the establishment of systems to ensure that the
objectives are met.
Work cooperatively with the local communities, local stakeholders and the regional government to
develop sustainable business opportunities and social structures that will outlast the mine
operation and benefit the local communities.
Ensure natural integration of disturbed areas into the surrounding landscape, and restoration to
the mine sites overall natural conditions.
Return the land to the pre-mining level of productivity, wherever possible, where wildlife habitat
and sustainable livelihoods for local residents are available.
Meet or exceed applicable regulatory requirements and standards for protection of human health
and the environment.
Ensure that valued ecosystem components, including surface and groundwater resources, air
quality, biodiversity, soil quality and water quality downstream of decommissioned operations are
protected.
Incorporate closure considerations into the design and operation of mine facilities, including
concurrent reclamation during operations.
Minimize the long-term cost of post-closure maintenance and monitoring.
It should be noted that it will not be possible to fully return areas to their pre-development land use due to
the physical changes that result from mine development. The long-term objective for the site will be to
achieve a similar biodiversity, vegetation mix and growth rate to those currently observed on the site.
Therefore, specific post-closure land use objectives should be developed as part of the reclamation and
closure plan that aim to achieve the following:
To restore the areas disturbed by development of the waste rock storage facilities, low grade ore
stockpile and saprolite storage facilities into vegetated areas.
To restore the rejects storage facility into a self-sustaining vegetated surface, saturated wetland
and open water pond above the cleaner rejects, and grassed dam faces.
Reclaim all access roads not required post-closure.
Decommission, dismantle and properly dispose of all structures and equipment not required after
mine closure.

Ensure stability of engineered structures, including waste rock storage facilities, open pits and the
rejects storage facility.
20.15 Legal Framework
The lead agency is the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC). The main pieces of
legislation governing the mining industry are the Mining Act of 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act
of 1996, with their supporting regulations and legislations.
The National Development Strategy, updated in 2000 for the period 2001-2010, has as an overall
objective for the mining industry to establish the foundations for continuing growth of the sector so that it
may contribute to the economic growth of the country, the equitable geographic distribution of economic
activity throughout the nation, the diversification of the economy, the penetration of the hinterland, and the
eradication of poverty, particularly in depressed interior areas (NDS 2000).
20.15.1 The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment
In 2011 this new ministry was formed with overall responsibility for all natural resources and the
environment. Former semi-autonomous bodies and commissions that oversaw the natural resources and
the environmental issues of the country were all put under the umbrella of this new ministry. Agencies that
now fall under the ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment are:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Guyana Forestry Commission.
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC).
Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission.
Guyana Wildlife.
National Parks Commission.
Protected Areas Commission.
Mining in Guyana is managed by the GGMC under the Mining Act of 1989. Under the Act the state is the
owner of all mineral rights in Guyana and it authorizes GGMC to manage these resources. As stated
above, GGMC now falls under the umbrella of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment.

20.15.1.1 The Environmental Protection Act of 1996
The Environmental Protection Act of 1996 established the institutional and regulatory framework that
governs all environment related matters within Guyana. The EPA is mandated under the Act, among
other duties, to assess projects and issue environmental permits that authorize given activities. The EPA
now also falls under the umbrella of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment.
20.15.2 Mineral Exploration and Mining License
It is generally expected that, during exploration, a baseline environmental study will be done. The Guyana
Environmental Protection Act of 1996 does not specifically identify the components of a baseline study,
however guidelines provided in the EIA Guidelines for Mining (volume 3) state that the baseline study will
have such detail as to record the environmental conditions and seasonal variability prior to development.
At any time during the PL, and for any part or all of the PL area, the licensee may apply for a Mining
License. This application will consist of a positive Feasibility Study, a mine plan, an environmental impact
statement and an Environmental Management Plan. Rental for a Mining License is currently fixed at
USD 5.00 per acre per year and the license is usually granted for twenty years or the life of the deposit,
whichever is shorter; renewals are possible. However, before a mining license can be issued, an ESIA
must be approved by the EPA and an environmental permit/authorization received from the EPA.
20.15.3 Restricted Areas
The lawful holder of a prospecting license, mining permit and/or mining license is restricted in certain
areas:
Within 200 m from village or from public works except with the written consent of the Minister
50 m from any land prepared for growing agricultural crops except with the written consent of the
lawful occupier
A prospecting license holder may not interfere with lawful fishing or navigation without giving
written notice to the GGMC.
20.16 Acts and Regulations Governing Mining Aspects
General: The Mining Act of 1989
Mining Regulations
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Act of 1979

Health and Safety: OHS Act of 1997
OHSA Regulations
Environment: Environmental Protection Act of 1996
Environment Regulations
a) Hazardous Waste Management Regulations 2000

b) Environmental Protection Water Quality Regulations 2000
c) Environmental Protection Air Quality Regulations 2000
d) Environmental Protection Noise Quality Regulations 2000
e) Mining (amendment) Regulations of 2005 for Environmental Management
Amerindian Rights: Sections 48-55 of the Amerindian Act
Explosives: Explosives Act and Regulations 65:03
20.17 Permitting Process
No further permitting is required at the exploration stage; however at any point within the exploration
phase, once RMI feels justified based on resource and reserve estimates and feasibility studies, it may
apply for a mining license. That process is already described in Section 4 on legal framework. It should be
reiterated that, before mining can commence, RMI must obtain an environmental authorization/permit
from the EPA.

21. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
21.1 Initial Capital Expenditures
This capital cost estimate has been developed according to the Association for the Advancement of Cost
Engineering International (AACEI) standards, and is assumed to be accurate to a -15% / +15% range.
As per AACEI, the estimate is considered to be Class 4/3.
The capital cost estimate is a detailed, built-up effort by major facility and discipline. Each discipline
performed material take-offs from the basic engineering drawings, layouts and concepts. Each discipline
executed a detailed cost build up by cost type including labor, material, construction equipment,
consumables, construction materials and services costs.
Labor and construction equipment costs for the Project were built up in separate analyses, to be included
in each individual estimate. Material take offs were also performed to generate the baseline quantities for
the Project. Each discipline cost estimate with complete cost type details and quantities is consistent with
the Project Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS was then accumulated in a master estimate
summary.
G Mining Services Inc. (GMSI) has managed the preliminary engineering effort, with contributions from
various external engineering consultants. Met-Chem Canada (Met-Chem) was hired as support for the
process plant engineer. Golder Associates was retained to perform hydrology, geotechnical, water
management and Rejects Storage Facility (RSF) preliminary engineering. The balance of the
engineering work was executed by GMSI staff.
The project development team will execute procurement in the name of Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI).
Budgetary prices have been requested for major equipment. Prices from vendors were used for
equipment in the process plant, for the mining fleet and for the concentrate storage and handling facility.
For quality and delivery schedule considerations, most of the critical material and components will be
sourced in North America or Europe. Low cost country sourcing is being considered for bulk material such
as structural steel and rebar, as some important savings may be realized.
The approach allows for an efficient conversion of the cost estimate data, which is identical in the WBS
format to a control budget for Project execution. A roll-up of the major group costs is presented in
Table 21.1.

Table 21.1: Total Capital Expenditures
Description USD
100 Infrastructures 43,526,636

200 Power and Electrical 10,382,761
300 Rejects and Water Management 6,221,285
400 Mobile Equipment 22,854,587

600 Process Plant 34,054,558
700 Construction Indirects 20,436,346
800 General Services 30,200,145
900 Preproduction, Startup and Commissioning 7,542,729
900 Preproduction Revenues (5,919,390)

Total 232,959,379
Pricing of equipment, material and labor were estimated according to the following guidelines:
Major equipment quotations were received specifically for the Project.
Other equipment prices were derived from recent projects or from databases.
Material prices were based on quotations received from suppliers.
Labor rates were based on quotations received from contractors, labor suppliers and wage
surveys in Guyana.
Locally available material was used when possible for estimation purposes and prices were sourced from
regional suppliers. No escalation was built into the capital cost estimate. The estimates are current as of
the 2nd Quarter, 2013 (2Q 2013).
Due to the geographical location of the Project, room and board costs were estimated on a man-day
basis and included in the General Services indirects.
The estimates include earthworks, construction material, equipment, and labor. For mass earthworks near
the process plant, construction material will be provided by the mine pre-production activities. Access
roads in Areas 111, 114 and 115 (Table 21.2) will be executed by the owners mining fleet. All material

will be supplied and delivered to site by the owners supply chain department. For the concentrate
transportation road, the aggregate will be provided by the aggregate plant operated by the owner.
21.1.1 Infrastructures and Roads
Capital costs for infrastructures and roads are provided in Table 21.2. The detailed description of
infrastructures and roads are presented in Section 18. Costs were derived from the assumption that the
owners mining fleet will be available to construct the roads.
21.1.2 Power and Electrical
The initial capital costs for the electrical infrastructures are listed in Table 21.3. They include all
equipment and installations for power production and distribution. They also include the communications
and information technologies installations. The electrical infrastructures are detailed in Section 18 of this
Report.
21.1.3 Water and Rejects Management
Details and description of the rejects and water management installations and systems are provided in
Section 18. Capital costs include labor, earthworks, concrete, structure steel, mechanical, electrical and
instrumentation equipment.
21.1.4 Rejects Storage Facilities (RSF)
A total of three basins will be built to the south west of the process plant. One will be built during initial
construction and two additional ponds will be built over the first four years of operation. Finally, dams for
the three ponds will be raised during the sixth year of operation to provide sufficient rejects storage of
3
11.3 Mm . The three ponds overflow into each other to finally reach the first pond, which will also be used
as a decant pond before releasing excess water into the natural drainage.
The RSF will be built using material produced from mine pre-production and operations. However, some
construction materials specifications require aggregates not available on site. They will be sourced
mainly from the Port Kaituma quarry. The rejects water reclaim pumping stations will handle both the
reclaim water to the mill and the effluent discharge.

Table 21.2: Infrastructure Capital Expenditures
Description USD
110 Roads & Airstrip 32,108,263

111 Site Main Access Road 542,201
114 Services Roads 169,978
115 Concentrate Transportation Road 31,393,923
116 Airstrip 2,160
120 Workshops/Storage 2,190,643
121 - Truckshop / Warehouse(s) 1,209,994
122 Wash Bay 598,177
123 Plant Workshop and Stores 34,200
125 Explosives Storage 348,452
130 - Support Buildings 1,579,859
131 Site Administration Building 728,245
132 Mine Support Building 169,880
133 Mill Office 566,076
135 Gate House 64,120
138 Mining Lunchrooms 151,538
140 Camp Facilities 5,158,847
141 Site Prep General 496,597
142 Recreation Room 79,712
143 Kitchen / Lunch Room 851,385
144 Laundry / Welcome Center 287,823
145 - Corridors 2,177,190
146 Dormitories 1,266,139
160 Laboratories 116,227
161 Assay / Metallurgical Lab 116,227
170 - Fuel Systems 2,280,868
171 - LFO Matthews Ridge 872,465
174 LFO Port Kaituma 1,408,403
180- Other Facilities 91,929
181 Recycling / Sort Facility 23,894
182 Landfill 68,036
Total 43,526,636

Table 21.3: Power and Electrical Capital Costs
Description USD
210 Power Plant 4,883,248
211 Power Plant Matthews Ridge 3,750,795
212 Power Plant Port Kaituma 1,132,453

220 Electrical Rooms 2,937,250
221 Crushing Electrical Room 470,218
222 Scrubbing Electrical Room 741,239
223 Jigging/Concentrate Storage Electrical

558,653
Room
224 Reclaim Water Electrical Room 232,299
225 Rejects Thickening Electrical Room 443,573

226 Concentrate Storage Electrical Room 335,885
229 Control Room 155,382
240 Site Power Distribution 1,072,057
241 Power Lines 1,072,057
260 IT and Communications Hardware 1,490,205
261 Communications Links / Server Rooms 1,490,205

Total 10,382,761
The fire water estimate includes the fire pumps, the distribution network throughout the processing and
mine plant and permanent camp.
The initial capital costs for the rejects and water management facilities are listed in Table 21.4.

Table 21.4: Rejects and Water Management Capital Expenditures
Description USD
310 Potable Water 905,440
311 Potable Water Wells 473,343
312 Potable Water Treatment 432,097

320 Raw Water 342,716
321 Process Water 87,575
322 Gland Water 255,141

340 Rejects & Reclaim Water 3,822,151
342 Rejects Storage Pond 2,624,288
345 Reclaim Water 1,197,863

360 Plant Surface Water 261,797
361 Stormwater Pond 162,920
362 Mine Event Pond 98,877

370 Fire Water 252,821
371 Plant Fire Protection 252,821
380 - Sewage 636,360
381 Plant Sewage Treatment 14,303
382 Camp Sewage Treatment 622,057
Total 6,221,285
21.1.5 Mobile Equipment
Mine equipment capital costs include all capital expenditures related to the acquisition of the primary
mining and support equipment. Equipment capital expenditures include the purchasing cost, assembly
cost and all safety and optionals on the equipment. Some equipment will be sourced on the used
equipment market.
Detailed capital expenditures for major and support mining equipment are presented in Table 21.5 and
Table 21.6. The equipment Schedule is shown in Table 21.7 and Table 21.8.

Table 21.5: Major Equipment Capital Expenditures per Unit (USD)
New Used
Price Freight Assembly Options
OEM Model Type EX-Works Price
(USD) (USD) (USD)
(USD) (USD)
Excavator 3.2 m
3
Caterpillar 349D L 470,143 376,400 16,000 10,000 6,000
Caterpillar 735 Articulated Dump Truck 32 t 458,372 367,750 31,500 - 4,000
Caterpillar 980H Wheel Loader 489,906 413,000 22,800 - 4,000

Caterpillar D6T Track Dozer 284,530 276,500 18,250 - 4,000
Caterpillar 14M Grader 14 493,708 435,460 21,250 - 4,000
Caterpillar CS-533 Compactor 180,000 91,250 8,800 - 4,000

Sandvik DC800 RC Drill 4 412,000 15,800 - 4,000

Table 21.6: Support Equipment Capital Expenditures (per Unit (USD)
New EX- Used

Freight Options
OEM Model Type Works Price Price
(USD) (USD)
(USD) (USD)
Volvo/Mack TBD Tractor Truck 6 x 4 for Road Train 205,000 - 13,000 4,000
TBD TBD Road Train Trailer 100,000 - 16,000 -

Volvo/Mack TBD Tractor Truck 6x4 for Low-Boy 205,000 100,000 13,000 4,000
TBD TBD Low-Boy Trailer 250,000 - 18,500 -
TBD TBD Fuel/Lube Truck 200,000 106,074 32,000 4,000

TBD TBD Water Truck 200,000 80,833 31,800 2,000
TBD TBD Mechanical Service Truck 200,000 64,000 18,000 4,000
TBD TBD Flatbed trailers - 15,000 11,500 -
TBD TBD Tanker Trailer - 75,000 34,800 -
Godwin TBD Water Pump 6 38,200 - 2,270 -
Caterpillar IT62 Wheel Loader Toolcarrier 300,000 228,700 17,800 4,000
Toyota Hilux Pick-up truck 40,425 - - 2,000
TBD TBD ATV 10,000 - - -
TBD TBD Ambulance 150,000 100,000 - 4,000
TBD TBD Fire Truck 300,000 140,000 31,000 8,000
Manitou MH25 Forklift 4 t 56,352 40,000 2,500 2,000
Caterpillar TL1055 Telehandler 4 t 178,500 100,000 11,800 2,000
Table 21.7: Major Equipment Schedule
Equipment PP-2 PP-1 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10
Excavator 349D 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
ADT 735 11 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15
Wheel Loader 980H 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Track Dozer D6T 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Grader 14M 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Compactor CS-533 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
RC Drill 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Table 21.8 Support Equipment Schedule
Equipment PP-2 PP-1 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10
Tractor Truck 6 x 4 for Road Train - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Road Train Trailer - 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Tractor Truck 6 x 4 for Low-Boy - 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Low-Boy Trailer - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fuel/Lube Truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Water Truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mechanical Service Truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Flatbed trailers 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Tanker Trailer 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Water Pump 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Wheel Loader Toolcarrier 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pick-up truck 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
ATV 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Ambulance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fire Truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Forklift 4 t 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Telehandler 4 t 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Construction mobile equipment includes purchasing costs for all lifting equipment required as well all
utility vehicles; specialized construction equipment and rental costs for equipment required for short
periods are totaled in Area 422.
Mobile equipment capital expenditures are presented on Table 21.9.

Table 21.9: Mobile Equipment Capital Expenditures
Description USD
410 Mine Equipment 18,651,786

412 Primary Mining Equipment 12,936,416
414 Support Equipment 5,715,370
420 Construction Vehicles & Equipment 4,202,801
421 Cranes and Material Handling 1,720,204
422 Other Construction Equipment 2,482,597
Total 22,854,587
21.1.6 Project Specifics
Concentrate storage and handling will require important investments that are accounted for in this
section. The costs are provided in Table 21.10. The Project will build a wharf and concentrate storage
facility on the Port Kaituma canal. Budgetary prices for the stockpiling and reclaim system have been
obtained and are included in the estimate.
Dredging will be required at Waini Point to allow the passage of the concentrate barges. A detailed
bathymetric survey of the Waini River mouth was conducted to evaluate the volume of dredging required.
3
To allow passage for the selected fleet, 4.5 Mm of material will need to be dredged. The dredging is
planned to be done by a specialized company in dredging.
A tug transfer pier is required near the mouth of the Waini River to moor the laden and empty barges
while they await the next available tug.

Table 21.10: Project Specifics Capital Expenditures
Description USD
520 Dredging and Canal 20,450,000
521 Dredging 18,850,000
525 Tug Transfer Pier 1,600,000

530 Port Kaituma Facilities 21,486,356
531 Workshop and Laydown 228,829
532 Gatehouse 65,755

533 Camp Facilities 734,507
534 Wharf 2,701,144
535 Concentrate Handling & Storage 17,642,521

536 Electrical Room 70,540
537 Fire Protection 43,060
Total 41,936,356
21.1.7 Process Plant and Related Infrastructures
The initial capital costs estimate for the processing facility is provided in Table 21.11. The estimate
includes labor, earthworks, concrete, structural steel, mechanical, piping, electrical, instrumentation and
architecture equipment.
Site preparation includes the preliminary earthworks for the processing facility
Quantities for the earthwork, concrete, structure, piping, electrical, instrumentation and architecture were
estimated by GMSI or under its supervision. Quantities for the earthwork, concrete, structure and
architecture of the processing facility were estimated by Met-Chem. Process equipment costs are based
on multiple source suppliers or in-house databases.
The list of mechanical equipment was derived from P & IDs. The scope starts with the ore feed hopper
and finishes at the rejects pumps. All related plant auxiliary services and reagents are also included.

Table 21.11: Processing Plant Capital Expenditures
Description USD
600 Process Plant General 4,165,499
601 - Site Preparation 4,080,499
607 Process Plant Capital Spares 85,000

610 Crushing and Ore Handling 3,104,914
611 - Primary Crusher 3,104,914
620 Washing 7,590,978
621 Scrubbing & Screening 6,278,942

624 Secondary Crushing 1,312,036
640 Rejects 4,331,459
642 Rejects Thickening 4,331,459

660 Jigging 8,091,937
661 Jigging 8,091,937
670 Concentrate Management 5,281,846
671 Concentrate Storage (Matthews Ridge) 5,281,846
680 Plant Services 1,487,926
681 Air Services 993,131

685 Flocculant 494,795
Total 34,054,558
21.1.8 Construction Indirects
Construction indirects include all the engineering activities and site construction management. Temporary
facilities are also included as well as tools and operating and maintenance costs for construction
equipment. These costs are presented on Table 21.12.

Table 21.12: Construction Indirects
Description USD
710 Engineering, CM. PM 12,692,710
711 Site CM Staff and Consultants 4,519,500
713 Canadian CM Staff and Consultants 688,310
715 External Engineering 5,017,500

716 Surveying 510,000
717 QA / QC 1,695,000
718 Commissioning / Vendors Reps 262,000

720 Construction Facilities & Services 7,743,636
721 - Fab Shops (carpenter, piping, rebar, elec. etc.). 233,816
722 Construction Temporary Services 398,654

723 Concrete Batch Plant 686,366
724 Toilets / Ablution Units 59,494
725 Aggregate Plant & Quarry 1,900,000

727 Construction Tools 1,641,000
728 Construction Equipment Operations 2,824,306
Total 20,436,346
21.1.9 General Services
General Services include all the support departments that will be staffed and organized to assist during
the development stage of the Project and will continue their functions during the operating phase; it
includes the following:
General Management.
Supply Chain.
Human Resources and Training.
Health and Safety.
Environment, Social Responsibility.
Security.

Information Technology.
Accounting and Finance.
Cost estimates are provided in Table 21.13.
All freight is estimated at 10% of valued materials and equipment. A 10% excise tax will be paid on the
purchases of fuel during the production period. According to the Mineral Agreement (2011), no other
costs, duties or government charges would be payable during construction.
Insurance costs of USD 320,000 are estimated at 0.25% of the total cost of material per year and cover
all liabilities and loss coverage during the construction period. The Project construction is estimated to
last 14 months.
Camp operating expenditures include food, lodging and inland transportation costs for all personnel
during pre-production for an estimated total of 268,000 man-days.
Temporary power costs include fuel and maintenance for power consumption at the camp sites as well as
the construction and plant needs for both sites (Matthews Ridge and Port Kaituma).

Table 21.13: General Services Expenditures
Description USD
810 Departments 4,466,307
811 General Administration 1,179,705
812 Supply Chain 649,965
813 HR & Training 395,730

814 ESR 840,174
815 Health & Safety 566,061
816 Security 434,323

818 IT 64,911
819 Accounting & Finance 335,438
820 Logistics / Taxes / Insurance 14,413,497
821 Freight 14,093,497
823 Insurance 320,000
830 Operating Expenses 11,320,341
831 Camp Opex 6,686,525

832 Travel & Transportation 2,748,229
833 Temporary Power Exp. 1,237,055
834 Road Maintenance 648,532

Total 30,200,145
21.1.10 Pre-Production and Commissioning Expenditures
Pre-production and commissioning expenditures are presented in Table 21.14.
The mining pre-production expenditures cover mine administration and technical services to supervise all
earthworks and pre-stripping activities. Mine access roads, pit and dump preparation and the pre-
production stripping and ore stockpiling are also included in this first area.
The process plant and power plant pre-production and commissioning expenditures include initial fills as
well as salaries and reagents and fuel during the commissioning and ramp-up period to commercial
production. Staffing and training of mill personnel is planned progressively in the three-month period
before commissioning.

A 10% contingency on all capital expenditures has been included. A credit of USD 5.9 M has been
attributed to the project expenditures for pre-production revenues related to the concentrates produced
during the commissioning of the plant.
Table 21.14: Pre-Production and Commissioning Expenditures
Description USD
910 - Mining Preproduction / Commissioning 5,579,189
911 Mine Administration 4,278,976

912 Mine Engineering 69,008
913 Mine Geology 60,464
917 Mine Operations Preproduction 1,170,741

950 Process Plant Preproduction / Commissioning (3,956,281)
955 Process Plant Management 534,770
956 Process Plant Commissioning 780,150
957 Power Plant Commissioning 615,981
958 First Fill 32,208
959 Preproduction revenues (5,919,390)

Contingency (10%) 21,723,798

Total 23,346,706
21.1.11 Exclusions
The following items are excluded from the capital cost estimate:
Escalation on materials.
Taxes and duties on imported goods and equipment during the construction period, as stipulated
in the Mineral Agreement.
Weather delays effects of extreme weather or loss of productivity due to environmental

considerations.
Lost time due to strikes or unrest including access to transportation routes.
Force majeure.

Salvage value for construction equipment.
Credit for construction materials remaining at the end of the construction period.
Corporate expenses.
21.2 Sustaining Capital
Sustaining capital is presented in Table 21.15 and is mainly required for the following:
Additional and replacement mining equipment.
Progressive dam construction of the rejects storage ponds.
Concentrate transportation road surface overhaul in Year 5.

Table 21.15: Sustaining Capital Costs
Sustaining Capital Cost

(000 USD)
16,59
Mobile Equipment - - 502 5,639 5,252 5,206 - - - -
9
Additional Equipment Purchase - - - 412 - 458 - - - -
Replacement Equipment Purchase - - 470 4,811 4,826 4,372 - - - -
Associated Costs (Freight, Assembly etc.) - - 32 416 426 375 - - - -
Process Infrastructure 1,742 1,742 1,404 1,142 - 308 - - - - 6,338
Rejects Storage Ponds 1,742 1,742 1,404 1,142 - 308 - - - -
Concentrate Transportation - - - - 2,000 - - - - - 2,000
Matthews Ridge to Port Kaituma Road Overhaul - - - - 2,000 - - - - -
24,93
Total Sustaining Capital Costs 1,742 1,742 1,906 6,781 7,252 5,514 - - - -
8

21.3 Closure Costs
Closure costs are estimated to be USD 8.0 M. The closure costs would cover the following activities:
Shaping of the haul roads.
Shaping of exploration drill pads.
Drill hole abandonment.
Contouring and revegetating of pits and borrow areas.
Opening spillway, shaping and re-vegetating the perimeter of the sedimentation ponds.
Contouring and revegetating of waste dumps, stockpiles and landfills.
Removal/demolition of facilities and contouring, revegetating of the pads.
Monitoring.
Progressive revegetation is planned to be performed concurrent to operations with the owners fleet of
equipment. The estimate for closure is derived from operations in similar environments.
21.4 Operating Costs
Operating costs (opex) are summarized in Table 21.16 and illustrated in Figure 21.1, are based on a
total of 26.1 Mt of ore milled during the operating period. This value excludes 65,771 tonnes processed
during pre-production.
Table 21.16: Operating Cost Summary
Total LOM Cost Unit Cost (USD/t

Item
(USD) Milled)
Mining 184,454,438 7.06
Processing 47,316,006 1.81

Power 61,525,268 2.36
General and Administration 85,340,588 3.27
Concentrate Transportation 260,260,894 9,97

Total 638,897,193 24.47

Figure 21.1: Operating Costs Summary
A summary of the total operating costs including mining, milling, power, G & A and concentrate
transportation as well as total cost per tonne milled is presented in Table 21.17.

Table 21.17: Total Operating Costs Summary (USD)
Mining 19,299,732 19,383,774 19,320,249 19,791,995 19,742,018 19,674,445 19,331,464 19,485,020 20.126,114 8,299,627 184,454,438
Processing 4,926,515 4,972,951 4,905,331 4,912,203 4,889,920 4,924,199 4,959,828 4,939,144 4,916,901 2,969,013 47,316,006
Power 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 3,794,588 61,525,268
General Services 10,089,163 9,099,175 8,791,377 8,791,378 8,793,834 8,813,892 8,836,406 8,661,407 8,570,491 4,893,464 85,340,588
Concentrate
27,869,410 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 26,678,620 13,728,374 260,260,894
Transportation
Total Opex 68,599,341 67,296,399 66,857,456 67,336,074 67,268,912 67,253,034 66,968,196 66,926,068 66,706,646 33,685,066 638,897,193
Total Cost/Tonne
25.97 21.61 27.37 26.82 29.49 25.57 21.40 22.75 22.96 22.24 24.47
Milled
Total Cost/Tonne
91.47 89.73 89.14 89.78 89.69 89.67 89.29 89.23 88.94 85.06 88.59
Concentrate

21.4.1 Mining Costs
As described in Section 16, a detailed mining estimate was developed from base cost elements such as
labor costs, consumable prices, fuel prices and equipment productivities.
Equipment operating costs were estimated for each equipment model, which includes operation and
maintenance labor and parts, fuel consumption, lubricant consumption, ground engaging tools or tire
usage if applicable. Equipment operating costs were validated from various sources including primarily
information from the major suppliers, benchmark information from existing operations in similar
environment and from INFOMINE cost estimators guide as a last resort.
The labor cost is based on the assumption that 70% of all hourly mining personnel will be flying in to
Matthews Ridge, and the remaining 30% will be hired in the local communities (Port Kaituma and
Matthews Ridge). It is estimated that 90% of maintenance employees will originate from other regions of
Guyana as more experienced and skilled workforce is required.
The fuel price estimate has been calculated based on a long-term Brent crude oil price assumption of
USD 100/bbl. Three fuel costs were identified for the project, which reflect different locations and
milestones in the Project progress:
Fuel cost @ Port Kaituma estimated at USD 0.99/L.
Fuel cost @ Matthews Ridge during construction estimated at USD 1.02/L.
Fuel cost @ Mathews Ridge during operation, estimated at USD 1.00/L.
The reason for the existence of two different fuel costs at Matthews Ridge is explained by the volume of
fuel transported during construction (4.7 M litres) and during operations (10.3 M litres annually).
Furthermore, the road used during construction will cause higher fuel transportation costs than the
concentrate transportation road used during operations.
The average LOM mining cost is USD 2.73/t mined including re-handling cost. Labor, fuel and
maintenance parts are the dominant cost centers representing respectively 38%, 23% and 14% of mining
costs. Table 21.18 presents the breakdown of mining costs by department while Table 21.19 presents the
major cost drivers for the mine department.

Table 21.18: Mining Cost Summary Total (USD)
Mining Costs Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Total
Tonnages Mined (kt) 7,473 8,160 7,702 7,622 6,861 6,344 6,466 7,180 7,388 2,256 67,451
Grade Control 122,686 122,686 122,686 122,686 122,686 122,686 122,686 122,686 122,686 49,074 1,153,246
Production Drilling 1,269,195 1,364,834 1,255,878 1,385,623 1,537,621 1,443,184 1,269,043 1,320,660 1,425,056 540,599 12,811,693
Blasting 455,442 535,767 610,068 922,262 767,709 758,826 452,682 432,536 768,620 617,360 6,321,272
Hauling 5,473,916 5,462,388 5,462,388 5,462,388 5,473,916 5,852,559 5,852,559 5,852,559 5,864,909 2,341 372 53,098,954
Loading 2,442,859 2,560,671 2,537,904 2,560,671 2,488,524 2,149,915 2,287,472 2,401,305 2,566,128 975,925 22,971,372
Ancillary 4,452,485 4,443,863 4,443,863 4,443,863 4,452,485 4,443,863 4,443,863 4,443,863 4,452,485 1,777,755 41,798,385
Engineering 828,096 828,096 828,096 828,096 828,096 828,096 828,096 828,096 828,096 331,239 7,784,105
Geology 725,563 725,563 725,563 725,563 725,563 725,563 725,563 725,563 725,563 290,225 6,820,292
Maintenance Admin 2,304,020 2,114,434 2,108,331 2,115,372 2,119,947 2,122,593 2,120,653 2,128,904 2,143,724 853,039 20,131,017
Mine Ops Admin 1,225,472 1,225,472 1,225,472 1,225,472 1,225,472 1,227,160 1,228,847 1,228,847 1,228,847 523,039 11,564,101
Total Mining Cost 19,299,732 19,383,774 19,320,249 19,791,995 19,742,018 19,674,445 19,331,464 19,485,020 20,126,114 8,299,627 184,454,438
Total Cost/ tonne mined 2.60 2.36 2.51 2.60 2.88 3.10 2.99 2.71 2.72 3.68 2.73

Figure 21.2: Mining Cost Summary

Table 21.19: Top Three Mining Costs
Top Three Mining Costs

(USD/t)
Tonnages Mined(kt) 7,473 8,160 7,702 7,622 6,861 6,344 6,466 7,180 7,388 2,256 67,451
Labor 1.01 0.91 0.96 0.97 1.08 1.17 1.15 1.04 1.02 1.32 1.04
Fuel 0.61 0.56 0.59 0.60 0.67 0.72 0.71 0.65 0.64 0.83 0.64
Parts and Repairs 0.36 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.38
Other 0.60 0.57 0.60 0.67 0.73 0.78 0.70 0.64 0.68 1.03 0.67
Total Mining Cost (USD/t) 2.58 2.38 2.51 2.60 2.88 3.10 2.99 2.71 2.72 3.68 2.73
Figure 21.3: Major Mining Costs

21.4.2 Processing Costs
The process operating cost estimate is for a plant capable of processing 2.73 Mt/y. The power
requirements and reagents have been determined from the preliminary equipment sizing performed for
this Project.
The components to the process plant operating cost consist of labor, reagents and consumables, ore
handling and maintenance. Power consumption is excluded from the estimate; Section 21.4.3 provides
the estimate related to power consumption.
Reagents costs include only flocculent consumption. Flocculent consumption was estimated from other
projects with similar material. Settling tests using Matthews Ridge ore will be required during the next
stage of the Project to confirm assumptions. Consumable estimates include spares and repairs of
equipment, both at Matthews Ridge and at Port Kaituma.
The local labor cost is based on three crews. The work schedule being four weeks at 12 h/d followed by
two weeks leave. The expatriate schedule will be 30 days of work (12 h/d) followed by 26 days leave.
The labor cost is based on the assumption that 90% of all the process and power plant employees will be
flying in to Matthews Ridge, and the remaining 10% will be hired from local communities.
The employee numbers are based on the number of personnel required to supervise and conduct the
operational activities per sector based on similar operations in the Guyana Shield and West Africa. The
labor cost used is consistent with similar mining operations in Guyana. The management philosophy
requires having on site all personnel required for the operation and maintenance of the plant, and
minimizing the use of contracted services.
Total yearly processing costs, excluding power, are presented in Table 21.20 and average USD 1.81/t
processed over the mine life.

Table 21.20: Total Yearly Processing Costs (USD)
Processing Costs (excl.

power)
Tonnes Milled 2,644 3,114 2,443 2,511 2,281 2,630 3,130 2,941 2,906 1,515 26,114
Operating Labour 1,282,632 1,282,632 1,282,632 1,282,632 1,282,632 1,282,632 1,282,632 1,282,632 1,282,632 790,663 12,334,349
Maintenance Labour 988,916 988,916 988,916 988,916 988,916 988,916 988,916 988,916 988,916 609,606 9,509,846
Metallurgical and Labs

671,290 671,290 671,290 671,290 671,290 671,290 671,290 671,290 671,290 413,809 6,455,416
Labour
Ore Handling 517,182 516,250 516,250 516,250 517,182 516,250 516,250 516,250 1,282,632 268,733 4,917,778
Maintenance and Supplies 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200 000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 775,890 11,575,890
Flocculent 266,496 313,864 246,244 253,116 229,901 265,112 300,741 280,057 256,881 110,312 2,522,725
Total Process Costs 4,926,515 4,972,951 4,905,331 4,912,203 4,889,920 4,924,199 4,959,828 4,939,144 4,916,901 2,969,013 47,316,006
Processing Cost (USD/t) 1.86 1.60 2.01 1.96 2.14 1.87 1.58 1.68 1.69 1.96 1.81

21.4.3 Power Costs
The thermal efficiency of the high speed diesel generators is 3.65kWh/L. The energy cost formula for the
Matthews Ridge Project is:
Energy Cost at Port Kaituma (USD/kWh) = [0.274 (L/kWh) x LFO-PK (USD/L)
Energy Cost at Matthews Ridge during construction (USD/kWh) = [0.274 (L/kWh) x LFO-MRC (USD/L)
Energy Cost at Matthews Ridge during operation (USD/kWh) = [0.274 (L/kWh) x LFO-MR (USD/L)
Where,
0.274 L/kWh is the inverse of the thermal efficiency of the high speed diesel generators for LFO.
LFO-PK (USD/L) is the fuel cost at Port Kaituma, equal to USD 0.9937/L with a Brent of
USD 100/bbl.
LFO-MRC (USD/L) is the fuel cost at Matthews Ridge during construction, which is equal to
USD 1.02/L with a Brent of USD 100/bbl.
LFO-MR (USD/L) is the fuel cost at Matthews Ridge during operation, which is equal to
USD 1.00/L with a Brent of USD 100/bbl.
Therefore, the energy cost due to fuel consumption is USD 0.30/kWh. The total operating cost of the
power plant, including labor, lube oil and maintenance parts is summarized in Table 21.21.

Table 21.21: Power Plant Operating Costs (USD)
Operating Year Units Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Total
Tonnes Milled ktpy 2,644 3,114 2,443 2,511 2,281 2,630 3,130 2,941 2,906 1,515 26,114
Total Yearly Energy kWh 18,600,000 18,600,000 18,600,000 18,600,000 18,600,000 18,600,000 18,600,000 18,600,000 18,600,000 9,835,068 177,235,068
Labour USD 325,749 325,749 325,749 325,749 325,749 325,749 325,749 325,749 325,749 200,804 3,132,546
Fuel USD 5,592,120 5,592,120 5,592,120 5,592,120 5,592,120 5,592,120 5,592,120 5,592,120 5,592,120 3,359,730 53,688,810
Maintenance USD 496,651 496,651 496,651 496,651 496,651 496,651 496,651 496,651 496,651 567,054 4,703,912
Total Power Cost USD 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 3,794,522 61,525,268
USD
Power Cost 2.43 2.06 2.63 2.55 2.81 2.44 2.05 2.18 2.21 2.21 2.36
/t milled

21.4.4 General Services
General Services include general management, accounting and finance, IT, environmental and social
management, human resources, supply chain, camp, surface support, health and safety, security and
operating cost of the various supply chain equipment. In most cases, these services represent fixed costs
for the site as a whole. The General Services costs exclude certain costs such as transport of
concentrates and environmental rehabilitation costs.
The labor cost regarding General Services is based on the following assumptions.
Table 21.22: General Services Labor Costs Assumptions
Hourly Employees
Hourly Employees
Department from Local
Flying in
Communities
ESR 0% 100%
Supply Chain/Warehousing 0% 100%

Kitchen 30% 70%
Housing/Laundry 0% 100%
Surface Support 0% 100%

Transport Concentrate/Supply Chain 70% 30%
A summary of G&A costs is presented in Table 21.23. Reduction in expatriate labor during the first two
years of operations explains the decreasing costs. Also, Year 10 is only a partial year of operation.

Table 21.23: General Services & Administration Cost Summary (USD)
General Management 1,188,928 1,188,928 1,188,928 1,188,928 1,188,928 1,188,928 1,188,928 1,188,928 1,188,928 657,412 11,357,763
Accounting & Finance 309,635 309,635 24,153 24,153 24,153 24,153 24,153 24,153 24,153 12,771 801,110
HR and Training 282,597 282,597 282,597 282,597 282,597 282,597 282,597 107,597 107,597 56,894 2,250,264
ESR 424,670 97,325 97,325 97,325 97,325 97,325 97,325 97,325 97,325 51,462 1,254,734
Health and Safety 278,055 276,930 276,805 276,805 276,805 277,180 277,555 277,555 213,180 74,651 2,505,523
Security 400,913 400,913 400,913 400,913 400,913 400,913 400,913 400,913 400,913 211,990 3,820,208
IT 134,598 134,599 134,600 134,601 134,598 134,603 134,604 134,605 105,606 55, 842 1,238,255
Supply Chain 630,968 630,968 630,968 630,968 630,968 630,968 630,968 630,968 630,968 333,635 6,012,347
Camp and Transportation 4,400,749 3,962,084 3,939,892 3,939,892 3,939,892 3,962,030 3,984,167 3,984,167 3,984,167 2,106,697 38,203,736
Surface Support 471,180 250,785 250,785 250,785 250,785 250,785 250,785 250,785 250,785 250,785 2,728,242
Support/Supply Chain
1,566,870 1,564,412 1,564,412 1,564,412 1,566,870 1,564,412 1,564,412 1,564,412 1,566,870 1,081,326 15,168,407
Equipment
Total - G&A 10,089,163 9,099,175 8,791,377 8,791,378 8,793,834 8,813,892 8,836,406 8,661,407 8,570,491 4,893,464 85,340,588
Cost/t Milled 3.82 2.92 3.60 3.50 3.86 3.35 2.82 2.94 2.95 3.23 3.27

21.4.5 Concentrate Transportation
21.4.5.1 Matthews Ridge Land Concentrate Transportation
The concentrate transportation between Matthews Ridge and Port Kaituma is based on the use of road
trains as per the recommendations from Worley Parsons (2012) in their Transportation Pre-feasibility
tradeoff analysis report.
Based on the yearly hauling requirements to Port Kaituma, it has been decided to operate two shifts of
10 hours, using 4x road trains of 140 t capacity. Each road train consists of one tractor pulling 4x side-
dump trailers of 35 t each (Figure 21.4). Each road train will be operated by one driver, and one driver
helper. The helpers tasks will, among other things, consist of acting as a spotter, handling of the tarps to
protect from precipitation, and activating the unloading system at Port Kaituma. More details on the
concentrate transportation road design and details can be found in Section 18.9.
At Port Kaituma, the re-handling of the concentrate product is to be done by a wheel loader. The product
will be loaded on a conveyor and stockpiled into the storage building.
Figure 21.4: Road Train Example
A summary of the inland costs are presented in the Table 21.24.

Table 21.24: Land Concentrate Road Transportation Operating Costs
Operating Year Units Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Total
Tonnes Produced tpy 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 396,000 7,146,000
Labour USD 1,339,648 898,858 898,858 898,858 898,858 898,858 898,858 898,858 898,858 510 407 9,040,923
Fuel USD 458,215 457,036 457,036 457,036 458,215 457,036 457,036 457,036 458,215 241,649 4,358,512
Maintenance USD 571,547 570,084 570,084 570,084 571,547 570,084 570,084 570,084 571,547 303,360 5,438,501
Total Concentrate Road

USD 2,369,410 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,928,620 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,928,620 1,055,416 18,837,936
Transportation
Concentrate Road
USD/t 3.16 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.66 2,64
Transportation Cost

21.4.5.2 Manganese Concentrate Marine Freight Costs
A specialized maritime firm will perform all marine transportation of the manganese concentrate from Port
Kaituma, Guyana to a vessel transshipment station in Trinidad. Furthermore, the firm will arrange
transportation of the concentrate to final destination ports.
The Q2 2013 quoted cost received from the specialized firm to perform the tug/barge/transship operation
is USD 32/t. of concentrate. As explained in Section 19, quotes were also received to provide ocean
freight to final destination. Ocean freight costs from Trinidad to various destinations are presented in
Table 21.25.
Table 21.25: Ocean Freight Rate Based FOB Trinidad
40,000 Mt Shipment
USD / t
SUPRA
USA 14.75
Mexico 13.00
Europe 17.50
China 48.00
India 43.00
Venezuela 5.00
To ensure that the dredged channel remains navigable, a provision of USD 1.5 M has been included for
yearly maintenance dredging of the Waini River mouth. The maintenance dredging cost requirement
represents approximately 10% of the capital expenditures for the initial channel.
Costs related to concentrate shipping from Port Kaituma to Trinidad have been summarized in
Table 21.26.

Table 21.26: Concentrate Shipping Costs Summary (USD)
Inland Transportation 2,369,410 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,928,620 1,925,978 1,925,978 9,925,978 9,928,620 1,055,416 18,837,963
Marine Freight 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 12,672,952 228,672,958
Dredging 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 750,000 - 12,750,000
Total Concentrate
27,869,410 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,428,620 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,425,978 27,678,620 13,728,374 260,260,894
Transportation
Total Cost/Tonne
37.16 36.57 36.57 36.57 36.57 36.57 36.57 36.57 35.57 34.66 36.42
Concentrate
Figure 21.5: Concentrate Shipping Summary

22. ECONOMIC ANALYSES
22.1 Methodology
The financial analysis is based on the net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR)
of all project cash flows starting with the project approval and development release. Estimated
expenditures of USD 45 M for cumulative exploration and technical studies are not included in the
project cash flows, but are considered as loss-carried forward in the income tax calculations
The financial models detail manganese concentrate production and revenues, royalty payments,
operating costs, capital costs, sustaining capital, working capital, closure and reclamation costs,
taxation and net project cash flow.
The financial analysis is performed on an after tax basis in constant dollar terms as of 2
nd
Quarter 2013 (Q2 2013), with the cash flows estimated on a project basis.
22.2 Key Assumptions
The key economic assumptions include the price of manganese concentrate, the price of diesel
fuel, the cost of dry bulk freight and the Guyana dollar to US dollar exchange rate.
As detailed in Section 19, the base price for manganese concentrate was determined at
USD 6.00 per dry metric tonne unit (dmtu).
The local delivered price of fuel is linked to the crude oil price. Brent crude oil price for the Base
Case is USD 100/bbl. From that basis, the landed diesel fuel price in Georgetown, Guyana is
estimated at USD 0.91/L to which further barging and land transportation costs are added.
Pricing for diesel to the Georgetown depot and delivered fuel price inclusive of duties were
established as follows:
Brent crude oil price: USD 100/bbl.
Diesel price at Georgetown: USD 0.91/L.
Diesel price at Port Kaituma: USD 0.99/L.
Diesel price at Matthews Ridge: USD 1.02/L during construction.
Diesel price at Matthews Ridge: USD 1.00/L during operations.

Quotations for dry bulk freight costs were received from bulk freight providers and are based on
Q2 2013 rates. Freight rates for other destinations were derived based on these same quotations
and distances from the origin. Table 22.1 provides freight rates from Trinidad by destination
assuming a supramax vessel.
Table 22.1: Dry Bulk Freight Rates ex-Trinidad
Destination USD/t
Qinzhou 48.00
Paradip 43.00
New Orleans 14.75
Tampico 13.00
Europe 17.50
Table 22.2 provides the exchange rates used to estimate the capital and operating costs in USD.
Table 22.2: Exchange Rates
Currency Abbreviation Rate
Canadian Dollar CAD 1.00
Guyana Dollar GYD 200
22.3 Capital Expenditures
The capital expenditures include initial capital, sustaining capital and working capital. The initial
and sustaining capital expenditures have been fully detailed in Section 21.
The initial Project capital cost amounts to USD 233.0 M including a contingency of USD 21.7 M.
The sustaining capital is estimated at USD 24.9 M and is mainly for additional and replacement
mining equipment, development of the rejects pond and a major overhaul of the concentrate road
surface.
Working capital was derived from estimates based on similar sized operations, expected product
inventory levels and expected Incoterms for the sale of concentrate. The working capital is
presented in Table 22.3 along with the basis of estimate.

Table 22.3: Working Capital
Year -1 Year 1
Working Capital Basis of Estimate Total
USD USD
2 weeks of fuel -436,228

Supplies Inventory
12 weeks other supplies -3,456,615
Product Inventory 65,700 t at cost -5,913,000
2 weeks for labor 694,413
Payables 4 weeks for services 1,863,385
4 weeks for material 2,024,662

Revenue on concentrate en
Receivables -10,172,250
route
Total Working Capital -7,086,768 -8,308,865 -15,395,634
22.4 Metal Production and Revenues
22.4.1 Manganese Concentrate Production
Total LOM production of manganese concentrate from the Matthews Ridge Project is estimated
at 7,212,000 t of which 4,449,000 t is a lump product and 2,763,000 t is a fine product.
Figure 22.1 and Figure 22.2 present the annual concentrate production profile for each product.
Figure 22.3 presents the total concentrate production profile.
Figure 22.1: Annual Lump Concentrate Production

Figure 22.2: Annual Fine Concentrate Production
Figure 22.3: Total Concentrate Production
22.4.2 Gross Revenues
Gross revenues are estimated at just over USD 1,237 M considering a base case benchmark
price of USD 6.00/dmtu CIF China, a 10% discount for fine concentrate and a further 2% discount
for VIU on both products. After deduction of the estimated freight costs, this results in a weighted
average gross revenue of USD 173.17/t of concentrate FOB Trinidad.

22.5 Royalties
As established in the Mineral Agreement, the Matthews Ridge Project is subject to a fixed royalty
of 1.5% of gross revenue.
22.6 Operating Costs
22.6.1 Mining Costs
Mine operating costs were estimated for all mining related activities from first principles.
Operating efficiency factors are aligned with industry standards with major equipment planned to
operate at approximately 5,000 h/d.
The average LOM mining cost is USD 2.73/t mined, including re-handling costs. Some
640 kt tonnes will be mined in pre-production. The total mining costs by activity are presented in
Table 22.4;
Table 22.4 Mining Cost by Activity
USD/t % of
Activity M USD
Mined Costs
Drilling 12,812 0.19 6.95
Blasting 6,321 0.09 3.43
Loading 22,971 0.34 12.45
Hauling 53,099 0.79 28.79
Support and Ancillary 41,798 0.62 22.66
Engineering and Geology 15,758 0.23 8.54
Management and Supervision 31,695 0.47 17.18
Total 184,454 2.73 100%
22.6.2 Processing and Power Costs
The processing and power costs are provided in greater detail in Sections 21.4.2 and 21.4.3. The
average unit processing costs are presented in Table 22.5.

The power rate used to calculate operating costs is USD 0.30/kWh. Power generation is planned
to be performed with diesel fuel and the cost is based on a Brent crude oil price of USD 100/bbl.
The average unit power costs are presented in Table 22.6.
Table 22.5: Unit Processing Costs
Description USD /t
Labour 1.08
Ore Handling 0.19
Materials and Reagents 0.44
Maintenance and Supplies 0.10

Total 1.81
Table 22.6: Unit Power Costs
Description USD /t
Labour 0.12
Fuel 2.06
Maintenance and Supplies 0.18

Total 2.36
22.6.3 General Services Costs
The General Services cost estimate is built from first principles. The annual budget is estimated
at USD 8.8 M. Details are presented in Section 21.
22.6.4 Concentrate Transportation Costs
Infrastructure required to transport the concentrate is presented in Section 18 and the details of
the transportation costs are located in Section 21. The average cost to transport the concentrate
overland by road train is estimated at USD 2.61/t of concentrate. The average cost to barge the
concentrate to Trinidad, transship into a handymax / supramax size vessel and perform the
maintenance dredging of the channel is estimated at USD 33.48/t of concentrate.
22.6.5 Operating Costs Summary
The total operating costs per tonne of concentrate is calculated at USD 88.59/t as summarized in
Table 22.7.

22.7 Closure Costs
The closure and rehabilitation cost was estimated at USD 8 M as detailed in Section 21. This
amount is considered sufficient as a great deal of the infrastructure will continue to serve the local
communities post-closure.
22.8 Taxation
The taxation regime applicable to Matthews Ridge is established in the Mineral Agreement signed
on March 24, 2011 between Reunion Manganese, the Republic of Guyana and the Guyana
Geology and Mines Commission.
As stated in the Mineral Agreement, during the exploration and development phase, the Project is
exonerated of any taxes on supplies imported directly by RMI or acquired for the Project.
After commencement of commercial production, RMI will have to pay an Excise Tax of 10% on
petroleum products used in the operations. The corporate income tax rate applicable to RMI is
set at 30%. Capital expenditures will be depreciated annually at 20% per year.
22.9 Financial Results
22.9.1 Base Case
The base case financial results and estimated cash flows after royalties and taxes are detailed in
Table 22.7 and summarized in Table 22.8. As can be seen, the base case demonstrates a
discounted (8%) Net Present Value of USD 81.4M, an Internal Rate of Return of 15.7% and a
payback period of 4.4 years.

Table 22.7: Matthews Ridge Financial Model (1 of 2)

Pre-Production Production
PROJECT TIMELINE 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL
A - PRODUCTION PLAN
TONNES MINED
Total Tonnage 640,000 7,473,365 8,159,929 7,701,762 7,621,834 6,860,950 6,344,065 6,465,758 7,179,603 7,388,257 2,255,942 68,091,465
Total Waste Rock Tonnage 460,962 4,828,839 5,044,387 5,257,763 5,009,106 4,084,517 3,227,588 3,482,218 4,401,265 4,839,830 1,161,574 41,798,047
Strip Ratio 2.57 1.83 1.62 2.15 1.92 1.47 1.04 1.17 1.58 1.90 1.06 1.590
TONNES MILLED 179,038 2,643,811 3,113,733 2,442,901 2,511,070 2,280,767 2,630,081 3,129,743 2,941,427 2,905,954 1,514,893 26,293,418
Mass Pull - Lump Concentrate % 23.6% 17.5% 14.1% 18.5% 18.1% 20.2% 17.7% 15.2% 16.1% 16.3% 16.4%
Tonnes of Lump Concentrate Obtained 42,249 463,547 439,063 452,955 454,190 459,835 465,371 475,079 473,549 475,090 247,705 4,448,631
Lump Concentrate Grade % Mn 39.9% 39.0% 38.4% 39.4% 39.1% 39.7% 39.2% 38.9% 39.3% 39.2% 38.5%
Mass Pull - Fine Concentrate % 13.1% 10.8% 10.0% 12.2% 11.8% 12.7% 10.8% 8.8% 9.4% 9.5% 9.8%
Tonnes of Fine Concentrate Obtained 23,522 286,453 310,937 297,045 295,810 290,165 284,629 274,921 276,451 274,910 148,325 2,763,170
Fine Concentrate Grade % Mn 37.0% 36.4% 35.9% 36.6% 36.5% 37.0% 36.4% 36.2% 36.4% 36.3% 36.2%
TOTAL TONNES CONCENTRATE / SELLABLE TONNES 65,771 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 396,030 7,211,801

Table 22.7: Matthews Ridge Financial Model (2 of 2)
Pre-Production Production
PROJECT TIMELINE 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL
B - OPERATING RESULTS
Price Forecsat FOB Trinidad
Lump Concentrate at 39-40% 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.07 5.11 5.06 5.03 5.06 5.05 5.03
Fine Concentrate at 36-37% 3.67 3.62 3.67 3.66 3.71 3.67 3.65 3.67 3.66 3.70
REVENUES Total 129,632,811 125,732,253 130,470,776 129,611,435 133,092,308 130,313,829 129,154,224 131,064,940 130,529,013 67,883,533 1,237,485,123
$/tonne 173 168 174 173 177 174 172 175 174 171 173.17
COSTS
Mine 19,299,732 19,383,774 19,320,249 19,791,995 19,742,018 19,674,445 19,331,464 19,485,020 20,126,114 8,299,627 184,454,438
Process 4,926,515 4,972,951 4,905,331 4,912,203 4,889,920 4,924,199 4,959,828 4,939,144 4,916,901 2,969,013 47,316,006
Power Plant 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 6,414,520 3,794,588 61,525,268
G&A 10,089,163 9,099,175 8,791,377 8,791,378 8,793,834 8,813,892 8,836,406 8,661,407 8,570,491 4,893,464 85,340,588
Land Transport 2,369,410 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,928,620 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,925,978 1,928,620 1,055,416 18,837,936
Ocean Transport 25,500,000 25,500,000 25,500,000 25,500,000 25,500,000 25,500,000 25,500,000 25,500,000 24,750,000 12,672,958 241,422,958
Royalties (1.5% of Revenue) 1,944,492 1,885,984 1,957,062 1,944,172 1,996,385 1,954,707 1,937,313 1,965,974 1,957,935 1,018,253 18,562,277
Closure 3,000,000 5,000,000 8,000,000
TOTAL 70,543,833 69,182,382 68,814,517 69,280,246 69,265,297 69,207,742 68,905,509 68,892,043 71,664,581 39,703,319 665,459,470
OPERATING CASH FLOW - - 59,088,978 56,549,871 61,656,259 60,331,190 63,827,012 61,106,087 60,248,715 62,172,897 58,864,431 28,180,214 572,025,653
Operating cost per tonne (excl Royalty and Closure) 91.47 89.73 89.14 89.78 89.69 89.67 89.29 89.23 88.94 85.06 88.59
CAPITAL Construction -33,279,911 -199,679,468 -232,959,379

Working Capital -7,086,768 -8,308,865 15,395,634 0
Sustaining -1,742,278 -1,742,278 -1,905,853 -6,781,430 -7,251,769 -5,514,109 0 0 0 0 -24,937,716
NET CASH FLOW - BEFORE TAXES -33,279,911 -206,766,236 49,037,835 54,807,593 59,750,406 53,549,760 56,575,243 55,591,978 60,248,715 62,172,897 58,864,431 43,575,848 314,128,558
C - INCOME TAXES
Operating Cash Flow 59,088,978 56,549,871 61,656,259 60,331,190 63,827,012 61,106,087 60,248,715 62,172,897 58,864,431 28,180,214 572,025,653
Depreciation and Amortization - 59,088,978 - 56,549,871 - 61,656,259 - 60,331,190 - 49,204,267 - 3,884,721 - 4,639,088 - 4,290,632 - 3,909,462 - 3,655,997 -307,210,464
Taxable income - - - - - - 14,622,745 57,221,366 55,609,627 57,882,265 54,954,970 24,524,217 264,815,189
Income Taxes 30% - - - - - - - 4,386,824 - 17,166,410 - 16,682,888 - 17,364,680 - 16,486,491 - 7,357,265 -79,444,557
D - ANALYSIS
NET CASH FLOW - AFTER TAXES -33,279,911 -206,766,236 49,037,835 54,807,593 59,750,406 53,549,760 52,188,419 38,425,568 43,565,826 44,808,218 42,377,940 36,218,583 234,684,001
0.439
NPV
Pre-tax
discount rate 8.0% -33,067,156 -197,688,967 43,412,055 44,925,822 45,349,490 37,632,694 36,813,784 33,494,415 33,611,222 32,115,440 28,154,120 19,297,946 124,050,866
Post-tax
discount rate 8.0% -33,067,156 -197,688,967 43,412,055 44,925,822 45,349,490 37,632,694 33,959,257 23,151,577 24,304,264 23,145,706 20,268,838 16,039,717 81,433,297
Project IRR 15.7%

Table 22.8: Financial Results
Description Units Base Case
Total Concentrate Produced (000 t) 7,212

Mine Life (y) 9.5
Gross Revenue USD 1,237 M
Operating Costs (including royalty) USD 657 M

Initial Capital USD 233 M
Sustaining Capital USD 24.9 M
Closure Costs USD 8.0 M

Income Taxes USD 79.4 M
NPV (0%) USD 234.7 M
NPV (8%) USD 81.4 M
Payback Period years 4.4
IRR % 15.7%
22.9.2 Financial Sensitivities
Sensitivities to certain key parameters were undertaken in the financial model to quantify impacts to the
Base Case results. The sensitivity to manganese benchmark price can be viewed on Table 22.9:
Table 22.9: Manganese Benchmark Price Sensitivity
Manganese Price
5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75
(USD/dmtu CIF China)
NPV (8%) After Tax (USD M) -10.4 20.1 51.2 81.4 111.4 141.0 170.5
IRR After Tax 7.0% 10.0% 12.9% 15.7% 18.4% 21.0% 23.6%
Sensitivities to initial Capex, Operating Costs and ocean freight rates are presented in Table 22.10,
Table 22.11 and Table 22.12 respectively:
Table 22.10: Initial CAPEX Sensitivity
Initial CAPEX (USD M) 200 210 220 233.0 240 250 260
NPV (8%) After Tax (USD M) 106.7 99.0 91.4 81.4 76.0 68.3 60.5
IRR After Tax 19.4% 18.2% 17.0% 15.7% 15.0% 14.1% 13.2%

Table 22.11: Operating Cost Sensitivity
Operating Cost
79.00 82.50 85.00 88.59 91.00 93.50 96.00
(USD/tonne concentrate)
NPV (8%) After Tax (USD M) 117.4 105.5 97 81.4 76.7 68.3 59.7
IRR After Tax 19.0% 17.9% 17.2% 15.7% 15.3% 14.5% 13.7%
Table 22.12: Ocean Freight Cost Sensitivity
Base
Shipping Cost Ranges -20% -10% +10% +20%
Case
NPV (8%) After Tax (USD M) 100.8 91.1 81.4 71.7 62.0
IRR After Tax 17.5% 16.6% 15.7% 14.8% 13.9%
Of the above sensitivities, the assumed price of manganese ore has the largest impact on the overall
project economics. The project requires a benchmark manganese price of approximately USD 5.30/dmtu
CIF china (44% Mn) in order to maintain a positive Net Present Value when discounted at 8%.

23. ADJACENT PROPERTIES
The current records of mineral titles at the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) inform that
all properties adjacent to those held by Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI) are for prospecting and mining
for gold. All current gold mining operations occurring in the PL areas are centered along the flats of the
creeks and rivers. There are no adjacent properties for manganese.

24. OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
24.1 Project Implementation
24.1.1 Project Development Organisation
The project development strategy considers that Reunion Manganese Inc. (RMI) will hire a project
management consultant (PMC) who will act on behalf of the owner. The PMC will manage and
supervise the engineering consultants.
The PMC will also execute the following responsibilities:
Procurement tasks for all equipment and supplies.

Logistics tasks.
Project controls.
Process all accounts payable documentation.
Scheduling.
Figure 24.1 shows the project management organizational chart and Figure 24.2 presents the on-site
construction management team organizational chart.
Figure 24.1: Project Management Organizational Chart

Figure 24.2: Construction Management

24.1.2 Project Controls
The Project will be managed and controlled with the assistance of an earned-value project control
methodology. The following software tools are used to support the project execution.
Autodesk Buzzsaw (Buzzsaw) is a data management service that provides for the sharing of all relevant
project data and information, such as drawings and specifications, with all project stakeholders the
owner, the project development team, engineers, consultants, suppliers, auditors, insurers, and
contractors. Buzzsaw is also used to manage all documentation related to procurement bid documents,
proposals, technical documentation and manuals. Access to the Buzzsaw services is managed with a
flexible system of access controls and protocols, such that each project stakeholders can only access or
upload data pertaining to their scope of project involvement.
ARES Corporation Prism Project Manager (Prism) is a construction job cost system used to budget and
track all project costs through all phases of the project. Prism interfaces with the project scheduling
software, Microsoft Project, in order to perform standard budget variance and earned value progress
reports. Prism also interfaces with the accounting system to evaluate actual costs and labour hours for
project tracking, and to forecast project estimate to complete (ETC) costs.
24.1.3 Procurement and Logistics
The PMC will purchase all material for the Project. This enables direct control over the procurement
budget and schedule. The team performs equipment technical reviews and negotiations, analyses the
total delivered cost, issues recommendations and produces the purchase orders or contractual
documents upon owners approval. The team coordinates logistics and assists suppliers. Freight
forwarding is managed dynamically to minimize the freight transit times and avoid transportation issues.
24.1.4 Construction
The PMC will provide the site construction management team and supplement the site staff with
resources if required. Personnel that is planned to be kept after the pre-production period and become
operations key personnel, will be directly hired by the owner.
Lump sum contracts will be considered when practical and cost reimbursable contracts will be awarded
when preferable.

The owner will supply a 70 t crane and a 55 t crane, a 26 t boom-truck and a three telehandlers. The
equipment will be operated by RMI employees. The owner will be responsible for all general lifting tasks
on site.
The owner will purchase and setup a batch plant on site. All concrete requirements for the Project will be
produced by the owner on site. Aggregate for construction will be produced in the vicinity of the Project by
an RMI-owned aggregate plant. Sand and cement will be barged in from Georgetown.
The mine fleet will also be charged with earthwork during construction and pre-production. Mine
equipment will be owned by RMI and operated by its operators.
Guyanese construction workers will be hired by the Project. Some specialized expatriate workers will be
provided by contractors in North America.
The camp will be operated by the owner and will cater for the workforce during construction.
24.2 Construction Schedule
The construction schedule is presented in Figure 24.3. The Project construction is expected to last
14 months, from the beginning of mobilization of the construction team to site. Detailed engineering of the
processing plant is estimated to last seven months.
The critical path of the project is caused by the construction of the concentrate haul road. Long lead items
include the jigs (30 weeks), the scrubber (22 weeks), the concentrate stacking and reclaim system
(48 weeks), and the purchase and delivery of tugs and barges (12-14 months).
The mine equipment will be required during the first days of the construction schedule to avoid delays on
the completion of the concentrate haul road.
The construction schedule is based on the assumption that all financing and permits required to start the
construction works have been obtained. The commissioning schedule also assumes that all permits to
start production have been received prior to the plant commissioning.

Figure 24.3: Construction Schedule

24.3 Operations Organization Structure
Reunion Manganese Inc (RMI) personnel will be responsible for the operation of the Project, after
construction. The proposed management structure for operations is presented in Figure 24.4.
Figure 24.4: Organizational Structure
Operations will be grouped in four main departments: Mining, Process and Metallurgy, General Services
and Transport. The four departments will be staffed and organized progressively during the construction
period and development phase. This arrangement will result in a seamless start of operations and
achieve optimal results during the initial years of production.
24.3.1 Mining Department
The proposed overall mining department structure is presented in Figure 24.5.
Figure 24.5: Mining Department Structure

The mine operations sub-department will work throughout construction to operate the equipment required
for earthworks. Approximately three months prior to production, the department will be fully staffed. For
the operations, the department consists of one mine manager, one superintendent and one general
foreman. They will be assisted by six mine supervisors to lead the workforce.
In the maintenance sub-department, there will be one superintendent, one general foreman, and
two trainers. They will manage the six supervisors, two senior planners and the workforce needed to
maintain the fleet of equipment
In the geology sub-department, the team will consist of one senior geologist, one geologist, three grade
control technicians and three geological technicians.
The mine engineering sub-department will be lead by a superintendent and one senior mine planner.
They will supervise the work of two production engineers, two planning technicians, two senior surveyors
and two surveyors.
All the mining activities will be conducted by the Mine Department team, including the drill and blast
activities. They will operate the haul trucks, excavators, loaders, dozers and graders.
24.3.2 Process and Metallurgy Department
The process and metallurgy department personnel will be recruited three months prior to the start of
production. Considering the size of the process plant, this will ensure enough time for the personnel to be
trained and to become familiar with the equipment. The recruiting and training of the mill workforce, and
the preparation and purchase of parts and supplies will be done during the pre-production period. The
department will participate in the mill and power plant commissioning activities and operate both plants
once commissioned. The overall structure is presented in Figure 24.6.

Figure 24.6: Process and Metallurgy Structure
24.3.3 General Services Department
The previous groups require support and services that will start in construction and continue during the
production phase. They will be progressively established and organized. These services include
environment and social responsibility (ESR), human resources (HR) and training, accounting and
finance, information technology (IT), supply chain, health and safety, security and camp services, which
include kitchen, housing, surface support and transportation. Some external contributors will also provide
support, such as freight forwarders. The general services department overall structure is presented in
Figure 24.7.

Figure 24.7: General Administration and Services Structure
General Services
Manager
Environment & Human

Accounting &
Social Resources & IT Supply Chain Health & Safety Security Camp Services
Finance
Responsibility Training
Camp Housing &

Kitchen Surface Support Transportation
Administration Laundry

24.3.4 Transport Department
The transport department will be in charge of both the concentrate land transportation from Matthews
Ridge to Port Kaituma and transportation of supplies from Port Kaituma to the mine site.
This department consist of two transport general foremen for the first years of the Project, assisted by two
transport supervisors. The supervisors, who will take over in Year 2, will manage the road train drivers
and helpers, supply chain truck drivers and bus drivers.

25. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
2
The Matthews Ridge Project consists of four prospecting licenses covering an area of 185 km located in
northwest Guyana, centered on the former Matthews Ridge mine. Manganese ore was mined from 1960
to 1968 by a subsidiary of Union Carbide and exported via railroad and the Port Kaituma fluvial port.
Manganese deposits have been defined at Matthews Ridge along a series of nine hills extending for
15 km; five of those hills were previously mined. Ongoing exploration is focusing on the Arakaka
Prospect, which is the eastern extension of the mineralized zone, the North Prospect, which is 5 km to the
north of Matthews Ridge, and the Pipiani Prospect, which is located 60 km to the southeast of Matthews
Ridge.
On February 20, 2013, Reunion Gold Corporation (RGC) announced unconstrained measured and
indicated mineral resources for the Matthews Ridge deposit, totaling 32.4 Mt at 14.0% Mn using an
8% Mn cutoff grade. The proven and probable reserves detailed in this report and summarized in
Table 25.1 were estimated from these unconstrained measured and indicated resources and demonstrate
an 81% conversion rate from resources to reserves:
Table 25.1: Matthews Ridge Mineral Reserves
Mass Grade
Mineral Reserve Classification
(t) (% Mn)
Proven 14,055,585 15.1
Probable 12,237,833 13.3
Total Proven and Probable Reserves 26,293,418 14.2
Lump concentrate 4,448,631 39.1
Fine concentrate 2,763,170 36.4
Production is scheduled over a period of 9.5 years. The average annual production rate is 2.8 Mt of ore
fed to the process plant. Table 25.2 is a summary of the average life-of-mine (LOM) and total
production.

Table 25.2: Production Plan Summary
Average
Description Units Total
LOM
Ore Mined 000 t 2,780 26,293
Waste Mined 000 t 4,460 41,798
Total Tonnes Mined 000 t 7,240 68,091
Mill Feed Grade % Mn 14.2 14.2
Lump Concentrate Production 000 t 462 4,449
Lump Concentrate Grade % Mn 39.1 39.1
Fine Concentrate Production 000 t 288 2,763
Fine Concentrate Grade % Mn 36.4 36.4
Total Concentrate Production 000 t 750 7,212
Open pit mining would be carried out by hydraulic excavators and articulated trucks. The process plant
flow sheet consists of scrubbing, screening and jigging to produce lump and fine concentrates.
Metallurgical testing of the different ore types demonstrates straightforward upgradability with an
anticipated metallurgical recovery of 73%. Concentrate is to be transported by road trains to a storage
facility adjacent to a fluvial berth at Port Kaituma capable of loading ocean-going barges. The barge and
tug operations to Trinidad where the material is transshipped to dry bulk freight carriers will be operated
by a specialized maritime contractor.
The initial capital cost required to bring the Project into production is estimated at USD 233.0 M, including
a USD 21.7 M contingency. An additional amount of USD 24.9 M would be required in sustaining capital
over the life of the mine. Breakdown of the initial capital cost is summarized in Table 25.3.

Table 25.3: Capital Cost Summary
Cost
Description
(USD M)
Mining Equipment 12.9
Process Plant 34.1
Infrastructure On-site 68.9
Infrastructure Off-site 43.1
Total Direct Costs 159.0
Indirect Costs (engineering, construction, freight, etc.) 52.3

Subtotal Direct and Indirect Costs 211.3
Contingency 21.7
Total Project Capital Cost 233.0
The LOM operating cost is estimated at USD 88.59/t of concentrate, as summarized in Table 25.4.
Additionally, closure costs, which include dismantling of all infrastructures and rehabilitation of the project,
are estimated at USD $8 M.
Table 25.4: Operating Costs Summary
Cost
Description (USD)/t
concentrate)
Mining 25.58
Processing 6.56
Power 8.53
General and Administration 11.83
Land Transportation 2.61
Ocean Transportation 33.48

Total Operating Costs 88.59
Project returns are summarized in Table 25.5 and Table 25.6 at various manganese prices and discount
rates. The returns are on an after-tax basis and reflect terms negotiated with the Government of Guyana
under a Mineral Agreement signed on March 24, 2011. For the Base Case price assumption of
USD 6.00/dmtu CIF China, the Project internal rate of return (IRR) is 15.7% and the payback period is
4.4 years.

Table 25.5: NPV at Variable Discount Rates
Discount Rate NPV

(%) (USD M)
0% 234.7
2% 186.7
4% 146.0
6% 111.2
8% 81.4
Table 25.6: Project IRR Sensitivity to Manganese Price

(1)
Mn Price IRR
(USD /dmtu CIF China) (%)
5.50 10.0 %
5.75 12.9 %
6.00 15.7 %
6.25 18.4 %
6.50 21.0 %
(1) The manganese price assumptions include a value-in-use discount of 2%. The CIF China
benchmark price is derived from the three-year lagging average manganese price of
USD 5.53, five-year average lagging manganese price of USD 6.57 and an independent
market analyst forecast pricing.
RMI has conducted the full cycle of environmental and social baseline studies in support of a subsequent
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) to be completed in conformity with international
and local standards. The studies have covered two seasons of biodiversity (flora and fauna) data, two
years of climate and meteorology, air and water quality, as well as site hydrology data. Social and
community baselines have involved documented surveys within and outside the Project Footprint area
and regular community engagement meetings. A gap analysis by Environmental Resources Management
Inc. (ERM, an independent consulting firm based in Washington, D.C.) found no major concerns,
confirmed the reliability of the existing information and proposed a pathway to the completion of the ESIA
for project permitting, which should be completed within the Feasibility Study (FS) period.

The following opportunities have been identified which would have significant upside to the Project:
Potential increase of Footprint mineral resources. There are specific areas on the footprint that
could not be trenched and drilled in the past because of logistical constraints, but that are known
to host mineralized materials. Subject to available financing, these targets should be explored as a
first priority.
Regional resource development: Three other prospects in the Matthews Ridge region (the
Pipiani, Arakaka and North Prospects) should be explored with the objectives of adding new
resources in the FS.
Favorable exploration ground: RMI holds exclusive exploration licenses for manganese over an
2
area of 185 km in northwest Guyana considered geologically very favorable for manganese
mineralization.
Potential optimizations: There is considerable scope for optimization of the process plant
throughput based on market conditions, increased resources and further metallurgical testing.
Transportation costs: Ocean freight costs could be reduced if the concentrate is transported by
sharing transshipment facilities and bulk carriers currently used for other commodities in the
region.
The following risks have also been identified which should be mitigated prior to completion of the FS.
Manganese Price: Manganese pricing has a significant impact on overall project economics. The
benchmark manganese price quoted in Section 19 indicates the forecasted spot price. Most
manganese concentrate is currently traded on contracts between the supplier and the consumer.
Ideally, RMI should have established off-take agreements to secure manganese pricing during the
next stage of the Project.
Market Conditions: The necessity to enter into the manganese market at the targeted production
rate of 750,000 t of concentrate per year represents a significant challenge. Strategies to mitigate
the marketing risk should be investigated prior to advancing to the FS stage.
Technical Uncertainties: Various technical studies need to be undertaken during the Feasibility
stage to complete information on topography, geotechnical conditions, metallurgical results, river
and ocean conditions, etc.
The Pre-feasibility Study (PFS) results provided in this Report demonstrate a technical platform and
economic justification for RMI to advance the Matthews Ridge Project through to full FS stage. It is
recommended that the company completes the resource definition program on the Pipiani, Arakaka and
North Prospects, upgrades the inferred resources already identified on these prospects and in the

Footprint area and carry out complementary technical studies for the full FS. On the basis of all the
engineering studies, cost estimates, price scenarios and economic analyses performed as part of this
PFS, we believe that the financial returns are sufficiently robust to justify the required investment to
progress the Matthews Ridge Project to full FS.

26. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our review and studies of the Matthews Ridge Project, some risks and opportunities have been
identified; they will require consideration in subsequent phases of engineering and project development:
26.1 Exploration and Resources
Resources within the pit shell are almost entirely at the Measured and Indicated levels. However,
significant inferred resources exist near surface and along strike of current pits, but within the Footprint.
These areas were not sufficiently trenched or drilled due to accessibility issues. Also near the Footprint, a
large amount of detrital material has been mapped and partially sampled at the Arakaka Prospect, which
lies to the east of Hill 1. The presence of the detrital material can be an indication of manganiferous
material at depth in saprolite, which has been partially confirmed by four trenches. The North Prospect
also hosts manganese occurrences and is within easy trucking distance of the proposed process plant.
These targets would be the initial focus of follow-up exploration programs.
Union Carbide had previously identified manganese resources in the Pipiani Prospect area with pitting
and drilling work. Recent trenching has confirmed the presence and provided indication as to the extent of
detrital and saprolite mineralization. Continued exploration of the Pipiani area has the potential to
increase resources significantly and should be advanced prior to the Feasibility Study (FS).
RMI plans the following exploration activity for each prospect in the future:
a) Matthews Ridge Prospect (Footprint):

o Expand the coverage of pits over all hills on the Footprint to demonstrate the existence of
larger detrital resources, particularly on the flanks of certain hills and flat areas between hills.
o Manually trench projected lateral extensions of known mineralized units in areas of difficult
access.
b) Arakaka Prospect:
o Increase the density of trenches to 100 m spacing.
o Diamond / RC drill the saprolitic mineralization initially to spacing of 100 m and later to 50 m
spacing to demonstrate down dip continuity and determine geometry.
c) Pipiani Prospect:
o Increase the density of trenches to 100 m spacing and to deeper levels, in an attempt to reach
the saprolite horizon.
o Diamond / RC drill the saprolitic mineralization initially to spacing of 100 m and later to 50 m
spacing to demonstrate down dip continuity and determine geometry.

d) Continue to generate and evaluate additional regional targets.
26.2 Commodity Pricing and Marketing
As seen from the sensitivity analysis presented in Section 22, manganese pricing has a significant impact
on overall project economics. Furthermore, the benchmark manganese price quoted in Section 19
indicates the forecasted spot price. Most manganese concentrate is currently traded in fixed term
contracts between the supplier and the consumer. The pricing of the contracts is often variable and not
always consistent with the spot price.
In order to de-risk this important factor, RMI should consider constructing a pilot plant circuit capable of
producing enough concentrate for bulk testing by potential suppliers. Ideally for the FS, RMI would have
established off-take agreements to confirm product quality, requirement for value-in-use discount, and
manganese pricing.
The price of manganese affects project revenues, while the dry bulk freight costs affect the difference
between CIF and FOB pricing. Cement and steel prices affect plant construction capital costs and oil
prices impact mining and power costs.
Furthermore, the strategy to enter into the manganese market at the targeted production rate of 750,000 t
of concentrate per year represents a significant challenge. Strategies to mitigate the marketing risk by
considering an alternative development approach with smaller throughputs, at least in the initial years of
production should be investigated prior to advancing to the FS stage.
26.3 Metallurgy and Processing
Various analyses need to be performed to further optimize the process plant. This would include:
Complete metallurgy testing of additional resources beyond the current Footprint area (Arakaka
and Pipiani).
Jigging a representative master composite sample of saprock material and compare with HLS
results obtained from SGS test work (SGS, 2013).
Submit concentrate that did not achieve a marketable quality to HLS to assess the opportunity of
further upgrading the jig rejects.
Perform a trade-off study to support jig versus DMS selection.
Complete pyro-metallurgical tests on concentrate samples.

Execute a pilot plant processing campaign to produce representative product samples for market
trials.
Perform required testwork for scrubbing, crushing, screening, dewatering and solid/liquid
separation as required for the FS stages.
Optimize product size distribution by size category, particularly the largest size of the lump product
and the largest size of the fine product.
26.4 Geotechnical and Geochemical Surveys
Additional geotechnical testworks and investigations will be required for the FS, including geochemical
characterizations of waste materials.
26.5 Concentrate Handling and Transportation
Wharf location and the need for a covered concentrate warehouse.
Location Barima River Bridge.
Cut materials along corridor.
Concentrate road alignment and design optimization.
Detail engineering of pavement design.
Sedimentation studies to evaluate maintenance dredging requirements
26.6 Infrastructure
Major plant sites
Rejects storage sites.
Further use of existing buildings on site.
Investigate the use of liquefied gas (LNG) from Trinidad as diesel replacement fuel.
26.7 Mine Pit Slopes
Install monitoring wells to improve hydrogeology information of pit slope design.

Detailed review of drillhole data.

26.8 Investigation of Construction Materials
For the FS, it is essential to establish the source of all construction material in sufficient quantity and of
acceptable quality. The following actions are required:
Test pits to confirm availability / quality of laterite at existing sources.
Reconnaissance and testing for additional laterite north of Barima River.
Reconnaissance and testing for sand source close to Matthews Ridge and Port Kaituma.Sand
sourcing and testing for import.
Investigation of potential quarry to setup an aggregate plant. Several possible sources have been
identified.
Lime sourcing for import.
Concrete cement sourcing and testing in Georgetown.
26.9 Other Technical Studies
Complete survey of the existing buildings on site.
Detailed survey of existing road, the planned concentrate transportation road and Port Kaituma
area.
Complete surveys of Pipiani North and Arakaka prospects.
Detail design of infrastructure required for the development of Pipiani site and access road.
Include LOI measurements in block model and mine plan schedule.
Multi-point river bathymetry
River width survey
Continue Metocean study
Optimize supply logistics to Port Kaituma.
Detailed Project schedule.
Review resources and mine planning cycle.
Inventory and logistics modelling of concentrate transportation at various plant capacity levels.

26.10 Environment, Social
Complete the ESIA
Establish the extent of training needed and recruitment from local communities.
Advance site-wide water management plan
26.11 Cost
The cost to expand the resource and complete the FS based on the above recommendations would be
approximately USD 7.3M. The FS cost estimate breakdown is presented in Table 26.1. This estimate is
subject to change if the Project scope were to be significantly modified by further drilling, revised
assumptions in manganese pricing and revised assumptions in market conditions or project scale.
Table 26.1: Feasibility Study Cost Estimate
Cost
Task
(USD)
Exploration and Resources 3,800,000
Commodity Pricing and Marketing 300,000
Metallurgy 175,000
Pilot Plant 40,000
Geotechnical and Geochemical Surveys 600,000
Engineering to FS Level 1,300,000
Other Technical Studies 750,000

ESIA 300,000
Total FS Cost 7,265,000

27. REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR. (2007). Public Health Assessment
Guidance Manual.
Bateman. (2011). Addendum-Batch Jig Tests on RMI Mn Ore Deposits # M7411.
Bateman. (2011). Batch Jig Tests on RMI Mn Ore Deposits # M7411.
Beaudry. (2013). Matthews Ridge Manganese Project, QA QC Audit & Report .
Bouajila, A. (2012). On Site Lab Scale Jig Testing on MRI Manganese Ore Phases 1 & 2.
Bouajilla, A. (2013). On Site Scale Lab Jig Testing on MRI Manganese Ore - Phase 3: Variability Testing
for Process Development.
Bulmer. (1978). Mining and Social Change: Durham County in the Twentieth Century. Croom Helm.
London, UK.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2012). Guidelines for Water Quality.
Costa, M. L. (2012). Contribution to XRD and Optical Microscope Mineralogy of Selected Samples of
Manganese Ore from Matthews Ridge, Guyana. Consultants Report, 29 pages.
Cru Strategies. (2012). Market Report for the Matthews Ridge Manganese Project.
DPRK/GGMC. (1984-1985). Matthews Ridge Manganese Project.
Freyssinet, P. (1997). Lateritic Weathering and Regolith Evolution of West Africa, BRGM publication.
Goulet, F. (2012). Summary Report of the Structural Geololgy of the Matthews Ridge Deposit, NW Distict
of Guyana and Memoranda on the Structural Geology of Matthews Ridge dated June 13, July 5,
and November 11, 2012.
Guyana Environmental Protection Act. (1996).

Guyana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2000). Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines
Volume 3-Mining Version 1.
Guyana Mining Act. (1989).
Hammond, D.S (2005). Tropical Forests of the Guiana Shield: Ancient Forests in a Modern World. CABI,
Oxfordshire, UK.
Harrison, P. (1965). Manganese Ore Types, Chemical Composition and Features of Quality Manganese
Deposit. Unpublished Report.
Heising, L. (1969). Report to Government of Guyana concerning Matthews Ridge. US Bureau of Mines.
Denver, Colorado, USA.
Holtrop, J. (1965). The Manganese Deposits of the Guiana Shield, Economic Geology vol. 60, p. 1185.
IFC. (2012). Performance Standards and Guidance Notes. Performance Standard 6 - Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natual Resources.
IFC Wastewater and Ambient Water Quality Standards. (2012).
Marchetto, C. (2012). Matthews Ridge Project, Petrographic Study. Consultant's Report.
Nagell, R. (1962). Geology of the Serra do Navio Manganese District. Economic Geology, vol. 57, no. 4,
p.481.
Nahon, D. a. (1990). Lateric Concentrations of Manganese Oxydroxides and Oxides Geologishe

Rundschau, 79/2, p. 319.
NDS. (2000). National Development Strategy.
Nicholson, K. (1992). Contrasting Mineralogical-geochemical Signatures of Manganese Oxides: Guides to

Metallogenesis. Economic Geology, vol. 87, pp. 1253-1264.
Worley, Parsons (2012). Matthews Ridge Transportation Pre-feasibility Study.

SGS. (2011). An Investigation in to Ore Characterization of Testing Twenty-two Manganese Ore Samples
from Matthews Ridge Deposit # 1344 001 M15031.
SGS. (2013). An Investigation into Gravity Separation Characteristics of Samples from the Matthews
Ridge Manganese Deposit.
Strategies, C. (2012). Market Report for the Matthews Ridge Manganese Project.
Swindell and Harrison, S. E. (2009). Supergene-enriched Manganese Deposits in West and Central
Africa. GSSA Conference Paper.
The World Bank. (1995). Policies and Guidelines, supplemented with information from OECD sources.
Walrond, G. (2012). The Matthews Ridge Manganese Project. Internal RMI Report.
Westerman, A. (1969). Matthews Ridge Manganese Mines, NWD Guyana and its Environment.
Unpublished Report.
World Health Organization. (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise.
World Health Organization. (2006). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, third edition.

Reunion Gold Corporation
Pre-Feasibility Study Matthews Ridge Manganese Project
Appendix INF A: Drawings & Layouts

R
U E D FO TUDY
ISS YS
S I B ILIT
-FEA
PRE
FOR
NOT CTION
N N STR
U
C O
TUNNEL
ENTRANCE
LFO PROCESS
PLANT
POWER
PLANT
ASSAY
THICKENER LAB
WASHBAY
MILL
ADMIN OFFICE
TRUCKSHOP BLDG CONCENTRATE
STORAGE
EXISTIN RSF
NOTES : PSAD56 DATUM - UTM PROVISIONAL SOUTH AMERICAN 1956

CONTOUR INTERVAL : 2m.
OR
SU ED F STUDY
IS ITY
A SIBIL
-FE
PRE FOR
NOT CTION
U
STR
CON
A
OR
S U ED F STUDY
IS ITY
A S IBIL
-FE
PRE
FOR
NOT CTION
U
STR
CON
C
OR
S U ED F STUDY
IS ITY
A S IBIL
-FE
PRE FOR
NOT CTION
U
O N STR
C
OR
S U ED F STUDY
IS ITY
A SIBIL
-FE
PRE FOR
NOT CTION
U
STR
CON
OR
S U ED F STUDY
I S
LITY
E A SIBI
-F
PRE FOR
NOT CTION
U
O N STR
C
R
U E D FO TUDY
ISS YS
S I BILIT
-FEA
PRE FOR
NOT CTION
U
STR
CON
OR
S U ED F STUDY
I S
LITY
E A SIBI
-F
PRE
FOR
NOT CTION
TRU
CONS
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0 -3.0
-2.0
-2.0
PRE
-F
I
E
S
A
S U
SIBI
CON
LITY
OR
STR
U
FOR
ED F STUDY
NOT CTION
R
U E D FO TUDY
ISS YS
S I BILIT
-FEA
PRE FOR
NOT CTION
U
STR
CON
R
U E D FO TUDY
ISS YS
S I B ILIT
-FEA
PRE FOR
NOT CTION
U
STR
CON
Appendix INF B: GUMR-TM-13-05-22-Golder-

Process Plant Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation PFS
Golder
~., Associates TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE May 22,2013 PROJECT No. 11-1132-0130-M05
TO Mr. Mathieu Gignac, ing., Vice-President, Projects

FROM Mr. John Hagan, P.Eng./ EMAIL jhagan@golder.com/

Mr. Michael L.J. Maher, Ph.D., P.Eng. mmaher@golder.com
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROCESS PLANT SITE
PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MATTHEWS RIDGE PROJECT
REUNION MANGANESE
GUYANA, SOUTH AMERICA
GUMR
Dear Mr. Gignac,
This technical memorandum provides the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation carried out for the
design of the proposed process plant site to support the Pre-feasibility study.
This document was prepared by John Hagan, P.Eng. and Michael Maher, P.Eng. of Golder Associated Ltd.
(Golder) and has been reviewed by Philip R. Bedell, P.Eng. of Bedell Engineering Inc. under contract to G
Mining Services Inc.
Background
A process plant at Matthews Ridge will be required to upgrade the excavated ore for trucking to Port Kaituma.
Although the process plant location is not confirmed at this time, a preliminary geotechnical investigation was
requested to assess a potential site configuration. It is understood that the process plant equipment and
elements will be relatively light and mobile such that they can be moved near the Hill in production. The process
plant will also require a wash bay and manganese concentrate silos. The locations of each element have been
selected for the current site by G Mining to take advantage of the existing topography. A plan of the proposed
site is shown on Figure 1.
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was asked to complete testpits at the locations of each plant element. The
proposed process plant site is located adjacent to the existing Matthews Ridge exploration facilities and
administration building.
Site Investigation
The site investigation was completed on March 22, 2013. Proposed testpit locations were provided by G Mining.
The testpits were advanced by a Hyundai 305 excavator provided and operated by Reunion Manganese Inc.
Golder Associates Ltd.

lOa, Scolla Court, Whitby, Ontario, Canada L1N 8Y6
Tel: +1 (905) 723 2727 Fax: +1 (905) 723 2182 www.golder.com
Golder As. ocl.teo: Opera tions In Africa, As ia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, ing., Vice-President, Projects 11 -1132-0130-M05
G Mining Services Inc. May 22,2013
under the direction of a member of Golder's engineering staff. Upon completion of excavation the soil
stratigraphy and groundwater conditions were logged and samples collected . The approximate testpit locations
were recorded using a hand held GPS. Approximate ground surface elevations were obtained from Lidar
topographic survey.
Four testpits were advanced (TP 1 to 4) as shown on Figure 1. The testpit logs are attached to this
memorandum in Table 3. Photographs of Testpits 1, 3 and 4 are attached on Figures 3 and 4. Five saprolite
samples were tested to determine routine soil classification. The results of the grain size distribution analyses
are provided on Figure 2. A summary of the Atterberg Limit testing and water content testing is provided in
Table 1:
Table 1 - Summary of Atterberg Limit and Water Content Tests
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Water

USCS
Testplt No, Depth (m) Content
(%) (%) Index (%) Classification
(%)
Testpit 2 0.30 - 0.60 58 22 25 42 MH
Testpit 2 2.00 - 2.30 50 34 16 39 MH
Testpit 3 1.50 -1 .80 51 24 27 35 CH
Testpit 4 3.00 - 3.50 52 26 26 27 CH
Wash bay and Other Potential Structures
Testpit 1 was advanced to determine the geotechnical conditions for a proposed washbay and other potential
adjacent structures. The location is northwest of the existing administration building in a relatively flat area. A
photo of the location is provided in Figure 3. It is understood this area had recently been used to park equipment
used in the on-going exploration activities. Testpit 1 revealed surficial manganese ore rejects (fill) underlain by
mixed/mottled saprolite fill to a 4.5 m depth. The material was inferred to be stiff in consistency; however, may
contain very soft to firm pockets as it was likely placed with minimal compaction controls. No groundwater was
encountered in the testpit. It is possible that this area may have been used during the previous mining operation
to store overburden materials with low ore concentrations.
An additional testpit (Test pit 4) was advanced in a location south of Testpit 1 to locate a nearby area where
undisturbed native soils were anticipated. It was located near the base of an approximately 30 m high slope.
Testpit 4 encountered surficial manganese ore rejects underlain by mix/mottled saprolite fill to a depth of 1.0 m.
The fill materials were underlain by native saprolite extending to the 3.5 m depth of exploration.
Process Plant
Testpit 2 was advanced to determine the geotechnical conditions for the proposed process plant area. The
location was northeast of the existing explorationllaboratory facilities and adjacent to an access road. Testpit 2
encountered surficial detrital materials with trace manganese to a depth of 0.7 m underlain by native saprolite to
a depth of 4.1 m. Some disturbance of surficial detrital material was apparent. The native saprolite material was
inferred to be stiff in consistency. No groundwater was encountered in the tespit.
214
~Golder
\Z7AsSOciates
Mr. Mathieu Gignac. Ing . Vice President. Projects 11 11320130M05
G Mining Services Inc. May 22. 2013
Manganese Silos
Testpit 3 was advanced to determine the geotechnical conditions for proposed manganese silos. The location
was adjacent to the existing small core shed . Testpit 2 encountered surficial silty topsoil underlain by firm native
saprolite to a depth of 1.5 m. The saprolite was inferred to become stiff at a 1.5 m depth. Water seepage was
encountered at a depth of 3.4 m. Upon completion of excavating, free water was observed in the bottom of the
testpit.
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following foundation design recommendations are preliminary for the Pre-feasibility Study. Additional
geotechnical investigations, possibly including split spoon sampling, should be completed during the Feasibility
Study and when locations of the various structures/elements have been confirmed.
As described above, the proposed location of the wash bay is within a relatively flat area with saprolite fill located
below manganese ore rejects at surface. The consistency of the fill materials is potentially variable. Structures
should not be founded on the fill materials as they could become subject to differential settlements. It is
recommended that the wash bay and other structures be relocated south to the location of Testpit 4, as native
saprolite is located at a 1.0 m depth.
Conventional shallow strip or spread footing foundations for the various elements founded at or below the depths
provided in Table 2 may be designed using a factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of
200 kPa and a geotechnical resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) of 150 kPa (assuming less than 25
mm of post construction settlement).
Table 2: Summary of Minimum Footing Depths

Minimum
Element Founding Comments
Depth (m)
Wash Bay and Locations of these elements should be moved south,

Other Potential 1.0 away from the fill area closer to the existing slope. Care
should be taken during excavation not to disturb the
Structures
existing toe of the slope.
Process Plant 0.7 -
Firm native materials are located at 0.25 m depth
Manganese
beneath surficial materials. Footings are acceptable on
Concentrate 1.0
these native materials; however, a reduced bearing
Silos
capacity would be required.
It is understood that a mat foundation 48 m by 14.5 m in plan is proposed for the Manganese Concentrate Silos.
The silos will be supported by structural steel columns. The steel columns will be connected to concrete
columns, 1.2 m in height which will carry the loads to the mat foundation. It is proposed that the mat foundation
be 1.0 m in thickness and founded at this depth.
Based on the testpits, excavations below the groundwater table are not anticipated.
3/4
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, Ing., Vice-President, Projects 11-1132-o13~05
G Mining Services Inc. May22, 2013
We trust that this memorandum provides sufficient information for your present purposes. Please do not hesitate
to contact us should any point need further clarification or If additional Information is required at this time.
Yours truly,
John Hagan, P.Eng. Michael Maher, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Geotechnical/Pavement Engineer Principal
JBHIMLJMlJeb
cc: Mr. Philip R. Bedell, P.Eng. (Bedell Engineering Inc.)
Attachments: Figure 1 - Testhole Plan

Figure 2 - Grain Size Distribution Analyses
Figures 3 and 4 - Site Photos
Table 3 - Testhole Logs
,
II
n:lactMt\...2011101her oIIIcesI11-1132-1l130ImOS pfanI6I111V1nan111132-1l130 mo5 2013"05'21I1nal mallh_ rfdge.cIocx
;
:
4/4
813200 813400 813600 813800
LEGEND
N -$- Testpit Location
- - Building
Contour (2 metres)
- - Road/Railway
Proposed
Process Plant
Proposed
Manganese
Aeration Ore Silos
Proposed Washbay and Pond
Other Potential Structures
"C
E
.
a::"
"
.2
B
o
0
~O!
Core
c:

0
Shed
Q.
"
$.,
0
x
::;
REFERENCE
Vi BesD plan provided by G Mining Services Inc.. April 3. 201 3.
(3
Produced by Golder A ssoa ales Ltd
E
~ Administration
Accommodations Projection: PSAD56 UTM Zone 2 1N Provisional South American 1956
~" N
CD
"''"" Building
'"
I
a
~
en I
50
--- ----
25 50
--------- ---------150
METRES
100
~ SCAlE 1:2.500
.'! PROJECT
'""
"I
0
GUMR - Pre-Feasibility For Matthews Ridge
0-
0
1 Guyana, South America
M
9
N
M Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Process Plant Site
0
~
<;;i - PROJECTNO 111 32.0 30 SCALE /lS SHOWN REV. 0.0
~'"
. OESiGN RII 15 2013
- - Golder GIS J8 24 Apr 2013
'0
~
813200 813400 813600 813800 Associates O1ECII.IIt 24 Apr. 2013 FIGURE: 1
(!)
MIssI .... uga. Ontario REVIW IAJIot 24 Apr. 2013
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 2
PROCESS PLANT SITE
Size of openlnQ, inches U,S.S Sieve Size, meshesfonch
6- 4v..- 3- I \<" I- I'.- W %- 3 4 8 16 30 50 100 200

100 )(
\ ..... l'.. r- ~
~
90
~
~
I- 'x
80
"'Cr--- "0- ~~ "000_ '\
70
~
~ro. -0
~
"D..
~ Ik
~
~
0::
W
z
ii:
60
50
~
"'\ ~~
r--'c '\.
~ ~b
I-
Z
W
(,)
40
0::
1\
,\
w
Q.
30
\
20
~ \
\~
10 X
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE_ mm
COBBLE coarse fine coarse I medium fine

SIZE SILT AND CLAY
GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE
LEGEND
SYMBOL TPNO. LOCATION SAMPLE # DESCRIPTION DEPTH
0 TP 1 See Figure 1 1 FILL (CH) sandy silly CLAY, mottled, moist 2.00-2.30
0 TP2 See Figure 1 1 (MH) sandy CLAYEY SILT (detrital), moist, firm 0.30-0.60
6. TP2 See Figure 1 2 (MH) CLAYEY SILT (saprolite), mottled, moist, stiff 2.00-2.30
0 TP3 See Figure 1 1 (CH) silly CLAY, (saprolite), moist, sllff 1.50-1.80
x TP4 See Figure 1 1 (CH): silly CLAY (saprolite), moist, stiff 3.00-3.50
Date: May, 201 3 Inputted: JBH

Project: 11-11 32-0130 Checked: MLJM

PROCESS PLANT SITE FIGURE 3
MATTHEWS RIDGE PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY
Testpit 1 - Soil Conditions at Proposed Wash Bay
Testpit 1 - Soil Conditions at Proposed Wash Bay
Project No. 11-1132-0130 Taken by: JBH
Photo Date: March,2013 Golder Associates Ltd. Checked By:

PROCESS PLANT SITE FIGURE 4
Testpit 3 - Soil Conditions at Proposed Manganese Silos
Testpit 4 - Soil Conditions at Alternative Wash Bay Location
Photo Date: March. 2013 Golder Associates Ltd. Checked By:

May, 2013 Table 3 11 -1132-0130
Sheet 1 of 1
RECORD OF TESTPITS
Prelimnary Geotechnical Assessment for Process Plant
TESTPIT LOG
TESTPIT Depth Sample Depth
(m) Description (m) Water Content (%)
PLANT SITE
Location See Figure 1, Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 130
0 - 0 .30 (SP) SAND, with gravel, trace silt, black/grey, (manganese ore rejects), dry (fiU)
TP 1 0.30 - 4.50 (CH) sandy silty CLAY (saprolite fill), brown/orange/greylred, mottled, moist 2.00 - 2.30 30
4 .50 Testpit term inated at 4.50 m
No free water
0 - 0.70 (MH) sandy CLAYEY SILT (detrital), blacklbrown , moist, firm 0.30 0.60 42
TP2
0.70 - 4.10 (MH) CLAYEY SILT (saprolite), trace sand, mottled, moist, stiff 2.00 2.30 39
4.10 Testpit terminated at 4 .10 m
No free water
0 - 0 .30 (ML) SILT, trace sand, trace clay, black, (topsoil), with roots, moist
0.30 - 1.00 (MH) CLAYEY SILT (saprolite), trace sand, mottled, moist, firm
TP3 1.00 - 3.50 (CH) silty CLAY, some sand, brown/orange, mottled, (saprolite), moist, stiff 1.50 - 1.80 35
3.50 Testpit terminated at 3.50 m
Water seepage at 3.40 m
0 - 0.25 (SP) SAND, with gravel, trace silt, black/grey, (manganese ore rejects), dry (fill )
0.25 - 1.00 (CH) sandy silty CLAY, (saprolite fill) brown/orange/greylred, mottled, moist
TP4 1.00 3.50 (CH) silty CLAY (saprolite), trace gravel, trace sand, orange/yellow, moist, stiff 3.00 - 3.50 27
3.50 Testpit terminated at 3.50 m
No free water I
Notes: Testpits were advanced using a Hyundai 305 excavator
For gra in size distribution curve, see Figure 2

Appendix INF C: GUMR-TM-13-07-17-Golder-

Preliminary Aggregate & Soil Investigation &
Transportation Corridor Assessment
<fJt GoI4er
- AsSOCiates TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE July 17, 2013 PROJECT No. 11-1132-0130-M06
TO Mr. Mathieu Gignac, Ing., Vice-President, Projects

FROM Mr. John Hagan, P.Eng.l EMAIL jhagan@golder.com/

PRELIMINARY AGGREGATE AND SOIL INVESTIGATION AND TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR

ASSESSMENT
PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MATTHEWS RIDGE PROJECT
REUNION MANGANESE
GUMR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum provides the results of our preliminary Aggregate and Soil Investigation and
assessment of the transportation corridor. This document was prepared by John Hagan, P.Eng. and
Michael Maher, P.Eng. of Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) and has been reviewed by Philip R. Bedell, P.Eng. of
Bedell Engineering Inc. on behalf of G Mining Services Inc.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The mine at Matthews Ridge was originally operated by Union Carbide between 1962 and 1968. At this time
transportation of the manganese concentrate was facilitated by a narrow gauge railway. The original railway
alignment extended from Matthews Ridge to Port Kaituma with an overall length of approximately 48 km. The
right-of-way for the former rail alignment is owned by the Government of Guyana; however, Reunion Manganese
Incorporated (RMI) has submitted a request for dedication of the alignment for concentrate transportation. Much
of the abandoned alignment had become overgrown with vegetation; however, since the commencement of the
pre-feasibility study, approximately 50% has been cleared by RMI.
In the Worley Parsons November 2012 Pre-feasibility Study Report, rail and haul road options were selected for
further analyses. The haul road was selected as the preferred option based on a number of factors including
lower equipment and material handling costs as well as lower initial construction costs.
The original storage and port facility cannot be reused as part of the new mining operations. As a result,
construction of a 5.8 km haul road will be required for transportation to the new wharf and loading facility. The
preferred wharf and loading facility is Option 4. Refer to Golder's Technical Memorandum No.3 (dated
May 9, 2013) for details.
This evaluation is to assess the geotechnical feasibility of re-establishing the former rail alignment to develop a
haul road to transport concentrate. It is understood that the existing platform will require widening and/or grade
adjustments for the road option.

100. Scotia Court. Whilby. Ontario. Canada L1N eY6
Tet: +1 (905) 723 2727 Fax: +1 (905) 723 2182 www.golder.com
Golder Associates: Operations In Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks 01 Golder Associates Corporation.
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, Ing., Vice-President, Projects 11-1132-0130-M06
G Mining Services Inc. July 17, 2013
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK

The feasibility-level evaluation of the existing 48 kilometres of abandoned rail bed from Matthew's Ridge to Port
Kaituma has been split into two segments because of site accessibility constraints at the time of the first site
visit. G Mining has established a chainage for the alignment with the start at the proposed Manganese
Concentrate Silos (Sta. 10+000) and the end at the proposed wharf and loading facility (Sta. 63+000).
Segment 1 covers the rail bed from Matthew's Ridge to the existing three-span bridge over the Barima River
(Sta. 32+800) and Segment 2 will cover the rail bed from the existing bridge to Port Kaituma.
The existing mine facilities and abandoned rail alignment are shown on Figures 1 and 2. The site conditions in
the area consist of jungle vegetation on an undulating topography consisting of hills with small creeks and
swampy areas in the valley floors. The soils in the area consist typically of variable thicknesses of weathered
residual laterite and saprolite overlying transition material and fresh rock.
The Segment 1 evaluation of the abandoned rail bed was completed between April 20 and 24. 2012 by a
member of Golder's engineering staff. The Segment 2 portion of the rail bed had not been cleared by the
April 2012 site visit. An additional site visit by Golder was completed between March 21 and 26, 2013 to revisit
sections of Segment 1 and evaluate the cleared sections of Segment 2. Table 1 summarizes the locations which
Golder has completed site reconnaissance/evaluation.
Table 1: Summary of Golder Site Reconnaissance
Length
Section Limits Site Reconnaissance/Evaluation Status
(km)
10+000 to 19+200 9.2 Completed in APJiI, 2012

19+200 to 22+000 2.8 Not Accessible
22+000 to 28+000 6.0 Completed in April, 2012
30+800 to 32+800 2.0 Completed in March, 2013
47+000 to 57+200 10.2 Completed in March, 2013
57+200 to 63+000 5.8 Not Accessible (on new alignment)
Total 53.0 27.4 km Accessible, 25.6 km Inaccessible
Samples of the predominant soil and rock types were collected during the site visits. These samples were taken
to Ground Structures Engineering and Consulting (GSEC) in Georgetown or sent to Golder's Mississauga and
Whitby laboratories for additional testing. The purpose of the testing was to determine the material properties
and suitability for use/applications for the construction of the mine and associated infrastructure. The locally
available materials and potential applications for each material are summarized in Table 2:
~Golder
2 \ZTAssociates
Table 2: Summary of Aggregate and Soil Applications

Material Type Potential Applications
1) Bulk material for embankment fills and widenings

Saprolite
2) Subgrade material for pavements
Laterite 1) Subbase material for pavements
1) Rock fill for fills in wet areas
2) Aggregate for concrete
Rock
3) Base material for pavements
(Granite-Diorite/Gneiss)
4) Aggregate for surface treatment or asphalt
5) Rip Rap for erosion protection
1) Fine aggregate for concrete
Sand
2) Filter material
As a result of the lack of locally available aggregate for construction of the haul road pavements, a non-
traditional pavement design was also developed as part of the scope of work. The design optimizes the use of
local materials and simplifies the construction methods. A variety of tests were completed on the native laterite
material to determine its suitability as a pavement component, on a preliminary basis.
4.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR GRADING (SAPROLITE AND

SAPROCK)
The site conditions in the area of the existing mine facilities and abandoned rail alignment consist of jungle
vegetation on an undulating topography consisting of hills with small creeks and swampy areas in the valley
floors together with a crossing of the Barima River. The abandoned rail alignment was developed to the east
and north of the existing mine facilities by constructing a series of embankment fills and cuts as indicated on
Figures 1 and 2. The subgrade of the proposed alignment will be comprised of native saprolite or saprock in the
cut sections and saprolite fill in the fill sections.
4.1 Embankments (Fill Sections)

The typical abandoned rail alignment embankment fills were observed to be narrow. The side slopes were (or
had been) well vegetated. The major embankment fills ranged in height from approximately 10 to 40 metres.
The embankment fill slope inclinations ranged from approximately 1 horizontal to 1 vertical and 1 horizontal to
2.75 vertical (45 to 70 degrees), with an average inclination of about 1 horizontal to 1.75 vertical (60 degrees).
The embankment fill material appeared to consist of locally obtained saprolite covered by ballast layers on top
ranging in thickness from 0.15 to 0.6 metres. It was observed that the majority of the rail was supported by steel
railway ties, although wooden replacement ties were noted in various locations. Typical abandoned rail bed
embankment fill photographs are provided in Appendix A.
The embankment fills observed in Segment 1 show no stability issues and the exposed side slopes are intact
with no significant erosion or loss of material. There are two locations where roads have been cut through the
embankments by local artisanal miners. The locations of these road cuts are shown on Figures 1 and 2 and a
photograph of the road embankment cut is provided in Appendix A.
4.2 Saprolite/Saprock Cuts

The typical rail alignment cuts were observed to be relatively steep and were (or had been) well vegetated. In
some locations, the base width of the cut provided areas on each side of the rail to permit some widening or
minor realignment of the proposed haul road. However, through most of the cuts, additional clearing and slope
3
~Golder
'ZTAssodates
cut backs would be needed to accommodate a haul road. The main cuts ranged from approximately 5 to 40
metres in height, with an average height of about 15 metres. The cut slopes ranged from approximately 1
horizontal to 1.25 vertical and 1 horizontal to 5.5 vertical (50 to 80 degrees), with an average of 1 horizontal to
2.75 vertical (70 degrees). The rail support structure in the cuts consisted of a fine ballast layer underlain by a
coarser quartz crushed rock sub-ballast layer, supported on the native saprolite subgrade. The coarse sub-
ballast ranged in thickness from approximately nil to 0.3 metres, with an average thickness of 0.1 metres and the
finer ballast ranged in thickness from approximately nil to 0.6 metres, with an average thickness of 0.3 metres.
All of the existing cuts were dry and no water seepage was noted during the site visit. Photographs of the typical
conditions in the rail alignment cuts are provided in Appendix A.
4.2.1 Laboratory Testing

Fifteen samples of saprolite were collected from the cut slopes and laboratory classification tests were carried
out to determine the material properties of the subgrade and cut slopes. The results of the grain size distribution
analyses are provided on Figures B1 and B2.
The results of the Atterberg limits testing of eight saprolite samples are summarized in Table 3 below and are
shown on the Saprolite Plasticity Chart in Appendix B on Figure B3.
Table 3: S ummaryof Atterb erg L'1mIts- Sapro rt

Ie Samples
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index
(%) (%) (%)
Average 51 33 18
Minimum 43 26 9
Maximum 69 45 33
Standard Proctor compaction testing was also completed on four of the saprolite samples to determine the
material's moisture-density relationship. The results are shown in Table 4 below and on Figures B4 to B7.
Iture oensny
Tabl e 4 : S ummaryofM os 't ReIatl ons h'IpS- S apro lite S amples
Standard Proctor Compaction Test
Maximum D'l Maximum Wet Optimum Water In Situ Water
Density (kg/m ) Density (kg/m 3) Content (%) Content (%)
Average 1705 1983 25 31
Minimum 1398 1839 8 6
Maximum 1952 2104 34 49
4.2.2 Localized Erosion

The existing cut slopes are performing well with the exception of two locations where localized instability was
observed. A small area of slope instability is located in Segment 1 at Sta. 13+100 and could have been caused
by erosion from rain runoff or from disturbance from local miners. This localized area of instability had an overall
length and width of approximately 5 metres by 3 metres, respectively. A photograph of this cut slope instability is
provided in Appendix A.
An additional location of instability was observed in Segment 2 at Sta. 31+800. It was noted that the
instability/erosion occurred after the clearing of the vegetation in this area. It should be noted that the inclination
of the cut slope was up to 80 degrees at this location.
4
~Golder
\ZTAssociates
G Mining Services Inc. July 17,2013
4.3 Rock Cuts

Two locations were observed where localized exposed fresh rock outcrops were present within cut areas during
the Segment 1 investigation. The first is located near the start of the alignment adjacent to the existing mine
facilities (Sta. 10+100). This exposure consists of fresh diorite exposed over a length of approximately
40 metres on both sides of the rail bed. This localized area has sufficient base width of the cut to provide areas
on each side of the rail to permit some widening or minor realignment for the proposed haul road. The second is
located at the 18 Mile Access road crossing (Sta. 26+600). The rock at this location was only observed on the
east side of the cut for approximately 5 metres in length. Additional clearing and slope cut backs may be needed
to accommodate widening at this location. These locations can also be used as potential aggregate source
locations for mine infrastructure construction. Photographs of the exposed rock outcrops or dayJighted rock are
provided in Appendix A.
5.0 BARIMA RIVER BRIDGE

It is understood that a new bridge is to be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing river bridge. It is
expected that the new structure will have a similar three span configuration.
During the initial project reconnaissance, the bridge site was inspected at a time when river water levels were
relatively low. Access for inspection of the abutment locations was not available. Photographs are included in
Appendix A.
Based on this inspection, it appears that each of the piers is supported on concrete footings/pile caps and driven
piles, possibly timber. The rip rap erosion protection placed for the piers has apparently been moved by river
flows. No rock outcrops were observed.
Based on the above and for preliminary design, the piers for the new bridge should be founded on steel pipe
piles driven closed-ended and filled with concrete. The abutments could be founded on spread footings or on
piles. Details for the piles and footing designs will require site specific boreholes. However, pile lengths of about
30 metres could be considered to develop an allowable load of 500 kilonewtons per pile.
6.0 LATERITE
Two existing laterite pits were encountered during the site reconnaissance. These pits are currently in operation
to obtain materials for local road construction and repair activities. Additional laterite was encountered in recent
road cuts south of the existing pits. These materials have potential application as a pavement component
material for haul road construction. Seven samples of laterite were sent to Golder'S laboratory to complete water
content, grain size distribution analyses, Atterberg Limit, Standard Proctor Compaction, and California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) tests. CBR testing on laterite was completed with varying quantities of cement or lime additives and
allowing the samples to cure to determine the effectiveness of stabilization.
6.1 Laboratory Testing

The results of the grain size distribution analyses are provided on Figure C1.
The results of the Atterberg limits testing of six laterite samples are summarized in Table 5 below and are shown
on the Laterite Plasticity Chart in Appendix C on Figure C2.
5
Tabl e 5 : Summaryof Atterberg L'1m its- L aterte S amples

Atterberg limits
liquid Limit Plastic limit Plasticity Index
(%) (%) (%)
Average 43 31 12
Minimum 38 28 8
Maximum 47 37 17
Standard Proctor compaction testing was also completed on four of the laterite samples to determine the
material's moisture-density relationship. The results are shown in Table 6 below and on Figures C3 to C6.
. t ure oensuy
Tabl e 6: Summary ofM 015 't ReIat'Ionsh'IPS- L at erl'te Samples
Standard Proctor Compaction Test
In Situ
Maximum D'] Maximum Wet Optimum Water
Density (kglm )
3
Density (kgJm ) Content (%) Water Content
(%)
Average 1623 2002 24 21
Minimum 1513 1914 16 15
Maximum 1875 2186 27 27
The in situ water content of the laterite materials is typically at or less than the optimum moisture content based
on the results of the Standard Proctor Compaction Tests. Using the results of the Standard Proctor Compaction
tests to determine optimum water contents of each material a series of CBR tests were performed. The results
are summarized in Table 7.
T abl e 7 : Summaryofe aI'f . Bearlng Ratlo
I ornla . T est ng- L aterlte S amples
California Bearing Ratio Tests
Sample Unsoaked Soaked

Cement! Lime Compaction
Content Effort Water Bearing Water Bearing Ratio
Content (%) Ratio (%) Content (%) (%)
Lat 2/Lat 3 Mix 0 Standard 26.3 3 29.7 7
Lat 2ILat 3 Mix 5% Lime Standard 27.7 19 30.6 28
Lat 2ILat 3 Mix 3% Cement Standard 33.7 18 36.7 37
Lat 2/Lat 3 Mix 0 Modified 28.3 117 26.6 14
Lat 5ILat 1 Mix 3% Lime Modified 18.3 61 33.0 16
Lat 5/Lat 1 Mix 5% Lime Modified 18.0 84 31.5 45
Notes:
Bearing ratios provided are for 5.0 mm penetration
Standard compaction uses 2.49 kg hammer, 305 mm drop height, 3 soil layers and 56 blows/layer. Modified
compaction uses 4.54 kg hammer, 457 mm drop height, 5 soil layers and 56 blows/layer
Lime and cement were allowed 72 hours to cure/mellow.
Soaked bearing ratios are taken after 96 hours of immersion.
Samples Lat 1 to Lat 4 were collected from an existing Laterite Pit and Lat 5 was collected from an existing road
cut south of the existing pits as shown on Figure 1.
6
~Golder
'ZTAssodates
6.2 Discussion
From the six CBR tests which were completed on the laterite samples the following conclusions are provided:
For the standard compaction untreated case the bearing ratio increased from the unsoaked case to the
soaked case indicating that the Laterite may have a natural pozzolanic property.
The standard compaction lime and cement cases yielded similar soaked and unsoaked bearing ratios.
Since lime is typically cheaper than cement, lime is considered to be the preferred stabilization treatment.
The untreated, modified compaction, with reduced moisture content trial yielded the highest unsoaked
bearing ratio values. The untreated, modified compaction, soaked trial yielded a significant decrease in
bearing ratio indicating that some form of stabilization treatment is preferable to mitigate potential damage
in saturated conditions.
The soaked bearing ratios are higher for the treated cases indicating that the materials continue to
cure/mellow between 72 hours and 7 days.
Improved results generally result from using a high degree of compaction at a water content 5-8% below
optimum water content. The strength gain is highly sensitive to degree of compaction and water content.
The results suggest that where the lime stabilization option is selected, strict control on field compaction
and placement water content will be needed during construction to avoid post-construction performance
problems during mine service.
Based on the laboratory testing summarized above, Golder has developed two alternative pavement designs
using the treated laterite as a subbase material. Refer to Section 7.0 for the Pavement Design and Analysis.
7.0 AGGREGATE SOURCES

Aggregates will be required for a variety of applications for mine construction and maintenance activities. During
the site visits in 2012 and 2013, three samples of high quality rock were obtained from existing quarries or road
cuts. In addition four samples of sand were obtained from existing commercial, natural sources or porknocker
workings. It is understood that the region has few commercial aggregate sources and none were found locally.
7.1 Rock Sources

Three samples of quarried material or rock were collected from locations near the mine site or transportation
corridor. A relatively extensive laboratory testing program was completed to characterize each material and
determine their suitability for use in concrete, surface treatment or asphalt, haul road base material, erosion
protection or as bulk rock fill.
7
~GolcIer
\Z7Associates
Mr. Mathieu Gignac. Ing . Vice-President. Projects 11-1132-0130-M06
G Mining Services Inc. July 17. 2013
7.1.1 Laboratory Testing

A summary of testing to determine the properties of the sampled rock are provided in Table 8:
Ta bl e 8 5 ummary o fTest'1"9 - Roc kS amples

Typical Limits for
Port Kaltuma
Test Big Creek Quarry Diorite Outcrop Use in Concrete
Quarry
Aggregates
Rock Classification
(primary) - Granodiorite Gneiss -
Soundness of
Aggregates by Use of
Magnesium Sulfate
- 0.2 0.2 <12%
(%)
Relative Density (dry) 2.897 2.981 2.651 -
Absorption (%) 1.39 0.5 0.5 <2%
Petrographic Number - 101.8 106.2 < 120
Micro-Deval Loss (%) 28 4.5 3.7 < 17%
Potential Alkali
Reactivity
(Mortar-Bar Method) - 0.059 0.017 <0.6%
Average Expansion
The location of each sample is provided on Figure 1. The rock sample from Big Creek Quarry had a grain size
distribution analysis completed as obtained from the field. The sample was then crushed to a minus 25
millimetre (mm) size and a grain size distribution analysis was completed on the crushed sample. The grain size
distributions of the Big Creek Quarry sample have been combined and are provided in the laboratory Tests
Results in Appendix D. The Big Creek Quarry is not located near the transportation corridor and based on the
laboratory testing is not of the same high quality composition of the other formations. (Micro-Deval loss of 28%
vs. 4.5 or 3.7%)
It is understood that the Port Kaituma Quarry source may not be available due to conflicting claims on the
property. However, numerous fresh rock outcrops were observed and other rock sources should be investigated
in the vicinity of Port Kaituma as the material tested is of high quality and suitable for a variety of applications.
Considering the steepness of the topography along the proposed haul road on new alignment, additional rock
sources are probable and require additional site reconnaissance. Depending on the site conditions at the
selected wharf and storage facility, substantial quantities of rock fill may be required for backfilling in wet
conditions_
The Diorite Outcrop source is located near the existing laterite Pit #1 and #2. It is currently considered to be the
most convenient source of rock for use as an aggregate in surface treatmenUhot mix or concrete although
additional sources should be investigated as part of the feasibility study.
7.2 Sand
Four samples of sand were obtained from commercial, natural or porknocker workings. laboratory testing was
completed to determine their suitability for use in concrete or as a filter material. Sand is not found in sufficient
quantities in the region to consider it for use as a subbase material in haul road construction.
8
~Golder
'ZTAssodates
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, Ing., Vice-Preslden\, Projects 11 -1132-0130-M06
Tabl e 9 : SummaryofTesr'"9 -San d Samples

Sample Source % Gravel % Sand % Slit %Clay Comments
Arakaka Sand
(John Phillips)
Commercial 2 93 3 2 -
Arakaka Sandy Silt Contains excess
Natural 4 38 54 4
(River Source) fines
Contains excess
Port Kaltuma Sand Commercial 0 74 23 3
fines
Porknocker
Porknocker Sand 16-26 57-69 11-13 4 Contains quartz
(Processed)
The Arakaka Sand (John Phillips) material is suitable for construction purposes such as concrete production.
However, the gradation of the sand is more uniform and finer than the Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
gradation for concrete sand and increased cement content may be required to obtain the desired concrete
properties. Further, the sand is obtained from a local dredging operation and, from discussions on site, it is
understood that only relatively small quantities are currently produced each year.
A grain size distribution analysis of a natural source from the river bank of the Barima River was also completed.
The material was found to be too silty for applications as concrete sand and would require extensive washing to
provide a suitable material.
The Port Kaituma Sand also contained higher silt content than can be considered acceptable for concrete sand.
It is understood that this source of sand is east of Port Kaituma. During the 2013 site visit Golder attempted to
visit the source; however, due to poor road conditions and washouts we were unable to view the deposit. From
discussions with the source's owner the deposit is fairly limited as well.
Sand from porknocker workings was also collected from a gold mine east of Matthews Ridge. This material was
relatively coarse grained compared with other sand sources but has more silt than allowed by the CSA gradation
for concrete sand. This material also can only be obtained in relatively small quantities.
Alternatively, sand could be shipped to the site via barge from Georgetown or other sources.
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Grading
From this initial assessment of portions of Segment 1 and Segment 2 of the abandoned rail alignment, the
findings are encouraging from a geotechnical perspective with respect to the upgrading of this transportation
corridor for re-use for the proposed mining operation. The existing embankments and cut slopes are performing
well despite being relatively steep and not having had any maintenance for the past 40 years. The existing
narrow gauge rail platform is narrow and widening is anticipated for a haul road. The local saprolite material
performs well for embankment construction and no significant geotechnical problems are foreseen with
embankment widening. The new embankment material will need to be stepped/benched into the existing side
slopes to provide uniform support across the full width of the widened platform. Benches should be no higher
than 1.0 m.
The two recent cuts through the embankment can be easily reinstated. The need to maintain any access across
the corridor for local users will need to be established.
"'Golder
9 \ITAssociates
Borrow materials will be needed for widening the embankments for the road option. This fill would be available
from the widening of the existing cuts. Widening of existing cuts will increase the clear zone for traffic
operations, allow for improved drainage and allow locations for haul road traffic to pass.
Only two localized areas with exposed fresh rock were noted along Segment 1 of the rail alignment. Depending
on the extent of the proposed upgrading works, some limited drilling and blasting might be required in these
areas in order to establish a wide enough platform for future use.
A least some of the existing ballast and sub-ballast materials can be salvaged for re-use. During the field visit, a
pile of salvaged ballast and sub-ballast was inspected visually and the contamination seemed minimal. Thus,
this material would be suitable for reuse in pavement construction and repair of settled areas in the subgrade
provided contamination with the underlying soils can be minimized.
8.2 Pavement Design

Due to the location of the site and lack of local availability of good quality aggregates the cost of a hot mix
asphalt pavement will be high. No existing hot mix plant facilities are located in the region and it is not practical
to ship the hot mix via barge or ferry. In addition, hot mix paving requires specialized paving equipment and
experienced paving crews. Due to this, a non-traditional pavement design has been undertaken to lower the
capital expenditure. The pavement structure considered entails a double surface treatment wearing course
(DST) over a Portland cement treated base course a lime stabilized laterite subbase course. A surface treated
pavement will not provide the same level of service as an asphalt paved roadway and will require more frequent
maintenance interventions. However, maintenance operations will only require low technology equipment.
8.2.1 Traffic Volumes

Based on the most up-to-date production quantities a total of 750,000 tonnes of concentrate is expected to be
processed from Matthews Ridge and hauled to Port Kaituma each year. Based on this figure the total Equivalent
Single Axel Loads (ESALs) for pavement design will be 1.65 Million over the 10 year life of the mine.
8.2.2 Analysis Method

The pavement design was based on the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials) Guide for the DeSign of Pavement Structures, 1993 and the commercial pavement design software
DARWin. Structural layer coefficients (SLCs) for each pavement layer were selected using this guide and from
the knowledge gained from the CBR stabilization testing completed as part of the scope of work. Refer to
Section 5.0 for details.
8.2.3 Design Parameters

The parameters used for the pavement design are summarised in Table 10 below:
Table 10: Design Input Parameters

Design Parameters Value
Initial Se/Viceability Index 4.5
Terminal Se/Viceability Index 2.5
Loss in Se/Viceability Index 2.0
Desired Reliability (%) 90
Estimated Elastic Modulus of Subgrade Soil (MPa) 35
Standard Deviation 0.44
~Golder
10 \ZTAssociates
8.2.4 Structural Layer Coefficients

Table 11 provides the selected SlCs for each pavement structure element:
Table 11: Design Input Parameters

Pavement Structure Layer Structural Layer Coefficient
Double Surface Treatment o
Portland Cement Treated Base 0.28
Untreated Laterite 0.05
Laterite Treated with 3% Lime 0.16
Laterite Treated with 5% Lime 0.21
8.2.5 Pavement Design Results

Two pavement designs were considered using 3% and 5% lime treated laterite. The results of the analysis are
provided in Appendix E and are summarized as follows:
For the 3% lime stabilized laterite alternative:
Double Surface Treatment - 40 mm
Portland Cement Treated Base - 125 mm
lime Treated laterite - 450 mm (compacted in three 150 mm lifts)
For the 5% lime stabilized laterite alternative
Double Surface Treatment - 40 mm
Portland Cement Treated Base - 125 mm
lime Treated laterite -360 mm (compacted in two 180 mm lifts)
The double surface treatment should be in accordance with OPSS (Ontario Provincial Standards) 304 and 1006
for the specification of aggregate gradation, emulsion type and binder application rates. Class 2 aggregate
gradation and HF-150 (High Float) emulsion should be used. The application rates for each surface treatment
component are as follows:
Emulsion Bottom lift: 1.65 kg/m2
Emulsion Top lift: 1.55 kg/m2
Aggregate Bottom lift: 18 kg/m2
Aggregate Top lift: 19 kg/m2
Cement treated base material should be mixed with 3% Type I cement and meet the grading specification of
OPSS Granular A.
The requirement for resurfacing should be anticipated after 5 years and should consist of a double surface
treatment overlay.
Due to the high average annual rainfall and the moisture sensitivity of the laterite, the subgrade
(saprolite/sap rock) should have a crossfall of 5%.
~GoIder
11 \ZTAssociates
Mr. Mathieu Gignac. Ing . Vice-President. Projects 11-1132-0130-M06
G Mining Services Inc. July 17.2013
8.2.6 Pavement Cross Section

The recommended cross sections for the haul road are provided in Appendix E. The double surface treatment
should extend the width of the travelled lane while a single surface treatment should cover the shoulders and
shoulder roundings to provide protection from erosion and edge cracking.
A 500 mm deep and 1.0 m wide ditch should be provided. Ditch gradients steeper than 10% should be covered
with rip-rap protection.
9.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY ASSESSMENT

Based on the results of the pre-feasibility testing. the use of laterite deposits could provide an economic
pavement design compared to a traditional pavement. To support the feasibility of laterite material being used in
the haul road pavement deSign, additional material sources will have to located, investigated and tested. During
the feasibility studies further investigations should be completed in the vicinity of Laterite Pits #1 and #2 to
confinn the quantity of the material. Attempts to locate additional sources of the material north of the Barima
River to support construction of Segment 2 will improve the feasibility of the laterite' use as a pavement material.
Once required material quantities for haul road construction have been estimated further investigation for
Laterite Pits #1 and #2 should be completed by advancing test pits to determine the extent and quality of the
materials. Additional test pit should be extended up to 2 km north and south of the known laterite deposits. A
member of Golder's engineering staff should complete a site visit to confirm the extents of the deposit, the
quality and unifonnity of the material and select samples for testing. A comprehensive testing program including
additional stabilized CBR trials could be completed in Guyana at GSEC's Laboratory under the direction of
Golder.
The remainder of the transportation corridor (Segment 2) should be cleared and site reconnaissance completed
by a member of Golder'S Engineering staff. An excavator should be provided during the reconnaissance to
investigate any potential laterite sources north of the Barima River. Considering the regional geology and the
location of the existing Laterite Pits. a potential location for investigation is provided on Figure 3. Once a deposit
is confirmed, an investigation similar to the one described for Laterite Pits #1 and #2 should be implemented to
confinn the quality and quantity of the material.
12
10.0 CLOSURE
We trust that this draft memorandum provides sufficient information for your present purposes. Please do not
hesitate to contact us should any point need further clarification or if additional information is required at this
time.
Yours truly,
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.
,~. L".:-.~
~/ ~.~
a/ .
~ Hagan, P.Eng.
Geotechnical/Pavement Engineer
JBH/MLJMlleb
CC: Mr. Philip R. Bedell, P.Eng. (Bedell Engineering Inc.)
Attachments: Figures 1 and 2 - Location Plans

Figure 3 - Regional Geologic Map
Appendix A - Site Photographs
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing - Saprolite
Appendix C - Laboratory Testing - Laterite
Appendix D - Laboratory Testing - Aggregates
Appendix E - Pavement Design and Cross Sections
n lacl,veL 20111other ollicesI11 1132-0130Im06 corridor reportlfinal reportI11 -1132-0130-mo6 final matthews ndge 2013'0717.doc.
13
E E \
~
~
CIJ
8o
~
CIJ
CUT IN EMBANKMENT
FRESH ROCK IN CUT
LATERITE PIT
c:::=:> MAJOR CUT LOCATION
c:::=:> MAJOR FILL LOCATION
REFERENCE
PLAN BASED DIGITAL MAPPING SUPPLIED BY
G MINING SERVICES INC.
NOTES
a
:?
1. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ACCOMPANYING TEXT.
CO>
~ 2. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY.

g PROJECT
~ MATTHEWS RIDGE PROJ ECT
REUNION MANGANESE
.f GUYANA, SOUTH AMERICA
~
o
TITLE LOCATION PLAN
~ TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
~ ( Section 1)
CO>
i ~~ ____"
~ i\.ssociates CHECK .JOH
8 LONDON. ONTARIO
WHARF LOCATION
OPTION 4
,
o
,
" "-
"
E E
~
C')
IX)

15
IX)
855000m
LEGEND
-+- SAMPLE LOCATION
CULVERT LOCATION
CUT IN EMBANKMENT
FRESH ROCK IN CUT
LATERITE PIT
c:::::=' MAJOR CUT LOCATION
c:::::=' MAJOR FILL LOCATION
REFERENCE
NOTES
1. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH
!.
..,
- J
2.
ACCOMPANYING TEXT.
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY .

~
:g PROJECT
:;
-. MATTHEWS RIDGE PROJECT
REUNION MANGANESIE
TITLE
LOCATION PLAN
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
(Section 2)
&, Gold~
\Z7Associ.a1es
0
--==--+....:::.:..=
j.....=:CAO:::::...r
CHECK
LONDON. ONTARIO
E E E
0 0
0 0
0 0
....
0
CO
10
N
CO
m~
0
/ /
\, _, _ (J
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE FORMER RAIL LINE AND NEW ALIGNMENT
850000m
----- - APPROXIMATE ROAD
APPROXIMATE GUMN RIVER PRINCIPAL
- - - - BOUNDARY OF GEOLOGICAL MAP SOURCES (REFER TO NOTES SECTION)
GEOLOGY
~ Alluvium ~ Matthews Ridge Formation

~ Amphilbolite and amphibole schist facies ~ Porphyritic biolilie
~ Amphibolites and arrphibole schists ~ Tenapu Formation
840000m
~ Baie Intrusives, slightly metamorphosed I@ I Undifferentiated
~ Biotite granite I@ I Unsurveyed
835000m
I'(!)I
~
Dominantly metapelites with bands of Cherty
Quartzites, siltstone, Greywackes and ???
I@ I Yonger Basic Intrusives
( NUMERICAL VALUE IS FOR LOCA TlON IDENTIFICATION ONL Y.)
SCALE IN KILOMETRES
o 4
,
1:175
REFERENCE
NOTES
THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITHI
ACCOMPANYING TEXT.
NOTE THIS MAP IS AN UNRECONCILED COMPOSITE OF
Ii VARIOUS GEOLOGICAL MAPS COMPILED BY DIFFERENT
~ GEOLOGIST.
... ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY .
~
:g @ PROJECT
:;
-. MATTHEW'S RIDGE PROJECT
REUNION MANGANESIE
f 830000 m ~~
I
TiTlE
SCALE IN KILOMETRES GEOLOGY PLAN

~0
E E
o 1 2km TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
~
~ ,
....
co
g
....
co
i 7Z
1:50
i ~,
(]J'. ~~!.
Glde~!~!~S
PROJECT No. ' ,' . 11 32.01 30
I
I FILENo,
SGA L[
1 I 11 32013DMJ1001
I\.."l SHQINN I RI:V .
I "'" 01 r CAOD I WOf Junn '111'3
t-1\:JUKt: ~
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, Ing., Vice-President, Projects 11 -1132-0130-M06
APPENDIX A
Site Photographs
I'fMGolder
\Z7Associates
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Typical Fill Photograph 1: Located at N-0838295 E-0822470.
Typical Fill Photograph 2: Located at N-0838916 E-0823947.
July, 2013
Project No. 11-1132-0130-M06 1/8
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Typical Cut Photograph 3: Located at N-0838847 E-0823853.
Typical Cut Photograph 4: Located at N-0838166 E-0822296.
July, 2013
Project No. 11-1132-0130-M06 218
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Localized Slope Instability at Geological Transition Photograph 5: Located at N-0829893 E-

0814410.
Localized Rock Outcrop #1 Photograph 6: Located at N-0829922 E-0813785.
July, 2013
Project No. 11-1132-0130-M06 3/8 ~~
\Z1~18tes
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
July. 2013
Project No. 11-1132-0130-M06 418
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Road Cut through Embankment Photograph 10: Located at N-0829886 E-0814697.
July, 2013
Project No. 11-1132-0130-M06 5/8
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Typical Rail Embankment Culvert Photograph 11: Located at N-0830561 E-0817092.
Typical Rail Embankment Culvert Photograph 12: Located at N-0830561 E-0817092.
July. 2013
Project No. 11-1132-0130-M06 6/8 eft Golder
'- Assodates
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Barima River Bridge looking upstream Photograph 13: Located at N-840907 E-827846.
South Pier of Barima River Bridge Photograph 14: Located at N-840990 E-827783
July, 2013
Project No. 11-1132-0130-M06 718
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
North Pier of Barima River Bridge Photograph 15: Located at N-841 025 E-827747
South Pier of Barima River Bridge Photograph 16: Located at N-840954 E-827828
n;\aclivel_20111oIher off1t8s111-1132-0130\m06 corridor repor1Vinal repor1\appendix a - s~e photoslU1132013O-rn01 jut 4 12-app . site photos.docx
July, 2013
Project No. 11-1132-0130-M06 8/8
~Go1der
\Z7Associates
Mr. Malhieu Gignac, Ing., Vice-Presidenl, Projecls 11-1132-0130-M06
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Testing - Saprolite
<a. Golder
. Associates
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE B1
Saprolite
Size of opening, inches U,S.S Sieve Size. mesheolinch

6' 4Yo' 3' 1 ~ 1" %" Yr" %" 3 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
100 ,
90
\ r--
i"I r-. I-t. ~ "0
""""0.... --.r j'.,
r- \
80
70
~
~
b
,
" 1\,\
'\
~
i=
60
ia ~
~
0::
W
Z
it
50 ~
I-
Z
W
0 40 \\
~~
0::
W
Q.
30
~ :\
20 \ t\.
10
1\
)jr--.
i\
~
I
0
100 10
1 GRAIN SIZE, m,g1 0.01 0,001 0.0001
I I I
coarse fine coarse medium fine
COBBLE
SIZE GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE SILT AND CLAY
LEGEND
SYMBOL LOCATION SAMPLE # STATION DEPTH (mm)
0 Cut Slope 3 10+200 200-500

a Cut Slope 5 13+100 200-500
I:. Cut Slope 7 15+000 200,500
~ Cut Slope 11 11+400 200,500
Date June, 201 3

Project 11-11 32-01 30 Checked: JBH
Golder Associates
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE B2
Saprolite
Size of opening. Inches U.S.S Sieve Size. mesheslinch

6- 4 y." 3- l v.- 1- Yo- y,. %- :l 4 6 16 30 50 100 200
100
90 ""'" r\.
'\
80
70 1\ ~
f\ 11~
~ 60
::z:: .....
~~
~
a::
w ~
z 50
~
LA:
~
Z
W
0 40
a::
w
11. re-. ~
\
30 ~
.......
20
10
~
~~
[\l\ -
r-.. ~.
""r.
0
100 10 0.01 0.001 0 .0001
1GRAlN SIZE, mm0.1
I I I
coarse fine coarse medium fine
COBBLE
LEGEND
SYMBOL LOCATION SAMPLE # STATION DEPTH (mm)
0 Cut Slope Cut 1 52+800 200-500

a
Cut Slope Cut2 49+200 200-500
0\
Cut Slope Cut3 47+500 200-500
<> Cut Slope Cut4 31+100 200-500
Date June. 2013

Project 11-1132-0130 Checked: JBH
Golder Associates
Oct 75. FF-S-21
60
50 /
V
CH
/
/
40
~ CI
V
/-
0
x
w
0
~
~30
V
U
i=
CJ)
<{
...J CL
0- LEGEND
SAMPLE SYMBOL
20 / '"
3 -
V 5
7
-
-

10
V
/ A
..
MH
11
Cut 1
-
-

--- Cut 2 -
---
CL-ML
/' Cut 3 -
0
ML ML
Cut4 - D
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT %
Figure No. B3
<#~
PLASTICITY CHART
Project No. 11-1132-0130
SAPROLITE
Checked By: JBH
LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST FIGURE 84
Voids Line: Sat=100% (Gs=2.7 assumed)
1.42:====:====:====::====:====:====:====::==
1.40 . ~~ ~==~~-_
:"'-i"--.
~_~~~~~:====:=====
1.381---t---t---+---t--/-/A----I--->-+""'-
. -t----1f--"'o."--
~t- "'
---I---1
1.361- - - t - - - / - - - - 1 - - - - t - - !/-+---t---t-'
- .,,,;;:---i---+--__t----"""~
;;:--+---I
"'-~
l_ ' i'--..
1 .341---I---l---+---H1/'----1---+---+---+----"""'''-.--1,~---+---+-~'' ,, <: -1
1 . 321---t---l-----1f---/-H---+-----t---1-----1f----+-~-d-
~---+---f
1.30 J
1.28 1- - - - I - - - t - - - - t - - - /e - - + - - - + - - - - t - - - - I - - - - iI- - - t - - -t--- - - t - - -1
1.261- - - t - - - 1 - - - - - , / t - - - t - - - 1 - - - - + - - - - t - - - + - - - + - - _ _ t - - - + - - -1
1.24 1- - - - I - - - t - - / - - - - - , I - - - I - - - - - I - - - t - - - - + - - - - - I - - - + - - - 1 - - - - I - - - + - - -1
1.221- - - - t - - - + - - / - f - - - - t - - - f - - - + - - - t - - - + - - - t - - - t - - - - t - - - t - - - -1
1 .20 ~-__t-~
-,~---r--~--+---r--~---+---r--~--r---1
1.18,1....----i-;;...........- -.......- -.......-

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
-""----.:....-.......I--......- - - ' - - -.......- -......---'
35 36 37 38
WATER CONTENT (Ok)
Standard Borehole: Sample:

Proctor Test Results Cut 1 1
Max Dry Density: Optimum Water Natural Water

1.398 Mg/m 3 Content: 31.6% Content: 32.9%
Project Number: 11-1132-0130 LABID: 13-740

Checked By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Golder Associates Date: 03-May-13

1.60~--------------~----------------~--------~------~--------------~

~ 1.501----------------~--------------'.-/~/~--------------~~r-----------------1
f
offi
./
/
\
~
o 1.40'----------------~1--
~ ---r-----------+-----------------r------~--------'
1 . 30~--------------~----------------~--------------~--------------~
o 10 20 30 40
WATER CONTENT (%)


1.563 Mglm3 Content: 24.4% Content: 32.7%
Tested By: Ground Structures Engineering Consultants Inc.

Checked By: Golder Associates Date: 06-Jun-13

1.54
\
1.53
1.52
- -- ~ \\
\
1.51

1.50
\ \
\ \
1.49
1.48
\-\ 1\
1.47
1\ \
1.46
\ 1\
1.45
~ 1\
1.44
\ \
1.43
\ \
1.42
\ \
1.41
\- \
1.40
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
WATER CONTENT (0/0)


1.527 Mg/m' Content: 22.9% Content: 34.1 %

Checked By: _ _ _ __ _ _ __ Golder Associates Date: 08-May-13

2.00 I
1.98
1\
1.96
\
1.94
I
1/
1'",, 1\
1.92 !
/ 1\ \
~ 1.90
/ \ 1\ 1
c, / \ \ I
!. 1.88 -
~
en 1.86
I
I .
\ \
z
w
c 1.84
/ 1\ ~
>-
0:
c 1.82
/ I '\ \
~
1.80
1.78 -
1.76
I
~
~
I
1
'" \
~
1.74
I I '-.. 1
................
1.72
1 1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
WATER CONTENT (%)

Proctor Test Results Cut4 4

Tested By: Ground Structures Engineering Consultants Inc.

Checked By: Golder Associates Date: 06-Jun-13
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing - Laterite
~Golder
\ZiTAssociates
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE C1
Laterite
Size of opening. inches U.S S Sieve Size. n,esheS/inch

6" 4Y." 3" 1%- 1- II- W \<- J 4 e 16 30 50 100 200
100 ,
~
"\
"" .......
90
80
"~ \
'\
1\ i'-.
\-., r-...
70
"'"
..,~ ~ r-... ro.-
~
::J:
60 ~ ~ ~~
'i
\N
~
0::
W
Z 50
~
~ I"""
\ I"- ~
~
~~
r--.. ~
~
z i\ l'\
w 40
U ~
~~
~
'"
0::
W
Q.
30
i'J.r-. rte..
r--......
~~ t--... .....
~
.......
20 "-u
10
,
~\ """" ... ~
......... "-
.......... ~
.... ~
0
m~ 1
100 10 0.01 0.001 0.0001
1 GRAIN SIZE,
1 I I
coarse fine coarse medium fi ne
COBBLE
SIZE SILT AND CLAY
LEGEND
SYMBOL SAMPLE #
0 Laterite Pit 1
a Laterite Pit 2
A Lat1
~
Lat2
Lat4
* Lat 5
Date June, 2013

Project 11-11 32-0130 Checked: JBH
Golder Associates
_.. -...
60
50 /
V
CH
/
/
40
:.!! CI
V
/
0
xw
0
z
~30
V
C3
~
en
...J CL
a. LEGEND
20 / SAMPLE SYMBOL
/-
LP1 -
LP2 -
/
Lat 1 -
MH OH
Lat 2 -
10
io-- - -
V 0
0
Lat4
Lat 5
-
-
0
,---
CL-ML
/' 0
0\
ML ML
D
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT %
Figure No. C2
QI~
PLASTICITY CHART
Project No. 11-1132-0130
LATERITE
Checked By: JBH
LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST FIGURE C3
Voids Line: Sal=100% (Gs=2.7 assumed)

1 . 60r---r---r--~~---'-"",~~
-""'"""l'----:'----:-----:-----:-----:--"""'T""-""""'-"""'T""-""""'-""
~
....-- .-r--. ~'-.,
1.501- _ t _ - - - t - /-t-/-----7~t--t-~--........~'-.....
,/ ....:>.",.,
cl-~
-l-
k--t---t--I----t--t--'
1.40
./ ~~
~~~
:~~I__-l-- I
" ., ~ " I'----.
1.301-- t - - - I - - - i - - - i - - - t - - - t - - - - I - - i - - - + - - -I- t - - - l - - - - t - - - l - - - l - - - -.'"

- ' - - - I - -
1.20~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
I
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
WATER CONTENT (%)
Standard Sample: Source:

Proctor Test Results LAT 1 Unknown

1.513 Mg/m3 Content: 26.5% Content: 22.3%


1.58
\
1.56
\
1.54
1.52
1.50
1.48
/
/
1.46
1.44
/
1.42
/

1.40~~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~~
I I
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
WATER CONTENT (%)

Proctor Test Results LAT2 Unknown


2.001..-----r-----"'-----.,..--,---.-----r-~--.:--~--.--~~......,---..,.....,....---,---
1.90 --I--+---+--I--l--l--+---t--l--'I--f-~~",--!---l--I--+--+--I
~~
1.80 1--1---1---1---+--1--1---1---+---1---1--1---1---1--1--....""..-1---1--1 ~'"
""~
/
' I'
1.7011--+---- -+I____
........... -=:==-~+-,_-,.--I---I--.j--.j--.j--.j--j--j--I----,I--I--I--I
1.60
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
WATER CONTENT (%)


1.875 Mg/m3 Content: 16.6% Content: 15.4%


1.56
/'
f-- ........
~
\1
i\
1.54 "-
/
1.52
/
"~ \
~~"
/
1.50
/ \
/ "'. ~, ~
1.48
-",
1.46
'"""
~
1.44
-\""
"" 1\
1.42
1.40
i\'~, \
I I
1.38
1.36
19 20 21 22 23 24
I
25 26 27 28 29
!
30 31 32 33 34 35
\

36
"" 37
WATER CONTENT (%)
Standard Sample: Sample:


1.551 Mg/m' Content: 25.3% Content: 27.2%

Mr. Mathieu Gignac, Ing., Vice-President, Projects 11 -1132-0130-M06
APPENDIX D
Laboratory Testing - Aggregates
~Golder
\ZTASsOCiates
Big Creek Quarry
Sizo at oponlng . .... thu s U S S Siovo Sizo. moshosRnch

6 6
4'1.- 3- n~ 16
'r.- )\- K- J .. 8 16 3" 50 100 200
100 ,
90
K
80
70
~ 60
i!:
0::
W
z 50
ii:
I-
Z /;I
w
() 40
0::
W
11.
30 \
20
r-- ra.,
10
~
.....
0
0_01 0_0001
100 10
1 GRAIN SIZE, mril-1 0.001
I I I
COBBLE
cearao I fino CODf'SO I medium I Iino
LEGEND
SYMBOL SAMPLE #
0 Big Creek Quarry (Before Crushing)

a Big Creek Quarry (Afler Crushing)
Date June, 201 3

Project 11-11 32-01 30 Checked: JBH
Golder Associates
Sand/Sandy Silt
..
,
Slzo ot opening, 'nCh&5 U ,S S Siovo Suo mo:shot linch
6- "'i.- l t ~" 1 ~. ~. ". 3 4
I 30 100 200
100
90
~i',
"'
""0-
80
f\ f\
70
\\ 1\
~ 60
:z:
\
t-
0:
w
z 50 \ l\
ii:
t-
z
w 40
'\ \ 1\
~
I' \
w
Q.
30
~
20 ~~
10 ~ ~
b..
I'-
a
100 10
1 GRAIN SIZE, m~- l 0.01 0.001 0.0001
I I J
COBBLE
coarse I fino coarse I medium I fino
SIZE SILT AND CLAY
LEGEND
SYMBOL SAMPLE #
a Arakaka Sand (John Phillips)

a Arakaka Sandy SUI (River Source)
Port Kailuma Sand
<> Porknocker Sand 1
Porknocker Sand 2
Date June. 201 3

Project 11-1132-0 130 Golder Associates Checked: JBH
RELATIVE DENSITY AND ABSORPTION
OF COARSE AGGREGATE
(ASTMC127)
August 1, 2012
Golder Project Number: 11-1132-0130
G. Mining Services Inc

7900 Boul. Taschereau
Edifice D. Suite 200
Brossard, ac
ATTENTION: Mr. Matt Gignac
PROJECT: Matthews Ridge. Reunion Manganese Inc.. Guyana
Sample 10: Big Creek Quarry Sample
Date Sampled: April 20-24, 2012 Sampled By: AW

Date Received: May 16, 2012 Golder Lab Number: G-12-206
Date Tested: July 27.2012 Tested By: JMT
Relative Density Relative Density Apparent Relative

Absorption (%)
(dry basis) (SSD basis) Density
2.897 2.938 3.019 1.39
Reviewed by: ().,...- - -...-

Annmarie Jarvis, Laborato
CCil!
!YRla The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided. and may not be applcable to material from olherproducllon zones/periods.
This report coostltWls a teatl", service only. I_retatlon of the data given here may be provided upon request
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD., 100 Scotia Court, Ontario Canada LiN BY. Tel: 805-723-2727 Fax: 805-723-2182
RESISTANCE OF COARSE AGGREGATE
TO DEGRADATION BY ABRASION IN
THE MICRO-DEVAL APPARATUS
(ASTM D6928)
August 1. 2012
G. Mining Services Inc.

Brossard. QC
PROJECT: Matthews Ridge. Reunion Manganese Inc.. Guyana
Date Sampled: April 20-24. 2012 Sampled By: AW

Date Received: May 16. 2012 Golder Lab Number: G-12-206
Date Tested: July 26.2012 Tested By: JMT
Sieve Size Grading Loss of sample (%)
19.0-9.Smm A 27.5
Validation Test Data: Control Aggregate (Drain Brothers Stoney Lake Quarry)
Test Date: July 11 . 2012
Percent Loss (11.4% to 14.8%) 13.6%
Reviewed by: ~o&::::""--------"11~-

Annmarie Jarvis. Laboratory S
Ceil.!
JY9lia.. The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided, and may not be applcable to material from oilier production zones/periods.
This report constltlAes a IeStIng service only. Irterpretatlon of the data plven here may be provided upon request.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTO 100 Scotia Court Whitby. Ontario. Canada L1N 8ya rei: 905-723-2727 Fax: 905-723-2182
RESISTANCE OF FINE AGGREGATE
_ GOlder THE MICRO-DEVAL APPARATUS
- Associates (ASTM D7428)
August 1, 2012
G. Mining Services Inc.

Brossard, ac
PROJECT: Matthews Ridge, Reunion Manganese Inc., Guyana

Date Tested: July 26,2012 Tested By: JMT
Sieve Size Grading Loas of sample (%)
4.75 - 0.075mm A 28.6
Validation Test Data: Control Aggregate (Sutherland Sand)

Test Date: July 10, 2012
Percent Loss (15.2"10 to 18.4%) 16.9%
Reviewed by: 0.,------

Annmarie Jarvis, Laboratory
c... _---......---....
ell.!
1~_'.~~""';'I"';;;;:;"
t:ImJa The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided. and may not be appl cable to malarial from other produc1lon zones/perfods.
ThIs report constitutes a testing service only. Interpretation of the data given here may be provided upon request.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTO., 100 Scotia Court Whitby, Ontaio. Canada LiN BY8 Tel: 905-7232727 Fax: 905-7232182
OF FINE AGGREGATE
(ASTMC128)
August2,2012
G. Mining Services Inc

Brossard, ac
PROJECT: Matthews Ridge. Reunion Manganese Inc .. Guyana
I Sample 10: Big Creek Quarry Sample

Date Received: May 16,2012 Golder Lab Number: G-12-206
Date Tested: August 1, 2012 Tested By: AM
Relative Density Relative Density Apparent Relative

Absorption (%)
2.609 2.732 2.977 4.74
Reviewed by: ......;-..;;~ _ _ _ _ _ _...._ __

Annmarie Jarvis, Laboratory
CCi~
"-_.- _ _ _ i _ l _
I~_"'-""'-"""--
~ The lesl data given herein pertain 10 the sample provided, and may nolbe applcable to material from other produdlon zones/periods.
ThIs report conSlillU8 a testing aenrica only. Ircerpretallon oflhe data given here may be provided upon request
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LlO., 100 Scotia Court, Ontario Canada L1N BY8 Tel: 905-723-2727 Fax: 905-7232182
PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
OF COARSE AGGREGATE
(eSA A23.2-09 15A METHOD B)
May 15, 2013

100 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L1N 8Y6
Attention: Mr. Michael Maher
Sample 10: Diorite
Fraction: 5 - 20 mm
Quality Designation Percentage PN PN

Rock Classification
Groups multiplier calculation
Granite Diorite (hard) 82.6 1
Good 99.1
Meta-Diorite (hard) 16.5
Fair Meta-Diorite (brittle) 0.9 3 2.7
Poor - - 6 -
Deleterious -- - 10 -
Petrographic Number 101.8
Notes:
1. The PN is not related to the potential for alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR) of this aggregate when used in Portland
cement concrete. AAR potential must be separately assessed.
2. Rock types Indicated by may have potential for alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR). See CSA A23.1 and CSA A23.2 for
Information on the assessment of AAR in new concrete construction.
p~mphe~~~ John Taylor, M:Sc:

Reviewed By:
Anett Briggs, P.Geo
CCi~
......................
1_________ _
~ ,.....
~ The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided. and is not applicable to material1i'om olherprodudlon zones/periods. This
report constitutes a testing service only. Intapretatton of the data given here mil)' be f'Ovided upon request.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD., 100 Scotia Court Whitby, Ontario, Canada L1N Bva Tel: 905-723-2727 Fax: 905-7232182
(lit Golder
- Associates
THE MICRO-DEVAL APPARATUS
(ASTM 06928)
May 9, 2013

100 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L1 N 8Y6
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Maher
PROJECT: Aggregate Testing - Reunion Gold Mine Guyana
Sample 10: Diorite
Date Sampled: NA Sampled By: Client

Date Tested: May 8,2013 Tested By: JMT
Loss of sample (%) Acceptance Requirement as per OPSS 1002 Table 5 (%)
4.5 20 Max.
Validation Teat Data: Control Aggregate (Sutherland Sand)

Test Date: May 8, 2013
Percent Loss (15.2% to 18.4%) 13.6%
Reviewed by: .?-~

~aboratory Manager
CC i ~
"'-----..-.-.-
"",_dl _ _ _ " ' - " ' I _
t:IRJia.. The test data given herein pertain to !he sample provided. and may not be appDcable to material from olher production zones/periods.
This report constitutes a teslirJ! service only. Iqerpretatlon of the data given here may be provided upon request.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTO., 100 Scotia Court Whitby, Ontario. Canada LiN 8Va Tel: 905-7232727 Fax: 905-723-2182
SOUNDNESS OF COARSE AGGREGATE
(JtGoIder
- Assodates
BY USE OF MAGNESIUM SULPHATE
(MTO L8-606)
May 16, 2013
Golder Associates ltd.

100 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L1N BY6
Sample 10: Diorite

Date Tested: May 6, 2013 Tested By: JMT
Weighted Acceptance
Original
Sieve Fraction Loss (%) Average Loss Requirement as per
Grading (%)
(%) OPSSTable5
13.2 - 9.5 mm 65.0 0.1 0.1
9.5 - 4.75 mm 35.0 0.2 0.1

12 Max.
Total Weighted
100.0 0.2
Average
Percent Weighted Loss (4.9% to 12.9%) 7.3%
Re~ewedby : __~~___________________
Ceil.!
"'"'
I. _ ........
_ ~e;;.....-
~
~
-
tml/!;;. The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided. and may not be appBcable to material from olherproduc:llonzoneslperlods.
ThIs report constitutes a teaUrv service only. Irterpretatlon of the data given here may be provided upon request
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTO., 100 Scotia Court, Ontario Canada L1N 8va Tel: 805-7232727 Fax: 905-723-2182
OF COARSE AGGREGATE
(ASTMC127)
May 17. 2013
Golder Associates
100 Scotia Court
Whitby. ON L1N 8Y6
Sample 10: Diorite

Date Received: May 1. 2013 Golder Lab Number: G-13-139
Date Tested: May 16. 2013 Tested By: JMT
Relative Relative Apparent

Sieve Fraction (mm) Density Density Relative Absorption (%)
26.5 - 4.75 2.981 2.997 3.028 0.5
Reviewed by: _ ..,.,.;;:;;....._ __ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ceil.!
1.----..-.,.-.-
,....- , .----~
IJb2tia The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided. and may not be appUcable to material from otherprodudlon zoneslperiods.
ThIs report conaUtutes a testJrv service only. hterpretatlon of the data given here may be provided upon request.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD 100 Scotia Court, Ontario Canada L1N BYI Tel: 905-7232727 Fax: 905-7232182
PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
OF COARSE AGGREGATE
(GSA A23.2-09 15A METHOD B)
May 15, 2013

100 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L1N BY6
Attention: Mr. Michael Maher
Sample 10: PK1
Fraction: 5 - 20 mm
Quality Designation Percentage PN PN

Rock Classification
Groups multiplier calculation
Gneiss (hard) 56.7 1
Good Gneiss (contains pyrite) 40.2 96.9
(hard)
Gneiss (brittle) 1.5 3
Fair Gneiss (contains pyrite) 1.6 9.3
(brittle)
Poor - - 6 -
Deleterious - - 10 -
Petrographic Number 106.2
Notes:
1. The PN is not related to the potential for alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR) of this aggregate when used in Portland
cement concrete. AAR potential must be separately assessed
2. Rock types indicated by may have potential for alkaii-aggregate reaction (AAR). See CSA A23.1 and CSA A23.2 for
infonnatlon on the assessment of AAR in new concrete construction.
3. Some cases of sulphide-related expansion In concrete that incorporated pyrite-bearing gneissic aggregates have
been reported. These cases have typically involved pyrrhotite. marcasite, usually In the presence of pyrite. This
examination Is incapable of detennining the presence of the fonner species of sulphides; thus. it is recommended to
undertake appropriate studies to detennlne whether these minerals are present In the sample.
4. Oxidation of sulphide minerals upon exposure to oxygen In humid conditions may cause acid-rock drainage (ARD).
particularly In the absence of readily available neutralizing minerals, such as calcite. ARD testing is recommended to
further evaluate the potential for ARD.
Petrographer: ~;;:::';:::=:::::=.!=~;;::4C:. .;.~ Reviewed By: U L-

Anett Briggs, P.Geo CC i ~
tis2l&&. The teat data given herein pertain to the sample provided, and fa not applicable to material from olherprodudlon zoneslpertods. This
report consUtutes a tasU" service only. Int!pretaUon of the data given here may be provided upon request.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD., 100 Scotia Court WhItby, Ontario, Canada LiN IVI Tel: 105-723-2727 Fax: 105-n3-2182
- Associates
Golder THE MICRO-DEVAL APPARATUS
(ASTM D6928)
May 9,2013

100 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L1N 8V6
PROJECT: Aggregate Telting - Reunion Gold Mine Guyana
Sample 10: PK1

Loss of sample (%) Acceptance Requirement as per OPSS 1002 Table 5 (%)
3.7 20 Max.
Validation Test Data: Control Aggregate (Sutherland Sand)

Percent Loss (15.2% to 18.4%) 13.6%
Reviewed by: _.".~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
C C il!
w _ _ _ -,......_
"'_Ul~'_ .~
~ The test data glll8n herein pertain to the sample provided, and may not be applcable to malarial from olherproductlon zonesJperiods.
This report consUtlAes a testltJ service only. IrteprataUon of the data given here may be provided upon requesl
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD., 100 ScotIa Court WhItby, OntarIo. Canada L1N 8Ye Tel: 105-723-2727 Fax: 105-7232182
SOUNDNESS OF COARSE AGGREGATE
BY USE OF MAGNESIUM SULPHATE
c r IGOlder
- Associates (MTO LS-606)
May 16, 2013

100 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON l1 N 8Y6
Sample 10: PK1

Weighted Acceptance
Original
Sieve Fraction Loss (%) Average Loss Requirement as per
Grading (%)
(%) OPSSTableS
13.2 - 9.5 mm 65.0 0.2 0.1
9.5 - 4.75 mm 35.0 0.2 0.1

12 Max.
Total Weighted
100.0 0.2
Average
Percent Weighted Loss (4.9% to 12.9%) 7.3%
Reviewed by: _~a:;;..._ _ _ _ _ __ _ __
CC il!
t:&IH;;. The test data given here n pertain to the sample provided, and may not be applcable to material fi'om otherprodudion zoneslpertods.
This ll!fIort constitutes a tesUng service only. Irterpretatlon of the date given here may be providad upon request
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD., 100 Scotia Court, Ontario Canada L1N BY6 Tel: 905-723-2727 Fax: 905-723-2182
OF COARSE AGGREGATE
(ASTMC127)
May 17, 2013
Golder Associates
100 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L1N BY6
PROJECT: Agareaate Testing - Reunion Gold Mine Guyana
Sample 10: PK1
Date Sampled: NA Sampled 8y: Client

Date Tested: May 16,2013 Tested 8y: JMT
Relative Relative Apparent

Sieve Fraction (mm) Density Density Relative Absorption (%)
26.5 -4.75 2.651 2.663 2.684 0.5
Reviewed by: --21~----------
Ce
;..........
~-~
il!
... _---,..---
IYRlB The test data given herein pertain to the semple provided. and may not be applicable to material from other production zoneslperiods.
This report constitutes a testilJl service only. h1erpretatlon of the data given here may be provided upon request.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTO., 100 Scotia Court, Ontario Canada LiN 8Y8 Tel: 905-723-2727 Fax: 905-723-2182
STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR POTENTIAL
ALKALI REACTIVITY OF AGGREGATES
(MORTAR BAR METHOD)
(ASTM C1260)
May 31,2013

100 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L 1N 8Y6
Sample ID: Diorite

Date Tested: May 15, 2013 Tested By: JMT/CK
Percent Expansion for each Specimen Average Expansion

Days of
Exposure G-13-139C (%)
G-13-139A G-13-139B
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
4 0.011 0.013 0.012 0.012
7 0.029 0.028 0.026 0.027
10 0.043 0.042 0.043 0.043
14 0.059 0.058 0.059 0.059
Remarks: See attached Figure 1
Reviewed by: _ ....,.,:=--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
CC il!
Notice:The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided, and may not be appUcable to material from other production zones/periods.
This report constitutes a testing service only. Interpretation of the data given here may be provided upon request.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD., 100 Scotia Court Whitby, Ontario. Canada L1 N 8Y6 Tel: 905-723-2727 Fax: 905-723-28182
Figure No.1 11-1132-0130
G-13-139
Results of Length Change Monitoring

Accelerated AAR Expansion Test
0.300
..-. 0.250
-
~
0
CD
C)
c:
0.200
~
.c 0.150
0
....
.c 0.100
--
C)
c:
CD 0.050
..J
0.000 .
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Age of Specimen (Days)

[ _u Diorite -I
ASTM C1260 GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. May 2013

STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR POTENTIAL
ALKALI REACTIVITY OF AGGREGATES
(MORTAR BAR METHOD)
(ASTM C1260)
May 31,2013

100 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L 1N 8Y6
Sample ID: PK1

Date Tested: May 15, 2013 Tested By: JMT/CK
Percent Expansion for each Specimen Average Expansion

Days of
Exposure (%)
G-13-140A G-13-140B G-13-140C
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
4 0.010 0.007 0.009 0.009
7 0.010 0.008 0.008 0.009
10 0.015 0.013 0.017 0.015
14 0.018 0.015 0.017 0.017
Remarks: See attached Figure 1
Reviewed by: _---,,,.p.~_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
CC il!
',.\IIoae.III-......."' ___
140 _ _ ~.......--~
~_
The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided, and may not be applicable to material from other production zones/periods.
t1sJJis;.g,;,
This report constitutes a testing service only. Interpretation of the data given here may be provided upon request.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD., 100 Scotia Court Whitby, Ontario. Canada L 1N 8Y6 Tel: 9057232727 Fax: 90572328182
Figure No.1 11-1132-0130
G-13-140
Results of Length Change Monitoring

Accelerated AAR Expansion Test
0.300
----
~
0
CD
0.250
C)
0.200
s::
ca
.s:: 0.150
0
....
.s::
C)
0.100
s::
CD
-oJ 0.050
0.000
I
..
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Age of Specimen (Days)

l PK1
ASTM C1260 GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. May 2013

Mr. Mathieu Gignac, Ing., VicePresldent, Projects 1111320130M06
APPENDIX E
Pavement Design and Cross Sections
~GoIder
\ZiTAssociates
T:OtCjlcll\201t\tt '132.()130(....... rucsg.I'-M""1113201~~ l layo,l: F9nEl IModIIMt ~ 0MIY2013e:a ..... IPIcaId: sao..- 0MIYlU13
Centreline
0.3 RND 1.0SHR 1.8 1.8 1.0 SHR 0.3 RND
Double Surface Profile Control

Treatment for
Lanes (Notes) Single Surface
Treatment for Shoulders
and Shoulder Roundings
_6%
_2% 2%-
6%L
~
'\ '\ 'I' I' , 'i

.9
to
~~~"":'> """"''\<,,-~~
t..
6~ ~
1.0 m (min)
~. > , , , " '" '%
'5%-
(!I<l'
,. -5%, 1.0 m '0..
Saprolite I Saprock
125 mm Portland Subgrade /(\)Il'
Cement Treated
Ditch
Base (Note 2)
360 mm Lime
Treated Laterite
(Note 3)
Fill Section
Cut Section
PROJECT
NOTES MATTHEWS RIDGE
HAUL ROAD - CUT / FILL
1. All Dimension are in meters unless otherwise shown
2. Portland Cement Treated Base shall meet the specification of OPSS GRANULAR "A" and be mixed with 3% Cement l111E
3. Lime Treated Laterite shall be mixed with 5% Lime. Gradation requirements to be determined
4. Shoulder Rounding should be increased to 0.5 m in areas with guide rails I post delineators TYPICAL SECTION
5. Surface Treatment shall be in accordance with OPSS 304 and 1006 using Class 2 aggregate gradation and HF-150
- -
(High Float) emulusion
PROJECT,." 11-11 32-0130 FIlE No, 111132013OAASECTIONI
~~
DESIGN SCALE NTS
CAOO
DiECK
REVIEW --
STB 31 May 13
31 May 13
31 May 13
FIGURE
E1
T:DrajICII\2011\11"32.ot.1O(~RJdoep..M""'1'l2O'3QMSECllON PASS.diJIIg I~ FIgurtIE2IMod1111d: uo-m.n 0II03I'2D13tt:30/IJ,A IP'ICII*t saow.m.n 0MB'201J
Centreline
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.3 RND 1.0 SHR 3.85 : 3.85 1.0 SHR 0.3 RND
! ! I I I I
Double Surface Profile Control

Treatment for
Lanes (Notes) Single Surface
Treatment for Shoulders
. and Shoulder Roundings
_6%
~
''''09
t- 1.0 m (min)
~. I I
~
I <&
0.50m (min) Saprolite I Saprock 1.Om ~
125 mm Portland "c9t.,
Subgrade
Cement Treated c9~6
Ditch ;s>
Base (Note 2)
360 mm Lime
Treated Laterite
(Note 3)
Fill Section
Cut Section
PROJECT
NOTES MATTHEWS RIDGE

HAUL ROAD - CUT I FILL
1. All Dimension are in meters unless otherwise shown
2. Portland Cement Treated Base shall meet the specification of OPSS GRANULAR W A" and be mixed with 3% Cement T1TlE
3. Lime Treated Laterite shall be mixed with 5% Lime. Gradation requirements to be determined TYPICAL SECTION
4. Shoulder Rounding should be increased to 0.5 m in areas with guide rails / post delineators
(PASSING AREA)
5. Surface Treatment shall be in accordance with OPSS 304 and 1006 using Class 2 aggregate gradation and HF-150
-
(High Float) emulusion
6. Passing area length should be length of tractor/trailer combination plus 30 m minimum
_GoWer PROJECT No.
DESIGN
CAOO
11-11 32- 0 130 FIIEN 320 l3OMSECTlOtCPASS!
STB
##11#
3, Me)' 13
SCALE
FIGURE
~
Associates CHECK
REVIEW
-
##11# 3' Me)"3
31 May 13
E-2
June. 2013 Table E3 11-1132-0130
DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare
Computer Software Product
Golder Associates Ltd
Flexible Structural Design Module

GUMR - Matthews Ridge
Pavement Design using 3% Lime Stabilized Laterite
Flexible Structural Design
80-kN ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 1,650,000

Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.5
Reliability Level 90%
Overall Standard Deviation 0.44
Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 35,000 kPa
Stage Construction I
Calculated Design Structural Number 105 mm
Specified Layer Design
Struct Drain
Coer. Coer. Thickness Width Calculated
Layer Material DescriQtion (Ai) (Mi) (Di}(mm} !ml SN (mm}
I Double Surface Treatment 0 I 40 o
2 Portland Cement Treated Base 0.28 I 125 35
3 Lime Treated Laterite 0.16 I 450 72
Total 615 107
Designed: _ _ __
Checked: _..:::J=BHO!.--_
June, 2013 Table E-4 11-1132-0130
DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare
Computer Software Product
Golder Associates Ltd
Flexible Structural Design Module

GUMR - Matthews Ridge
Pavement Design using 5% Lime Stabilized Laterite
Flexible Structural Design
80-kN ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 1,650,000

Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.5
Reliability Level 90%
Overall Standard Deviation 0.44
Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 35,000 kPa
Stage Construction I
Calculated Design Structural Number 105 mm
Specified Layer Design
Struct Drain
Coef. Coef. Thickness Width Calculated
Layer Material Description (Ai) (Mi) (Di)(mm) f.m} SN (mm)
1 Double Surface treatment o o o I o
2 Portland Cement Treated Base 0.28 I 125 1 35
3 Lime Treated Laterite 0.21 I 360 I 76
Total 485 110
Designed: _ _ __
Checked: JBH
Appendix MIN A: Mineral Agreement

MINERAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CO-OPERATIVEREPUBLIC
OF GUYANA
WITH
GUYANA GEOLOGY AND MINES

COMMISSION
-AND-
REUNION MANGANESE INC.

0/
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTERPRETATION ......................................................................................................................................... 2
!. NATURE OF AGREEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 7
3. THE COMPANY, REPORTING OBLIGATIONS AND CONFIDENTIALITY ....................................... 8
I. MINING LICENCE, ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORIZATION AND FORCE MAJEURE ................. 11
5. USE AND ACQUISITION OF LANDS WITHIN THE MINING AREA .................................................. 14
5. CONDUCT OF PROJECT OPERA TIONS .................................................................................................. 15
7. INITIAL FUNDING AND INVESTMENT INTO GUY ANA ..................................................................... 16
I. IMPORTING PROPERTY INTO GUY ANA ............................................................................................... 18
,. DUTIES, TAXATION, FEES, RENTS: ........................................................................................................ 19
10. IMMIGRATION AND EXPATRIATE PERSONNEL. ............................................................................... 22
11. LABOUR MATTERS ..................................................................................................................................... 23
12. EXPORTING MANGANESE AND OTHER PROPERTY FROM GUYANA ......................................... 24
13. REPATRIATION OF CAPITAL AND PROFITS FROM GUY ANA ....................................................... 25
14. INSURANCE MATTERS ............................................................................................................................... 25
15. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, COVENANTS AND UNDERTAKINGS ................................. 25
16. DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES ...................................................................................................................... 28
17. GOVERNING LAW, DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND JURISDICTION ................................................. 29
18. TERM AND TERMINATION ....................................................................................................................... 31
19. INDEMNIFICA TION ..................................................................................................................................... 33
20. ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 34
21. FURTHER ACTIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 35
22. MISCELLANEOUS AND FINAL PROVISIONS ........................................................................................ 35
SCHEDULE" A" COMPANY ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BY -LAWS ..................................... 38
SCHEDULE "B" THE PROSPECTING LiCENCES ........................................................................................... 39
~ .
THIS MINERAL AGREEMENT is made as ofMarch ~ 2011, with effect as of the same day
BY AND BETWEEN:
THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA, a Sovereign State organized in such

territory, on such principles and according to such rules as are described in the Constitution of
the Co-operative Republic of Guyana proclaimed into operation as of October 6, 1980,
(hereinafter referred to as "GoG" or the "Government") together with,
THEGUYANA GEOLOGY AND MINES COMMISSION, an agency of the Government and

a body corporate duly established under the Geology and Mines Commission Act 1979
(Guyana), as amended, and duly authorized by its Board ("the Commission"),
represented herein by the Prime Minister Hon. S.A.A. Hinds, (hereinafter referred to as the party
of the first part
AND:
REUNION MANGANESE INC., a company incorporated in Guyana under the Companies Act
1991, having its registered office at Roraima Tower, Ogle International Airport, East Coast
Demerara, Guyana represented herein by the Executive Chairman;
(hereinafter referred to as the ("Company") the party of the second part.
WHEREAS:
A. The Company has been active in the manganese prospecting industry in Guyana;
B. The Company holds various mineral rights and interests to explore for and exploit
manganese in or around Matthews Ridge and Pipiani in Guyana (the "Prospecting
Licences" as defined in this Agreement);
C. The Company has been incorporated under the Companies Act 1991 on April 12, 2010;
D. Upon completion of a Feasibility Study, EIA and EMP and acceptance of these by the
Commission, the Company will have satisfied all the prerequisites for the issue of a
Mining Licence which are set forth in Section 46 of the Mining Act, provided that a
Mining Licence may contain provisions relating to such matters as the Commission may
determine for the purposes of the Mining Act as provided in Section 47(1 )(b) of the
Mining Act;
E. Section 19 of the Mining Act authorizes the Commission, with the approval of the
Minister under the Mining Act, to enter into a mineral agreement (not inconsistent with
the Mining Act) with respect to the matters enumerated in Section 19 thereof and, in
particular, with respect to the granting of prospecting or mining licences and any matter
incidental thereto or connected therewith; and ~ ~
~~ -
Mineral Agreement - REUNION March 24, 2011
Nlarch 2011 Page 2
F. GoG deemed it appropriate to provide for the making of such lawful Orders and
administrative acts by such Ministers, Government Authorities and the giving of such
undertakings by GoG in respect of such matters as are hereinafter described.
NOW, THEREFORE, with a view to ensuring the efficient, effective and orderly operations
md mining exploitation of manganese as more particularly detailed hereinafter, for the greater
Denefit of the people of Guyana, its Government and the shareholders and employees of the
Company and its Affiliates, the Parties hereby formally agree as follows:
I. INTERPRETATION
l.l Definitions: In addition to terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement (including in the
above preamble) and unless otherwise required or indicated by the context, the following
terms shall respectively have the following meanings:
"Act" means any written law of Guyana made in the manner prescribed by Article 170 of
the Constitution and any other act as defined in the Interpretation Act.
"Affiliate" means, in relation to a Party, a body corporate:

(i) which is directly or indirectly controlled by such Party; or
(ii) which directly or indirectly controls such Party; or
(iii) which is, directly or indirectly, controlled by a company or corporation that also,
directly or indirectly controls such Party.
For the purpose of this definition, "control" of a body corporate means the power to
direct, administer and dictate policies of such body corporate, it being understood and
agreed that control of a body corporate can be exercised without direct or indirect
ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of its voting shares, provided always that direct
or indirect control of fifty percent or more of such voting shares shall be deemed to be
effective control.
"Agreement", "hereby", "herein" "hereof' "hereto" and "hereunder" and similar

expressions refer to in this Agreement as the same may be amended from time to time,
and not to any part or other provision hereof.
"Applicable Law", means any and all Acts (including Subsidiary Legislation), laws,
statutes, regulations, ordinances, rules, guidelines, policies, notices, Orders and directions
or other requirements of any Government Authority applicable to the Parties, this
Agreement and the transactions set forth herein, the Company, the Prospecting Licences,
the Mining Licence, the Environmental Authorization, the Project or the Assets.
"Applied Tax Laws" shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in clause9.7 hereof.
"Articles" means the Articles ofIncorporation of the Company dated April 12, 2010, and
its By-Laws dated August 10, 2010, and annexed hereto as Schedule "A", and any
amendments thereto. V
~q
March 2011 Page 3
"Assets" means, collectively, all assets, facilities, buildings, equipment and machinery to
be acquired by the Company for the purposes of the Project.
"Commencement of Commercial Production" means the last day of the first period of
30 consecutive days (excluding days, if any, where Mining Operations are required to be
suspended) during which Mining Operations have been conducted pursuant to the Mining
Licence for the purpose of earning revenue, on a reasonably regular basis and at 60% or
more of the rated capacity of the processing facilities forming part of the Project assets as
established by the Feasibility Study provided that no period of time during which ore
produced from Mining Operations is shipped from the Mining Area for testing purposes
shall be taken into account in determining the date of Commencement of Commercial
Production.
"Commission" means the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission and any successor
thereto which is a body corporate or other agency of the Govemment; and
"Commissioner" has the meaning ascribed to it in the GGMC Act.
"Commissioner-General" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in the Guyana Revenue

Authority Act 1996.
"Company" means Reunion Manganese Inc. and any successor body corporate.
"Constitution" means the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana 1980, as

amended.
"Corrective Action" shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in clause 15 .5.
"Development" means all work that may reasonably be required in connection with the
preparation of a Mine, or any portion thereof, for the conduct of Mining including, but
not limited to, the construction and installation of facilities and the procurement of
materials, tools, equipment and supplies.
"Effective Date"shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in clause 18.1 hereof.
"EIA" means the Environmental Impact Assessment to be prepared by a competent

company on behalf of and at the request of the Company, which EIA will describe the
anticipated impact of Operations on various aspects of the environment in Guyana and
shall be filed with the Commission.
"EMP" means the Environment Management Plan to be prepared by or on behalf of the

Company and to be filed with the Commission and is subject to acceptance by the
Commission.
"Environmental Authorization" means the Environmental Authorization to be obtained

by the Company from the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the 1996 Guyana
Environmental Protection Act.
"E"mo'''' T.. L.w," """I h,w <he m~'"g =rihod <hcr"" '" e",,?,-':)-4 ~
~"' '\1 ~
Mineral Agreement - REUNION March 24,2011
March 2011 Page 4
"Expatriate", "Expatriate Employee" and "Expatriate Personnel" shall respectively

have the meanings ascribed thereto in clause 10.1.
"Exploration" means any activity performed with a view to determining the existence,
location, quantity or quality of manganese ore in Guyana.
"FeasibilityStudy" means the feasibility study to be submitted to the Commission by the

Company and subject to acceptance by the Commission as the Feasibility Study and will
include the EIA.
"Force Majeure" shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in clause 4.3.4.
"Foreign Currency Account" shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in clause 7.3.
"GGMC Act" means the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Act 1979 and
includes any Subsidiary Legislation made pursuant thereto.
"Government" means the Government of Guyana.
"Government Authorities" means any present government or governmental, quasi-

governmental, administrative, fiscal or judicial body, department, commission, authority,
tribunal, agency or entity and any other authority delegated by Government under this
Agreement.
"Guyana" means the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, a Sovereign State.
"Guyana Dollar" means the dollar as the lawful unit of currency in Guyana as set forth
in the Bank of Guyana Act.
"Guyana Revenue Authority Act" means the Guyana Revenue Authority Act 1996 and
any subsidiary legislation made thereunder.
"Interpretation Act" means the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, CAP 2:01 of
the laws of Guyana.
"LIB OR", in respect of any day, means the annual rate of interest commonly referred to
as the London Interbank Offered Rate and published from time to time in the Financial
Times of London (or, failing such publication, in any other publication of general
circulation) as the reference rate of interest for U.S. Dollar loans between or among banks
which are due in 60 days and, in respect of any month or part thereof, means the LIB OR
on the first business day of such month.
"Liens" means any mortgage, pledge, security interest, encwnbrance, lien, charge of any
kind or any other preferential arrangement in the nature of an encumbrance or security
interest, including, without limitation, any agreement to give any of the foregoing, any
conditional sale or title retention agreement and any lease in the nature thereof.
"Manganese" for the purpose of this agreement "Manganese" shall mean the element
Manganese and any commercial manganese product derived from the op~a ~
VV ~~ "\ \\'
March 2011 Page 5
"Material Adverse Event" means any change, event, or effect that is materially adverse
to the general affairs, business, operations, assets, liabilities, condition (financial or
otherwise) or results of operations or prospects of any corporate entity or group of assets
taken as a whole. The following shall not be taken into account in determining a Material
Adverse Event that shall have occurred after the execution hereof: any adverse change,
event, or effect that is directly attributable to (i) conditions affecting the Guyana economy
generally, or (ii) conditions affecting the manganese industry generally.
"Mine" means any deposit of manganese located within the Mining Area, including
those deposits described in the Feasibility Study, and all facilities constructed or
established with a view to exploiting manganese from such deposit and includes without
limitation, all moveable and immovable property, tangible and intangible, owned,
possessed, used or controlled by the Company in or in respect of the Mining Area,
including the Mining Licence and the Environmental Authorization.
"Mining" includes the mining, extracting, processing, milling, smelting, beneficiation,

storing, handling, delivering and disposition of manganese including any other activity
incidental thereto that may reasonably be required in connection therewith including,
without limitation, the procurement of machinery, equipment, materials and supplies.
"Mining Act" means the Mining Act 1989 and includes any Subsidiary Legislation made
pursuant thereto.
"Mining Area" means, collectively, the parcels of land to be covered by the Mining
Licence and, when such term is used in any context subsequent to the Effective Date, also
means any further parcels of land granted to or acquired by the Company to be covered
by the aforementioned Mining Licence or any additional Mining Licences.
"Mining Licence" means any Mining Licence granted to the Company pursuant to this
Agreement and the Mining Act, as referred to in clause 4.1 .
"Mining Licence Grant Date" means the date on which the Mining Licence is granted
to the Company in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Act and any other
Applicable Laws.
"Mining Operations" means all Operations that are undertaken and occur after the
Mining Licence Grant Date.
"Minister", when used in conjunction with the short title of any Act or Subsidiary
Legislation or in conjunction with any other subject matter, means the Minister under the
Constitution and to whom responsibility for the subject matter of such Act or Subsidiary
Legislation or for such subject matter generally has been assigned by the President or
otherwise under the Laws of Guyana the whole as certified by the Prime Minister in
writing.
"National Assembly" shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Constitution.
"Negative Effect" shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in clause IS.SV
March 2011 Page 6
"Official Books" shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in clause 9.10.
"Operations" means all or any of Exploration, Development and Mining and any other
act, including acts of administration and management, performed by or on behalf of the
Company pursuant to this Agreement and for the Project's purposes.
"Order" means any Subsidiary Legislation made under or by virtue of any Act and
described therein as an order.
"Party" means a party to this Agreement and "Parties" means the parties to this
Agreement collectively.
"Person" shall be interpreted broadly and shall include any individual, body corporate,
sovereign state, government agency, body or commission, partnership, trust and
unincorporated association.
"President" means the President of Guyana as such office is described in the

Constitution and "Prime Minister" means the Prime Minister of Guyana as such office is
described in the Constitution.
"Project" means Operations to be undertaken and carried out pursuant to the Prospecting
Licences, the Feasibility Study, the Mining Licence, the Environmental Authorization
and this Agreement and any Schedule thereof.
"Prospecting Area" means, collectively, the parcels of land covered by the Prospecting
Licences and, when such term is used in any context subsequent to the Effective Date,
also means any further parcels of land granted to or acquired by the Company to be
covered by the aforementioned Prospecting Licences or any additional Prospecting
Licences.
"Prospecting Licences" means those four Prospecting Licences more particularly

described in Schedule "B" to this Agreement and includes any additional Prospecting
Licence that may be granted to the Company during the term hereof.
"Schedule" means a schedule annexed to this Agreement.
"Subsidiary Legislation" shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 5(1) of the
Interpretation and General Clauses Ac~. .
"Unilateral Action" shall have the meaning\tscribed thereto in clause 15.5.

~
"U.S. Dollar" means the dollar which is the la,kul unit of currency under the laws of the
United States of America.
"U.S. Dollar Books" shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in clause 9.10.
"WMP" means the Waste Management Plan to be prepared and included in the EIA
tobeprepared by or on behalf of the Company and filed with the Commission.
rz~1 t
March 2011 Page 7
1.2 Terms not defined in clause 1.1 hereof but which are defined elsewhere in this
Agreement shall, unless otherwise specified or required by the context, have such defined
meaning wherever used in the Agreement.
1.3 Capitalized letters are used in defined terms in this Agreement for convenience of
reference only, and the inadvertent or other failure to use capital letters in a defmed term
shall not affect the interpretation thereof.
1.4 Unless otherwise specified or required by the context, the use of the singular form in this
Agreement shall include a corresponding reference to the plural form and use of the
masculine gender shall include a corresponding reference to the feminine and neuter
genders. Other grammatical variations and cognate expressions of any defined terms shall
likewise be deemed to have a corresponding meaning.
1.5 A reference to a specified article and clause shall, unless otherwise specified or required
by the context, be construed as a reference to the relevant article and clause of thi s
Agreement.
1.6 A reference or apparent reference by name to any legislation in the Agreement shall,
unless otherwise specified, be interpreted as a reference to the written law of Guyana
having the corresponding short title or name.
I. 7 A reference to an Act in this Agreement includes, unless otherwise specified or required

by the context, a reference to any Subsidiary Legislation made thereunder.
lo8 In this Agreement, a covenant or an undertaking to perform a specified act or to perform

an act for the attainment of a specified objective shall be deemed to include a covenant or
an undertaking, as applicable, not to perform or to omit to perform such act as would be
inconsistent with the performance of such first mentioned act or the attainment of such
first mentioned objective.
1.9 The Parties hereby agree that the recital of events leading up to the execution of this
Agreement as set forth in the above preamble is true, correct and accurate in all material
respects.
1.1 0 Unless defined herein or unless otherwise indicated by the context, definitions of terms
set forth in such laws of Guyana as are relevant to the subject matter hereof shall apply in
the interpretation of corresponding terms used in this Agreement.
2. NATURE OF AGREEMENT
2.1 This Agreement was negotiated and is entered into by and between GoG together with
the Commission and the Company to determine and specify the provisions, terms and
conditions pursuant to which GoG and the Company agree that the Project shall be
carried out, mineral rights be granted and Operations conducted. The Parties hereby
V
acknowledge that this Agreement has been negotiated and executed on the advice and
with the consent ofthe most senior representatives of each of the Parties.
\1ineral Agreement - REUNION March 24,2011
\larch 2011 Page 8
[.2 This Agreement shall be construed, to the fullest extent required, so as to ensure the
validity of each provision hereof and the due and punctual exercise of rights and
performance of obligations in accordance with its terms.
1.3 To the extent that this Agreement relates to such matters as are described in Section 19 of
the Mining Act, this Agreement is a "Mineral Agreement" within the meaning of such
term in the Mining Act. To the extent necessary or desirable to give full force and effect
hereto in accordance with its terms, this Agreement is an agreement between GoG as a
sovereign State together with the Commission as a Govermnent entity and the Company.
2.4 The Parties hereby affirm their intention that substantive effect be given to this
Agreement to the fullest extent possible in accordance with its terms and in accordance
with the foregoing rules and that defects in form, procedure or process shall be waived to
the fullest extent required in favour of giving substantive effect to the terms hereof.
l. THE COMPANY, REPORTING OBLIGATIONS AND CONFIDENTIALITY
l.1 The Parties hereby acknowledge that the Company has been duly incorporated under the
Companies Act 1991 of Guyana as amended, a true copy of its Articles being annexed
hereto as Schedule "A". The financial year end of the Company is currently March 31.
3.1 The Company shall be entitled to declare and pay dividends pursuant to its Articles
during the term of this Agreement. The Parties hereby acknowledge that the Company
may, if it deems appropriate, amend its Articles to allow for the issuance of preference
shares of the Company denominated in U.S. Dollars,subject to the Company obtaining
the necessary authorization from the Minister responsible for finance, if required. The
Company may also amend its Articles to denominate its ordinary shares in U.S. dollars.
3.3 The Company shall give access to the GoG and the Commission to all data, maps and
other information and submit to the GoG and the Commission such data, maps and other
information as shall be requested by the Commission with respect to the Project in a
timely manner. In particular, the Company shall comply with the following undertakings
of this clause 3.3.
3.3.1 During the term of this Agreement, and subject to a Mining Licence having been
granted to the Company pursuant to this Agreement, the Company shall, within
90 days after the end of each financial year, file an annual report on a confidential
basis with the Commission with a copy to the Govermnent (c/o the Minister under
the Mining Act) which shall contain such information as is generally required to
be set forth in annual reports relating to projects similar in nature to the Project in
the North America mining industry. In particular the report shall contain
information on the following matters:
(a) complete and accurate production statistics, including information on the
grade and quality of manganese mined, and copies of maps, profiles,
diagrams and geological reports;
March 20 11 Page 9
(b) marketing information, including copies of short and long term contracts,
and information on customers, marketing conditions, developments in
world market prices and refining conditions;
(c) complete and systematic records showing fully and fairly all costs and
revenues including income statements, tax payments, duty payments,
foreign exchange transactions and budget plans;
(d) importing information, including the quantity, source and price paid for
items imported with reference to used and new items;
(e) information regarding the disposal of equipment including re-exports;
(t) employment information, including a breakdown of the Guyanization of
the Project labor force according to the various categories of employees;
(g) information on construction activities if any;
(h) information on the purchase of supplies and services from local and
foreign sources, including historical information from the Mining Licence
Grant Date together with the information described in clause 6.2;
(i) information regarding environmental management;
U) information and statistics regarding occupational health and safety and
work-related accidents and injuries; and
(k) such other information with respect to the Project as the Government or
the Commission may reasonably require.
3.3.2 Subject to a Mining Licence having been granted to the Company pursuant to this
Agreement, the Company shall thereafter submit an annual report on transactions
with its Affiliates relating directly or indirectly to the Project. This report shall
include information on sales, purchasing, subcontracting, transfer of technology
and marketing and all other relevant transactions. The report shall also set forth all
remuneration paid by the Company to employees, directors and their families or
shareholders of the Company and to the Company and its Affiliates. The report
shall cover all remuneration of a direct or indirect nature including loans or
payments in cash or in kind and any other like transaction.
3.3.3 The Company shall maintain its books of accounts in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles enunciated from time to time by the Canadian
Institute of Chartered Accountants.
3.3.4 The Company shall maintain reasonably detailed records relating to the Project,
including production reports, field data, drilling reports, assay reports and other
related reports.
3.3 .5 The Commission may, at any time upon 48 hours written notice, at its own
expense and with or without the assistance of experts, carry out an inspection of
the books of account, records and reports of the Company and to verify
information received, provided that such inspections shall be conducted during
V
~~ t
March 2011 Page 10
normal business hours and shall not unduly interfere with the performance of
Operations.
3.3.6 Within 180 days of the end of its financial year, the Company shall file with the
Commission audited statements of account relating to its Mining Operations
during the previous financial year. The audit shall be performed by a firm of
independent chartered accountants selected by the Company. If, at any time, the
Commission has reasonable grounds to question the information supplied by the
Company, it shall be entitled to organize a special audit by an accounting firm of
international standing at its own expense. Should this special audit indicate that
the information submitted by the Company is substantially incorrect in one or
more material particulars, then the Company shall bear the expenses of such audit.
3.3.7 The Company shall, within 60 days of the end of each calendar quarter, file with
the Commission reports of all reasonably available information relating to Mining
including raw and processed analytical data, assay data, drill data and other field
data and statistical data as well as quarterly returns of production, sales and
shipments of minerals from the Mining Area and a statement of minerals in
stockpiles held by the Company.
3.3.8 Should, at any time, the Company, as a result of its own gross negligence, submit
information in any report mentioned in the various provisions of this clause 3.3
which is substantially incorrect in respect of one or more material items and if, as
a result of the submitting of such false information, GoG has foregone revenue
which can be quantified in monetary terms, the Company shall be liable to pay the
Government an amount not exceeding twice the amount of such foregone
revenue. Any sum paid hereunder is a reasonable estimate of the loss suffered by
the Government or Commission as a result of the aforementioned acts or
omissions of the Company. Where GoG has foregone revenues for reasons
attributable to incorrect information supplied by the Company other than as a
result of gross negligence on the part of the Company, the GoG, shall be entitled
to recover the amount foregone plus interest of two percent (2%) above UBOR
on such amount from the date due until payment thereof. Under other
circumstances, the Company may be liable to pay damages to GoG resulting
directly from a breach by the Company of its obligations under the various
provisions of this clause 3.3, as determined by the decision of an arbitral tribunal
in accordance with article 17 or as agreed among the Company and GoG. Subject
to compliance by the Company with the foregoing liability, the failure by the
Company to comply with its obligations under the various provisions of this
clause 3.3 shall not constitute grounds for terminating the Mining Licence, the
Environmental Authorization, any other permit or authorization granted by a
Government Authority, if applicable, or this Agreement.
3.4 The Parties shall be deemed to be joint owners of all information described in clause 3.3
hereof. The Parties shall treat all such information as confidential and shall not disclose
any such information to third parties during the term of this Agreement and for a period
of two years thereafter without the prior written consent of the other Parties, such consev
Vfineral Agreement - REUNION March 24,2011
\larch 2011 Page II
not to be Wlfeasonably withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of this

clause 3.4 shall not apply in the following circumstances:
(a) in the case of a disclosure (i) by the Company or its Affiliates to banks or other
financial institutions in connection with the financing of the Project or Operations,
or (ii) by the Government to multilateral financial and aid organizations such as
the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American
Development Bank and the Canadian International Development Agency; or
(b) in the case of a disclosure by any Party to Affiliates, consultants, professional
advisors and sub-contractors to the extent required for the purpose of executing
the Project or in connection therewith; or
(c) to the extent required by any applicable law or the regulations of any securities
commission or other like regulatory body having jurisdiction or of any stock
exchange upon which the securities of the Company or its Affiliates are listed; or
(d) as part of statistical and annual reports of a general nature published by the
Government or the Commission, provided that no information so disclosed shall
relate to the Project specifically or directly; or
(e) in the case of information relating to any portion of the Mining Area which may
be relinquished by the Company during the term of this Agreement; or
(f) in the case of information which enters the public domain otherwise than by the
breach of an obligation of confidentiality hereunder.
Information disclosed to third parties as permitted in clauses 3.4(a) and (b) above shall be
disclosed on such terms as shall require the recipient to undertake to be bound by the
obligations of confidentiality described herein. Each Party shall promptly give notice to
the other Party of any disclosure made as permitted hereunder.
3.5 Notwithstanding clauses 3.3 and 3.4, the Parties shall not be required to disclose the
details of any patented or other proprietary method or process by which any results,
information or conclusions have been obtained by the Company.
4. MINING LICENCE, ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORIZATION AND FORCE

MAJEURE
4.1 GoG hereby agrees and undertakes to grant and issue the Mining Licence to the Company
and to make the Mining Area available to the Company for the conduct of Operations, the
whole in accordance with the Mining Act and Subsidiary Legislation thereunder, upon
satisfaction by the Company of the applicable conditions, including the filing of a
Feasibility Study, EIA and EMP with GoG and the Cornmission and their acceptance of
same.
4.2 Upon GoG and the Commission having reviewed the Feasibility Study (and the EIA) and
having approved and accepted same as the basis for the due carrying out of the Project by
the Company, GoG and the Commission hereby undertake to perform all such acts as
may be within the purview of their respective powers and authorities to authorize the d~
~
Wineral Agreement - REUNION March 24, 20 II
March 2011 Page 12
implementation of all Operations and other activities as contemplated in the Feasibility

Study (and the EIA) and in this Agreement. Subject to the foregoing, and subject to the
provisions of this Agreement and any Schedule, neither the Commission nor the
Government shall incur any liability to the Company by reason only of the approval of
the Feasibility Study, including the EIA. Likewise, nothing in this clause 4.2 shall be
interpreted as requiring the Government or the Commission to invest any Government or
Commission funds in the Project or to give indirect financial support to the Project by
way of tax reductions, exemptions from laws or otherwise except for the fiscal and other
concessions and exemptions herein agreed to be granted.
4.3 The Commission and GoG hereby undertake, in the exercise of powers conferred by
Sections 19 and 134 of the Mining Act, to exercise discretionary powers under the
Mining Act and Subsidiary Legislation thereunder in accordance with the following
proVISIOns.
4.3.1 Subject to Section 50(2) of the Mining Act, GoG shall approve and
the Commission shall grant a renewal of any Mining Licence granted to the
Company under Section 50 of the Mining Act upon receipt of application therefor
by the Company pursuant to Section 49 of said Act on such terms and subject to
such conditions as shall be set forth in the Mining Licence, or with such revised
terms and conditions as may be necessary due to changes in circumstances.
4.3 .2 The Commission shall grant good faith application by the Company under Section
48(3) of the Mining Act for the extension of the scope of any Mining Licence to
cover such additional minerals on the terms specified in the application, provided,
however, that the Commission may impose additional terms and conditions as
applicable under the Mining Act for such additional minerals. GoG hereby agrees
and undertakes to see that, during the currency of the Mining Licence, the
Commission shall not grant any rights to explore for develop or exploit minerals
that are covered by the Mining Licence to any Person other than the Company or
an Affiliate thereof, in respect of any lands located within the Mining Area.
4.3.3 The obligations of the Company to carryon operations under the Mining Licence
and this Agreement or to perform any other obligations hereunder (except any
obligations set forth hereunder relating to the disposal of assets by the Company)
or pursuant to any Schedule shall be suspended to the extent that such
performance is prevented or constrained by the occurrence of an event of Force
Majeure (as described below in clause 4.3.4) and shall remain suspended so long
as the effects of such event of Force Majeure shall continue, provided that such
occurrence shall not be deemed to suspend any obligations to pay a sum of money
that is otherwise due and payable, and provided further that the Company shall,
during any such period, take all reasonable measures within a reasonable time
with a view to overcoming or terminating such Force Majeure event and
performing its obligations hereunder.
4.3.4 For the purpose of this Agreement and as permitted by Section 53(1) of the
Mining Act, the Parties hereby agree that "Force Majeure" shall include, in
addition to any event described in such Section, acts of God (fortuitous eventsV
--1Y\t
,\1inera l Agreement - REUNION March 24,2011
Vfarch 2011 Page \3
strikes, lockouts or other industrial and social disturbances (including sabotage)

beyond the reasonable control of the Party affected and resulting in work stoppage
or interruption, acts of the public enemy, international disputes affecting the
Mining Area, wars (declared or undeclared), invasions, blockades, insurrections,
riots, epidemics, malaria outbreaks of epidemic proportions, landslides, lightning,
earthquakes, fires, storms, floods, washouts, arrests and restraints of Government
and people, civil disturbances and explosions, quotas and other controls affecting
the Parties and their suppliers and any other cause beyond reasonable control of
the Party affected, but shall not include any event caused by a failure to observe
good mining industry practice or by the negligence of the Company or any of its
agents, employees or contractors.
4.3 .5 In addition to the Company' s right to suspend operations hereunder and under the
Mining Licence by reason of Force Majeure, the Company may, at its own
election, acting reasonably and, subject to its obligations under clause 4.3.6,
suspend all or part of the Operations at any time during the currency of the
Mining Licence, under circumstances which materially adversely affect the world
manganese markets such that pursuing Operations is demonstrated to be
uneconomic for the Company.
4.3.6 If the Company decides to suspend its operations under clauses 4.3.3 or 4.3.5, it
shall promptly notifY the Government (c/o Prime Minister) and the Commission
to that effect, giving the particulars thereof and of its effect on the Company's
ability to perform its obligations hereunder and the Company shall take all
reasonable steps, if any, in the case of Force Majeure to remove or remedy the
cause and effect of the Force Majeure described in the relevant notice insofar as it
is reasonably able so to do and as soon as possible; provided that the terms of
settlement of any labour disturbance or dispute, strike or lockout shall be wholly
in the discretion of the Company, and the Company shall not be required to
accede to the demands of its opponents in any such labour disturbance or dispute,
strike, or lockout solely to remedy or remove the Force Majeure thereby
constituted. Where the Company has given notice of suspension of Operations
under clauses 4.3.3 or 4.3.5, it shall promptly notifY the Goverrunent (c/o Prime
Minister) and the Commission when the circumstances giving rise to suspension
under clauses 4.3.3 or 4.3 .5 have ceased to be in effect. The Parties shall meet as
appropriate to discuss in good faith the consequences of any Force Majeure event
and the course of action to be adopted in the circumstances.
4.3 .7 The suspension of operations by the Company under clauses 4.3.3 or 4.3.5 hereof
shall not have the effect of suspending the Company's obligation to pay such fees
and land rentals as shall be specified in the Mining Licence.
4.3.8 The term of this Agreement and of the Mining Licence when granted shall,
provided that the Company shall have complied with the provisions of
clauses 4.3.3 and 18.2, be extended by such period as is equal to the period during
which Operations shall have been suspended for any of the reasons set forth in
clauses 4.3.4 or 4.3.5, and the consent of the Commission as well as the approval
of the Minister are hereby granted in respect of such extension. However, in thy
~ 0\
Minera l Agreement - REUNION March 24,2011
\,larch 20 II Page 14
event of a suspension of Operations by the Company other than for any of the
foregoing reasons, the Commission may, but shall not be required to, extend the
term of the Mining Licence accordingly.
4.3.9 GoG shall not cause the Commission to cancel the Mining Licence pursuant to the
Mining Act or in connection with the existence of any ground for such
cancellation as is described therein. The Commission and the Government hereby
agree that issues regarding the cancellation of the Mining Licence and this
Agreement shall be governed exclusively by this Agreement and, in particular, by
the provisions of article 16.
4.3 .10 GoG hereby agrees to cause the Minister under the Mining Act to issue an Order
under Section 134 of such Act exempting the Company from the application of
such Act to the extent required to give effect to the provisions of this Agreement,
and the Mining Licence.
i. USE AND ACOUISITION OF LANDS WITHIN THE MINING AREA
U As of the Effective Date, the Company shall have the right (subject to affected parties'
right to a fair and reasonable compensation under the Mining Act)to make use of,
construct, improve, maintain and acquire, as applicable, the following public and private
parcels of land and properties in Guyana for Project purposes: (i)public roads and
waterways between Matthews Ridge, Port Kaituma and the Atlantic Ocean; (ii) rail , port,
pipelines and other infrastructures in and around Matthews Ridge and Port Kaituma,
including but not limited to rail, former mine, road and related facilities between
Matthews Ridge and Port Kaituma; and (iii) roads on state lands (within the Prospecting
Area and the Mining Area) to be used primarily for Project purposes, subject to
Company-controlled access for other public users.
i.2 In connection with the Company's rights under clause 5.1, GoG hereby agrees and
undertakes to cause the relevant Government Authorities with jurisdiction to do the
following:
(a) grant, on an expedited basis, to the Company all relevant legal rights to improve
and develop rail, port, pipelines and other infrastructures referred to in clause 5.1;
(b) grant, on an expedited basis, to the Company and its contractors all relevant legal
rights to use any and all of the country' s routes, either by land, water or air, and
related facilities (including any harbour, dock, airstrip, airport, etc.) to access the
areas covered by the Prospecting Licences and Mining Licence;
(c) authorize the Company to conduct such surveys on the hydropower potential as
the Company deems appropriate to exercise its rights under the Prospecting
Licences and Mining Licence, as applicable, provided that this shall not be
construed as a licence to operate a hydropower facility; the Company shall
cooperate with GoG to ensure that any application for a licence to operate a
hydropower facility will not contravene any existing agreements the Government
has entered into with respect to the environment; and V
,\I1ineral Agreement - REUNION March 24,2011
Vlarch 2011 Page 15
(d) issue a letter or other instrument under the Public Lands (Private Roads) Act
(Laws of Guyana, CAP 62:03) or any other relevant Applicable Law granting
such authorizations and permissions as may be necessary for such purposes,
including the authorization to collect such toll as may be fixed under such
permission for the purposes described in clause 5.1.
Nothing set forth in this clause 5.2(d) shall be interpreted as diminishing the scope of the
undertakings given by GoG and the Commission elsewhere in this Agreement.
I. CONDUCT OF PROJECT OPERATIONS
i.1 The Company shall conduct Operations in a good workmanlike and responsible manner
in accordance with good mining practices using standards applicable in the international
manganese mining industry.
;.2 In Guyana, the Company shall give preference, to the maximum extent compatible with
efficient Operations, to products and services produced and offered in Guyana, provided
these are offered at competitive terms and conditions. Without prejudice to the rights
granted to the Company under articles 8, 9 and 10, the Company shall give preference to
Guyanese construction enterprises and to the use of buildings which can be constructed
by using materials and skills available in Guyana, to the employment of Guyanese
subcontractors for road construction and transportation and to the purchase of household
products and furniture in Guyana. The Company shall also require its contractors and
their subcontractors to follow these policies. Within 90 days after the end of each
financial year of Operations, the Company shall, in accordance with clause 3.3.1(h),
submit a report to the Government setting forth the relative percentages of foreign-
sourced and Guyanese-sourced goods and services used by the Company, on measures
taken to enhance the role of Guyanese-sourced goods and services in the Project and on
measures to be implemented so as to improve such performance. The report will show the
performance of the Company in connection with the contribution to the economic
development of Guyana over the years. The Company shall constantly use all reasonable
efforts to improve such performance.
6.3 The Company shall, to the extent feasible and acceptable in view of the rates and
conditions available, maximize the use of vessels chartered in Guyana and other means of
transportation available in Guyana. If necessary, the Company shall make joint
arrangements with Guyanese firms for the transportation of its material needs.
6.4 The Company shall be allowed to use existing roads, but shall only be obligated to repair
(or pay the cost of repair for) damages to roads, bridges and other transportation facilities
caused by the abnormal use of such roads, bridges and other facilities by the Company.
6.5 The Company shall, subject to clauses 6.8 and 6.9, conduct all Mining Operations in
compliance with the Environmental Authorization and Applicable Law relating to the
protection of the natural environmental conditions of the Mining Area.
6.6 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Government reserves the
right without liability to grant to qualified applicants rights-of-way for pipelines, power, Ci rx;,(
telephone, telegraph and waterlines within the Prospecting Area and the Mining Area; ~.-v
~. +'
Mineral Agreement - REUNION March 24.2011
March 2011 Page 16
provided, however, that the Company be duly and timely notified of such intentions and
that each such qualified applicant be required to make appropriate arrangements,
including the payment of satisfactory compensation to the Company, to ensure that its
installations shall not unduly interfere with, or result in any additional cost to Operations
and other activities ofthe Company.
6.7 During Mining Operations and after the permanent shutdown of Mining Operations, the
Company shall undertake the reclamation of the Mining Area to prevent soil erosion in
accordance with the terms of the ErA, the EMP and the Environmental Authorization,
once granted. The Company shall also ensure the safety of the area in accordance with
standard international mining practice and the terms of the ErA, EMP and the
Environmental Authorization.
6.8 Upon the Company having submitted and GoG having reviewed and having accepted and
approved via the Commission the ErA, EMP and WMP, together with all provisions set
forth in the Feasibility Study relating to environmental matters, the Company shall
conduct Mining Operations substantially in accordance with the terms of the ErA, EMP
and WMP and shall comply with Applicable Law and agreements, where so made, of the
Government relating to environmental matters. GoG hereby confirms that substantial
compliance with the aforementioned ErA, EMP, WMP and Feasibility Study shall
constitute compliance with Applicable Law relating to environmental matters which are
in force at the time . GoG hereby agrees to take such Corrective Action (as defined in
clauseI5.5) as may be necessary to ensure that the Company shall not incur any cost,
liability or obligation to the other Party and to any Person as a result of any failure to
comply with this clause 6.8.
6.9 The Company shall be entitled to install, maintain and operate, for its own account and
without third party intervention, telecommunications facilities and equipment in Guyana
that cannot be provided by existing communication entities, for Project purposes, and, if
required, GoG shall issue a licence to the Company under the Telecommunications Act
1990 for such purposes and shall cause the relevant Government Authorities to grant such
permissions as may be necessary for such purposes.
6.10 The Company shall be entitled to employ, train and maintain armed security personnel in
order to ensure the security of Persons and property within the Prospecting Area and the
Mining Area. GoG shall assist the Company in:
(a) the implementation of its security program and, in particular, shall facilitate the
obtaining of all necessary permits for such purposes under the Firearms Act; and
(b) ensuring that the Prospecting Area, the Mining Area and the Assets shall not be
accessible to the public (e.g. measures should be in place to see that no more
garbage be allowed to be disposed of in the tailings area).
7. INITIAL FUNDING AND INVESTMENT INTO GUYANA
7.1 The Company and its Affiliates shall enjoy maximum flexibility in securing and
structuring competitively priced financing, from whatever lawful source and subject to
the granting of whatever security interest in the shares in or assets of the Company, foV
~~
March 2011 Page 17
the purposes of investing in, or causing an investment to be made in, the Project. An
outline of the projected financing terms for the Project shall be disclosed to the
Government and the Conunission in the Feasibility Study, and GoG and the Conunission
hereby agree to comply with any reasonable request to indicate specific acceptance of,
and consent to, any financing structure elaborated in accordance with the Feasibility
Study.
7.2 The Company hereby agree that the debt to equity ratio of the Company as and from the
date of grant of the Mining Licence shall be negotiated in good faith and agreed upon
between the Commission and the Private Parties from time to time, having regard for the
Project's financing needs and the availability of such financing. For purposes of
calculating such debt to equity ratio, (i) debt shall be defined as interest-bearing debt, and
(ii) all shares of the Company shall be taken into account in calculating equity.
7.3 The Company shall be entitled to open and operate, with any financial institution outside
Guyana, bank accounts and other like credit, deposit or banking arrangements in any unit
of currency (including the U.S. Dollar and the Canadian Dollar) ("Foreign Currency
Accounts") and to make deposits to and payments from these accounts, in accordance
with the provisions hereinafter set forth.
7.4 The following may be deposited into Foreign Currency Accounts:

(a) funds invested or to be invested in the Company in connection with the conduct of
Operations within and outside Guyana;
(b) proceeds from the sale of manganese and manganese products by the Company;
(c) any other gains or revenue; and
(d) any transfer of funds held in Guyana from time to time and not immediately
required by the Company in Guyana for the conduct of Operations.
7.5 Withdrawals and payments which may be made from Foreign Currency Accounts shall
include:
(a) transfers of funds to meet expenses incurred by or on behalf of the Company in
the conduct of its Operations, including any funds required to be converted into
Guyana Dollars to meet expenses incurred in Guyana;
(b) the payment of fees and taxes payable under the Applicable Law of Guyana;
(c) the payment of interest on any funds borrowed by or on behalf of the Company;
(d) the distribution of dividends and after-tax profits to investors; and
(e) the repatriation of capital, asset replacement costs, loan payments and
prepayments, and any other obligation reasonably incurred by or on behalf of the
Company outside Guyana.
7.6 The Company shall be entitled to purchase Guyana Dollars from any authorized dealer
(or, if no such dealer is authorized, able and willing to sell Guyana Dollars at the market (1 , %
rate of exchange, then from the Bank of Guyana) at any time and from time to time in ~ '
~ 4-
Mineral Agreement - REUNION March 24, 201 I
\"larch 2011 Page 18
amounts sufficient to meet all expenses incurred by or on behalf of the Company in

Guyana, including local operating expenses and fees payable to the Government
(including corporate income taxes and withbolding taxes on dividends, if any, which
taxes shall be paid as and when owing in Guyana Dollars) or to the Commission and local
working capital requirements. Guyana Dollars shall be purchased using U.S. Dollars, and
the conversion rate applicable for such transactions shall be the market rate then available
for the conversion of U.S. Dollars into Guyana Dollars. GoG hereby agrees to take such
Corrective Action (as defined in clause 15.5) as may be necessary to ensure that any
Unilateral Action (as defined in clause 15.5) shall not have the effect of preventing the
Company from converting U.S. Dollars into Guyana Dollars at a rate of exchange that
accurately reflects the relative international market values of such currencies.
t IMPORTING PROPERTY INTO GUYANA
l.1 In conducting Operations, the Company, acting for its own account or for the account of
any local or foreign contractor retained for Project purposes, shall be entitled to import
free of customs duties, Value Added Tax and any other direct or indirect tax, all
equipment, supplies and materials required for the Project. For greater certainty, the
Company, whether acting for its own account of any local or foreign contractor retained
for Project purposes, shall not be required to pay any licence, fees, duties or other charges
relating to the importing of any vehicle to be used for the Project's purposes within
Region I of Guyana. For greater clarity, if any vehicle, equipment or material brought
in for the Company or its foreign contractors, is removed from Region I or is not used for
the purposes of the Project, the owner of such vehicle, equipment, or material shall be
liable to pay applicable duties and taxes.
,\,2 The Company shall be entitled to import, free of customs duties, Value Added Tax and
any other direct or indirect tax, all usual and necessary personal items and electronic and
household effects that are not available in GoG and will be used solely for the Project's
purposes. However, no goods brought into Guyana duty free shall be transferred or sold
for use in Guyana without the written approval of the Commissioner General, who shall
only authorize a transfer or sale to the Government or, with the Government's approval,
to another Person.
8.3 GoG shall cause the proper public officers having jurisdiction to provide customs
clearance facilities and personnel for the exclusive benefit of the Company in connection
with the Project at a location designated by the Company within the Prospecting Area or
the Mining Area, as applicable ("Customs Personnel"). The Company shall defray all
reasonable expenses incurred by the Government in connection with the providing of
such Customs Personnel.
8.4 GoG acknowledges that for the Company to effectively conduct its business, it is required
to impOli on an expedited basis a significant amount of goods. GoG undertakes to ensure
that the Company's goods will be treated on an expedited basis by Customs Personnel in
accordance with customs clearance procedures including but not limited to the following:
(a) inspecting the imported items and verifying same against an inventory listing
thereof;
V
~
YJineral Agreement - REUNION March 24, 2011
Vlarch 2011 Page 19
(b) verifying that the imported items are to be used exclusively for Project purposes;
(c) satisfying compliance with the import provisions of this Agreement and, subject
to clause 8.2, with any applicable provisions of the Customs Act; and
(d) verifying and inspecting, subject to clause 12.2, exports of manganese and re-
exports of imported items.
L5 In the event of a sale of any imported goods within Guyana by the Company to a Person
other than the Government hereunder, the Company shall be liable to pay customs and
import duties and taxes on any equipment and supplies brought into Guyana under an
exemption provided by this Agreement. The customs and import duties payable shall be
calculated on the appraised value of such equipment and supplies at the time of sale.
1.6 The' Company shall be entitled to re-export any property imported into Guyana pursuant
to this article 8 on the same terms and with the same privileges and exemptions as are set
forth in clause 12.1 but subject, in the case of a sale upon termination of this Agreement,
to the provisions of article 18.
). DUTIES, TAXATION, FEES, RENTS:
l.l During the exploration and development phases, the Company shall not be liable to pay
any taxes on supplies imported directly by the Company and acquired for the Project's
purposes,
9.2 After commencement of commercial production, the Company shall pay an Excise Tax
of 10% on diesel, gasoline, oil lubricants and other oils used in the operations,
9,3 The Company shall pay a royalty at the rate of 1.5% of gross revenue from the sale of
Manganese product of any type, In the calculation of taxable income, the company shall
be entitled to deduct the royalty paid in that year as an expense.
9.4 Should the Government enact any Act (including any Subsidiary Legislation) of general
application prescribing a lower rate of royalty than that set forth in clause 9.3 and in the
Mining Licence, the obligation to pay royalty herein and under the Mining Licence shall
be reduced to such lower rate as is so prescribed.
9.5 Upon granting of the Mining Licence, the Company shall, in the manner and on the terms
set forth in the Mining Licence, pay rent annually and in advance to the Commission in
an amount in Guyana Dollars equal to U.S. $5.00 per acre for each acre of land included
in such portion of the Mining Area covered by the Mining Licence. Should GoG enact a
written law (including Subsidiary Legislation) of general application prescribing a lower
rent than that set forth herein and in the Mining Licence, the obligation to pay rent shall
be reduced to such lower rent as is so prescribed.
9.6 Expatriate Employees, including employees of the Company and its foreign contractors,
shall be entitled to repatriate their earnings subject to having paid all relevant income tax
in Guyana. ~
Ntineral Agreement - REUNION March 24, 2011
March 2011 Page 20
Where an Expatriate Employee is liable to pay income tax in Guyana on income earned
in Guyana, he shall pay such income tax at the rate of tax prevailing for individuals
under the Income Tax Act.
).7 The Company shall pay income and corporate tax pursuant to the Income Tax Act and
the Corporation Tax Act (collectively referred to herein as "Applied Tax Laws") in
accordance with the rules set forth in such Applied Tax Laws generally, but subject to the
specific qualifications set forth hereinafter in the following clauses of this article 9 and
provided that the corporate tax rate payable shall be the lesser of (i) 30% and (ii) the
prevailing rate from time to time during this Agreement's term.
l.8 The amount of income tax payable under the Applied Tax Laws as qualified by clause 9.7
hereof shall be calculated in accordance with the rules set forth in the Applied Tax Laws
as they apply as of the Effective Date, to the exclusion of such rules less favorable to the
taxpayer as may be enacted in the future. However, should any subsequent amendment to
the Applied Tax Laws result in the enactment of any rule or rules regarding the
calculation of taxes payable which are more favorable to the taxpayer than that which is
or those which are in effect as of the Effective Date, the taxpayer shall be entitled to
invoke such amended rule or rules for the purposes of calculating its tax liability
hereunder.
1.9 Notwithstanding clause 9.6 hereof, the Company shall be entitled to apply the following
rules in calculating its taxable income to the extent, if any, that such rules are inconsistent
with the rules set forth in the Applied Tax Laws.
9 .9.1 In respect of capital expenditures, the Company shall have the right to depreciate
annually as of the Effective Date, twenty percent (20%) of the amount of such
expenditures until they are completely written off. It is understood that the
Company shall prove the cost of each item imported.
9.9.2 In respect of Mine Development expenditures, the Company shall have the right
to deduct the full amount of expenditures incurred on stripping and other pre-
production work, other than expenditures on shafts, main tunnels or underground
haulage ways, in the year in which such expenditures are incurred.
9.9.3 For the purposes of this Agreement, "losses" in any year means the excess of all
deductions permitted under this Agreement and the Applied Tax Laws over
revenues in any year of assessment. Losses for any period may be carried forward
and set off against chargeable income in the year or years following the year in
which such losses were incurred until they are completely recovered.
9.9.4 Financial costs and interest on loans or advances contracted by the Company for
its business needs from credit institutions shall be deductible for income tax
purposes without limitations. Interest on shareholder loans shall be deductible
provided the loans reflect international financial market rates.
9.9.5 Foreign head office expenses, within the meaning of Section 2 and of the last J
<V
paragraph of Section 18 of the Income Tax Act, shall be deductible for income tax
~
Vlineral Agreement - REUNION March 24, 2011
'-1arch 2011 Page 21
purposes in an amount equal to 1% of the total sales or gross income generated in

any year from Mining.
).10 The Company shall maintain its books of account for tax reporting purposes in Guyana
Dollars and shall, subject to the provisions of this clause 9.10, file its income tax returns
in accordance with such books of account (the "Official Books"). The Company may
also maintain books of account in U.S. Dollars (the "U.S. Dollar Books") and shall be
entitled to revalue each Financial Statement Line Item (as defined below) as presented in
its Official Books on a continual basis so that the value of such Financial Statement Line
Items in the Official Books remains equal to the value of such Financial Statement Line
Items in the U.S. Dollar Books. "Financial Statement Line Item" shall, for these
purposes, include any line item which may be presented in a balance sheet, an income
statement or a statement of changes in cash resources prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles in Canada.
l.ll The Company shall not be required to pay a greater amount of tax under the Applied Tax
Laws as a result of calculating its taxes payable in accordance with the Official Books
than it would have been required to pay had its taxes payable been calculated in
accordance with the U.S. Dollar Books.
1.12 Notwithstanding Section 49(8) of the Income Tax Act or any other provision of such Act
or of any other law of Guyana, GoG hereby confirms that the Commissioner General
shall declare, pursuant to Section 49(10) of such Act, that gains or profits of any Person
other than the Company, including (i) income, gains or profits of the Company's foreign
shareholders, (ii) income, gains or profits of any Affiliate of the Company (other than a
subsidiary of the Company), and (iii) income, gains or profits of any Person other than
the Company earned or derived outside Guyana, shall not be taken into account ill
calculating the tax liability ofthe Company under Applicable Law of Guyana.
9.13 Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Applied Tax Laws or any other
Applicable Law of Guyana, no withholding or other like taxes shall be payable by the
Company on any interest on any loans made to the Company from any Person, and on
dividends payments whatsoever. Likewise, no withholding tax shall be payable on
payments made by or on behalf of the Company to business concerns outside Guyana for
work performed in connection with the Project outside Guyana, without prejudice to the
tax liability of such business concerns in Guyana for work performed in Guyana.
9.14 The Company shall, subject to clause 9.15, be liable to pay capital gains tax ill
accordance with the provisions of the Capital Gains Tax Act.
9.15 GoG hereby exempts the Company from the application of the following Acts (including
Subsidiary Legislation) relating to taxation (collectively, the "Exempted Tax Laws"):
(a) the provisions relating to Stamp Duty in the Tax Act;
(b) the Income Tax (In Aid of Industry) Act;

(c) the Property Tax Act; and
(d) the Industries Aid and Encouragement Act.
"ineral Agreement - REUNION March 24,2011
\!larch 2011 Page 22
GoG hereby represents and warrants that no Applicable Law of Guyana presently in force
would, by its terms, have the effect of imposing a direct tax on the Company's foreign
shareholders or any of its non-Guyanese Affiliates (i) by reason of its being a shareholder
of the Company, or (ii) the beneficiary of an exemption under any Schedule, or (iii) in
connection with any matter contemplated in the Agreement. For greater certainty, neither
no foreign entity nor any Affiliate thereof shall be deemed or considered to be conducting
business in Guyana by reason only of serving and carrying out its functions as manager
of the Company.
To the extent that any such Applicable Law would, by its terms, apply to the Foreign
Pa11y or any of its non-Guyanese Affiliates, GoG agrees to take such Corrective Action
(as defined in clause 15.3) as may be necessary to offset any Negative Effect (as defined
in clause 15.3) resulting from such application.
GoG hereby covenants and undertakes that, in the event of the imposition of any new or
additional tax or other like charge, through the enactment of any new Applicable Law or
the enactment of any amendment to an Applied Tax Law or to the Capital Gains Tax Act
or otherwise, which imposition or change in rules for calculating same would result in an
increase in the amount of taxes payable by the Company, the Government shall relieve
the Company from the obligation to make such increased payment, and such relief shall
be in an amount equal to the amount of the increased payment that would otherwise be
required to be paid pursuant to such new or additional tax or other like charge.
9.16 Should a dispute arise in connection with any matter referred to in this article 9 or in
connection with the application of any provision of any Applied Tax Law to the
Company or any taxpayer referred to in this article 9, GoG shall ensure that no
compulsory measures are taken against such taxpayer. The Government Tax Authority in
Guyana normally having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute shall issue a
written ruling setting forth detailed reasons in support thereof, and the taxpayer or
taxpayers affected thereby shall be entitled to appeal such ruling in the manner provided
in article 17, which appeal shall suspend execution of such ruling for all purposes until a
final determination of the matter has been made in accordance with article 17. The
taxpayer shall be entitled, but not required, to exhaust any statutory or administrative
rights of appeal from such ruling under Applicable Law of Guyana. Prior to going to
arbitration, the Company shall pay any taxes not in dispute.
10. IMMIGRATION AND EXPATRIATE PERSONNEL
10.1 On the terms and subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth in this article 10 and in the
next following article 11, the Company and its foreign contractors shall be entitled to
employ such Persons who are not citizens of Guyana, to work in Guyana for the Project
and related purposes ("Expatriate Personnel" or "Expatriate Employees") and permit
such Expatriate Personnel and their dependents, as defined in the Immigration Act
(collectively "Expatriates") to enter Guyana for such periods as the Company and such
contractors shall determine.
Vlarch 2011 Page 23
10.2 The Company shall comply with the terms of the Immigration Act with respect to the
employment of Expatriate Employees and the entry into Guyana of Expatriates. GoG
shall perform all such acts within its powers and shall cause all such other acts to be
performed which may be necessary or desirable to facilitate the employment and entry of
Expatriates as contemplated in this article 10 and the processing of applications for visas
and work pennits.
10.3 The Company will as far as practicable ensure that Expatriates comply with all
Applicable Law of Guyana, that they respect the national heritage and customs and that
they not engage in any activities contravening Applicable Law of Guyana. It is also
understood that contractual provisions allowing for the dismissal of contractors or
employees for violation of Applicable Law of Guyana will be deemed sufficient to meet
the Company' s obligations pursuant to this clause 10.3, without prejudice to the criminal
and civil liability of such employees or consultants and without prejudice to the
provisions of clauses lS.3(a) and lS.3(b). The Company undertakes to provide a copy of
its standard employment contract to the GOG.
[0.4 Expatriate Employees shall be subject to such rules regarding personal income taxation as
are set forth in article 9. Expatriates shall be subject to such rules regarding the importing
of property into Guyana as are set forth in article 8.
11. LABOUR MATTERS
l l.l The Company shall, in accordance with the provisions of this article 11 , give preference
to the employment of citizens of Guyana, at all levels of Operations to the extent and
provided only that such Persons are available, qualified and equally suitable for such
employment
11.2 The selection and hiring of personnel for Project purposes shall be within the absolute
and exclusive purview of the Company. Where established, the Company shall consult
with the local employment agency or such other organizations with a view to determining
the availability of qualified and suitable citizens of Guyana for employment in the Project
but shall not be bound by any recommendations of any such agency or organization.
11.3 As soon as practicable following the Mining Licence Grant Date, the Company shall
prepare a detailed training programme for the Project's purposes with a view to ensuring
the development of suitable and qualified Guyanese personnel at all levels of its
operations. The training progranune may include training in such skills as production,
maintenance, finance, personnel management and international marketing, and may be
effected through training courses, on-the-job training, scholarships and, if necessary,
training at premises and operations maintained by the Company outside Guyana,
provided that the Company shall collaborate with the Commission and the Government
as far as practicable to see that all citizens of Guyana trained overseas pursuant to the
training progranune return to work in Guyana. The Company shall enlist the participation
and cooperation of the Commission, the University of Guyana, and the Government and
the Government Technical Institute in preparing and implementing the train~
programme.
Ntineral Agreement - REUNION March 24, 2011
Yfarch 2011 Page 24
11.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Company shall be entitled to
employ a minimum of five (5) Expatriate Employees at all times for the Project's
Purposes and shall generally be entitled to have recourse to such mix of Expatriate
Personnel and Guyanese personnel as contemplated in the Feasibility Study.
11.5 The Company shall, within 90 days after the end of each financial year, file with the
Commission a report, in the manner described in clause 3.4.1(f), indicating progress
achieved in the employment of citizens of Guyana for the Project's purposes, including,
if the objectives referred to in clause 11.3 are not met, a description of positions not filled
by citizens of Guyana, a description of the procedures employed for seeking out
available, suitable and qualified citizens of Guyana to fill such positions and an
assessment of the success or progress achieved by the training progranune with a view to
filling such positions shall be subject to review on an annual basis.
11.6 Personnel relations between the Company and its employees in Guyana shall be subject
to existing written Applicable Law of Guyana relating to labour relations.
12. EXPORTING MANGANESE AND OTHER PROPERTY FROM GUYANA
;2.1 The Company shall be entitled to export from Guyana and deposit, lease, sell, assign or
otherwise transfer outside Guyana, manganese produced from the Mining Area without
restriction of any kind and shall be exempted from the obligation to pay any fees,
imposts, duties, taxes, administrative and other charges and any other like assessments of
any nature whatsoever in connection therewith.
12.2 Customs Personnel shall be entitled to inspect any exports made pursuant to clause 12.1
and any re-exports made pursuant to clause 8.6 and the terms of any such sale,
assignment or other transfer outside Guyana, provided that such inspection shall be
conducted with the utmost dispatch and shall, in no event, delay the shipment of such
property to destinations outside Guyana when such property is otherwise ready for
shipment. The Company shall give reasonable notice of any such impending shipment to
Customs Personnel having responsibility for the conduct of such inspection. Customs
Personnel assigned to the Mining Area shall be vested with all requisite power and
authority to conduct such inspection in the case of a shipment originating from such
locations.
12.3 If a final refining facility for manganese comes into operation in Guyana, is cost-
competitive and produces refined metal constituting good delivery on world metal
markets, the Company shall give all due consideration to making use of such facility for
Project purposes.
12.4 GoG hereby undertakes to cause the Company to receive all such specific authorizations
and exemptions from authorities having jurisdiction over the matters described in this
article 12 as are necessary to give effect to the matters described in this article 12.
March 2011 Page 25
13. REPATRIATION OF CAPITAL AND PROFITS FROM GUYANA
13.1 The Company shall be entitled to remit all capital invested and profits earned in Guyana
to Persons outside Guyana without restriction of any kind (subject to GoG' s entitlement
to receive payments due to GoG provided by this agreement) and shall be exempted from
the effects of any such restriction as may be in effect from time to time under the
Applicable Law of Guyana and from the obligation to pay any fees , imposts, duties,
taxes, administrative and other charges and any other like assessments of any nature
whatsoever in connection therewith. For greater certainty, the Company shall be entitled
to remit such capital and profits from Foreign Currency Accounts.
14. INSURANCE MATTERS
14.1 The Company intends to subscribe for and maintain at all times during Operations,
insurance coverage of the Operations, provided such coverage is available at competitive
and reasonable rates from insurers of recognized standing.
14.2 Payments from insurance policies, if applicable, for loss or damage to the Assets shall be
applied entirely to repair or rebuild the damaged Assets for which such insurance
payments will have been made.
:4.3 All insurance policies shall be kept at the Company' s registered office in Guyana.
IS. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, COVENANTS AND UNDERTAKINGS
i 5.1 The Company hereby represents and warrants to the GoG that:
(a) it is duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing pursuant to the laws of
its jurisdiction of incorporation and is qualified to do business in those
jurisdictions where necessary in order to carry out its purposes;
(b) it has the requisite corporate power and authority to own, lease, and operate its
assets and to carryon its business as now conducted; and it has the capacity to
enter into this Agreement;
(c) it shall not breach any other agreement or arrangement to which it is a party or be
in violation of any Applicable Law to which it is subject, by entering into or
performing this Agreement;
(d) this Agreement, when executed, shall be duly executed and delivered by it and be
valid and binding upon it in accordance with the terms thereof;
(e) there is no judgment, decree, injunction, ruling or order of any court,
governmental department, cornmission, agency, instrumentality or arbitrator and
no claim, suit, action, litigation, arbitration or governmental proceeding in
progress, pending or threatened, which prevents or which seeks to prevent it from
entering into this Agreement; and ~
(t) that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, and that of its directors and officers, ~
after due enquiry, there exists no material fact or circumstance applicable to this
JA
March 2011 Page 26
Agreement or the Project which has not been previously disclosed to the
Government or the Commission, as applicable, and which should be disclosed to
prevent the representations made in this Agreement from being materially
misleading.
15.2 GoG and the Commission hereby represent and warrant to the Company that:
(a) the Commission is duly organized and validly existing as a body corporate under
the GGMC Act and is qualified to do business in Guyana where necessary in
order to carry out its purposes;
(b) the Commission has the requisite corporate power and authority to own, lease,
and operate its assets and to carryon its business as now conducted;
(c) GoG has the capacity to enter into this Agreement;
(d) GoG and the Commission shall not breach any other agreement or arrangement to
which either of them is a party or be in violation of any Applicable Law to which
either of them is subject, by entering into or performing this Agreement;
(e) this Agreement, when executed, shall be duly executed and delivered by GoG and
the Commission and be valid and binding upon GoG and the Commission in
accordance with the terms thereof; and
(f) there is no judgment, decree, injunction, ruling or order of any court,
governmental department, commission, agency, instrumentality or arbitrator and
no claim, suit, action, litigation, arbitration or governmental proceeding in
progress, pending or threatened, which prevents or which seeks to prevent GoG
and the Commission from entering into this Agreement.
15.3 The Company hereby covenants and undertakes to:

(a) assume liability for any damages caused by its servants and agents in violating its
obligations under this Agreement; and
(b) hold GoG harmless from all suits for injury or claims for damages to Persons or
property resulting from or in connection with the conduct of its Operations
hereunder.
15.4 GoG hereby undertakes to take all such steps which are necessary for the implementation
of this Agreement, including approving the Feasibility Study and the ErA and granting
the Mining Licence in a timely manner, passing the necessary or appropriate Acts
(including Subsidiary Legislation) and issuing the necessary or appropriate authorizations
to provide for the adaptation and modification of the Applicable Law of Guyana which
may affect the implementation of this Agreement, and to allow the Company to continue
to carry out their obligations and to receive the benefits accorded to them under this
Agreement.
15.5 Without limiting the application of clauses 15.6 and 15.7 and without prejudice to any
<hi, A",,=,",. GoG rnoc," m ,'op," ~y ,= Appli"bk L,w 0' =,,', m ~a "
./
other undertaking of GoG set forth in this Agreement, if, at any time during the term of <C'(!1
Minera l Agreement - REUNION March 24, 2011
\lfarch 2011 Page 27
eXisting Applicable Law (collectively, "Unilateral Action"), and if such Unilateral

Action has the effect (the proof whereof shall lie with the Party asserting such effect) of
preventing or constraining the exercise of any right or of materially increasing the burden
of performance of any obligation (including any increase in an obligation to pay a sum of
money) of the Company hereunder (a "Negative Effect"), GoG agrees to take such
measures as may be required to restore the Company to the position they would have
retained had such Unilateral Action not been taken ("Corrective Action"). Such
Corrective Action may take any or all of the following forms: (i) an exemption from the
application of the Applicable Law that is the direct or indirect subject of the Unilateral
Action or the direct or indirect cause of the Negative Effect, (ii) an undertaking to remit
additional sums of money to the Company as a result of such Unilateral Action, (iii) the
enactment of specific legislation (including Subsidiary Legislation) eliminating the
Negative Effect or, (iv) any other form acceptable to the Company and GoG. For greater
certainty, GoG agrees to take Corrective Action:
(a) to eliminate the Negative Effect of any Unilateral Action on or in respect of the
Articles, the Mining and Prospecting Licence, the Environmental Authorization,
the Mining Area or the Assets; and
(b) to eliminate the Negative Effect of any Unilateral Action taken on or in respect of
any of the matters described in articles 6 to 13 inclusively.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing set forth in this Agreement shall be interpreted as
preventing GoG from taking Unilateral Action regarding matters of employee health and
safety and of reasonably applying such Unilateral Action to the Company hereunder.
5,6 Notwithstanding any provision hereof, GoG shall not, whether by Unilateral Action or
otherwise, unilaterally amend or terminate this Agreement or any Schedule, the Mining
Licence when granted, or the Environmental Authorization otherwise than in accordance
with the express terms hereof or thereof.
15,7 With respect to the property, rights and interests of the Company arising out of this
Agreement or any Schedule or in any way connected with the Project, GoG agrees (i) to
ensure within Guyana the fair and equitable treatment of such property, rights and
interests, (ii) in no way to impair or interfere with the management, maintenance, use,
enjoyment or disposal (except as expressly provided herein) of such property, rights and
interests, and (iii) to take no action to expropriate or nationalize any property, rights or
interests, whether characterized as expropriation or nationalization or otherwise, or to
directly or indirectly deprive the Company of such property, rights or interests.
15.8 The representations, warranties, covenants and undertakings set forth in this article 15
shall remain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement and shall be in addition to,
and not in substitution for, any other representations, warranties, covenants and
undertaking set forth in this Agreement.
March 2011 Page 28
16, DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES
16.1 Should GoG or the Commission default in the performance of any of its obligations or
undertakings hereunder, the Company or Parties aggrieved by such default shall give
reasonable notice to the defaulting Party specifying the nature of the default and
indicating any remedial measure to take to cure such default. If such remedial measure is
not substantially completed within the notice period (where, unless otherwise specified in
the notice, shall be a period of 30 days), the aggrieved Party or Parties shall be entitled,
without any fi.lrther delay, to institute proceedings in accordance with article 17.
16.2 The Company shall be deemed to be in default hereunder if:
16.2.1 it takes advantage of any bankruptcy or other Applicable Law for the protection
of debtors from their creditors or voluntarily goes into liquidation; or
16.2.2 proceedings in bankruptcy or under any Applicable Law having similar effect are
taken against it in good faith and such proceedings are not dismissed or contested
in good faith within 60 days thereof; or
16.2.3 the Company fails to complete a payment due to the Commission or the
Government hereunder and (i) such payment is not completed within 60 days
from the date of receipt by the Company of a notice of such failure to pay from
the Commission or the Government, as applicable or (ii) the Company having
failed to pay has not contested in good faith the allegations set forth in connection
with proceedings under article 17 within the aforesaid delay; or
16.2.4 the Company fails to perform any other material obligation assumed by such
Party hereunder and (i) fails to complete such performance within 90 days of the
date of receipt by the Company of a notice of such failure to perform from the
Commission or the Government, as applicable (provided that performance
hereunder with the aforesaid 90-day period of an obligation required to be
performed within a specific delay in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute
a valid completion of performance relieving the Company of its default
hereunder), or (ii) the Company having failed to perform has not contested in
good faith the allegations set forth in such notice in the manner set forth in
article 17 within the aforesaid delay; or
16.2.5 the Company is convicted of an offence under the Mining Act which constitutes a
Willfi.ll departure from one or more of the substantive undertakings set forth in the
Feasibility Study and the EIA after having been convicted of two previous like
offenses under the Mining Act; "convictions" for the purposes of this clause
16.2.5 shall include any out-of-court settlement pursuant to Section 131 of the
Mining Act; or
16.2.6 the Company fails to commence Development Operations within the time limits
set out in the Feasibility Study, subject to the occurrence of a Force Majeure
eventor agreement with the Commission on behalf of the GoG. r '
cA~
March 2011 Page 29
16.3 The GoG may, subject to clause 16.4, terminate this Agreement or any Schedule hereof,
the Mining Licence and the Environmental Authorization in the event of a default under
any provision of clause 16.2 by written notice to the Company.
16.4 If the Company has instituted proceedings in accordance with article 17, the GoG shall
not terminate or purport to terminate this Agreement or any Schedule hereof, the Mining
Licence or the Environmental Authorization, and the Company shall be entitled to
continue Operations hereunder until the proceedings described in article 17 shall have
been completed.
16.5 For the purposes of this article 16, a Party shall be deemed as to have "instituted
proceedings" or "contested" hereunder if it serves notice to the other Party or Parties to
the dispute under clause 17.3 and continues to avail itself of the dispute resolution
mechanisms set forth in article 17 with reasonable diligence thereafter. If the Company
has instituted proceedings under clause 17.3 in connection with an allegation by the GoG
or the Commission of a default by the Company hereunder and continues to deny such
alleged default after proceedings under article 17 have been completed, the GoG may, if
it wishes to sustain its allegations, institute arbitration proceedings under clause 17.4
hereof.
If the GoG succeeds in proving a default by the Company hereunder to the satisfaction of
an arbitration tribunal constituted under clause 17.4, it shall be entitled to such
compensation in the form of damages as such tribunal shall think fit to award in
accordance with the evidence presented and the provisions of Applicable Law and the
Rules (as defined in clause 17.2). However, neither the Commission nor the Government
shall be entitled to seek a termination of the Mining Licence, the Environmental
Authorization or of this Agreement or any Schedule hereof, unless the Company
expressly consents to such termination or is adjudged by the arbitration tribunal (formed
as per clause 17.4) to have committed a fundamental breach of this Agreement, of the
Mining Licence, or of the Environmental Authorization.
17. GOVERNING LAW, DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND JURISDICTION
17.1 This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with,
the laws of Guyana.
17.2 If any dispute or conflict, contractual or not in nature, arises in connection with
Operations or any other activities governed by this Agreement or any Schedule, the
Mining Licence or the Environmental Authorization or the breach, termination, validity,
performance or interpretation thereof (any of such occurrence being hereinafter referred
to as a "Dispute") the Parties shall resolve the Dispute in the manner hereinafter set forth
in this article 17.
17.3 A Party may commence proceedings under this article 17 by convening a meeting
between high-ranking representatives of the Parties (or such other representatives
specifically designated for such purpose). Such representatives shall meet within 30 days
from the date of the notice convening the meeting and shall use their best efforts to settlV
Mineral Agreement- REUNION March 24, 20 Il
March 2011 Page 30
the Dispute in good faith for a period not exceeding 60 days from the date of the
aforesaid notice.
17.4 Any Dispute which is not resolved pursuant to clause I 7.3 or otherwise, shall be referred
for determination to final and binding arbitration, to the exclusion of all courts of any
State and other like forums, under the International Arbitration Rules (the "Rules") of the
American Arbitration Association (the "Court"), valid on the date of the Dispute;
provided that the Rules may be supplemented, if required and applicable, by international
law, including general principles of law recognized by civilized nations and principles
applicable to contracts between States and foreign private parties, to the extent necessary
to give full effect to the true intentions of the Parties as set forth in this Agreement and its
Schedules. In particular, the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the
following provisions:
(a) any arbitral tribunal constituted pursuant to this clause 17.4 (the "Tribunal") shall
consist of three arbitrators, one appointed by each Party and one appointed to be
chairman of the Tribunal by agreement of the Parties, or failing such agreement,
in accordance with the Rules; in the event the Dispute involves more than two
Parties, each Party shall appoint one arbitrator, and jointly appoint an additional
arbitrator who shall be chairman of the Tribunal; failing such joint appointment,
the chairman shall be appointed in accordance with the Rules;
(b) a decision of a majority of the members of the Tribunal is required to settle or
resolve any Dispute; in the event the Tribunal is composed of an even number of
arbitrators and is deadlocked, the chairman of the Tribunal shall appoint an
additional arbitrator who, after a consideration of the Dispute and the evidence
and submissions of the Parties, shall cast the deciding vote to settle or resolve the
Dispute;
(c) arbitration proceedings shall be in Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago, or at any
other location mutually agreed by the Parties; and
(d) each Party shall participate in any arbitration proceedings at its own expense, and
expenses of arbitration shall be borne equally by the Parties. In the case of an
award of monetary damages, the Court or, as applicable, the Tribunal shall be
entitled to award interest thereon from the earlier of (i) the date on which
proceedings are instituted and (ii) the date on which the relevant obligations
became eligible, at LIBOR.
17.5 Without prejudice to the authority and power of the Court or, as applicable, the Tribunal
to recommend provisional measures, any Party may request any judicial authority of
competent jurisdiction to order any provisional or conservatory measure, including
attachment, prior to the institution of arbitration proceedings, or during the proceedings,
for the preservation of its rights or interests.
17.6 The Parties agree that any Dispute may be consolidated by the Tribunal, under the Rules,
and heard together with any arbitration that may arise under any other agreement between
the Parties, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that such consolidation would be appropri~e- tf
and in the best interests of the Parties. Cd" \
~
,\ofineral Agreement - REUNION March 24, 2011
"arch 2011 Page 31
17.7 The Government hereby expressly represents and warrants that it has signed and ratified
all treaties, conventions and other documents necessary to give full effect to the
provisions of this article 17 and that such provisions are binding and enforceable against
it.
17.8 The Government hereby expressly and irrevocably waives the right to any claim for
sovereign immunity against jurisdiction, enforcement and execution of any arbitral award
rendered as provided for in this article 17 or any judgment thereon in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
. 7.9 The failure by a Party to nominate an arbitrator or participate in arbitral proceedings shall
not constitute valid grounds for rejecting the jurisdiction of the Court and of the Tribunal
appointed under clause 17.4(a), or the validity and enforceability of any of its awards.
Each Party undertakes to execute any arbitral award rendered against it in accordance
with its terms, in full, voluntarily and without delay. Judgment on the award may be
entered and enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.
7.10 For greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, it is hereby
expressly agreed that the Arbitration Act, Cap. 7:03 of the laws of Guyana shall not apply
to a submission to arbitration under this article 17.
18. TERM AND TERMINATION
8.1 This Agreement shall be deemed to have come into force as of the date on which it shall
have been executed by all Parties (the "Effective Date") which shall occur prior to the
date of the Mining Licence Grant Date. The Parties agree that all acts performed and all
expenses incurred by the Company as of and from the date grant of Prospecting Licences
in anticipation of the finalization of this Agreement and the granting of the Mining
Licence, and on the assumption that this Agreement would be executed and the Mining
Licence granted in due course, shall be deemed for all purposes to have been validly
performed and incurred pursuant to this Agreement and the Mining Licence, once
granted. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the Mining Licence as well as the
Environmental Authorization and renewal thereof (or any like licence or similar evidence
of rights granted in replacement thereof) definitively expire, unless earlier terminated
pursuant to this article 18.
18.2 The Company may terminate this Agreement by giving six (6) months written notice to
the Government, provided that the Company shall have the right to retract in writing its
notice at any time prior to the expiry of such notice period.
18.3 GoG shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement only under the circumstances described
and in the manner set forth in article 16.
18.4 In the case ofa termination of this Agreement pursuant to clauses 18.1, 18.2 or IS.3, the
Company shall:
(a) subject to clause IS.5, deal with its property in Guyana as provided in clause IS.
V
Wineral Agreement - REUNION March 24, 2011
\larch 2011 Page 32
(b) restore the areas used and damaged as provided in clause 6.4, the EIA and the
Environmental Authorization, once it is granted;
(c) pay any fees due hereunder up to the time the termination becomes effective; and
(d) submit complete reports and evaluations, maps, assays, samples, drilling tests and
related articles to the GoG.
18.5 Before the Company is entitled to remove its assets and property from Guyana upon
termination of this Agreement and before any payments due to it are returned, the
Company shall obtain from the GoG a Certificate of Compliance with its obligations
under clause IS.4.
IS.6 In the event of the termination of this Agreement in accordance with clauses IS.I, IS.2 or
IS.3, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) all fixed plant, equipment and other immovable assets of the Company and all
materials, supplies, vehicles and other moveable assets of the Company shall be
offered for sale at their fair market value to the Government within 30 days from
the effective date of termination; if the Government does not accept such offer
within 30 days from the date thereof, the Company shall sell, remove or otherwise
dispose of all such property prior to the expiry of 120 days after the effective date
of such termination; all such property not so sold, removed or otherwise disposed
of shall become the property of Guyana without charge;
(b) notwithstanding the foregoing, upon termination of this Agreement, the
Government may by notice to the Company require the removal or destruction of
any assets of the Company located in the Mining Area, and if the Company does
not remove or destroy such assets within a period of 120 days from the date of the
Government's notice to that effect, the Government may effect such removal or
destruction and the Company shall assume the reasonable costs, which must have
been incurred by the Government at competitive rates, of such removal or
destruction;
(c) upon the termination of this Agreement, the Company shall leave the Mining
Area and everything thereon in safe condition in accordance with the closure plan
as set out in the Feasibility Study. In this connection, unless the Government
otherwise directs, the Company shall, in accordance with good mining industry
practice, make safe all holes and excavations to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Government. In the event that the Company fails to do so, the Government may
perform such acts as may be necessary to make the Mining Area safe and the
Company shall assume the reasonable costs, which must have been incurred by
the Government at competitive rates, of said acts. To the extent that the Company
complies with the terms of the Feasibility Study and the EIAin the form accepted
by the Commission in respect of the matters described in this clause IS.6( c), the
Company shall be deemed to have fulfilled their obligations hereunder; and
(d) the Company shall have the right to enter upon the Mining Area for the aforesaid
purposes, subject to the rights of surface owners or others, for a period of one (IV
Mineral Agreement - REUNION March 24. 2011
March 2011 Page 33
year from the effective date of termination or such longer period as the Company
may reasonably request.
IS.7 In the event that the Company decides to suspend Operations under the relevant
provisions of clause 4.3, the Company shall not be entitled to dispose, by sale or
otherwise, of its Assets referred to in clause IS.6(c).
19. INDEMNIFICATION
19.1 GoG hereby agrees and covenants to indemnify and save the Company harmless from
and against any and all loss, cost, expense, damage, or liability (including, without
limitation, reasonable and documented attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in
defending against litigation, either threatened or pending) arising out of or based upon:
(a) any breach by GoG and the Commission of any representation, warranty,
covenant or agreement made by either of them in this Agreement; and
(b) any failure by GoG or the Commission to satisfY any commitment or obligation
made under this Agreement or under any document executed or delivered in
connection with the transactions set forth in this Agreement.
19.2 The Company hereby agrees and covenants to indemnifY and save GoG and the
Commission harmless from and against any loss, cost, expense, damage, or liability
(including, without limitation, reasonable and documented attorneys' fees and other
expenses reasonably incurred in defending against litigation, either threatened or
pending) arising out of or based upon:
(a) any breach of any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement made by them
in this Agreement;
(b) any failure by them to satisfY any commitment or obligation made under this
Agreement or under any document executed or delivered in connection with the
transactions set forth in this Agreement; and
(c) any environmental liability or adverse environmental condition of any nature
whatsoever which may arise from or exist in connection with the Mining Area.
19.3 For the purposes of determining the IndemnifYing Party and the Indemnified Party, GoG
and the Commission shall be deemed to be one and the same Party. If any claim or
demand (a "Claim") is asserted by any Person against a Party in respect of which such
Party may be entitled to indemnification under the provisions of this article 19 (the
"Indemnified Party"), written notice of such Claim, specifYing the basis for the Claim
and the amount thereof (to the extent feasible) shall promptly be given to the other Party
(the "Indemnifying Party") from whom indemnification may be sought. The
Indemnifying Party shall have the right (and if the Claim is based on a claim made by a
third Person, shall notifY the Indemnified Party whether it exercises such right), within
thirty (30) days of its receipt of the notice of the Claim, to assume (subject to the right of
the Indemnified Party to participate, at its own expense and with counsel of its choice~. ,.;:
P 4'
the entire control of the defense, compromise or settlement of the Claim, including, at th~
,"dem"ifyi", P""Y" "PC'~, remi"'"g """"~l ,f ", eh"i~, No C"rim ,lmll '"
Mineral Agreement - REUNrON March 24, 2011
March 2011 Page 34
or otherwise compromised without the consent of the Indemnifying Party, which consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld, Any damages to the assets, business or operations of
the Indemnified Party caused by a failure of the Indemnifying Party to defend,
compromise or settle a Claim in a reasonable and expeditious manner, after the
Indemnifying Party has given notice that it will assume control of the defense,
compromise or settlement of the matter, shall be included in the damages for which the
Indemnifying Party shall be obliged to indemnifY the Indemnified Party,
19.4 In no event will consequential, exemplary or punitive damages be recoverable with

respect to this Agreement by any Party, except to the extent sought and recovered by a
third Person from the Indemnified Party.
19.5 The Indemnifying Party shall not be liable to the Indemnified Party for compensation
hereunder unless the cumulative amount of compensation owing under all or any such
Claims exceeds US $50,000 in the aggregate. In such event, however, the full amount of
any compensation owing shall be payable without deduction.
20. ASSIGNMENT
20.1 The Company may, at any time, assign all or part of its rights and obligations under this
Agreement to a third party with the prior written approval of the Government. The
Government shall not withhold its approval without good reasons. It is agreed that such
reasons shall include but not be limited to the technical and financial capability of the
proposed third party.
20.2 In all cases of assignment and transfer, the assignee or transferee shall be subject to this
Agreement and shall be bound to comply with the provisions of the Agreement. In the
event of a partial assignment, the assignor and assignee shall each be severally (and not
jointly and severally) liable for their own respective defaults hereunder.
20.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall have the right to pledge or otherwise
create security interests over its assets, both moveable and immovable, to secure
financing.
20.4 The GoG and/or the Commission shall provide each mortgagee or chargee under a
mortgage or charge given as authorized hereunder, and each lender pursuant to a loan of
which the GoG has been given notice, whether made to the Company or indirectly
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Lenders" and, individually, a "Lender"), with a
copy of any notice given to the Company under article 16. Any notice or copy of any
notice to be given at the same time to any Lender shall be given in the manner described
in clause 22.8 to the address for service of notice given by that Lender to the GoG.
20.5 Should GoG give a notice to the Company pursuant to article 16, the GoG shall give
reasonable consideration to any proposal that any Lender may subsequently make to the
Government or, as applicable, the Commission taking into consideration the positions of
those Lenders in regard to any outstanding obligations that the Company may have to
them, directly or indirectly, at that time. ~
M arch 2011 Page 35
H. FURTHER ACTIONS
21.1 GoG hereby agrees and undertakes to sign all such documents, do all such things and
make all such arrangements such that the Company will receive, from the relevant
Government Authorities, all such specific authorizations, permissions and/or exemptions
in respect of the subject matters described in the relevant provisions of articles 7, 8, 9, 12
and 13, as are necessary or desirable to give full force and effect to such matters
described in articles 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 hereof, including a regulation by the Minister
under the Property Tax Act pursuant to Sections 10(a)(iv) and 16 of such Act excluding
any investment in the Company made by any non-Guyanese Affiliate thereof or other
foreign Person from the application of such Act in the manner contemplated in such
sections.
!2. MISCELLANEOUS AND FINAL PROVISIONS
12.1 The Parties shall treat all information relating to the Project including, without limitation,
any report required to be filed by the Company hereunder, as confidential and shall only
disclose such information to other Persons in accordance with the provisions of
clauses 3.4 and 3.5.
22.2 The Company shall notify the Government and the Commission promptly of the
occurrence of any event which results in the death or injury of any person in the Mining
Area or any event which may endanger natural resources within the Mining Area.
,2.3 The failure of a Party to insist on the strict performance of any provision of this
Agreement or to exercise any right, power or remedy upon a breach hereof shall not
constitute a waiver of any provisions of this Agreement or limit such Party's right
thereafter to enforce any provision or exercise any right unless such waiver is
unambiguous, in writing and signed by the Person waiving such right, power or remedy.
Any waiver of such right, power or remedy shall not be construed as a waiver of any
succeeding or other right, power or remedy unless the contrary is expressly stated in
writing and signed by the Party making such waiver. The failure by a Party to perform an
obligation hereunder shall not excuse the performance by any other Party of its
obligations hereunder unless the first mentioned obligation is a material obligation.
22.4 No amendment to this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and duly executed
by each of the Parties.
22.5 Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement, together with the Schedules,
contains the entire understanding of the Parties.
22.6 There are no implied covenants in this Agreement other than those of good faith and fair
dealing.
22.7 This Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the respective
successors and permitted assigns of each of the Parties.
22.8 All notices and other required communications made pursuant to this Agreement to any~
Porty ,'0]'bdn w""" ~d ,'"'II bo "d"",~d " fullow, _~ ~
March 2011 Page 36
TO THE COMPANY: Reunion Manganese Inc.

Roraima Tower
Ogle International Airport
East Coast Demerara, Guyana
Telephone: 592- 222-5003
Fax: I (450) 6772601
Attention: Joachim Bayah, COO
TO THE COMMISSION: The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission

Upper Brickdam
Georgetown, Guyana
Telephone: 592-225-3047
Fax: 592-02-70084
Attention: The Commissioner
TO GOG: Office ofthe Prime Minister

(including notices Oranapai Towers
required or permitted Wight's Lane
to be given to the Kingston
Government): Georgetown, Guyana
Telephone: 592-226-6955
Fax: 592-226-7573
All notices shall be given (i) by personal delivery to the Party or (ii) by electronic
communication (including telexes, telecopies or telefaxes ands canned PDF documents),
or (iii) by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. All notices shall be
effective and shall be deemed to have been delivered (i) if by personal delivery, on the
date of delivery if delivered during normal business hours and, if not, then on the next
business day following delivery; (ii) if by electronic communication, on the next business
day following receipt of the electronic communication; and (ii) if solely by mail, on the
next business day after actual receipt. A Party may change its address for notice by
providing notice of such new address to the other Parties.
22.9 The Parties hereby agree to cooperate at all times and to contribute to the extent of their
respective capacities in order to ensure efficiency in the performance of Operations
hereunder and to ensure the success of the Project. To this end, the Parties agree to meet
on a regular basis to discuss matters of mutual concern.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereunto caused their authorized representatives to set
their respective hands hereto at the City of Georgetown, Guyana, in the presence of one another
the day and year first above written.
[Signature page to follow1

March 2011 Page 37
rHE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF )

GUYANA )
)
BY: ~~~
-Name: S"rt'< v ~v
A H7r0.)S
)
)
)
Title: P rL l M I i Mvj0n; -c:fi0Z--
v/"v<><-<'2.<-- ~~'- ~~(A.-/3:~ (~il"",o.A~
GUYANA GEOLOGY AND MINES

COMMISSION 111. n )
)
)
BY::-:-_=-_-:-+~
_ _ _ __ )
Name: dV ', dt-l jA- l, ~(;:-') ) o,,",-Ai I W~-n--,
Title: ()tA- i (;l{"tfl"l Qf'" ,,-n<' (?O-r-rz.l) ) Witness
du'-1 0'].-
March 2011 Page 38
SCHEDULE "A"
Company Articles ofIncorporation and By-laws
COMPAl"lY NO. 6479
COMPANIES ACT OF GUYANA
CERTIFICATE OF I NCORPORA TION
REUNION MANGANESE Inc.
I hereby certify that the above-mentioned Company, AI1icles of Incorporation of
which are attached, was incorporated under the Companies Act of G uyana on the
12th day of April, 2010 .
.r-:-:':~ .-~:...... ::--

.(~ ~,~ .. .
.' .;
-
Reg?strar of Companies
Dated this I.,j-- day of Apri l, 2010.

GUYANA
~ <;:\:)0 ,e:;,." . ~
COUNTY OF DEMERARA C.q\-" '\. \O'Soc>' <S1:::>
'N,!~\", 1.\ ~_""", . 0:>

~-----
THE COMPAi'llES ACT 1991
PRrvATE LIMITED LlAllILITY COMPANY

WITH SHARE CAPITAL
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
REUNION MANGANESE Inc.
NAME Of COMPANY: COMPANY NO: \o,""~

~"'-.
~.t~ j - ~~ '~',
REUNION MANGANESE Inc . .'? ". .~.~\
.\
:. \i
- 'I
.J
.. '::;:,....-""',~.
CLASSES AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SHARES:
ONE HUNDRED (100) ORDINARY SHARES DIVIDED INTO THE VALlJE OF 51,000
(ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS) PER SHARE.
RESTRICTION OF SHARE TRANSFERS:
THE ANNEXED SCHF.OULE "A" AND THE RESTRICTIONS SET OUT THEREIN ARE
INCORPORATED IN THIS FORM.
NUMBER OF DIRECTORS:
NO LESS THAN ONE AND NO MORE THAN SIX DIRECTORS.
RESTRICTIONS ON BUSINESS THE COMPANY MAY CARRY ON:

NONE.
OTHER PROVISIONS:
THE PROVISIONS SET OUT IN SCHEDULE "A" AFORESAID.
INCORPORATORS:
March 2011 Page 39
SCHEDULE "B"
The Prospecting Licences
I. Prospecting Licence 14/2010, granted to Reunion Manganese Inc. by the Guyana

Geology and Mines Conunission under Section 30 of the Mining Act 1989 and the
Mining Regulations on September 6, 2010.
2. Prospecting Licence 15/2010, granted to Reunion Manganese Inc. by the Guyana

Mining Regulations on September 6,2010.
3. Prospecting Licence 16/2010, granted to Reunion Manganese Inc. by the Guyana

Mining Regulations on September 6,2010.
t Prospecting Licence 17/2010, granted to Reunion Manganese Inc. by the Guyana

Mining Regulations on September 6, 2010.
Appendix MIN B: GUMR-TM-13-05-23-Golder-

Pit Slope Design PFS
Golder
~ Associates TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE May 23,2013 PROJECT No. 11-1132-0130-M04
TO Mr. Mathieu Gignac, ing., Vice-President, Projects

FROM Mr. John Hagan, P.Eng./ EMAIL jhagan@golder.com

PIT SLOPE DESIGN

PREFEASIBILITY FOR MATTHEWS RIDGE PROJECT
REUNION MANGANESE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum provides a summary of the bench geometry recommendations for the ultimate pit
slope configurations at Reunion Manganese's Matthews Ridge project located in West Guyana. This
memorandum is a summary of the analyses completed to date to provide some preliminary recommendations for
the pre-feasibility study. A more detailed memorandum will be provided subsequently including drillhole logs and
grain size distribution analyses of the saprolite.
This document was prepared by John Hagan, P.Eng. and Michael Maher, P.Eng. of Golder and has been
reviewed by Philip R. Bedell, P.Eng. of Bedell Engineering Inc. under contract to G Mining Services Inc.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Proposed Pit Development
Manganese mineralization at Matthews Ridge is developed within the low metamorphic grade, predominately
sedimentary sequence for fine-grained clastic (pelitic) and chemical nature, showing evidence of deposition in a
marine basin. Exploratory drilling initially defined a number of pits that subsequently merged based on additional
drilling to the current pit configurations. Pre-feasibility pit configurations where provided in G Mining's
memorandum to Golder titled Matthews Ridge Drillholes vs. Whittle Pit Shells, dated March 12, 2013.
In general terms, the site has been divided in a series of Hills (Hills 1 to 9). Optimized pit studies indicate that
larger pits will be developed through the weathered zones of Saprolite and Transition (Sap rock) material into the
underlying medium strong Saprock. A number of these Hills were merged into larger pit shells. For the proposes
of this memo Hills 1 and 2, Hills 3 and 4 and Hills 5 and 6 have been combined and are referred to as Hills 1,
Hill 3 and Hill 5, respectively. Hill 8 is not currently economical and has not been included as part of the Pre-
feasibility study.
Goldor Assoelale. Lid.

100. Scotia Court. Whitby. Ontario. Canada L 1N 8Y6
Tel: +1 (905) 723 2727 Fax: +1 (905) 723 21 82 www.golder.com
Golder Ass ociate. : Operations In Alrlca, Asia, Australasia. Europe. North Amorlca and South Amorlea
Golder, Golder Associate s and Ihe GA globe design are lrademarks 01 Golder Assoclates CorporatIon.
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, ing., VicePresident, Projects 1111320130M04
2.2 Pre-Feasibility Geotechnical Assessment

A memorandum titled Matthews Ridge Drillholes vs. Whittle Pit Shells prepared by G Mining documents the site
topography and preliminary pit shells. Based on a review of the pit cross sections ("cuts") provided in this
memorandum, a number of drillholes were selected to be logged. During site visits by members of Golder's
engineering staff in April 2012 and March 19 to 27, 2013, 21 drillholes were examined and logged using
geotechnical characterization methods. The resulting Records of Drillhole are attached to this memo. It should
be noted that the depths shown are down hole depths rather than vertical depths.
Locations of the drill holes to support the Pre-feasibility Study pit slope recommendations are listed in Table 1
and shown on Figure 1, appended.
Tabl e 1 : 5 ummary 0 f 0 n'lIh oes I 51 op_e oeSlgn

d t 0 5 uppo rt p't
I Use . Recommen d arIons
Drill Hole 10 Hill Easting Northing Elev. Length Dip 0 Azimuth 0
No. (m) (m) (m) (m)

12MR1236 1 820099.73 831363.48 147.60 64.1 -50 360
12MR1270 1 820299.52 831353.04 117.60 69.5 -50 360
12MR1202 3 818325.05 831087.04 118.50 83.6 -57.4 197
12MR2108 3 819249.96 831219.82 133.70 70.0 -50 180
12MR2065 4 816893.38 830735.08 68.35 58.5 -50 360
11MR2025 5 Ext 814979.98 830374.01 220.63 79.6 -50 180
12MR2049 5 Ext 815918.69 830450.54 156.40 83.0 -50 360
12MR2055 5 Ext 816231.43 830580.90 88.22 50.2 -50 360
11MROO09 5 813273.05 830138.28 129.84 66.0 -50 170
11MR0052 5 813992.24 830120.10 160.19 69.0 -45 360
11MR0082A 5 813837.91 830199.63 185.13 50.8 -50 360
11 MR0180 6 813069.30 830221.87 93.34 69 -51.4 355
11MR1004 7 812461.25 829848.98 133.54 101.4 -50 325
11MR1019 7 812382.58 829848.58 133.74 73.7 -50 145
11MR1044 7 812390.55 828707.63 163.43 78.7 -50 145
11MR0043A 9 808102.15 828504.01 141.92 96.5 -50 180
11MR0201 9 808048.51 828451.18 147.58 79.5 -50 180
11MR0203 9 808245.20 828509.29 126.41 69.0 -50 180
11MR0230 9 808392.74 828486.16 89.17 68.0 -50 360
11MR1118 9 808903.59 828921 .92 113.14 76.0 -50 160
12MR1185 9 808436.70 828803.89 112.20 41.4 -50 160
Twenty samples were selected from the drillholes examined by Golder and tested at Ground Structures
Engineering and Consulting (GSEC) in Georgetown, Guyana. The testing included twenty grain size distribution
analyses and fifteen Atterberg limit tests. A limited laboratory testing program was executed in order to reliably
2/7
Mr. Mathieu Gignac. ing . Vice-President. Projects 11-1132-0130-M04
G Mining Services Inc. May 23.2013
characterize the Saprolite for the selection of soil property parameters used in stability analysis. Geological logs
from the exploratory drilling were also referenced, where applicable.
The results of the Atterberg limits testing of fifteen saprolite samples are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 SummaryofAtterb erg L"t Ie Samples

Iml s- Sapro rt
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index
(%) (%) (%)
Average 45 32 13
Minimum 39 25 1
Maximum 55 43 21
2.3 Prefeasibility Hydrogeological Assessment

A groundwater resources study was undertaken by RMI and GSEC. This study included the installation of a
series of nested wells in Saprolite and Saprock. Rising head hydraulic conductivity test indicate that all of the
5
principal geologic units have a hydraulic conductivity of the same order of magnitude (10. cm/s).
Groundwater levels obtained from the wells and a number of surface water sampling locations were used to
estimate groundwater levels for the pit slope designs. The regional geodetic groundwater level varies from Elev.
50 to 78 across the site with localized intermittent perched streams in areas with higher topography.
2.4 Proposed Pit Slope Analyses

Maximum overall slope heights of the subject Hills and Cuts, and the maximum thicknesses of the principal
geotechnical units that will be exposed in the pit slopes, are listed in Table 3.
The Saprock varies in degree of weathering and composition with rock strength from very weak to medium
strong. Numerous clayey silt saprolite layers were encountered in the saprock. Depending on the degree of
weathering and the presence of soil layers within the Saprock, the material may be excavated by machine or
may require drilling and blasting. Typically, materials classified as very weak to weak with numerous soil layers
can be excavated with conventional equipment, whereas, medium strong materials will require drilling and
blasting.
A summary of the water levels anticipated to be encountered in each pit is provided in addition to the proposed
bottom of each pit. All elevations provided are geodetic.
--
3/7 CIl
- Golder
'. Associates
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, ing., Vice-President, Projects 11-1132-0130-M04
G Mining Services Inc. May 23, 2013
T abl e 3 : Maxlmum
. elglhtsIG eoIoJllca
SI ope H' ' andWater LeveIS 'In P'
. IBoun danes . I Geotech'
nnclple mcaI U01'ts
Slope in Saprolitel Saprockl
Slope in
Slope Slope in Medium Weak Saprock Medium Strong Inferred Bottom of Pit
Weak
Hill and Cut Height Saprolite Strong Boundary Saprock Groundwater Elev.
Saprock
(m) (m) Saprock Elev. Boundary Elev. Level Elev. (m) (m)
(m)
(m) (m) (m)
Hill 1 Cut 1 70 34 3 33 111 108 52 75
Hill 1 Cut 2 41 41 - - 77 75 52 77
Hill 3 Cut 1 84 84 - - 32 - 67 39
Hill 3 Cut 2 37 37 - - 74 65 76 78
Hill 3 Cut 3 73 27.5 8 37.5 96.5 88.5 52 51
Hill 5 Ext Cut 1 80 58 22 - 190 - 67 168
Hill 5 Ext Cut 2 111 76.5 27.5 7 126 98.5 67 82.5
Hill 5 Ext Cut 3 79 33 27.5 18.5 126 98.5 67 80
Hill S Cut 1 101 38 63 - 103 - 76.5 40
Hill S Cut 2 84 12 22 50 172 150 107 100
Hill 5 Cut 3 66 39 27 - 138 - 107 111
Hill 7 Cut 1 65 21 32 12 137 105 79 93
Hill 7 Cut 2 55 55 - - 66 58 79 73
Hill 9 Cut 1 56 34.5 4.5 17 64.5 60 75 43
Hill 9 Cut 2 41 41 - - 64.5 60 75 69
Hill 9 Cut 3 35 35 - - 64.5 60 75 110
Hill 9 Cut 4 68 - 68 - - 85.5 75 45
Hill 9 Cut5 47 7.5 7 32.5 73.5 66.5 75 34
Hill 9 Cut6 25 25 - - 87 79 75 97
Hill 9 Cut 7 42 42 - - 77 58 75 90
Minimum 25 3 3 7
Maximum 111 84 68 50
Average 63 39 26 26
_ _ _= Saprolite extends below inferred groundwater level

Notes: It is anticipated that the weak Saprock (with numerous clayey silt layers) can be excavated with conventional equipment. Medium strong
Saprock may require drilling and blasting.
4/7
-
ra
=
e
Golder
Associates
2.5 Analysis of Existing Pit Slopes

During Golder's March 2013 site visit, existing slopes from the previous mining operation were observed and
slope angles measured in Hill 5, Hill 5 Ext. and Hill 9. Photographs of these pit slopes are included on Figures 2
and 3. Some of these slopes have been disturbed and reworked as part of the ongoing resource exploration
activities.
The existing Hill 5 pit slopes were used to back calculate soil property parameters to calibrate the design. These
existing undisturbed pit slopes used in the analysis ranged in inclination from 42 to 50 to the horizontal and
were approximately 30 m in height. Considering the excellent performance of these 50 year old slopes, it is
believed that they have an existing Factor of Safety (FOS) of around 1.3.
2.6 Soil Property Parameters and Stability Analyses

Based on the drillhole logs, geological logs, laboratory testing, existing pit slope geometry the following soil
property parameters were selected for analysis of the Saprolite slopes. The Saprock units are considered to
have higher strength values and are not considered in the analysis.
Table 4 - Saprolite Property Parameters

Parameter Value
Friction Angle
Cohesion 35 kPa
3
Unit Weight 18 kN/m
Based on the hydrogeological data, localized areas in the bottom a few pits will be below the inferred
groundwater level. A horizontal piezometric surface within the Saprolite at a height above the Saprolite-Saprock
transition of 10% and 25 % of the thickness of the Saprolite was applied to the analyses. This represents the
case where the hydraulic conductivity of the Saprolite is too low for complete depressurization and/or there is
insufficient time for complete depressurization and allows for seasonal fluctuation in groundwater levels.
Depressurization of the Saprolite can be assumed for optimized slope designs if it is supported by monitoring,
observation, and slope performance during pit development.
3.0 SLOPE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The following Pre-feasibility level slope design recommendations are based on the data and analyses as
described in Section 2.0. They should be reviewed and updated during feasibility design phase of the project
and optimized during pit development based on documented geological conditions and slope performance.
3.1 Slopes in Saprolite

Base Pre-feasibility-Ievel slope designs on:
Factor of Safety (FOS) = 1.1 corresponding to an aggressive slope design where failure does not put any
critical facilities at risk.
Do not locate critical facilities such as haul roads, utility lines, or waste dumps within or close to high
Saprolite slopes, since these slopes are at higher risk of failure and will take longer to remediate if instability
develops.
If critical facilities must be located behind high Saprolite slopes, support the slope designs with site specific
investigation, characterization, and analyses using a minimum design FOS of 1.2.
~GoJder
5/7 \27AssocIates
Mr. Mathieu Gignac. ing . Vice-President. Projects 11-1132-0130-M04
G Mining Services Inc. May 23. 2013
Slopes in Saprolite less than 40 m in height can be designed to have a 45 overall angle.
Slopes in Saprolite greater than 40 m in height can have a 42 overall angle. The inter-ramp angle can be 45;
however, a 5 m wide bench should be provided at 40 m depth and every 20 m interval beyond this depth. Areas
of localized groundwater seepage and distress in the base of the Saprolite slopes can be addressed with rock
protection following excavation.
Based on the condition of the existing pit slopes, natural vegetative cover will become established and should be
promoted upon completion of slope excavations to avoid erosion.
3.2 Slopes in Saprock

It can be assumed that the pit slopes in Saprock will have the same slope geometry as the Saprolite slopes at
the Pre-feasibility stage. The 5 m wide benches (as described in Section 3.1) should be provided in the Saprock.
3.3 Risks
Primary risks to achieving the recommended slope designs include:
Groundwater in Saprolite; design slope angles would be significantly flatter if the pore pressures are greater
than those assumed for design;
Poor surface water control results in erosion and infiltration and recharge of groundwater;
Groundwater in strongly foliated medium strong Saprock slopes where pore pressures could promote slab
failures;
Undefined shears and faults in Saprock.
3.4 Opportunities
Opportunities to increase design slope angles primarily relate to the possibilities of defining more favorable
strength or structural conditions during operations, and implementation of superior operating practices to
maximize slope angles. SpeCific opportunities identified include:
Opportunity to increase the design slopes in Saprock could be achieved by further geotechnical drilling and
laboratory testing to reliably characterize these units. This could be completed during the Feasibility Study
to develop a strength model using the Generalized Hoek-Brown method;
Additional hydrogeological studies could be completed during Feasibility Study in Hills and Cuts where the
regional groundwater levels are anticipated to be above the bottom of the pits (Hill 3 Cut 1, Hill 5 Cut 1,
Hill 9 Cut 1, etc).
617
~Golder
\!TAssoctates
Mr. Mathieu Gignac, Ing., VlcePresldent Projects 1111320130-M04
G Mining Services Inc. May 23, 2013
4.0 CLOSURE
We trust that this memorandum provides sufficient information for your present purposes. Please do not hesitate
to contact us should any point need further clarification or when additional information is required.
Yours truly,
Michael Maher, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Principal
JBHIMUMlPBlleblkv
cc: Mr. Jo Bayah, Reunion Manganese Inc.

Mr. Philip R. Bedell, P.Eng., Bedell Engineering Inc.
Attachments: Figure 1 - Location Plan

Figure 2 and 3 - Existing Pit Slope Photos
Appendix A - Record of Drilihole Logs
nlache\.2D11\oU1a'CIt!IcomI11132.o1301n1l4 plllopel'flnol "" lfopememol2nd 1Ubm,.,onraVlled permg cammenIl1111132.ot30-m04 IInaI matthew, ndge 2013'om daex
7fT
LEGEND
STREAM Fl.OW SAMPlING LOCA noNS
... DRlUHOLE LOCAnONS
... GROUNDWATER DRIUHOLE LOCATIONS
REFERENCE
PLAN BASED OlGlTAL MAPPING SUPPLIED BY
G MINING SERVICES INC
NOTES
THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCnON WITH
ACCOMPAHYlNG TEXT
2. AU LOCAT1ONS ARE APPRDltIMATE ONLY
SCAlE IN METRES LOCATION PLAN

500 l000m PIT SLOPE DESIGN
1:2S000
FIGURE 1
EXISTING PIT SLOPES FIGURE 2
Hill 5 - Existing Pit Slopes
Hill 5 Existing Pit Slopes
Photo Date: March, 2013 Golder Associates Ltd. Checked By:

EXISTING PIT SLOPES FIGURE 3
Hill 5 Extension - Existing Pit Slopes
Hill 9 - Existing Pit Slopes
Photo Date: March, 2013 Golder Associates Ltd. Checked By:

Mr. Mathieu Gignac. Ing . VicePresident. Projects 11 - 1132-0130-M04
G Mining Services Inc. May 23.2013
APPENDIX A
Record of Drillhole Logs
~Golder
\Z7Associates
PROJECT No.: 11 -1 132'()130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 12MR1236 SHEET 1 OF 3
LOCATION: HILL 1 DATUM: GEODETIC
N: 831 363.48 E: 820099.73 DRILLING DATE: May 23, 2023
INCLINATION: -SO' AZIMUTH: 360'
~8 SOIL PROfilE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION % HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. PIEZOMETER,

w
~:a ii? ~ I-
k, cml.
I fi STANDPIPE
OR
~~
1 0~
..
~:l! 0 10' 10' 10 THERMISTOR
~
a:
%ffi ;3:!!;
Z ~ w ~ u:I INSTAlLATION
~
ElEV.
~
- - !t' ~ WATER CONTENT PERCENT
~
~2 DESCRIPTION z RECOVERY % c
c !!i ~
DEPTH
(m) ~ ~
~ ~ U)
Wpl e'li. IWI
NP - Non-Pla.Uc
~S
c U) II iii ~ iii 20 40 60 80
GROUND SURFACE 1~1.00
- 0
(SM) + MANGANESE ORE, silty sand 0.00
w11h gravel; brownIbIack I
"
" 2
- 2 :" . -
.' 3
I
" 145.30 I
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand; 3.00
orangeJbrownlwhlte 4
- 4 (SAPROLITE) -
5
- 6 6 -
142.39
(SM) + MANGANESE ORE, sUly send 8.80 1
w11h gravel; brownIbIack .:"
141.112 8
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace send; light 1.80 -
t
- 8
8
brown
(SAPROLITE)
a
II
10
- -
i
~
10 11
12
Becoming while 13
I
i - 12 I. -
i 15
i - 14
18
11
-
I Becoming yellow
18
I - 18 Ig -
i
20
BecomIng brown
j - 18 - 21 -
1 GS 0 3 90 1 l - f-!
j Becoming red
- 22
~ 23
11 - 20 -
~
24
25
~ 26
-
I
- 22
Becoming red, orange and brown,
motUed
21
~- 24 28 -
S 2B
I - 26 30 -
I
II
31
~- 28
32
-
I
~ 1--
33
I - 30 t-- '- t-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
-- -- - I- -- - .- - -- I - - -- - - -- -- --------
i
J
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 1SO <I! = ~- ,.-=rales

LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 111132'()130
N: 831363.48 E: 820099.73 DRILLING DATE: May 23. 2023
I."" 'N.e.TII"IN __SO

g
~m I~ ~ I-----~~-,-t-~--t-.--.--,--j
SAMPLES
AZIMJ.HH: 3IlQ'
u""'"'""v"' HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY.
k.cmls
I t~ PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
1'=
OR
~ II ~~ , i~
1;':1: ::1 DESCRIPTION
~ELEV. !
a: RECOVERY%
.~~:co
..
~!:'TC.~r 1?'
".~n~vn.~:~.'PERCENT
~m
0 .
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
iii
0 Ii3 D~:JH ii Wp ,yy I:iP ' Nil>taStic ~ S
r ~ rrrTMIT
~ICLAvCLA~'1Y~SIL.T,~
tm~I~
.~~;;R9~htTmW--r-r~~~~~~-T-T--r--r~--T--r-T--------~
(SAPROLITE) (continued)
Phyllite layer (2OOmm thick)

r 32 -
- J4 -
f-
GS 90 I
Ja
- 36 f- -
1- Ja
40 -
~~
J- 40 42 -
~ 43
i- 42
I
-
~
1- " 46
II -
J
1- 48
4'
-
49
J
r 48 p.HYLLJT.E,'_V':'.!~ numerous -
clayey slit layers; red, white, pink 51
j (SAPROCK)
52
'- 50 -
c-52
::r~i.=k
(SAPROCK) '"
=um strong;
55 -
r 54 -
i
- 55
-
r 55
81
I -
r- eo ~'-
- ----- - ------ -- :-- ~- .- - - -- I- -- I- '- 1-- 1- - - - - - - -
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 1SO
(I';;,.u. LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MLJM
PROJECT No.: 11 1132'()130
N: 831363.48 E: 820099.73 DRILLING DATE: May 23,2023
INCL INATION: -!!!L AZIMUTH: 3@'

PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTAlLATION
~ OO~~~PH~~Urr=r!~~,--WW~~~kk"~-mOO~lu-m-s~mm--g;--~ !Ii
pink. da~~~,yellow
-62
(SAPROCK) (COfIlinUf/d) 63
60\ I
I -
65
- 60\
END OF
111.50
60\.10
66 I
- 66 -
1- -
!
~ - 70 -
~ - 72 -
!
- 7. -
1-
~
rn
-
- 18 -
- 00 -
- 82 -
- 60\ -
i
1- 88 -
I
- 88 -
- lID -
DEPTH SCALE . " , .I.l1. LOGGED: JBH
1 : 150 \2'!JA I CHECKED: MUM

PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
N: 831353.04 E: 820299.52 DRILLING DATE: July 18, 2012
INCLINATION: -50 AZIMUTH: 360

SOIL PROFILE SAMPlES RUN GRADATION % HYDRAULIC CONDUCTMTY, PIEZOMETER,
~m
CIS
ii! ~
CI:a
....
~ 0:
k, cml.
10' 10' 10 10
Id 0 '"
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
X~ z~:!:;Cl
~
~
~ ...~
ELEV. w 0 .... EI:'! INSTALLATION
--
'" ~
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
~
DESCRIPTION ;! DEPTH z RECOVERY"" :l o
&:lE ~;;! :>
~s
0
0:
0
~ (m) 2 0:
II B W 1\
CI Wpl
20 40
OW IWI
NP - Non-Plastic
60 60
'"
,.... 0
GROUND SURFACE 117.tlO
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, tmca sand with 0.00
1
wood pl8C8S and organics, trace
manganese 0111; brown 2
4
f- 2 B8COIl11ng orange to whlle/brown -
5
f- 4 6 -
114.1lI
(ML) CLAYEY S)LT, trace manganese 4.tlO 7
ore; OI'lInge to brown
(SAPROlITE) 9
f- 6 10 -
11
- 8 -
12
I- 10 13 -
14
I- 12 -
15
I- 14 B8COIl11ng white
16
-
17
I- 16 -
I- 16
18
I -
Phyllite seam; purple 19
Becoming redIbrownIorangeiblack
f-2O molUed 20 -
21
1-22 -
22
f- 24 - -
1 GS 23 0 5 87 8
-
1-28 24 -
25
1-28 2B
-
27
1-30 1-'- 1---- - - - - - - - - - -

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
-- -- - ~'- 1-- -- - - -- -- '-- -- f--- -- -- --------
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 150
<Ii GoI4er
- Associates
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No,: 11-1132-0130
INCLINATION: -50" AZIMUTH: 360'

PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
r ~~~~~==~~--------~~--~-r-+~~~~~-+~~r-+-~r--+---r--~--+--r-----------i
~~).CLAYEY SILT, trace manganese 28
ore; orange to brown
(SAPROLITE) (conlinued) 29
r 32
Phyllite seems; brown
~ -
Phyllite seams; red

~ 34 32 -
~
34
~36
3!>
-
36
31
38 -
Phyllite seams; red to white
40
BecomIng grey to red

-
42
~ 42
43
-
44
-44 45 -
<Ie
47
48 -
_81 .80 49
Massive I : band _ ' 1.21
~~.L).CLAYEY SILT, trace manganese 47~
50
r 48 ore; gray to red -
(SAPROUTE)
&
~~ 50 -
~ 53
~
1-~ t- -
!- 54 -
~
I~ 56 PHYLILflTE, weak to medium strong, 80 -
I purpe
(SAPROCK)
1-58 -
83
l-80r-I--------- - - - - - - r -1- . - t- r-I-I'-I--I- ' - r---I- -- '- - ,-----------

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
DEPTH SCALE LOGGED: JBH
1 : 150 CHECKED: MUM

PROJECT No,: 111132-0130
INCLINATION: 50' AZIMUTH: 360'

PIEZOMETER,
STANOPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTAlLATION
f- tiOh-+-:P=HYL7';:LJ1lTlwrE-"',,' 011me=dllu=ml~.
w=eak,11::-C slron=--g,-
purple
(SAPROCK) (cOfI&nued) 65
f-82 66 -
f- 64 -
66
- 66 -
70
71
; - 66 72 -
~~ 73
1- 70
ENDOF ,,~, 611.50
-
~
i- 72 -
!
!
- 7~ -
j
f- 78 -
r- 78 -
'- tiO -
r- 82 -
r-64 -
( 88 -
f- 66 -
f- 90 -
DEPTH SCALE I"..1..1.

I
LOGGED:JBH
CHECKED: MUM
1 : 150
PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
N: 831087.04 E; 818325.05 DRILLING DATE: MatCh 3D, 2012
C) 8 SOIL PROFILE
INCLINATION: -57.4
SAMPLES RUN
AZIMUTH: 197"
GRADATION % HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, I PIE20METER,
Cml~o' !~
~:3
STANDPIPE
1i!~ 1-------------.-:--1r----t---.--t---.----+--.--r--.--t
15
10:' 10' 10' OR
C) ::a THERMISTOR
3:~
~::a c~Z
ZC)
DESCRIPTION
~
;!
ELEV
- -
DEPTH
Ir:
w
CD
::a ~
~
!;a RECOVERY% ~ ~ d ~
!!; ~ a
W e
lS I!!
~ '!I
INSTALLATION
~ ~
;j (I) I WI
c Ir: (m) - ~ Wp I NP _ Non-Plaslic :)
c (I) IIIIWII 204080 80
GROUND SURFACE 118.50
- 0
(ML) SILT AND MAGANESE ORE, 0.00
lrace sand, lrace clay; white to dar1t
brown I black
2
I
3
- 2
4
-
5
- . 8
-
1
,
!- 8
-
9
10
I -
11
12
13
-
s. 14
; "- 12 15 -
j 16
il- 14 -
11 II
J 18
1- 18
19
-
104.09 1/
(ML) CLAYEY SlLT,lrace sand,lrace 11.10
Ir"
j
gravel; light brown to white 20
21
22
-
~ 23
~- 20 -
~
~
24
r"
-
25
~ !- 24 28 -
a
L 28 2B -
i
II
~
~ ~ 28 -
31
B
~ 32
6
~ !-~-~-------------- --,-- - - ._- --1-- --1-- --1--- - --- ---
!! CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
II DEPTH SCALE
~Golder LOGGED: JBH
1: 150 \ZTASsociates CHECKED: MLJM

PROJECT No.: 111132-0130
LOCATION: HILL3 DATUM: GEODETIC
N: 831087.04 E: 818325.05 DRILLING DATE: March 30, 2012
~
g u"""" ,~,.
~ F.I------------r-:-,---t-..--t-r---_;-.,-..---,-i
INCL INATlOjl!: 57K
ISAMPLES HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, I ~~ PIEZOMETER.
I
I k. emf. STANDPIPE
OR
~~ .~ ~ 15 ~ I?' I?' lr I? 0t: - ffi THERMISTOR
~ w I~ ~~ INSTALLATION
~ DESCRIPTION ELEV.
-::= ~ RECOVERY % "m~ .. ~v"
WATCD '"'' c""~,, .. , c l-
::E I DEPTH ,W C~
C (m) Wp ~P . N~~~I.Stie :.
~ ~r,-+~~~~m~~J~;~;~~1I9~~ht~~~~~~.-~~~~=~=I~~.~=~~~'I':~UC~=e~-;Tn+--+--r~-3
2 r;-+;-~~+--r~-r--r--r--,~-;~-;-;------~
33
~ 32 IJ -
- t-3>
-lr-Hf-I--H
GS H
90,19
~ 34
~~':l,~- ~~.- ' liILT~ occasional 33.~
-
manganese banding; light brown to
darkbtown
39 I
- 36 40 -
41 II
42
43 -
-
48 I
49
50 I
-
'1
-
53
54
-
II
-46
- GS 16
- !ill
II
-
58
Becoming light brown to white -

61
I
-52 -
PHYL~~ weak, numerous clayey sl~
layers: light brown _I
(SAPROCK)
- 54 -
- !ill -
ij -~~~--- - --------- - - - - -+--+-+-+-+-+-1- ' - '- - --I- --I- ,-1--1--------


PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
N: 831087.04 E: 818325.05 DRILUNG DATE: March 30, 2012
I!i! I
~m I~I~I------~~--+--r---+---r-~
ISAMPLES
INCLINATlON: -57.4 AZIMUTH: 197"
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
k,cmls
I ~~ PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
OR
~c~ I ~
~ Il l2~~
l: I!' I
DESCRIPTION
ELEV
DEPTH:i!; RECOVERY"" ~
~ .:~:co
..
1?~ 1f 1?'
n'~'H.;uo"I:;' ""K'-"N'
~~
8'!i
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
Iis a: Wp t'" . N~~~Ia'lic ;:,
-62 -
75
~;'Y~~' medium strong to strong;
- 64 -
(SAPROCK)
76
77
r-86 -
76
79 I -
81
82
B3
-
86 -
87
r- 74 68
-
89
~ 78 -
90
r- 78 -
82
93
-
r- 82 9S -
98
r- 64 -
97
r- 118
END OF OS.eo
-
I
r-1I8 -
r- 110 -
DEPTH SCAlE LOGGED:JBH

PROJECT No.: 11-1132.()130
N: 831219.82 E: 819249.96 DRILLING DATE: May 10, 2012

0 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
I ~~ffi
SOil PROFilE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION"" PIE20METER.
ClO k, cm/s
~m
STANOPIPE
iii!' OR
~!lI b ~ _
' __10..' _ _1...0_ _ _10..'_
1-_ 1... --1 ~ THERMISTOR
%~ rt w w ~ INSTAlLATION
~!lI ;H --
ElEV. CD ~ WATER CONTENT PERCENT O~
~ ~
DESCRIPTION ~ z RECOVERY""
0 2l~
0
g
(/)
OEPTH
1m)
~ U
Wp I 0
W
NP _ Nl:.~tiC
~'!I
:.
20 40 60 60
- 0
GROUND SURFACE
(ML) CLAYEY SlLT, lrace sand; brown
133.10
0.00
(SAPROLITE)
1
- 2 -
2
3
-
4
Becoming white to brown
129.49
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, with manganese &.50 &
I- 6 ore, occasional while layars, lrace -
sand; whllelbrown
(SAPROLITE) 6
1
-
8
9
-
10
f- 11
1 GS o 1 84 15 1---1
f- 12 -
13
14
15
-
18
11 -
18 J
19
-
20
1
22 -
23
24
28 -
21
29
-
29
31
33
-
34
35
-
38
31
~R -~r~r------------- -- I-- - -fJ- -1-- - --,.-- --,.-- --,.---- - - - - - -

_ CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
; ~~-L----------------L-L-~~~~~~~~~~~--~~--~~--~~--------~
!1__D_E_~
~_ __S_CALE
1 : 150 ______________________________ ~~
5=;~~~
;~(io~~hie~.l.ter~~~__________________ L_OG_G_E_D:_J_BH
CHECKED: MUM________ ~
PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
N: 831219.82 E: 819249.96 DRILUNG DATE: May 10, 2012
INCLINATION: -50" AZIMUTH: 180

I
I~,!
ISAMPlES U~"'OUO'
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, PIEZOMETER,
w k. cmls
f~
STANDPIPE
~::l OR
~ If If
~~
I ~ :I
:J::~
'?' '?' THERMISTOR
i
ElEV. INSTAlLATION
WATER CON~~T PERCENT
!ii~ DESCRIPTION RECOVERY'!!, o .
0 ~ IDePTH Wp 0 ~P - N~~.SIic
~5
1- 30
(ML) etAYEY SILT, wlih manganese
ore, occasional wIlllelayers,lmce 41
sand; wIlliaibrown ~
(SAPROUTE) (con6nued) 4J
1-32 ~ -
48
47
48
I- :M 49 -
50
J08.35 _S1
1-38 (M.L).CLAYEYSILT,1mce sand,lrace 35.70
!;2 -
~Vel; brown
SAPROUTE) !\3
I I- 38 M -
56
: 57
58
I
~ I- 40 59 -
60
8 n
82
I- 42 83 -
84
~.
1-44 87
-
68
9.
70
I- 46
71
-
f-
GS 85 l-
f-
1-<18 -
96.M
~HAlE, ~! <18.50
numerous clayey sRi
layers; greylwhltelyellow E:::: 74
(SAPROCK) :::
t-:.: 77
-
1-50
r-,:::-
r_:_::
t=::3
E::~
[-:-:
r"
t-:..:.
I.:::::' -
..-. 81
1.-.-. 82
t=::::
[:::..
I- 54 E::~ -
c-:-:
,::.::::
L.I ''.:-:-
-':::-
::::::
::::::~
':::-:
:::=~
88
87
88
-
'. -. 119
I-SG
'.:-:-
'-:-:: -
~
90
I- 60 1-- 1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - 1-
_..... 1 - -1 - - ,- .- ~- I - .- i - .- l - .- j - - 1--------
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
DEPTH SCAlE
1 : 150
(J':r. u
''.&---~
LOGGED:JBH
CHECKED: MLJM
PROJECT No.: 111132.0130
N; 831219.82 E: 819249.96 DRILLING DATE: May 10, 2012
INCt INATION: 50 AZIMUTH; 180

PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSlALLAliON
~ oor.~~~~~~~~==~
~YLLlr.E.' medlum.~~~!I~numerous
clayey slit layers, traca manganese;
brown to purple
(SAPROCK) (continued)
94
-
I- 64 -
1-66 -
1
100
PHYLLITE, medium strong: dar1<

brown to grey 101
(SAPROCK) -
102
103
110.08
70.00
I- 78 -
1-110 -
1-82 -

PROJECT No.: 11 -1132.()13O
LOCAnON: HILL 4 DATUM: GEODenC
N: 830735.08 E; 818893.38 DRILLING DATE: March 14, 2012
8 SOIL PROFILE
INCLINAnON: -50.2"
SAMPLES RUN
AZIMUTH: 356"
GRADATION,., HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. I PIEZOMETER.
~ ~ I---------------,..,~,---,--f--r--l-.,----+---,,..,...,---,--l 10:' CmI: '
O
10. 10" g~ STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
~~ DESCRIPTION ~ ~ ~ ! RECOVERY,., ~ ~ ~ ~ WATER CONTENT PERCENT ~ I:! INSTALLATION
j en~ DEPTH ~ i1 ~ Ch en a Wp I OW I WI ~s
o : (m) II i Ii !l 20 40 6~P - N'miPlasUC
GROUND SURFACE 8835
- O~-+~(~M~L~)C~~~YE
Y~S~I~LT~,~tm~~-sa-~~;~b-rnwn-~nTl-~o~.
oo~-+-f_+1-+-~-+-+--+-I-1--+--+--1-~I---f_-1------~
(SAPROLITE)
- 2 -
- 4 -
~ 6 -
~ I
-
-
9
10
-
11
-
12
Quartz vetn at 18.1m (3Ocm)

-
13
~ -
( 20
r"
15
-
8 ~ 24 -
g 17
L 26 -
I
$I
BecomIng red
~- 2S
'8
-
g
~
S~
!!
301--'-1---------------
_____ +-20-t-4 -H-+--l_I ----- - ------
- CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
_ ~-L--L-----------------~~L---~~~-L~~~L-~~~~--~--~--~~~~--~--------___J
I~
~ L-_l_
DEPTH SCALE
: _15O
________________________________~~ ~~~~~~ates~~
(J1
= .-Golder
____________________C_H_E~
___
D_
LOGGED: JBH
__________~
: M_W_M
PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
N: 830735.08 E: 816893.38
DRILLING DATE: March 14,2012
INCLINATION: -SO.T AZIMUTH: 356

~ SOIL PROFILE ISAMPLES RUN .. RADATION % HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, I PIEZOMETER.
~ m I~ ~I-----------'--:--
~r--t-..--+--';-----+-r-"---'--l 10:' Cml~O' 10 10 !~ STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
O~~ IeI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WATERCDNT~~TPERCENT ~; INSTALLATION

DESCRIPTION RECOVERY%
~ ~ (m) iii wp 0 ~ f:lP - N';~IaSltC :J
f- 32
22
-
23
-
24
- 311 Quartz vein at 35.7m (2Ocm)

Becoming greylbrown
-
2S II
211
-
21
-
~ 28
~- 42 Quartz vein aI41 .9m (3Ocm) -
~I
PHYWTE, w~, numerous dayey slit
layers; brownIgrey
!1- 44
(SAPROCK)
-
I - 48 -
32
-48 -
33
- 50 -
35
- 52 -
311
- 54 -
37
38
-
~ 3S
!
~- 58
oFDRii~,,,~W+
t-'"--teE]ii[iNDIOF , Oi,LE::E.
. ----
23."11
-
~ f-
I ,,-,~
60 -
LOGGED: JBH
1 : I SO CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 111132.0130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11MROO52 SHEET 1 OF 3
LOCATION: HILLS DATUM: GEODETIC
N: 830120.10 E: 813992.24 DRILLING DATE: June 13, 2011
INCLINATION: -45' AZIMUTH: 360'

HYORAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
8 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION"" PIEZOMETER.
W
~:a
Cl
ii! W
~ ....
k, cml.
I ~~ STANDPIPE
OR
~~
Cl 0 10' 10' 10- 10 THERMISTOR
Z ~ ~
0:
ill
:J:~ ELEV. w W ~ 0 INSTALLATION
3;:2 ~ ~ -- z RECOVERY"'" ~ ~
~
0 ~~
0
DESCRIPTION j!
~
III
DEPTH
(m) ! ~ ~
II II i Il
CI
~ iii
Wpl
20 40
elfi.
60
IWI
NP Non-Plastic
60
o
~5
GROUND SURFACE
- 0
(ML) SILT, trace sand, trace clay;
160.19
0.00
brown
1
J
I- 2
2
-
I- 4
Becoming red
-
,
3
-
GS 0 6 78 16 I-- '--I
- 4
BecomIng white
I- 6 -
' 5624 5
(ML) SILT AND MANGANESE ORE 7.00
(gravel size 10 massive), trace clay,
I- 8 occasional phyIlile beds; whlie, black
8
-
,
I- 10 711 -
I- '2
J -
9
I- ,.. -
II
10
11
I- 18 -
12
I- 18
1
-
13
148.00
(MH) SILT, trace sand, trace 10 some 19.50
1-20 clay, trace manganese ore; yellow - -
2 GS 141 1 0 6 79 15 t-!---t
-
15
1-22 -
144.28
(ML) SilT AND MANGANESE ORE 22.50
(gravsl size 10 massive), occasional 18
pI1y1r~e beds; while
I- 24 -
17
- 211
1&
I -
q
~ - 28
19
I -
- 20
~
- 30 - ' - - -------------
CONnNUEDNEXTPAGE
-- -- - - - - -- -- -- I - - -- I - - --------
~
.=~
DEPTH SCAlE LOGGED: JBH
1 : 150 CHECKED: MLJM

PROJECT No.: 11-1132.()13O
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11 MR0052 SHEET 2 OF 3

I~
~:3 ~ I~ I-------~-
~'"-
~n" D"""" " I~ ...",,,~
" CO_W' _-~ _--r-:-,--_+I~---'~.--"~~+--r--'w-"--t---r
'" ,..
ur"",,---,'''''_
""''---1
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY.
10:' C",,:O. If If
I ~~ PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
OR
~o~ I' ~ I I ~i ~ ~ ~
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
iii. DESCRIPTION ~ ~ RECOVERY"" i:l .. m~" ..v ... ':~
LV.""" """.." ... , Beg
E/!!
Ii II II wP _ ~P _N';~I.'UC 0(:J
o
r ~hn~~I~ffi~lur~AND~~ : O~
RETIIT~-rj-~II~rI~~~~~~j-II------j
size 10 massive), occaslooal
beds; white (continued)
PHYLLITE, very weak 10 medium

Slrong, numerous clayey sill, lrace 22
-
sand layers; while 10 pink
(SAPROCK)
23
-
24
1-38 -
25
-
I
21
-
-
:;;'!'~~~:,eak 10 medium soong;
29
"I
~
-
j -
32
I -
33
I-SO -
I
- 52 -
-
31
-
38
- 58 -
-~-~--------- ----
CONnNUEDNCXTPAGE
4
o-++-f-l-H_
_____ +-i I '--- --1- . -1-- 1
- - - - - - - -
DEPTH SCALE LOGGED:JBH

PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
LOCATION: HILL 5 DATlJM: GEODETIC
I ____"""'~--'---I-SiA---.--IMPlESI---r-R_UN--t-u.---.-rvw",,"v-,-"1
INCLINATION: -45" AZIMUTH: 360'
a~ : I~f-- %-/ HY~;~~~DU;TY~ I II PIEZOMETER,

STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
&0" 2 I~ DESCRIPTION ~ I~ ~ RECOVERY% WATERCONT~~TPERCENT Bog
INSTAlLATION
Ia ~ 1m) Wp 0 tIP - N~~I.Stic <:J
- OO~4-:==~I~roU~T~~,:.w~OOk~tlo-'mOO~I=~s~~ng-
: -1~~-4~~~~~~~-+~--~+--;--~--+---~-+--~--------~
(conUnued)
- 62
42
-
fine sand seams
- 64 -
I- 66 -
I- n -
I- 74 -
1-71 -
1-80 -
!i l- 82 -
L
i
-
1-88 -
I ~~~
II! 1 : 150
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11 MR0082A SHEET 1 OF 3
N: 830199.63 E: 813837.91 DRILLING DATE: November 3, 2011
AZIMUTH: 360
~
;~ SOIL PROFILE
1 ~1~~-------------------'~r---+--r-+--r------4--r--r-.~
INCLINATION: SO"
ISAMPLES HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
k.c~s
I ~~ PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
il l3 I Q~
OR
b.; If I?, If I? 0t-:: ffi THERMISTOR
l:~ l::,j
1 3 ~i
~o ::l! DESCRIPTION ~~ DEPTH
ELEV. ;i;~ RECOVERY % ~ '";;! d::c ..,A="
.. ~,< "u'""
m :~' """"''''"' , g a.i~
INSTALLATION
0
1 ir WP ~P ' N~ ~~laslic <O(:=!
O
183.60
- 2
(~Lt.1~l CLAYEYSILT, occasional 2.00 -
ph~lIte gravel, trace
manganese; brown to yellow to pink
(SAPROLITE)
- ~ -
'- 6 -
jr . -
e~
~ - 10 -
~
~
! '- 12 -
10
- 1~ -
11
- 16
12
-
PHYL~~,':~:~~;~~7"'S
clayey sll~
9and pink to
13
- 18 grey
(SAPROCK)
-
1~
- 20 -
15
-22
18
-
- 2~ HI -
19
-
f 26 19
i- 28
20
-
-~-~~------------ --'--1- - f- .... I--I-I- - .- - --f- --f- -1--1---------

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
1 : 1SO CHECKED: MUM

PROJECT No.: 11-1132'()130
N: 830199.63 E: 813837.91 DRILLING DATE: November 3. 2011
-so
INCL INATION: AZIMUTH: 360
I ~~
I
Sl
i SAMPLES u,~, ..~, HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. PIEZOMETER.
~ I
~ I ~I--------'---'r---+---r-+---r----+---r---r--T--l k. eml. STANDPIPE
~ ~ II ~ !I~I ~ ~ ~~:"D I?" 1?~ !lg~

OR
THERMISTOR
~ DESCRIPTION 1-
ELEV.
~ RECOVERY"'"
lr"""""1'1'
.. ",~,'''UNI''NI 0
INSTALLATION
o ::I! . DEPTH -.YL ~
(m) WP ~P . N~ ~~1a51ic
o
- ~~~~~=---~--------~
PHYlLl!~,. very weak, numerous 21
clayey sill, trace sand layers; pink 10
rpry
(SAPROCK) (con6nued)
-32 ...
I- 34 ...
25
I- 36 ...
Becoming medium strong
...
-
...
1-44
~~~;
~ ;~: ...
~ ;~;
~:::
...
PHY""""'LUlITE=-,ve-ry-'w--:"'"eaktIto~,--'
1--= medj~um--
strong, occasional slit seams; red,
pink, grey, black
(SAPROCK)
!- 48 -
1-50 ...
35
I- 52
36
I- 54 ...
~
, r- 56
...
...
I-OO-~-------------
CO/'mNUED NEXT PAGE
- - _ ... - .~ ~f-+"'I-'I-I'- .- .- - --I- --I- --1--1------- -

PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
INCt INATION: -so' AZIMUTH: :!!!:

PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTAlLATION
I- 80 h-r-;pruH'M
IYln;;-;:;.LrIT"'-::E,v=ery::":w=ea:::;k;:';1=-0
, Im=ed=Ium=-----' 41 II
stmng, occasional slit . eams; md,
pink, grey, black
-
I
f- 64 -
45
1-66 -
~
it- -
I n
~EE~NDI~OF~~----~
1- 74 -
J
1-
~
ro
-
i_ 78 -
i
- 80 -
-82 -
- 64 -
iJ DEPTH SCALE
1: 150
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: "-"32'()'30
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11MR2025 SHEET 1 Of 3
LOCATION: HILL 5 EXT. DATUM: GEODETIC
N: 830374.01 E: 814979.98 DRILLING DATE: December 13, 2011

,,8 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION'" PIEZOMETER,
I ~~
k, eml.
~:a
STANDPIPE
ii! ~ b 10 10' 10 10
OR
" 2 0: THERMISTOR
xl!'
z " IC w w ~ iii 0 t:: ~ INSTALLATION
~
ELEV. t-
~~ ~~ -- WATER CONTENT PERCENT
~
CD
;!
~ 0:z=> ~ '"
DESCRIPTION :IE RECOVERY'" d o
0 !!i~ ~
DEPTH
(m) ~ Wpl OW IWI
NP - Non-Pla. lic
~S
0 II II S1 iii
GROUND SURFACE
'" 220.63
20 40 60 60
r 0
(ML) CLAYEY SILT,!raee sand, !race 0.00
manganese; brown I red I black
1 I
(SAPROliTE)
2
I- 2 -
3
I
I- 4 4 -
I- 6
5
6
J -
1
1
- B B -
,
I- 10
9
In
I -
11
:I
I- 12 -
12 II
13
I- 14 14 -
15
-
I- 16 16
I
11
I- 18 18
I -
19
II
1-20 20 -
I
21
I
1-22 22 -
23
I- 24 -
24
I
25
1- 26 -
1-28
26
21
1 -
Becoming brown 10 purple
28
1-30 1-- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
-- I-- - - -- - 1-- - -- -- -- -- -- -- --------
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 150 (Jl=eaies LOGGED: JBH

CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: lH132'{)130
LOCATION: HILL 5 EXT. DATUM: GEODETlC
INCt INATION: -50 AZIMUTH: 180

~ SOil PROFilE SAMPLES RUN """""" "',. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, I :.!~ PIEZOMETER.
~!1
~-I ~ i
i I.? (ij l - - -- - ---..-
O-.--f--r--I--r---I--r--.--r--l
~
k, cmls
10' 10' 10 10' ~ t;
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
~~ Ii ~ DESCRIPTION ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ RECOVERY% ;pATr'r. ':~ """"". . , ~; INSTAlLATION
~ ~ ~
(m) !l 0 E~PN~~IaSbc
- 32 -
II
- 34 32 -
33
-38 34 -
J5
-
38
PHYLLITE, very weak to medium

strong, numerous clayey sin layers,
_189.119
40.00
37
I -
trace manganese; brown to
3S
purplelblack
(SAPROCK)
'- 42 -
39
40
-4<4 -
I
- 46
42
43
-
- 48
4<4 I -
45
4&
-
47
-
49
51 -
53
-
54
I
-
57
rror~r------------ - -I- -1- . -H'--I--I-I-i-' -, - r- -1- '-- ._'- ,- - - - - - - - - - -

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
DEPTH SCALE LOOGED:JBH

PROJECT No.: 11-1132'{)13O
INCLINATION: -soo AZIMUTH: 180
~
$l ISAMPLES
1 ~ 1 ~~------------------~~r---+-'--+~r------4--r-'-~~
RUN "'''"Vrl %
...... HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY.
k, aws
I ~~
PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
~ [3l i~ ~ 1~ ~~
OR
_'f 10 10 THERMISTOR
WO~~ I ~ I ~ DESCRIPTION ~ l~ ~ ~ ~ RECOVERY% ~ WATERCON~~TPERCENT g~ INSTALLATION
Ii51~ ~ ~ it WPO E~P N;;~IaSliC ~::.

_
- ro lrr~~YLiliLlTr~
~,~ve~W~
~k'llo~
'm~~lum,-~~-t-t~~~~tlli-t-r-j--t--r-j~t-j-------~
strong, numerous clayey sill layers,
Irace manganese; brown 10
purplelblack
(SAPROCK) (con~nued)
- 62 -
I
- 84 -
'-66
'- n
-- 74
-- 76
i- 78
END OF DRII LHOLF.
I- 110
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 150
.1"'. .
_~
.11.
;:I ....
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
-
PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
LOCATION: HILL 5 EXT. OATUM: GEODETIC
N: 8304SO.54 E: 815918.69 DRILLING DATE: February 28, 2012
INCLINATION: -SO- AZIMUTH: 360-

8 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RVN GRAOATION% PIEZOMETER.
UI
~:a
Cl
ii ~
Cl :l
:;
k, eml.
10' 10 10 10
I ~~ 01/)
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
~ ELEV. '"
l:~ Z3 C)%
~
--
w i :;; EI!:' INSTAlLATION
~
0
III Ie WATER CONTENT PERCENT
;!
~ o
DESCRIPTION RECOVERY %
~:l iij :l
~
z
!is
g DEPTH I/)
::>
2 Wp l e'i1. I WI
0 0 ",
0 I/)
(m)
'" il iii i !l " 20 40 60
NP - Non-Pia_lie
80
GROUND SURfACE 156.40
- 0
(CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT; orange 0.00
1
155.48
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, with sand; light 1.20
2
brown to White
I-- 2 (SAPROLITE) I-- -
1 as 3
0 24 n 4 .. -I
I--
4
I-- 4 -
51
6
I-- 6 1 -
6
I- 8 9 -
10
11 II
II -
I- 10
12
13
II
I- 12 14
15
J -
18
I- 14
With red Shale layers, weak 11 -
18
I- 18 19 -
20
U
I- 18
21
II -
22
2J
I
24
I-- 20
25
-
21
1--22
28
-
29
With red Shale layers, weak 30

3L
J2
r- 24 -
35 II
31
1-28 38 -
40
41
1-28 42
-
43
44
1-30 1-'- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- I--- - - 1-- - -- -- -- -- -- -- --------
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
,
<t1~s

PROJECT No.: 11-1132'()130
N: 830450.54 E: 815918.69 DRILLING DATE: February 28, 2012
INCUNATION: -50 AZIMUTH: 360

HYllAAUUC CONDUCTIVITY,
..,8 SOIL PROfiLE SAMPLES RUN GRADIITION% PIEZOMETER,
w
:J lll ~~ I-
k, eml.
I til STANDPIPE
OR
~~
0 10' 10' 10 10
~~ "'2 uJ THERMISTOR
z .., ~ i iii Q INSTIILLATIDN
~
~
ELEV. I-
~::E ;;I ... - - WATER CONTENT PERCENT

~
CD
DESCRIPTION ;! DEPTH z RECOVERY %
~
::Ii d Q .
~
~S
I/)
!!i~
::>
i e'tl.
Q
Q
~
I/)
(m)

II II ~ II
Wpl
20 40 60
IWI
NP - NonPlaslic
60
- 30
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, wtlh sand; light .5
brown to white
(SAPROUTE) (continued) .&
- 32
47
-
.a
W11h yellow Shale layers, extremely

.,
weak
'- 301 50 I -
51
53
I- 36 54 -
56
56
57 III
1-36 58 -
59
auartz vlen (l00mm Ihlck) 60

,
I- 40
----
125.78 81
-
SHALE, extremely weak, numerous
clayey slit layers and manganese -- --
----
40.00
e2
bands; grey to purple --
-- -- 63
(SAPROCK)
------
I- 42
-- - --
601
-
----
--
65
-- --
----
--
88
----
--
1-44 --
------
87
-
--
----
88
--
--- - II
--
----
89
I- 48 ------ 70
-
----
----
-- 71
--
----
I-.a --
--
-- -
--
----
72
----
--
--
---- 73
----
-- 74
1-50 ---- -
----
--
75
--
----
----
--
78
--
---- 71 II
1-52
----- -
------ 78
--
-- --
--
--
--
--
----
79
1-54 ----
-- eo
-
--
------
--
-- --
---- 81
1-56 -- -----
--- -
--
--
------ 82
--
-- --
--
---
83
-- --- -
1-58
-- --
-- 65
---- --
---
---- - 88
--- ---
1-60 1-"- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =..;
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
-- -- - - 87
1-- -- - - 1-- - -- -- -- I - - -- -- --------
.~~s

PROJECTNQ.: 11 -1132'{)130
N: 830450.54 E: 815918.69 DRILLING DATE: February 28, 2012
INCL INATION: -50 AZIMUTH: ~Ji!L

PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTAlLATION
1- 62 -
I- 64 -
- 66 -
- 74 -
10&
, 107
100 -
111
- 711 -
113
114 I
SILT AND
115 II
116
P_HYL_Ll1!."medlum strong; grey
117
-
116
119
-
120
92.82
END OF 63.00
1- 86 -
-
1-110 -

PROJECT No.: 11 -1132.0130
N: 830580.90 E: 816231 .43 DRILLING DATE: March 7, 2012
INCLINATION: -50' AZIMUTH: 360'
~., I ~ i~I-_________--r-,-..--_ +ls---,

AMP LES+---'-_ _ _-I--r
,-- bt<ALJ
---,
"r""u-,-"'---j HYDRA~~~;';'ONDUCTIVITY. I ~~ PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
~UI I~ I?' I?' lr 1?~ o~
OR
b THERMISTOR
~~ :;l l~ ~ ~
O
INSTALLATION
DESCRIPTION : RECOVERY"'" WATFRCONTENTPERCENT 5"':
i51~ ~ iC Wp ~~P ' N~~Ia'IJc~S
_ o~~~GR~
~~=I~
.SLU
~ RF~
~E-=______~~~~~~~~~~~r+~~~~-+ __~~~~__+-~__+-________---j
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, wlih manganese 0.00
ore; IIghl brown 10 orange
(SAPROLITE) 2
3 j -
- 2
5 I -
7 I
8
f- 6 -
9
10
11
J -
14
-
18
BecomIng purple 10 red
f- 14 19 -
20
21
-
23
I- 18 -
I 24
25
f- 20 -
27
28 -
29 II
~
31
Phyllite layer
f- 24 32 -
33
i
i f- 28
Massive I 34
35 -
I PHYLLITE, weak. with manganese
ore, numemus clayey slit layers; grey
10 purple
38
37
f-2B (SAPROCK) 39 -
40
f-~f--f------------ -- -- - .- 1--1--1- .- 1- -1- .-- .-- .-----------

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

PROJECT No~ 111132~130
LOCATION: HILL5EXT. DATUM: GEODETIC
N: 830580.90 E: 816231 .43 DRILLING DATE: March 7, 2012
INCL INATION: 50 AZIMUTH: 360'
~ ~ I~f------- "~r~nrv\O'--r"'TI_
IU"'I..--l HYORAt~<;"'~ONDUCTIVITY. I PIEZOMETER.
Ii~'!i
SOIL_
. P_ROF_IIL_E_-r:--.-_-f-SAMP--r---jLESf-.-R_UN_-t__ % (!)
STANDPIPE
~:a ~Ii ~ 1?~ 10' 10' ~r OR

THERMISTOR
~o:J:~ :;! I ~ DESCRIPTION ~ I~ ~ RECOVERY% WATERCONT~~TPERCENT INSTALLATION
a I~ ~ 1m) Ii' Wp E~P 'N~~~I"1ic :,
- ~~~~~~~~~~-
PHYLLlT~-,-wea.~~ wtlh manganese
018, numerous clayey slit layers; grey
10 purple 42
43
-32 -
4S
47
- 34
48
-
49
1
r J6 -
57 -
'- 42 -
!
!
-014 -
J
- 46 -
ell
67
- 46
88
-
88
- 5O~~~~~~~_ _ _ __ _ 4 9.76 -
END OF nRIl ' Hni 50.20
-r.2 -
- 501 -
!
i -56 -
I
- 58 -
- 60 -

PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
N: 830221 .87 E: 813069.30 DRILLING DATE: OclOber 10, 2011
INCLINATION: -51 .4' AZIMUTH: 355'

SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION'" HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, PIEZOMETER.
~m
C)8
ii ~ ....0
k. emls
I ~!i STANDPIPE
OR
!i~
~~
10' 10' 10' 10' THERMISTOR
"l!' ;J!i ~ ELEV '" III i iii ......J INSTALLATION
5~ "' 3 -- GI
III 0
~ WATER CONTENT PERCENT

~ ~ ~
DESCRIPTION ;! z RECOVERY""
~
o
0
it g DEPTH
(m)
::>
cr: C)
iii
Wpl OW IWI ~~
0
'" a II * 11 20 40
NP - NonPIasIic
60 80
- 0
GROUNO SURFACE
(ML) SANDY SILT, wllh manganese,
1IZ.34
0.00
Imce 10 some sand, lrace clay; brown , I
black
B1.17
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, lrace 10 some 1110
- 2 clay, Irace sand; brown In red 2
-
(SAPROLITE)
3 I
- 4
4
-
5
I- 6 -
6
r- 8 -
1
,
- 10
8
-
9
I- 12 -
10
I- 14 -
I- 16
11
I -
12
r- 18
13
I -
- 20
14
I -
15
1-22 16
-
1-24 (MH) CLAYEY SILT, lrace sand;

radIbIack
(SAPROLITE)
13.511
24.00
17
J -
18
r- 26 -
19
- 28 -
20
21
'-30 - ' - --------------
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
-- -- - - -- - ._- -- -- -- -- -- -- --------
<P~~s
DEPTH SCAlE LOGGED:JBH

PROJECT No.: 11 1132-0130
N: 630221 .87 E: 613069.30 DRILUNG DATE: October 10, 2011
INCLINATION: .51.4 AZIMUTH; 355

PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
- ~ ~~~~~~~~~--~~--+-;-~~~-rr+-;~~r-+--+--~--+--+--~-+--------~
=;~YEY SILT, lracesand:
I
21
(SAPROLITE) (coo/inued)
-32 -
f- 34 -
25
f-38 -
28
-
29
-
-
PHYL1LI!.E:~~.W~~ numerous
clayey silL lrace sand layers:
bIOwnIl9d to black
(SAP ROCK) -
34
-50 -
35
-52
38
-
31
-
38
- 5& -
~=';:!~r weak 10 medium strong:

(SAPROCK)
<0
-
-~r~------------- ,---'-- - - - - - -
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

PROJECT No.: 11-1132'{)130
N: 830221.87 E: 813069.30 DRILLING DATE: October 10, 2011
~ ~
I INCLINATIOI'!: -51A"-
u~n'~'
iSAMPLES
I-----------y-;--,---t--"T-I-,-----lf-.-.--.--f
k, emil
I ~~
PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
OR
~~ ~ I ~ jj 1?, 1?' 1r 1? QW THERMISTOR
a
~~ ~ 13 ~ I~ ~ WATERCON~:TPERCENT
INSTALLATION
DESCRIPTION RECOVERY% 5.
E I~ ~ ~ wp ~P - N';~Ia'1ic ~~
r oor.~~~PH~nl~m~rr~~.,~~~k'l~ollm~ooll~~IS~~~;~~--;--r-r4-+1~r+-r~+-~-r-+--~--~~---r--+-_r----------~
(SAPROCK) (con~nued) 42
-62 -
43
f-64 -
f-OO -
38.03
END OF 89.50
-

PROJECT No.: 11-1132'{)130
N: 829848.98 E: 812461 .25 DRILLING DATE:
-so
~
18
I ~ !F.-------.'-
"~'-
DDne.. e I" ......
'~-_,_:_..___-t_I~__r~'~-
INeLINATlON:
eo>
~I_,__'-w
AZIMUTH: 325
..,,,,,,,,,du.' '"
D"..
..- _ I - r _ , - . . _~_ I
k, em's
I JJ"
PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
~:31 ~ :~ ~ 10' 10' 10' 10 ~~ OR

THERMISTOR
~~ I ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ wAT"~CONTENTPERCENT ~~
a
INSTALLATION
ICI~ ~ ii Wp Il 'WI~~~~J.r...1ic ~~
- o~~G~ROlU~NDIS~lUR~F~~
E ~~~__~mr~I ~'~~-r-t--+M-t-+-rt--+-4--r-t- __4-__t---+__-r__+--r----------~
lt~~:~Ey SILT, trace sand; 0.00
- 2 -
- 4 -
Massive
- 8 -
~LAYEY SILT, trace sand; light -

(SAPROLITE)
10
-
~I
Massive
-
14
-
17
-
18
19
I- 22 -
20
I- 24
II -
l:~~~~ SILT, trace sand; grey
24 I -
.... 28 GS .-+-1 -
r--
-~~~~------------- - - f - - i - ~~ fL-i--H-- '-,- -- -- -----------
CONnNUEDNEXTPAGE

PROJECT No.: 11-1132~130
DRILLING DATE:
N: 829848.98 E: 812461 .25
INCLINATION: -SO" AZIMUTH: 325"

SOIL PROfiLE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION % HYDRAULIC CONOUCTIVITY. PIEZOMETER.
~ffi
C)8
ii~
C)::I b 0::
k. eml.
10' 10' 10 10
I 01;;
~!i
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
~ i iil
~~
w w c E~ INSTI\lLATION
ZC)
:;;
-- ~
ELEV
~z WATER CONTENT PERCENT
~ ~
CD
~ ~
z:::I
g~
DESCRIPTION RECOVERY % c
~~c
DEPTH
~~
U)
c 0:: C) Wp l OW I WI
(m) NP - NonPlaslic
U) II II 11 II 20 40 60 60
I- 3D
(MH) CLAYEY SlLT.1raC8 sand: grey
(SAPROLITE) (conlll1ued) 29
I- 32 3D -
10834
(ML) CLAYEY SILT,1raC8 sand: red 32110
with orange . tainlng
31
(SAPROLITE) -
I- 34
32
1-36 -
JJ
1-311 -
34
I- 40 35 -
36
I- 42 -
37
I- 44 -
311
38
I- 48 -
40
l l- 018 41 -
42
1-50 -
43
44
1-52 -
4~
BecomIng brown
1-54 -
48
1-56 47 -
48
1-56 -
49
1-80 1-"-1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CONTINUEONEXTPAGE
-- I-- - - 1-- - -- -- -- -- -- -- --------
DE:PTHSCALE
1 : 1SO
<fj1Golder
Associates
LOGGED:JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 111132.0130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11 MR1 004 SHEET 3 OF 4
N: 829848,98 E: 812461 ,25 DRILLING DATE:
50
,,8 ~-----------------------r~r----r~r--r~r-------~~--'--'~
SOil PROFilE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION %
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH: 325
I ~~
PIEZOMETER,
~~
STANDPIPE
ii! ~ k, cmh
..., .
OR
" ::I
l5 ~
10' 10' 10 10 ~ t;i THERMISTOR
~ uI
~i
Z (!I ~ a
5~ INSTALLATION
-- ~
ELEV !:i
;;jz WATER CONTENT PERCENT
~ ~
Q,
DESCRIPTION ;! ::I Z RECOVERY %
~ iii
a
~3
air
a
g DEPTH
(m) i ~ (!I Wpl OW IWI
NP NonPlastic
~~
U) i i W II 20 40 BO BO
1-60
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, lrace sand; red
v..ith orange slalnlng
50
I- 62 -
61
62
-
53
54 -
66
-
56
-
57
i- n 56 -
I 59
1- 7~ -
i 60
1- 76
61 -
1-
62
n
-
! B3
-
M
B5 -
56
-
6B.43
85.00 67
(MH) CLAYEY SILT,lrace
manganese; red
-
o BB
I
II 89
..
~- BB DIORITE, vary weak, numerous clayey
66-13
66-00
-
I
- sI~ \race sand layers
(SAPROCK)
~: :
~ ~
:
70
~- IlO -'---------------~~ --1--- 7..!..~----- - .-- --1-- ------------

II CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
~ ~--L-~L-----------------------~~--~~--~~~~~~L--L--L--L--L--~-~--~~--L---~--L-------___~
! DEPTH SCALE ~ Golder LOGGED: JBH
~~~~~~~ate~~s~
1 L-_1_:1_50________________________________ _________________CHE
__CKED
___ __M________~
: MLJ
PROJECT No.. 111132'()130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11MR1004 SHEET 4 Of 4
N: 829848.98 E: 812461 .25 DRILLING DATE:
:5
INCLINATION: SO"
RUN
AZIMUTH: 325"
GRADATION'" HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. I PIEZOMETER.
~ ~ 1-------------,...,....-,---+----,.---+--,.----1--,---.--,--; 10:' C"":O> 10" 10. ~~ STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
~ iii
;J ~ 0
!iiI!! INSTAlLATION
a: :l
z
:;)
a:
RECOVERY ""
~ ~
(!)
!:i
iii ~ WATER CONTENT PERCENT
Wp l OW I WI ~S
o 0: NP Non.Plaslic
Ii II ~ Iil 20 40 60 80
71
-92 72
-
n
I- 94 -
74
f- 96 -
75
76 -
57.78
DIORITE. medium strong; whlte/yellow IIIUO
(SAPROCK) 77
-
78
END Of DRILLHOLE. 101.40

-
~
-
I
f- 112
f- 114 -
S
;
~ f- 118 -
i!
~ -
~ f- 118
e
!l
~ f-120
!!
-
i DEPTH SCALE
eM LOGGED: JBH
I 1 : 150
Golder
Associates CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 11-1132~130
N: 829848.58 E: 812382.99 DRILLING DATE: Seplember 6, 2011
0
~O
SOil PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION "" PIEZOMETER,
~:ll
STANDPIPE
/Z ~ 15 OR
Cl2 a: THERMISTOR
xl!' ~ ~ iii ...d
w
li:w2 ~Z
ZCI
2i ~
OESCRIPTION -- ~
ELEV
;! OEPTH
W
ID ~
~
Z
i
RECOVERY "'"
~ ~ <J)
~
INSTALLATION
0
0
~
<J)
(m)
B 8 l/ II
CI
GROUND SURFACE 133 74

- 0
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand: red 0.00
(SAPROLITE)
1
- 2
2
-
3
- 4 -
4
- 6 -
S
-
6
7 -
8
9 -
BecomIng brown
10
I -
11
-
12
Becoming red
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
17
-
18
19
-
2D
II
~- 28 -
~ 21
~
6
~ -~r~r-------------
~ CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
----- --f-- ------------
I DEPTH SCAlE LOGGED: JBH
I 1 : 150 CHECKED: MUM

PROJECTNQ~ 111132-0130
N: 829848.58 E: 812382.99 DRILLING DATE: September 6, 2011
PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
~ ~~-+~!~~~l~~~~~~~~~~~'S~L.'T.~,t-m-~-s-M~d;-~~-1TM+---+-~~--22~r+~~--+-~~--~--~~~-1---1--~--~-----------4
23
~ 32 -
24
~ 34 -
Becoming brown
~38 -
26
21 -
-
PHYLLITE, weak, numerous clayey slit
layers; greylbrown
(SAPROCK) 29
-
30
-
32
~ 48 -
33
~48 -
35
~ 50 -
~52 -
~54 39 -
-58 -
43
-Wl-~------------- - - - - -+---f.I.+-~-+--I- - .-- --I- --I- - -1- -1- - - - - - - - -
CONTINUED NEXTPAGE

PROJECT No.: 11 -1132-0130
PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTAlLATION
- oo~~~~=-~----~--~~~--~-r-+~~~r+-r-+-;--r-+---r--+---r--~--+--r----------~
PHYLLITE, weak, numerous clayey sill
layers: greylbrown
-62 4& -
46
- 84 47 -
48
50
-
r 78 -
i
rOO -
61
62 -
-
48.44
END OF HOIF 16.30
-
~
; t-- 86 -
I t-- 90 -
"i ~-D~E~--~~-ME--------------------L-~---L~--L~~~~~~-.~.~~~~-L~--~--~--~---L--LO-GLG-E-D:LJ-BH----------~
J 1 : 150 ~A
_ J:~ :-... CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 11-1132'()130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11 MR1 044 SHEET 1 OF 3
INCLINATION: -SO AZIMUTH: 145

PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTAlLATION
r o~~G~~~~DIS~URF~A~~~~=-~~r~'~I.43~~-+-+n-r+-rr-+-~~-+__~__r-~ __~__+--+__--------~
~~~::, SILT,lmce 10 some 0.00
r 2 -
I- -
- 6 -
-
15U2
PHYLLI!~:.medium strong; purple 11 .50
(SAPROCK) -
Massive I
10 -
lu m -
!ML) CLAYEY SILT, Irace sand; light 1'-20
brown to brown
(SAPROLITE) 12
-
13
14
-
15
141-35
(CL) SILTV CLAY, Irace manganese 21.00 OS
~,wilh
layers
sand, occasional phyllite
-- ,. 23 49 28
-
(SAPROLITE)
11
-
18
19
-
22
--r- - .- 1-1-1-- ' - r-I- .-!- '-1- .-----------
iJ DEPTH SCALE
1: 1SO
LOGGED:JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 11-1132~130
INCLINATION: -50- AZIMUTH: 145'
w 8
1~IEr-_________~__
en"
V'"________07-.__-+~-.~~ __
c ...,. cc D""
__
~~+--r_'W " __~__GIVIOA1rION""
.--r-.'~~
k , c~.
I ~
PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
~:31 ; ~ ~ ~._ "?~ 10' 10' I~ OR

THERMISTOR
IhO:z:i I ~ I~ DESCRIPTION ~ I~ ~ : RECOVERY'll> ~ YY"'''"WI'''~:'PERCENT 8'!i

INSTAlLATION
Ia I ~ _~ (m) ~ iii Ii Wp 0 /;lP . Ni~IaStiC :J
- ~fI-t!l~~~L)I_sSiL1I~~~'CDCLA~y,,~ma~~mMMmg~anMes.se,-~~---t-lr-i=~~~=t~-t~r-t--t---r---r--i---i---i--i------------~
0111, with sand, occasional phyllite
lay"'"
(SAPROUTE) (continued)
139.07
1-32 n ee -
-
- 34 GS 58 32 -
136.113
~~:;~",:~~:::rJS ~BJ:~
(SAPROCK)
-38 -
-
28
-
33
34 -
35
-
38
- 62 -
31
- 54
38
-
t-~ 39
-
I
II 40
~ I- 58 -
ft
~
S l-~I-~I---------- - -- --1---1- I-..... ...Lf-+-I- - I- . - f-- - --1- --1- --1--1---------
~ CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
i
I
DEPTH SCALE
1: 150
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 111132'()130
N: 829707.63 E: 812390.55 DRILLING DATE: Seplember 24, 2011
INCL 'NATION: 50' AZIMUTH:J.'
~~I~I~~
i~
____________~~b__~~~____~~~n~~"""~U"~ ISAMPlES HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
I?:'c~~ I?" If
I ~~ PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
~~ II ~ I I
3J::! ~ DESCRIPTION i~ =ElEV ~
:!; RECOVERY % WATERrm,n;NT
-_ , _ ......_" ..r"NT
-_ co t!!. INSTAlLATION
o 10 DEPTH ii Wp ,..w ",. . N~~I.SIic ~j
-62
43
-
-84 -
4S
47
:z.:nUTE AND SILT, medium strong; -

(SAPROCK)
48
-
49
manganese band
50 -
I- 74 -
1-76
PHYLU!E:~medJum slrong: red
53
-
I- 78
103.I!
55
-
END OF nRIl I 1-101 F 78.70
&
~ I- 80 -
~
~
-
II- ~
II- 84 -
~
;
r- 116 -
iiJ
!!
~ I- 88 -
!
~ I- 90 -
!!
i ~-DE~PTH--~SC-ALE------------------~~--~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~.--L-~-L--~--~--L---~L-O~G-GE-D~:J-B-H--------~
I 1 : 150 \ZP'"A ~ CHECKED: MUM

PROJECT No.: 11-1132'()130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11MROOO9 SHEET 1 OF 3
LOCATION: HILL 9 DATUM: GEOOETIC
N: 830138.28 E: 813273.05 DRILLING DATE: May 22, 2011
INCLINATION: SO AZIMUTH: 170

SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION % HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY.
I ot;
C)S PIEZOMETER,
~l3
k, emls
i~
STANDPIPE
ii ~
C):I
f-
0 10' 10' 10' 10
OR
<r: THERMISTOR
x~ Z C) 7t. w iZ iii EI!! INSTAlLATION
-- ~ ~ .,
~ ~
ElEV. f-
;3~ III WATER CONTENT PERCENT
~~ DESCRIPTION ;! :I
::>
RECOVERY"'" d o
~S
~~
DEPTH 0
~ ~
0 <r: Wpl OW IWI
(m) NP NonPlastie
0 iii Iii 1/ Iil 20 40 60 60
GROUND SURfACE 12U '
f- 0
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand, tmea 0.00
gravel; grey
1
(SAPROLITE)
1
- 2
2
-
- .. 3
-
I
- 6 -
5
- 8
8
-
1
- 10 -
8
- 12 -
- ,.
9
I -
10
11
- 16 -
12
- 18 -
13
-20 t-
l'
-
1 GS 3 10 n 10 H
t-
15
- 22 -
18
- 2. -
11
~28
18
-
1D
f-2B -
20
f-JO f-'- f- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- f-- - - 1-- - -- -- -- -- -- -- --------

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
<P~aies
DEPTH SCALE LOGGEO: JBH

PROJECT No,: 11-1132-0130
N: 830138,28 E: 813273.05 DRILLING DATE: May 22, 2011
UJ ~
i f-----------~_.-_+-___.~~-
-t-.,.-_ _---1~~T"~__,r-"v__._"__t
~ . ."
INCLINATION: -SO'
C~
AZIMUTH:..!1l!
k, eml.
I {;'1 PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
~13 , ~ I ~ ~m OR
~Q%~ I ~I~
lal ~
DESCRIPTION sI~
~ (m)
~ :
Ii
RECOVERY%
If '?' I?,
WATER CONTE;Z PERCENT
Wp
lr
8eg
~p - NWi~I.Stie <~
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
~ ~~~~~====~--~---h~--4-~~~~~+4~~~+-+--4--~--+--4--~-+--------~
(ML) CLAYEY SILT,lrace sand, IraC9
gravel; grey
Massive
: band, black [
23
-
24
f-38
DIORITE, weak, occasional
mangan9Se bands and (ML) clayey
sHI, with sand layers; yellow to brown
: ~~
,;
:_
II -
(SAPROCK) :;'
:;
::, -
~:~;::
:;:= -
~ ~.
:::: -
:;:;:=
f- 42
::
-
~~
f- ....
30
:=:;
:; 31
-
:;:=
:: 32
:~
::;,-
f-48 -
1.1
:;::;::=:
f- -
::: GS
34
13 18
::::;::=: f-
35
-
:;::=:
::::;:~ ~:
38
-
37
:=:
F ;:'
~ ::
:; 311
-
~ ::
f-58
~ ::,
~ ;;: 39
-
~ :=
~~; 40
f- 60 -'-'--------------r..:.: --1--1--+--+-+-+-1-+-11-,-,- r-I- --- --1----------

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

PROJECT No.: 111132'()130
N: 830138.28 E: 813273.05 DRlLLlNG DATE: May 22, 2011
8 SOil PROFilE
INCLINATION: -SO"
~ II) ~ ~ t---------....,....,-,--i--...--i--...-----t-.-.--r---i
RUN
AZIMUTH: 170"
GRADATION % HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
k, eml.
I ~~
PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
OR
~w (!) 10" 10" 10~ 10.:1 ~I/) THERMISTOR
l: ~ Z ~ ~ iii a I - - - ' - - - ' - - - ' - - L - - - - I t:; I!! INSTAlLATION
$::1 ~ Z DESCRIPTION z RECOVERY %
~ ~
l-
d S WATER CONTENT PERCENT ~'!i
~ N~~~Ia.ue
II)
::l U
0: I!)
a a Wp I OW NP. ::J
a II II ~ II W ~ 00 ~
41
1-62 42
-
03
I- B4 -
..
1-88 -
45
1-88 -
f
a
48
47
II,
I- 70 48 -
J
~ 48
i I- n -
I 50
I I- 74
51
-
i 52
! I- 78
END OF DRILLHOLE.
-
I
I
I- 78 -
~
II '- 60 -
Ii
~
j
!it I- B2 -
I
g
I- B4 -
I r B6 -
iiI
II
~ I- B6 -
i
;
I I- 90 -
i DEPTH SCALE
<I! LOGGED: JBH
I 1 : 150
Golder
- Associates CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 111132.(J130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11MROO43A SHEET 1 OF 4
INCLINATION: -till. AZIMUTH: 180

,,8 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION'" PIEZOMETER,
III
<iffi ii ~
1IIJ!' ":I
15 0:
k, emil
10' 10' 10' 10
I ot;;
~~ STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
z " ~ ~ iii EI!! INSTAlLATION
I~
ELEV. III 0
fu:l ~i!:
XIII
DESCRIPTION -
;! DEPTH - z RECOVERY'"
~ ~
!:i
iii S WATER CONTENT PERCENT o
!!i ~ ~
::> u
Wpl OW IWI ~S
0
0 II)
(m)
0:
B II 11 2
" 20 40
NP NonPlaslic
60 80
r- 0
GROUND SURFACE ''''.92
0.00
(ML) CLAYEY SilT, trace manganese;
yeftow to light brownlwhlte 1
2
f- 2 -
3
4
I- 4 -
5
8
l- e -
(ML) CLAYEY SilT, trace sand: red to

' 35.1S8
7.00
7
I
~te 8
- 8 (SAPROUTE) -
9
10
I- 10 -
11
II
r 12 .2 -
13
r 14
(ML) CLAYEY SilT, trace sand; brown
' 29.80
.4.00 -
10 red
14
(SAPROUTE)
r 18
15
-
18
f- 18 -
.7
1-20 -
18
red I black, with manganese

r22
19
-
20
I- 24 -
21
r29 -
22
r 28 -
23
r30 r - r - ------------
CONnNUED NEXT PAGE
-- f-- -
24
L- -I- --- - r- - -- --- -- I-- ---- --------
-
.~ates

PROJECT No.: 11 -1132-{)130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11MROO43A SHEET 2 OF ~
N: 828504_01 E: 808102.15 DRILLING DATE: November 1~, 2011
INCLINATlON: -60. AZIMUTH: 180

0 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY.
GRADATION % PIEZOMETER.
I g~
SOil PROFilE SAMPLES RUN
ClO k. eml.
~El
STANDPIPE
j2 i!' OR
~~ b It:
10' 10' 10 10' THERMISTOR
%~ ~ w ~ ill 0 EI!! INSTAlLATION
~~ ~~ ~ 5
ElEV
DESCRIPTION j! - - CD
:10 z RECOVERY %
~CI ~ '" d WATER CONTENT PERCENT o
Q Q~ g DEPTH
(m)
::l
z
::l
It:
0
Wp l eYJ. I WI ~S
NP - NonPI Ue
Q II il W II 40
'" 20 60 60
I- 30
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand; brown 24
IDrod
(SAPROLITE) (conlJnU8d)
25
- 32 -
211
r l4
21
-
2B
1-38 -
29
1-38 -
1011.15 30
(ML) CLAYEY StLT, with fine sand, 39_00
, trace gravel; white
I- 40 (SAPROLITE)
31
-
I- 42
32
-
33
1-44 -
l4
-
1 GS 1 23 61 15 1---1
I- 46 - -
35
I
38
I- 48 -
31
- 50 -
38
- 52
39
-
- 54
Becom1ng rod ID brown
40
-
41
1-58 -
42
1-58 43
-
44
1-60 1-- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
-- I - - - -'-- 1-- 1 - - - - 1-- - -- I - - -- -- -- I- - - - - - - - --
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 150 <M Go1der
- Associates
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 111132'()130
RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 11MR0043A SHEET 3 OF 4

8 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION '110
~ r------------------------r~r_--~_,--~_,--------;__,--,__;__;
k,c~.
I ~
PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
~~ ~ 0: 10' 10 ' 10 10 ~~ OR
THERMISTOR
~~ :lI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ INSTALLATION
~~ gDePTH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S
DESCRIPTION ELEV W RECOVERY % WATER CONTENT PERCENT
i .. c::s Wp l OW I WI
o fJ) (m) II 8 e II 20 40 6~P'N'llliPItiC
- OO~ri~(M~L')~C~LA~Y'"E~Y~S~IL'T~,~~~~fi~ne~S~M~d,--riTnrr----t--+--t-~-t-r~;_+-t--t--t--r--t---~---r--~----t---~--+--------------i
trace gravel; ..mIte
-62 -
1-84 -
48
1-66 -
49
Becoming brown 10 r;yW'J

-
50
f--
51
-
2 GS 57 40
f--
52
-
53
-
7U 7
DIORITE, very weak, numerous clayey .: n../lO
sill, trace sMd layers; red, brown '..:
.:.
(SAPROCK)
' -
'.
BecomIng very weak; orange .:
'.
.: -
'.
':
'.
.:
.'' .:.
51
f ao .:
-
j '.
.:
58
'..:
r"
-
", 59
"
"
'.': -
':
.' .:
~ I- 84
S '.
': 61
L 86 "
.: -
I .
":
",
!!q "
'.
9- B8 .: 63
-
"
i .:
g .:" 84
~9_- - 1101-'-1--------- - ----..:.:.. --1--- --1----- -1--- ------- - - - - -
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
; ~-L __L -________________ ~~~ __~~~~~~~~~~~~ __~ __~ __~~~~ __~ ________~
I~ L_D_
1 E_PTH
__S_CME
: 150 ______________________________ ~~K~
. ~~~(io~~--~LIer~~.1.fes~~__________________
Al!IIMJ\.I L_O_GG_E_D:
CHECKED: _J_BH________
MUM ~
PROJECT No.: 111132'()130
N: 828504.01 E: 808102.15 DRILLING DATE: November 14. 2011
INCLINATION: -60.
C)
8 SOIt. PROfiLE
i" f-----------,r:--r--I-.-+---.----+--r--,-......,----I
RUN
AZIMUTH: 180
GRADATION % HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY.
k. cmls
I ,; C)
PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
ii [jj 10' 10' 10 10 ~~ OR
~~ ~I!
THERMISTOR
~ uI a INSTALLATION
DESCRIPTION z RECOVERY %
~ ~ ~ 5u WATER CONTENT PERCENT
a ~ ~ C) '" Wpl OW IWI ~5
a \I II II II 20 40 6~P N'l/liPI1ic
64
65
1- 112 -
I- 1M
67
-
1-96
DIORITE. medium sltOng; yellow
(FRESH ROCK) ~ I -
END OF DRILLHOLE.
il- 98
-
~,
100 -
11-
~
il- 102 -
I
II- 104 -
J
iI- 108 -
II-
!
1~ -
i
~
~ '- 110 -
~
~
-
II- 112
~
81- 114 -
~
II- 118 -
i
~
II
~ I- 118 -
g
~
6
~ I- 120 -
~
I ~-D-E~PTH--~SC-M----------------------~~--~--~~-~-
:~-~;~~~~--~~--~~--~--~--~----~-LO-G~G-E-D~:J-B-H------------;
~
~
1 : 150 ::.. .~ Assod
Golder
c'
CHECKED: MUM
ates
PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
N: 828451 .18 E: 808048.51 DRILLING DATE: December 15, 2011
CI
8 SOIL PROFILE
~~-----------------------r~r---~-'--~-'--------+-~--~~~
SAMPLES RUN GRAOATION% HYORAULICCONDUCTMTY.
k, c~.
I ~~ PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
~~ a: 10' 10 ' 10 10 Z~ OR
THERMISTOR
~ !;? ~ ELEV ~WID ~ ~ ill a I- >- ~__~__--'-__--'____L-~ ~a- I!!. INSTALLATION
d = DESCRIPTION ;-- z RECOVERY "'" ~ ; r/j
d <Ii WATER CONTENT PERCENT
0:::1 ::sr/j~ DEPTH :3 !'li Ci\ Ci eW I WI ~"i
a iar: (m) ~ ~ wp I NP _Non-PI Uc ~
illlijll 204060 80
- 0
~r4~G~RO~UN~D ~SU~R~F~
A~CE~____~~__-4Tn~~I.~l~
(ML) SANDY SILT, trace gravel, trace
~~-+
0.00
__+--+-hrt-4-+-+--+__~-+__~--4----+---1----+---1---+--------------1
clay, trace manganese; brownlbtack
- 2 -
.
145.13
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand; 3.20
- brOwnfred
(SAPROLITE) -
r 6 -
-
10
-
11
12
-
13
-
1.
-
15
18
-
1 29.~
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand: red 23.50 17

(SAPROLITE) -
18
-
19
20
-
21
--r-- - i--r--- -1--- --1-- ---- ------- - - - --
iJ DEPTH SCALE
1 : 1SO <I! - .: Golder

- Associates
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 111132'()130
N: 828451 .18 E: 808048.51 DRILLING DATE: December 15, 2011
INCLINATION: 50* AZIMUTH: 180*

SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION'll. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, PIEZOMETER,
C)8 k, emla
~~
STANDPIPE
~~ 5 10'
OR
C)::Ii II: THERMISTOR
:cl!' Z C) ~ iii i iii INSTALLATION
0
:;;
i ~ ~
ELEV.
lli~ ;;! ~ DESCRIPTION i! - -
DEPTH
CD
Z
:>
RECOVERY'll.
~ ~ (/)
0 !'i~ ~ (m)
II: C) Wpl
0 (/) II II 11 II 20
f- JO (ML) CLAYEY SILT, lmce sand; red 21

22
f- 32 -
23
- 34
24
-
- 38
25
-
26
-
27
28
-
29 JI -
JO :1
-
31
Becoming brown 31
-
JJ
-
r" J8
-
Becoming red
~ f- 54
37 I -
I
~ J8
II- 56 -
i..
!
39
~ I- 58 -
I
~ f-~f--I-------------- --f-- _ .1 J I--r--- _ r--- --~- ------------
!!
I
CONTINUED NEXT PA GE
l 1 : 150 CHECKED: MUM

PROJECT No.: 11-1132'()130
LOCATION: HILL9 DATUM: GEODETIC
N: 828451.18 E: 808048.51 DRILLING DATE: December 15. 2011
INCLINATION: -50" AZIMUTH: 180

I~ SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RUN UIV'ILI""U,"''' HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. I PIEZOMETER.
~ ~ ~ I ~ I------------r-:-.--+--r--+--'.-----+-'--r---r---l 10:' C"":O< 10. 10" ~~ STANDPIPE
;OX~ ~I ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WATERCON~~TPERCENT ~;
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
DESCRIPTION RECOVERY"'"
l"i I~ ~ (m) ~ i WP
o
"P . N~~IOSIiC ::.
-62 -
45
rOO -
46
-
47
PHYLlI~E. very weak, numerous

clayey 1layers; brown 48
-
(SAPROCK)
49
-
50
I- 74 -
J
I- 76 -
r 78 -
86.30
110.00
I- 62 -
r 84 -
r- 88 -
I
-68 -
- 90 -

PROJECT No.: 11-1132'()130
LOCATION. HILL 9 DATUM: GEODETIC
N: 828S09.29 E: 808245.20 DRILLING DATE: November 17, 2011
INCLINATION: -SO" AZIMUTH: 180"

SOli. PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION'll. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, PIEZOMETER.
~~
C)S
ii ~ b
k, em/.
I g!i STANDPIPE
OR
E~
10' 10' 10 10
lli::l
C) ::1
:z:~ Z~ C)!; DESCRIPTION . --
~ ELEV
II:
III
i ~
~
Z RECOVERY 'll.
iii
~ ~
c
~
~
WATER CONTENT PERCENT c
~S
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
c !!i ~
c
g
I/)
DEPTH
(m)
~ C)
I/)
Wp \ OW I WI
NP - Non-Plastic
II II 1/ !l 20 40 60 60
GROUND SURFACE
- 0
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand, w1lh
126.41
0.00
manganese; brown 10 whllem grey
1
(SAPROLITE)
- 2
2
-
- 4
4
-
- 6
5
-
6
,... 6 -
711
,
I- 10
8
-
9
..... 12 -
10
I- 14 -
11
I- Ie
12
-
MANGANESE band (15Omm thick)
I- IS
13
-
14
1-20 -
Becoming light brown to dar1< brown I IS
black
I- 22
18
-
I- 24
17
-
IS
- 26 -
19
Becoming brown
- 28
20
-
21
-30 - ' - --------------
CONnNUSDNEXTPAGE
-- I-- - - r-I- 1-- -- - f-- - -- -- -- -- -- -- --------
DEPTH SCALE
1 : lSO
~Golder ~ates
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
N: 828S09.29 E: 808245.20
DRILLING DATE: November 17, 2011
INCLINATION: -soo AZIMUTH: 180'

~ ISAMPlES GR./IOAlrlQN, % HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, I PIEZOMETER.
~~ i ~ ~ 1--------r"""-'--o-+--r-1f-r---+--'-'r-T"--l I?:' c~r _1~ 10. ~I:I

STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
III~ ~ I:;!
I ~ ij ~~ DEPTH ~ ~ INSTAlLATION
3 DESCRIPTION
ElEV.
~ RECOVERY % . """r""'T
" : : ' - ..~- .. ,
...
~.g
o :5 ~ ii: wp ~P 'N~~~InSlic :l
~ ~~4-~~~).~C~~ ~Y'~SIL1.T.~tm-~-
~s~~-=~~--~~-4-4~~2~,+4~~-4~~~+--4--~--+--+--~-+----------~
manganese: brown to whit.. to grey
(SAPROLITE) (continued) 22
~32 -
2'
~ J4
24
-
- 36
25
_I -
28
1- 27
-
~
~' - 40 -
~ ~_~~C~YEY SILT, tra~ ~w:w!.' ~~

manganese bands; yellow I white I
115.00
41.00
i-
!
42 black
(SAPROLITE)
-
! 30
- 44 -
31
32
-
- 48
33
-
34
- 50 -
35
PHYLLITE, weak, numerous clayey

-52 sn~ trace sand layers
(SAPROCK)
36
I -
37
-
38
-
39
40
-
41
~m-~-------------
CONnNUEDNEXTPAGE
-- -- - .- - - - - I- -- I- -1--1--------
.6. LOGGED: JBH

~AI.I
DEPTH SCAlE
PROJECT No.: 111132.0130
li! SAMPLES RUN GRADAnJNI %

~ ~ I~ ~I-------r:-t--l---r-I--.-------t-,--,.-,---l
INCLINATION: 50' AZIMUTH: 180'
k. emls
I ~ !E PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
~I!' 1 ~ 2 ~ I~ ~r _'f 't ~r ~m

OR
THERMISTOR
i~ Ii ~ DESCRIPTION ~ I~ ~ RECOVERY % wp "~:'PERCENT ~~

INSTALLATION
'~ ~ (m) 0 I:IP 'N~~I.SIic
t- 601-r--+-::~E""',~~
~LL~rIT=,_
~E'~-~~k;--"
n-ume-,ous-""cla-ye-y--l 41
) (cooOnued)
=~:~;.:;eak to medium strong;
- 62 (SAPROCK) -
I
- 64 -
-66
45
-
1- 47
-
~ END OF IF GlI.00
~ t- 70 -
~
'- 72 -
!
c- 74 -
1"- T8
-
- 78 -
-60 -
i-82 -
- 64 -
-
It- B&
t- B& -
- 90 -
1 : 150 CHECKED- MUM

PROJECT No.: 11 1132-0130
LOCATION. HILL 9 DATUM: GEODETIC
INCLINATION: 50" AZIMUTH: 360"

HYDRAULIC CONDlICTIVITY.
,, 8 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES RUN GRADATION % PIEZOMETER,
w
~:3
ir ~
~~ b a:
k. emla
10' 10' 10 10'
I tot;g STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
l:~ ~ w ~ ill EI!! INSTAlLATION
lli::l a:3)g~
ElEV. 0
- - ~ !:i S WATER CONTENT PERCENT
~ ~
III
DESCRIPTION ;! DEPTH ::I z RECOVERY"" 0 -
~ :. iii 0
~S
0 0 a:
0
~
tJ)
(m) ~ a:
II II II II " Wpl
20 40
OW IWI
6~P. NOd/iPlastie

- 0
(SM) SILTY SAND, with manganese 0.00
gmvel; bmwn :1'1 ': 68.57 I
(ML) CUIYEY SILT, trace manganese; 0.80
brown 2
(SAPROLITE)
- 2 -
3
88.50
(ML) CUIYEY SILT AND 3.50
- 4 MANGANESE ORE; light brown I
4
-
black
(SAPROLITE)
5
'- 6 -
6
63.05
I- 6 -
I; (ML) CUIYEY SILT, with manganese;
red to brown
(SAPROLITE)
8.00
II
-
I '- 10
6
~- 12
9
-
~ 10
I - 14 -
i 11
I - 16
12 'I
-
I
j - 16
13
-
j 14
~ Massive MANGANESE band (100mm

-
i -20 thick) 15
~
16
I
- 22
17
- 24
18
-
~ 19
;
i -26 2D
I -
I
II
21
~ -26 22
-
ft
!l 23
I -3D -I-
--------------
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
-- -- - - r-- - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -----
I
I
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 150
<I! Golder
. Associates
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 111132-0130
INCLINATION: SO" AZIMUTH: 360

PIEZOMETER,
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
~ ~~~7.7.~~7~)C=~~~YE~Y'~SIL1.T~,,~~~-mm~~~n-es-e;-4TIT~--~+-~2~J~~~1--+-1--+-1---+---+-~~-4---+--+-----------~
(SAPROLITE) (continued) ,.
- 32 -
- 34 -
PHYLLI!~'. very weak, numerous 27

- 36 clayey sill, lrace sand layers, ~~ -
man~eora
(SAPROCK)
28
29 -
30
31 -
32
33 -
3S -
PHYlUTE' medium slrong; grey

36 I
~ 46
37
-
38
~ 46 -
P~LITE AND :
medium slrong: brown to yellow
ORE, ~ I -
(SAPROCK)
40
~52 -
PHYLLITE, weak to medium slrong; 42

~ 501 'ley -
(SAPROCK)
43
~58
45
-
48
~ro~-~----------- - - ~ -1- . -I-+-!-I-I--I-' -. - I- -1- . - ,- ._- .------------

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
DEPTH SCALE JAr-.. ..I. LOGGED:JBH
1 : 1SO \In ~ CHECKED: MUM

PROJECT No.: 11-1132-()130
N: 828486.16 E: 808392.75 DRILUNG DATE: December 1, 2011
i I II
INCLINATION: -SO AZIMUTH: 360
~~ ~ P_ROFII_lE_r-:~--'-_+S--'-
iAMPl-+~ES--,- ...I ""-I HY::~~~;DU~::ITY. 10'
PIEZOMETER,
!i l - - - - - S - Ol. l
, ! _R_UN_+-"'-""""'---'-""---,-IV STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
~::II I ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ WATERCON~~TPERCENT ~<!i
O
DESCRIPTION RECOVERY""
:a ~ (m) i Wp 5,t1P - Nl;~I.'tic :.
I- 6OI-r--I-;P=HYL7-::
LfIT""rIE-"
w---'-:eak,1''--0 .Slrong---;--J,
me-::--dium-'
grey
(SAPROCK) (cootinusd)
I- 62 -
49
-
-68 -
r 68
END OF DRII.~HOI..E .
31.0\1
00.00
!
i' - 10
-
~
- n -
- 14 -
- 18 -
- 18 -
~ 80 -
1-82 -
-84 -
-
f 88
- 88 -
DEPTH SCALE LOGGEO:JBH

PROJECT No.: 11-1132.(J130
LOCATION: HILL 9 DATUM: GEOOETIC
DRILLING DATE: December 16, 2011
N: 828921 .92 E: 808903.59

son. PROFILE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
.,8 RUN GRADATION'll. PIEZOMETER,
I !~t: 1!!
SAMPLES
k, emfs
~~
STANDPIPE
~ b 10' 10' 10' 10
OR
" :1 a: THERMISTOR
~ iZ iii
l:~ Z ., w 0
:;; INSTALLATION
~
;;! ~
ELEV
- - ~ WATER CONTENT PERCENT
~ ~
CD
DESCRIPTiON ~ RECOVERY'll.
~:s
:I
1i::I DEPTH ~ :::> en
w
0 13~ .,~ (m) i a: C) Wp l OW I WI
NP - NonPlastic
0 il II W f<l 20 ~O 60 80
I- 0
(SM) SILTV SAND, wtlh gravel, trace 0.00
.'
manganese :'
1
:" . 111 01
I- 2
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand; grey
(SAPROLITE)
1.80
2
-
110.~
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand; brown 3.40
I- 4 to grey
(SAPROLITE)
3 -
4
- 8 -
5
- 8 -
8
- 10 7 -
8
~
- 12
9
-
10
- 14 -
11
- 16 r-- 12 -
1 GS 0 4 88 30 t- f--l
I--
13
- 18 -
14
1-20 -
15
1-22
16
-
I- 24 17 -
94.22
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand, wtlh 24.70
manganese; grey
(SAPROLITE) 18
I- :ze -
19
1-28 -
20
I-JO 1-'- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- I-- - - 21

f-I- 1-- - - .- - -- j - - -- -- -- r-- --------
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 150
{J1Golder Associates
LOGGEO:JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 11-113N)130
N: 828921 .92 E: 808903.59 DRILLING DATE: December 16. 2011
INCLINATION: -50
,>IV"", IIVI'!
AZIMUTH: 160'
I t
I
SAMPLES HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. PIEZOMETER.
~ I~ I------------,....,-..---+---.--t--..-----ir--...---.-........- - j k. eml. STANDPIPE
~m I ~ ~ ~~
OR
1?" 1?' 1f 1? THERMISTOR
~~ I ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ WATERCON~~TPERCENT ~~
INSTALLATION
DESCRIPTION RECOVERY"'"
Iis ~ ~ (m) iii Wp tiP . N~ ~~laStie
r ~~4-~~m~~~)~CMS~=Y9=E~1~~.S=L.~T.~~c-e'.~Md~.~~~~4n~--4-~-+~Ml+4~~~+-4-~-+--4---+---~-4--~--~--------~
(SAPROLITE) (continued) 1--+-'-1r-+-+-+-i
- 32
23
BecomIng light brown 10 'BY
-
24
-38 -
2S
28
-
27
28
-
29
-
30
r 48 -
33
r 48 -
J 3S
38 -
1-52
37
-
38
I- 54 -
Massive 39
-
40
r68 (ML) SILT. trace to some day; yellow

41
-
~ ~rp19 \0 brown
(SAPROLITE) 42
6
~ r~r-r------------- - - -- -"!..~ - -1- - - ' - 1- '-1- --1- - ' - - - - - - - -
iI DEPTHSCAlE
1: 150
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED: MUM
PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
DRILLING DATE: December 16. 2011
N: 828921.92 E! 808903.59
-soo
Ig
INCLINATION:
SAMPLES
AZIMUTH: 160
... ""'" , ovo HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. I PIEZOMETER.
~m I~ I~I---------""'-:-"""'--+-'--+-'----+-'-'--r-l ~~
cmt STANDPIPE
10: ;0' 10. 10. OR
~O%~ li! 1 ~ ~ I~ ~ WATERCON~~TPERC~: ~;

THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
Ci I ~ .~ (m) a: 11 WPO e~- Nq,,);PIOSIic 0(;:'
-
~~~T.;, =0
oor.~~~~~~~~~~TITIr-~~--r-~-r~-r-+~~r-r-~---r--+-~r--+--r---------~
some clay. yeUow 43
(SAPROLlTE)(conlinued)
II
II
44
- 62 -
Massive occasional
- 84 clayey slillay91S -
- 68 -
48
i-
;~
68
50
-
P_H~L!!T~:,medlum strong; purple
~ I- 70 -
~
52
! I- n -
53
!
c- 74 -
i I- 78
END OF
54.92
76.00
M
58
57
J
- 78 -
j
-80 -
!
--82 -
- 84 -
- lIB -
I
'-lIB -
-80 -
DEPTH SCALE . , . , .1..1. LOGGED: JBH
1 : 1SO \2PA ~ ... CHECKED: MUM

PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
LOCATION; HlLL 9 DATUM: GEODETIC
DRILLING DATE: March 10,2012
N: 828803.89 E: 808436.70
''''''' IIIIATlnlll: -SO" AZIMUIl'f~ 160-

I
~~ I~ I ~ ICiEPTH
SAMPLES u"",,~'~n
k, emls
'?' '?' '?" '?

~~
Q~
PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
OR
THERMISTOR
x~
~2
0 1;1 DESCRIPTION
~-
ELEV.
(m) ! i RECOVERY"'" WATER CONr:~T PERCENT
Wp
t: 1!!
o
~P _ Nt.~~IaStie ~S
INSTALLATION

I- 0
PHYLLlr.E~ ~~~m~l!.weak, numerous 0.00
clayey sill seams; purpI" 10 While
(SAPROCK)
I- 2 -
- 4 -
5
- 8 7 -
8
i-
~~
8 10
-
~ '- 10 12 -
J 13
~ 14
'- 12 15 -
I
Massive ' band; black
18
j PHYLLlT~~~A. ";~;;i~ n....,( 10 we~
numerous clayey seams; pwple 10 19
While
I- 14 (SAPROCK) -
~
j 22
1
I- 18 23 -
24
25
28
Massive : band; black
- 18 27 -
28
,20 ~HYL~, ~k, .numerous clayey sill

32 II -
layers; brownIbIacklgrey :w
(SAPROCK)
38
1-22 37 -
38
_39
I- 24 -
411
41
Becoming Ilghl brown, yellow .~
I- 28 43 -
I 45
48
I- 2B 47 -
50
.~
1-30 1-'-
,------------
CONnNUEDNEXTPAGE
-- I--I - .- r- 1- -- .- r-- 1- -- .- l- .- 1-- 1--------
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 150
<I';r .u. ':\ ::I'
LOGGED: JBH
CHECKED; MUM
PROJECT No.: 11-1132-0130
N: 828803.89 E: 808436.70 DRiLUNG DATE: March 10,2012
INCl NATION: -so.

I~ .",,,,..""........_-,-,--..-_t-I~-"~_
~ID . ~ I~I-________ r_"vn
_
le ...",.e
-I-"-"_-"_-l_"T''''''''''-,~"_""V_"'..-
~-l
"".,
AZIMUTH: 160
,... HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY.
10~' cmI:~. 10. 10.
I g~ PIEZOMETER.
STANDPIPE
OR
~Q~ ' ~ I ~ ~~ WATERCON~~TPERCENT 8~

THERMISTOR
INSTALLATION
DESCRIPTION : RECOVERY"'"
, al~ ~ (m) Wp ~ /;'IP-N~Ia~ ..:j
WRAkc-nu-me---rou-.-'d:---."",,-,.:::--111
I- 3OI-r-l-=PHY"'""""LLnlTF=-.=,
layers; ~~cklgrey . -'-r,
(SAPROCK) (con~nued}
I- 32 -
59
I- J4 -
80
61
i-J6 -
62
-
6J
-
65
END OF 41.40
I- 42 -
1-" -
- 46 -
- 46 -
- 52 -
II
~- 56 -
-80 -
DEPTH SCALE . , . . .1..1. LOGGED: JBH
1 : 150 \ZlIA ;:::." CHECKED: MUM

Appendix OPE A: Manpower Schedule

ManpowerSchedule
Salary Grade -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mine Total
Mine Expat 6 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nationals 110 203 215 215 215 215 215 218 221 221 221 221
Sub total 116 214 226 225 225 225 225 228 231 231 231 231
Process Plant Expat - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Nationals - 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Sub total - 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Power Plant Expat - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nationals - 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 - 11
Sub total - 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 - 11
ESR Expat 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - -
Nationals 8 8 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Sub total 9 9 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
HR and Training Expat - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nationals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sub total 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Accounting/Finance Expat 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - -
Nationals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sub total 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
IT Expat - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nationals 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sub total 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Supply Chain Expat 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nationals 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
Sub total 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
HSLP Expat - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nationals 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Sub total 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Security Expat - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nationals 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
Sub total 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
General Management Expat 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nationals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub total 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Camp Expat 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - -
Nationals 68 68 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
Sub total 69 69 67 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
Surface Support Expat 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - -

Nationals 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Sub total 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Transport Expat - 2 2 - - - - - - - - -
Nationals 4 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
Sub total 4 48 48 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
TOTAL PROJECT
Expat 12 21 21 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Nationals 260 490 498 495 495 495 495 498 501 501 490 501
Total Mine 272 511 519 510 509 509 509 512 515 515 504 515
GENERAL SERVICES MANPOWER Expat 6 6 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Nationals 146 146 142 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139
Sub total 152 152 148 142 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141
PRODUCTION MANPOWER Expat 6 15 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Nationals 114 344 356 356 356 356 356 359 362 362 351 362
Sub total 120 359 371 368 368 368 368 371 374 374 363 374
Number of nationals per roster S1 (Staff 30x26x12hrs) 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

S2(Staff 28x14x12hrs) 23 55 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53
S3(Staff 28x14x10hrs) 29 31 29 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
S4(Staff 5x2x8hrs) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
H1(hourly 28x14x12hrs) 148 341 353 353 353 353 353 356 359 359 359 359
H2(Hourly 28x14x10hrs) 44 44 44 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
Number of people flying per roster C (Expat Continuous) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

R (Expat Rotational) 11 20 20 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
S1 (Staff 30x26x12hrs) 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
S2(Staff 28x14x12hrs) 23 55 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53
S3(Staff 28x14x10hrs) 29 31 29 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
S4(Staff 5x2x8hrs) 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
H1(hourly 28x14x12hrs) 95 222 231 231 231 231 231 233 235 235 235 235
H2(Hourly 28x14x10hrs) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
National Mandays S1 102 1,407 1,565 1,565 1,565 1,565 1,565 1,565 1,565 1,565 1,565 1,565
S2 467 8,503 12,897 12,897 12,897 12,897 12,897 12,897 12,897 12,897 12,897 12,897
S3 589 - 7,057 6,814 6,814 6,814 6,814 6,814 6,814 6,814 6,814 6,814
S4
H1 2,941 52,667 85,897 85,897 85,897 85,897 85,897 86,627 87,357 87,357 87,357 87,357
H2 - 10,716 10,707 10,220 10,220 10,220 10,220 10,220 10,220 10,220 10,220 10,220
Total NAT. Mandays 4,099 73,293 118,123 117,393 117,393 117,393 117,393 118,123 118,853 118,853 118,853 118,853
Expat Mandays Total Expats 179 3,194 4,106 2,933 2,738 2,738 2,738 2,738 2,738 2,738 2,738 2,738
17 209
Contractor Mandays 2,184 348 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184
Per Day Rooms A 0 9 11 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Rooms B 9 28 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Rooms C 8 150 156 156 156 156 156 157 159 159 159 159
Port Kaituma Rooms 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Total Rooms 27 196 242 238 237 237 237 239 240 240 240 240
14 persons Port Kaituma Mandays 3,407 3,407 3,407 3,407 3,407 3,407 3,407 3,407 3,407 3,407 3,407 3,407
Total Mandays 9,886 80,450
Total Mine
Mine Operations
Staff Expatriates 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nationals 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Total 9 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
ManpowerSchedule
Salary Grade -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hourly Nationals 59 108 117 117 117 117 117 120 123 123 123 123
Total Expatriates 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nationals 67 116 125 125 125 125 125 128 131 131 131 131
Total 68 119 128 128 128 128 128 131 134 134 134 134
Maintenance
Nationals 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total 12 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Nationals 41 72 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Total 45 76 79 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Geology
Nationals 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Nationals 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Engineering
Nationals 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Total 2 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Nationals 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Total 2 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Mine Department
Nationals 18 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Total 24 46 46 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Nationals 110 203 215 215 215 215 215 218 221 221 221 221
Total Mine 116 214 226 225 225 225 225 228 231 231 231 231
Mine Operations
Staff
Expatriates
Mine Manager R-108 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine Superintendent R-107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine General Foreman R-105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total Expatriates 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nationals
Clerk S3-102 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mine Supervisor S2-105 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Subtotal Nationals 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Hourly employees
Shovel Operator. H1-9 6 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

Loader Operator H1-8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Haul Truck Driver H1-6 18 33 42 42 42 42 42 45 48 48 48 48
Dozer Operator H1-8 9 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Grader Operator H1-8 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Backhoe Operator H1-5 70% Workers from Georgetown 30% Workers from Matthews Ridge/Port Kaituma
Compactor Operator H1-5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Water Truck Operator H1-6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Driller H1-7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Drill Helper H1-5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Labourer H1-3 2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total hourly employees 59 108 117 117 117 117 117 120 123 123 123 123
Total Mine Operations

Expatriates 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nationals 67 116 125 125 125 125 125 128 131 131 131 131
Total 68 119 128 128 128 128 128 131 134 134 134 134
Maintenance
Staff
Expatriates
Maintenance Superintenden R-107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maintenance General Foreman R-105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maintenance Trainers R-104 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nationals
Maintenance General Foreman S1-106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance Coordinator S1-105
Planning Superviso S1-105 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Maintenance Trainers S1-104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance Supervisors S2-105 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Maintenance Planner S2-104 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sub-total Nationals 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Hourly employees
Nationals - Hourly
Mechanic HD H1-6 9 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mechanic LD H1-5 6 12 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Welder H1-5 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Electrician H1-5 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 90% Workers from Georgetown 10% Workers from Matthews Ridge/Port Kaituma
Tireman H1-4 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Crane Operator H1-5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Fuel Truck/Fuel Farm Operator H1-5 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total hourly employees 33 60 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63

ManpowerSchedule
Salary Grade -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total Maintenance
Expatriates 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nationals 41 72 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Total 45 76 79 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Geology
Staff
Expatriates:
Senior Geologist R-106 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Geologist R-105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Nationals Grade Control Technician S2-104 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Geological Technician S2-104 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sub-total 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Hourly employees
Nationals - Hourly
0% Workers from Georgetown 100% Workers from Matthews Ridge/Port Kaituma
Sampler H1-4
Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Geology
Expatriates 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Nationals 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Engineering
Staff
Expatriates
Engineering Superintendent R-107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Senior Mine Planner R-105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Nationals Production Engineer S2-104 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Technician Planning S2-103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Technician Geotech S2-103
Senior Surveyor S2-104 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Surveyor S2-103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Clerk S3-102 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Hourly Employees
Nationals - Hourly
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Engineering
Expatriates 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Nationals 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Total 2 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Mine Employees 116 214 226 225 225 225 225 228 231 231 231 231
Process Operations
Staff
Expatriates
Mill Superintendant R-107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nationals
Mill General Foreman S1-107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Process Operations Supervisor S2-103 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Process Operations & Safety Trainer S2-103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Process Department Clerk S3-100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hourlies
Crusher Operator H1-7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Crusher Helper H1-4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Control Room Operator H1-9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Jig Operator H1-6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Jig Helper H1-4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Dewatering Operatior H1-4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Heavy Equipment Operator H1-7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Process Laborer H1-3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Total Process Operation

Expatriates 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nationals 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Total 0 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
Process Maintenance
Expatriates
Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Mill Electrical&Instrumentation Senior Foreman S2-105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mill Electrical&Instrumentation Junior Foreman S2-104 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mill Mechanical Senior Foreman S2-105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mill Mechanical Junior Foreman S2-104 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mill Maintenance Planner S2-105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hourlies
ManpowerSchedule
Salary Grade -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mill Mechanic H1-9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mill Maintenance Helper H1-6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mill Electrician H1-6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mill Electrician Helper H1-5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 90% Workers from Georgetown 10% Workers from Matthews Ridge/Port Kaituma
Instrumentation Technician H1-9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Instrumentation Helper H1-7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Welder/Fabricator H1-6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 0 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
Total Process maintenance

Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 0 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
Total 0 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
Process Metallurgical
Expatriates
Chief Metallurgist R-107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nationals
Junior Metallurgist S2-105 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Chief Assayer S2-106 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hourlies
Assay Lab Technician H1-6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Assay Lab labourer H1-3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sub-total 0 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Total Process Metallurgical

Expatriates 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nationals 0 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Total 0 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Total Process Plant Expatriates 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Nationals 0 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Total 0 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Power Plant
Expatriates
Power Plant General Foreman R-105
Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Power Plant Supervisor S1-104 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Power Plant Operator H1-6
Power Plant Electrician H1-6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 90% Workers from Georgetown 10% Workers from Matthews Ridge/Port Kaituma
Power Plant Mechanics H1-6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sub-total 0 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 0 11
Total Power Plant Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nationals 0 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 0 11
Total 0 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 0 11
ESR
Staff
Expatriates
ESR Superintendant R-107 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals Environment Coordinator S3-104 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Community Relations Coordinator S3-104 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Hourly Employees
Nationals - Hourly
Sustainable Development Labourer H2-3 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Total ESR
Expatriates 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 8 8 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total 9 9 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
HR & Training
Staff
Expatriates
Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals HR Superintendent S1-106 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

HR Coordinator S3-103 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sub-total 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total HR & Training

Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Accounting & Finance
Staff
Expatriates
Accountant/Project Controller R-107 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ManpowerSchedule
Salary Grade -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Nationals
Account Payable S4-101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Accounting Clerk S4-101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Payroll Clerk S4-101 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Total Accounting & Finance

Expatriates 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
IT
Staff
Expatriates
Nationals
IT Technicians S3-103 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sub-total 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total IT
Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Supply Chain / Logistics
Staff
Expatriates
Administrative Superintendant R-105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nationals
Supply Chain General Foreman S1-106 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Senior Purchasing S4-104 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Junior Purchasing S4-102 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Warehouse Supervisor S3-103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Port Kaituma Logistic Supervisor S2-105 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Hourly Employees
Warehouse Labourer H1-4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Port Kaituma Logistic labourer H2-4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sub-total 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Total Supply Chain/Logistics

Expatriates 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nationals 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
Total 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Health and Safety
Staff
Expatriates
Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Health and Safety Coordinator S1-105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Health and Safety Technician S3-103 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Health and Safety Agent (clerk) S3-102 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nurse S3-104 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total HSLP
Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Security
Staff
Expatriates
Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Security Superintendant S1-105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Security Supervisors S2-103 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sub-total 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Hourly Employees

Security Agents H1-3 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Sub-total 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Total Security
Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
Total 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
General Management
Staff
ManpowerSchedule
Salary Grade -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Expatriates
General Manager C-109 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nationals
Executive Assistant S4-106 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total General Management

Expatriates 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nationals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Camp Facility and Administration
Staff
Expatriates Camp Manager R-107 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Camp Administrator Supervisor S3-106 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Accommodation Clerk S3-101 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total Camp Facility and Administration

Expatriates 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Kitchen
Staff
Expatriates
Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Head Cook S2-105 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Local Chef S2-103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Hourly Employees
Cook - Level 1 H1-7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Cook's Helper H1-3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Pastry Cook - Level 1 H1-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pastry Cook Helper H1-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30% Workers from Georgetown 70% Workers from Matthews Ridge/Port Kaituma
Butcher - Level 1 H1-4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Storekeeper H1-4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
General Helper H1-3 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Sub-total 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
Total Kitchen
Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 32 32 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Total 32 32 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Protocol - Commissary
Staff
Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Protocol Supervisor S4-103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Hourly Employees
Protocol Driver S4-104 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Total Protocol
Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Housing - Laundry - Commissary
Staff
Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Laundry/Housing Supervisor S3-103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Hourly Employees
Laundry Lead Hand H2-5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Laundry Attendant H2-4 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Housing Attendant H2-3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Yard Attendant H2-3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sub-total 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Total Housing Expatriates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nationals 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
Total 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
ManpowerSchedule
Salary Grade -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total Camp Services
Expatriates 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 68 68 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
Total 69 69 67 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
Surface Support
Staff
Expatriates General Foreman Surface Support R-105 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Surface support Senior Supervisor S3-104 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Surface support Supervisor S3-103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Hourly Employees
Surface support Carpenter H2-6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Surface support Electrician H2-6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Surface support Plumber H2-6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
General Helper H2-3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sub-total 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Total Surface Support

Expatriates 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Total 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Transport
Staff
Expatriates Transport Superintendant (Concentrate and Supplies) R-105 2 2
Sub-total 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals
Transport Supervisor (Concentrate and Supplies) S2-105 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub-total 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Hourly Employees
Concentrate Transport Driver (6 trucks) H1-5 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Concentrate Transport Helper (6 trucks) H1-4 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Supply Transport Driver (3 trucks) H1-5 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Site Bus Driver H1-4 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Sub-total 4 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44
Total Transport
Expatriates 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nationals 4 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
Total 4 48 48 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
Appendix OPE B: Capital Costs

GUMR-Matthew's Ridge Manganese Project Pre-Feasibility Study - Basis of Estimate
Grand Total $70 752 394 $59 729 585 $86 567 043 729 141 $15 910 358 $232 959 379
Values
Unit of Quantity Material Cost Equipment Cost Other Direct Cost Labour Cost Total Cost
Row Labels Measure (Units) Unit Cost Labour Hours
100 - Infrastructures $36 751 028 $2 352 538 $0 217 974 $4 423 070 $43 526 636
110 - Roads & Airstrip $30 410 028 $652 238 $0 60 012 $1 045 996 $32 108 263
111 - Site Main Access Road $505 911 $0 $0 2 016 $36 290 $542 201
114 - Services Roads $155 200 $0 $0 821 $14 778 $169 978
115 - Concentrate Transportation Road $29 747 117 $652 238 $0 56 680 $994 568 $31 393 923
116 - Airstrip $1 800 $0 $0 495 $360 $2 160
120 - Workshops / Storage $1 459 050 $220 000 $0 24 742 $511 593 $2 190 643
121 - Mine Truck Shop / Warehouse $861 543 $23 500 $0 15 962 $324 951 $1 209 994
122 - Washbay $238 120 $196 500 7 497 $163 557 $598 177
123 - Process Plant Workshop / Warehouse $31 500 $0 $0 140 $2 520 $34 020
125 - Explosives Storage $327 887 $0 $0 1 143 $20 565 $348 452
127 - Temporary Maintenance Facilities $0 $0 0 $0
130 - Offices & Support Buildings $890 779 $47 000 $0 31 605 $642 080 $1 579 859
131 - Administration Offices $358 044 $23 500 $0 17 148 $346 701 $728 245
132 - Mine Offices $67 000 $0 $0 160 $2 880 $69 880
133 - Mill Offices $325 744 $23 500 $0 10 982 $216 832 $566 076
134 - Mine Change Rooms $0 $0 $0 0 $0
135 - Gate House $36 425 $0 $0 1 278 $27 695 $64 120
136 - Mill Lunchroom $0 $0 $0 0 $0
137 - Mill Change Room $0 $0 $0 0 $0
138 - Mine Lunchroom $103 566 $0 $0 2 037 $47 972 $151 538
140 - Camp Facilities $3 355 878 $117 500 $0 79 235 $1 685 469 $5 158 847
141 - Site Prep General $350 136 $0 $0 6 253 $146 461 $496 597
142 - Rec Room $53 922 $0 $0 1 070 $25 790 $79 712
143 - Kitchen/Lunch Room $612 498 $23 500 $0 9 904 $215 388 $851 385
144 - Laundry/Welcome Center $158 311 $23 500 $0 4 589 $106 012 $287 823
145 - Nationals Quarters $1 531 498 $47 000 $0 29 511 $598 692 $2 177 190
146 - Expatriates Quarters $649 513 $23 500 $0 27 907 $593 126 $1 266 139
147 - Landscaping $0 $0 0 $0
160 - Laboratories $78 367 $0 $0 1 746 $37 860 $116 227
161 - Assay / Met Lab $78 367 $0 $0 1 746 $37 860 $116 227
170 - Fuel Systems $482 287 $1 315 800 19 963 $482 782 $2 280 868
171 - LFO Storage - Heavy Vehicles $244 618 $356 600 11 080 $271 248 $872 465
174 - LFO Storage - Light Vehicles $0 $0 0 $0
175 - LFO Storage - Port Kaituma $237 670 $959 200 8 883 $211 534 $1 408 403
180 - Other Facilities $74 639 $0 $0 670 $17 290 $91 929
181 - Recycling / Sort Facility $13 894 $0 $0 400 $10 000 $23 894
182 - Landfill $60 746 $0 $0 270 $7 290 $68 036
183 - Warehouse & Cold Storage $0 $0 0 $0
200 - Electrical $3 081 527 $5 720 000 $0 65 008 $1 581 235 $10 382 761
210 - Power Plant $387 027 $4 206 000 $0 11 968 $290 221 $4 883 248
211 - Power Plant - Matthews Ridge $216 095 $3 365 000 $0 6 943 $169 700 $3 750 795
212 - Power Plant - Port Kaituma $170 932 $841 000 5 025 $120 521 $1 132 453
220 - Electrical Rooms $974 463 $1 514 000 18 953 $448 787 $2 937 250
Grand Total $70 752 394 $59 729 585 $86 567 043 729 141 $15 910 358 $232 959 379
Values
221 - Crushing Electrical Room $220 363 $165 000 3 553 $84 855 $470 218
222 - Scrubbing/Screening Electrical Room $195 609 $446 000 4 410 $99 630 $741 239
223 - Jigging/Concentrate Storage Electrical Room $130 907 $353 000 3 194 $74 746 $558 653
224 - Reclaim Water Electrical Room $106 728 $73 500 2 075 $52 071 $232 299
225 - Thickener Electrical Room $103 501 $269 000 3 064 $71 072 $443 573
226 - Concentrate Storage Electrical Room $74 110 $207 500 2 171 $54 275 $335 885
229 - Control Room $143 244 $0 486 $12 138 $155 382
240 - Site Power Distribution $586 407 $0 19 500 $485 650 $1 072 057
241 - Power Lines $586 407 $0 19 500 $485 650 $1 072 057
260 - IT and Communications Hardware $1 133 629 $0 14 587 $356 577 $1 490 205
261 - Communications Links / Server Rooms $1 133 629 $0 14 587 $356 577 $1 490 205
262 - Plant security system $0 $0 0 $0
300 - Water $4 297 574 $1 021 079 $0 38 187 $902 633 $6 221 285
310 - Potable water $513 929 $227 200 $0 6 759 $164 312 $905 440
311 - Potable water wells $395 916 $6 450 $0 3 014 $70 978 $473 343
312 - Potable water Treatment $118 013 $220 750 $0 3 745 $93 334 $432 097
320 - Raw Water $131 833 $47 879 $0 6 823 $163 005 $342 716
321 - Process Water $40 568 $0 1 741 $47 007 $87 575
322 - Gland Water $91 264 $47 879 5 082 $115 998 $255 141
323 - Fresh Water $0 $0 $0 0 $0
340 - Rejects & Reclaim Water $3 145 936 $345 000 $0 12 513 $331 215 $3 822 151
342 - Rejects Storage Pond $2 624 288 $0 $0 0 $2 624 288
345 - Reclaim Water $521 648 $345 000 12 513 $331 215 $1 197 863
350 - Mine Water Control $0 $0 0 $0
351 - Pit Dewatering $0 $0 0 $0
360 - Plant Surface Water $260 933 $0 $0 48 $864 $261 797
361 - Stormwater Pond $162 326 $0 $0 33 $594 $162 920
362 - Mine Event Pond $98 607 $0 $0 15 $270 $98 877
370 - Fire water $54 536 $126 000 3 219 $72 286 $252 821
371 - Plant Fire Protection $54 536 $126 000 3 219 $72 286 $252 821
372 - Camp Fire Protection $0 $0 0 $0
380 - Sewage $190 409 $275 000 $0 8 825 $170 951 $636 360
381 - Plant Sewage Treatment $6 070 $0 457 $8 233 $14 303
382 - Camp Sewage treatment $184 339 $275 000 $0 8 368 $162 718 $622 057
400 - Mobile Equipment $310 000 $22 484 587 $60 000 0 $22 854 587
410 - Mine Equipment & Maintenance $310 000 $18 281 786 $60 000 0 $18 651 786
412 - Primary Mining Equipment $310 000 $12 566 416 $60 000 0 $12 936 416
414 - Support Equipment $5 715 370 0 $5 715 370
416 - Mining Capital Spares $0 $0 0 $0
420 - Construction Vehicles and Equipment $4 202 801 0 $4 202 801
421 - Cranes and Material Handling $1 720 204 0 $1 720 204
422 - Other Construction Equipment $2 482 597 0 $2 482 597
500 - Project Specifics $11 011 013 $8 983 900 $18 850 000 159 395 $3 091 442 $41 936 356
520 - Dredging & Canal $0 $1 600 000 $18 850 000 0 $20 450 000
Grand Total $70 752 394 $59 729 585 $86 567 043 729 141 $15 910 358 $232 959 379
Values
521 - Dredging $0 $0 $18 850 000 0 $18 850 000
525 - Tug Transfer $1 600 000 0 $1 600 000
530 - Port Kaituma Facilities $11 011 013 $7 383 900 $0 159 395 $3 091 442 $21 486 356
531 - Workshop & Laydown $138 887 $0 4 266 $89 942 $228 829
532 - Gate House $36 290 $0 1 346 $29 465 $65 755
533 - Camp Facilities $461 590 $0 $0 13 409 $272 917 $734 507
534 - Wharf $2 419 556 $0 $0 15 629 $281 588 $2 701 144
535 - Concentrate Handling & Storage $7 879 853 $7 383 900 $0 122 646 $2 378 768 $17 642 521
536 - Electrical Room $52 843 $0 929 $17 697 $70 540
537 - Fire Protection $21 995 $0 1 170 $21 065 $43 060
550 - Community Improvements $0 $0 0 $0
551 - Allocation $0 $0 0 $0
600 - Process Plant General $12 054 565 $16 693 981 $0 233 229 $5 306 013 $34 054 558
600 - Process Plant General $3 223 718 $350 575 $0 30 906 $591 206 $4 165 499
601 - Site preparation $3 223 718 $265 575 $0 30 906 $591 206 $4 080 499
603 - Underground Services $0 $0 0 $0
607 - Capital Spares $0 $85 000 0 $85 000
610 - Crushing and ore handling $756 454 $1 762 011 26 240 $586 449 $3 104 914
611 - Primary Crusher $756 454 $1 762 011 26 240 $586 449 $3 104 914
620 - Washing $1 763 318 $4 874 167 39 077 $953 493 $7 590 978
621 - Scrubbing & Screening $1 607 609 $3 935 121 30 413 $736 211 $6 278 942
624 - Secondary Crushing $155 708 $939 046 8 665 $217 282 $1 312 036
640 - Rejects $1 864 454 $1 524 030 41 952 $942 974 $4 331 459
642 - Rejects Thickener $1 864 454 $1 524 030 41 952 $942 974 $4 331 459
660 - Jigging $2 536 745 $4 592 335 40 854 $962 857 $8 091 937
661 - Jigging $2 536 745 $4 592 335 40 854 $962 857 $8 091 937
670 - Concentrate Management $1 369 221 $3 122 000 33 842 $790 626 $5 281 846
671 - Concentrate Storage (Matthew's Ridge) $1 369 221 $3 122 000 33 842 $790 626 $5 281 846
680 - Plant Services $540 655 $468 863 20 357 $478 408 $1 487 926
681 - Air Services $407 218 $260 508 13 491 $325 405 $993 131
685 - Flocculant $133 437 $208 355 6 866 $153 003 $494 795
700 - Construction Indirects $1 959 865 $2 473 500 $15 397 016 15 349 $605 965 $20 436 346
710 - Engineering, CM, PM $0 $0 $12 375 210 2 540 $317 500 $12 692 710
711 - Site CM staff and consultants $0 $0 $4 519 500 0 $4 519 500
713 - Montreal CM staff and consultants $0 $0 $688 310 0 $688 310
715 - External Engineering $0 $0 $4 700 000 2 540 $317 500 $5 017 500
716 - Surveying $0 $0 $510 000 0 $510 000
717 - QA QC $0 $0 $1 695 000 0 $1 695 000
718 - Commissioning / Vendors Reps $0 $0 $262 400 0 $262 400
720 - Construction Facilities & Services $1 959 865 $2 473 500 $3 021 806 12 809 $288 465 $7 743 636
721 - Shops $18 550 $0 $197 500 987 $17 766 $233 816
722 - Construction Temporary Power $182 679 $23 500 7 699 $192 475 $398 654
723 - Concrete Batch plant $71 145 $550 000 3 623 $65 221 $686 366
724 - Toilets / Ablution Units $46 491 $0 500 $13 003 $59 494
Grand Total $70 752 394 $59 729 585 $86 567 043 729 141 $15 910 358 $232 959 379
Values
725 - Aggregate Plant & Quarry $0 $1 900 000 0 $1 900 000
727 - Tools $1 641 000 $0 0 $1 641 000
728 - Construction Mobile Equipment Fuel & Maintenance $0 $0 $2 824 306 0 $2 824 306
729 - Equipment Rental $0 $0 0 $0
730 - Material Redistribution Accounts $0 $0 0 $0
731 - Construction Material $0 $0 0 $0
800 - General Services $1 276 822 $0 $28 923 321 0 $30 200 145
810 - Departments $0 $0 $4 466 307 0 $4 466 307
811 - General Administration $0 $0 $1 179 705 0 $1 179 705
812 - Supply Chain $0 $0 $649 965 0 $649 965
813 - HR & Training $0 $0 $395 730 0 $395 730
814 - ESR $0 $0 $840 174 0 $840 174
815 - Health and Safety $0 $0 $566 061 0 $566 061
816 - Security $0 $0 $434 323 0 $434 323
817 - Corporate $0 $0 0 $0
818 - IT $0 $0 $64 911 0 $64 911
819 - Accounting and Finances $0 $0 $335 438 0 $335 438
820 - Logistics / Taxes / Insurance $1 276 822 $0 $13 136 674 0 $14 413 497
821 - Freight $1 276 822 $0 $12 816 674 0 $14 093 497
823 - Insurances $0 $0 $320 000 0 $320 000
830 - Operating Expenses $0 $0 $11 320 340 0 $11 320 341
831 - Camp Opex $0 $0 $6 686 525 0 $6 686 525
832 - Travel & Transportation $0 $0 $2 748 229 0 $2 748 229
833 - Temporary Power Exp. $0 $0 $1 237 054 0 $1 237 055
834 - Road Maintenance $0 $0 $648 532 0 $648 532
900 - Preproduction, Startup, Commissioning $10 000 $0 $23 336 706 0 $23 346 706
910 - Mining Preprod / Commissioning $0 $0 $5 579 189 0 $5 579 189
911 - Mine Administration $0 $0 $4 278 976 0 $4 278 976
912 - Mine Engineering $0 $0 $69 008 0 $69 008
913 - Mine Geology $0 $0 $60 464 0 $60 464
917 - Mine Operations Preproduction $0 $0 $1 170 741 0 $1 170 741
950 - Process Plant Preprod / Commissioning $10 000 $0 -$3 966 281 0 -$3 956 281
955 - Process Plant Management $0 $0 $534 770 0 $534 770
956 - Process Plant Commissioning $0 $0 $780 150 0 $780 150
957 - Power Plant Commissioning $0 $0 $615 981 0 $615 981
958 - First Fill $10 000 $0 $22 208 0 $32 208
959 - Preproduction Revenues $0 $0 -$5 919 390 0 -$5 919 390
990 - Contingency $0 $21 723 798 0 $21 723 798
991 - Contingency $0 $21 723 798 0 $21 723 798
(blank) $0 $0 $0 0 $0
Grand Total $70 752 394 $59 729 585 $86 567 043 729 141 $15 910 358 $232 959 379
Appendix OPE C: Construction Unit Costs

Matthews Ridge Project
1. LABOUR
Unit costs for labour represent an average hourly rate for installation teams. Expatriate supervisors and
local labour are included in this average. The ratio of expatriate varies depending on each trade.
Concrete / Civil: 1 expatriate and 10 local workers.

Structure: 1 expatriate and 8 local workers.
Electrical / Mechanical / Piping: 1 expatriate and 5 local labourers.
These ratios are based on past experiences in countries such as Guyana. The resulting average hourly
rates are provided below:
Concrete / Civil: USD 18/hr.

Structure: USD 21/hr.
Electrical / Mechanical / Piping: USD 25/hr.
Expatriates salaries are based on recent projects and quotations received from contractors. Local labour
salaries have been derived from the salary database from RMI.
1.1 Earthwork
Unit costs to cover earthworks are calculated by square meter or by cubic meter. The costs are calculated
based on the productivity of the mining fleet equipment and the costs associated with operating these
equipment. The rates include the salaries of the operators, fuel consumption and maintenance:
Land Clearing: USD 0.66/m2.
Stripping: USD 2.80/m3.
Mass Excavation: USD 5.54 to USD 6.52/m3.
Technical Excavation: USD 10.86 /m3.
Rock Excavation (roads): USD 46.04/m3.
Backfill: USD 3.63 to USD 14.93/m3.
The construction works will require specialized material to be produced on site. A quarry will be operated
to produce crushed rock for the construction of the road and laterite quarries will be operated to provide
material for the construction of the access road, the tailings dams or for roads capping. The unit costs
Appendix OPE C August, 2013 Page 1

listed below includes material handling and material production done with Project owned equipment.
Crushed rock unit cost varies depending on the location where the material is used (Port Kaituma or
Project site):
Laterite: USD 10.47/m2.
Crushed Rock: USD 31.56 to 58.84/m3.
1.2 Concrete
Concrete costs are evaluated per cubic meter. The costs depend on the type of formworks required.
Three types of formworks have been considered. The unit costs include formwork material, rebar, and
concrete. The price of concrete preparation is based on material procurement delivered to site. Aggregate
will be produced by the Project operated quarry and crushing plant.
Table A 1 Concrete Unit Costs
Installation
Material Total
Type hours
USD USD
(@ 18/hr)
Lean Concrete 100/m3 10.50 hr/m3 289.00/m3

Slab on grade 265/m3 14.10 hr/m3 518.80/m3
Foundations 338/m3 17.10 hr/m3 645.20/m3
Note: Hours include formworks, rebar installation, concrete placement and removal of the formworks.
1.3 Structural Steel, Siding and Roofing
Structural steel is evaluated on a per tonne basis. Prices were requested from several steel fabricators.
This price was also compared to recent projects.
Structural Steel: USD 4,400/t;
Siding and Roofing (non-insulated): USD 36.75/m2.
1.4 Other Disciplines
Unit costs for mechanical, electrical, piping and architecture are estimated using suppliers quotes or
prices obtained for similar equipment / material in recent projects.

Prices for process equipment were provided by several bidders, and bid analysis have been performed to
select the best equipment, both commercially and technically. The same method was applied to major
electrical equipment. Piping at the process plant was evaluated based on a preliminary take-off.
Instrumentation was estimated from a take-off performed on the piping and instrumentation diagrams.

Appendix OPE D: Transportation

Pre-feasibility Study Report
REUNION M ANG AN ESE
Reunion Manganese
Matthews Ridge Transportation
Pre-Feasibility Study
48051
November 13, 2012
Infrastructure & Environment

Two Westbrook Corporate Center
Chicago IL 60154
United States of America
Telephone: +1 904 631 5535
www.worleyparsons.com
Copyright 2012 WorleyParsons

REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEWS RIDGE TRANSPORTATION
PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of REUNION MANGANESE,
and is subject to and issued in accordance with the agreement between REUNION MANGANESE
and WorleyParsons. WorleyParsons accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in
respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
Copying this report without the permission of REUNION MANGANESE or WorleyParsons is not
permitted.
PROJECT 48051 - PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY

REV DESCRIPTION ORIG REVIEW WORLEY- DATE CLIENT DATE
PARSONS APPROVAL
APPROVAL
A Issued for Internal 8-Oct-12 N/A

Review M.Petro J Pauling
B Isued for Client Review M.Petro J Pauling 14-Nov-12
48051-ST-REP-0001 Page ii Rev C : November 13, 2012

REUNION MANGANESE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the Scoping Study, WorleyParsons analyzed separate overland transportation options for the
transport of manganese concentrate over approximately 51km from the mine at Matthews Ridge to
Port Kaituma. These four options were:
1. Rail, both narrow gauge and standard gauge
2. High speed haul road
3. Slurry pipeline
4. Long distance conveyor
WorleyParsons also analyzed options for the transport of manganese concentrate from Port Kaituma
to a trans-shipment facility. These four options were:
In October 2011, Reunion Manganese asked WorleyParsons to identify and assess transportation
options for the movement of one to two million tonnes per year of manganese concentrate from the
mine at Matthews Ridge, Guyana. This evaluation covered transportation options for two distinct
segments: 1) from the mine at Matthews Ridge to Port Kaituma, and 2) from Port Kaituma to an
ocean port for trans-shipment to ocean vessels.
In the Scoping Study, WorleyParsons analyzed separate overland transportation options for the
transport
1. Tug and barges to wharf and material handling facilities in Trinidad
2. Tug and Barge to floating trans-shipment facility moored at the Waini river mouth
3. Tug and barge to floating trans-shipment facility moored offshore
4. Tug and barges to wharf and material handling facilities at a port in Guyana
The recommendations from the Scoping Study for the overland transportation options were to
eliminate Options 3 (the slurry pipeline) and Option 4 (the long distance conveyor belt and standard
gauge rail) as feasible land options, and to consider only Option 1 and 2, narrow gauge rail or high
speed road haul, as feasible land options.
Similarly, the recommendations from the Scoping Study for the trans-shipment facility were to
eliminate the Option 2 (floating trans-shipment facility at the Waini river mouth) and Option 4 (to use a
port in Guyana for transshipment), and to consider only Option 1 and 3, a facility in Trinidad or a
floating trans-shipment facility moored offshore.
Based on the results of the Scoping Study, Reunion Manganese engaged WorleyParsons to proceed
with a Pre-Feasibility Study, to recommend and define the one preferred go-forward option for the
land transport and marine transport of manganese from Mathews Ridge to the river Port of Kaituma,
and from Port Kaituma to the preferred transshipment point.
48051-ST-REP-0001 Page 1 Rev C : November 13, 2012

REUNION MANGANESE
Land Transport from Mine at Matthews Ridge to Port Kaituma
Based on the results of the Pre-Feasibility Study, WorleyParsons recommends the heavy haul road
option as the preferred go-forward option for further analysis in a Bankable Feasibility Study.
The key drivers of this recommendation are:
1) The geotechnical review and survey data indicate minimal volumes of required blasting and
excavation as well as dramatically smaller bulk earthworks volumes relative to the
preliminary assumptions of the Scoping Study.
2) The capital requirements for materials handling at the new berth area at Port Kaituma and
at the mine are substantially higher for the rail option compared with the road option.
3) OPEX cost of the road option are lower than for the rail option
4) The road option carries significantly lower operating equipment costs versus the rail option
Water Transport from Port Kaituma to Trans-Shipment Facility
Based on the results of the Pre-Feasibility Study, WorleyParsons can recommend that the option of a
floating trans-shipment facility moored offshore appears feasible and can be advanced forward for
further analysis in a Bankable Feasibility Study. WorleyParsons was not able to study the option of
transshipment in Trinidad as Reunion Manganese has not been able to identify a suitable location in
Trinidad for a transshipment operation. We recommend a feasibility study to further investigate the
option of a floating trans-shipment facility, and also recommend that Reunion Manganese continue to
explore potential alternative options in Trinidad.

REUNION MANGANESE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 3
1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 7
2 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................... 8
3 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................11
4 ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................12
5 LAND TRANSPORT OPTIONS ........................................................................................17
5.1 Land Transport Summary .................................................................................................17
5.1.1 Methodology.........................................................................................................18
5.1.2 Assumptions.........................................................................................................20
5.2 Land Option 1: Rail Narrow Gauge...............................................................................21
5.2.1 Narrow Gauge Capital Cost .................................................................................22
5.3 Land Option 2: Road .........................................................................................................27
5.3.1 Road Infrastructure Capital Costs ........................................................................30
5.3.2 Road Equipment Capital Costs ............................................................................31
5.3.3 Road OPEX..........................................................................................................33
5.3.4 Road Materials Handling at Port Kaituma ............................................................34
5.3.5 Road Materials Handling at Mathews Ridge .......................................................35
5.3.6 Pavement Design .................................................................................................36
5.3.7 Road: Drainage Design ........................................................................................43
5.4 Comparison of Rail and Road Options .............................................................................48
5.5 Land Transport Option Conclusions .................................................................................48
6 MARINE TRANSPORT OPTIONS ...................................................................................50
6.1 Marine Overview ...............................................................................................................50
6.2 Overview of Marine Pre-Feasibility Scope of Work ..........................................................51
6.3 River Navigation................................................................................................................52
6.3.1 Summary of River Navigation Study ....................................................................52

REUNION MANGANESE
6.3.2 Assumptions.........................................................................................................52
6.3.3 Kaituma River Existing Conditions .......................................................................53
6.3.4 River and Canal Width .........................................................................................56
6.3.5 River Dredging Requirements..............................................................................56
6.3.6 Summary and recommendations .........................................................................59
6.4 Metocean Study ................................................................................................................59
6.4.1 Summary of Metocean Study...............................................................................59
6.4.2 Scope of Work......................................................................................................61
6.4.3 Tide and Water Levels .........................................................................................61
6.4.4 Currents ...............................................................................................................62
6.4.5 Tropical Storms and Hurricanes ..........................................................................63
6.4.6 Wind and Waves ..................................................................................................65
6.4.7 Wave Propagation Modeling ................................................................................75
6.4.8 Downtime Assessment ........................................................................................83
6.4.9 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................91
6.5 Dredging ...........................................................................................................................93
6.5.1 Scope of Work......................................................................................................93
6.5.2 Assumptions.........................................................................................................93
6.5.3 Waini Point Assessment ......................................................................................93
6.5.4 River Dredging Requirements..............................................................................99
6.5.5 Summary of Dredging Analysis..........................................................................100
6.5.6 Items to Consider to Further Reduce Dredging Costs .......................................105
6.6 Option 1: Transshipment at a Leased Terminal in Trinidad (Deferred) ..........................106
6.7 Option 2: Transshipment at Offshore Facility near Waini Point ......................................106
6.7.1 Summary of Offshore Transshipment Study ......................................................106
6.7.2 Project Assumptions ..........................................................................................109
6.7.3 7.7.3 Loading Rate Definitions ...........................................................................110
6.7.4 Evaluation Methodology .....................................................................................110
6.7.5 Transshipment Options Considered ..................................................................113

REUNION MANGANESE
6.7.6 Vessel Types and Configuration ........................................................................118
6.7.7 Coastal Climate and Downtime..........................................................................119
6.7.8 Transshipment Risks .........................................................................................119
6.7.9 CAPEX and OPEX .............................................................................................120
6.7.10 Findings..............................................................................................................121
6.7.11 Panamax loading ...............................................................................................139
6.7.12 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................145
6.8 Environmental Issues .....................................................................................................152
6.8.1 General Marine Environmental Issues ...............................................................152
6.8.2 Issues to consider ..............................................................................................153
6.8.3 Key Risks ...........................................................................................................154
6.8.4 Geotechnical Program .......................................................................................154
6.8.5 Environmental Issues Unique to Offshore Transship Facility and Tug Transfer
Terminal ..........................................................................................................................155
6.9 Vessels ...........................................................................................................................156
6.9.1 Barges ................................................................................................................156
6.9.2 Tugs ...................................................................................................................160
6.10 Tug Transfer Facility ...................................................................................................160
7 TUG TRANSFER FACILITY CONCEPT ........................................................................162
8 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................164
9 CAPEX / OPEX SUMMARY ...........................................................................................165
10 TIMELINE .......................................................................................................................170
11 RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS .......................................................................171
12 SOURCES OF DATA......................................................................................................172
13 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................173
APPENDIX 1 Summary of Study Team

REUNION MANGANESE
APPENDIX 2 Interim Bridge Report
APPENDIX 3 Monthly Wind And Wave Statistics At Grid Point T2 (840n, 5910'w)
APPENDIX 4 Monthly Percentage Exceedences on Hs at Three Locations Of Interest
APPENDIX 5 Drawings

REUNION MANGANESE
1 BACKGROUND
Reunion Manganese is in the process of reopening an abandoned Union Carbide mine at Matthews
Ridge, Guyana, and has secured prospecting licenses for manganese covering 45,000 acres at
Matthews Ridge. Reunion Manganese asked WorleyParsons to identify and assess transportation
options for the movement of manganese concentrate from the mine at Matthews Ridge
Reunion Manganese is currently in Exploration Phase and is in the process of trenching and drilling
the site to establish a mine plan and determine the total reserves in situ. Total reserves are uncertain,
but could be as high as 20 million tons, making Matthews Ridge the 5th largest manganese mine in
the world. The mine at Matthews Ridge was operated from 1962-1968 by a subsidiary of Union
Carbide and produced over 1.7 million tons of manganese concentrate per annum. When the mine
was operated by Union Carbide, manganese was transported from Matthew's Ridge via narrow gauge
railway (1067 mm) to Port Kaituma, then by barge from Port Kaituma to Chaguaramas Bay in Trinidad,
and finally trans-shipped at Chaguaramas Bay to ocean vessels for export. Most of the details
regarding the former operation are unknown.
The right-of-way for the former rail line is state owned, but Reunion has submitted a permit request for
the rail line to be dedicated to Reunion. Reunion expects to receive approval of the permit. The width
of the rail reserve is unknown as no perimeter fencing or any other boundary indicators are visible or
available on old maps. The rail formation is 6 m while the bases of some embankments are at least
50 m wide and some cuttings opened up to 30 m at the top. There is no access road and
maintenance on the track was all track bound.
The climate at Matthews Ridge includes two dry seasons in August/September and March, and two
rainy seasons in May/June and December/January. Average annual rainfall is approximately 30
inches and there are generally about 100 days of rainfall per year.

REUNION MANGANESE
2 SCOPE
The primary goal of the Pre-Feasibility Study was to freeze the decision for land and marine transport
options so a focused Bankable Feasibility Study can be performed on the selected options.
Marine Scope of Work
Review of existing relevant documentation

Navigation charts
Sailing directions
Topographic maps
Aerial photos
Previous reports
Topographic/bathymetric survey data
Data from commercially available charts and maps
Site Investigation and Scope Development

Development of a bathymetric survey scope of work document for the canal, river, and
Waini River Bar, including water level and current measurement
Development of a metocean and tidal data collection scope of work
Analysis of the navigability of the river, including the dredging requirements in the river and
at the port
Offshore Floating Trans-Shipment Facility

Analysis of metocean conditions at the proposed offshore floating trans-shipment facility
location. This analysis will be based on NOAA WaveWatchIII data.
Vessel motion analysis based on metocean conditions along the proposed barge route
from the transfer facility at the mouth of the Waini estuary to the proposed trans-shipment
facility in Trinidad. This analysis will be based on NOAA WaveWatchIII data.
Investigation into a floating trans-shipment facility. This will include a comparison of the
high level advantages and disadvantages, including costs, of the following alternatives:
Custom designed crane barge

REUNION MANGANESE
Modified bulk carrier
Self-unloading bulk carrier
Lease costs and purchase costs will be investigated.
Trinidad Terminal
Review of berth parameters for a terminal in Trinidad selected by Reunion Manganese.
Review of the manganese storage requirements, equipment flow rates, and types at a
Trinidad based port based on upstream and downstream logistics.
Development of a conceptual layout for the Trinidad based trans-shipment terminal

upland and water front facilities
Reporting and Cost Estimate Review

Obtain budgetary pricing and delivery information for the infrastructure and incorporate
these costs into the project CAPEX
Review the cost estimates prepared in the previous phase of the project and identify
suggested adjustments
Provide input to the project report summarizing the work completed in this phase of the
project and providing recommendations for the next phase of the project
Document the preferred go forward solution to Reunion Manganese
Submit a Phase 1 report, including a summary of all of the above criteria
Landside Scope of Work
Preparatory work for the narrow gauge and the haul road to feed design work
Coordination of topographical survey on rail alignment by others with coordinates in such
a way that cross sections can be constructed on 20 m intervals to develop a digital terrain
model (DTM). Drainage infrastructure should be included, specifying coordinates and
sizes.
Coordination of materials investigation by others Outer edge of new road and material
sources (quarries, borrow pits).
Coordination of geotechnical analysis of cuttings, fills and unstable areas and bridge
foundations.
Coordination of underwater investigation by others at bridge founding structures.
Review of topographical survey results.

REUNION MANGANESE
Review of geotechnical investigation results and traffic analysis to confirm load design for
pavement structure.
Design Work
Pavement design
Geometric design of integrated road alignment
Drainage design
Bridge designs
Planning of materials utilisation from quarries and borrow pits
Integration of Rail/Road with Port offloading handling facilities
Integration with Mine load-out facilities
Schedule of quantities
Reporting and Cost Estimate Review

Concept layout and alignment drawings for new section between old quarry and new port
site, including hydrology and drainage conceptual design
Preparation of Level 1 Risk Register
Finalized Option analysis between rail and road
A review of the cost estimate prepared in the previous phase of the project and
identification of suggested changes
Document the preferred go forward solution to Reunion Manganese
Submit Phase 1 report, including a summary of the above criteria
Modification of Scope
As a terminal location has not yet been identified for the Trinidad option, WorleyParsons was not yet
able to complete the tasks related to analysing the option of a transhipment operation in Trinidad.
Also, because of incomplete survey data, WorleyParsons was unable to complete some of the land
tasks, including the integration with Port offloading handling facilities and integration with load-out
facilities.

REUNION MANGANESE
3 METHODOLOGY
WorleyParsons interviewed key Reunion Manganese employees and other stakeholders, conducted a
site visit to the Reunion Manganese operation at Matthews Ridge and the surrounding areas, and
performed desk research. We also examined comparative studies performed in the past by
WorleyParsons, and relied upon the professional experience and judgment of the WorleyParsons
team members.
WorleyParsons experts from around the world including Canada, South Africa, Australia, the United
States and the Caribbean were involved in the Study to ensure a complete and thorough analysis of
land and marine options. A summary of our study team is provided in Appendix 1.
The WorleyParsons team commenced this study by reviewing all available data related to the mine
and operations at Matthews Ridge, including the Scoping Study which was completed by
WorleyParsons in December 2011. The Scoping Study included a site visit to Guyana which was
conducted during the week of October 24-28 2011. We shared Information gathered from the site
visit with all members of the WorleyParsons project team to facilitate their analysis and desk research.
WorleyParsons reviewed the survey results provided by Reunion Manganese for both the Marine and
Landside work including: bathymetric surveys and tide measurements performed by Olin
Hydrographic Solutions, a Geotechnical Survey performed by Golder and Associates, and
topographic survey performed by representatives of Reunion Manganese. Representatives from
WorleyParsons conducted multiple interviews with the parties performing all surveys, including
discussions to review and validate survey scopes prior to initiation of survey work, progress report
discussions during the performance of surveys, and discussions upon completion of surveys to review
and confirm results.
WorleyParsons used sophisticated modeling software for both the landside analysis and Marine
analysis. Details of the modeling software and modeling techniques used in this study are contained
in the separate Land Transport and Marine Transport sections of this report.
Throughout this study and upon completion of the initial draft report, WorleyParsons peer reviewed
our work product using other experts within the organization not involved in this study are asked to
review the methods and findings of our study team, challenge results of our work, elaborate on
findings, offer benchmarks, and offer suggestions to improve our overall analysis. WorleyParsons
experts involved in peer review of this study include Jan Matth, Larry Shughart and John Pauling.
The analysis contained in this report draws heavily on the past experience and related project work of
the WorleyParsons team. The analysis contained in this report draws heavily on the past experience
and related project work of the WorleyParsons team.

REUNION MANGANESE
4 ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were applied to this Study:
Assumptions
General
There will be two products, fine and coarse, which will need to be shipped and stored
separately:
50% Fine 1mm-6mm
50% Coarse 6mm-25mm
The fine and coarse product will be shipped sequentially not simultaneously
Expected volume of manganese shipment from the mine is one to two million tons per year
The mine is expected to operate for 20 years
Target dates:
February 2013 Completion of Pre-Feasibility Study

July 2013 Completion of Feasibility Study
February 2014 Commencement of Construction
January 2015 Initiation of Operations
There is no seasonality in manganese shipments from the mine
Product will not need to be covered, in transit or in storage
No processing of the product is required after shipment from Matthews Ridge aside from
blending
We are only considering off the shelf designs and proven technologies
We have included no estimate for environmental permits for any of transport options
We have included no estimate of any cost for environmental and/or social mitigation. A
comprehensive environmental analysis will be needed to determine impacts to the environment
(including soil, water, air, social, cultural, ecological and historical)

REUNION MANGANESE
In our cost calculations, we have assumed a 0% inflation rate
In our cost calculations, we have not included any estimates for taxes or tax credits
In our cost calculations, we have assumed no costs for security
Assume the right of way will be wide enough for an access road to access rail
The steepest gradient on the rail right-of-way is 1:100
Current rail bed is assumed to be a minimum of least 6 m width for the entire route
Bottom discharge rail wagons can be used for all product, including the fines
No allowances have been provided at this stage for end of life asset disposal and restoration
There is ample availability of skilled workers to construct, operate, and maintain the operation,
and the estimated labor cost for construction is $600-800 per person per month
Estimated truck driver labor cost are $1100 per person per month
Power costs are $0.25 per kilowatt hour
There is sufficient power generation at the mine and there is no allowance for an additional
power plant to supply power for transport options such as conveyor or pipeline
We are permitted to run electric wires and power lines along the right of way
Hours of Operation:
Rail 8 hours per day, 7 days per week
Road 12 hours per day, 6 days per week
Port Operations TBD
Fuel will be purchased in Trinidad and fuel cost is $0.95/liter including delivery by barge to Port
Kaituma
Density of the manganese ore is 2.4 grams/cc
Kaituma Canal can be dredged to 5m if necessary, and it is assumed that no hard material
needs to be dredged
Limiting river channel width is 60m
Limiting canal width is 45m allowing one way traffic for barges with beam around 20 -25 m (this

REUNION MANGANESE
will need to be verified by bathymetric survey)
Limit barge beam to approximately 23m for one way traffic
Trans-Shipment vessel characteristics:
Maximum 35,000 dwt; breadth 27.5 m; loaded draught 11 m
Landside Assumptions
The steepest gradient on the rail right-of-way was assumed to be 1:100. Available survey data
revealed steepest gradient against loaded is 1:65 (1.53%) and steepest downhill is 1:48 (-
2.07%).
An interim Bridge Report was delivered to Reunion Manganese (attached to the Pre-Feasibility
Report) to confirm that whatever the final decision would be regarding the preferred option , the
cost of the bridge required to support the option would not have a material influence on the
decision.
A re-assessment of rail operations confirmed a 20 tonne axle load rail system can be installed to
reduce capital cost and also to accommodate the less than ideal horizontal and vertical
alignment revealed by the survey data.
As recommended by Michael Venn (WorleyParsons Melbourne engineer with extensive

experience with road trains), we included 160 tonne gross weight rigs with 4 trailers in the
operational consideration for the haul road option.
Analysis of the modelled survey data provided showed that the average cut and fill varies 75%
and 68% per km respectively. This implies that every next km can require 75% more or less
material to be removed from cuttings than the previous km or 68% more or less fill material for
bulk earthworks. This is a substantial deviation. As a conservative realistic approach the
average cut and fill per km was increased only (only more not less). The average of the 21 km
surveyed was increased with 75% of the variance and applied over the 29 km length of the route
where no survey data is available yet to determine the different bulk earthworks volume
categories for the estimate.
We assume the remaining survey data will reveal less required bulk earthworks for the road
option to be done and by optimising the vertical and horizontal design Land Transport Options
Marine Assumptions
Bathymetric data provided by Guyana government reference to the correct vertical datum (Chart
Datum or CD) at Waini Point
The design draft of the loaded barge is 3.5 m

REUNION MANGANESE
Navigation in the river is mainly for one pusher tug and one barge
Safe navigation in the channel is required at all time and in all seasons
The governing draft of ocean tugs and loaded barges is 3.5 m
The channel width is 80 m to allow one-way traffic for towing barges and two-way traffic for tugs
and other small vessels
The crossing (beam-on) ocean current allows safe navigation in the channel, but will allow one
tug towing one barge only
Sedimentation rate into the channel is acceptable, allowing one maintenance dredging every 5
to 10 years
The channel is to accommodate one-way traffic for tug towing operation and two-way traffic for
tug boats or other small boats
The channel is to accommodate one ocean tug towing one barge. The total length of the tug-
barge arrangement is approximately 100 m to 110 m
The political risk due to location proximity to Venezuela and the Zona en Reclamacin disputed
boundary has been mitigated
The risk of negative environmental impact has been mitigated
An average shiploading rate of 1500 mtph for all Handysize options, and 3,125 mtph for
Panamax options
Barges and tugs are available and logistics allow for delivering barges, as needed, to the side of
the ship in adequate quantities for loading ships
Dredging Assumptions
Fuel delivered to Project location @ 0.95/liter
Payment in US $ with no local taxes, withholdings or VAT
No importation tax will be applied to the equipment and materials required to perform the work
Use of Non-Guyana labour is allowed (expat labour is the basis of the Budget)
One cutter dredge can be used for all dredging at Waini Point and Port Kaituma (limits
mobilization fee)

REUNION MANGANESE
Dredge material at Waini Point is non-contaminated soft sand
Dredging at Waini Point

The estimated dredging volume is approximately 4.5 million m
The dredging volume estimate considers a 1V:6H side slope on 80 m wide channel.
The dredged material is unconsolidated material ranging from sand (offshore) to fine sand, silts,
clayey silts (river mouth and river); no coral limestone rock or other consolidated material is
assumed
A small hopper dredge will excavate the outermost (seaward end) of the proposed channel or
25% of the total volume with an assumed production rate of 300 m/hour or 7,200 m/day
A hydraulic cutterhead dredge will excavate the river, river mouth and shallow areas offshore or
The ocean disposal site is relatively close to the dredging (within 10 km)
Dredging at Port Kaituma/Channel

The estimated dredging volume is approximately 180,000 m
The dredged material is unconsolidated material (fine sand, silts, clayey silts, silty clays)
A hydraulic cutterhead dredge will excavate the berthing basin with assumed production rate of
500 m/hour or 12,000 m/day
A bermed area would be constructed next to the river for dewatering and containment of the
dredged material
No significant debris or vegetation would have to be removed from the river

REUNION MANGANESE
5 LAND TRANSPORT OPTIONS
5.1 Land Transport Summary

During the Scoping Study performed in October 2011, the land transportation options were narrowed
down to two options from four initial options considered. The focus of this pre-feasibility study was to
provide clarity whether to proceed with the rebuilding of the narrow gauge railway line or whether to
proceed with a dedicated haul road using the rail right-of-way. This could not be determined during
the scoping study mainly due to the lack of geotechnical and topographical survey data. These issues
were subsequently addressed by Golder, who performed a high level geotechnical investigation
report, and by Reunion Manganese, who facilitated the topographical survey of 21 km of the
approximately 50 route km. Reunion Manganese asked WorleyParsons to proceed with an evaluation
based on the limited survey data available on the assumption that the section surveyed would provide
an adequate sample from which results could be extrapolated, and that the bulk earthworks volumes
per km and the variance around the average per km would be a representative indication of what to
expect over the sections that were inaccessible due to overgrowth and an extraordinary wet season.
The results were analyzed and the recommended heavy haul road go-forward option can be offered
with confidence. Some of the agreed upon deliverables for the pre-feasibility, such as the drainage
design and the link between the end of the old right-of-way and the new berth site in Port Kaituma,
could not be completed due to the limited survey and geotechnical data. These elements, while
important during the feasibility phase of work will not have a material effect on the option choices, and
WorleyParsons can confidently recommend the dedicated haul road option as the preferred option to
carry forward to the feasibility stage.
The key items that strongly support the bias towards the road option are:
The geotechnical review and survey data indicate minimal volumes of required blasting and
excavation as well as dramatically smaller bulk earthworks volumes relative to the assumptions
of the Scoping Study.
The additional capital required to complete the route by adding the link from the old alignment
into the new berth area at Kaituma and on the mine side for the load-out facilities integration,
added a substantial differential in the capital cost between rail and road.
Smaller OPEX cost of road versus rail
Significantly lower operating equipment costs of road versus rail
Significantly lower materials handling costs of road versus rail

REUNION MANGANESE
The following sections of this report provide the basis for the cost implications summarized and tabled
in Table 5-1:
Table 5-1 Comparative Costs for the Land Transportation Options Considered
Rail Rail Haul Road Haul Road

ITEM 1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa 1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
P&G Earthworks, concrete, drainage $3,883,853 $3,883,853 $4,596,118 $4,596,118

Setting out and site clearance $748,205 $748,205 $1,563,725 $1,563,725
Earthworks $5,849,235 $5,849,235 $31,208,270 $31,208,270
Restricted excavation for culverts / pipe work $0 $0 $0 $0
Bridge Works $5,756,322 $5,756,322 $8,081,017 $8,081,017
Drainage $0 $0 $4,467,904 $4,467,904
Fencing $535,000 $535,000 $535,000 $535,000
Structures $57,415 $57,415 $105,261 $105,261
Plate laying P&G $1,621,803 $1,621,803
Plate laying $5,406,011 $5,406,011
Supply of permanent way materials $24,957,619 $24,957,619
TOTAL INSTALLED COST INFRASTRUCTURE $48,815,464 $48,815,464 $50,557,295 $50,557,295
TOTAL COST MATERIALS HANDLING $37,000,000 $37,000,000 $17,600,000 $17,600,000
TOTAL COST EQUIPMENT $10,933,333 $21,200,000 $3,210,000 $5,885,000
TOTAL CAPEX $96,748,798 $107,015,464 $71,367,295 $74,042,295
TOTAL OPERATING COST PER ANNUM $2,424,333 $3,464,444 $1,983,900 $2,870,328
ADDITIONAL CAPEX
Layout at Mine $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
Layout at Kaituma $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Workshop Facilities $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
TOTAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL $25,600,000 $25,600,000 $7,200,000 $7,200,000
The estimates are at 30% accuracy level. The most uncertain items are the availability of granular
material from potential borrow pits in the areas where the geotechnical surveys were not completed,
and the actual bulk earthworks volumes for the more than 30 km of route which have not yet been
surveyed. The availability of contractors and artisans with the skills to execute steel bridge work,
logistics cost for material supply and access to the bridge are also contributing factors to the level of
uncertainty.
5.1.1 Methodology
To present our analysis of the two land transportation options (narrow gauge rail and the heavy haul
road) selected in the scoping study, the WorleyParsons team employed a methodology that involved
some modelling and analysis techniques and sources to make the best of the level of geotechnical-
and survey data made available to the team. Our approach included several teleconference meetings

REUNION MANGANESE
with key Reunion Manganese employees, Golder employees and other stakeholders to stay abreast
of new information gathered by others.
The earthworks modelling was done on Model Maker working with the same basic principles as all
other Auto Cad modelling modules. The basic coordinates from the survey data are fed into the
programs data fields and based on a process of triangulation, the survey points are used to develop
a profile of the area surveyed or a Digital Terrain Model (DTM). For road design purposes, cross
sections are generated from the DTM on 20 m intervals. The dimensions and design criteria such as
slope gradients for embankments, cuttings and road surface are then fit onto this range of cross
sections to generate the bulk earthworks volumes per 20 m intervals. The full output of our Digital
Terrain Model are provided separately.
The two most critical elements missing from the scoping study information base were the
geotechnical data for the rail right-of-way and the topographical survey data. The scoping study had
to rely on qualitative data and information collected from the site visit and input from Reunion
Manganese and G Mining personnel. For the scoping study, the most cost sensitive (and volume
sensitive) item was the assumption made on the volume of hard material that would have to be
removed by means of blasting and excavation if the rail formation needed to be widened to
accommodate a heavy haul road. The volume of bulk earthworks per km for similar projects in
comparable topographies was applied for the consideration of the two options in the scoping study.
To obtain more accurate data and make more precise estimates of earthworks and hard cut
excavation, Reunion Manganese asked Golder Associates to perform a high level geotechnical
survey on sections of the right-of-way that were accessible. Adequate investigations will still need to
be mobilized for thorough bridge foundation investigation as well as a concerted effort to find
adequate borrow pits with the right granular material and quantities for the layer works of the
formation/pavement before a Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS) can be progressed. The layer works
require comparable type of materials and volumes for the rail and the road option and for that reason
not important for trade-offs in the pre-feasibility study. It is however essential for the BFS in order to
develop the level of engineering and the estimates to acceptable levels associated with a BFS.
Topographical Surveys were also facilitated and conducted by Reunion Manganese on sections of
the rail formation that were accessible or subsequently cleared since the site visit. A proper lidar
survey or completed topographical survey will be required for the entire route, including the potential
new connection to the new berth at Kaituma, before the BFS can be progressed.
Based on the collected survey data and geotechnical data, it can be confirmed that the drainage
design can safely be done by extending same-dimensions current drainage structures. Unless the
inaccessible sections reveal storm damage to the formation as the right-of-way is cleared, this
approach can be followed and would only need thorough data on drainage structures positions,
dimensions, type and material to proceed with the BFS design. It will be explained in later sections
how the survey data for the 21 km made available was applied to the rest of the route as input to the
PFS estimates.
We recommend this drainage design approach, but if Reunion Manganese requires a detailed run-
off model and a re-visited drainage design, lidar surveys will need to be conducted for at least a 5 km

REUNION MANGANESE
band on each side of the right-of-way and 1:50 000 maps wider than this band to assess the
hydrology of the area.
5.1.2 Assumptions
The following is a summary of relevant assumptions used in our analysis for the land transport
options:
The steepest gradient on the rail right-of-way was assumed to be 1:100. Available survey data
revealed steepest gradient against loaded is 1:65 (1.53%) and steepest downhill is 1:48 (-
2.07%)
An interim Bridge Report was delivered to Reunion Manganese (attached to the Pre-Feasibility
Report) to confirm that whatever the final decision would be regarding the preferred option, the
cost of the bridge required to support the option would not have a material influence on the
decision
A re-assessment of rail operations confirmed a 20 tonne axle load rail system can be installed
to bring down capital cost
As recommended by Michael Venn (WorleyParsons Melbourne engineer with extensive

experience with road trains), we included 160 tonne gross weight rigs with 4 trailers in the
operational consideration for the haul road option
Analysis of the modelled survey data provided showed that the average cut and fill varies 75%
and 68% per km respectively. This implies that every next km can require 75% more or less
material to be removed from cuttings than the previous km or 68% more or less fill material for
bulk earthworks. This is a substantial deviation. As a conservative realistic approach the
average cut and fill per km was increased only (only more not less). The average of the 21 km
surveyed was increased with 75% of the variance and applied over the 29 km length of the
route where no survey data is available yet to determine the different bulk earthworks volume
categories for the estimate
We assume the remaining survey data will reveal less required bulk earthworks for the road
option to be done and by optimising the vertical and horizontal design Land Transport Options
The WorleyParsons team carried forward two land transportation options during the scoping study for
further evaluation and the purpose of the pre-feasibility study:
Rail - narrow gauge
Heavy Haul Road

REUNION MANGANESE
5.2 Land Option 1: Rail Narrow Gauge

The team considered the rail operations between Mathews Ridge and Port Kaituma. The previous
operation, before the mine was abandoned, involved rail transport from the mine to Port Kaituma. The
WorleyParsons team inspected the condition of the rail line, ballast and sleepers during a site visit in
October 2011 and concluded that the initial rail operation functioned for a few years on a relatively
light rail system supporting axle loads of probably 12 to 15 tonne per axle (TAL). It was further evident
that the supporting sub-structures (everything below the ballast) consisted of bulk earthworks with
only a thin layer of selected material in some places representing the layer works normally installed
in modern day narrow gauge formations in several specified selected material layers to provide the
required stiffness for the supporting structures and to support rail operations over the longer term.
It is not clear what the export volumes of the abandoned mine were, what maintenance challenges
they faced or the number of derailments experienced over the relative short period of operations.
Based on our experience the assessment is that the system would have required a relatively high
maintenance input to assure safe train operations over a typical 20 year life span irrespective of the
relatively low axle loads.
Based on topographical and geotechnical survey results, we revisited assumptions from our initial
scoping study and adjusted the following:
The survey data revealed the ruling grade for loaded trains is 1:65, which is steeper than the
initial assumption of 1:100. The survey data also revealed Radii of 200 m and 190 m which
represent sharper curves than previously assumed, hence the adjustment to 20 TAL and
subsequent choice of locomotive type and numbers
To adjust to the apparent vertical and horizontal design criteria and to optimize the capital
investment, a 20 ton axle load (TAL) system was considered for rail instead of the initial 30 TAL
proposed in the scoping study
Ballast was reduced from 1600 m/km to 1200m/km
Sleeper spacing was increased from 650 mm to 700 mm
Instead of using 60 kg/m UIC type rail, 48 kg/m can be used
The proposed layer work system was considered the same as for the scoping study due to
worse than expected news from the geotechnical report with old bulk earthworks for the
formation almost certainly to be saprolite with a high Plasticity Index (PI) which provides an
indication of the flexibility (associated with clay content) of material used for embankments and
layer works higher index numbers are associated with more flexibility, needing more
mitigating actions like lime or cement stabilization (to bring the PI down) to reach the required
stiffness or compaction for design bearing pressures
With the ruling grade at 1:65, 2 x 34D locomotives would be required to handle 25 loaded
wagons (gross weight 80 ton or on 20 TAL per wagon). This configuration is adequate to
handle 1 Mtpa manganese per annum at approximately 1.7 load cycles per day: 65 t payload x

REUNION MANGANESE
25 wagons = 1,625 t/train load. 1 Mtpa/1625 = 615.4 loads per year or 1.7 cycles per day for
(365 10) = 355 days. Therefore provision for 2 x 34 D locomotives and 27 wagons (2 spare)
in the capital provision for the initial 1 Mtpa operating phase; The same argument applies for 4
x 34 D locomotives and 54 wagons (4 spare) for the 2 Mtpa operating phase
The capital estimate for the narrow gauge option includes provision for two road-over-rail
bridges at $1.8 million each. The potential level crossing on the road between Mathews Ridge
and Kaituma is in a low spot on the road alignment and very dangerous. With the jungle
vegetation growing up to the road, line of sight will always be a problem and very unsafe for
road and train traffic. The same situation is expected closer to Kaituma, and the provision is
made there as well. This was mentioned in the scoping study but not included in the estimates
at the time as it will have a similar risk for the road option. It is therefore important to include
this and road/rail safety in general in the risk analysis to be conducted.
The estimate for the rail bridge over the Barima River was adjusted but is in line with the
numbers anticipated in the scoping study. Details are included in section Interim Bridge Report
which is included in Appendix 2.
The construction approach embraced for the scoping study is very much applicable if the rail
option would have been the recommended go-forward option.
Other factors worth noting are:
2 Mtpa is a relatively low volume for any bulk dedicated rail system and one would expect
volumes to support a rail system to be in excess of approximately 8 Mtpa and over route
lengths exceeding 250 km
50 km is a relatively short distance for rail operations to be more economical than road.
Breakeven distances for narrow gauge rail are generally in the order of 250 km and longer.
There are many factors influencing this comparison, but relatively high required capital
investment for rolling stock, materials handling equipment, the track and operational cost
relative to road over short distances are important contributing factors
5.2.1 Narrow Gauge Capital Cost
5.2.1.1 I N FR AS T R U C T U R E C A PI T AL C O S T S
The basis of the capital estimates for this study is a combination of local labour rates and current
South African unit material prices. These prices were adjusted to match regional prices on a current
job by WorleyParsons in Colombia. An additional 4% handling was added to allow for the difficulty of
getting imported material and equipment up the river to Kaituma for further difficult distribution to site.
The cost of the bridge works assumes removal of all existing bridge components, load testing and
geotechnical surveys and the construction of a new bridge.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 5-2 Infrastructure CAPEX Rail Option (30% Level of Accuracy)
RAIL
ITEM 1067 mm
P&G Earthworks, concrete, drainage $3,883,853

Setting out and site clearance $748,205
Earthworks $5,849,235
Restricted excavation for culverts / pipe work $0
Bridge Works $5,756,322
Drainage $0
Fencing $535,000
Structures $57,415
Plate laying P&G $1,621,803
Plate laying $5,406,011
Supply of permanent way materials $24,957,619
TOTAL INSTALLED COST INFRASTRUCTURE $48,815,464
Note: CAPEX for Infrastructure will be the same for 1 Mtpa or 2 Mtpa.
5.2.1.2 R O L LI N G S T O C K E Q U I PM E N T C A P I T AL C O S T S
The required investment in rolling stock is summarized in Table 5-2. This estimated investment
represents a significant reduction from the estimate provided in the scoping study. We based the
substantially reduced amount of required rolling stock equipment on simplified rail operations, 7 days
a week for 355 days per year. Only 2 and 4 spare wagons should be required per train set for 1 & 2
Mtpa respectively as there is enough time available between train runs to keep up with maintenance.
For the indicated fleet sizes in the table an average of 1.7 trips per day is required.
Table 5-3 Narrow Gauge Equipment CAPEX (30% Level of Accuracy)
Rail Rail
Item
1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
Wagons $3,600,000 $7,200,000
Locomotives $6,666,667 $13,333,333
Trucks
Trailers
Road/Rail Shunt Mobile $666,667 $666,667
CAPEX EQUIPMENT $10,933,333 $21,200,000

REUNION MANGANESE
Limiting operation to daylight work only will be possible and stock can be built up in Kaituma (if the
stock yard allows) to limit train operations to 6 days per week.
These optimizing adjustments were taken to a point where it was clear it could still offer a workable
solution and to have a fair basis on which to compare the optimized axle load and train sizes capital
and operational requirements until it was clear that the road option would be the more viable solution
to pursue.
5.2.1.3 R AI L O PEX
The approach to determine the operating costs was not changed from the approach taken for the
scoping study, only the fleet sizes and equipment capital costs were adjusted. Operating costs
summarized in the tables below will not all be evident in year 1, but represent total life-cycle costs
over the lifespan of the assets discounted to a present value per annum and reflected for year 1.
The operational cost assumptions for the rail operations are based on standards applicable to narrow
gauge operations, experience and industry data bases which are updated regularly. The basis for
these numbers is lifecycle cost and assuming a maintenance management approach with planned
and programmed maintenance actions for preventative maintenance actions over the life span of the
assets. Track maintenance is based on $0.01 per net tonne-km. Locomotive maintenance cost is
based on 8% of capital value per annum and wagons 5% per annum. Local labour rates are used and
fuel at $0.95/l as agreed.
Table 5-4 OPEX for Narrow Gauge Rail Option (30% Level of Accuracy)
Rail Rail
Item
1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
Crew 2 4
Wagons/Trailers 27 54
Trucks
Locomotives Class 34 D 2 4
Road/Rail Shunt Mobile 1 1
Operating Costs:
Drivers ($1500 &$1100 pm) $39,000 $78,000
Other Crew ($1000 pm) $26,000 $52,000
Fuel Cost ($0.95/l) $570,000 $527,778
Locomotive Maintenance $533,333 $1,066,667
Wagon Maintenance $180,000 $360,000
Truck/Trailer Maintenance
Rail Infrastructure Maintenance $304,000 $608,000
Road Infrastructure Maintenance
Maintenance on Materials Handling Equipment $772,000 $772,000
TOTAL OPERATING COST PER ANNUM $2,424,333 $3,464,444

REUNION MANGANESE
5.2.1.4 R AI L M AT E R I A L S H AN D L I N G AT P O R T K AI T U M A
No differentiation for capital cost is allowed between the 1 Mtpa scenario and the 2 Mtpa scenario,
based on the assumption that the 2 Mtpa is the final production level. On this basis, we persisted with
a storage building or stockyard with a capacity of 13,000 tonnes, (8 or 4 train loads of 1625 or 3250
tonnes), to accommodate a situation where barge loading was interrupted or no barges were
immediately available to load, or the line is closed due to weather conditions preventing planned train
movement.
We did not develop the train load-out requirements further than what was considered for the scoping
study. The scoping study narrative was slightly adjusted below to make provision for the train fleet
size optimization, and the implication on this optimization implies that load-out tempo now becomes
important for the train cycle time. For the scoping study we reported that the rolling stock fleet size
was not optimized and we even put in a swing set of wagons that could be loaded while the other set
was delivered to the port. The approach was to make sure that the rail operations would not be the
constraint in the system and also that one train load would provide a mobile buffer stock equivalent
to two barges (6000 t). This added a lot of capital to the concept solution.
For the PFS we addressed the fleet size and rail operations with the view to optimize the capital and
also to adjust to the new alignment constraints the survey data revealed. Transhipment facilities at the
port will be required irrespective of what land transport option is implemented. Buffer stock should be
kept at the port to rule out at least one risk in the supply chain where adverse weather conditions
might hamper supply between the mine and the port and in this way allow barge operations to
continue from buffer stock.
The rolling stock fleet size is therefore based on the fact that the transhipment tempo will support the
train cycle time to allow two train loads per day in daylight. Bottom discharge wagons and dump
facilities where multiple wagons can be discharged simultaneously is the recommended option versus
a tippler that can only dump 1 or 2 wagons at a time. Bottom discharge wagons also result in a lower
capital cost for materials handling equipment as noted in the Scoping Study.
For a rail solution we still assume ore will be trans-shipped from bottom dump railcars to a conveyor
receiving system directly to barges when possible, but would normally move by conveyor to storage
first before barge loading. We included a single front-end-loader to reclaim ore from storage should
the storage be utilized. The train unloading rate should be such that it supports the planned cycle time
of 2 trains per day. We assume the train unloading to storage rate could be approximately 2000
tonnes per hour (3000 tph is a design rate for the system), which means a 1625 tonnes train would
turn around in 2 to 3 hours. Barge loading rate from storage is assumed to be 1500 tph. The limiting
factor in the barge loading rate could be the time required to warp a barge. To load barges at a 1500
tph loading rate, the warping speed of the barge will need to be relatively high. Further, if covered
barges with hatches are deployed, it may not be possible to load consistently at a rate of 1500 tph.
The reconsidered capacity of the trains linked to the revealed ruling grade implies that a single
trainload is no longer synchronized with a single barge load. The present concept is barges would be
3500 tonnes deadweight and they will likely be moved down the river one at a time. For this study we

REUNION MANGANESE
assume the barges will be loaded from storage and only in rare occasions directly from the off-loading
bin for top-ups. We included warping systems to move the barges back and forth under a single point
shuttling (as shown on the sketches) telescopic shiploader during loading. With the higher barge
loading rate, a barge loader capable of loading a barge without barge movement is an option. This
would eliminate the need for barge warping systems.
The following are cost estimates for the materials handling aspects of the train transportation and
barge loading systems based on in-house costs for similar systems. The conveyor, storage and
barge loader costs are taken from a recent study for a concentrate ship loading system, and costs for
the train unloading facility are scaled down from a high capacity potash unloading system. The train
loading and railroad aspects of the system and the marine infrastructure and site preparation costs
are included elsewhere.
Table 5-5 CAPEX Cost of Materials Handling at Port Kaituma and Mine Side, Rail Option (30%
Level of Accuracy)
Rail Rail
Item
1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
Loading Facilities Mine Side:
Loader $10,000,000 $10,000,000
Stacking and Reclaiming $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Conveyors $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Total Materials Handling Mine Side $16,000,000 $16,000,000
Unloading Facilities Port Side:
Truck Dump & Feeder $10,000,000 $10,000,000
Storage and Reclaim $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Conveyors & Related Systems $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Barge Loader & Winches $5,500,000 $5,500,000
Total Materials Handling Port Side: $21,000,000 $21,000,000
Total CAPEX Materials Handling: $37,000,000 $37,000,000
5.2.1.5 R AI L C O N S T R U C T I O N
In an effort to minimize the cost of the Pre-Feasibility Study, WorleyParsons has not revised the rail
construction narrative from the section included in the scoping study report. We focused more
attention on the road construction considerations and schedule as it became apparent that was the
preferred option to carry forward. The rail construction narrative, however, will remain part of the pre-
feasibility report for reference purposes.
The rail installation will take approximately 14 months from the time construction commences and
rainy weather permitting. The rail construction can start from several access points to clear the
existing rails and sleepers. The rail bed can be cleared from debris and the overgrowth in cuttings and

REUNION MANGANESE
embankments cut to a controlled height without causing erosion risks. Once the formation is cleared
and drainage reinstated, the reshaping and compaction of the rail bed can start. This will allow access
to the bridge from the level crossing on the Kaituma road side for the bridge upgrade to commence. In
the meantime the layer works can start from several access points, always working from the points
furthers from the access and working back.
Once a section of formation works is completed, new rail can be transported into position on both
sides of the formation and butt-welded into longer strips (120 m lengths). The first piece of skeleton
track will be constructed (without ballast) to allow open wagons to bring in more sleepers. The tracks
on the ground on the edge of the formation are always allowed to overlap about 120 m (one welded
length) with the skeleton track on which the sleeper wagons are pushed in by a shunt mobile. A type
of straddle carrier is used to pick up 6 to 10 sleepers from the wagons, while using the rails on the
ground as support to run the sleepers out for placement in the correct position. The slings are at 700
mm spacing, allowing the placing of the sleepers to be close to the correct position and spacing.
Once the sleeper wagons are cleared the rails are put in position and fixed to the sleepers.
In this manner the whole skeleton track is constructed. Ballast is spread in sections completed by
bottom discharge wagons also running slowly on the skeleton track. After each layer of ballast is
placed like this, the ballast tamping machines lift the track to the first level. The process is repeated
until the final ballast volume and rail levels are reached, leaving run-in sections onto un-ballasted
track.
Once ballasting is completed the rails are de-stressed and continuous-welded. Ballast consolidation
machines are used with the tampers to establish the final level, after which the tracks are cut as
prescribed, de-stressed and re-welded. Loaded trains at a speed restriction of 20 km/h can also be
run for consolidating the ballast (100 000 tonne). The track is then ready for commissioning as the
bridge should be ready and the track connected over the bridge by this time as well.
5.2.1.6 R AI L O PT I O N C O N C L U S I O N
The team put in an effort to optimize the rail option once it became clear, from the survey data and
updated information on Road Trains, that the road option will offer a more viable option than initially
anticipated. Irrespective of these efforts, it became clear that the rail option was not as feasible as the
road option. Based on capital cost and operational cost comparisons, including costs associated with
rolling stock and materials handling, WorleyParsons recommends eliminating the narrow gauge rail
option and developing the heavy haul road option for BFS purposes.
5.3 Land Option 2: Road

In our analysis, we allow for a two lane road that permits bi-directional traffic over the length of the
route. The alternative concept, to provide two lanes for bi-directional traffic at selected intervals only,
would require a complex control system with traffic lights. The road option developed for the Pre-
Feasibility Study can be seen as a conservative approach to ensure the trade-off considerations are
robust. We do however see an opportunity for optimisation of the road option during the BFS scope of

REUNION MANGANESE
work. A traffic light system might not be a cost effective solution but a manual Stop/Go option as
used for normal traffic control supported by a reliable trunk radio system could be a workable solution
if a number of passing zones are designed. An alternative or supporting option could be integration
with manned security of the road preventing access by traffic other than mine traffic. This could be a
cost effective option and could create job opportunities for local residents. We should include these
optimisation actions in the BFS scope.
Assuming daylight road transport operations with trucks carrying 140 tonnes payloads, the expected
volume is 45 truckloads per day for the 2 Mtpa scenario. Spread over 12 hours of daylight, this implies
a rate of one truck per direction every 12 to 14 minutes. This also is an indication that rapid loading
capacity at the mine and rapid un-loading facilities at Kaituma would be required to support the road
train cycle.
Road Option Bulk Earthworks
The volumes assumed for bulk earthworks during the Scoping Study allowed for a substantial amount
of earth to be moved by excavation after blasting. This is an expensive activity in the bill of quantities
and estimate. Golder addressed this concern in their geotechnical report and telephone conference
meetings prior to their report. The recommendation is that almost all cutting work required would be
by bulldozer or mechanical excavators.
The survey data made available had been analysed and extrapolated as illustrated in the table below:

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 5-6 Road Bulk Earth Works
MODEL OUTPUT: BULK EARTHWORKS

SECTION 1: km 0.0 to km 9.0
Chainage Soft Cut m Hard Cut m All Cut m Fill m Acc.Diff m
1000 7,133 7,133 4,443 2,690
2000 3,280 3,280 9,088 (3,118)
3000 6,489 6,489 8,119 (4,749)
4000 1,374 1,374 15,237 (18,612)
5000 1,603 1,603 6,750 (23,760)
6000 4,028 4,028 19,096 (38,828)
7000 24,074 24,074 2,206 (16,960)
8000 8,430 8,430 53 (8,583)
9000 1,743 1,743 8,189 (15,982)
SECTION 2: km 15.0 to km 27.0 (15,982)
16000 14,424 14,424 5,056 9,368
17000 20,740 20,740 11,136 18,971
18000 11,995 11,995 7,344 23,621
19000 15,427 15,427 16,060 22,989
20000 16,783 16,783 10,098 29,674
21000 15,558 15,558 15,595 29,637
22000 16,587 16,587 16,717 29,507
23000 19,411 19,411 12,397 36,520
24000 18,174 18,174 4,664 50,030
25000 25,803 25,803 1,517 74,316
26000 252 252 27,925 46,643
27000 102 102 23,769 22,976
Total 233,409 233,409 225,461 22,976
Average/km 11,115 10,736
Std Dev/km 8,294 7,316
% 75% 68%
Worst Case/50 km 970,413 902,623
Realistic Case/30 km+ 502,711 470,479
Include hard cut 50km 1380 736,121 695,940 38,801
Provision Cut to spoil 38,801
Significant assumptions on volume of bulk earthworks (from the table):

The soft cut and hard cut columns add up to the all cut, no hard cut picked up hence soft
cut = all cut.
Total cut for the 21 km = 233 409 and total fill required = 225 461m as contained in line Total
The average volume to be cut (excavated) for the 21 km section surveyed, to install the
anticipated heavy haul road profile, is 11,114.7 m/km and the average volume to be back -
filled in is 10,736.2 m/km.

REUNION MANGANESE
The variance per km is 75% and 68% respectively for cut and fill. These variances are quite
significant and our approach was to conservatively increase the average volume per km with
75% of the variance to the plus side for the remaining 29 km not surveyed. This implied that
an additional 502,711 m and 470,479 m are added for cut and fill respectively and
representing the bulk earthworks volume for the remaining 29 km. The line Realistic
case/30km+ in the table represents these numbers This is a conservative approach and will
only be proven right or wrong once all the survey data can be accumulated and modeled.
The Worst Case/50 km line can be ignored only an indication what the volumes would have
been if the adjusted averages were applied over the total length of the route.
The line Include Hard cut contains the totals for bulk earthworks with the adjusted totals for
the 29 un-surveyed km in line Realistic Case/30km+, added to the Total line volumes. For the
bill of quantities (BOQ) a minimal volume of 1 380 m was allowed for provisional hard
excavation that might require blasting.
The access material from cut required relative to fill required i.e. 38 801 m is used in the BOQ
to be cut to spoil, to allow for the surface material to be removed in cuttings in order to get to
the less decomposed and material with potentially lower PI.
These items are all addressed in the attached schedule of quantities and the estimate.
5.3.1 Road Infrast ruct ure Capital Costs

The summary of the infrastructure capital requirement is presented in the table below. This estimate
excludes the additional link to the port and the road loop for loading purposes at the mine to keep it
applicable for comparative purposes with the same section of 50 km of the route considered for the
rail option. Conceptual layouts for the port link and mine link were considered and included as
separate capital items in this report.
The estimate includes a provision for two road-over-haul-road bridge at the crossing with the Mathews
Ridge Kaituma main road.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 5-7 CAPEX Infrastructure Costs - Road Option (30% Level of Accuracy)
Haul Road Haul Road

ITEM 1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
P&G Earthworks, concrete, drainage $4,596,118 $4,596,118

Setting out and site clearance $1,563,725 $1,563,725
Earthworks $31,208,270 $31,208,270
Restricted excavation for culverts / pipe work $0 $0
Bridge Works $8,081,017 $8,081,017
Drainage $4,467,904 $4,467,904
Fencing $535,000 $535,000
Structures $105,261 $105,261
Plate laying P&G
Plate laying
Supply of permanent way materials
TOTAL INSTALLED COST INFRASTRUCTURE $50,557,295 $50,557,295
Note: CAPEX for Infrastructure will stay the same for 1 Mtpa or 2 Mtpa and irrespective of what size
road trains are eventually utilized.
5.3.2 Road Equipment C apital Costs

We optimized the road system using 140 tonne payload rigs. We also considered 2 trailer 50 tonnes
payload rigs and 3 trailer 105 tonnes payload rigs. With input from WorleyParsons road train experts
in Melbourne and based on the vertical and horizontal alignment of a haul road using the abandoned
rail right-of-way, 4 trailer rig setups appear to provide the best solution. This should be validated
during the BFS when multiple road haul vehicle size and configuration options should be studied.
The rig would typically consist of the truck tractor and 4 trailers with hydraulically operated side tipping
capacity. We understand the Australian Road Train business and believe the more efficient operating
options it provides can easily be implemented on a dedicated haul road between the mine and the
port.
To convey 1 Mtpa, approximately 20 x One Hundred and Forty-tonne loads must be delivered daily in
a 355 day operating year. Assuming a truck can move 4 loads per day in a 12 hour shift, using 2
drivers just more than 5 trucks (20 trailers) are required. Our cost assumptions are for 6 Road Train
Rigs (24 trailers) for 1 Mtpa and 10 Rigs (40 trailers) for 2Mtpa. We used in our design assumptions
11 rigs and 44 trailers. We assume 12 and 22 drivers for these two cases respectively to offer some
redundancy for each scenario.
To support 4 trips per day the cycle time needs to be at most 3 hours per rig. The road trains can
maintain 55 km/h cruising when loaded and 75 km/h when empty. We are assuming a three hour
cycle time for each rig, based on conservative vehicle speed of 40 kph for loaded trucks and 45 kph

REUNION MANGANESE
for empty trucks. The assumed loading and unloading time is estimated at 10 minutes on each end,
which provides an additional 20 minute buffer per cycle.
The rail formation design criteria the road will follow utilizes the existing rail right-of-way which will
allow for more gradual curves and gradual gradient than would be followed if the right-of-way were
built for road.
The port load-out facilities and the mine loading facilities will be discussed in the appropriate sections
below.
Figure 5-1 The type of tractor/trailer combination considered for road trains trailers with
side tippling capacity

REUNION MANGANESE
The estimated equipment capital cost for the road transport option:
Table 5-8 CAPEX Equipment Costs for Road Option (30% Level of Accuracy)
Haul Road Haul Road

Item
1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
Crew 5 10
Wagons/Trailers 24 44
Trucks (1 spare) 6 11
Locomotives Class 34 D
Road/Rail Shunt Mobile
Haul Road Haul Road

Item
1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
Wagons
Locomotives
Trucks $1,530,000 $2,805,000
Trailers $1,680,000 $3,080,000
Road/Rail Shunt Mobile
CAPEX EQUIPMENT $3,210,000 $5,885,000
5.3.3 Road OPEX

The operational assumptions are discussed under Equipment Capital Costs above.
The operating costs summarized in the table below will not all be evident in year 1, but represent total
life-cycle costs over the lifespan of the assets discounted to a present value per annum for the first
year.
The lifespan of the road vehicles is much shorter than for rail rolling stock. Annual operating costs will
start at the 1 Mtpa capacity and step up as capacity for 2 Mtpa is installed.
At this stage, the maintenance cost for the road operations is based on 12% of new value per annum
for the trucks and trailers. Road maintenance is $0.01 per net tonne-kilometer and equipment
maintenance is 2% of installed value per annum. Local labour rates are used and the fuel price at
$0.95/l as agreed.
The operations are designed around a 12 hour day with two drivers per rig in order to support shift
working and one labour unit per rig for other supportive tasks.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 5-9 OPEX for Road Option (30% Level of Accuracy)
Haul Road Haul Road

Item 1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
Operating Costs:
Drivers ($1100 pm)(2 drivers - 2 shifts) $171,600 $314,600
Other Labour ($650 pm) $50,700 $92,950
Fuel Cost ($0.95/l) $570,000 $527,778
Truck/Trailer Maintenance $385,200 $706,200
Road Infrastructure Maintenance $422,400 $844,800
Maintenance on Materials Handling Equipment $384,000 $384,000
TOTAL OPERATING COST PER ANNUM $1,983,900 $2,870,328
5.3.4 Road Materi als Ha ndling at Port K aituma

No differentiation for capital cost is allowed between the 1 Mtpa scenario and the 2 Mtpa scenario,
based on the assumption that the 2 Mtpa is the final production level. With the Road Train concept
there will be a substantial difference in the facilities required for the road versus rail operations at the
port side as far as the transhipment from truck to storage- or direct loading is concerned. A simple
concrete bin can be provided with sloped sides, long enough (70 m) to accommodate the road train in
such a way that the 4 trailers can be simultaneously side tipped from an elevated platform alongside
the bin. The bottom of the bin can be equipped with collecting conveyors to a central collecting point
on to the main feed conveyor facilitating transhipment to storage or for direct loading.
Road Trains will call at the bin approximately every 12 minutes over a 12 hour shift for the 2 Mtpa
scenario. This implies that 5 loads of 140 tonnes will arrive per hour or 700 t/h and also indicates the
minimum design requirement for the transhipment rate of the conveyor system from bin to storage.
We would recommend at least a 1000 ton/hour clearing capacity for times when road trains are
bunching or when catch-up or buffer stock build up is required.
We assumed that trucks will be fuelled and serviced at the mine, and that drivers will be domiciled at
the mine.
The truck dump cost includes a truck receiving facility that could receive simultaneous side-
discharging trailers in tandem into a dump with feeding conveyors to a central collecting point. We
assume a combination of sub-grade receiving bins and elevated embankments.
The following are costs estimates for the materials handling aspects at the truck receiving and barge
loading systems.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 5-10 CAPEX Cost of Materials Handling at Port Kaituma, Road Option (30% Level of
Accuracy)
Haul Road Haul Road
Item 1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
Truck Dump & Feeder $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Storage and Reclaim $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Conveyors & Related Systems $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Barge Loader & Winches $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Total Materials Handling Port Side: $10,000,000 $10,000,000
5.3.5 Road Materi als Handling at Mathew s Ridge

A rapid load-out system is recommended for the mine side. The investment in rapid load-out facilities
would enable Reunion Manganese to optimize the road train fleet size. We are proposing the
installation of elevated bins with hydraulically controlled bottom discharge traps opening from the
middle.
It is proposed to have 2 sets of 4 bins each, placed in a convenient loading site at Mathews Ridge
where the loading site can accommodate two road rail rigs simultaneously. The figure below
demonstrates a load out facility for a train configuration, but the loading bins can be spaced and
elevated to be number fit to the road rig trailers and adapted to the system eventually procured.
This is a patented system but very competitively priced and the company is ready to set-up at any
place in the world. The bins can be loaded by mobile loaders, side loaders, conveyor systems or
chute. It discharges by the press of a button once the trailers are in position and dust mitigation can
be integrated with high pressure water jets engaging only when required during rapid discharge.
Very accurate load sells can be provided for accurate weighing of the product and the weighing
system can be computerized for record purposes and serve as weighbridge for the products shipped.
Figure 5-2 Simultaneous Releasing Load Bins

REUNION MANGANESE
The capital budget for materials handling equipment at Mathews Ridge in the table below allows for 8
bins and conveyor loading. No provision was made for mobile loaders in this section.
Table 5-11 CAPEX Cost of Materials Handling at Mathews Ridge, Road Option (30% Level of
Accuracy)
Haul Road Haul Road

Item
1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
Loader $1,600,000 $1,600,000
Stacking and Reclaiming $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Conveyors $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Total Materials Handling Mine Side $7,600,000 $7,600,000
5.3.6 Pavement Design

The pavement design approach was based on the following design philosophies:
To optimize the use of in-situ material
To provide an appropriate pavement structure for a 20-year design period
To ensure the proposed rehabilitation design of the pavement structure is economical and cost
effective, also in terms of maintenance operations.
5.3.6.1 D ES I G N T R AF F I C
The recommended vehicles for this project are road trains with four (4) carriages and twenty-two (22)
axles. These road trains are currently in use in Australia at the Mount Gibson Mining site. The gross
weight of the trucks is 160 tonnes when hauling iron ore. Thus the design traffic is based on the
assumption that the weight of the trucks when full of manganese ore is 160 tonnes. It is further
assumed that the dead load is 20 tonnes and thus the pay load is 140 tonnes. The loaded trucks will
travel in the outgoing carriageway of the mine. The trucks returning to the mine will be empty and
therefore the incoming carriageway of the mine is not the critical lane in terms of load-bearing
pavement strength. The pavement was designed based on the traffic in the outgoing carriageway.
However, the same pavement structure for both carriageways was designed because when the
incoming carriageway is not busy, the loaded trucks in the outgoing carriageway may drive in the
centre or in the incoming carriageway.
The design traffic (E80) for the design period was calculated as follows:
The target production rate of the mine is 2 million tonnes per annum. Therefore the number of loaded
trucks per annum is:

REUNION MANGANESE
The tonnes per axle was calculated as follows:
Thus the equivalent 80 kN axle load (E80) is (Draft TRH 16: Traffic loading for pavement and
rehabilitation design, 1991):
* Note: the load equivalency exponent is usually taken as 4
Thus the number of E80s per truck is:
Therefore the design traffic is:
5.3.6.2 P A V E M E N T T Y PE S C O N S I D E R ED
The following pavement types were considered during the design process:
High quality crushed stone base (G1)
Analysis of crushed stone base pavements suggests that these types of pavements can attain the
desired design bearing capacity of 4.4 x 106 E80s.
The advantage of a granular pavement structure (G1) is cost and proven strength, provided it is
constructed according to specification and maintenance actions are performed timeously.
However, slightly weathered crushed stone material could undermine compaction to standard density
specifications. Although more expensive, emulsion treatment of substandard crushed stone materials
could be considered. For the purpose of this report, analyses were based on virgin crushed stone of
G1 quality.
Another disadvantage of a crushed stone base is that premature pavement failures may occur should
water ingress into the layer be permitted (loss of shear strength resulting in deformation and
potholes). Careful attention will have to be given to material quality control. As the project is in a wet
region, and due to the high maintenance of granular bases, a granular base is not considered
feasible. The lack of availability of good quality crushed rock seems to offer a challenge for the area.
Cement treated base (C3)

REUNION MANGANESE
Although cement treated base pavements may be an economical option based on initial cost
considerations, they are prone to cracking, which may result in high maintenance cost. In addition, it
is expected that crushing failure will occur with the high tyre pressures, with a resulting increase in
road roughness. This option is therefore not recommended.
Concrete pavement (Conventional)
Conventional jointed (PJCP) or continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) can be

considered as an option for the road pavement. However, because of the high initial cost of a
concrete pavement, it only becomes economically viable at high traffic loads, typically in excess of
40 x 106 E80s per lane over the structural design period.
Sometimes practical considerations can also influence the type of pavement constructed over and
above economic considerations, for example a concrete pavement will be considered on road
sections where slow moving heavy vehicles are present on steep inclines in hot climatic conditions.
Considering that anticipated traffic loading for this project on the pavement over the structural analysis
period, the construction of a concrete pavement is not recommended.
Asphalt Base
Asphalt base pavement structure was also considered. This pavement type performs well on heavy
trafficked roads, provided that it is well supported. Careful attention should be given to the design
and construction of the asphalt base layer to avoid the possibility of premature rutting or fatigue in the
layer.
The main advantage of an asphalt base pavement structure is that in theory, faster construction times
can be achieved and it is also less sensitive to the water ingress and limited maintenance is normally
required.
Disadvantages of an asphalt base pavement structure include sensitivity to high temperatures,

availability of construction materials and cost. High temperatures combined with high tyre pressures
may cause softening of the layer and premature rutting.
The way these disadvantages are mitigated is to provide stiff support to the Asphalt base and using
stiff modified binders as allowed for in the design. These methods are followed regularly for the Kwa
Zulu Natal midlands in South Africa with subtropical rainfall and temperatures regularly over 40 C.
From a structural design point of view, this is considered to be the most attractive option, therefore an
asphalt base is recommended.
5.3.6.3 D ES I G N M ET H O D O L O G Y
The baseline asphalt base pavement structure is presented / published in Draft TRH4: Structural
Design of Flexible Pavements for Inter Urban and Rural Roads (1996). This method takes into
account inter alia the following
Pavement structural balance
Structural protection of the subgrade (specified minimum subgrade cover)

REUNION MANGANESE
Design traffic (20kN wheel load and tyre pressure of 520kPa)
The pavement design for the rehabilitation of the project route based on the Draft TRH4: Structural
design of flexible pavements for interurban and rural roads (1996) pavement design catalogue for and
ES10 (3-10 x 106 E80s) asphalt base structure is detailed below.
The design below was checked using Rubicon Toolbox software. Rubicon uses a mechanist-empirical
design method (South African Mechanistic Pavement Design Procedure (SAMDP) based on the linear
elastic theory with incorporation of extensive experience over many years, which was gained through
accelerated pavement testing with the Heavy Vehicle simulator (HVS). The mechanistic-empirical
design method evaluates the potential for failure in each of the pavement layers and ultimately the
structural capacity of the total pavement structure.
Figure 5-3 Recommended Pavement Design Structure Haul Road
Published values of the elastic moduli of the pavement layers for this design method are summarised
in the table below.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 5-12: Elatic moduli used in Rubiico
Pavement layer Material Stiffness (MPa) Poissons ratio

Surfacing 40 AC 3000 0.40
Base 2300 0.44
90mm Asphalt
Sub base 300mm C3/EG6 1500/140

0.35
Selected layer 150 G7 120 0.35

Subgrade / In-situ Semi-infinite subgrade 100 0.35
A standard 80kN-axle with dual wheel configuration was used in the calculations. The significant
damaging effect of high tyre pressures should be considered therefore a mechanistic analysis was
performed for a tyre pressure of 750 kPa.
The structural capacity of the pavement is 5.6 x 106 E80s. Thus the pavement will be able to carry
the design traffic loading of 4.4 x 106 E80s over the 20-year design period. Results of the mechanistic
analyses are given on the following page.

REUNION MANGANESE

REUNION MANGANESE

REUNION MANGANESE
5.3.7 Road: Draina ge D es ign

We commented on the drainage design under Paragraph 6.2 Methodology.
As described, our approach would be to extend the existing drainage structures with the same
dimensions as the current structures as it seems to have proved over the years that the drainage
design was adequately provided for as no storm/flood damage is reported from the surveyors or the
geotechnical field personnel.
To progress the drainage design during the BFS study phase the following accurate data will be
required:
X;Y;Z coordinates of the invert levels of the centre line of each and every drainage structure on
both inlet and outlet ends of the structure
Dimensions and type of structure
Description of protection on the inlet and outlet ends like stone pitching or wing walls etc.
A few survey shots (x;y;z- coordinates) of the upstream and downstream low points of the
valley where applicable and where possible
We made a provision of $4.5 Million in the capital budget for the haul road for drainage. This
represents 9% of the total estimate. Drainage costs are normally in the region of 15% of installed cost
for major roads. This approach was followed as all the structures will be extended where proper and
watertight connections are always an issue, but it is at least only for about half of the normal structure
length with the other half already in place after 40 years.
This number needs to be revisited during the BFS with the required information requested above at
hand. The accuracy of this number is not better than 50%. It is however clear that this number will
not have a material effect on the option choice or to swing the decision back to the rail option.
5.3.7.1 R O AD : B R I D G E D ES I G N
The Interim Bridge Report delivered to Reunion Mining is attached to this report and should be used
as background and referenced to the road bridge allowed for in the haul road capital estimate. This
report described at length the challenges to integrate the existing steel members of the steel bridge
that were all designed for lighter axle loading. It also addressed the perceptions that the existing
bridge is an asset and should not be wasted.
The work to rehabilitate whatever member might be useable in any new bridge outweighs the cost to
simply build a new bridge. Getting the right skills to site for refurbishment work and strengthening
work on steel bridge members will be more costly than to build a new bridge. The other important
outcome of this report was that the cost difference between the bridge options was not substantial
enough to influence the potential decision on the transport option choices.
Two reinforced concrete bridge deck options were considered for the road over the Barima River:

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 5-4 Box Girder Deck with in-situ pre-stressed sections
Figure 5-5 Reinforced Concrete deck with Pre-Stressed I-20 Precast Beams
The box girder deck is more complex to build on site but offers ease of placement once the bridge
columns and bearing plates are in place, subject to the availability and accessibility of a bigger crane
than would be required to place the I-Beams. The construction cost will eventually be very much the
same. A constructability review during the BFS stage is required including early contractor
involvement in these reviews. This approach can then explore the availability of stone and sand for 40
MPa concrete and detailed logistics costs for cement, steel and a batching plant.
The estimate to provide the Road Bridge = $4.5 Million.
To optimize the design during the BFS the following information would be required:
A detailed topographical survey of the bridge area, river bed and 200 m beyond the approach
slabs.
Detail geotechnical investigations including drilling to determine whether spread foundations

would suffice or whether a pile structure needs to be considered.
Detail geotechnical investigation for the availability of concrete sand and stone.
An additional provision of 2 x $1.8 Million was included in the estimate to provide 2 road-over-haul-
road-bridges where the haul road will cross the main road between Mathews Ridge and Kaituma.

REUNION MANGANESE
5.3.7.2 R O AD L I N K T O T H E N E W B E R T H P O S I T I O N
Survey data for the Kaituma area is not available yet. We included a very high level conceptual layout
on photos taken from the air during the site visit in October 2011.
Figure 5-6 Potential Take-off for Haul Road from old Right of Way
Figure 5-7 Potential Truck-Dump Area for Haul Road Opposite old Turning Bay
It is estimated that this additional end of road detail will add another 2 km to the route length for the
Haul Road option. No altitude data is available but it is assumed that it would be a challenge, by
comparison, to fit a rail link to Kaituma Port, transhipment area and a rail yard. The additional track

REUNION MANGANESE
length for a yard and run-around loop would have added at least another 4 km track, and might not
even be possible, pending survey detail, if a suitable downgrade cannot be installed.
It is not known to the land option study team where the new birth will be located but for integration
purposes with the road operations, the best place would be opposite the old turning bay (between the
yellow loop and this bay on the photo). Additional cost estimated at $16 Million and $4 Million for Rail
and Road respectively.
5.3.7.3 R O AD : L I N K T O L O AD I N G F AC I L I T I ES AT M A T H E W S R I D G E
The position of the preferred loading site at the mine had not been confirmed by Reunion Mining. We
assumed that the area close to where the train wagons used to be loaded in the 60s will be a suitable
location to consider. The team explored this option and included a conceptual layout on drawing
below.
Figure 5-8 Conceptual Layout for Haul Road Mine Side

REUNION MANGANESE
The mine layout will add approximately another 800m to the route length for the road option, but the
rail option would have been in access of 3 km to provide a rail yard and access to the workshop.
Additional cost estimated at $8Million and $1.6 Million for Rail and Road respectively.
The Coreshed would probably be revamped to serve as workshop for the road rain rigs at CAPEX =
$1.6 Million.
5.3.7.4 R O AD C O N ST R U C T I O N
The construction process for the haul road is very similar to that for rail construction. Drainage
structures will be extended first after the first clearing of the forest while earthworks are proceeding.
The layer works will be completed from the far ends of access points. Once the layer works are
completed the sealing layers will start in sections of about 500 m at a time on one lane, to allow
movement of the trucks feeding the paving machine from the batching plant. Additional turning
spaces will need to be provided for trucks along the way.
The schedule for road construction can be fit into the required window to suit mine production and
business needs depending on the contracting strategy employed. Strong South American
Construction Companies should be involved. WorleyParsons can recommend at least 2 companies
that work in this type of environment with good track records. The road construction can start from
several access points to clear the existing rails and sleepers. The rail bed can be cleared from debris
and the overgrowth in cuttings and embankments and cut to a controlled height without causing
erosion risks.
Once the formation is cleared and drainage reinstated, the bulk earthworks and widening of the rail
bed for the wider haul road can start. This will allow access to the bridge from the level crossing on
the Kaituma road side for the bridge construction to commence.
As the final tests are concluded for compaction on the bulk earthworks, sections furthest away from
the access to the right of way points should be made available for the layer works to commence. By
this time borrow pits should have been cleared and access roads build in order for adequate material
to be imported for the pavement layers to be constructed.
Once a section of pavement works are completed to final level and final testing, asphalt paving can
start for the base course on sections, followed by the wearing course.
5.3.7.5 S O C I ET AL B E N EF I T O F R O AD
Based on potential societal benefit, the road option has advantages compared with rail and in fact all
other land transportation options which have been considered. After the 20 year expected life of the
mining operation at Matthews Ridge, the road could be donated to the federal government to be used
by the local community. The rail option could provide similar benefit as the rail line could be
converted to a passenger line or used for other commercial purposes after the life of the mining
operation at Matthews Ridge, but the road option would provide greater relative societal benefit in
this area of Guyana with few paved roads. These sorts of social considerations and other qualitative

REUNION MANGANESE
considerations are often critical to garnering necessary political support and to ensure an expedited
project delivery.
5.4 Comparison of Rail and Road Options

The total CAPEX and OPEX for the revised rail and road options are summarized in the table below
to demonstrate the initial capital and operating cost layout as well as the cost levels when the 2 Mtpa
capacity is installed. With the revised estimates, service designs and rail and road operational designs
it is quite obvious that the heavy haul road offers the best potential value to the project over the 20
year period considered.
Table 5-13 CAPEX and OPEX for Rail and Road Options (30% Level of Accuracy)


Earthworks $5,849,235 $5,849,235 $31,208,270 $31,208,270
Bridge Works $5,756,322 $5,756,322 $8,081,017 $8,081,017
Drainage $0 $0 $4,467,904 $4,467,904
Fencing $535,000 $535,000 $535,000 $535,000
Structures $57,415 $57,415 $105,261 $105,261
Plate laying P&G $1,621,803 $1,621,803
Plate laying $5,406,011 $5,406,011
TOTAL CAPEX $96,748,798 $107,015,464 $71,367,295 $74,042,295
ADDITIONAL CAPEX
Layout at Mine $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
Layout at Kaituma $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Workshop Facilities $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
TOTAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL $25,600,000 $25,600,000 $7,200,000 $7,200,000
5.5 Land Transport Option Conclusions

When project developers considered transport options for the original mine operations in the 1960s,
the decision was made to build a 50 km narrow gauge rail, and while it is impossible to determine
what criteria were considered to determine the best transport option for the initial operation, it is

REUNION MANGANESE
important to note that there have been significant innovations over the past 50 years in pavement
design and heavy haul truck technology. Pavement design that includes stiffening layers to
compensate for flexibility in bulk earthworks is a relatively new innovation, as is the use of road trains
for heavy haul road transport. Both of these innovations are tested and proven solutions employed in
high volume, tightly controlled corridors such as this.
Several critical assumptions used in the scoping study, which were based on the limited survey and
geotechnical data at the time, were clarified by the subsequent updated survey data. The two most
important assumptions relate to the ruling gradient on the track and the amount of blasting and
excavation required for the road option. Survey data revealed less favourable horizontal and vertical
design criteria which required review of revision of the rail option basis of design including a reduction
in the axle loading. Regarding excavation and blasting, we initially assumed relatively high volumes
of cutting and blasting. Based on the results of the Golder geotechnical report, however, it now
appears that little or no blasting is expected which significant reduces the capital cost assumptions to
construct a heavy haul road.
Once the survey data were modelled and the scoping study assumptions on bulk earthwork volumes
and hardness of cutting soils were further investigated, it became clear that the heavy haul road
option is preferable for the route, freight and volumes of manganese being transported for the
Reunion Manganese Matthews Ridge operation.
The conclusion of this study is that the heavy haul road option clearly offers more value to Reunion
Manganese compared with the narrow gauge rail option. The heavy haul road option provides more
flexibility, but also introduced certain risks related to road safety and illegal access to the potential
new road. The cost of security has not been assessed in this study, but the cost of security will not
impact the recommendation of this study. Further analysis of security costs and review of other
potential costs and risks of a haul road should be undertaken as part of a detailed BFS phase.

REUNION MANGANESE
6 M ARINE TRANSPORT OPTIONS
6.1 Marine Over view

WorleyParsons was retained by Reunion Manganese to investigate the feasibility of transporting one
to two million tons of manganese concentrate per year from the mine at Matthews Ridge, Guyana
(see Figure 7-1). The manganese concentrate will be transported to the mouth of Waini River by
barge, and will be further transported to a trans-shipment facility for exporting.
Figure 6-1 Locality Map
In the previous scoping study, we investigated several options and two trans-shipment options were
identified (refer to Figure 7-2) for further investigation in the pre-feasibility study:
Option 1: Trans-shipment at a leased terminal in Trinidad. This option involves ocean tugs
towing ore barges from Waini Point to a designated port in Trinidad.
Option 2: Trans-shipment over a floating transfer barge moored offshore of Waini Point. This
option includes a trans-shipment facility offshore of Waini Point at 13 m water depth.

REUNION MANGANESE
Both options require river tugs pushing ore barges from Port Kaituma to Waini Point, where ocean
tugs will replace the river tugs and tow the barges to either the offshore trans-shipment facility or a
port in Trinidad. This navigation study identifies critical issues related to river tug/barge navigation in
the Kaituma River.
Figure 6-2 Marine Trans-Shipment Route
6.2 Overview of Marine Pre-Feasibility Scope of Work

The primary goal of the Marine portion of the Pre-Feasibility Study was to advance one of the two
options forward to the Feasibility Study. As such, it was agreed that much of the marine study work
that was not critical to making that determination, was not undertaken during this phase but was
deferred to the subsequent Feasibility Study. Work that was deferred includes design for Port

REUNION MANGANESE
Kaituma, detailed vessel fleet configuration and ownership models, and traffic modeling. The scope
of work that was included in the Marine Studies portion of the Pre-Feasibility Study is divided into
several distinct sections:
River Navigation
Metocean Study
Dredging
Trans-Shipment at a Leased Terminal in Trinidad (Deferred)
Trans-Shipment at Offshore Facility near Waini Point
Environmental
Vessels
Tug Transfer Facility
6.3 River Navigation
6.3.1 Summa ry of Ri ve r Navigation Stud y

The River Navigation scope of work included the following:
Review of bathymetric data in Kaituma River
Assessment of dredging requirement and determination of dredging volume
Identification of critical issues related to river navigation and
Recommendations.
6.3.2 Assumptions
We made the following assumptions:
Bathymetric data provided by Guyana government reference to the correct vertical datum
(Chart Datum or CD) at Waini Point.
The design draft of the loaded barge is 3.5 m.
Navigation in the river is mainly for one pusher tug and one barge.

REUNION MANGANESE
6.3.3 Kaituma Riv er Exist ing Conditions
6.3.3.1 D AT A R E VI E W
The following two sources of water depth data in Kaituma River were provided to WorleyParsons prior
to this study:
Government Data: A reconnaissance survey from Port Kaituma to the mouth of Waini River
inclusive of the Waini Entrance, conducted in April 2012 and provided by Guyanas Maritime
Administration Department. The data consists of one profile of water depth data along the
centerline of Kaituma River. According to the letter report provided by the Maritime
Administration Department, the depth data was reduced to Chart Datum (CD).
OHS Data: A hydrographic survey conducted at Port Kaituma and for the 18 km section of the
canal from Port Kaituma in June 2012 by Olin Hydrographic Solutions Inc (OHS). The water
depth data for the upstream 18 km of the canal consists of water depths at three profiles lines:
two on the edges of the river and one along the centerline of the river. Tide gauges at Port
Kaituma and Waini Point offshore were installed and the water levels during the period of
survey were measured. The vertical datum used in OHS survey is the estimated low water
level which was estimated by OHS based on the water level measurement data during the time
of survey.
The locations and ranges of the above surveys are illustrated in Figure 6-3. In reviewing the above
data, we note the following findings:
The Government Data uses Chart Datum (CD) as the fixed vertical datum as stated by the
Maritime Administration Department. The waterway from Port Kaituma to Waini Point is
approximately 100 km. Water levels at Port Kaituma, although being 100 km away from the
coastline, are still influenced by tidal variations in the Atlantic Ocean. While tidal range at Waini
Point is approximately 1.2 m, tidal range measured by OHS at Port Kaituma was found to be
approximately 0.3 m to 0.4 m during the time of their survey. Therefore, using CD as the
vertical datum for the entire Kaituma River does not reflect the accurate water depths at
different locations along the waterway. For example, the Government Data shows that water
depth in the canal close to Port Kaituma is approximately 2.5 m (CD); in fact the water depth
was close to 4.0 m at the time of OHS survey. The discrepancy is clearly related to the datum
used to interpret the water depths. This discrepancy is more significant in the upstream portion
of the river that is further away from the coastline. It is therefore conceivable that depths
presented in the Government Data are understated when referencing to a reasonably defined
local low water level.
Regardless of datum issue, the Government Data show that the majority of the waterway from
Port Kaituma to Waini Point is deeper than 5.0 m. The mid portion of the river typically has
depths in the range of 10 m to 20 m. The locations with shallow depths are limited to Port
Kaituma and the canal in the vicinity of Port Kaituma.

REUNION MANGANESE
The OHS Data covers 18 km canal from Port Katuma and references to an estimated low water
level at the time of survey. The OHS Data shows that the upstream 6 km section of Kaituma
Canal has water depths in the range of 4.0 m to 5.0 m. The majority of the Port Kaituma basin
has water depths in the range of 4.0 m to 4.5 m.
Figure 6-3 Location Map of Survey Data

REUNION MANGANESE
6.3.3.2 V E R T I C A L D AT U M I S S U E
The design low water levels in coastal areas are typically well defined as the tide typically is the
governing factor and long term tidal measurements are generally available. This is not the case for
rivers, water levels of which are often influenced by additional factors such as rainfalls or drought.
These additional factors are often unpredictable.
The water level fluctuations during the period of June 15 to 25, 2012 at Port Kaituma, measured by
OHS, are illustrated in Figure 6-4.
Figure 6-4 Wave Level Changes at Port Kaituma during OHS Survey in June 2012
It is seen from Figure 6-4 water levels at Port Kaituma during the two-day period from June 17 to 19
were abnormally higher than water levels during other periods of measurement. This was likely
caused by the heavy rainfalls that occurred in mid-June 2012 at Port Kaituma.
A long term tide measurement at Port Kaituma will be required to establish the local design low water
level. We recommend installing tide gauges at Port Kaituma for a time period of 1 year to accurately
establish low water levels. This design low water level will dictate the dredging requirement in
Kaituma River. For this study, we used the estimated low water level determined by OHS.

REUNION MANGANESE
6.3.4 River and Canal Width

The total distance from Port Kaituma to Waini Point is approximately 100 km. The width of the
Kaituma Canal is estimated to be about 35 40 m wide. The majority of Kaituma River has width of
about 40 to 50 m. River width increases to about 100 m when Kaituma River enters the larger Barima
River, which is approximately 20 km to 30 km from Waini Point.
We estimate that 3,500 DWT barges require a width of 45 m for one-way navigation or a width of 75
m for two-way navigation. Given the existing conditions of Kaituma Canal and Kaituma River, one-
way navigation is recommended as the dredging of the entire canal and river to accommodate two-
way navigation will be cost-prohibitive.
It is possible to widen specific sections of the river to accommodate vessel crossings if such vessel
crossings are needed. However, it is WorleyParsons opinion at this stage that such dredging
requirement can be avoided by proper planning. An example scenario is to send multiple river tug
and barge pairs from Port Kaituma to Waini Point on one day and have a number of river tugs and/or
empty barge pairs return from Waini Point to Port Kaituma on another day. Detailed logistics
modeling is recommended in subsequent stages of this project to determine the best operating plan
for river operations.
6.3.5 River Dredging Re quire ments
6.3.5.1 R I V E R P U S H E R T U G A N D B AR G E D I M EN S I O N S
Table 6-1 presents the dimensions of the river pusher tugs and barges that have been identified in the
scoping study.
Table 6-1 River Tug and Barge Dimensions
Description River Pusher Tug Barge

Length 20 to 25 m 60 to 70 m
Beam 8m 23 m
Draft 2.5 m 3.0 to 3.5 m
6.3.5.2 D R E D G I N G D E PT H
The water depth required for safe navigation is typically governed by vessel draft and the required
underkeel clearance. The underkeel clearance consists of effect of freshwater, ship motion from
waves, squat underway, safety clearance, advance maintenance, and dredging tolerance (see
Figure 6-5). For the interior water way in Kaituma River, wave-induced ship motion is negligible.
Sources of sedimentation in Kaituma River are limited, therefore the advance maintenance dredging
can be kept minimal. Other typical values as recommended by Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM)
are adopted. The recommended values are presented in Table 6-2. The design water depth of 4.5 m
below the design low water level is recommended.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-2 Determination of Design Channel Depths

Description Values (m)
Design Vessel Draft 3.5
Effect of Fresh Water 0.15
Ship Motion from Waves 0.0
Squat Underway 0.3
Safety Clearance 0.3
Advance Maintenance 0.1
Dredging Tolerance 0.15
Design Water Depth 4.5
Figure 6-5 Determination of Design Channel Depth (from CEM).

REUNION MANGANESE
6.3.5.3 K AI T U M A C A N AL D R E D G I N G
According to the hydrographic survey results obtained by OHS, the only section of the waterway that
may not satisfy the channel depth requirement is the Port Kaituma basin and the first 6 km canal
section from Port Kaituma, where water depths are less than 4.5 m based on OHS estimated low
water level. Figure 6-6 illustrates the water depth contours at Port Kaituma developed by OHS.
Figure 6-6 Water Depths at Port Kaituma (OHS Survey in June 2012).
The uncertainties related to the design low water level at Port Kaituma make it difficult to estimate the
exact amount of dredging that is needed. It is possible that no dredging is needed at Port Kaituma or
in Kaituma Canal. In a worst-case scenario, a depth of 1 m dredging is assumed. Based on the 30m
wide canal, 6 km length, the total estimated dredging volume is 180,000 cubic meters in the worst
case scenario. This volume is subject to change when the design low water level is established.

REUNION MANGANESE
6.3.6 Summa ry a nd recommendations

This navigation study assessed critical engineering issues related to tug-barge transportation in the
waterway from Port Kaituma to Waini Point. Two sources of Kaituma River water depth data were
reviewed. We conclude:
The majority of Kaituma River is deep enough for pusher tug and barge transportation. The
shallow area is limited to Port Kaituma and the first 6 km of waterway from Port Kaituma.
Kaituma River is too narrow for two-way traffic. One-way traffic needs to be enforced.
Water levels at Port Kaituma are influenced by both tidal variations in the Atlantic and other
weather factors such as local rainfall and/or drought. The design low water level at Port
Kaituma is unknown at this stage. A long term water level measurement is required to
establish the design low water level.
Based on the estimated low water level by OHS, it is possible that no dredging is needed at Port
Kaituma or in Kaituma Canal. In a worst case scenario, a maximum dredging volume of 180,000
cubic meters may be required at Port Kaituma and the first 6 km canal from Port Kaituma. This
estimated dredging volume is subject to change once the design low water level at Port Kaituma is
established.
WorleyParsons recommends:
Install a tide gauge at Port Kaituma and obtain 1-year water level data, to be used to determine
the design low water level.
Obtain rectified aerial photos along the entire waterway from Port Kaituma to Waini Point. The
aerial photos will be used to determine the locations of the river banks, coastline, and other
land boundaries.
Prepare AutCAD basemap drawings for the next phase coastal/marine engineering work.
6.4 Metocean Study
6.4.1 Summary of Metoc ean Study

A metocean study was carried out to evaluate site specific wave climate for the two proposed trans-
shipment options that are being considered: trans-shipment at a leased terminal in Trinidad and a
floating trans-shipment facility at Waini Point offshore in Guyana. Offshore wind and wave statistics
were obtained based on the 7-year WaveWatch III hindcast data published by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Nearshore wave climate was determined through wave
propagation modeling. A four-point mooring concept was developed for the Waini Point offshore
trans-shipment option. Vessel motion Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) were assessed. The
results were compared with the allowable vessel motion criteria to estimate the downtime of operation
for each of the trans-shipment option considered.

REUNION MANGANESE
6.4.1.1 C O AS T A L C L I M AT E
The entire coastline from Waini Point, Guyana to Trinidad experiences predominant east-north-
easterly winds and east-north-easterly to north-easterly waves. Winds are typically stronger during
the winter time. Waves are typically higher during the winter time as well. Offshore waves decrease
moderately when propagating from offshore to the nearshore area. Wave angles become more north-
easterly at limited water depths due to wave refraction effects.
The Guyana current flows steadily along the coastline towards the northwest. The Guyana current is
stronger during the winter time. There is lack of information/data with respect to current speed at the
project site.
Tropical storms and hurricane impact are very rare at Waini Point, Guyana. Tropical storms and
hurricanes are infrequent in Trinidad, averaging once every 10 years.
6.4.1.2 T R AN S - S H I PM EN T AT A L E AS ED T ER M I N AL I N T R I N I D AD
The operation of trans-shipment at a leased terminal in Trinidad involves ocean tugboats towing ore
barges from the Waini Point to Trinidad. The navigation route is approximately 420 km. At 7 to 9
knots speed, the navigation time is expected to be 32 hours.
The tugboats will experience beam-on waves most of the time in route between Waini Point and
Trinidad. High waves with relative short wave periods during the winter time likely will cause
downtime due to excessive tugboat motions. We estimate that annual average downtime of operation
will be 1 percent to 5 percent, occurring mostly during the winter time. Typically, the wave-induced
downtime is expected to last 1 to 2 days.
6.4.1.3 T R AN S - S H I PM EN T O VE R A F LO AT I N G T R AN S FE R B AR G E M O O R E D
O FF S H O R E O F W AI N I P O I N T
The Waini Point offshore trans-shipment facility involves mooring of a 35,000 DWT ore carrier and
tying a crane barge and an ore barge on its lee side. A four-point mooring system is recommended to
moor the 35,000 DWT ore carrier in position at the Waini Point offshore mooring site. The ore carrier
will be aligned in a general East-West orientation, providing sheltering to the crane barge and the ore
barge in the lee.
The wave climate results at the mooring site and the vessel Response Amplitude Operator (RAO)
results indicate that the motions of the 35,000 DWT ore carrier remains below allowable values for
more than 99 percent of the time. The annual-average downtime of operation due to excessive
vessel motions is expected to be less than 1 percent. Most of the downtime is expected to occur
during the winter time.
6.4.1.4 R EC O M M E N D AT I O N S
Based on the results and findings of this metocean study, the Waini Point offshore trans-shipment
option is a feasible option. Other factors, however, must be considered aside from metocean

REUNION MANGANESE
conditions to confirm the feasibility of this option and to confirm the option is more cost-effective
compared to a leased terminal option in Trinidad. Factors such as downtime comparisons between
options, impact of fleet size/cycle times, storage requirements, capital costs and environmental risks
all need to be considered.
To verify the findings of this metocean study and to provide critical data and design parameters for
the next phase of study on the Waini Point offshore trans-shipment option, WorleyParsons
recommends the following:
Obtain site-specific wave and current measurement at the Waini Point offshore trans-shipment
mooring site. Determine the design current conditions and use the field data to verify the
findings of this metocean study.
Conduct a more detailed vessel motions study on the Waini Point offshore trans-shipment
facility during the next phase of the study. Evaluate relative vessel motions among the ore
carrier, the crane barge, and the ore barge. Determine the mooring loads and provide critical
design parameters for the mooring system. Optimize the mooring layout.
Refine operations and determine the requirements for ore barge storage and mooring.
Determine the requirement for crane barge stationing and mooring.
6.4.2 Scope of Work

The scope of work includes:
Data collection and review;
Offshore wind and wave statistical analysis;
Wave propagation numerical modeling;
Downtime of operation and risk assessment.
6.4.3 Ti de and Water Lev els

Tide levels at Waini Point, Guyana and Port of Spain, Trinidad, as published in Admiralty Tide Tables
(2012), are presented in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3 Tides
Location MHWS MHWN MLWN MLWS

Waini Point, Guyana 1.5 m 1.2 m 0.6 m 0.3 m
Port of Spain, Trinidad 1.1 m 1.0 m 0.5 m 0.3 m
Note the following abbreviations:
MHWS: Mean High Water Spring
MHWN: Mean High Water Neap

REUNION MANGANESE
MLWN: Mean Low Water Neap
MLWS: Mean Low Water Spring
6.4.4 Curre nts
6.4.4.1 T H E G U Y A N A C U R R EN T
Throughout the year, the Northeast Trade Wind drives the Guyana Current, off the South American
coast, towards the Lesser Antilles. The Guyana Current has been previously referred to as the South
Equatorial Current, the North Brazil Coastal Current, and the North Brazilian Current. According to
the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS,
www.oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu), the Guyana Current flows northwestward and enters the
Caribbean primarily between the Windward Islands and between Grenada and the South American
continent (Figure 6-7). The highest velocities in the Guyana Current occur along the edge of the
continental shelf. The maximum speed occurs in April-May, while the minimum occurs in September
due to the migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and the accompanying variation in
the Trade Winds. The observed speed varied between 0.2 and 4.2 knots, although the majority of the
observations were in the range between 0.8 to 2.4 knots.
Figure 6-7 The Guyana Current (from CIMAS)

REUNION MANGANESE
The Admiralty Sailing Directions (Vol. 4, 2010) indicates Guyana Current velocities along the Guyana
coastline vary from 1.5 knots to 1.75 knots.
6.4.4.2 T I D AL C U R R E N T
Tidal current offshore of Guyana coastline is insignificant compared to the Guyana Current. At the
mouth of Waini River, the tidal current may have some influence on the river flow. Specifically, river
flow may reverse at the river mouth during flood tide. During ebb tide, high river flows may also
interact with waves at the river mouth and cause the wave height to increase or decrease.
6.4.4.3 F I EL D M E AS U R E M E N T O F C U R R E N T
Field measurement of current conditions at Waini River mouth and offshore of Waini Point is being
collected at the time of this study. The field measurement program is expected to last 12 months. The
collected data will provide critical design current conditions for the project.
6.4.5 Tropical Storms and Hurrica nes

Tropical storms and hurricanes usually develop north of the equator in the tropical and subtropical
latitudes of the Atlantic Ocean. The hurricane season in the Caribbean typically extends from June to
late September. The tropical storm and hurricane paths range from due westward to a gradual
curvature northward.
Tropical storms and hurricanes have little impact on the Guyana coastline. According to the Coastal
Service Center (CSC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), only one tropical
storm passed within 120 km (65-nautical mile) radius from the Waini Point from 1851 to 2011 (see
Figure 6-8).

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-8 Tropical Storm and Hurricane Tracks Waini Point (from CSC)
Tropical storm and hurricane impact to Trinidad is limited. During the 160-year period from 1851 to
2011, a total of 15 tropical storms and hurricanes passed within 120 km (65-nautical mile) radius from
Port of Spain in Trinidad (see Figure 6-9). Among these storms, only one hurricane (Hurricane Flora,
1963) passed through north of Trinidad. This indicates that on average, Trinidad is impacted by a
tropical storm approximately once every ten years.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-9 Tropical Storm and Hurricane Tracks Trinidad (from CSC)
6.4.6 Wind and Waves
6.4.6.1 D AT A S O U R C E AN D G E N E R AL W AV E C L I M A T E
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) started publishing the second
generation wind and wave data in North Atlantic through its numerical hindcast model, WaveWatch III,
in 2005. The WaveWatch III model data are available at a number of grid points in the offshore of
Guyana and Venezuela. The data contains wind and wave climate information at three hour intervals
from February 2005 to January 2012 at grid spacing of 10-minute latitude by 10-minute longitude.
As the route from Waini Point to Trinidad covers over 400 km waterway, wind and wave data at a
number of grid points offshore of the route were processed and examined. The grid points were
selected at locations where water depth is larger than 50 m to ensure good quality data are obtained.
The coordinates of these grid points are listed in Table 6-4.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-4 Coordinates of WaveWatch III Grid Points
Grid Point Latitude Longitude
T1 8o30 N 59o W
T2 8o40 N 59o10 W
T3 8o50 N 59o30 W
T4 9o N 59o40 W
T5 9o10 N 60o W
T6 9o20 N 60o20 W
T7 9o30 N 60o30 W
T8 9o40 N 60o40 W
T9 9o50 N 60o50 W
T10 10o N 60o50 W
Figure 6-10 shows the locations of the ten grid points (T1 to T10) and the processed annual-average
wave roses at each grid point. For the project site at Waini Point, the most relevant grid point is T2,
located at 840N, 5910'W. This grid point is relatively close to Waini Point and offshore waves from
this grid point propagate and arrive at the Waini Point nearshore area. Figure 6-10shows that the
entire coastline experiences dominant east-north-easterly waves. From Waini Point offshore to
Trinidad offshore, waves from the northeast become less frequent while occurrences of waves from
the east direction increase moderately.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-10 Wave Roses at Ten WaveWatch III Grid Points
6.4.6.2 W I N D S T AT I ST I C S W AI N I P O I N T
The 7-year wind data from February 2005 to January 2012 at grid point T2 (840N, 5910'W) were
processed and the annual average offshore wind statistics were obtained. The statistical results by
varying wind speeds and wind directions are presented in Table 6-5. It is seen from Table 6-5 that
predominant winds are from the east and the east-northeast with combined 76.22 percent
occurrences. Winds from these directions are also the strongest. Wind speeds are mostly between 4
m/s to 10 m/s, with 91.68 percent total occurrences. Winds with speed higher than 10 m/s occur for
only 1 percent of the time.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-5 Annual Average Wind Statistics at Grid Point T2 (840N, 5910'W)
1-Hour Average Wind Speed V (m/s)
Direction Total %
0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8 - 10 10 - 12 >12
North 0.024 0.059 0.083 0.01 - - - 0.18

North-Northeast 0.029 0.166 0.342 0.269 0.093 - - 0.90
Northeast 0.049 0.631 1.844 2.524 1.257 0.098 - 6.40
East-Northeast 0.122 1.516 7.811 17.084 8.447 0.699 0.01 35.69
East 0.122 2.03 12.413 20.312 5.444 0.205 - 40.53
East-Southeast 0.078 1.296 4.891 5.517 1.179 0.01 - 12.97
Southeast 0.059 0.509 1.003 0.621 0.088 0.005 - 2.29
South-Southeast 0.049 0.147 0.205 0.039 0.005 - - 0.45
South 0.049 0.059 0.059 0.005 - - - 0.17
South-Southwest 0.039 0.064 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.12
Southwest 0.02 0.02 0.015 0.01 - - - 0.07
West-Southwest 0.015 0.034 0.029 0.02 - - - 0.10
West - 0.01 - 0.005 - - - 0.02
West-Northwest 0.01 0.01 0.005 - - - - 0.03
Northwest 0.015 0.01 0.01 - - - - 0.04
North-Northwest 0.01 0.049 0.02 - - - - 0.08
Total % 0.69 6.61 28.74 46.43 16.51 1.02 0.01 100.01
Exceeding % 100.0 99.3 92.7 64.0 17.5 1.0 0.0
Annual average and monthly wind roses based on the WaveWatch III data at grid point T2 were
developed as presented in Table 6-6. A wind rose is a colour bar plot with bar lengths representing
the percentage occurrences to scale, bar directions representing the wind directions and colours
representing wind speed intervals. The monthly wind roses indicate that winds are typically stronger
during the winter months from December to April, with strong winds typically blowing from the east-
northeast direction. Winds are milder during the months of May to November, mostly blowing from the
east direction. Detailed monthly wind statistical results are presented in Appendix 3.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-6 Annual Average and Monthly Wind Roses at Grid Point T2 (840N, 5910'W)
Annual Average
January February March
April May June
July August September
October November December

REUNION MANGANESE
6.4.6.3 O FF S H O R E W AV E S T A T I S T I C S W AI N I P O I N T
The 7-year WaveWatch III wave data at grid point T2 were processed and the statistics were
obtained. Annual average percentage occurrences by significant wave height (Hs) and wave
directions are presented in Table 6-7. The statistical results indicate the most dominant wave direction
is from the east-northeast at 61.9 percent of occurrences. The second most frequent wave direction is
from the northeast, at 18.23 percent of occurrences Occurrences from the north-northeast and the
east are 10.75 percent and 7.53 percent, respectively. Waves from all other directions combine to be
only 1.57 percent.
Table 6-7 Annual Average Wave Statistics at Grid Point T2 (840N, 5910'W)
Significant Wave Height Hs (m)*
Direction Total %
0.0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 >3.0
North - - 0.401 0.655 0.342 0.02 - 1.42

North-Northeast - 0.122 3.644 4.363 2.088 0.46 0.068 10.75
Northeast - 0.577 6.842 6.079 3.272 1.179 0.279 18.23
East-Northeast - 1.947 18.273 23.785 12.712 4.509 0.675 61.90
East - 0.474 2.152 3.551 1.213 0.142 - 7.53
East-Southeast - - 0.088 0.054 - - - 0.14
Southeast - - - - - - - 0.00
South-Southeast - - - - - - - 0.00
South - - - - - - - 0.00
South-Southwest - - - - - - - 0.00
Southwest - - - - - - - 0.00
West-Southwest - 0.005 - - - - - 0.01
West - - - - - - - 0.00
West-Northwest - - - - - - - 0.00
Northwest - - - - - - - 0.00
North-Northwest - - - - - - - 0.00
Total % 0.00 3.13 31.40 38.49 19.63 6.31 1.02 100.0
Exceeding % 100.0 100.0 96.8 65.4 27.0 7.3 1.0
*Significant wave height Hs is defined as the average of the highest 33 percent of the waves in a wave train.
Annual average and monthly wave roses were developed and the results are presented in Table 6-8.
A wave rose is a colour bar plot with bar lengths representing the percentage occurrences to scale,
bar directions representing the wave directions and colours representing wave height intervals. The
wave monthly wave roses in Table 6-8indicate waves are generally higher during the winter months
from December to March. Wave climate is significantly milder during the summer months from July to
October. Detailed monthly wave statistical results are presented in Appendix 4.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-8 Annual Average and Monthly Wave Roses at Grid Point T2 (840N, 5910'W)
Annual Average
January February March
April May June
July August September
October November December
The number of occurrences by significant wave height Hs and peak wave period Tp over the period
from February 2005 to January 2012 are presented in Table 6-9. The corresponding percentage

REUNION MANGANESE
occurrences are presented in Table 6-10. Table 6-9and Table 6-10 indicate that most waves have
peak periods between 6 s and 10 s. Long period swells are infrequent and typically have significant
wave heights between 1.0 m to 3.5 m. A majority of the waves with Hs higher than 3.0 m typically
have peak wave periods between 8 s and 10 s.
Table 6-9 Number of Occurrences by Hs and Tp at Grid Point T2 (840N, 5910'W)

Significant Wave Height Hs (m)
Tp (s) Total
0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0
3-4 6 - - - - - - 6
4-5 5 31 - - - - - 36
5-6 21 197 80 1 - - - 299
6-7 104 811 559 58 1 - - 1533
7-8 319 2610 3377 1182 113 2 - 7603
8-9 149 1701 2221 1732 611 64 - 6478
9 - 10 24 468 576 427 389 113 4 2001
10 -11 8 237 391 213 79 12 2 942
11 - 12 1 157 251 130 23 - - 562
12 - 13 - 101 159 105 19 - - 384
13 - 14 - 71 110 94 27 2 - 304
14 - 15 2 21 82 61 16 7 - 189
15 - 16 - 7 42 7 8 4 - 68
16 - 17 - 3 13 3 1 2 - 22
17 - 18 - 2 8 - 3 3 - 16
18 - 19 - 1 - - - - - 1
19 - 20 - 2 - - - - - 2
Total 639 6420 7869 4013 1290 209 6 20427

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-10 Percentage Occurrences by Hs and Tp at Grid Point T2 (840N, 5910'W)

Significant Wave Height Hs (m)
Tp (s) Total
0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0
3-4 0.03 - - - - - - 0.03

4-5 0.02 0.15 - - - - - 0.18
5-6 0.10 0.96 0.39 0.01 - - - 1.46
6-7 0.51 3.97 2.73 0.28 0.01 - - 7.50
7-8 1.56 12.77 16.52 5.78 0.55 0.01 - 37.19
8-9 0.73 8.32 10.86 8.47 2.99 0.31 - 31.68
9 - 10 0.12 2.29 2.82 2.09 1.90 0.55 0.02 9.79
10 -11 0.04 1.16 1.91 1.04 0.39 0.06 0.01 4.61
11 - 12 0.01 0.77 1.23 0.64 0.11 - - 2.75
12 - 13 - 0.49 0.78 0.51 0.09 - - 1.88
13 - 14 - 0.35 0.54 0.46 0.13 0.01 - 1.49
14 - 15 0.01 0.10 0.40 0.30 0.08 0.03 - 0.92
15 - 16 - 0.03 0.21 0.03 0.04 0.02 - 0.33
16 - 17 - 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 - 0.11
17 - 18 - 0.01 0.04 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.08
18 - 19 - 0.01 - - - - - 0.01
19 - 20 - 0.01 - - - - - 0.01
Total 3.13 31.40 38.49 19.63 6.31 1.02 0.03 100.00
The annual average and monthly probability of exceedence on four threshold significant wave
heights, 1.5 m, 2.0 m, 2.5 m and 3.0 m, are presented in Table 6-11. The results show that the
probability of exceedence when significant wave height is higher than 2.5 m exceeds 25 percent in
January and February, significantly higher than the annual average 7.4 percent probability of
exceedence.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-11 Annual Average and Monthly Probability of Exceedence on Hs
Month Hs > 1.5 m Hs > 2.0 m Hs > 2.5 m Hs > 3.0 m

January 100.00 71.03 27.13 4.90
February 94.60 62.90 26.11 3.18
March 92.80 48.10 9.45 0.00
April 82.38 30.65 6.31 1.19
May 74.71 17.74 0.69 0.00
June 67.20 16.79 1.31 0.00
July 47.24 7.26 0.69 0.00
August 15.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
September 18.39 1.67 0.42 0.00
October 33.93 5.65 0.23 0.00
November 65.12 9.70 1.19 0.00
December 95.74 54.15 15.90 3.46
Annual Average 65.5 27.0 7.4 1.1
6.4.6.4 P E R S I ST E N C E O F O F F S H O R E W AV E S
The persistence of offshore waves is characterized by the maximum duration, the count (number of
events), and the median duration when significant wave height exceeds a threshold value. These
characteristics were analysed on a monthly basis based on the 7-year WaveWatch III wave data. The
results are presented in Table 6-12.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-12 Persistence Characteristics of Offshore Waves at Grid Point T2 (840N, 5910'W)
Hs > 1.5 m Hs > 2.0 m Hs > 2.5 m
Month Maximum Mean Maximum Mean Maximum Mean

Count Duration Duration Count Duration Duration Count Duration Duration
(hour) (hour) (hour) (hour) (hour) (hour)
Jan. 7 744 744 38 543 95 29 123 47

Feb. 12 672 371 27 510 108 27 267 44
Mar. 16 744 300 40 261 61 16 78 29
Apr. 22 720 187 24 186 62 7 108 44
May 28 744 136 26 138 34 3 18 10
Jun. 40 441 83 23 153 35 5 15 10
Jul. 50 360 47 12 69 29 2 21 16
Aug. 26 87 28 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sep. 30 102 29 4 45 20 1 21 21
Oct. 41 150 41 10 51 28 1 12 12
Nov. 37 285 86 20 114 22 1 57 57
Dec. 14 744 354 35 264 79 18 135 44
Table 6-12 shows that offshore waves are typically steady with long durations. Waves during the
winter months are more persistent. From December to February, the mean duration when significant
wave height is higher than 2.0 m varies from 79 hours to 108 hours. From July to November, the
mean duration when significant wave height is higher than 2.0 m is less than 30 hours.
6.4.7 Wave Propagation Modeling

The purpose of the wave propagation modelling is to further understand the bathymetric effect in the
project vicinity on wave transformation under normal operating conditions, and to further assess the
wave climate specifically at the Waini offshore project site and along the navigation route from Waini
Point to Trinidad.
The MIKE21 Parabolic Mild Slope (PMS) model, developed by Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), was
selected to simulate wave transformation from offshore to the project site. The PMS model is a linear
refraction-diffraction model based on parabolic approximation to the elliptic mild-slope equation. The
PMS model is a frequency domain model and takes into account the effects of refraction and shoaling
due to varying depth, bottom dissipation, wave breaking due to limited water depth, and diffraction
along the perpendicular to the predominant wave direction.
6.4.7.1 M O D EL S ET U P
The model setup consists of several steps including digitizing bathymetry, formulating the offshore
boundary conditions, and specifying model parameters. The model land boundary was generated by
mapping and digitizing Chart Nos. 24390, 24400, and 24410. The deep water (depth > 30 m) digital
bathymetry was obtained from the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO,

REUNION MANGANESE
www.gebco.net). The digital bathymetry consists of water depths at 1 minute longitude by 1 minute
latitude grid spacing. The shallow water bathymetry (water depths < 30 m) was digitized from the
bathymetry contours in navigation charts directly.
three representative areas along the navigation route from Waini Point to Trinidad were selected for
wave propagation modeling. These areas include offshore areas at Waini Point, Baja Point, and
Serpents Mouth. The objective of selecting these three modeling areas is to assess wave climate at
these representative locations along the navigation route in order to identify potential impact of waves
on ocean tug towing operation. The corresponding model domains are illustrated in Figure 6-11.
Waves in the areas between the Baja Point model domain and the Waini Point model domain are
expected to be similar to the waves in the Waini Point model domain, and therefore are not studied.
Each model domain consists of 4,000 by 4,000 grids with 20 m grid spacing. The bathymetry for each
model domain was further cropped and rotated to generate the model bathymetries suitable for
offshore wave boundary specifications. Figure 6-12, Figure 6-13and Figure 6-14illustrate the digitized
bathymetries for the Waini Point model domain, Baja Point model domain, and the Serpents Mouth
model domain. Points of interest where the model results were further processed are also illustrated
in Figure 6-12and Figure 6-13.
Other parameters specified in the PMS models include the following:
Model Solution Parameters: Minimax model with aperture of 30 degrees, including filtering with
coefficient of 0.25.
Offshore Boundary Type: irregular directional; constant energy interval with 30 frequencies for
wave periods from 2 s to 20 s; 20 discrete directions with 30-degree maximum deviation from
mean direction; directional spreading index of 3.
Lateral Boundaries: symmetrical.
Surface Elevation: constant, +1.5 m (MHWS).
Bottom Dissipation: included, constant value, with Nikuradse roughness of 0.002.
Wave Breaking: included, constant values: Gamma1 = 0.88, Gamma2 = 0.8, Alpha = 1.
Offshore waves: directional random waves utilizing Pierson-Moscowitz (P-M) spectra with
direction spreading parameter of 3

REUNION MANGANESE
Serpents Mouth Bathymetry
Baja Point Bathymetry
Waini Point Bathymetry
Figure 6-11 PMS Model Domains

REUNION MANGANESE
MOORING SITE
A
Figure 6-12 Waini Point Model Bathymetry
Figure 6-13 Baja Point Model Bathymetry

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-14 Serpents Mouth Model Bathymetry
6.4.7.2 M O D EL R E S U L T S
Wave propagation modeling was carried out for each of the three model domains under the most
representative wave climate. In specifying offshore wave boundary conditions, three representative
peak wave periods (8 s, 10 s, and 12 s) were selected. Wave direction was defined as ENE (i.e. 67.5
degrees North). A significant wave height of 2.5 m was applied. Wave refraction and shoaling
coefficients are independent of wave heights. Therefore, the model results in terms of wave height
reduction can be applied to other offshore wave heights.
Wave propagation model results for each of the model domains when Tp = 10 s are illustrated in
Figure 6-15,Figure 6-16, Figure 6-17. These model results indicated that offshore waves generally
decrease in height when propagating to the shallow water. The magnitude of decrease varies at
different locations along the coastline. Significant wave height at the trans-shipment mooring site
offshore of Waini Point decreases to approximately 2.2 m. Significant wave height at -5 m contour
line (Point A in Figure 6-15) northwest of the mouth of Waini River decreases to approximately 1.85 m.
Significant wave height at -5 m contour line offshore of Baja Point (Point B in Figure 6-16) decreases
to approximately 2.0 m. Wave heights decrease significantly more when propagating from offshore to
Serpents Mouth (see Figure 6-17). The detailed model results for different peak wave periods at
three points of interest are presented in Table 6-13.

REUNION MANGANESE
MOORING
Figure 6-15 Wave Modeling Results Waini Point, ENE Waves, Hs = 2.5 m, Tp = 10 s.
Figure 6-16 Wave Modeling Results Baja Point, ENE Waves, Hs = 2.5 m, Tp = 10 s.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-17 Wave Modeling Results Serpents Mouth, ENE Waves, Hs = 2.5 m, Tp = 10 s.
Table 6-13 Wave Propagation Model Results
Water Tp = 8 s Tp = 10 s Tp = 12 s
Offshore
Location Depth
Waves Hs Dir Hs Dir Hs Dir
(CD)
(m) (deg. N) (m) (deg. N) (m) (deg. N)
Waini Point
Offshore
13 m 2.23 55.6 2.18 54.6 2.19 52.8
Mooring
Hs = 2.5 m Site
ENE Waini Point
(67.5 deg. Offshore 5m 1.81 47.4 1.85 46.3 1.85 41.6
N) (Point A)
Baja Point
Offshore 5m 2.00 52 2.10 51 2.22 49.7
(Point B)
The model results in Table 6-13 show that waves refract when propagating to the coastline, resulting
in wave directions changing from ENE (67.5 deg. N) to more north-easterly (42 deg. N to 56 deg. N).
The model results indicate that for the peak wave periods considered, significant wave height
decreases to an average of 88 percent of the offshore significant wave height at the trans-shipment

REUNION MANGANESE
mooring site offshore of Waini Point. Along the barge travel route at 5 m water depths from Waini
Point to Trinidad, significant wave height decreases to an average of 73 percent and 84 percent of
offshore significant wave height at Waini Point coast and Baja Point coast, respectively. Using these
reduction values, the estimated annual-average percentage exceedences on significant wave height
at each location of interest in comparison with the offshore waves are presented in Figure 6-18.
These estimates ignored wave directions other than ENE and wave periods that are outside the 8 s to
12 s range.
Figure 6-18 Annual-Average Percentage Exceedence on Hs
The estimated monthly percentage exceedences on significant wave height at three locations
of interest are presented in Appendix 5. Table 6-14summarizes monthly percentage exceedences
on four threshold significant wave heights: 1.5 m, 2.0 m, 2.5 m, and 3.0 m.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-14 Estimated Percentage Exceedence on Hs at Three Locations

Waini Point Mooring
Site Baja Point 5 m Depth Waini Point 5 m Depth
Hs > Hs > Hs > Hs > Hs > Hs > Hs > Hs > Hs > Hs > Hs > Hs >
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Month m m m m m m m m m m m m
Jan. 91 46 11 0 86 37 6 0 67 15 0 0
Feb. 85 42 10 0 79 35 5 0 60 15 0 0
Mar. 77 25 2 0 69 17 1 0 44 3 0 0
Apr. 62 15 1 0 52 10 0 0 27 2 0 0
May 53 5 0 0 41 3 0 0 15 0 0 0
Jun. 47 5 0 0 38 3 0 0 13 0 0 0
Jul. 29 1 0 0 22 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
Aug. 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sep. 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Oct. 19 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
Nov. 42 2 0 0 31 1 0 0 6 0 0 0
Dec. 81 31 6 0 75 24 5 0 50 8 0 0
Annual-
Average 50 15 2 0 42 10 1 0 25 5 0 0
6.4.8 Dow ntime As sessment
6.4.8.1 A L LO W AB L E V E S SE L M O T I O N C R I T ER I A
Criteria for acceptable levels of ship motions were established in the Nordic Co-operative Project
Seakeeping Performance of Ships (NORDFORSK, 1987). Hull safety, operation of equipment,
cargo safety, personnel safety and efficiency have been considered. These criteria are characterized
by root-mean-square (RMS) values of vertical and lateral accelerations and roll amplitudes. Faltinsen
(1990, Reference 21) summarized these criteria as presented in Table 6-15and Table 6-16.
Table 6-15 presents general operability limiting criteria for ships. A fast small craft is defined as a
vessel under about 35 m in length with speed in excess of 30 knots. Generally, personnel can
tolerate higher vertical acceleration when the frequency of oscillation is high.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-15 General Operability Limiting Criteria for Ships (NORDFORSK, 1987)
Merchant Ships Naval Vessel Fast Small Craft
Vertical acceleration at
0.275g (L100 m)
forward perpendicular 0.275g 0.65g
0.05g (L330m)*
(RMS)
Vertical acceleration at
0.15g 0.20g 0.275g
bridge (RMS)
Lateral acceleration at
0.12g 0.10g 0.10g
bridge (RMS)
o o o
Roll (RMS) 6.0 4.0 4.0
*The limiting criterion for lengths between 100 and 330 m varies almost linearly between the values L = 100 m and 330 m,
where L is the length of the ship.
Table 6-16 presents the criteria with regard to accelerations and roll for special types of work and for
passenger comfort. These criteria are generally applicable to tug boats.
Table 6-16 Criteria with regard to Accelerations and Roll (RMS) (NORDFORSK, 1987)
Vertical Lateral
Roll (RMS)
Acceleration (RMS) Acceleration (RMS)
Light Manual Work 0.20g 0.10g 6.0o
Heavy Manual Work 0.15g 0.07g 4.0o
Intellectual Work 0.10g 0.05g 3.0o
Transit Passengers 0.05g 0.04g 2.5o
Cruise Liner 0.02g 0.03g 2.0o
6.4.8.2 T R AN S - S H I PM EN T AT A L E AS ED T ER M I N AL I N T R I N I D AD
The option of trans-shipment at a leased terminal in Trinidad involves ocean tugboat towing ore
barges from the mouth of Waini River to Trinidad. The ocean route is approximately 420 km. At
approximately 7-9 knots speed, the navigation time is approximately 32 hours.
The offshore wind and wave statistics and the wave propagation modeling results indicate that the
majority of the route experiences dominant easterly to east-north-easterly winds, north-easterly waves,
and steady Guyana current flowing from southeast to northwest. When the tugboat and ore barges
navigate from Waini River mouth to Trinidad, presumably following the -5 m contour line, most of the
time in route they experience beam-on waves, quartering to following winds, and following current.
When tugboat and empty ore barges return from Trinidad to Waini River, most of the time in route
they experience beam-on waves, quartering to head-on winds, and head-on current. Winds are
typically stronger and waves are much higher during the winter months. Along the entire route, the
section offshore of Venezuela coastline is the most exposed section and appear to be critical in terms
of wave impact to vessels.
The downtime associated with this operation depends on a number of factors:

REUNION MANGANESE
Extreme mooring line loads that may result in breaking of towline;
Green water on the deck that can affect stability of the tugboat as well as the safety of the crew;
Excessive tugboat motions that may influence operation of the crew;
Excessive tugboat motions that may reduce the thrusters efficiency.
Given the complex nature of tugboat-wave interaction, without conducting detailed vessel motion
numerical modeling, references have been sought to assess tugboat motions in waves and to
estimate downtime associated with the ocean tugboat towing operation.
According to a pilot study on ocean tugboat behaviour in waves assisting LNG carriers during berthing
operation by Buchner, Dierx and Waals (2005, see Reference 19), the roll behaviour of a tug is one of
the critical factors for tug operability in waves. The model tests were conducted with Hs = 0.95 m, 1.9
m, and 3.0 m, Tp = 8.3 s and 14 s, in heading, quartering and beam-on sea states. The model test
o
results show that the RMS roll motions of the tug exceeded 4 in beam-on and quartering seas when
o
Tp = 8.3 s. The roll motion of the tug decreased to under 4 with longer wave period of Tp = 14 s. It is
clear that the roll motion of the tug is a function of the natural period of the tug boat and the wave
period.
The offshore wave statistics and the numerical modeling results show that at Baja Point coastline, the
annual-average exceedence percentage when Hs > 2.0 m and Hs > 2.5 m are 10 percent and 1
percent, respectively. By applying allowable tugboat RMS roll motion of 6o (corresponding to light
manual work in Table N), we estimate the annual-average downtime on the Waini Point Trinidad
ocean tug towing operation will be 1 percent to 5 percent. Most of the downtime is expected to occur
during the winter months from December to February. The down time is governed by wave climate in
route to Trinidad, and will not be significantly impacted by the exact location of the port in Trinidad.

REUNION MANGANESE
Due to various uncertainties with respect to data sources and limitations on modeling technique, this
downtime estimate is subject to verifications when measured wave data at the project site become
available.
6.4.8.3 T R AN S - S H I PM EN T O VE R A F LO AT I N G T R AN S FE R B AR G E M O O R E D
O FF S H O R E O F W AI N I P O I N T
The offshore trans-shipment facility involves transferring manganese ore from the ore barge directly to
an ocean going ore carrier via cranes and/or loading arms on a floating barge. The ore carrier, the
crane barge and the ore barge need to be moored properly to facilitate the operation. The 35,000
DWT ocean going ore carrier typically has a length of approximately 200 m. Because of the
significant wind, wave and current-induced loadings, the ore carrier needs to be moored and its
motion kept as small as possible during the loading operation.
A four-point mooring system has been developed for the ore carrier, as illustrated in Figure 6-19.
Figure 6-19 Offshore Floating Trans-shipment Concept Mooring Layout
This mooring concept has the following features:
The vessels are kept in the general East-West orientation to minimize mooring loads under the
combination of wind, wave and current impacts. In this orientation, the ore carrier acts as a
floating breakwater and provides sheltering for the crane barge and the ore barge, which are
tied to the ore carrier in the lee.

REUNION MANGANESE
The mooring system consists of four legs. Each leg has an anchor at the seabed, a steel chain
that connects the seabed anchor to a floating buoy, and a synthetic rope tying the ore carrier to
the floating buoy.
The crane barge is tied to the ore carrier using synthetic ropes with rubber fenders in between
the ore carrier and the crane barge;
The ore barge is tied to the crane barge using synthetic ropes with rubber fenders in between
the crane barge and the ore barge.
The downtime of operation is dictated by the wave-induced vessel motions and the relative motions
among the vessels. To assess these potential vessel motions, a preliminary vessel motion study was
carried out to evaluate the responses of the ore carrier in ocean waves. The Response Amplitude
Operators (RAO) in heave and roll are obtained using the state-of-the-art vessel motion analysis
software, AQWA. Figure 6-20to Figure 6-23show heave and roll RAOs for a ballast/loaded 35,000
DWT ore carrier in quartering seas with respect to various wave frequencies. The RAOs in these
figures are defined as the response amplitudes (in meters or degrees) per unit wave amplitude.
Figure 6-20 Heave RAO Ballast 35,000 DWT Vessel in Quartering Seas

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-21 Roll RAO Ballast 35,000 DWT Vessel in Quartering Seas
Figure 6-22 Heave RAO Loaded 35,000 DWT Vessel in Quartering Seas
Figure 6-23 Roll RAO Loaded 35,000 DWT Vessel in Quartering Seas

REUNION MANGANESE
It is seen in Figure 6-20 and Figure 6-22 that the heave motion of the vessel decreases as wave
period decreases (or wave frequency increases). Specifically, the heave motion amplitude of the
vessel remains less than 25 percent of the wave amplitude when wave period is less than 10 s (or
wave frequency larger than 0.6 radian/s). Figure 6-21 and Figure 6-23 show the roll motion amplitude
of the vessel is less than 0.4 degree per unit wave amplitude when wave period is less than 10 s (or
wave frequency larger than 0.6 radian/s).
Table 6-17 summarizes the estimated RMS heave and roll under various wave heights and peak
wave periods based on the AQWA model results:

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-17 Estimated RMS Heave and Roll Motion for a 35,000 DWT Bulk Carrier in Quartering
Seas
Hs = Hs = Hs = Hs =
Wave Wave
1.5 m 2.0 m 2.5 m 3.0 m
Condition Motion Period Frequency
Hrms = Hrms = Hrms = Hrms =
T (s) (rad/s)
1.1 m 1.4 m 1.8 m 2.1 m
6 1.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
8 0.79 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
Heave
10 0.63 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
(m)
12 0.52 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
14 0.45 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5
Ballast
6 1.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 0.79 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Roll (o) 10 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
12 0.52 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
14 0.45 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
6 1.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 0.79 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3
Heave
10 0.63 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
(m)
12 0.52 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
14 0.45 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0
Loaded
6 1.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
8 0.79 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
Roll (o) 10 0.63 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
12 0.52 2.4 3.1 3.9 4.7
14 0.45 3.2 4.3 5.4 6.4
The results in Table 6-17 show that for a ballast 35,000 DWT vessel, the RMS heave motion
amplitude remains less than 0.5 m and the RMS roll motion amplitude remains less than 0.4 degree in
quartering seas with significant wave height (Hs) up to 3.0 m and wave period (T) up to 14 seconds.
For the loaded 35,000 DWT vessel, the RMS heave motion amplitude is less than 1.0 m with Hs up to
3.0 m and T up to 14 seconds. The RMS roll motion amplitude may exceed 6.0 degrees only when
Hs > 2.5 m and T > 12 seconds.
To evaluate the downtime of operation due to excessive vessel motions, the operability limiting criteria
presented in Table 6-15 are adopted, as presented in Table 6-18.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-18 Operability Limiting Criteria for 35,000 DWT Ore Carrier
Vertical acceleration at forward

0.18g
perpendicular (RMS)
Vertical acceleration at bridge
0.15g
(RMS)
Lateral acceleration at bridge
0.12g
(RMS)
Roll (RMS) 6.0o
In assessing downtime of operation due to excessive vessel motions, the following findings on wave
climate at Waini Point offshore trans-shipment mooring site have been noted:
According to Table 6-14, Hs exceed 2.5 m for 2 percent of the time on annual average. Majority
of these large waves have peak period less than 10 s (see Table H).
According to Table 6-10, Tp exceed 12 s for 4.8 percent of the time. Majority of these long
waves have significant wave height less than 2.5 m.
The percentage occurrences when deep water offshore Hs > 2.5 m and Tp > 12 s is less than 1
percent. The wave heights are expected to decrease at the trans-shipment mooring site.
The ocean tug towing operation from Waini River mouth to the offshore trans-shipment mooring
site will have very limited downtime as the ocean tug will experience head-on waves in route.
The estimated downtime of operation is less than 1 percent.
By comparing the above findings with the estimated vessel motions (Table 6-17) and the operability
limiting criteria (Table 6-18), WorleyParsons concludes that at the offshore trans-shipment mooring
site, the RMS vessel motion will remain under the allowable vessel motions for more than 99 percent
of the time. Therefore, we expect the estimated downtime of operation due to excessive vessel
motions will be less than 1 percent. The limited downtime will occur during the winter time when high
waves combine with long wave periods.
6.4.9 Conclusions and R ecommen dations

A metocean study was carried out to evaluate site specific wave climate for the two trans-shipment
options: trans-shipment at a leased terminal in Trinidad and a floating trans-shipment facility at Waini
Point offshore. Offshore wind and wave statistics were obtained based on the 7-year WaveWatch III
hindcast data published by NOAA. Nearshore wave climate were determined through wave
propagation modeling. A four-point mooring concept was developed for the Waini Point offshore
trans-shipment facility. Vessel motion Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) were assessed using
the state-of-the-art AQWA model. The results were compared with the allowable vessel motion
criteria to estimate the downtime of operation for each of the trans-shipment option considered.
WorleyParsons concludes:
Tropical storms and hurricanes are very rare at Waini Point offshore.

REUNION MANGANESE
Tropical storms and hurricanes are infrequent in Trinidad, averaging only once every 10 years.
The entire coastline from Waini Point to Trinidad experiences dominant east-northeasterly
winds. Winds are typically stronger during the winter months.
The coastline from Waini Point to Trinidad experiences dominant east-northeasterly to

northeasterly waves. Waves are typically higher during the winter months from December to
February.
Offshore waves decrease moderately in height and change directions to more northeasterly
when propagating from offshore to the nearshore area.
For the trans-shipment option of using a leased terminal at Trinidad, the navigation route in the
vicinity of Baja Point section (Venezuela coast) has the most severe wave climate. We expect
operation downtime due to excessive tugboat motions to average 1 percent to 5 percent
annually. We expect most of the downtime to occur during the winter months from December
to February. The typical downtime will last for 1 to 2 days.
For the Waini Point offshore trans-shipment option, the annual-average downtime of operation
due to excessive vessel motions is estimated to be less than 1 percent. This downtime
estimate is based on a four-point mooring system tying the 35,000 DWT ore carriers in
quartering seas. The ore carrier will provide critical sheltering to the crane barge and the ore
barge, which are tied to the ore carrier in the lee. Most of the downtime is expected to occur
during the winter months from December to February.
WorleyParsons recommends:
Obtain site-specific wave and current measurement at the Waini Point offshore trans-shipment
mooring site. Determine the design current conditions and use the field data to verify the
findings of this metocean study.
Conduct detailed vessel mooring study on the Waini Point offshore trans-shipment facility.
Evaluate relative vessel motions among the ore carrier, the crane barge, and the ore barge.
Determine the mooring loads and provide critical design parameters for the mooring system.
Optimize the mooring layout.
Refine operations and determine the requirements for ore barge storage and mooring.
Determine the requirement for crane barge stationing and mooring.
The findings and conclusions of this study are dependent on the quality of the WaveWatch III hindcast
wind and wave data and the nearshore wave results are subject to limitations/accuracy of the wave
propagation models. We understand that Olin will implement a site-specific wave and current data
collection program. The field measurement wave and current data should be used to verify the
findings and conclusions of this study.

REUNION MANGANESE
6.5 Dredging
6.5.1 Scope of Work

The scope of work includes the following:
Review of bathymetric data at Waini Point;
Assessment of dredging requirement for the channel at Waini Point
Development of entrance channel layout and assessment of dredging volume
Assessment of dredging requirements for the river and canal
6.5.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in this study:
Safe navigation in the channel is required at all time and in all season.
The governing draft of ocean tugs and loaded barges is 3.5 m.
The channel width is 80 m to allow one-way traffic for towing barges and two-way traffic for tugs
and other small vessels.
The crossing (beam-on) ocean current allows safe navigation in the channel, but will allow one
tug towing one barge only.
Sedimentation rate into the channel is acceptable, allowing one maintenance dredging every 5
to 10 years.
6.5.3 Waini Point As ses sment
6.5.3.1 C O AS T A L C O N D I T I O N S AT W A I N I P O I N T
Tides and Water Levels
Tide levels at Waini Point, Guyana and Port of Spain, Trinidad, as published in Admiralty Tide Tables
(2012), are presented in Table 6-19. These tide levels reference to Mean Lower Low Water Level
(MLLW).
Table 6-19 Tides at Waini Point, Guyana
Description Abbreviations Water Levels (MLLW)

Mean High Water Spring MHWS 1.5 m
Mean High Water Neap MHWN 1.2 m
Mean Sea Level MSL 0.9 m
Mean Low Water Neap MLWN 0.6 m

REUNION MANGANESE
Description Abbreviations Water Levels (MLLW)

Mean High Water Spring MHWS 1.5 m
Mean Low Water Spring MLWS 0.3 m
Currents
The Waini Point coastline experiences dominant Guiana Current that flows from the Southeast to the
Northwest throughout the year. Majority of the observations indicate that current velocities vary from
0.8 to 2.4 knots. Field measurement of current velocities at the project is under way at the time of this
study. The design current velocities will be determined once the field measurement data become
available.
Winds
According to the metocean study results, predominant wind directions at Waini Point offshore are
from the East and the East-Northeast. Winds are typically stronger during the winter seasons and
blow more frequently from the East-Northeast. Winds during the summer seasons are generally mild
and blow mostly from the East.
Waves
According to the metocean study results, waves at Waini Point are predominantly from the Northeast
and East-Northeast. At 5 m water depth, waves with significant wave height (Hs) higher than 2.0 m
occur for 5% of time on annual average. Waves are much higher during the winter months than
during the summer months. In the months of January and February, waves with Hs higher than 2.0 m
are expected to occur for 15% of the time.
Bathymetry
Olin Hydrographic Solutions Inc. conducted a bathymetric survey in June 2012 at Waini Point. The
hydrograpic survey covered an area of approximately 20 km X 20 km. Figure 6-24 illustrates the
bathymetric contours at Waini Point offshore. The depth contours reference to Mean Lower Low
Water Level (MLLW).

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-24 Waini Point Bathymetric Contours June 2012 Survey
6.5.3.2 D R E D G I N G R E Q U I R EM EN T AT W AI N I P O I N T
Ocean Tug and Barge Dimensions
Table 6-21presents the dimensions of the ocean tugs and barges that have been identified in the
scoping study.
Table 6-20 Ocean Tug and Barge Dimensions
Description Ocean Tug Barge
Length 20 to 30 m 60 to 70 m
Beam 8 to 10 m 23 m
Draft 2.5 to 3.5 m 3.0 to 3.5 m
Dredging Depth

REUNION MANGANESE
The water depth required for safe navigation is typically governed by vessel draft and the required
underkeel clearance. The underkeel clearance consists of effect of freshwater, ship motion from
waves, squat underway, safety clearance, advance maintenance, and dredging tolerance (see
Figure 6-25). In this study, ship motion of 1.0 m induced by winter waves in the open water is
considered. Other typical values as recommended by Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) are
adopted. The recommended values are presented in Table 6-21. The design water depth of 6.0 m
below MLLW in the open water and the design water depth of 5.0 m below MLLW in the protected
water are recommended.
Table 6-21 Determination of Design Channel Depths

Description Open Water (m) Protected Water (m)
Design Vessel Draft 3.5 3.5
Effect of Fresh Water 0.0 0.3
Ship Motion from Waves 1.0 0.0
Squat Underway 0.3 0.3
Safety Clearance 0.3 0.3
Advance Maintenance 0.6 0.3
Dredging Tolerance 0.3 0.3
Design Channel Depth 6.0 5.0

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-25 Determination of Design Channel Depth (from CEM).
Channel Width
The required channel width to ensure safe navigation depends on many factors such as wind and
wave climate, ocean current conditions, vessel dimensions, and traffic patterns (one-way or two-way).
The bathymetric contours shown in Figure 6-24 indicate that a channel due Northeast has the
shortest length and requires minimum dredging. In such a channel alignment, ocean tugs and barges
mostly experience head-on/following waves, head-on/following to quarterly winds, and crossing
(beam-on) current. Wind and waves do not have much impact to channel width requirement. But the
crossing current will cause the tug boat and barges to re-orientate themselves to stay on course. Olin
Hydrographic Solutions Inc. reported that the ocean current speed was observed to be as strong as 2
knots during their field investigation in June 2012.
The following assumptions have been made in determining the width of the channel:

REUNION MANGANESE
The channel is to accommodate one-way traffic for tug towing operation and two-way traffic for
tug boats or other small boats;
The channel is to accommodate one ocean tug towing one barge. The total length of the tug-
barge arrangement is approximately 100 m to 110 m.
Given the specific coastal climate and based on the above assumptions, the recommended channel
width is 80 m.
Channel Layout
The proposed channel layout is illustrated in Figure 6-26. The dredged channel includes a 12.7 km
section in the open water due Northeast, a 4.4 km channel in the river due Northwest, and a 2.2 km
channel in between for transition. The total length of the dredged channel is approximately 19.3 km.
Figure 6-26 Channel Layout Concept
Dredging Volume
The estimated total dredging volume is approximately 4.5 million cubic meters. The dredging volume
estimate considers a 1V:6H side slope on 80 m wide channel. The channel layout is as illustrated in
Figure 6-26.

REUNION MANGANESE
Summary
This preliminary dredging study is conducted based on the hydrographic survey results obtained in
June 2012 by Olin Hydrographic Solutions Inc. at Waini Point offshore. A channel due Northeast
provides the shortest dredging distance and the minimum dredging volume, and therefore is
recommended. A dredging elevation of -6.0 m MLLW is recommended in the open water. This
dredging elevation takes into account the wave-induced vessel motion in winter months. A channel
width of 80 m to accommodate one-way tug-barge traffic and two-way tug and small vessel traffic is
recommended. The estimated dredging volume is 4.5 million cubic meters.
Vessels navigating in the channel will generally experience head-on/following waves and head-
on/following to quartering winds, which is favourable to vessel navigation. However, the vessel will
experience crossing (beam-on) currents that flow predominantly from Southeast to Northwest, which
may be problematic to vessels when current speed is strong. Olin Hydrographic Solutions Inc.
reported that the ocean current speed was observed to be as strong as 2 knots during their field
investigation in June 2012. As such, in towing operation, it is recommended that an ocean tug tows
one barge only and one-way traffic of this operation be enforced.
Field measurement on currents and waves are being conducted at the time of this study. The results
and findings of this study are to be further verified, and the channel layout is to be further optimized
once the field measurement data become available.
6.5.4 River Dredging Re quire ments

As noted in section 6.3.7, analysis of the hydrographic survey results obtained by OHS, reveals that
the only section of the waterway that may not satisfy the channel depth requirement is the Port
Kaituma basin and the first 6 km canal section from Port Kaituma, where water depths are less than
4.5 m based on OHS estimated low water level. Figure 6-6 illustrates the water depth contours at
Port Kaituma developed by OHS.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-27 Water Depths at Port Kaituma (OHS Survey in June 2012).
The uncertainties related to the design low water level at Port Kaituma make it difficult to estimate the
exact amount of dredging that is needed. It is possible that no dredging is needed at Port Kaituma or
in Kaituma Canal. In a worst-case scenario, a depth of 1 m dredging is assumed. Based on the 30m
wide canal, 6 km length, the total estimated dredging volume is 180,000 cubic meters in the worst
case scenario. This volume is subject to change when the design low water level is established.
6.5.5 Summa ry of D redgi ng Anal ysis

A number of dredging methods and types of equipment should be evaluated in the Feasibility Study to
determine the most suitable and cost-effective approaches in accomplishing the dredging and
dredged material disposal. Since the dredging locations for the proposed entrance channel at Waini
Point and the barge berthing area at Port Kaituma are a significant distance apart and in very different
physical settings, the two locations were evaluated separately to develop the best dredging
alternative for each location. The lack of data on the existing conditions for each of the locations
required a series of assumptions to be developed so that rough order of magnitude cost estimates
could be prepared. These cost estimates should be revised when additional data is collected and

REUNION MANGANESE
analyses conducted to reduce the margin of error. Data such as sediment

characteristics/geotechnical information, sediment accumulation rates in the Waini River, type(s) of
approved disposal sites, distance to an approved disposal site(s), environmental constraints and
regulatory issues (e.g., protected species/habitats, turbidity), and logistical/operational requirements
(e.g., availability of fuel and supplies) are all critical in developing accurate costs estimates. The
following sections provide a discussion on dredging methods, assumptions, and a rough order of
magnitude cost estimate for each dredging location:
Waini Point Entrance Channel
Due to offshore location of most of the proposed entrance channel, a dredge capable of operating in
the open sea but in relatively shallow water is necessary. A small hopper dredge with pump out and
side casting capabilities would be an option to consider for this scenario. These hopper dredges
typically have capacities less than 2,000 m but many can operate in waters with depths as shallow as
5 meters fully loaded and up to approximately 3 meters with a partial load. Since a hydrographic
survey conducted in June 2012 indicates there are depths shallower than 3 m MLLW, a second
dredge capable of dredging the shallow, more protected areas could be required. A hydraulic
cutterhead dredge would excavate the shallow areas ahead and pump either directly to the hopper
dredge or to an upland or beach nourishment site onshore. The hopper dredge could likely dispose
of its dredged material offshore. Therefore, it is assumed that the entrance channel dredging could
be accomplished by two different dredges utilizing nearby disposal sites.
The following assumptions were used when developing the cost estimate for the entrance channel
dredging:
The estimated dredging volume is approximately 4.5 million m
The dredging volume estimate considers a 1V:6H side slope on 80 m wide channel.
The dredged material is unconsolidated material ranging from sand (offshore) to fine sand, silts,
clayey silts (river mouth and river); no coral limestone rock or other consolidated material is
assumed
A small hopper dredge will excavate the outermost (seaward end) of the proposed channel or
A hydraulic cutterhead dredge will excavate the river, river mouth and shallow areas offshore or
The ocean disposal site is relatively close to the dredging (within 10 km)
The upland disposal/beach nourishment site is nearby within easy pumping distance

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-22 Cost Estimate

Waini Point Entrance Quantity Production Duration Unit cost Total cost
Channel (m) rate (m/day) (days) (USD/m) (USD)
Planning, permitting,
hydrographic surveys 60 $250,000
Owners costs $1,000,000
Mobilization and
demobilization 90 $4,500,000
Dredging and disposal
(Hopper dredge) 1,125,000 7,200 156 $10 $11,250,000
(Cutterhead dredge) 3,375,000 18,000 188 $8 $27,000,000
TOTAL 338 $44,000,000
Port Kaituma
Access to the inland location of Port Kaituma limits the number available dredges that could be towed
to the project site. A barge-mounted mechanical dredge (clamshell or backhoe) or small, hydraulic
cutterhead dredge are the likely choices for dredging a barge berth at Port Kaituma. Since cutterhead
dredges are more efficient that mechanical dredges, it was assumed that a small cutterhead dredge
would be used with direct pumping of the dredged material to a confined, upland disposal site along
the river.
The following assumptions were used when developing the cost estimate for the entrance channel
dredging:
The estimated dredging volume is approximately 180,000 m
The dredged material is unconsolidated material (fine sand, silts, clayey silts, silty clays)
A hydraulic cutterhead dredge will excavate the berthing basin with assumed production rate
of 500 m/hour or 12,000 m/day
A bermed area would be constructed next to the river for dewatering and containment of the
dredged material
No significant debris or vegetation would have to be removed from the river

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-23 Cost Estimate

Quantity Production Duration Unit cost Total cost
Port Kaituma (m) rate (m/day) (days) (USD/m) (USD)
Planning, permitting,
hydrographic surveys 60 $60,000
Owners costs $1,000,000
Mobilization and
demobilization 90 $1,500,000
(Cutterhead dredge) 180,000 12,000 15 $8 $1,440,000
TOTAL 165 $4,000,000
Dredging costs can vary widely based on material composition, dredging equipment used,
mobilization costs, disposal method, disposal location and environmental constraints. The preliminary
pricing we obtained ranged from $1.25 per cm to $12 per cm, and mobilization costs ranged from $2m
to $12m. Dredging companies we interviewed were reluctant to provide firm pricing because of the
several unknowns including dredge disposal location and method, availability of dredgers based on a
future date, environmental questions, indicated two disposal options for the entrance channel.
Assuming best case scenario, a large Cutter Suction Dredge could be used at Waini Point to perform
the dredging in the Entrance Channel and the dredge material could be cast a short distance directly
West Northwest of the channel (See Figure 6-28).

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-28 Channel Dredging
The estimated budget for this method is:
Mobilization Fee: $5,000,000

Demobilization Fee: $2,000,000
Dredging Unit Price (Shorter Pump Distance): $1.25 to $2.25 per cm
(40 to 60 day work duration)
Dredging Unit Price (Alternate - Longer Pump Distance): $4.50 - $5.50 per cm
(140 to 160 day duration)
For the dredging required in the Port Kaituma area, the estimated budget would be:
Mobilization to construct upland disposal area $500,000

Debris Removal contingency to remove large debris $175,000
Dredging Unit Price: $3.00 to $4.00 per cm
(80 to 100 day)

REUNION MANGANESE
These rates would be inclusive of estimated down time for weather, repairs and other routine delays.
In the event of owner induced delays (permits, political, etc) the standby rate would be on the order of
$7,500 per hour.
Major Assumptions for this best case scenario:
Fuel delivered to Project location @ 0.75/liter
Payment in US $ with no local taxes, withholdings or VAT
No importation tax will be applied to the equipment and materials required to perform the work
Use of Non-Guyana labour is allowed (expat labour is the basis of the Budget)
One cutter dredge can be used for all dredging at Waini Point and Port Kaituma (limits
mobilization fee)
Dredge material at Waini Point is non-contaminated soft sand
6.5.6 Items to Consi de r t o Furthe r Reduce D redging Cost s

.Reducing dredge water depth from 6.0 m to 5.0 m in the entrance channel by allowing a
certain downtime of operation. Approximately $10,000,000 out of the projected $48,000,000
could be deferred to a later date when operations start producing revenue.
It is critical to have the ocean disposal site as close as possible to the dredging location. Short
distances to the disposal site for the hopper dredge will increase the dredges overall
production rate and potentially lower the unit cost.
If an upland disposal site is required, it is critical to have the upland/beach nourishment site as
close as possible to the cutterhead dredging. Direct pumping the material, without booster
pumps and over a very short distance, will increase production and potentially lower the unit
cost.
If possible, the channel slide slopes should be designed at an angle of the materials natural
repose. This would limit the material dredged from the side slopes and reduce the overall
dredged quantity.
The use of multiple dredges could shorten the project duration and potentially reduce overall
costs.
There is a potential, due to the economies of scale, that the estimated unit costs as presented
could be reduced. Negotiating the terms and conditions with the prospective dredging
contractor may provide an opportunity for cost reductions.

REUNION MANGANESE
6.6 Option 1: Transshipment at a Leased Terminal in Trinidad

(Deferr ed)
6.7 Option 2: Transshipment at Offshore Facility near Waini Point
6.7.1 Summa ry of Offsho re Trans ship me nt Study

Reunion Manganese retained WorleyParsons to identify and assess transportation options for the
movement of one to two million tons per annum of manganese concentrate from a mine at Matthews
Ridge, Guyana, South America, to a location where ocean going transportation is accessible. There
are no local ports, and WorleyParsons was tasked to identify alternative options for transporting the
manganese ore to market. The initial scoping study by WorleyParsons, Matthews Ridge
1
Transportation Scoping Study indicated the water at the mouth of the Waini River is extremely
shallow, and therefore precludes any near shore shipping activities without extensive and expensive
dredging operations. Due to these shallow water constraints at the mouth of the Waini River, this
report evaluates the use of floating transshipment equipment moored in deeper water at some
distance offshore. The proposed offshore mooring location is identified in the Metocean Study,
Section 7.4 of this report, as approximately 30 km. off shore from Waini Point, Guyana, South
America.
Offshore transshipment means the transfer of dry bulk cargo, such as coal or iron ore, from one
vessel to another vessel, while at sea. A transshipment system comprises various combinations of
cranes, barges, and cargo handling systems. In this instance, the offshore transshipment facility
involves transferring manganese ore from the ore barge directly to an oceangoing ore carrier via
cranes and/or loading arms on a floating barge, while at sea. The ore carrier, the crane barge and the
ore barge will need to be properly moored to facilitate the transshipment operation. The primary
oceangoing vessel evaluated in this report is a Handysize vessel with a 35,000 deadweight tonnage
(DWT) capacity and a typical length of 200m. A Panamax vessel with an 80,000 DWT capacity is
evaluated as a second option. Because of the significant wind, wave and current-induced loadings,
the ore carrier must be moored and its motion kept as small as possible during the loading operation.
This evaluation considers and analyzes the following questions:
Why is a transshipment facility being considered?
What loading capacity requirements will be needed to provide system reliability?
What transshipment options are being considered?
What vessels have already been determined?
What is the climate and expected downtime?
1
Matthews Ridge Transportation Scoping Study - WorleyParsons December 2011
48051-ST-REP-0001 Page 106 Rev A : November 13, 2012

REUNION MANGANESE
What risks and mitigations have been identified?
What are the expected CAPEX and OPEX for the options being considered?
What are the conclusions and the best fit for purpose recommendations?
The above issues will be addressed briefly in this summary, and in more detail in subsequent
chapters.
A metocean study was previously carried out to evaluate the site specific waves and climate for the
proposed floating transshipment facility at Waini Point offshore in Guyana. The Metocean study
indicates the climactic conditions are favorable to carry out transshipment operations during most of
the year. Excerpts from that report are used throughout this section for clarification of marine and
metocean issues.
Transshipment Facility Considerations
In logistics operations where it is impractical to construct a pier or jetty due to shallow water
constraints, or where the existing port facilities are strained to capacity, in recent years, offshore
transshipment operations have increasingly begun to be used. Often the financial burden to build a
complete port facility, even if feasible, is beyond the capabilities of many shippers. Transshipment
operations can take place in almost any location, whether in sheltered waters or at sea, and the
approach is appealing, especially from a purchasing and total CAPEX point of view. During the early
days of transshipment operations, the preponderance of operations took place in sheltered rivers or
bays, but as time has progressed, owners and operators are now demonstrating the feasibility of
transshipment operations taking place in the open sea.
There are several approaches to transhipping: direct ownership, contracting of the actual loading and
unloading from a transshipment operation, or leasing the equipment, usually for a set price per tonne
shipped. There are numerous companies throughout the world that provide transshipment services,
and floating terminals and transfer stations are used throughout the world. The advantages include
smaller investments, lower management costs and less environmental impact than with port
terminals.
Loading Requirements
1
In the earlier referenced Matthews Ridge Transportation Scoping Study , loading rates for barges
at Port Kaituma were established at a mean loading rate of 1,500 mtph, and mean loading rates for a
Trinidad port were established at 1,200 to 1,500 mpth. This report demonstrates that these rates, and
even rates in excess of these rates, are also possible for an offshore transshipment facility,
depending upon the configuration of equipment chosen. For our analysis, we have assumed mean
loading rates of 1,500 mtph for the offshore transshipment facility under all scenarios.
Transshipment Options
The transshipment options presented within this study have been evaluated based on budgetary cost,
operational flexibility and reliability. Five (5) options were considered during this evaluation phase.
One floating crane mounted on one seagoing barge

REUNION MANGANESE
Two floating cranes mounted on one seagoing barge
Two floating cranes mounted on one seagoing barge, with separate loading equipment (FTS -
Floating Transfer Station).
Modified Bulk Carrier
Self-Loading Bulk Carrier
Drawings outlining the basic premises for Options 1 through 3 were sent to various crane vendors for
budgetary pricing and comment (see appendices). Options 4 and 5 were sent to operating companies
for lease costs and cost per ton for transshipment, as the initial purchase cost for these options were
deemed to be excessive for this project.
Pre-determined Vessels
The vessels and configurations for use in this project were evaluated in the Transportation Scoping
Study, and revalidated in this study. We recommend the same vessel types for either transshipment
in Trinidad or transshipment at an offshore facility. Flat top covered barges 3,000 to 3,500 DWT, with
3 meter to 3.5 meter loaded draft, high sides, length of 60-70 m and 20-23 m beam. This option is
easier to load and unload and more readily available in the market for purchase or charter.
Flat fronted pusher tugs 25m long with 2.5m draft for river transport
Ocean tugs 30 to 35m long with 3.5 to 4m draft for transport to transshipment point.
Note: The fleet size will be different based on the chosen option.
The evaluations made in the Scoping Study have been reviewed and revalidated as related to vessel
types and configuration. One exception is as related to the barges, where it has been determined that
barges are not required to be covered. The removal of the covered barge requirement will impact the
length of time needed for offshore equipment operations, but will not otherwise impact our evaluation.
The primary consideration for this evaluation is the loading of an oceangoing Handysize vessel of
approximately 35,000 DWT. As a secondary option, a Panamax vessel of 80,000 DWT is evaluated in
subsequent chapters.
Climate and Downtime
A metocean study was carried out to evaluate the site specific wave climate for the floating
transshipment facility at offshore Waini Point. Offshore wind and wave statistics were obtained based
on the 6-year WaveWatch III hindcast data published by NOAA. Near shore wave climate were
determined through wave propagation modeling. A four-point mooring concept was developed for the
Waini Point offshore transshipment facility. Vessel motion Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs)
were assessed using the state-of-the-art AQWA model. The results were compared with the allowable
vessel motion criteria to estimate the downtime of operation for each of the transshipment option
considered.
The following conclusions have been made:

REUNION MANGANESE
Tropical storms and hurricanes are very rare at Waini Point offshore.
The entire coastline from Waini Point to Trinidad experiences dominant east-northeasterly
winds. Winds are typically stronger during the winter months.
The coastline from Waini Point to Trinidad experiences dominant east-northeasterly to

northeasterly waves. Waves are typically higher during the winter months from December to
February.
Offshore waves decrease moderately in height and change directions to more northeasterly
when propagating from offshore to the near shore area.
For the Waini Point offshore transshipment, the annual-average downtime of operation due to
excessive vessel motions is estimated to be less than 1 percent. This downtime estimate is
based on a four-point mooring system tying the 35,000 DWT ore carriers in quartering seas.
The ore carrier will provide critical sheltering to the crane barge and the ore barge which are
tied to the ore carrier in the lee. Most of the downtime is expected to occur during the winter
months from December to February. If 80,000 DWT Panamax vessels are to be used, further
studies may need to take place to ensure the conditions for a Panamax vessel would be the
same.
6.7.2 Project As sumptions

We made the following assumptions for this evaluation:
The political risk due to location proximity to Venezuela and the Zona en Reclamacin
disputed boundary has been mitigated.
The risk of negative environmental impact has been mitigated.
A mean shiploading rate of 1500 mtph for all Handysize options, and 3,125 mtph for Panamax
options.
Barges and tugs are available and logistics allow for delivering barges, as needed, to the side
of the ship in adequate quantities for loading ships.
No arrival/departure barge simulation has been performed.
Loaded barges are available at the mouth of Waini River.
Loaded barges are at the ship, and in line for loading.
Shiploading will require between 10 and 12 product barges per Handysize vessel, with twice as
many needed if Panamax loading is to take place.
Size of barge fleet is the same for all 5 options, assumed 15 for this study; barge fleet size will
be validated in next phase of study.
It will take an average of 48 hours to load either a Handysize or Panamax vessel.
Crews are to be brought to the transshipment area by tug or crew boat.

REUNION MANGANESE
Crew change outs are managed by the same method.
Quarters are provided on the barges for up to 5 people, with the remaining crew changed out
with tug or crew boat operations. There are quarters for a spare operator, clerk, and
maintenance.
Cranes will be available and operating 85% of the time on a yearly average.
Maintenance contact If E-Cranes are used, most of their pumps and cylinders are made by
Caterpillar. A maintenance contract is available through local Caterpillar dealers.
Costs per tonne in the various OPEX tables are shown at 1,000,000 per year. OPEX costs at
full production will be slightly less per tonne.
6.7.3 7.7.3 Loadi ng Rate Defini tions

Net Load Rate: Load rate excluding delays. The net load rate on this project would be 1500 mtph.
Gross Load Rate: Load rate including delays such as hatch changes, manoeuvring, but not planned
or unplanned maintenance activities. The presumed gross load rate on this project would be
approximately 750 mtph.
Mean loading or mean free digging rate: Unloading rate which can be sustained for reasonable
(defined) time interval, when digging from a specified point in the ship. In general it represents the
mean (or somewhat below mean) situation for unloading rate that would be achieved by the crane.
This exact rate will need to be established for this project once actual barge and crane sizes are
known. The mean loading rate required in this report is 1500 mtph.
Cream digging or peak rate: Maximum loading or unloading rate that will occur during certain
situations, such as digging from most favorable layer, optimum (minimum) cycle time, high water level
etc. The cream or peak digging rate is generally for short time interval, and is stated by vendors as
their peak rate. This rate is used in this report as Peak Rate.
Average digging rate: The average unloading rate can for this project is with reference to the loading
rate the crane needs to be able to maintain throughout the ship loading operations. It includes all the
operational time of the ship unloader such as positioning at particular hatch, operational settings,
actual unloading, final unloading as a clearing operations by the crane, travelling to next hatch,
operation interruptions created by the operation of the crane itself and so on. The rate used for
average unloading rate for this report is 750 mtph.
6.7.4 Evaluation Metho dology

The transshipment options presented within this study have been evaluated based on budgetary cost,
operational flexibility and reliability. Along with those variables, in order to have an average loading
and unloading rate, operational and equipment efficiencies have been approximated. The study
presents a somewhat conservative approach for loading and unloading rates, and rates could be
higher at times. However, with demurrage rates of $50,000 to $75,000 USD per day, a conservative
approach to ensure adequate time is allowed for shiploading was deemed practical.

REUNION MANGANESE
Five (5) options were considered during this evaluation phase. Drawings outlining the basic premises
for Options 1 through 3 were sent to various crane vendors for budgetary pricing and comment (see
appendices), requesting both lease and purchase option costs. Options 4 and 5 were sent to
operating companies for lease costs and cost per ton for transshipment, as the initial purchase cost
for these options were deemed to be excessive for this project.
As mentioned earlier in this document, and in the earlier Scoping Study, mean loading rates for
barges at Port Kaituma were established at 1,500 mtph, with mean loading rates for a Trinidad port
established at 1,200 to 1,500 mpth.
For continuity throughout the operations, a mean loading rate of 1,500 mtph has been used as a base
case in this evaluation, the same rates as are used in the projected rates for Port Kaituma and for
Port operations at Trinidad. Allowing for an equipment efficiency of 50% through the loading cycle
(Gross Shiploading Rate or Gross Utilization See Table 3); the 1,500 mtph mean loading rate would
conservatively allow a 35,000 DWT Handysize vessel to be loaded in 48 hours. The operating
equipment efficiencies were assumed to be the same across all Options. The primary focus of this
evaluation is the loading of Handysize vessels. The alternate option of loading of Panamax vessels is
discussed in Chapter 6.7.11 Panamax Loading.
Various factors come into play in evaluating equipment efficiencies, and de-rating of the peak loading
capacities of a piece of equipment, or pieces of equipment, to establish an average loading rate is
required to accurately determine the duration needed for shiploading operations. There are many
segments of a barge unloading and shiploading operation that vary in duration and will have an effect
on optimizing the unloading and loading operations. Cranes have to swing into position, lower the
bucket, grab a load, close the bucket, lift the bucket, swing over to the ship and perform the same
operation. For example, Table 2 below demonstrates the capacity of a large crane, and how time and
distance can significantly de-rate that capacity. The example shown below identifies small changes
with the operation of two cranes. A change as simple as varying the length of time that is needed to
lower the grab bucket and the degree of slewing or rotating, will change the cranes possible output
tonnage from 2,200 MPTH to 1,600 MTPH.
Table 6-24 Effect of Travel and Distance on Crane Efficiency
Crane 1 Distance Speed Time Crane 2 Distance Speed Time

Grab Grab
closing 9.1 1.33 6.84 closing 9.1 1.33 6.84
Grab Grab
lifting 9.27 1.33 6.97 lifting 12 1.33 9.02
Slewing Slewing
degrees 45 9 5 degrees 90 9 10
Grab Grab
opening 9.1 1.33 6.84 opening 9.1 1.33 6.84
Slewing Slewing
degrees 45 9 5.00 degrees 90 9 10.00
Grab Grab
lowering 9.27 1.33 6.97 lowering 12 1.33 9.02
37.62 51.73
Min Sec Min Sec

REUNION MANGANESE
Cycles Cycles
per per
Hour 60 60 37.62 95.68 Hour 60 60 51.73 69.59
3/grab 3/grab
Cycles m Cycles m
3
95.68 27 2583.45 m /hour 69.59 27 1879.01 m3/hour
m3/hour m3/hour
2583.45 0.85 2195.94 MTPH 1879.01 0.85 1597.16 MTPH
Notwithstanding the above restrictions, the crane barge must be warped, or fleeted (moved via wire
lines or cables and winches), alongside of the ship to ensure the crane or shiploader arms can reach
the various ship hatches. The product barge may also need to be warped along the side of the crane
barge for the crane or cranes to thoroughly empty the barge of product. If the barge is covered, the
covers will need to be removed and stowed during unloading operations, and replaced when
operations are complete. Operations may need to come to a complete stop while a front end loader or
skid steer is lowered into the product barge to assist the crane unloading operation by moving product
out of the corners and to where the cranes can reach, as well as to perform cleaning operations on
the product barge.
Added to the restrictions of the actual loading and unloading equipment are the ship operations
themselves, which include removing or lifting hatches, changing hatches, ballasting and de-ballasting
operations and trimming operations. All of these operations and equipment inefficiencies combine and
are used to determine the size of equipment needed to be able to maintain an average loading rate
over the course of loading a ship. Table 3 below, visualizes the concept, showing how the overall time
needed to perform operations is divided into productive and non-productive time periods.
Table 6-25 Equipment Utilization
This evaluation study is intended to be an evaluation of equipment types and operational

methodologies to determine the preferred option in going forward, and is not intended as a complete
bid tender evaluation for specific pieces of equipment. A formal bid tender evaluation should be

REUNION MANGANESE
performed at the time complete specifications and bid packages are submitted to vendors, and bids
are received with detailed actual and not budgetary pricing.
6.7.5 Transshipment Opt ions Conside red

WorleyParsons recognizes that todays depressed shipping market and recession has driven buyers
and sellers to seek cost reductions and better efficiency in their current and future logistical operations.
In areas where shore based infrastructure is not available, or is cost prohibitive, floating
transshipment facilities are now being taken seriously as viable options to traditional shore based
shipping. Offshore transshipment can often provide faster realization and lower investment
alternatives to shore-based infrastructure.
Transshipment operations are valid logistics options and already take place in many locations. WP
has experience in similar barge-to-vessel offshore transshipment operations around the world in
locations such as Mozambique, Guinea, and South Australia. There is currently a floating terminal in
operation for loading bauxite along the Orinoco River in nearby Venezuela. That particular floating
barge unloading terminal unloads all of the bauxite from the El Jobal mine and supplies a nearby
alumina refinery. This terminal unloads nearly 6 million tons during an 8 month time frame and has
been in operation since early 2002. A crane vendor we work with, E-Crane, has provided equipment
for this facility and has also provided a floating midstream transloading station for operations on the
Congo River in Africa, and for transshipping iron ore operations at the port of Cape Preston, West
Australia. Oldendorff Carriers operates a similar operation in Guayana, barging bauxite downstream
and transloading in New Amsterdam.
Another vendor we work with, Cargotec, offers systems through McGregor Bulk Handling for
transloading systems all over the world. McGregor has provided several large transloading systems
for service in Whyalla in South Australia.
A third vendor, Coeclerici Logistics, is one of the worlds leading bulk commodities transshipment
companies and has project experience in countries such as Venezuela, Bulgaria, Italy, Indonesia,
Bahrain, Ukraine and India. The Coeclerici owned, designed, and operated Floating Storage Transfer
Station (FSTS) Bulk Wayu is, at the time of this writing, the largest coal floating terminal worldwide.
The FSTS terminal is located in Maracaibo Lake, Venezuela, serving Carbones del Guasare since
1998.
This study looks at 5 different transshipment options, each of which use the latest offshore cargo
handling concepts, and evaluates the efficiency, reliability and availability of the systems and the
support equipment.
Solutions for logistic supply chains require a solid knowledge of the market, the material, how it is
handled, local environmental conditions, economics and the technical expertise to combine all of
these factors to produce a solution that delivers the best fit for purpose options to the client. The last
decade has seen the evolution of various types of floating facilities that have been deployed for
various uses in loading, discharging, and lightering. The most common usage, and the option
evaluated in this study, is offshore loading of dry bulk cargo.

REUNION MANGANESE
The operating conditions of such floating facilities are more demanding than onshore facilities
because of exposure to high winds and waves in open water conditions. Therefore the cargo handling
facilities require more rigorous design and operating practices to meet safety standards as they are
subjected to higher acceleration forces as compared to cranes operating on shore or in sheltered
water conditions.
This evaluation includes a comparison of the high level advantages and disadvantages, including
costs, of the following five alternatives:

REUNION MANGANESE
Option 1 One floating crane mounted on one seagoing barge.
Figure 6-29 Single Floating Crane on One Barge

REUNION MANGANESE
Option 2 Two floating cranes mounted on one seagoing barge.
Figure 6-30 Two Floating Cranes on One Barge
Option 3 Two floating cranes mounted on one seagoing barge, with separate loading
equipment (FTS - Floating Transfer Station).
Figure 6-31 Two Floating Cranes with Shiploaders (FTS)

REUNION MANGANESE
Option 4 - Modified Bulk Carrier
Figure 6-32 Modified Bulk Carrier
Option 5 Self Loading Bulk Carrier

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-33 Self Loading Bulk Carrier
6.7.6 Vessel Types and Configu ration

Vessels and configurations for use in this project were initially evaluated in the Matthews
Ridge Transportation Scoping Study2, performed by WorleyParsons, where we recommended
the same vessel types for either transshipment in Trinidad or transshipment at an offshore
facility. Flat top covered barges 3,000 to 3,500 DWT, with 3 meter to 3.5 meter loaded draft,
high sides, length of 60-70 m and 20-23 m beam. This option is easier to load and unload and
more readily available in the market for purchase or charter.
Flat fronted pusher tugs 25m long with 2.5m draft for river transport
Ocean tugs 30 to 35m long with 3.5 to 4m draft for transport to transshipment point.
Note: The configuration and fleet size will be different based on the chosen option.
We reviewed and revalidated the evaluations made in our Scoping Study related to vessel types and
configuration. One exception is related to the barges, where it has been determined that barges are
not required to be covered. This will reduce the length of time needed for offshore equipment
operations, but will not otherwise impact our evaluation.
2
Matthews Ridge Transportation Scoping Study - WorleyParsons December 2011- Section 1.2

REUNION MANGANESE
Based on direction from Reunion Manganese, an oceangoing Handysize vessel of approximately

35,000 DWT is considered as the primary vessel for loading in this evaluation. A secondary option of
loading a Panamax vessel is considered in Section 7.7.7
6.7.7 Coastal Climate and Dow ntime

The Waini Point offshore transshipment facility involves the mooring of a 35,000 DWT ore carrier and
6.4
tying a crane barge configuration and an ore barge on its lee side . A four-point mooring system is
recommended to moor the Handysize 35,000 DWT ore carriers in position at the Waini Point offshore
mooring site. The ore carrier will be aligned in a general East-West orientation, providing shelter from
wind and waves to the crane barge and the ore barge in the lee.
Figure 6-34 Offshore Mooring Configuration
The wave climate results at the mooring site and the vessel Response Amplitude Operator (RAO)
results indicate that the motions of the 35,000 DWT ore carrier remains below allowable values for
more than 99 percent of the time. The annual-average downtime of operation due to excessive vessel
motions is expected to be less than 1 percent. Most of the downtime is expected to occur during the
winter time. If Panamax 80,000 DWT, or other vessels are to be used, additional mooring studies will
need to be developed.
As the Metocean study (Section 6.4) indicates the effects of the weather on downtime are minimal, no
further evaluation of climate and downtime is undertaken within this section of the study.
6.7.8 Trans shipment Risks

During the initial scoping studies, we identified three specific risks for the offshore transshipment
option:
Operational downtime due to weather.

REUNION MANGANESE
Political risk due to location proximity to Venezuela and the Zona en Reclamacin disputed
boundary.
Environmental impact.
The risk for operational downtime has been mitigated by the Metocean study. The two remaining risks
were identified but are beyond the scope of our study, and as such are not evaluated. For the
purposes of this study, it is assumed that these risks are adequately addressed and mitigated. Neither
risk has a direct an impact on the actual materials handling, which is the focus purpose of this options
evaluation. If the offshore transshipment option is to be advanced, we strongly recommend an
environmental study be performed to address environmental risks and to develop mitigation
strategies. Similarly, we recommend that a study of the political risk be performed.
6.7.9 C APEX and OPEX

Transshipment facilities range in size from small floating cranes with rated capacities of 3 to 5 mtpa
(metric tonnes per annum) to more advanced floating facilities that can handle up to 15 mtpa. There
are advantages to floating transhipment facilities instead of fixed land ports, and many companies are
beginning to rely heavily on floating transshipment facilities. Reasons include::
Shorter delivery periods. Transshipment facilities and floating cranes take approximately one to
one and a half years to bring into operation, from date of order to start of operation, while a
land-based port can take years to become operational due to the long lead times needed for
acquiring land, obtaining necessary permits, and carrying out the construction.
Lower initial cost. Transshipment facilities can cost between $7 million and $20 million per
facility to purchase and move into position, ranging from $7 million for a 3 mtpa floating crane
facility to $20 million, or more, for a 10 mtpa Floating Transfer Station (FTS) with on board
storage capacity.
FTS units may have faster loading rates than most floating cranes, and can cost less per tonne
of handling capacity, but need large transfer rates to be cost effective.
Although the fixed port will be of larger total capacity and have substantial storage capacity and
a longer operating life, the capital costs per tonne of capacity for transshipment facilities and
floating cranes are so much lower than those of a fixed port that they are used instead of fixed
ports in many parts of the world.
The following table presents an abbreviated example of the costs for operating a barge
mounted transshipment facility with two smaller cranes mounted on one barge.
Table 6-26 Option 2 Abbreviated OPEX Costs for Two Cranes on one Barge
Owning & Operating Cost Estimate

Basic Assumptions
Item 1500 Series E-Crane, Two Cranes on One Barge

REUNION MANGANESE
6 Total CAPEX $11,200,000.00
11 Fixed Cost (for the first 5 years, based on 2000 hours per year)
Total Fixed Costs per year (2000 hours per year

16 operation) $1,656,000.00
17 Production Rate (tons per hour) 1,500

Offloaded Tons per year (2000 hours per year
18 operation) 1,000,000
19 Total Fixed Cost/hour $828.00
30 Total Fixed cost per off loaded ton $1.66
31 Total Variable costs per off loaded ton $0.17
32 Total Cost per processed ton of material $2.37
The CAPEX/OPEX costs shown in this table represent the approximate costs for Option 2; two
smaller cranes on one seagoing barge, which is the system WorleyParsons would recommend as
being best fit for purpose design. The reasoning for the selection and the CAPEX/OPEX costs for all
options are fully detailed in the body of the report. The CAPEX/OPEX costs are for the initial
operation of approximately 1,000,000 tonnes per annum. Costs per tonne for handling and loading
will decrease as production increases.
6.7.9.1 T R A N S S H I P M EN T R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S
This report is intended to identify the most cost effective approach to the transshipment concept, but
is not intended to be an in depth cost study. Prices mentioned within the report are indicative and
budgetary, and have not been based on complete engineered packages. Costing should be
developed to a more accurate level during detailed engineering.
WorleyParsons has considered within this document the costs, flexibility of operations, and reliability
of the various options listed above and feels the best option for this project would be Option 2, Two
Floating Cranes on one barge.
Our conclusion that Option 2 is the best alternative for meeting the projects reliability requirements
was arrived at by considering the various options, in depth. The in-depth evaluations are
demonstrated in the following chapters.
6.7.10 Findings
For all options, the product will be loaded at Port Kaituma into 3,000 to 3,500 DWT barges and
pushed downriver, by river going tugs, to a barge mooring location at the mouth of the Waini River.
The barges will be moored at the mouth of the Waini River until sufficient barges are available to allow
for the loading of a Handysize or Panamax vessel. Shiploading will require between 10 and 12
product barges per vessel for a Handysize vessel and twice that for a Panamax. The total number of
barges and tugs assumed for this operation are listed in Section 6.9, Vessels.

REUNION MANGANESE
Once sufficient product is available to ensure a full load for a ship, and a ship is available, oceangoing
tugs will tow the product barges from a tug transfer facility at Waini Point to the transshipment facility
located approximately 30 km. offshore of Waini Point at a 13m water depth. Barges will likely be
towed to the offshore transshipment location one at a time. Barges will be unloaded, then towed back
to the mooring location at the mouth of the Waini River, where they will be collected and pushed back
upriver to Port Kaituma for reloading.
An in-depth simulation study will need to be developed during detailed design to simulate the barge
loading, barge movement, and barge unloading operations to finalize the actual quantity of barges
that will be needed, and the times involved in each step of the operation. As the Metocean study has
determined that offshore transshipment is feasible, and the purpose of this evaluation study is to
determine which equipment configuration is recommended by WorleyParsons, the barge movement
simulation is not included in this study. A detailed barge movement simulation should be undertaken
in during the Feasibility Study.
As the operation grows from 1 million tonnes per year to 2 million tonnes per year, the ship arrival
interval will increase from approximately one vessel every two weeks to approximately one vessel
every week.
To provide simplicity in the description of the Options studies in Section 6.1, below, a single crane
manufacturer is represented in each of the drawings. This is not intended to imply that WorleyParsons
is recommending this crane supplier over any other crane supplier at this point in the project.
Tables showing all combinations of cranes and barges evaluated as a part of this study are shown in
Section6.7.10.2, Transshipment Facility CAPEX and OPEX, and loading of Panamax vessels and
crane combinations are shown later in this document, in Chapter 6.7.11 Panamax Loading.
As mentioned in the previous section, once the concepts and design concepts are complete,
specifications and bid packages should be submitted to selected vendors, and a formal bid tender
evaluation should be carried out at the time competitive bids are received.
6.7.10.1 O PT I O N S
Option 1 One Floating Crane Mounted on One Seagoing Barge
Option 1 uses one pedestal style crane mounted on one floating, ocean going barge to transfer
product from barge to ship, while moored at sea. The crane should be capable of maintaining a mean
throughput of 1,500 mtph. The crane will need to be a pedestal mounted crane to ensure adequate
height is available for unloading material from the product storage barge, and transferring the load to
the respective hatches being loaded on a Handysize 35,000 DWT vessel.
The crane for this transshipment operation should have a sufficient outreach to load/unload directly
from the barge to the ship, without the necessity of dropping the cargo in the middle buffer area, thus
avoiding double handling of the product. The crane should have a down reach capability to reach
near to the bottom of the ships hold, to ensure product can be dropped from a low height to minimize
dust generation and a lifting range adequate to clear any anticipated encumbrances. The boom
operating angle should be sufficient to allow the grab bucket to reach either the bottom of the product

REUNION MANGANESE
barge, or the ships hold, without the cranes lifting lines overly extended. The crane should be
capable of 360 of continuous rotation. The crane should be fitted with a grab bucket and rotator of
suitable size to maintain the 1,500 mpth mean throughput.
The floating crane barge should be a fully decked, ocean going barge, approximately 24m x 60m
(actual size tbd) and fitted with an electric generator (capacity to be determined by whether the crane
is diesel or electric), with day tanks for fuel suitable for a duration to exceed the length of time needed
for shiploading, at a minimum. The barge should be adequately reinforced to withstand any strains
likely to be imposed upon the barge by either sea travel, or crane operations at sea. The barge should
be fitted with a potable water tank for crew usage, a utility water tank for dust control and washdown,
winches for mooring and fleeting, main disconnect, electrical switch gear, and interconnecting cabling.
The barge should also be equipped with a deck mounted, container style crew quarters, complete
with galley, sleeping quarters, along with showers and sanitary facilities. A wastewater storage tank
should be provided to collect all waste and sanitary water, which will be pumped out and treated at on
onshore facility.
Figure 6-35 Option 1 One Floating Crane Mounted on One Seagoing Barge
Option 2 - Two Floating Cranes Mounted on One Seagoing Barge
Option 2 uses two pedestal style cranes mounted on one floating, oceangoing barge to transfer
product from barge to ship, while moored at sea. The two cranes should be capable of maintaining a
combined mean throughput of at least 1,500 mtph. One crane should be able to manage or nearly
manage the mean throughput, operating alone. This will allow for complete or almost complete
redundancy if either crane is down for maintenance activities. If neither crane requires maintenance,
this option will allow for much faster shiploading, with less chance of incurring demurrage charges.

REUNION MANGANESE
The cranes will need to be pedestal mounted cranes to ensure adequate height is available for
unloading material from the product storage barge, and transferring the load to the respective hatches
being loaded on a Handysize 35,000 DWT vessel.
The cranes for this transshipment operation should have sufficient outreach to load/unload directly
from the barge to the ship, without the necessity of dropping the cargo in the middle buffer area, thus
avoiding double handling of the product. The cranes should have down reach capabilities to reach
near to the bottom of the ships hold, to ensure product can be dropped from a low height to minimize
dust generation and lifting ranges adequate to clear any anticipated encumbrances. The boom
operating angles should be sufficient to allow the grab buckets to reach either the bottom of the
product barge, or the ships hold, without the cranes lifting lines overly extended. The cranes should
be capable of 360 of continuous rotation. The cranes should be fitted with grab buckets and rotators
of a suitable size to maintain the 1,500 mpth mean throughput for each crane. Collision software
should be installed in each crane to ensure collisions between cranes are avoided.
The floating barge should be a fully decked, ocean going barge, approximately 24m x 80m (actual
size tbd) and fitted with an electric generator (capacity to be determined by whether the cranes are
diesel or electric), with day tanks for fuel suitable for a duration to exceed the length of time needed
The barge should be equipped with a deck mounted, container style crew quarters, complete with
galley, sleeping quarters, along with showers and sanitary facilities. A wastewater storage tank should
be provided to collect all waste and sanitary water, which will be pumped out and treated at on
onshore facility.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-36 Option 2 Two Floating Cranes Mounted on One Seagoing Barge
Option 3 - Two Floating Cranes Mounted on One Seagoing Barge, with Separate Loading
Equipment (FTS - Floating Transfer Station)
Option 3 uses two cranes, similar to Option 2, and adds hoppers, conveyors and a shiploader. This
addition provides an operational break between the barge unloading operation and the shiploading
operation. This option, while a more capital intensive option, is the option most often used by large
offshore transshipment operators. FTS units may have faster loading rates than most floating cranes,
and can cost less per tonne of handling capacity, but need large transfer rates to be cost effective.
This option is not cost effective for an operation of 2 mtpa.
Option 3 uses two pedestal style cranes mounted on one floating, ocean going barge to direct transfer
product from the product barge to hoppers on the FTS, from the hoppers to a conveyor system which
then feeds a shiploader mounted on the FTS. The shiploader then transfers product to various holds
on the ship, all while moored at sea. This operation allows the unloading operation and the
shiploading operation to be independent of each other. The FTS system should be capable of
maintaining a mean throughput of at least 1,500 mtph, with the conveying system and shiploader
capable of handling the combined peak loads from both cranes. While this option does not provide
complete redundancy throughout the system, it does allow for redundancy while performing
maintenance activities on the cranes, which are the more maintenance intensive pieces of equipment
on the FTS. If both cranes are operational, this option will allow for faster ship loading, with less
chance of incurring demurrage charges. Although the cranes will need to be pedestal mounted
cranes, they will not require the height needed to transfer the load to the respective ship hatches, as
they need only reach from the product barge to the product hoppers onboard the FTS.

REUNION MANGANESE
The cranes for Option 3 should have sufficient outreach to load/unload directly from the barge to the
FTS. While this this option adds the necessity of dropping the cargo into hoppers mounted over
conveyers in the middle buffer area, it does not require double handling of the product, as it would if
the cranes had to move the product once again, from the hoppers to the ships holds. The cranes
should have down reach capabilities to allow reaching to the bottom of the product barge and lifting
ranges adequate to clear any anticipated encumbrances. The boom operating angles should be
sufficient to allow the grab buckets to reach either the bottom of the product barge without the cranes
lifting lines being overly extended. The cranes should be capable of 360 of continuous rotation. The
cranes should be fitted with grab buckets and rotators of a suitable size to maintain the maximum
throughput for each crane. Collision software should be installed in each crane to ensure collisions
between cranes can be avoided.
There should be two hoppers provided on the barge. One hopper for each crane, mounted over the
respective conveyor feeding the shiploader. The hoppers should be sized to provide a continuous
flow of material to the shiploader, while allowing for and absorbing minor delays, such as cleanup or
repositioning activities on the barge unloading side. With two hoppers feeding the shiploader, at least
one hopper should be available to provide a constant flow to conveyor feeding the shiploader at all
times. The hoppers also allow the shiploader to start and stop, perform hatch changes and to
reposition without stopping the unloading operation. Hoppers should be provided with anti-spillage
plates so that the cargo spillage, if any, is collected inside of the hoppers instead of falling into the
sea.
The belt conveyors for this option should be standard belt conveyors, sized to handle the combined
peak flows of the two cranes. The belt conveyor should be covered throughout the length for dust
control and be equipped with primary and secondary scrapers at the head drums and with belt plows
at the tail sections.
The shiploader should be a stationary, pedestal or fixed tower style shiploader, with the ability to
shuttle in and out, and should be supplied with a loading spout that can be raised or lowered. The
loading spout should be equipped with dust control measures. The shiploader should be capable of
slewing in more than 180 of motion, and be able to shuttle in and out to reach a minimum of three
holds from a single position. As the shiploader should be able to raise and lower the loading spout, as
well as shuttle in and out, luffing is not necessary. The shiploader should have a home or parked
position where it can be safely stowed while the FTS is in transit.
The floating barge should be a fully decked, oceangoing barge, approximately 28m x 115m (actual
size tbd) and fitted with an electric generator (capacity to be determined by whether the cranes are
diesel or electric), with day tanks for fuel suitable for a duration to exceed the length of time needed
The barge should be equipped with a deck mounted, container style crew quarters, complete with
galley, sleeping quarters, along with showers and sanitary facilities. A wastewater storage tank should

REUNION MANGANESE
be provided to collect all waste and sanitary water, which will be pumped out and treated at on
onshore facility.
Figure 6-37 Option 3 Two Floating Cranes Mounted on One Seagoing Barge, with Separate
Loading Equipment (FTS - Floating Transfer Station)
Option 4 - Modified Bulk Carrier
In the strictest sense, the term Modified Bulk Carrier means a merchant ship specially designed to
transport unpackaged bulk cargo, such as grains, coal, ore, and cement in its cargo holds. In the
sense it used for this report, it means using a self-propelled ocean going vessel as a support platform
for the FTS, rather than using a barge platform. Large transshippers such as Coeclerici Logistics use
these types of floating terminals throughout the world.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-38 Coeclericis Bulk Prosperity
Using a modified bulk carrier as an FTS platform adds the option of storage capacity at the offshore
transshipping or transloading operation, which can help to guarantee continuity in the operation and
to avoid delays to ocean going vessels. Since the FTS is self-propelled, it does not need to be towed
by oceangoing tugs to a mooring or transshipment location, which leaves the tugs free to transport
product barges.
Coeclericis recent project, the Bulk Prosperity is currently deployed in India and is providing a cost-
effective solution for importing and exporting cargo from Indias Gujarat area. The Bulk Prosperity has
been designed and equipped for both loading and discharging from simple coastal barges up to Cape
size vessels and has storage capacity of 10,500 tonnes. Other vessels are in use with even larger
storage capacities.
During the course of preparing the background information for this evaluation, WorleyParsons
approached Coeclerici for pricing on a Coeclerici supplied FTS. Coeclerici does not sell their
equipment, but prefers to lease their equipment for transshipment operations, and prices those leases
with a price per tonne of product transshipped. As a large FTS system is expensive, they require a
substantial yearly throughput to be cost effective. Upon researching the capital requirements for
building a vessel of this type for this project, we determined this option would require an excessive
capital investment for a project of this scale, and would result in a price of around $10 USD per tonne
to repay that investment, a price not competitive with the other options under consideration.
Option 5 - Self Loading Bulk Carrier
The term Self-Loading Bulk Carrier means a merchant ship specially designed to transport
unpackaged bulk cargo, such as grains, coal, ore, and cement in its cargo holds, as well as having

REUNION MANGANESE
the means to load and unload itself. Self-loading and unloading vessels have a dry bulk handling
system on board enabling them to be independent of any harbor side loading or unloading
While a thorough evaluation of this option is beyond the scope of this evaluation study,
WorleyParsons thought it prudent to include the option as a basis for further investigation.
In speaking with Coeclerici on the option of leasing one of their transshipment systems for loading
vessels at the offshore location, Coeclerici suggested that as leasing one of their transshipment
systems may be cost prohibitive, chartering self-loading vessels may well be a viable option for this
project. A self-loading vessel has its own cranes and can load straight from the barges brought
alongside. The freight premium for chartering self-loading vessels would likely be in the neighborhood
of $2 to $3 USD per tonne, and can be the least expensive option in some situations.
As the primary target vessel for this evaluation is Handysize vessels, and many Handysize vessels
are fitted with cranes, and therefore can self-load, it should be mentioned that there are frequently
issues with grab sizes and vessel availability, as much of the Handysize fleet is over 20yrs old.
Loading larger Panamax vessels may be a logical choice, if the potential markets are across the
Pacific in Asia, and those options are discussed in Chapter 6.7.11 Panamax Loading. Self-loading
Panamax vessels are even less common than self-loading Handysize vessels, and a transshipment
facility will likely remain necessary for loading, even if occasional shipments are made by using self-
loading vessels.
6.7.10.2 T R AN S S H I P M E N T F AC I L I T Y C APEX A N D OPEX

WorleyParsons has contacted several vendors for budgetary pricing for this project, with the results
compiled and shown below. Results shown are approximate costs, provided for evaluation purposes
and should not be taken as complete and actual expenditures. Costs for accessories have been
provided by vendors, and for clarity have been shown as the same costs across all options.
Transshipment Facility CAPEX Costs
This section presents a table for each of the cranes evaluated and shows the changes in CAPEX
costs for each of the cranes, when applied to Options 1 through 3. The tables also show how the
throughput capacity changes by using and applying different crane models and manufacturers on
each system.
E-Crane 3000 Series -This option uses an E-Crane with a peak loading rate of 2,500 mtph. With two
cranes, this option has a peak loading rate of 5,000 mtph.
Option 1 This option provides a crane which can provide a peak output of 2,500 mtph,
depending upon positioning and length and timing of grab. This option will not only meet, but
exceed the loading requirements.
Option 2 This option provides two cranes, each of which can provide a peak output of 2,500
mtph, depending upon positioning and length and timing of grab. With two canes, this could
have a combined peak rate of 5,000 mtph. With full redundancy, this option will allow loading
with one crane at a rate in excess of the loading requirements.

REUNION MANGANESE
Option 3 3000 Series E-Crane. This option provides two cranes, each of which can provide a
peak output of 2,500 mtph, along with a conveyor system and shiploader capable of handling
the full capacity of the two cranes. With two cranes operating, this system could have a
combined peak rate of 5,000 mtph. This option will allow loading, with only one crane in
service, at a rate in excess of the actual loading requirements.
Table 6-27 CAPEX - E-Crane 3000 Series

OPTION 1 One OPTION 2 Two OPTION 3 Two Cranes on
Crane on One Barge Cranes on One One Barge with Shiploader
Barge
VENDOR 1
Crane Cost E Crane 4,500,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
3000 series 2500+ mtph
each
Barge 24 x 60 meter 5,000,000 0 0
Barge 24 x 80 meter 0 6,000,000 0
Barge 28 x 115 meter 0 0 7,000,000
Fit up barge with winches,
generator, day tank, etc.
1,300,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
Hoppers 0 0 800,000
Conveyors 0 0 1,000,000
Shiploader 1,800,000
Total 10,800,000 16,600,000 21,600,000
E-Crane 2000 Series - This option uses an E-Crane with a peak loading rate of 1,650. With two
Option 1 This option provides a crane that can provide a peak output of 1,650 mtph,
depending upon positioning and length and timing of grab. This option will exceed the loading
requirements.
mtph, depending upon positioning and length and timing of grab. With two cranes, this could
with one crane at a rate that will meet the loading requirements.
mtph, along with a conveyor system and shiploader capable of handling the full capacity of the
two cranes. With two cranes, this could have a combined peak rate of 3,300 mtph. This option
will allow loading, with only one crane in service, at a rate equal to the actual loading
requirements.

OPTION 2 Two
OPTION 1 One Cranes on One OPTION 3 Two Cranes on
Crane on One Barge Barge One Barge with Shiploader

REUNION MANGANESE
OPTION 2 Two
VENDOR 1
Crane Cost E Crane 2000 2,700,000 5,400,000 5,400,000
series 1650+ mtph each
Barge 24 x 60 meter 5,000,000 0 0
Barge 24 x 80 meter 0 6,000,000 0
Barge 28 x 115 meter 0 0 7,000,000
1,300,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
Hoppers 0 0 800,000
Conveyors 0 0 1,000,000
Total 9,000,000 13,000,000 18,000,000
Gottwald Model 8 - This option uses a Gottwald Model 8 crane with a peak loading rate of 1,800.
With two cranes, this option has a peak loading rate of 3,600 mtph.
Option 1 This option provides a crane which can provide a peak output of 1,800 mtph,
requirements.
requirements.
Table 6-29 CAPEX - Gottwald Model 8 Crane

Crane on One Barge Cranes on One Barge One Barge with Shiploader
VENDOR 2
Crane Cost Gottwald 10,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Model 8 1800 mtph
each
Barge 24 x 60 meter 5,000,000 0 0
Barge 24 x 80 meter 0 6,000,000 0
Barge 28 x 115 meter 0 0 7,000,000
Fit up barge with
winches, generator, day
tank, etc. 1,300,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
Hoppers 0 0 800,000
Conveyors 0 0 1,000,000

REUNION MANGANESE

Crane on One Barge Cranes on One Barge One Barge with Shiploader
Total 16,300,000 27,600,000 32,600,000
PLM Model 3520 -This option uses a PLM Model 3520 crane with a peak loading rate of 2,100. With
two cranes, this option has a peak loading rate of 4,200 mtph.
requirements.
requirements.
Table 6-30 CAPEX PLM Model 3520 Crane

OPTION 2 Two
VENDOR 3
Crane Cost PLM 3520 9,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000
2100 mtph each
Barge 24 x 60 meter 5,000,000 0 0
Barge 24 x 80 meter 0 6,000,000 0
Barge 28 x 115 meter 0 0 7,000,000
1,300,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
Hoppers 0 0 800,000
Conveyors 0 0 1,000,000
Total 15,300,000 25,600,000 30,600,000
depending upon positioning and length and timing of grab. With a single crane, this option will
not meet the loading requirements.
mtph, depending upon positioning and length and timing of grab. With two cranes, this

REUNION MANGANESE
configuration could have a combined peak rate of 2,400 mtph. This option provides only partial
redundancy, and will allow loading with one crane at a reduced loading rate. This option will
exceed the loading requirements with the combined rate for two cranes, and has the least
overall capital expenditure for Option 2.
Option 3 - This option provides two cranes, each of which can provide a peak output of 1,200
two cranes. With two cranes, this configuration could have a combined peak rate of 2,400
mtph. This option provides only partial redundancy, as it will allow loading with one crane at a
reduced loading rate, and will exceed the loading requirements with the combined rate for two
cranes. This option has the least overall capital expenditure for Option 3.

OPTION 1 One OPTION 2 Two
Crane on One Cranes on One OPTION 3 Two Cranes on
Barge Barge One Barge with Shiploader
VENDOR 1
Barge 24 x 60 meter 5,000,000 0 0
Barge 24 x 80 meter 0 6,000,000 0
Barge 28 x 115 meter 0 0 7,000,000
1,300,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
Hoppers 0 0 800,000
Conveyors 0 0 1,000,000
Total 8,100,000 11,200,000 16,200,000
Gottwald Model 6 - This option uses a Gottwald Model 6 crane with a peak loading rate of 1,100.
With two cranes, this option has a peak loading rate of 2,200 mtph.
depending upon positioning and length and timing of grab. With a single crane, this option will
not meet the loading requirements.
exceed the loading requirements with the combined rate for two cranes.

REUNION MANGANESE
reduced loading rate, but will exceed the loading requirements with the combined rate for two
cranes.
Table 6-32 CAPEX Gottwald Model 6 Crane

OPTION 2 Two
VENDOR 2
Crane Cost Gottwald 7,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000
Model 6 1100 + mtph
each
Barge 24 x 60 meter 5,000,000 0 0
Barge 24 x 80 meter 0 6,000,000 0
Barge 28 x 115 meter 0 0 7,000,000
1,300,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
Hoppers 0 0 800,000
Conveyors 0 0 1,000,000
Total 13,300,000 21,600,000 26,600,000
Other OPEX costs and options such as electric crane vs. diesel crane, and their associate operational
cost differences will need to be evaluated during the final bid tender and evaluation.
Transshipment Facility OPEX Costs
OPEX costs for the transshipment operation have been developed in the earlier scoping study, and
revalidated during this study, to evaluate manpower, tugs, barges, etc.
This evaluation provides costs for the transshipment equipment itself, and as such, is not intended to
reflect the complete costs for the entire operation. With that in mind, the costs shown in this option are
approximate, and are based upon budgetary information which has been provided by the crane
vendors. The OPEX shown in these tables should be used as it was intended, as a guideline in
selecting appropriate options for this project. Detailed evaluations should be carried out when actual
equipment and configurations have been select, and firm design information for those items received.
For clarity, and in view of presenting a more compact document, full OPEX costs are not shown for
each crane series under each Option, only the least expensive and most expensive options are
shown.
OPEX for options 1 through 3 using least expensive crane
Note: Production rate for Option 1, with one 1500 Series E-Crane, does not meet the 1,500 mtph
required rate. OPEX costs are shown at 1,200 mtph when operating as single crane.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-33 OPEX Option 1- One E-Crane 1500 Series Crane on One Barge
Option 1 OPEX Estimate
Basic Assumptions
Item 1500 Series E-Crane, One Crane, One Barge
1 Total Cost $8,100,000.00
3 Repairs and maintenance supplies and PM labor -1.5 % of the total price $121,500.00
4 Total Fixed Costs per year (2000 hours per year operation) $1,190,500.00
5 Production Rate (tons per hour) with 1 crane 1,200
6 Offloaded Tons per year (2000 hours per year operation) 1,000,000
8 Total Fixed cost per off-loaded ton $1.19
9 Variable Costs
10 Electricity Cost per kW/hour $0.120
11 Average Power Usage - kW (2 cranes, rig, etc.- estimated) 500

12 Electricity Cost per hour $60.00
13 Direct Labor Cost Operator/hour (Three crew members) $60.00

14 Fringe Benefit Costs (35% of hourly rate)/hour $21.00
15 Total Variable Cost/hour $141.00
16 Total Variable costs per off-loaded ton $0.12
17 Summary
Table 6-34 OPEX Option 2- Two E-Crane 1500 Series Cranes on One Barge
Option 2 - OPEX Estimate
Basic Assumptions
Item 1500 Series E-Crane, Two Cranes, One Barge
1 Total Cost $11,200,000.00
9 Variable Costs

REUNION MANGANESE

Basic Assumptions
Item 1500 Series E-Crane, Two Cranes, One Barge
11 Average Power Usage - kW (2 cranes, rig, etc.- estimated) 1,000

13 Direct Labor Cost Operator/hour (Five crew members) $100.00

17 Summary
Table 6-35 OPEX Option 3 - Two E-Crane 1500 Series on One Barge, with Separate Loading
Equipment (FTS - Floating Transfer Station)
Basic Assumptions
Item 1500 Series E-Crane, Two Cranes, FTS System
1 Total Cost $16,200,000.00
7 Total Fixed Cost/hour $1,185.50
9 Variable Costs

17 Summary

REUNION MANGANESE

Basic Assumptions
Item 1500 Series E-Crane, Two Cranes, FTS System
OPEX for options 1 through 3 using most expensive crane
Table 6-36 OPEX Option 1- One Gottwald Model 8 Crane on One Barge
Basic Assumptions
Item Gottwald Model 8, One Crane, One Barge
1 Total Cost $16,300,000.00
9 Variable Costs
13 Direct Labor Cost Operator/hour (Three crew members) $60.00
17 Summary
Table 6-37 OPEX Option 2- Two Gottwald Model 8 Cranes on One Barge
Basic Assumptions
Item Gottwald Model 8, Two Cranes, One Barge
1 Total Cost $27,600,000.00
9 Variable Costs

REUNION MANGANESE

Basic Assumptions
Item Gottwald Model 8, Two Cranes, One Barge
17 Summary
Table 6-38 OPEX Option 3 - Two Gottwald Model 8 Cranes on One Barge, with Separate
Loading Equipment (FTS - Floating Transfer Station)
Basic Assumptions
Item Gottwald Model 8, Two Cranes, FTS System
1 Total Cost $32,600,000.00
` Total Fixed Costs per year (2000 hours per year operation) $4,913,000.00
9 Variable Costs
17 Summary

REUNION MANGANESE
6.7.11 Pana max loa ding

As mentioned in Section 7.7.9, Evaluation Methodology, the various transshipment options presented
within this study are evaluated based on budgetary cost, operational flexibility and reliability. Along
with those variables, to have an average loading and unloading rate, the operational and equipment
efficiencies have been approximated. This study presents a somewhat conservative approach for
loading and unloading rates, and rates may be higher at times. However, with possible demurrage
rates of $50,000 to $75,000 USD per day, a conservative approach to ensure adequate time is
allowed for shiploading is deemed practical.
Five (5) Options were considered during this evaluation phase. Drawings outlining the basic premises
for Options 1 through 3 were sent to various crane vendors for budgetary pricing and comment (see
appendices), requesting both lease and purchase option costs. Options 4 and 5 were sent to
operating companies for lease costs and cost per ton for transshipment, as the CAPEX for the initial
purchase cost of these options were deemed to be excessive for this project. The evaluation for the 5
Options considered previously has been based upon loading a 35,000 DWT Handysize vessel.
Throughout this document, an average crane loading rate of 1,500 mtph has been used as a base
case requirement for loading Handysize vessels, as the same rates as are used in the projected rates
for Port Kaituma and for Port operations at Trinidad. Allowing for an equipment efficiency of 50%
6.7.4
through the loading cycle (Gross Shiploading Rate or Gross Utilization See Table 3, Section 5 - );
the 1,500 mtph rate would conservatively allow a 35,000 DWT Handysize vessel to be loaded in 48
hours.
In this instance a Panamax vessel of more than twice the size, at 80,000 DWT, will need to be loaded
within the same 48 hour time frame. In order to maintain the same vessel loading time, and using the
same equipment efficiency rates, the average crane loading rate will need to be more than doubled,
for an average loading rate of 3,125 mtph.
6.7.11.1 T R AN S S H I P M E N T F AC I L I T Y C APEX C O ST S F O R P AN A M A X L O A D I N G
This section presents a table for each of the cranes evaluated and shows the changes in CAPEX
costs for each of the cranes, when applied to Options 1 through 3. In addition, the tables also show
how the changes in different cranes affect the throughput capacity of each system. As the costs for
all three vendors crane options, as shown in the previous section, have allowed some initial cost
evaluations, only the two crane models deemed to be most cost effective are shown. It should be
noted that although some are close, no crane evaluated could meet the full Panamax loading
requirement of 3,125 mpth.
E-Crane 3000 Series -This option uses an E-Crane with a peak loading rate of 2,500 mtph. With two
cranes, this option has a peak rate of 5,000 mtph.
depending upon positioning and length and timing of grab. With a required average rate of
3,125 mtph, this option will not meet the loading requirements.

REUNION MANGANESE
exceed the loading requirements with the combined rate for two cranes.
reduced loading rate, but will exceed the loading requirements with the combined rate for two
cranes.
Table 6-39 CAPEX - E-Crane 3000 Series for Panamax Loading

OPTION 2 Two
VENDOR 1
Barge 24 x 60 meter 5,000,000 0 0

Barge 24 x 80 meter 0 6,000,000 0
Barge 28 x 115 meter 0 0 7,000,000
1,300,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Hoppers 0 0 1,600,000
Conveyors 0 0 2,000,000
Total 10,800,000 17,000,000 24,600,000
depending upon positioning and length and timing of grab. With a required average rate of
3,125 mtph, this option, with one crane operating alone, will not meet the loading requirements.
redundancy, and will allow loading with one crane at a reduced loading rate. Using the
published peak rates, this option will barely exceed the loading requirements with the combined
rate for two cranes. It is likely that with rates reduced from peak that this option will not meet
the required loading rated of 3,125 mtph.

REUNION MANGANESE
mtph. This option provides only partial redundancy, and will allow loading with one crane at a
reduced loading rate. Using the published peak rates, this option will barely exceed the loading
requirements with the combined rate for two cranes. It is likely that with rates reduced from
peak that this option will not meet the required loading rated of 3,125 mtph.
Table 6-40 CAPEX - E-Crane 2000 Series for Panamax Loading

OPTION 1 One OPTION 2 Two
Crane on One Cranes on One OPTION 3 Two Cranes on
Barge Barge One Barge with Shiploader
VENDOR 1
Barge 24 x 60 meter 5,000,000 0 0
Barge 24 x 80 meter 0 6,000,000 0
Barge 28 x 115 meter 0 0 7,000,000
1,600,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Hoppers 0 0 1,600,000
Conveyors 0 0 2,000,000
Total 9,300,000 13,400,000 21,000,000
6.7.11.2 T R AN S S H I P M E N T F AC I L I T Y OPEX C O ST S F O R P AN AM A X L O AD I N G
As mentioned earlier in this document, this evaluation provides costs for the transshipment equipment
itself, and as such, is not intended to reflect the complete costs for the entire operation. With that in
mind, the costs shown in this option are approximate, and are based upon budgetary information
which has been provided by the crane vendors. The OPEX shown in these tables should be used as
it was intended, as a guideline in selecting appropriate options for this project. Detailed evaluations
should be carried out when actual equipment and configurations have been select, and firm design
information for those items received.
For clarity, as mentioned above, and in view of presenting a more compact document, full OPEX
costs are not shown for each crane series under each Option, only the costs for the above two crane
models are shown.
6.7.11.3 OPEX FOR OPTI ON S 1- 3 USI NG 3000 SERIES E-CR AN E
Table 6-41 OPEX for E-Crane 3000 Series for Option 1- Panamax Loading-
Basic Assumptions

REUNION MANGANESE
Item E-Crane 3000 Series, One Crane, One Barge

1 Total Cost $11,100,000.00
3 Repairs and maintenance supplies and PM labour -1.5 % of the total price $166,500.00
9 Variable Costs
13 Direct Labour Cost Operator/hour (Three crew members) $60.00
17 Summary
Table 6-42 OPEX for E-Crane 3000 Series for Option 2 - Panamax Loading
Basic Assumptions
Item E-Crane 3000 Series, Two Cranes, One Barge
1 Total Cost $17,000,000.00
5 Production Rate (tons per hour) with 2 cranes 3,000
9 Variable Costs
13 Direct Labour Cost Operator/hour (Five crew members) $100.00
17 Summary

REUNION MANGANESE

Basic Assumptions
Basic Assumptions
Item E-Crane 3000 Series, Two Cranes, FTS System
1 Total Cost $24,600,000.00
5 Production Rate (tons per hour) with 2 cranes 3,000
9 Variable Costs
17 Summary
OPEX FOR OPTIONS 1- 3 USING 2000 SERIES E-CRANE
Basic Assumptions
1 Total Cost $9,300,000.00

REUNION MANGANESE

Basic Assumptions
9 Variable Costs
13 Direct Labour Cost Operator/hour (Three crew members) $60.00
17 Summary
Basic Assumptions
1 Total Cost $13,400,000.00
9 Variable Costs
17 Summary

REUNION MANGANESE
Basic Assumptions
Item E-Crane 2000 Series, Two Cranes, FTS System
1 Total Cost $21,000,000.00
9 Variable Costs
17 Summary
6.7.12 Con clusions and Recommendations
6.7.12.1 R I S K S AN D R I SK M I T I G AT I O N S
During the initial scoping studies, there were three specific risks identified for the offshore
transshipment option.
Operational downtime due to weather.
Political risk due to location proximity to Venezuela and the Zona en Reclamacin disputed
boundary.
Negative environmental impact.
The risk for operational downtime has been mitigated by the metocean study. The two remaining risks
were identified but are beyond the scope of our study, and as such were not evaluated. For the
purposes of this study, we assumed these risks are adequately addressed and mitigated. Neither risk

REUNION MANGANESE
has a direct an impact on the actual materials handling, which is the focus of this options evaluation. If
the Offshore Transshipment option is to be advanced, we strongly recommend an environmental
study be performed to address environmental risks and develop mitigation strategies. Similarly, we
recommend a study of the political risk be performed.
6.7.12.2 C APEX A N D OPEX S U M M AR I ES

Handysize CAPEX and OPEX Summary
compiled and shown in Section 6.7.10.2 Transshipment Facility CAPEX and OPEX. Results in
Section 6.7.10.2 show the approximate costs, and should not be taken as complete and actual
expenditures. CAPEX/OPEX summaries for loading Handysize vessels, with the different crane
combinations for Options 1 through 3, are shown below:
E-Crane 3000 Series - This option uses an E-Crane with a peak loading rate of 2,500 mtph. With two
cranes, this option would have a combined peak loading rate of 5,000 mtph.
Table 6-47 CAPEX/OPEX Summary E-Crane 3000 Series
Option 1 - OPEX Estimate Option 2 - OPEX Estimate Option 3 - OPEX Estimate

One Crane One Barge Two Cranes One Barge FTS
1 CAPEX $10,800,000.00 CAPEX $16,600,000.00 CAPEX $21,600,000.00
2 Summary Summary Summary
3 Fixed cost $1.61 Fixed cost $2.49 Fixed cost $3.21
4 Variable cost $0.09 Variable cost $0.17 Variable cost $0.25
5 OPEX per tonne $2.21 OPEX per tonne $3.46 OPEX per tonne $4.49
cranes, this could have a combined peak rate of 3,300 mtph.
Table 6-48 CAPEX/OPEX Summary E-Crane 2000 Series


REUNION MANGANESE
Gottwald Model 8 Crane - This option uses a Gottwald Model 8 crane with a peak loading rate of
1,800. With two cranes, this would have a combined peak rate of 3,600 mtph.
Table 6-49 CAPEX/OPEX Summary Gottwald Model 8

PLM Model 3520 Crane - This option uses a PLM Model 3520 crane with a peak loading rate of
2,100. With two cranes, this would have a combined peak rate of 4,200 mtph.
Table 6-50 CAPEX/OPEX Summary PLM Model 3520

cranes, this would have a combined peak rate of 2,400 mtph. Note: Production rate with one crane
does not meet the 1,500 mtph required mean loading rate. OPEX costs are shown at 1,200 mtph for a
single crane.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-51 CAPEX/OPEX Summary E-Crane1500 Series

Gottwald Model 6 Crane - This option uses a Gottwald Model 6 crane with a peak loading rate of
1,100. With two cranes, this would have a combined peak rate of 2,200 mtph. Note: Production rate
with one crane does not meet the 1,500 mtph required mean loading rate. OPEX costs are shown at
1,100 mtph for a single crane.
Table 6-52 CAPEX/OPEX Summary Gottwald Model 6

Panamax CAPEX and OPEX Summary
compiled and shown in Section 6.7.11.1 Transshipment Facility CAPEX Costs for Panamax Loading.
Results in Section 6.7.11.1 show the approximate costs, but should not be taken as complete and
actual expenditures. As the costs for all three vendors crane options, as shown in the previous
section, have allowed some initial cost evaluations, only the two crane models deemed to be most
cost effective are shown. It should be reiterated that although peak loading rates are close, no single
crane evaluated could meet the full Panamax loading requirement of 3,125 mpth.
CAPEX/OPEX summaries for loading Panamax vessels, with the different crane combinations for
Options 1 through 3, are shown below:
E-Crane 3000 Series - This option uses an E-Crane with a peak loading rate of 2,500 mtph. With two
cranes, this option would have a combined peak loading rate of 5,000 mtph. While operating with one

REUNION MANGANESE
crane, this option will come close, but will not quite meet the complete required mean loading rates for
Panamax vessels.
Table 6-53 CAPEX/OPEX Summary E-Crane 3000 Panamax Loading

cranes, this could have a combined peak rate of 3,300 mtph. This peak rate, when adjusted for actual
conditions, may not meet the required average loading rate of 3,125 mtph. With a peak loading rate of
1,650 for one crane, this option will only make about one half of the required mean loading rate for
Panamax vessels.
Table 6-54 CAPEX/OPEX Summary E-Crane 3000 Panamax Loading

6.7.12.3 C O N C L U SI O N S A N D R EC O M M E N D AT I O N S
The primary consideration for this report is the question of whether or not offshore transshipment
operations are viable for this project, and in the locations selected for this project. Secondly, if an
offshore transshipment operation is deemed to be feasible for this project, which options should be
considered, and of those options, which options are best suited for this project.
For the primary consideration, WorleyParsons looked at the waves and climactic conditions
surrounding the location chosen as a mooring location for the transshipment operation, approximately
30 km, offshore from Waini Point. The Metocean study carried out by WorleyParsons estimates that
for the Waini Point offshore transshipment, the annual-average downtime of operation due to

REUNION MANGANESE
excessive vessel motions, whether by wind or wave, would be less than 1 percent, and is certainly
viable for transshipment operations.
For the secondary consideration, for each of the approaches mentioned above, whether an actual
transshipment operator, or a supplier of transshipment equipment, WorleyParsons requested and
received budgetary quotations toto be able to provide a preliminary financial analysis of what
WorleyParsons perceives to be the most cost effective approach to transshipment at the offshore
Waini Point location.
This report is intended to evaluate whether or not a transshipment operation is feasible for this
project, and to identify what appears to be the most cost effective approach to the transshipment
concept, but is not intended to be an in-depth cost study. As mentioned previously, prices mentioned
within the report are indicative and budgetary, and are not based on complete engineered packages.
Costing should be developed to a more accurate level during detailed engineering.
Handysize Loading Recommendation
WorleyParsons has thoroughly considered the flexibility of operations, OPEX costs and the reliability
of the various options listed above for loading Handysize vessels. With that in mind, WorleyParsons
feels the option having the best combination of cost, flexibility and reliability for loading Handysize
vessels on this project would be Option 2, Two Floating Cranes mounted on one barge.
This report indicates an offshore transshipment operation is definitely feasible for offshore Waini
Point, and that a two crane system will best meet the needs of the transshipment operation. A two
crane system will provide the best combination of reliability and economy. While it is possible to use
two larger cranes, each of which would meet the full loading requirements, WorleyParsons feels the
additional expense for the larger cranes is not justified. Purchasing larger cranes will not increase the
reliability of the system and can have a significant CAPEX impact.
In conclusion, the most cost-effective system for loading Handysize vessels appears to be Option 2,
using cranes similar to the E-Crane 1500 Series, with a peak loading rate of 1,200 for one crane and
2,400 mtph with two cranes combined. Table 7-35 shows a summary comparison of capital costs for
the various crane options for each of the three operating scenarios. The recommended system uses
two smaller cranes, with neither crane capable of meeting the full loading capacity, but exceeds the
needed capacities when combined. While there still remains a chance of down time on one crane,
loading operations would still be able to take place at a reduced rate. WorleyParsons believes Option
2 presents the greatest reliability, coupled with the least crane cost, for any system that can meet the
full loading and unloading rates.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 6-55 Capital Cost Comparison Summary
OPTIONS 1 - 3 COMBINED CAPEX
OPTION 1 One Crane on OPTION 2 Two Cranes on OPTION 3 Two Cranes on One
One Barge One Barge Barge with Shiploader
VENDOR 1
E Crane 3000 series
$ 10,800,000.00 $ 16,600,000.00 $ 21,600,000.00
2500+ mtph each
E Crane 2000 series

$ 9,000,000.00 $ 13,000,000.00 $ 18,000,000.00
1650+ mtph each
E Crane 1500 series

$ 8,100,000.00 $ 11,200,000.00 $ 16,200,000.00
1200+ mtph each
VENDOR 2
Gottwald Model 6
$ 13,300,000.00 $ 21,600,000.00 $ 26,600,000.00
1100 + mtph each
Gottwald Model 8
$ 16,300,000.00 $ 27,600,000.00 $ 32,600,000.00
1800 mtph each
VENDOR 3
PLM 3520 2100 mtph
$ 15,300,000.00 $ 25,600,000.00 $ 30,600,000.00
each
Panamax Loading Recommendation
WorleyParsons considered the flexibility of operations, OPEX costs and the reliability of the various
options listed above for loading Panamax vessels. With that in mind, and as in the Handysize Loading
Recommendation above, WorleyParsons feels the option having the best combination of cost,
flexibility and reliability for loading Panamax vessels on this project would also be Option 2, Two
Floating Cranes mounted on one barge.
Options 1 through 3 are shown in the CAPEX/OPEX evaluations above as well as in the appendices
for both Handysize and Panamax options, however, Options 1 and Option 3 are not deemed practical
for loading a Panamax vessel for the following reasons:
Notwithstanding the issue of a single point of failure for one crane, the required mean loading
rates of 3,000 mtph for one crane, as shown in Option 1, would require a larger crane than is
currently available or practical. While the E-Crane 3000 Series, with its peak digging rate of
2,500 mtph comes close, it would create more of a risk to have not only a single point of failure,
but also a crane that may not have sufficient capacity to load a Panamax vessel in the 48 hour
timeframe.
While evaluating the costs for Option 3 for a Handysize vessel, it appeared the CAPEX costs
for an FTS large enough to meet the Handysize loading requirements were excessive, even
when used with that lesser CAPEX option. The costs involved with loading a Panamax vessel
in the same time frame, and using even larger cranes, conveyors and shiploading equipment

REUNION MANGANESE
would require a substantially larger initial CAPEX investment, and would, of course, result in
longer payback timeframes and higher costs per ton for operational cost.
In conclusion, the most cost effective system for loading Panamax vessels appears to be Option 2,
using cranes similar to the E-Crane 3000 Series, with a peak loading rate of 2,500 for one crane and
5,000 mtph with two cranes combined. The recommended system uses two cranes, with neither
crane capable of meeting the full loading capacity, but exceeds the needed capacities when
combined. While there still remains a chance of down time on one crane, loading operations would
still be able to take place at a reduced rate. It is the opinion of WorleyParsons that Option 2 presents
the greatest reliability, coupled with the least crane cost, for any system which can meet the full
loading and unloading rates.
6.8 Environmental Issues

Several regulatory requirements will need to be investigated for any operation that involves dredging,
barge shipment, mooring installation and an offshore transshipment. This section contains a brief
summary of potential issues. We strongly recommend a full Environmental Impact Assessment be
commissioned as soon as possible.
6.8.1 General Marine Env ironmental Issues

A transship barge option will need to comply with local environmental legislation (Environmental
Protection Act) and will require an EIS. An Environmental Impact Statement, by necessity, describes
all components of the existing environment (including the built and natural environments) and the
social and economic activities, and assesses the impacts (both positive and negative) on all these
components.
Under the Environmental Protection Act, Reunion Manganese will need to identify, describe and
evaluate the direct and indirect effects on the environment including human beings, flora and fauna
and species habitat, soil, water, air and climate factors, cultural heritage, landscape, ecological
balance, and an interaction between these environmental factors. Every project will be viewed with
the need to protect human health, preserve the stability of ecosystems and well as the diversity
species.
An environmental and social baseline study (EBS) will need to be undertaken as part of the EIS. This
will include a review of existing literature, existing field data, analysis of satellite data and community
and fisheries surveys. Important information will also need to be collected through consultation of
local specialists, canal/port users and key institutions. For the marine EBS (throughout the proposed
dredge channel and at the proposed spoil ground), the sampling program should include:
Sediment samples for physico-chemical analysis
Water quality samples for physico-chemical analysis taken throughout the tidal cycle
Fish samples for chemical analysis
Benthic macrofauna

REUNION MANGANESE
Water quality analysis of suspended solids, hydrocarbons, nutrients, metals and chemical
oxygen demand.
Sediment samples analysed for particle size, total organic carbon, nutrients, hydrocarbons,
PCBs, pesticides, tributyltin and metals.
In-situ water quality monitoring will need to be undertaken as part of the metocean survey at
fixed stations within the canal. Measurements should include salinity, dissolved oxygen and
turbidity.
An extensive vibrocoring programme of the dredge channel should be undertaken. These

should be subject to physico-chemical analysis to assess the risk of contamination.
Seabed photography and video will need to be taken at key sites within the study area; dive
surveys of any nearby reef that could be impacted by the development should be undertaken.
Any wetlands and mangrove communities will need to be mapped using high resolution satellite
maps (8-band multi-spectral imagery).
Key decisions regarding the dredging and placement of the dredge spoil will influence the
amount of data that will be required to be collated as part of the approvals process.
Agreement from key stakeholders is needed regarding any required dredging and the disposal of any
quantity of material offshore or onshore. This should include an understanding of the nature of the
material to be placed offshore or on-land, and the determination of the proper location for disposal
from a balanced and transparent consideration of environmental, social, health and economic
aspects.
If offshore disposal is to be considered, identification of a preferred spoil ground should be

undertaken through the review of identified planning, environmental, social, economic, navigational,
maritime safety and any identified operational constraints, development a hydrodynamic model, a
preliminary survey of the benthic habitat and consultation with key stakeholders.
6.8.2 Issues to consider

The proper environmental strategy will play a pivotal role in helping the project team identify
and respond to issues of concern to community and Government stakeholders, help inform the
impact assessment and structural design processes, and enable measures to be developed to
mitigate, avoid or compensate for potential impacts arising from the proposed works.
Community understanding and acceptance of the proposed project will influence its passage
through the approval processes.
The project must support the National Development Strategy (Guyana).
On-going monitoring requirements
- Maintenance dredging
- Monitoring spillage around the barge

REUNION MANGANESE
Offsite Dredge Spoil Disposal
- Potential impacts to benthic fauna and seagrass and other benthic flora from direct
impact such as smothering and indirect impacts such as localised effects on water
quality from increased turbidity and suspended solids
- Impacts to adjacent coastal environments (e.g. coral reefs, seagrass beds and
intertidal areas and fisheries habitats and nurseries) from the movement or re-
suspension of material
- Impacts to marine megafauna such as impacts to feeding grounds, feeding behavior

and habitat
- Amenity and visual aesthetics from potential dredge plumes in the water column
- Perceived impacts to access for commercial fishers and recreational fishers
6.8.3 Key Ri sks

Environmental value of the site
Community - How many people need to be relocated? What will be the impacts to fishing and
lifestyle?
What are the cumulative impacts in the area?
Are other transship barges in other neighboring countries being moved due to environmental
and/or community protests?
Approval of a New Offshore Spoil Disposal Site - Important elements of assessing disposal
options for dredged material are:
- Are there opportunities to beneficially use or recycle such materials?
- If they have no beneficial re-use, can they be treated to destroy, reduce or remove
the hazardous constituents?
- If hazardous constituents are destroyed, reduced or removed, do the materials have

beneficial uses?
- What are the comparative risks to the environment and human health of the
alternatives?
- What are the costs and benefits of the alternatives?
6.8.4 Geotechni cal Program

The geotechnical program will need to assess whether the material is suitable for reuse in
construction. Disposal on land must be also considered and Reunion must assess the impact on the

REUNION MANGANESE
environment and community. Marine spoil grounds will need to consider physical, chemical and
biological characteristics of the water column and the seabed, location of amenities, values and other
uses of the sea in the area under consideration, assessment of the constituent fluxes associated with
dumping in relation to existing fluxes of substances in the marine environment, and economic and
operational feasibility.
6.8.5 Environmental Issues Unique to Offshore Transshi p Facility and

Tug Transfer Terminal
Although offshore transshipment facilities are becoming more common, constructing and operating an
offshore transshipment facility has particular environmental concerns, regardless of the location. Off
the coast of Guyana, the most likely concerns relate to environmental degradation, especially from
product spillage and dust control. Guyana is a location for unique rainforest, coastal and mangrove
ecosystems that could be severely compromised by spills as a result of offshore loading. Any such
occurrence could result in significant reputational damage, punitive legal costs and project delays.
Furthermore, windblown ore dust can have significant effects on physical and chemical properties of
beaches, as it reduces the porosity and permeability of sand, as well and disables the sand from
being able to heat and cool naturally.
Considering the majority of the Guyanese population lives near to the coast, any significant spill
offshore or dust issues could cause damage to the Guyanese economy including the fisheries and
tourism sectors. The low-lying nature of much of the Guyanese coast also places much of Guyanas
infrastructure and population at risk. Recent spillage and concerns about dust at a facility in Colombia
resulted in closure of a coal export facility due to environmental concerns, and moving the operation
to a land based one. The concern of the Government, locals, and environmental organizations was
that the offshore facility was negatively impacting the quality of life to the people and ecosystem
nearby. These modifications cost approximately $20million in construction costs. 3
Understanding the potential adverse impacts to air quality, particularly from product spillage and dust
is crucial to the feasibility of an offshore transship operation. Other issues that need to be address
include wastewater discharge, solid and liquid waste management, noise generation and fuel spills.
The environmental risks associated with the proposed facility must be evaluated early in the process
to ease concerns from the government, environmental organization, and the general public. It is
recommended that an Environmental Impact Assessment be performed as early as possible to
ensure the offshore facility is feasible from an environmental perspective.
3
Latin America Herald Tribune, Consortium Offers to Build Coal Port in Northern Colombia, January 16, 2009.

REUNION MANGANESE
6.9 Vessels
6.9.1 Barges
During the initial transportation study, WorleyParsons recommended using cargo barges with shallow
draft pusher tugs to transport the product from Port Kaituma to the mouth of the Waini River. The
physical parameters and estimated CAPEX costs for the cargo barges were listed as a preliminary
approach. The study recognized the proposed concepts would need to be further studied and vetted
as the project detail progressed. The initial study listed the following preliminary physical concepts for
the cargo or product barges:
Type Flat top with high sides and gates, covered
Length 60-70 meters
Beam 23 to 24 meters
Draft 3 to 3.5 meters
Total Displacement 4,500 tonnes
Cargo 3,000 to 3,500 tonnes
Bow thrusters
This section of the report provides revised cargo barge recommendations and preliminary vendor
pricing.
Barge Type
There are two basic types of barges which could feasibly be used for this type of product. One is a flat
top or deck barge with a bin mounted on top of the deck, and the other option is an open hopper
barge, where the cargo is lowered inside of the barge, and not stacked on top of the deck. There are
several considerations for each one.
Both barge types can be used on inland waterways, however the open hopper style is not
recommended on the open sea, as high wave conditions can cause it to be easily swamped and filled
with water, especially when filled with cargo and riding low in the water. An open hopper barge can
have a lesser initial CAPEX cost than a flat top barge, but using clamshell crane buckets for
unloading material can often cause damage on the sides and bottoms of the barge, causing extensive
repairs and maintenance during the equipment lifecycle. Constant vigilance needs to be maintained to
ensure the banging of the clamshell bucket has not caused breaching in the outer hull. It may be
difficult to obtain ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) or equivalent certificates for use of open hopper
barges in offshore waters.
A flat top barge can have a higher initial CAPEX cost, but with a sealed hull offers greater
seaworthiness, and is deemed to be the only realistic answer for this project. The added deck steel
makes the barge slightly heavier, so the dimensions and draft may be somewhat different than for an
open hopper barge. As unloading operations with a clamshell bucket can also damage a flat top

REUNION MANGANESE
deck, WorleyParsons would recommend taking the precaution of adding a timber layer to the top of
the deck which would absorb the clamshell bucket blows without damaging the barge deck or hull.
Timbers can easily be replaced during maintenance activities and will add significantly to the
equipment lifecycle and effective resale value at the end of the lifecycle period.
Covers
The preliminary study presumed the cargo would need to be covered to protect it from the weather,
which would add to the barge CAPEX cost. We reviewed and revalidated the evaluations made in
our Scoping and determined that barges are not required to be covered. This will reduce the length of
time needed for offshore equipment operations, but will not otherwise impact our evaluation.
Bow Thrusters
The barges were initially presumed to be equipped with bow thrusters, which would be used to assist
the steering of the barge/tug combination in transit up and down the river and at the turning basin at
the upstream barge loading end. A bow thruster might be a nice feature for operation in the river, but
it is relatively expensive and is vulnerable to damage by contact with the river bank. Bow thrusters
would need to be installed within watertight compartments, would require maintenance access, and
some form of indication of water leakage into the compartment bilges. A constant concern in the
shallow river water would be fouling and plugging of the bow thruster intakes.
For use in the turning basin, the extra steering needed might be accomplished more cost effectively
with a small assist tug and a crew of two that remains at location and assists all barges with arrival
and departure. To add a pump jet style bow thruster to each barge would add approximately
$300,000 USD per barge to the purchase price and given the control issues etc., WorleyParsons
does not think this is a practical option operationally nor from a cost perspective in comparison with
having a small tug at the mine to assist in turning/berthing.
ABS
In order to be able to be operated in the open seas, the barges will need to be certified and registered
with ABS, Lloyds or another equivalent classification society. Marine vessels certified by such an
agency will require regular access to a dry dock capable of pulling large vessels from the water to
facilitate the required regular vessel inspections. Inspections may be necessary as often as every
couple of years. Further investigation into local shipyards and dry docks will need to be carried out
during the successive design period.
CAPEX - Second Hand Market
The initial study presumed this size and type of barge could be found on the second hand market all
over the world and could be converted for the requirements of this project at considerably less cost
than building new ones.
In investigating the US market, WorleyParsons had conversations with Cooper T Smith, Marcon
International, Canal Barge, Weeks Marine, Seabridge Marine, and McDonough Marine, amongst
others. While some of the vendors had one or two barges of sufficient size and capacity,
WorleyParsons did not find any significant quantity of barges available. Further studies might be

REUNION MANGANESE
made into offshore locations other than the US or Canada, as some of the vendors contacted
indicated they had been contacted recently by other parties interested in obtaining similar sized
barges.
Lease or Build Own Operate Option
WorleyParsons contacted several vendors to enquire if there was any interest in providing costs for a
lease or vendor owned and operated barge fleet.
One stevedoring company, Cooper T Smith, has similar fleets in operation, but does not have
offshore loading capability. All of their current operations are on inland or sheltered waterways, and
did not offer to price this operation. Further investigation into other stevedoring operations can be
pursued in later project phases, if desired.
While several vendors indicated there may be some interest, at this point only one vendor (Seabridge
Marine) has replied with firm costs for leasing, however the lease option, shown below under CAPEX
New Construction, is more of a deferred cash option. While the vendor providing these rates might
consider a charter wherein they would own the equipment at the end of the lease period, it could be
considered more of an off balance sheet charter, and at this time would only offer the same rate
where there the residual value is $0 or even a liability.
Seabridge Marine would normally supervise the building of the barges in China, and the normal price
includes staff in the local shipyards to ensure the quality of the fabrication and assembly. Seabridge
will also offer a Low Cost Barge, with Seabridge serving only as a broker between the shipyard and
the purchaser, without any shop or quality oversight.
Deferred payment lease/purchase would provide 15 x 73m heavy deck ocean barges 3500mts of
cargo capacity at 3.5m draft. All new builds, in ABS class, delivered to Guyana, ready to work. Built
per M 4000 73M Heavy Deck Cargo Barge Specification.
Table 6-56 Barge Lease Purchase Options
10 Year Lease Purchase Option for 15 Flat Top Cargo Barges
Commitment Fee $6,650,000 1 time $6,650,000
Quarterly Fee 1,155,000 4 times per year 46,200,000
Total Deferred Price $52.850.000
Total Price Per Barge 15 Barges $3,523,334
10 Year Lease Purchase Option for 15 Low Cost Flat Top Cargo Barges
Commitment Fee $6,100,000 1 time $6,100,000
Quarterly Fee 1,065,000 4 times per year 42,600,000
Total Deferred Price $48,700,000

REUNION MANGANESE
Price does not include import duties or taxes. Ownership would transfer with last payment. A
conservative estimate of barge residual value would be US $1.25m per barge assuming they remain
in good condition.
CAPEX New Construction
WorleyParsons had earlier recommend budgeting $US 4 to $US 7 million to purchase each new
barge. During the course of this study, we contacted numerous barge building and operating
companies, and found while the estimated price would be valid for barges built in the US, it would be
possible to purchase new built barges in China, and have them shipped from China to Guyana, for
less than the estimated amount.
Seabridge Marine would normally supervise the building of the barges in China, and the normal price
includes staff in the local shipyards to ensure the quality of the fabrication and assembly. Seabridge
will also offer a Low Cost Barge, with Seabridge serving only as a broker between the shipyard and
the purchaser, without any shop or quality oversight.
The direct purchase would provide 15 x 73m heavy deck ocean barges 3500mts of cargo capacity at
3.5m draft. All new builds, in ABS class, delivered to Guyana, ready to work. Built per M 4000 73M
Heavy Deck Cargo Barge Specification.
Table 6-57 Barge CAPEX Purchase Options
CAPEX Purchase Option for 15 Flat Top Cargo Barges
Downpayment $6,650,000 1 time $6,650,000
Remainder of 6,650,000 4 times 26,600,000

Payments
Total Price $33,.250.000
CAPEX Purchase Option for 15 Low Cost Flat Top Cargo Barges
Downpayment $6,100,000 1 time $6,100,000
Remainder of 6,100,000 4 times 24,400,000

Payments
Total Price $30,500.000

REUNION MANGANESE
Payments for either option would be paid in 5 installments; contract signing, steel cutting, launching,
departure from china, and delivery in Guyana. The lead time to build and deliver would be 18-24
months in advance of the desired delivery date. Price does not include local taxes or import duties.
Once again, WorleyParsons would note the evaluation study is intended to be an comparison of
equipment types and operational methodologies to determine the preferred option in going forward,
and while the costs shown are vendor prices, this document is not is not intended as a complete bid
tender evaluation for specific pieces of equipment. A formal bid tender evaluation should be
performed at the time complete specifications and bid packages are submitted to vendors, and bids
are received with detailed actual and not budgetary pricing.
6.9.2 Tugs
During the initial Scoping Study, WorleyParsons performed a preliminary analysis of the tug fleet
requirements and provided an order of magnitude cost estimate for the type of tug equipment
required, both river tugs and ocean tugs. Further investigation into tug selection and tug costs was
not included in the scope of work for this pre-feasibility study as it is not a determining factor in option
selection to carry forward to the next phase of work.
We did, however, validate and refine the draft requirements for both river tugs and ocean tugs to
determine the impact, if any, tug draft requirement have on dredging volumes. It was determined as
noted in Table 7-3 that river tug draft is 2.5 m which is not greater than the existing barge draft
requirement of 3.0 to 3.5m. It was also determined as noted in Table 7-22 that ocean tug draft is 2.5
to 3.5 m which is not greater than the existing barge draft requirement of 3.0 to 3.5m. Tug draft,
therefore, is not the determining factor dredging volumes.
6.10 Tug Transfer Facility

Ore barges transported to Waini Point by river tugs need to be towed to the offshore trans-shipment
facility or a port in Trinidad by ocean tugs. A tug transfer facility at Waini River estuary is required to
facilitate the operation. This facility also serves as a mooring site for ore barges. This facility needs
to be at a sheltered location. According to the limited hydrographic survey data obtained by Olin
Hydrographic Solutions (OHS) Inc. in June 2012, there is an area of 1,000 m by 100 m at Waini River
estuary where water depths are between 5 m to 10 m. The proposed location of the tug transfer
facility is located in this area, as illustrated in Figure 6-39. This location is also the beginning of the
dredged entrance channel.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 6-39 Proposed Location of Tug Transfer Facility

REUNION MANGANESE
7 TUG TRANSFER FACILITY CONCEPT
The main function of the tug transfer facility is to provide mooring for the crane barge, the ore barges
and to facilitate tug switching operation. In developing the tug transfer facility concept, the following
site conditions have been considered:
The facility should be located in an area with water depth sufficient for tugs and barges.
Maintenance dredging in this area should be avoided.
The Waini River estuary is influenced by tidal variations in the Atlantic Ocean. In flood tide,
river flow may reverse. Tidal range at Waini Point is approximately 1.5 m.
The Waini River estuary becomes shallow towards the open ocean. An area of 1,000 m by 100
m close to Barima River mouth has been identified to have water depths in the range of 5 m to
10 m.
The proposed tug transfer facility concept is illustrated in Figure 7-1. The facility has the following
components and features:
The facility is aligned to the dominant river flow direction.
The facility consists of 19 vertical steel pipe piles and 367 m long floating pontoons.
The steel pipe piles are approximately 20 m apart and are driven sufficiently far into the seabed
to mobilize lateral resistance required to resist mooring forces. The piles provide the anchoring
to the entire facility. The floating pontoons are connected to piles via pile hoops.
The floating pontoon consists of a steel pipe or timber log grillage.
The ore barges are moored to the floating pontoons directly. Multiple barges can be moored to
this facility. The facility can be used to moor 15 to 20 ore barges.
The crane barge and tug boats are moored to the floating pontoons.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 7-1 Tug Transfer Facility Concept
The conceptual cost of this facility is summarized in Table 7-1
Table 7-1 Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate Tug Transfer Facility

Unit
Item Description Unit Quantity Cost Cost
1 Mobilization/Demobilization l.s. 1 $200,000 $ 200,000

2 Supply and Installation of Steel Pipe Piles l.s. 19 $ 15,000 $ 285,000
3 Supply and Installation of Steel Pontoons m 367 $ 3,000 $1,101,000
Sub-Total $1,586,000
Contingency (30%) 475,800
Total 2,061,800

REUNION MANGANESE
8 SUMM ARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A tug transfer facility concept at Waini River estuary is developed. The tug transfer facility consists of
19 steel pipe piles and 367 m floating pontoons. The facility can be used to moor the crane barge,
tug boats, and 15 20 ore barges. The estimated construction cost for this facility is US $2.1 million.
To optimize the layout and to conduct the detailed design on the facility, the following
recommendations are made:
Conduct a detailed hydrographic survey at Waini River estuary; identify the final location of the
tug transfer facility.
Obtain geotechnical information at Waini River estuary.
Conduct current measurement at Waini River estuary and define the design current speed for
the facility.

REUNION MANGANESE
9 CAPEX / OPEX SUMMARY
Table 9-1 NPV of Project at Various Interest Rates
Tons per annum 1,000,000 Tons per annum 2,000,000

NPV ($m) @ NPV ($m) @
0% 5% 10% 0% 5% 10%
Narrow Gauge Rail
$ 145 $ 117 $ 101 $ 176 $ 139 $ 117
LAND
Road - 140 Tonne $ 111 $ 89 $ 76 $ 131 $ 101 $ 84
WATER
Dredging $ 66 $ 54 $ 47 $ 66 $ 54 $ 47
Vessels $ 329 $ 212 $ 153 $ 379 $ 241 $ 171
Infrastructure $ 91 $ 70 $ 58 $ 96 $ 72 $ 59
Subtotal Water $ 486 $ 336 $ 258 $ 542 $ 367 $ 277
Total Land + Water $ 597 $ 425 $ 333 $ 673 $ 468 $ 361

Engr/Mgt/Contingency $ 57 $ 53 $ 50 $ 58 $ 54 $ 50
TOTAL $ 655 $ 478 $ 383 $ 731 $ 522 $ 412

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 9-2 EUAC of Project at Various Interest Rates

CAPEX OPEX OPEX EUAC / Ton @ CAPEX OPEX OPEX EUAC / Ton @
($m) ($m) ($/ton) 0% 5% 10% ($m) ($m) ($/ton) 0% 5% 10%
Narrow Gauge Rail $ 97 $2 $2.42 $7 $9 $ 12 $ 107 $3 $1.73 $4 $5 $7
LAND
Road - 140 Tonne $ 71 $2 $1.98 $5 $7 $9 $ 74 $3 $1.44 $3 $4 $5
WATER
Dredging $ 46 $ 1 $1.00 $ 3 $ 4 $ 5 $ 46 $ 1 $0.50 $ 1 $ 2 $ 3
Vessels $ 72 $ 13 $12.84 $ 15 $ 16 $ 17 $ 72 $ 15 $7.68 $ 9 $ 9 $ 10
Infrastructure $ 49 $ 2 $2.10 $ 4 $ 5 $ 7 $ 49 $ 2 $1.17 $ 2 $ 3 $ 3
Subtotal Water $ 168 $ 16 $15.94 $ 22 $ 26 $ 29 $ 168 $ 19 $9.35 $ 12 $ 14 $ 16
Total Land + Water $ 239 $ 18 $17.92 $ 27 $ 32 $ 38 $ 242 $ 22 $10.79 $ 15 $ 18 $ 21

Engr/Mgt/Contingency $ 57 $ 0 $0.00 $ 3 $ 4 $ 6 $ 58 $ 0 $0.00 $ 1 $ 2 $ 3
TOTAL $ 296 $ 18 $ 17.92 $ 30 $ 36 $ 44 $ 299 $ 22 $ 10.79 $ 17 $ 20 $ 23

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 9-3 Cost Components

CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX
($m) ($m) ($m) ($m)
Infrastructure $ 48.8 $ 0.9 $ 48.8 $ 1.3
Equipment 10.9 0.7 21.2 1.4
Materials Handling at Mine and Port 37.0 0.8 37.0 0.8
Subtotal $ 96.7 $ 2.4 $ 107.0 $ 3.5
Environmental Permitting 1.0 1.0

Engineering & Management 7.5% 7.3 8.0
Contingency 15% 14.5 16.1
Narrow Gauge Rail $ 119.5 $ 2.4 $ 132.1 $ 3.5
Infrastructure $ 50.6 $ 1.2 $ 50.6 $ 1.8

Equipment 3.2 0.4 5.9 0.7
Materials Handling at Mine and Port 17.6 0.4 17.6 0.4
Subtotal $ 71.4 $ 2.0 $ 74.0 $ 2.9
Environmental Permitting 1.0 1.0

Road - 140 Tonne $ 88.4 $ 2.0 $ 91.7 $ 2.9

CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX
($m) ($m) ($m) ($m)
Water Transport
Navigation Aids and Offshore Barge Mooring $ 6.0 $ 0.2 $ 6.0 $ 0.2
Dredging 45.8 1.0 45.8 1.0
OffShore Trans-Ship Terminal 17.5 0.5 17.5 0.7
Waini Point Tug Transfer Facility 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0
Port Kaituma 24.4 1.4 24.4 1.4
Vessels (Barges & Tugs) 72.3 12.8 72.3 15.4
Subtotal $ 167.5 $ 15.9 $ 167.5 $ 18.7

Port Kaituma - Contingency 25% 6.1 6.1
TOTAL Water Transport $ 207.7 $ 15.9 $ 207.7 $ 18.7

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 9-4 CAPEX & OPEX Compared - Rail & Haul Road


Earthworks $5,849,235 $5,849,235 $31,208,270 $31,208,270
Bridge Works $5,756,322 $5,756,322 $8,081,017 $8,081,017
Drainage $0 $0 $4,467,904 $4,467,904
Fencing $535,000 $535,000 $535,000 $535,000
Structures $57,415 $57,415 $105,261 $105,261
Plate laying P&G $1,621,803 $1,621,803
Plate laying $5,406,011 $5,406,011
TOTAL CAPEX $96,748,798 $107,015,464 $71,367,295 $74,042,295
Table 9-5 CAPEX & OPEX Equipment Compared - Rail & Haul Road

Item
1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa 1 Mtpa 2 Mtpa
Crew 2 4 5 10
Wagons/Trailers 27 54 24 44
Trucks (1 spare) 6 11

Item
Wagons $3,600,000 $7,200,000
Locomotives $6,666,667 $13,333,333
Trucks $1,530,000 $2,805,000
Trailers $1,680,000 $3,080,000
Road/Rail Shunt Mobile $666,667 $666,667
CAPEX EQUIPMENT $10,933,333 $21,200,000 $3,210,000 $5,885,000

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 9-6 CAPEX Materials Handling Compared - Rail & Haul Road

Item
Loader $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
Stacking and Reclaiming $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Conveyors $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Total Materials Handling Mine Side $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $7,600,000 $7,600,000
Item
Truck Dump & Feeder $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Storage and Reclaim $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Conveyors & Related Systems $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Barge Loader & Winches $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Total Materials Handling Port Side: $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000
Total CAPEX Materials Handling: $37,000,000 $37,000,000 $17,600,000 $17,600,000
Table 9-7 OPEX Compared - Rail & Haul Road

Item
Crew 2 4 5 10
Wagons/Trailers 27 54 24 44
Trucks 6 11
Operating Costs:
Drivers ($1500 &$1100 pm) $39,000 $78,000 $171,600 $314,600
Other Crew ($1000 pm) $26,000 $52,000 $50,700 $92,950
Fuel Cost ($0.95/l) $570,000 $527,778 $570,000 $527,778
Locomotive Maintenance $533,333 $1,066,667
Wagon Maintenance $180,000 $360,000
Truck/Trailer Maintenance $385,200 $706,200
Rail Infrastructure Maintenance $304,000 $608,000
Road Infrastructure Maintenance $422,400 $844,800
Maintenance on Materials Handling Equipment $772,000 $772,000 $384,000 $384,000

REUNION MANGANESE
10 TIMELINE
2012 2013 2014 2015

Task N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M
Completion of Pre-Feasibility Study
Completion of Feasibility Study
Commencement of Construction
Rail Installation
Road Installation
Dredge Wanai River Bar
Port Kaituma Infrastructure
Trinidad Marine Infrastructure
Secure Vessels
Offshore Transship Infrastructure
Initiation of Operations
Figure 10-1 Timeline

REUNION MANGANESE
11 RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS
1. WorleyParsons recommends the heavy haul road option as the preferred go-forward option
for further analysis in a Bankable Feasibility Study.
2. WorleyParsons can recommend that the option of a floating trans-shipment facility moored
offshore appears feasible and can be advanced forward for further analysis in a Bankable
Feasibility Study.
3. We recommend that an environmental impact assessment be conducted immediately to

understand risks to both land and marine options, and to develop mitigation strategies.
4. We recommend that Reunion Manganese continue to explore potential alternative options in

Trinidad. WorleyParsons was not able to study the option of transshipment in Trinidad as a
suitable location in Trinidad for a transshipment operation has not been identified.
5. WorleyParsons recommends that operating agreements with offshore transship operators

and barge/tug operators are explored to determine options to minimize capital expense.
6. We recommend that decisions regarding offshore transship operations and barge/tug fleet
operation (lease or purchase) be advanced immediately as these items may have long lead
times and jeopardize the scheduled initiation of operations.
7. We recommend the following related to Marine studies:
a. Obtain site-specific wave and current measurement at the Waini Point offshore
trans-shipment mooring site.
b. Conduct a more detailed vessel motions study on the Waini Point offshore trans-
shipment facility during the next phase of the study. Evaluate relative vessel
motions among the ore carrier, the crane barge, and the ore barge. Determine the
mooring loads and provide critical design parameters for the mooring system.
Optimize the mooring layout.
c. Refine operations and determine the requirements for ore barge storage and
mooring. Determine the requirement for crane barge stationing and mooring.
d. Install a tide gauge at Port Kaituma and obtain 1-year water level data, to be used to
determine the design low water level.
e. Obtain rectified aerial photos along the entire waterway from Port Kaituma to Waini
Point. The aerial photos will be used to determine the locations of the river banks,
coastline, and other land boundaries.
f. Prepare AutCAD basemap drawings for the next phase coastal/marine engineering
work.

REUNION MANGANESE
12 SOURCES OF DAT A
We used the following sources of data in this study:
Tide measurement data at Port Kaituma obtained by Olin Hydrographic Solutions, Inc..
Bathymetric data at 18 km upstream portion of Kaituma River obtained by Olin Hydrographic

Solutions, Inc. in June 2012.
Bathymetric data along the entire Kaituma River conducted by Guyana government in April
2012.
WaveWatch III hindcast data published by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
Tropical storm and hurricane track records published by NOAA.
Guyana Current data published by the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric
Studies (CIMAS), Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science (RSMAS), University of
Miami.
Offshore bathymetric data published by the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO).
Nearshore bathymetric data published on navigation charts 24390, 24400, 24410, published by
the Defence Mapping Agency.
Tide data published by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office.
Oceanographic data obtained in the metocean study
Bathymetric data at Waini Point obtained by Olin Hydrographic Solutions, Inc. in June 2012.
Tide data published by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office.

REUNION MANGANESE
13 REFERENCES
We used the following references for this metocean study:
1. Matthews Ridge Transportation Scoping Study, November 29, 2011, WorleyParsons.
2. Navigation chart 24390, 24400, 24410 and 24028, the Defence Mapping Agency.
3. Admiralty Chart BA1045 Approaches to Trinidad and the Rio-Orinoco, the United Kingdom
Hydrographic Office.
4. Admiralty Sailing Direction NP 7A South America Pilot, the United Kingdom Hydrographic
Office.
5. Admiralty Tide Tables, Vol. 2, the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office.
6. Atlas of Pilot Charts North Atlantic Ocean (including Gulf of Mexico), 2002.
7. Quantification and Magnitude of Losses and Damages Resulting from the Impacts of Climate
Change: Modelling the Transformational Impacts and Costs of Sea Level Rise in the
Caribbean, prepared by The CARIBSAVE Partnership for UNDP Barbados and the OECS for
CARICOM Member States, 2010.
8. The Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS),

www.oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu.
9. The Coastal Service Center (CSC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), www.csc.noaa.gov.
10. The General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO), www.gebco.net.
11. Fully Nonlinear Hydrodynamic Interaction Between Two 3D Floating Structures in Close
Proximity, S. Yan, Q. W. Ma, and Xiaoming Cheng, September 2011, International Journal of
Offshore and Polar Engineering, Volume 21, Number 3, pp 178-185.
12. Couple Mini-TLP Barge Response in Random Seas, Chen Xie, John M. Niedzwecki, and, Per
Teigen, June 2008, International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Volume 18,
Number 2, pp. 112-119.
13. Numerical Analysis on Motion Responses of Adjacent Multiple Floating Bodies by Using
Rankine Panel Method, Kyong-Hwan Kim, Yonghwan Kim, and Mun-Sung Kim, June 2009,
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 90-96.
14. Hydrodynamic Interactions Between Two Ships Advancing in Waves, Gung-Rong Chen and
Ming-Chung Fang, 2000, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 28, pp. 1053-1078.
15. Numerical and Experimental Study on Hydrodynamic Interaction of Side-By-Side Moored

Multiple Vessels, 2005, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 32, pp. 783-801.

REUNION MANGANESE
16. Global Analysis of FPSO and Shuttle Tankers During Side-by-Side Offloading, B. J. Koo and
M. H. Kim, Project Report Prepared for the Minerals Management Service and OTRC Industry
Consortium, OTRC Library Number: 03/06A170, March 2006.
17. Time Domain Simulations of Side-By-Side Moored Vessels Lessons Learnt from a Benchmark
th
Test, Mamoun Naciri, Olaf Waals, and Japp de Wilde, 2007, Proceedings of the 26
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), OMAE2007-
29756.
18. Ship Assist in Fully Exposed Conditions Joint Industry Project SAFETUG, Johan H de Jong,
Tugnology 07.
19. The Behaviour of Tugs in Waves Assisting LNG Carriers During Berthing Along Offshore LNG
th
Terminals, Bas Buchner, Pieter Dierx and Olaf Waals, 2005, Proceedings of 24 International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), OMAE2005-67219.
20. Effects of Motion at Sea on Crew Performance: a Survey, Samson C. Stevens and Michael G.
Parsons, Marine Technology, Vol. 39, No.1, January 2002, pp. 29-47.
21. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structure, Faltinsen, O.M., 1990.
22. Offshore LNG Transfer: A Worldwide Review of Offloading Availability, L. Poldervaart, H.

Oomen, and J. Ellis, 2006, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 18026.
23. Matthews Ridge Transportation Scoping Study, November 29, 2011, WorleyParsons.
24. Navigation chart 24390, 24400, 24410 and 24028, the Defence Mapping Agency.
25. Admiralty Chart BA1045 Approaches to Trinidad and the Rio-Orinoco, the United Kingdom
Hydrographic Office.
26. Admiralty Sailing Direction NP 7A South America Pilot, the United Kingdom Hydrographic
Office.
27. Admiralty Tide Tables, Vol. 2, the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office.
28. Atlas of Pilot Charts North Atlantic Ocean (including Gulf of Mexico), 2002.
29. Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM, 2008).
30. 2012 Offshore Hydrographic Survey for Reunion Manganese Matthews Ridge
Transportation, Olin Hydrographic Solutions, Inc., June 2012.
31. Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM, 2008).
32. 2012 Offshore Hydrographic Survey for Reunion

REUNION MANGANESE
ERROR! UNKNOWN DOCUMENT PROPERTY NAME.
Appendix 1 Summary of our Study Team

REUNION MANGANESE
MIKE PETRO - TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS SPECIALIST

Mr. Petro has more than 25 years of experience in the transportation and logistics industry,
with extensive experience in supply chain management across various modes including
ocean, rail and trucking and intermodal. His areas of expertise include business strategy,
operations management, service design, process improvement, systems design and
implementation, fleet management and terminal operations. Prior to joining WorleyParsons in
2011, he was Managing Partner of Point B Logistics, a Transportation and Logistics
Consultancy he founded in 2001. Prior to starting Point B Logistics, he held executive
positions with some of the most notable firms in logistics and transportation, including
American President Lines, CSX/Sea-Land, CSX Intermodal and CSX Transportation.
VIC MULLER - RAIL DIRECTOR

Mr. Muller has 24 years railway experiences on heavy haul, general freight, intermodal and
rail-logistics projects. Vic is an experienced rail professional. His skills include rail
engineering, operations, rail business analysis, feasibility studies, project management,
marketing and logistics- and business management. He has specific exposure to rail bridge
design, track maintenance management, construction management on track and maintenance
facilities and equipment. His strength is to lead high performance teams of specialists in all
the disciplines of Railway Systems. Vic has worked on rail projects in Africa and Brazil.
GEOFFREY J. HARRISON - SENIOR MARINE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

Mr. Harrison has over 33 years of continuous experience in Canada, United Kingdom, South-
East Asia, and the Caribbean in analysis, design, construction and project management
specializing in port, maritime and heavy industrial facilities. He has acted as project manager
and lead engineer responsible for all phases of project delivery from preliminary design
through tendering, contract administration and construction supervision on several major
projects. He has extensive overseas experience including Team Leader for the construction
supervision of a World Bank-funded major port development in Indonesia, and resident
engineer for port development, coastal defence and reclamation projects in Barbados.
C.W. (BILL) MCLACHLAN - TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, MATERIALS HANDLING

Mr. McLachlan is a Technical Director of Materials Handling and specializes in the design of
materials handling systems, bulk terminals, and equipment. Mr. McLachlan has over 40 years
of experience in project management, design installation, and operation of dry bulk handling
facilities, including a wide range of heavy mechanical equipment used in bulk materials
handling, terminals and overland transportation systems. His work has included all aspects of
the planning, designing, and commissioning of bulk materials handling facilities and he has
worked with terminal operators as a consultant during initial start-up periods and subsequently
during upgrading and optimizing exercises. Mr. McLachlan has worked on major materials
handling projects in the United States, India, Asia, Europe, South America, and Africa, either
on his own or as part of a project team incorporating local assistance.
REUNION MANGANESE
ADRIAN SHAMBLER - GLOBAL DIRECTOR, PIT TO PORT BUSINESS

Mr. Shambler is experienced in business development, project management, highway and
bridge design and design management, construction management, contract administration
and site supervision of major highway, bridge, railway and port projects worldwide. He is
responsible for promoting WorleyParsons capabilities in the area of delivering mine rail
port sections (or part thereof) through all phases of the development and implementation
process. Previously, Major Projects Director for Halcrows transportation business groups
operations in the Middle East, he was responsible for identifying specific projects that fit
Halcrows business strategy, setting the standards on how major projects are bid and
managed and also assuming the project director role on large projects. He was also
responsible for business development and client management matters across the Middle East
region
JAN MATTH - CHANNEL NAVIGATION AND DREDGING EXPERT
Mr. Matth has over 20 years of engineering and contracting experience in the marine and
coastal sector. Key responsibilities have included strategic planning, R&D and innovations,
human resource planning, budgeting, business development, contract management, quality
assurance, client liaison, and project management. He is currently the global director for ports
and marine terminals at WorleyParsons. He obtained a Special Diploma in Dredging
Sciences, Dutch Association of Dredging Contractors in November 1996 and worked nine
years in the dredging contracting industry in various roles for one of the worlds largest
dredging contractors. He worked as dredging production engineer in their R&D department,
dredging cost estimator, superintendent, works manager and project manager on large
dredging jobsites in various locations around the world. Mr. Matth is very familiar with all
different types of dredging equipment and their limitations, siltation and sedimentation issues,
geotechnical aspects of dredging, cost estimating for dredging projects, and dredging contract
law, and has good working contacts with all major dredging companies around the world.
ANITA GARD - SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ECONOMIST
Ms. Gard is a Senior Transportation Economist with broad experience in transportation and
logistics. She utilizes strong computer, editing, writing and presentation skills to solve
business problems. She is experienced in research and statistical analysis of rail freight
volumes, rolling stock supply and demand, railroad operating and capital costs, and potential
transportation markets.
LARRY A. SHUGHART - GLOBAL LEAD FOR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Shughart specializes in performance management, economic analysis, network
operations, engineering, and strategic planning. He serves as lead consultant on
engagements supporting asset utilization, service scheduling, performance improvement,
operations management, strategic analyses, due diligence, and opportunities assessments.
Mr. Shughart has worked on Railroad projects in over 20 different countries. Shughart has
also forecasted and analyzed land-side access, service, and capacity to support valuation
studies of a number of port facilities. He has coauthored expert testimony in support of a
national railroad labor arbitration hearing, managed a litigation dispute between a rail car
manufacturer and a Class I railroad, and served as the lead advisor to the Province of British
Columbia on matters relating to the restructuring and privatization of BC Rail. Shughart
worked for 14 years at CSX Corporation in a variety of areas, including economic analysis,
intermodal network planning, performance improvement, locomotive operations, strategy,
service design, finance, operations research, and engineering.
REUNION MANGANESE
JOHN PAULING - INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Pauling is an active member of the American Association of Port Authorities. His main
area of expertise is River & Estuary Engineering, with particular emphasis in infrastructure and
environmental engineering. He has 28 years of diversified experience in business/engineering
management and engineering, including twenty-three years in the environmental field. Mr.
Pauling developed market entry and diversification strategies and business plans for seaport
and airport programs. His experience includes design engineering, project management,
sales/marketing, and business management. Specific experience includes concept design,
regulatory evaluation, permitting, detailed design, construction management,
operations/maintenance, and privatization.
WILLIAM TYRRELL
Mr. Tyrrell has over 30 years of project management, design and engineering experience in
industries as diverse as offshore production and drilling, petrochemical and refineries, mining
and minerals, pressure vessel fabrication, wood products, pulp and paper, microelectronics,
food processing, and bulk handling facilities.
William has been involved in all phases of the project lifecycle from proposal writing,
conceptual design, detailed engineering and continuing through construction and
commissioning.
JENNY CARLSON
Ms. Carlson is the Manager of WorleyParsons Portland Office and Manager of Engineering
for the US Operations. She has over 25 years of engineering experience in heavy industry
including marine docks, materials handling, oil refineries, steel mills and aluminum plants, pulp
and paper, food processing, and power plants. Her background includes project management,
conceptual and detail design, permitting assistance, scheduling and cost estimating, and
feasibility studies.
Jenny provides engineering support for design and analysis of structures, foundations, and
equipment supports. Her qualifications and expertise allow her to develop a concept, relate it
to the customer through design drawings, follow it through fabrication and construction, and
resolve problems expeditiously.
GANG YANG
Dr. Yang has fourteen years of experience in coastal engineering field including eight years
with WorleyParsons. Dr. Yang specializes in wind-wave extreme probability analyses,
numerical modeling of wave propagations, hydrodynamics modeling, dynamic analyses of
various floating structures, and design of various coastal and maritime structures including
mooring system, breakwaters, berthing dolphins, harbors and marinas, dredging, beaches,
and revetments. Dr. Yang has extensive coastal engineering experience in the Pacific
Northwest, South Florida, the Gulf, and the Caribbean.
STONEY STEENKAMP
Stoney Steenkamp is a Professional Engineering Technologist with over 34 years' experience
in the design of roads and highways in South Africa. He specialises in the geometric design of
freeways, dual carriage-ways and rural, urban and gravel roads and is experienced in the
design of new road infrastructure and the rehabilitation of existing roads and streets. His
experience covers all aspects of a project from the report stage to final design and tender
documentation.
REUNION MANGANESE
He has done work for various clients such as the National Roads Agency in South Africa, the
Western Cape Provincial Administration and other local roads authorities
MORNE BOTHA
Morn Botha is a Professional Engineering Technologist and Professional Construction
Project Manager with over 18 years experience in the field of road and railway engineering in
South and Central Africa. He is experienced in roads design, site supervision and contract
management, visual assessment of road condition, road rehabilitation, stormwater
infrastructure and basic route planning. His experience in railway line design and route
determination includes road-over-rail and road-under-rail design, as well as the design of
various rail lines in Zimbabwe, Zambia and South Africa. He received the Flip Vorster Award
for the design of the railway line from Beitbridge to Bulawayo in Zimbabwe.
Experience was also gained in stormwater and canal design, the design of infrastructure for
shopping malls, parking bays and filling stations. He was responsible for the roads and
stormwater upgrading in and around Rosebank Station as part of the Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
in Gauteng and for construction supervision of the new N2 dual carriageway at the Coega
Harbour. He is currently the Design and Supervision Engineer for the Hougham Park
Interchange on the N2 as part of the Coega Industrial Development Zone.
REUNION MANGANESE
Appendix 2 Interim Bridge Report

REUNI ON M ANG AN ESE
Reunion Manganese
Matthew's Ridge Preliminary Bridge
Evaluation
Matthew's Ridge, Guyana
000/00000/0 Document No
16 May 2012
Telephone:
Facsimile:

REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
Do not delete this line
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Reunion
Manganese, and is subject to and issued in accordance with the agreement between
Reunion Manganese and WorleyParsons. WorleyParsons accepts no liability or
responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any
other party.
Copying this report without the permission of Reunion Manganese or WorleyParsons is not
permitted.
PROJECT 000/00000/0 - MATTHEW'S RIDGE

PARSONS APPROVAL
APPROVAL
A Issued for internal review 17 N/A

November
Mike Petro A Reviewer N/A 2011
https://us.worleyparsons.com/archives/bd/ie/reunion manganese matthews ridge fs p2532/pfs

study/report/appendices/app l - matthews ridge - prelim bridge review rev 0.docx
Document No: Document No Page ii
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1
2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 2
3 OBSERVATIONS................................................................................................................ 3
3.1 Bridge Options .................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Narrow Gauge Heavy Haul Bridge Requirements ................................................. 5
3.1.2 Heavy Haul Road Bridge Requirements ................................................................ 7
4 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................11
FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Steel Girder Narrow Gauge Rail Bridge over the Barima River ........................................... 3
Figure 3-2 Corrosion Evident on Girders ............................................................................................... 4
Figure 3-3 Main Towers showing serious metal decay .......................................................................... 4
Figure 3-4 Main span clearance and Heavy Haul Road width ............................................................... 5
Figure 3-5 Original Bridge Life Loading ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3-6 Typical Lattice Girder through Span ..................................................................................... 6
Figure 3-7 Haul Road Typical Cross Section ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 3-8 Bridge re-configured to accommodate concrete deck on top ............................................... 8
https://us.worleyparsons.com/archives/bd/ie/reunion manganese matthews ridge fs p2532/pfs study/report/appendices/app l - matthews ridge -

prelim bridge review rev 0.docx
Page iii 000/00000/0 : Document No Rev A : 17 November 2011
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
Figure 3-9 Single Road Lane Concrete deck on steel Girders .............................................................. 8
Figure 3-10 Double Road Lane Concrete deck on steel girders and pre-stressed concrete beams ..... 9
Figure 3-11 Typical Heavy Haul Rail Bridge Cross Section Concrete deck on steel Girders...........10
**Please do not delete appendices below, it will not print**
https://us.worleyparsons.com/archives/bd/ie/reunion manganese matthews ridge fs p2532/pfs study/report/appendices/app l - matthews ridge -

prelim bridge review rev 0.docx
Page iv 000/00000/0 : Document No Rev A : 17 November 2011
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WorleyParsons hereby provides a preliminary review of the bridge options that will be reviewed in more detail during
the pre-feasibility study phase. After discussions with G-Mining we decided to have this preliminary review to support
the assumption made during the scoping study that the bridge solution will not play a material role in the selection of
the go-forward option between road or rail for the land transportation solution.
The following sections provide an overview of all the considerations that will be relevant when the bridge solution is
detailed. The 4 proposed solutions presented in Table 1 had been evaluated and rounded cost items summarized.
Upgraded Steel New Rail Upgraded Steel New Double Lane

Rail Bridge Bridge Single Lane Road Bridge: Pre-Stressed
Activity & Materials
bridge Beams
(US$) (US$) (US$) (US$)
Repair Steel Components 800,000 800,000
Upgrade Steel Components 650,000 375,000
Upgrade Foundations 250,000 450,000 150,000 660,000
Concrete Columns 300,000 420,000 330,000 840,000
Conrete Deck 750,000 550,000 950,000
New Steel Girders 480,000
Pre-stressed Concrete 730,000
Total 2,000,000 2,100,000 2,205,000 3,180,000
Table 1 Comparative Costs for the proposed Bridge Options
The estimates are at 35% accuracy level for now. The most uncertain items are the availability of artisans with the
skills to execute steel bridge work, logistics cost for material supply and access.
We estimate that an investment of $2-3.2 million will be required for the bridge solution, and that a minimum
investment of $2 million will be required under any scenario. The difference in cost for the bridge options will not be
a significant factor in the land transport solution selection between rail and road. The most appropriate bridge
solution and the associated costs will be developed in more detail near the end of the pre-feasibility phase of the
project after the most viable land transport solution is determined.
https://us.worleyparsons.com/archives/bd/ie/reunion manganese matthews ridge fs p2532/pfs study/report/appendices/app l - matthews ridge - prelim bridge review
rev 0.docx
Page 1 000/00000/0 : Document No Rev A : 17 November 2011
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
2 BACKGROUND
This preliminary evaluation of the steel girder rail bridge over the Barima River intends to address a few
considerations, views and perceptions regarding the rehabilitation and possible upgrade of the narrow gauge rail
bridge or the use of some of the bridge components in providing a road bridge solution for the land transportation
options that will be considered during the pre-feasibility studies.
The Barima River Bridge is the only major bridge on the 50 km route. The bridge solutions are not expected to be
determining factors in the choice between road and rail purely for the small relative contribution that required capital
and maintenance cost for the bridge will have on the analysis. Money will need to be spend on any option and
whatever the final detailed difference between the bridge options might be; will not have a material effect on the land
transportation choice.
Golder completed their preliminary geotechnical investigations on the right of way including some special attention to
the bridge founding circumstances. Their conclusion implies that the foundations would need to be strengthened if
the bridge loading needs to be increased.
This evaluation will consider this implication and will also put the re-use of the bridge in perspective.
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
3 OBSERV ATIONS
From a distance and on face value the narrow gauge steel bridge over the Barima River seems to be in a fair and
well preserved condition.
The bridge has one main span referred to as a plate girder half-through span, cradling the track in the bottom
between the two main girders. The track forces are carried over to the main beams by cross- and longitudinal- steel
members and ties. The maximum length of these types of spans used in South Africa is 22 m but this span is
measured to be 34 m and the girder depth is 2.7 m. The other spans are simple supported girders with cross
members holding them in position with the main girders on 1,067 m centers (same as the track gauge), supporting
the track on top of the beams. There are two simple spans like this on each side of the main span. (It is assumed
that there are two spans on the North-Eastern side (right side on photo) although it was inaccessible due to
overgrowth). These spans are measured to be 19.8 m and 13.4 m long respectively.
Figure 3-1 Steel Girder Narrow Gauge Rail Bridge over the Barima River
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
A closer look reveals corrosion that will need to be addressed even if it is the intention to only restore the original
capacity.
Figure 3-2 Corrosion Evident on Girders
The supporting structures under- or close to the water level show more evident decay to such an extent that the main
towers will need heavy repairs and replacement of steel members. The normal pragmatic approach is to box the tower
with neat shuttering works and to pour it full of concrete to replace it with a concrete column in this way. It also offers
the ideal opportunity to integrate a larger spread footing if the bearing resistance of the foundations needs to be
increased.
Figure 3-3 Main Towers showing serious metal decay
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
The horizontal clearance over the width of the main span with the track on the bottom cross members is measured to
be 2.5 m, comparing for instance to a single lane width of a typical heavy haul road of 3.7m. A deck for a road lane in
place of the track is therefore not an option for this span in the current configuration.
Figure 3-4 Main span clearance and Heavy Haul Road width
3.1 Bridge Options
During the scoping study the land transportation options were narrowed down to two options. The pre-feasibility
study will determine which of the heavy haul road or rail options will be the most viable go-forward option. The most
effective bridge option will eventually be dictated by the go-forward land transportation solution still to be determined.
It is highly unlikely that the differentiated financial considerations for the applicable bridge solutions will determine the
eventual choice of which land transportation option to follow.
3.1.1 Na rrow Gauge Heav y Haul B ri dge Require me nts
The original narrow gauge operated on 15 ton axle loads. With four axles per wagon this implies that the gross
weight of the wagons (own weight plus payload) was 60 ton. The main span of the bridge was therefore designed to
carry a life load of 180 t plus dynamic forces plus dead load of the bridge members, sleepers and rail. Following the
argument it can be deducted that the worst case life loading was:
Main Span : 180 t

Secondary Spans : 60 t
Main Bridge Towers : 120 t
Secondary Towers : 60 t
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
Increasing the axle load to 30 t or 26 t per axle for efficient operations as considered in the scoping studies the life
loading on the spans will double. The moment of resistance just for life loading will therefore also double. Combining
the force of the bogeys in the middle of the main span as an equivalent point load the load doubles from approx. 90 t
to for 15 t axle loads to 180 t for 30 t axle loads. Moment of resistance being the load x effective span length 4 will
therefore double if the load doubles. With the main span girders at a maximum for this type of structural configuration
it is quite obvious that the un-braced top, or compression member of the girder becomes the critical structural
member. It therefore needs strengthening or the girder needs to increase substantially in depth (height). That is why
the next type of steel span will typically move to become a lattice type girder structure that will be braced at the top
for stability and high enough to clear the structure profile also called a lattice girder through span (Figure 3-6). In
such cases it is normally more practical and efficient to move to a combined concrete deck on steel girders
configuration as illustrated in Figure 3-11 or to use pre-stressed concrete beams instead of steel girders.
60T 60T 60T 60T 60T 60T 60T
60 T 120 T 120 T 60 T
Figure 3-5 Original Bridge Life Loading
Feasibility designs will be conducted during the pre-feasibility study for strengthening or reconfiguration of the bridge
pending the land transportation option selection.
Figure 3-6 Typical Lattice Girder through Span
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
3.1.2 Heav y Ha ul Road B ridge Re qui re me nts
For the heavy haul road option two lanes of 3,7 m with 2 m shoulders should be considered as a minimum as
suggested in the scoping study. Traffic volume can escalate to a truck with 50 t payload per direction every 5
minutes at a specific point en-route, hence the approach to provide a two lane bi-directional road.
The approach would be to prevent a single lane constraint like a bridge en-route for safety and efficient operations.
The crossing points for loaded and empty return trucks en-route will move randomly during operations and the first
approach would be not to build in a constraint where crossing control needs to be provided unless it comes at an
unjustifiable cost and with an acceptable safety factor if the constraint is not avoidable.
Both a single lane road bridge and a two-lane bridge will be considered in this review.
Figure 3-7 Haul Road Typical Cross Section
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
It will not be possible to only replace the sleepers and track with a deck for road transportation for the bridge in its
current configuration. The girders of the secondary spans are on 1,067 m centers and the main span has a
horizontal clearance of 2.5 m between the two main girders as shown in Figure 3-4.
In order to consider using the girders as support for a road bridge the top of the girders should be on the same level
to accommodate a deck as illustrated in red below. Hydraulic properties will need to be checked as potential flood
obstruction might be an issue and need to be evaluated.
Figure 3-8 Bridge re-configured to accommodate concrete deck on top
In Figure 3-11 a typical heavy haul rail bridge cross section is illustrated. Very much the same configuration would be
required for a road bridge up to the colored concrete deck level. If the ballast, sleepers, rails, catwalks and handrails
are removed, what remains constitutes what would be needed for a single or double lane road over the river bridge.
For a single lane road bridge the width shown of 4056 mm will need to increase to 3700 + (2 x 800 shoulders) + (2 x
250 parapet walls) = 5,300 m. The girder pairs will need to be supported on centers that will provide stable deck
support and hence the bridge tower support beams will need to be extended to have these girders on approx. 3.8 m
centers.
5300 mm
3800 mm
Figure 3-9 Single Road Lane Concrete deck on steel Girders
The steel will need to be rehabilitated and some rivets and sections replaced. We expect it will be difficult to find the
necessary artisans capable of maintaining and rehabilitating a 50 year old bridge.
The dead weight of the steel will increase as al the stiffeners and tie-beams will be extended to support the beams
on their wider centers. The additional dead weight of the concrete deck will be:
[(5.3 x 34 x 0.3) + (2 x 0.5 x 0.3 x 34)] x 2400 1000 = 154.224 ton
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
In Logic terms this leaves 180 t (155 t + extra steel weight) < 25 ton life load for the middle span if it is accepted
that the girders will provide the same moment resistance in the new configuration. We allowed for 50 ton payload
trailers in the scoping study. The gross weight of the equivalent section of the road train can easily be 50 t + 15 t =
65 ton.
It is therefore clear at this stage that if the girders are to be re-used for the road bridge option that they will have to
be rehabilitated and most probably upgraded. The bridge towers need to be widened and the foundations will need
to be strengthened mainly due to the wider spacing of the girders and the additional deadweight of the concrete deck
and longer steel tie beams. Over and above this the main towers will also have to be rehabilitated or replaced with
concrete columns.
It should be clear that using two of the existing supporting girders per span would not be adequate on their own if a
two lane road bridge must be provided. For a two lane road bridge the width of the deck should be at least 2 x 3700
+ (2 x 800 shoulders) + (2 x 250 parapet walls) = 9.500 m. If it is worth using the existing steel girders they will have
to be combined with more girders per span or pre-stressed concrete beams. The bridge tower support beams will
need to be extended to suit, implying extended foundations and concrete columns.
9500 mm
Figure 3-10 Double Road Lane Concrete deck on steel girders and pre-stressed concrete beams
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
Detailed analysis will be conducted on the bridge option that will be required to support the land transportation
option. Comparative preliminary costs for the options discussed are illustrated in Table 1.
Figure 3-11 Typical Heavy Haul Rail Bridge Cross Section Concrete deck on steel Girders
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
MATTHEW'S RIDGE
GUYANA
4 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
The estimates provided in Table 1 are approximately at a 35% level of accuracy. The most uncertain items are the
availability of artisans with the skills to execute steel bridge work, logistics cost for material supply and access.
We are confident that the choice of bridge will not significantly influence the decision in the land transportation option
selection.
The most appropriate bridge solution will therefore be developed during the pre-feasibility phase to support the most
viable go-forward solution to be selected.
rev 0.docx
REUNION MANGANESE
Appendix 3 Monthly Wind and Wave Statistics at Grid

Point T2 (840N, 5910'W)
REUNION MANGANESE
January
=========================================================================
Percentage occurrences by wave heights and directions:
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .000 .922 1.267 .173 .000 .000 2.362

22.5 .000 .000 .000 1.152 4.032 1.152 .000 .000 6.336
45.0 .000 .000 .000 3.226 8.871 2.995 1.325 .000 16.417
67.5 .000 .000 .000 21.429 28.456 17.339 3.456 .115 70.795
90.0 .000 .000 .000 2.247 1.267 .576 .000 .000 4.090
112.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 .000 .000 28.975 43.894 22.235 4.781 .115
January
=========================================================================
Percentage occurrences by wave heights and wave periods:
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 Total
6 - 7 .000 .000 .000 1.498 .115 .058 .000 .000 1.671

7 - 8 .000 .000 .000 11.233 6.336 .230 .115 .000 17.915
8 - 9 .000 .000 .000 13.076 21.198 9.217 1.613 .000 45.104
9 - 10 .000 .000 .000 1.210 9.793 9.044 2.823 .115 22.984
10 - 11 .000 .000 .000 .115 2.650 2.880 .230 .000 5.876
11 - 12 .000 .000 .000 .461 .634 .173 .000 .000 1.267
12 - 13 .000 .000 .000 .403 .691 .115 .000 .000 1.210
13 - 14 .000 .000 .000 .634 1.210 .115 .000 .000 1.959
14 - 15 .000 .000 .000 .115 1.037 .058 .000 .000 1.210
15 - 16 .000 .000 .000 .230 .173 .173 .000 .000 .576
16 - 17 .000 .000 .000 .000 .058 .058 .000 .000 .115
17 - 18 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .115 .000 .000 .115
Total .000 .000 .000 28.975 43.894 22.235 4.781 .115
January
=========================================================================
Percentage occurrences by wind speeds and directions:
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 12.0 - 14.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

22.5 .000 .000 .288 .403 .058 .000 .000 .749
45.0 .000 .115 2.074 5.876 3.571 .518 .000 12.154
67.5 .000 .518 6.740 33.756 19.873 2.247 .058 63.191
90.0 .000 .403 3.399 13.191 5.760 .461 .000 23.214
112.5 .000 .000 .403 .230 .000 .000 .000 .634
135.0 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .058
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 1.094 12.903 53.456 29.263 3.226 .058

REUNION MANGANESE
February
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 Total
.0 .000 .000 1.207 .699 .381 .000 .000 2.287

22.5 .000 .000 .508 1.842 2.414 .445 .000 5.210
45.0 .000 .635 .254 5.273 6.671 4.193 .191 17.217
67.5 .000 .000 .889 17.916 26.557 18.170 2.986 66.518
90.0 .000 .318 1.588 5.972 .762 .127 .000 8.767
112.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 .953 4.447 31.703 36.785 22.935 3.177
February
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 Total
2 - 3 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

3 - 4 .000 .318 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .318
4 - 5 .000 .318 .191 .000 .000 .000 .000 .508
5 - 6 .000 .318 .762 .191 .000 .000 .000 1.271
6 - 7 .000 .000 .826 .508 .445 .000 .000 1.779
7 - 8 .000 .000 .889 10.801 8.577 2.605 .000 22.872
8 - 9 .000 .000 .064 11.563 17.916 11.690 .762 41.995
9 - 10 .000 .000 .000 6.417 6.671 7.560 2.351 22.999
10 - 11 .000 .000 .064 .254 1.842 .889 .064 3.113
11 - 12 .000 .000 .191 .445 .318 .000 .000 .953
12 - 13 .000 .000 .635 .508 .000 .000 .000 1.144
13 - 14 .000 .000 .699 .318 .318 .064 .000 1.398
14 - 15 .000 .000 .000 .445 .508 .127 .000 1.080
15 - 16 .000 .000 .000 .064 .127 .000 .000 .191
16 - 17 .000 .000 .000 .000 .064 .000 .000 .064
17 - 18 .000 .000 .127 .191 .000 .000 .000 .318
Total .000 .953 4.447 31.703 36.785 22.935 3.177
February
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .127 .127 .000 .000 .254

22.5 .000 .064 .508 .381 .445 .000 1.398
45.0 .000 .127 2.986 5.654 3.558 .572 12.897
67.5 .000 .699 7.814 26.938 24.841 2.605 62.897
90.0 .000 .254 4.320 12.135 4.638 .254 21.601
112.5 .000 .000 .381 .508 .064 .000 .953
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 1.144 16.137 45.743 33.545 3.431

REUNION MANGANESE
March
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .058 .288 .979 .000 1.325

22.5 .000 .000 .806 9.447 5.991 2.995 19.240
45.0 .000 .000 1.671 4.551 6.279 .115 12.615
67.5 .000 .000 3.514 21.198 19.067 6.336 50.115
90.0 .000 .000 1.152 9.217 6.336 .000 16.705
112.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 .000 7.200 44.700 38.652 9.447
March
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
4 - 5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

5 - 6 .000 .000 .115 .115 .000 .000 .230
6 - 7 .000 .000 1.498 1.555 1.037 .000 4.090
7 - 8 .000 .000 3.053 18.491 9.389 .806 31.740
8 - 9 .000 .000 .115 12.270 17.281 4.378 34.044
9 - 10 .000 .000 .461 3.802 3.629 1.267 9.159
10 - 11 .000 .000 .115 1.555 2.535 .230 4.435
11 - 12 .000 .000 1.037 2.074 1.786 .864 5.760
12 - 13 .000 .000 .518 1.498 1.728 .634 4.378
13 - 14 .000 .000 .230 1.267 .864 .634 2.995
14 - 15 .000 .000 .058 1.671 .288 .518 2.535
15 - 16 .000 .000 .000 .403 .058 .115 .576
16 - 17 .000 .000 .000 .000 .058 .000 .058
Total .000 .000 7.200 44.700 38.652 9.447
March
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

22.5 .000 .000 .461 1.786 .576 .000 2.823
45.0 .000 .115 2.592 5.357 2.995 .000 11.060
67.5 .000 .058 7.892 29.263 13.594 .173 50.979
90.0 .000 .000 4.090 20.853 8.065 .000 33.007
112.5 .000 .000 .058 1.498 .576 .000 2.131
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 .173 15.092 58.756 25.806 .173

REUNION MANGANESE
April
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .000 .298 .060 .000 .000 .000 .357

22.5 .000 .119 2.083 6.071 2.560 .000 .000 .060 10.893
45.0 .000 .000 4.643 7.798 1.607 1.131 .952 .179 16.310
67.5 .000 .417 7.976 29.940 18.036 3.750 .000 .000 60.119
90.0 .000 .000 2.381 7.619 2.083 .238 .000 .000 12.321
112.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 .536 17.083 51.726 24.345 5.119 .952 .238
April
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 Total
5 - 6 .000 .000 .179 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .179

6 - 7 .000 .000 2.262 2.440 .238 .000 .000 .000 4.940
7 - 8 .000 .417 7.262 26.845 10.060 1.012 .000 .000 45.595
8 - 9 .000 .119 3.869 13.869 10.952 3.036 .060 .000 31.905
9 - 10 .000 .000 1.429 1.726 .417 .655 .476 .119 4.821
10 - 11 .000 .000 .833 2.440 .238 .000 .417 .119 4.048
11 - 12 .000 .000 .655 2.321 .179 .000 .000 .000 3.155
12 - 13 .000 .000 .536 1.369 1.012 .298 .000 .000 3.214
13 - 14 .000 .000 .060 .417 1.131 .119 .000 .000 1.726
14 - 15 .000 .000 .000 .298 .119 .000 .000 .000 .417
Total .000 .536 17.083 51.726 24.345 5.119 .952 .238
April
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 Total
.0 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .060

22.5 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .060
45.0 .000 .119 1.190 1.607 .476 .000 3.393
67.5 .060 .476 7.976 23.274 12.976 1.369 46.131
90.0 .060 .476 8.631 26.905 7.976 .238 44.286
112.5 .000 .238 1.845 3.333 .595 .000 6.012
135.0 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .060
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .298 1.310 19.643 55.119 22.024 1.607

REUNION MANGANESE
May
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .864 .403 .000 .000 1.267

22.5 .000 .518 1.959 2.535 .230 .000 5.242
45.0 .000 .000 .058 1.037 .864 .000 1.959
67.5 .000 .691 16.359 44.931 14.574 .691 77.247
90.0 .000 .000 4.839 8.065 1.382 .000 14.286
112.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 1.210 24.078 56.970 17.051 .691
May
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
4 - 5 .000 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .058

5 - 6 .000 .000 .173 .518 .000 .000 .691
6 - 7 .000 .230 3.629 5.818 .346 .000 10.023
7 - 8 .000 .115 14.631 32.776 7.431 .115 55.069
8 - 9 .000 .346 3.283 14.459 7.776 .576 26.440
9 - 10 .000 .230 .864 .346 .864 .000 2.304
10 - 11 .000 .288 .806 1.959 .173 .000 3.226
11 - 12 .000 .000 .288 .749 .461 .000 1.498
12 - 13 .000 .000 .173 .288 .000 .000 .461
13 - 14 .000 .000 .173 .058 .000 .000 .230
Total .000 1.210 24.078 56.970 17.051 .691
May
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

22.5 .058 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .058
45.0 .000 .115 .346 .634 .346 .000 1.440
67.5 .000 .518 4.666 17.800 4.896 .058 27.938
90.0 .000 .461 9.908 33.929 11.521 .173 55.991
112.5 .000 .288 4.147 6.855 2.016 .000 13.306
135.0 .000 .230 .346 .346 .115 .000 1.037
157.5 .115 .115 .000 .000 .000 .000 .230
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .173 1.728 19.412 59.562 18.894 .230

REUNION MANGANESE
June
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

22.5 .000 .179 1.905 .000 .000 .000 2.083
45.0 .000 .000 .952 2.024 1.250 .119 4.345
67.5 .000 .476 26.845 46.964 13.988 .952 89.226
90.0 .000 .417 2.024 1.429 .238 .238 4.345
112.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 1.071 31.726 50.417 15.476 1.310
June
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
4 - 5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

5 - 6 .000 .000 .714 .119 .000 .000 .833
6 - 7 .000 .179 8.155 4.821 .060 .000 13.214
7 - 8 .000 .714 17.857 29.286 9.286 .357 57.500
8 - 9 .000 .000 3.155 16.012 5.774 .774 25.714
9 - 10 .000 .000 1.548 .179 .357 .179 2.262
10 - 11 .000 .179 .298 .000 .000 .000 .476
Total .000 1.071 31.726 50.417 15.476 1.310
June
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 12.0 - 14.0 Total
.0 .000 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .060

22.5 .000 .060 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .119
45.0 .000 .060 .952 .298 .060 .060 .000 1.429
67.5 .000 .595 4.286 9.821 5.119 .357 .060 20.238
90.0 .000 1.845 13.631 31.012 9.048 .595 .000 56.131
112.5 .119 1.726 7.619 7.381 1.310 .000 .000 18.155
135.0 .000 .595 1.310 .714 .000 .000 .000 2.619
157.5 .000 .179 .417 .119 .060 .000 .000 .774
180.0 .060 .179 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .298
202.5 .000 .119 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .119
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .060
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .238 5.417 28.333 49.345 15.595 1.012 .060

REUNION MANGANESE
July
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

22.5 .000 .000 .346 .000 .000 .000 .346
45.0 .000 .058 15.668 10.887 .115 .000 26.728
67.5 .000 2.880 33.756 28.917 6.336 .461 72.350
90.0 .000 .000 .000 .115 .115 .230 .461
112.5 .000 .000 .058 .058 .000 .000 .115
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 2.938 49.827 39.977 6.567 .691
July
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
4 - 5 .000 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .058

5 - 6 .000 .000 .000 .115 .000 .000 .115
6 - 7 .000 .576 5.530 1.959 .058 .000 8.122
7 - 8 .000 2.247 28.168 19.758 3.226 .230 53.629
8 - 9 .000 .058 15.553 17.281 3.283 .461 36.636
9 - 10 .000 .058 .518 .634 .000 .000 1.210
10 - 11 .000 .000 .000 .230 .000 .000 .230
Total .000 2.938 49.827 39.977 6.567 .691
July
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 Total
.0 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .000 .058

22.5 .115 .230 .000 .000 .000 .000 .346
45.0 .058 .403 1.325 .403 .058 .000 2.247
67.5 .173 1.786 9.505 9.274 2.074 .058 22.869
90.0 .288 3.341 19.297 18.894 3.629 .518 45.968
112.5 .173 3.456 9.793 6.624 1.094 .000 21.141
135.0 .058 1.267 2.823 2.016 .058 .000 6.221
157.5 .000 .288 .230 .000 .000 .000 .518
180.0 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .000 .058
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .173 .000 .000 .173
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .115 .058 .000 .000 .000 .173
315.0 .000 .115 .000 .000 .000 .000 .115
337.5 .000 .115 .000 .000 .000 .000 .115
Total .864 11.233 43.030 37.385 6.912 .576

REUNION MANGANESE
August
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .058 .000 .058

22.5 .000 .000 2.765 .000 2.765
45.0 .000 .922 20.565 5.991 27.477
67.5 .000 7.834 47.926 9.044 64.804
90.0 .000 2.419 1.786 .115 4.320
112.5 .000 .000 .346 .230 .576
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 11.175 73.445 15.380
August
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 Total
4 - 5 .000 .000 .230 .000 .230

5 - 6 .000 .000 1.959 .346 2.304
6 - 7 .000 1.671 5.876 1.325 8.871
7 - 8 .000 5.703 31.452 3.226 40.380
8 - 9 .000 3.514 28.456 6.740 38.710
9 - 10 .000 .288 4.263 2.707 7.258
10 - 11 .000 .000 .922 .864 1.786
11 - 12 .000 .000 .173 .058 .230
12 - 13 .000 .000 .058 .058 .115
13 - 14 .000 .000 .058 .058 .115
Total .000 11.175 73.445 15.380
August
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 Total
.0 .058 .230 .115 .000 .000 .403

22.5 .000 .518 .461 .000 .000 .979
45.0 .230 2.016 1.210 .230 .000 3.687
67.5 .576 4.147 7.546 3.629 .230 16.129
90.0 .346 4.954 19.124 12.730 .173 37.327
112.5 .403 4.263 12.961 10.657 1.094 29.378
135.0 .461 2.016 3.226 1.325 .115 7.143
157.5 .346 .576 1.267 .230 .000 2.419
180.0 .230 .230 .346 .058 .000 .864
202.5 .403 .346 .058 .058 .000 .864
225.0 .230 .173 .000 .000 .000 .403
247.5 .115 .058 .000 .000 .000 .173
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .058 .000 .058 .000 .000 .115
337.5 .058 .058 .000 .000 .000 .115
Total 3.514 19.585 46.371 28.917 1.613

REUNION MANGANESE
September
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 .000 .595 .000 .000 .595

22.5 .000 .119 9.881 2.560 .000 .000 12.560
45.0 .000 3.571 17.381 3.512 .595 .000 25.060
67.5 .000 7.857 35.119 7.917 .655 .417 51.964
90.0 .000 1.667 5.357 1.964 .000 .000 8.988
112.5 .000 .000 .595 .179 .000 .000 .774
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .060
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 13.274 68.333 16.726 1.250 .417
September
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
3 - 4 .000 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .060

4 - 5 .000 .000 .893 .000 .000 .000 .893
5 - 6 .000 .000 1.667 .952 .000 .000 2.619
6 - 7 .000 1.786 8.333 3.214 .000 .000 13.333
7 - 8 .000 7.083 19.643 2.024 .476 .000 29.226
8 - 9 .000 3.571 22.202 2.619 .000 .000 28.393
9 - 10 .000 .595 7.381 3.333 .238 .000 11.548
10 - 11 .000 .000 4.762 1.964 .417 .119 7.262
11 - 12 .000 .060 1.667 1.488 .060 .238 3.512
12 - 13 .000 .000 .893 .595 .060 .060 1.607
13 - 14 .000 .000 .476 .357 .000 .000 .833
14 - 15 .000 .119 .238 .060 .000 .000 .417
15 - 16 .000 .000 .179 .119 .000 .000 .298
16 - 17 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 13.274 68.333 16.726 1.250 .417
September
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 Total
.0 .119 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .179

22.5 .119 .179 .298 .000 .000 .000 .595
45.0 .060 .893 1.488 .357 .000 .000 2.798
67.5 .179 3.333 8.631 3.036 .476 .000 15.655
90.0 .417 5.238 20.774 15.179 .952 .000 42.560
112.5 .179 2.917 9.583 12.500 3.631 .060 28.869
135.0 .119 .952 2.738 1.964 .357 .060 6.190
157.5 .060 .476 .238 .060 .000 .000 .833
180.0 .179 .119 .298 .000 .000 .000 .595
202.5 .060 .238 .060 .060 .000 .000 .417
225.0 .000 .000 .179 .119 .000 .000 .298
247.5 .000 .298 .357 .060 .000 .000 .714
270.0 .000 .060 .000 .060 .000 .000 .119
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .060 .119 .000 .000 .000 .179
Total 1.488 14.821 44.762 33.393 5.417 .119

REUNION MANGANESE
October
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 1.671 .864 .000 .000 2.535

22.5 .000 .518 14.113 5.933 .288 .000 20.853
45.0 .000 1.786 10.541 2.592 .691 .000 15.611
67.5 .000 3.053 27.419 15.611 4.205 .230 50.518
90.0 .000 .864 6.048 3.111 .230 .000 10.253
112.5 .000 .000 .058 .173 .000 .000 .230
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 6.221 59.850 28.283 5.415 .230
October
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
4 - 5 .000 .000 .403 .000 .000 .000 .403

5 - 6 .000 .922 5.760 1.037 .000 .000 7.719
6 - 7 .000 1.613 8.237 4.320 .230 .000 14.401
7 - 8 .000 2.362 17.742 11.694 1.901 .058 33.756
8 - 9 .000 1.094 11.175 3.917 2.650 .173 19.009
9 - 10 .000 .230 4.435 .979 .346 .000 5.991
10 - 11 .000 .000 3.283 1.959 .000 .000 5.242
11 - 12 .000 .000 3.111 1.440 .000 .000 4.551
12 - 13 .000 .000 2.592 1.037 .000 .000 3.629
13 - 14 .000 .000 1.959 .979 .000 .000 2.938
14 - 15 .000 .000 .576 .403 .288 .000 1.267
15 - 16 .000 .000 .230 .173 .000 .000 .403
16 - 17 .000 .000 .173 .173 .000 .000 .346
17 - 18 .000 .000 .000 .173 .000 .000 .173
18 - 19 .000 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .058
19 - 20 .000 .000 .115 .000 .000 .000 .115
20 - 21 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 6.221 59.850 28.283 5.415 .230
October
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 Total
.0 .058 .115 .403 .000 .000 .576

22.5 .000 .230 .230 .000 .000 .461
45.0 .115 .634 1.613 1.152 .000 3.514
67.5 .115 2.650 9.505 10.253 1.728 24.251
90.0 .288 3.629 18.836 20.392 2.938 46.083
112.5 .000 1.382 6.682 10.657 2.419 21.141
135.0 .000 .403 1.037 .749 .403 2.592
157.5 .058 .058 .173 .058 .000 .346
180.0 .115 .000 .000 .000 .000 .115
202.5 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .058
225.0 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .058
247.5 .058 .058 .000 .000 .000 .115
270.0 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .058
292.5 .058 .000 .000 .000 .000 .058
315.0 .115 .000 .058 .000 .000 .173
337.5 .000 .288 .115 .000 .000 .403
Total .979 9.620 38.652 43.260 7.488

REUNION MANGANESE
November
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
.0 .000 .000 1.012 1.250 .893 .060 3.214

22.5 .000 .000 8.810 16.488 1.726 .000 27.024
45.0 .000 .000 7.024 11.369 .952 .000 19.345
67.5 .000 .000 17.381 24.940 4.345 1.131 47.798
90.0 .000 .000 .655 1.369 .595 .000 2.619
112.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 .000 34.881 55.417 8.512 1.190
November
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 Total
4 - 5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

5 - 6 .000 .000 .119 .952 .060 .000 1.131
6 - 7 .000 .000 3.155 3.214 .238 .000 6.607
7 - 8 .000 .000 10.952 16.726 2.262 .595 30.536
8 - 9 .000 .000 9.405 12.381 2.857 .536 25.179
9 - 10 .000 .000 5.714 6.369 .655 .000 12.738
10 - 11 .000 .000 2.857 6.786 .179 .000 9.821
11 - 12 .000 .000 1.548 3.869 .655 .060 6.131
12 - 13 .000 .000 .298 2.440 .714 .000 3.452
13 - 14 .000 .000 .536 1.667 .595 .000 2.798
14 - 15 .000 .000 .298 .536 .238 .000 1.071
15 - 16 .000 .000 .000 .298 .060 .000 .357
16 - 17 .000 .000 .000 .179 .000 .000 .179
Total .000 .000 34.881 55.417 8.512 1.190
November
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 Total
.0 .000 .119 .179 .000 .000 .000 .298

22.5 .000 .536 .655 .060 .000 .000 1.250
45.0 .000 1.726 2.440 1.488 .119 .000 5.774
67.5 .238 2.321 11.131 13.869 2.798 .179 30.536
90.0 .060 2.321 20.238 24.940 3.750 .000 51.310
112.5 .000 .714 3.690 4.345 .833 .060 9.643
135.0 .000 .238 .357 .298 .000 .000 .893
157.5 .000 .060 .060 .000 .000 .000 .119
180.0 .000 .119 .000 .000 .000 .000 .119
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .060 .000 .000 .000 .000 .060
Total .298 8.214 38.750 45.000 7.500 .238

REUNION MANGANESE
December
=========================================================================
Ang\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 Total
.0 .000 .000 .000 2.535 .518 .000 .000 3.053

22.5 .000 .000 .518 6.336 7.719 .864 .806 16.244
45.0 .000 .000 2.823 14.631 11.406 5.760 .864 35.484
67.5 .000 .000 .922 16.532 17.166 5.530 1.786 41.935
90.0 .000 .000 .000 1.555 1.440 .288 .000 3.283
112.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
135.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
157.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Total .000 .000 4.263 41.590 38.249 12.442 3.456
December
=========================================================================
Tp\Ht .0 - .5 .5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 Total
4 - 5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

5 - 6 .000 .000 .058 .346 .000 .000 .000 .403
6 - 7 .000 .000 .000 2.016 .634 .000 .000 2.650
7 - 8 .000 .000 .576 15.092 10.657 .806 .000 27.131
8 - 9 .000 .000 1.959 6.279 12.385 5.588 1.325 27.535
9 - 10 .000 .000 .864 6.452 2.304 4.435 1.094 15.150
10 - 11 .000 .000 .000 4.781 4.435 .518 .000 9.735
11 - 12 .000 .000 .518 1.843 3.456 .000 .000 5.818
12 - 13 .000 .000 .230 1.152 1.901 .000 .000 3.283
13 - 14 .000 .000 .000 .691 1.382 .634 .115 2.823
14 - 15 .000 .000 .058 1.267 1.094 .230 .403 3.053
15 - 16 .000 .000 .000 1.152 .000 .173 .230 1.555
16 - 17 .000 .000 .000 .403 .000 .000 .115 .518
17 - 18 .000 .000 .000 .115 .000 .058 .173 .346
Total .000 .000 4.263 41.590 38.249 12.442 3.456
December
=========================================================================
Ang\Sp .0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.0 Total
.0 .000 .058 .173 .000 .000 .000 .230

22.5 .000 .173 1.152 .576 .058 .000 1.959
45.0 .115 1.210 3.975 7.316 3.975 .058 16.647
67.5 .115 1.037 8.065 24.424 13.882 1.498 49.021
90.0 .000 1.325 6.394 13.364 6.797 .230 28.111
112.5 .058 .461 1.210 1.325 .461 .000 3.514
135.0 .000 .288 .115 .000 .000 .000 .403
157.5 .000 .000 .058 .000 .000 .000 .058
180.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
202.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
225.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
247.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
270.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
292.5 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
315.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
337.5 .058 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .058
Total .346 4.551 21.141 47.005 25.173 1.786

REUNION MANGANESE
Appendix 4 Monthly Percentage at Three Locations of

Interest
REUNION MANGANESE
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Baja Point: 5m Depth
70.0 Waini Point: 5m Depth
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-A Percentange Exceedence on Hs in January
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-B Percentange Exceedence on Hs in February

REUNION MANGANESE
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-C Percentange Exceedence on Hs in March
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-D Percentange Exceedence on Hs in April

REUNION MANGANESE
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-E Percentange Exceedence on Hs in May
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-F Percentange Exceedence on Hs in June

REUNION MANGANESE
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-G Percentange Exceedence on Hs in July
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-H Percentange Exceedence on Hs in August

REUNION MANGANESE
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-I Percentange Exceedence on Hs in September
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-J Percentange Exceedence on Hs in October

REUNION MANGANESE
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-K Percentange Exceedence on Hs in November
100.0
Offshore Waves
90.0
At Mooring Site
80.0
Exceeding %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hs (m)
Figure 2-L Percentange Exceedence on Hs in December

REUNION MANGANESE
Appendix 5 Drawings
Option 1 One Floating Crane Mounted on One Barge Handysize
Option 1 One Floating Crane Mounted on One Barge Panamax
Option 2 Two Floating Cranes Mounted on One Barge Handysize
Option 3 Two Floating Cranes Mounted On One Barge with Hoppers and Shiploader - Handysize
Option 2 Two Floating Cranes Mounted on One Barge Panamax
Option 3 Two Floating Cranes Mounted on One Barge with Hoppers and Shiploader
REUNION MANG ANESE
Reunion Manganese
Matthews Ridge Transportation
Addendum to Pre-Feasibility Study - Alternate

Marine Transport Option
48051
July 19, 2013
Infrastructure & Environment

Two Westbrook Corporate Center
Chicago IL 60154
United States of America
Telephone: +1 904 631 5535

REUNION MANGANESE
ADDENDUM TO PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY - ALTERNATE MARINE TRANSPORT OPTION
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of REUNION MANGANESE,
and is subject to and issued in accordance with the agreement between REUNION MANGANESE
and WorleyParsons. WorleyParsons accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in
respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
Copying this report without the permission of REUNION MANGANESE or WorleyParsons is not
permitted.
PROJECT 48051 - ADDENDUM TO PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY - ALTERNATE MARINE TRANSPORT

OPTION
PARSONS APPROVAL
APPROVAL
A Issued for Internal 18-Jul-13

Review M.Petro C. Carr
B Isued for Client Review M.Petro 19-Jul-13
48051-ST-REP-0001 Page ii Rev C : July 19, 2013

REUNION MANGANESE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... 3
1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 5
2 SUMMARY OF OLDENDORFF REVISED PROPOSAL ................................................... 6
3 REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL FEASIBILTY ...................................................................... 7
3.1 Shipping Times ................................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Fleet .................................................................................................................................. 7
3.2.1 Barge Dimensions ................................................................................................ 7
3.2.2 River Tug Dimensions .......................................................................................... 7
3.2.3 Fleet Size ............................................................................................................. 8
3.3 Tug Transfer Facility ......................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Impacts on Operations .................................................................................................... 10
3.4.1 Impact of Covered Barges on Load Rate ........................................................... 10
3.4.2 Impact on Storage Capacity at Port Kaituma ...................................................... 10
3.4.3 Impact of River Tug Fleet Size ........................................................................... 11
4 CAPEX AND OPEX SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 12
4.1 Barges, Tugs and Transshipment ................................................................................... 12
4.2 Tug Transfer Cost ........................................................................................................... 14
4.3 Cost For Increased Storage And Handling Covers At Port Kaituma ............................... 14
5 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 15
Tables
Table 4-1 Impact of Oldendorff Proposal on Marine CAPEX and OPEX ................................................. 12
Table 4-2 Oldendorff Rate Schedule ....................................................................................................... 13
Table 4-3 Impact of Oldendorff Proposal on EUAC Cost per Ton ........................................................... 14
48051-ST-REP-0001 Page 3 Rev A : July 19, 2013

REUNION MANGANESE
Figures
Figure 3-1 Damen Stag Tug 1606 River Tug ............................................................................................. 8
Figure 3-2 Tug Transfer Facility Concept ................................................................................................... 9
Appendices
Appendix A: Oldendorff Report - Reunion Manganese Project Guyana Technical and Operational
Overview

REUNION MANGANESE
1 BACKGROUND
Reunion Manganese (Reunion) is reopening an abandoned mine at Matthews Ridge, Guyana, and has
secured prospecting licenses for manganese covering 45,000 acres at Matthews Ridge. Reunion asked
WorleyParsons to identify and assess transportation options for moving manganese concentrate from the
mine at Matthews Ridge to a location accessible by ocean-going transportation.
The mine is about 50 km upland from Port Kaituma on the Waini River. Port Kaituma is approximately
100 km upriver from the sea. There are no local ports. The manganese concentrate will be transported
from the mine to be stockpiled at Port Kaituma, and then moved by barge to an as yet unidentified
transshipment facility.
WorleyParsons submitted a Pre-Feasibility Report on November 15, 2012, which concluded:
For land transport from the mine at Matthews Ridge to Port Kaituma, WorleyParsons
recommended a heavy haul road as the preferred go-forward option for further analysis in a
Bankable Feasibility Study.
For marine transport from Port Kaituma, WorleyParsons recommended barge service to a
floating transshipment facility moored offshore as a feasible option for further analysis in a
Bankable Feasibility Study. WorleyParsons was not able to study an alternate option of
transshipment in Trinidad, as a suitable location in Trinidad was not identified.
We recommended Reunion continue to explore transshipment alternatives in Trinidad, and

explore agreements with operators to determine options to minimize capital expense.
The Pre-Feasibility Report also included estimated CAPEX and OPEX costs for the recommended land
and marine options.
In an effort to minimize capital costs involved in the marine transport of manganese from Port Kaituma,
Reunion is considering a contract transshipment solution from qualified vendors to perform the marine
transport and transshipment activities within the local and surrounding areas.
Reunion received a proposal from Oldendorff Carriers for the transshipment of manganese concentrate at
New Amsterdam, Guyana, and asked WorleyParsons to study this option. WorleyParsons evaluated the
operational feasibility of Oldendorff Carriers proposal and presented a report of findings and
recommended modifications on April 15, 2013.

REUNION MANGANESE
2 SUMM ARY OF OLDENDORFF REVISED PROPOSAL
On July 8, 2013, Oldendorff Carriers offered a revised proposal for contract manganese transshipment
using their existing transshipment facility in Trinidad. The Oldendorff operation will include river barge
transport from Port Kaituma to a tug transfer facility, ocean barge transport to a transshipment facility,
and ocean freight to the final destination.
The barges are un-propelled dump barges specifically designed for this type transport. The dimensions of
these barges are approximately 70 meters long x 23 meters wide, with 3.5m draft assuming
approximately 4,000mt loads. The barges are similar to barges Oldendorff operates in another
transshipment project in Guyana.
The barges will be handled by a combination of river and ocean tugs. For this operation, Oldendorff has
proposed eight barges, three ocean tugs operating between Waini Point and Trinidad, one river tug
operating between the barge loading berth and the barge transfer facility in Waini Point, and one harbor
tug as stand-by unit / handling unit in Trinidad.
More details of the Oldendorff Carriers option can be found in the full revised proposal included in
Appendix A.

REUNION MANGANESE
3 REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL FEASIBILTY
WorleyParsons has reviewed the revised Oldendorff proposal for operational feasibility, and the following
is a summary of our findings, including the expected impact to operations. We have also identified
operational risks which should be addressed in further studies. WorleyParsons has not addressed
commercial risks in this review.
3.1 Shipping Times

The expected tug/barge transit times proposed by Oldendorff are reasonable and consistent with earlier
estimates.
In the initial Scoping Study performed by WorleyParsons in November 2011, the estimated shipping time
was approximately 8.5 hours one way for the pusher tug from Port Kaituma to the tug transfer facility. In
that same study the estimated shipping time was approximately 30 hours one way for the Ocean Tug
from to the tug transfer facility to an undetermined port in Trinidad.
The Oldendorff operation estimates shipping time of approximately 9 hours one way for the pusher tug
from Port Kaituma to the tug transfer facility, and approximately 42 hours one way for the Ocean Tug
from to the tug transfer facility to a transshipment point in the Gulf of Paria in Trinidad. These estimates
seem reasonable and should be used in further investigations using simulation modeling.
3.2 Fleet
3.2.1 Barge Dimensions

Oldendorff recommends barges with the following dimensions: 70 m (l) x 23 m (w) x 3.5 m draft.
In the WorleyParsons PFS, we recommended barges with 60-70 m length, 20-23 m beam and 3.5 m
loaded draft. According to the Oldendorff proposal, the loaded draft at 4000 dwt is 3.5m, which is
acceptable based on the investigations in the PFS. The proposed barge dimensions are acceptable, but
note that if the loaded draft exceeds 3.5m, additional dredging could be required to accommodate the
barges.
3.2.2 Ri ver T ug Dimensions

Oldendorff recommends the use of pusher tugs in river instead of tow tugs, which is consistent with the
recommendation in the PFS. The specific tug recommended by Oldendorff is a Damen Stag Tug 1606
river tug (See Figure 3-1 ), which has dimensions 16.56 x 5.54 m, and a draft of 2.24 m.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 3-1 Damen Stag Tug 1606 River Tug
In the initial Scoping Study, WorleyParsons recommended flat fronted pusher tugs 25 m long with 2.5 m
draft equipped with tug power as twin engines with minimum 1000 kW per side and 20 tonne bollard. We
also recommended flat face/ dual rakes for control draft for river transport. In comparison, the Damen
Stan 1606 power is 896 kW total with a 16 tonne bollard pull capacity with a single engine. The Damen
Stan 2208 may be a more suitable vessel with 2028 kW power and 38 tonnes bollard pull. Neither
Damen tug, however, has a flat front for pushing. Given the river conditions from Port Kaituma to Waini
Point, the 1606 may be undersized for pushing a barge safely in a windy and narrow river.
While the Damen Stag Tug 1606 is a shorter tug than was recommended in the PFS and is not a flat
fronted pusher tug, this tug is intended for pushing and may be acceptable in this service. Further
investigation should be performed to ensure the Damen Stag Tug has proper power and ability to control
the barges in the narrow canal and river conditions. As Oldendorff has experience operating tugs of this
type, they may already have performed this investigation. WorleyParsons could initiate this investigation
or review work already performed by Oldendorff.
3.2.3 Fleet Size

As Oldendorff will be investing in the operating equipment, the size of the fleet will not directly impact
CAPEX cost for Reunion. However, fleet size will impact cycle times, throughput and storage
requirements. Proper fleet size and the impacts of design fleet size should be studied in detail in the BFS
using a simulation model.

REUNION MANGANESE
3.3 Tug Transfer Facility

WorleyParsons proposed the use of a tug transfer facility in the Pre-Feasibility Report of November 14,
2012. The main function of the tug transfer facility as designed was to provide mooring for the crane
barge and ore barges, and to facilitate barge switching operation between the river tugs and ocean tugs.
In the PFS we identified an area of 1,000 m by 100 m close to the Barima River mouth with water depths
in the range of 5 m to 10 m as the proposed site for the tug transfer facility. The proposed tug transfer
facility concept is illustrated in Figure 3-2. The components and features of the tug transfer facility are
outlined in the Pre-Feasibility Report.
Figure 3-2 Tug Transfer Facility Concept
Under the revised Oldendorff option, a tug transfer facility is still required as a component of the operation
to facilitate barge switching operation between the river tugs and ocean tugs. WorleyParsons
recommends further investigation in the next phase of work to determine the proper size and
configuration of the tug transfer facility. There may be an opportunity to reduce the size (and CAPEX
cost) of the tug transfer facility, as under the revised Oldendorff option, the barge fleet is smaller and
there is no requirement to moor the crane barge at the tug transfer facility.

REUNION MANGANESE
3.4 Impacts on Operations
3.4.1 Impact of Co vered Barges on Load Rate

In the WorleyParsons PFS report we determined barges are not required to be covered and the load rate
for uncovered barges is 1500 TPH. To load barges at a 1500 TPH loading rate, the warping speed of the
barge will need to be relatively high, and we advised it may not be possible to consistently load covered
barges with hatches at a rate of 1500 TPH if are deployed.
Oldendorffs proposal uses covered barges with shallow draft suitable for river transport, equipped with
higher free board and hatch covers suitable for ocean transport. The hatch covers allow for ocean transit
as well as protect the cargo from external moisture during transit and storage times. Oldendorff assumes
a slower load rate of 1000 TPH. We agree this load rate is feasible given the use of covered barges.
WorleyParsons concurs that using covered barges is feasible, although a study during the BFS will be
required to determine the cost and logistical impacts of handling the covers and to determine the impact
on load rate. There will be additional cost at the port associated with handling the covers and reduction in
the load rate.
Further understanding is needed regarding the type of covered barges in this operation to determine the
impact on load rates and costs. If the covers on the barge are completely removed and laid down on the
dock so the loader is free to switch hatches as needed, the impact in load rate would be minimal, and
would result in a higher load rate than 1000 TPH. If the covers are retracting, meaning they
slide/telescope off one hatch and cover another hatch, the reduction in load rate from 1500 to 1000 is
reasonable. With retracting covers, the loader must go to each hatch several times to evenly load the
barge. One hold/hatch cannot be completely filled before moving to another, so the loader will have to
wait a significant amount of time for the retracting covers to move hatch to hatch.
If removable covers are used, the load rate would be higher but a small amount of additional storage
space will be needed at Port Kaituma to store the covers while the barge is being loaded.
3.4.2 Impact on Storage Capacity at Port Kaituma

Storage capacity will be needed in the supply chain to accommodate operational delays and the
inconsistency of ocean bulk vessel scheduling. The storage can be at the mine site, at Port Kaituma, at
the tranship facility, or on the ore barges as floating storage. Oldendorff will make available no stockpile
capacity at the transship location. They also assume a smaller fleet size of only 8 barges, compared with
the larger fleet size recommended in the PFS. Oldendorff also assumes the laden barges will be
collected in Trinidad prior to the arrival of the ocean vessel. These three factors (small fleet, no storage
at tranship site, staging of barges at the tranship site in advance of vessel arrival) will impact storage
requirements upstream. Storage capacity (and CAPEX cost) at Port Kaituma will need to increase to
account for this operation.

REUNION MANGANESE
A simulation study is needed to determine proper storage requirements and cycle times. A simulation
study will also help determine impacts and costs of vessel bunching and operational delays. Because of
the longer travel distance to Trinidad compared with the Waini Point option studied in the PFS, the
recovery time will be much longer, forcing Reunion to possibly incur storage costs, vessel demurrage
charges, or plant shutdowns.
3.4.3 Impact of Ri ver T ug Fleet Size

The Oldendorff proposed operation deploys only one river tug, with no back up. This introduces
significant risk to the operation and increases the cycle time of the barge fleet. With only one river tug,
the amount of time it will take to position the eight empty barges to Port Kaituma for reload will increase
considerably and cannot be reduced by fleeting multiple tug/barge pairs in the river at the same time.
Oldendorff does not state it in their proposal but we assume the river tug can only safely push one barge
in the river at a time.
Deploying only one river tug will also slow barge loading at Port Kaituma, as empty barges are moored at
the waiting berth and must be moved to the loading berth by the tug. If the tug is not at the Port, the
empty barges cannot be positioned for loading.
A simulation study is needed to determine the cycle time impact of only having one river tug in operation.
Also, a contingency plan must be established to provide backup river tug service at this remote location in
case the one river tug is out of service.

REUNION MANGANESE
4 CAPEX AND OPEX SUMMARY
4.1 Barges, Tugs and Transshipment

Table 4-1 shows the impact of the Oldendorff proposal on CAPEX and OPEX. The numbers in the
Original Estimate column represent the PFS estimates for an annual volume of 1 million metric tonnes.
Oldendorff supplied a schedule of rates (see Table 4-2) for volumes ranging from 500,000 to 800,000
metric tonnes. For comparison purposes we assumed Oldendorffs rate per tonne would be the same for
1 m metric tonnes as for 800,000 metric tonnes. To show the revised (i.e. Oldendorff) cost for 500,000
mtpa, we assumed Reunion would bear the same CAPEX as for 1 mmtpa.
Under the Oldendorff proposal, Reunion would realize a reduction in CAPEX of $110m ($207.7m -
$97.7m) for barges, tugs, and transshipment facilities. At 1 m mtpa, Reunion would realize a reduction in
OPEX costs of $13.9m per year in OPEX by not operating the barges, tugs, and transship facilities.
These savings would be offset by Oldendorffs operating fee of $30.7m (at $30.71 per mt). For this
comparison we assumed OPEX costs for maintenance dredging remain the same under either scenario,
and that OPEX costs at Port Kaituma are reduced by $ 653,750 with the removal of Assist Tug OPEX
costs for Assist Tug Crew, Maintenance and Fuel. The net impact is an estimated increase to OPEX of
$16.8m, or $32.7m compared with $15.9m.
Table 4-1 Impact of Oldendorff Proposal on Marine CAPEX and OPEX

Original Estimate Revised Estimate
Tons per annum 1,000,000 Tons per annum 1,000,000 Tons per annum 500,000
CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX
Oldendorff fee/mt $ 30.71 $ 42.39
($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m)
Water Transport
Navigation Aids and Offshore Barge Mooring $ 6.0 $ 0.2 $ 6.0 $ 0.2 $ 6.0 $ 0.2
Dredging 45.8 1.0 45.8 1.0 45.8 1.0
OffShore Trans-Ship Terminal 17.5 0.5 - 30.7 - 21.2
Waini Point Tug Transfer Facility 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0
Port Kaituma 24.4 1.4 24.4 0.8 24.4 0.4
Vessels (Barges & Tugs) 72.3 12.8 - - - -
Subtotal $ 167.5 $ 15.9 $ 77.8 $ 32.7 $ 77.8 $ 22.8
Engineering & Management 7.5% 12.6 5.8 5.8

Contingency 15% 21.5 8.0 8.0
Port Kaituma - Contingency 25% 6.1 6.1 6.1
TOTAL Water Transport $ 207.7 $ 15.9 $ 97.7 $ 32.7 $ 97.7 $ 22.8

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 4-2 Oldendorff Rate Schedule
Metric Tonnes per Year $ / Metric Tonne

500,000 $ 42.39
550,000 $ 39.55
600,000 $ 37.20
650,000 $ 35.20
700,000 $ 33.49
750,000 $ 32.00
800,000+ $ 30.71
Table 4-3 Summarizes CAPEX, OPEX, and EUAC (Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost) with the Oldendorff
rates, assuming landside CAPEX is the same for 500,000 mtpa as for 1,000,000 mtpa but that landside
OPEX declines proportionately. We made these simplifying assumptions absent information on how the
decline in volume would affect landside CAPEX and OPEX. EUAC is the annualized sum of all relevant
costs. It is comparable to the amount of an installment loan payment. Under the Oldendorff scenario,
estimated EUAC increases by $7/ton assuming a 5% discount rate.

REUNION MANGANESE
Table 4-3 Impact of Oldendorff Proposal on EUAC Cost per Ton

Pre-Feasability Study Addendum
CAPEX OPEX OPEX EUAC / Ton @ CAPEX OPEX OPEX EUAC / Ton @
($m) ($m) ($/ton) 0% 5% 10% ($m) ($m) ($/ton) 0% 5% 10%
Narrow Gauge Rail $ 97 $2 $2.42 $7 $9 $ 12 $ 97 $2 $2.42 $7 $9 $ 12
LAND
Road - 140 Tonne $ 71 $2 $1.98 $5 $7 $9 $ 71 $2 $1.98 $5 $7 $9
WATER
Dredging $ 46 $1 $1.00 $3 $4 $5 $ 46 $ 1 $1.00 $ 3 $ 4 $5
Vessels $ 72 $ 13 $12.84 $ 15 $ 16 $ 17 $0 $0 $0.00 $ 0 $ 0 $0
Infrastructure $ 49 $2 $2.10 $4 $5 $7 $ 32 $ 32 $31.69 $ 30 $ 29 $ 29
Subtotal Water $ 168 $ 16 $15.94 $ 22 $ 26 $ 29 $ 78 $ 33 $32.69 $ 33 $ 34 $ 34
Total Land + Water $ 239 $ 18 $17.92 $ 27 $ 32 $ 38 $ 149 $ 35 $34.68 $ 38 $ 40 $ 43

Engr/Mgt/Contingency $ 57 $0 $0.00 $3 $4 $ 6 $ 37 $ 0 $0.00 $ 2 $ 3 $4
TOTAL $ 296 $ 18 $ 17.92 $ 30 $ 36 $ 44 $ 186 $ 35 $ 34.68 $ 40 $ 43 $ 46
4.2 Tug Transfer Cost
There would be no change in Reunions tug transfer cost under the Oldendorff proposal.
4.3 Cost For Increased Storage And Handling Covers At Port Kaituma
This scope of this addendum does not include an assessment of the costs for storage and cost for
handling hatch covers at Port Kaituma. This issue needs to be studied in the next phase of work.

REUNION MANGANESE
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. WorleyParsons believes the option of a floating transshipment facility moored offshore is feasible
and can be advanced for further analysis in a Bankable Feasibility Study. WorleyParsons
believes the option of a transshipment facility operated by a qualified and experienced operator
is also feasible and can be advanced for further analysis in a Bankable Feasibility Study. The
decision regarding the preferred transshipment option should be determined by Reunion based
on CAPEX and OPEX considerations, and based on operational and commercial risks.
2. We recommend further investigation in the next phase of work to determine the proper size and
configuration of the tug transfer facility. There may be an opportunity to reduce the size (and
CAPEX cost) of the tug transfer facility, as under the revised Oldendorff option. The final design
of the tug transfer facility should be determined and agreed upon based on the operation, fleet
size, and configuration.
3. We recommend further investigation to ensure the Damen Stag Tug has proper power and
ability to control the barges in the narrow canal and river conditions. As Oldendorff has
experience operating tugs in this type, they may already have performed this investigation.
4. A simulation study is needed to determine proper storage requirements and cycle times. A
simulation study will also determine the cycle time impact having only one river tug on operation,
and will help determine impacts and costs of vessel bunching and operational delays.
5. A contingency plan should be established to provide backup river tug service at this remote
location in case the one river tug is out of service.

REUNION MANGANESE
Appendix A: Reunion Manganese Project Guyana

Technical and Operational Overview
The transport chain for the transport of the Reunion Manganese Inc. manganese concentrate from mine
site river loading facility to final discharge port is organized and operated by Oldendorff Carriers GmbH &
Co. KG and its local subsidiaries in Guyana and Trinidad.
The chain includes river barging, ocean barging, barge- to ship transfer and ocean freight to the final
destination. The cargo is manganese concentrate with a Transportable Moisture Limit of 15% and the
annual volume will be between 500,000 and 1,000,000 tons.
The barges are un-propelled dump barges designed for this specific transport. The dimensions of these
barges are approx. 70 meters length x 23 meters width and 4.5 meters of depth. The intake on 3.5m draft
is approx 4,000mt. These barges are similar to the barges we already operate in our other transshipment
project in Guyana.
The barges are suitable for river transport (shallow draft) as well as ocean transport (higher free board
[distance between water line and deck] and hatch covers). The hatch covers allow for ocean transit as
well as protect the cargo from external moisture during transit and storage times.
The barges are handled by river and ocean tugs. Overall the system uses eight barges. At the loading
port berthing facilities for 3 barges are required. The empty barges are moored at the waiting berth and
moved to the loading berth by the tug.
The loading rate assumed for the calculation is 1,000 mt/hr, resulting in a net load time of 4 hours.
Mooring and unmooring times are factored in with additional times to the net loading time.
Once the barge is fully laden it is pushed about 54nm down the river to the barge transfer facility at the
river mouth.
For this river passage a shallow drafted river tug is employed (for example Damen Stan Tug 1606 - pls
see Figure 1). This tug is well able to navigate the river however it would be unsuitable for the longer
distance ocean tow. Hence a second set of tugs is employed for the second part of the barge transport.

REUNION MANGANESE
The river tug will be able to navigate the river passage with a speed of approx 6 knts whilst pushing a
laden barge. This results in a one way steaming time of abt 9hrs. The river tug will work in rotation
between the tug transfer facility and the loading berth and move laden and empty barges in rotation.
At the tug transfer facility laden and empty barges are passed over between the river tug and the ocean
tugs.
The ocean tugs will be of a larger size than the river tug, owing to greater steaming range as well as
greater requirements for towing power, accommodation space and general seaworthiness (freeboard,
classification etc)
It is assumed that the tug transfer facility can accommodate the barges and the physical transfer between
tugs. The design as proposed by WorleyParsons at a location at Waini River mouth near Waini Point
(please refer to Figure 1) has been used in our assumptions and calculations.
The tug transfer facility is not part of the scope of Oldendorff Carriers. The final design should be mutually
agreed to facilitate the equipment and operation best possible.
The laden barge is idle at the tug transfer facility until one of the three ocean tugs is available for
transport to Trinidad.
The ocean distance to the planned transshipment site in the Gulf of Paria in Trinidad is about 250 nautical
miles, the one way transit time is estimated to be around 42 hours.
In Trinidad the barges will be moored at a special mooring arrangement. This arrangement still has to be
designed. The final design is subject to various factors such as governmental approval and technical
evolution. The barges will wait there until the ocean going vessel (handysize bulk carrier of abt 32,000 -
43,000 dwt) arrives and is ready for loading.
The transshipment between barges and vessel will be done via floating cranes. Due to the time required
to transport one barge from the barge loading berth to the transshipment site in Trinidad as well as the
high transfer rate (up to 30,000mt) between barge and vessel, barges have to be collected in Trinidad
prior of the arrival of the vessel.

REUNION MANGANESE
If the barges were to be unloaded as they arrive in Trinidad, the handysize vessel as well as the floating
cranes would be tied up in that operation for a considerable period of time. This period is the time
required to bring 8 laden barges to Trinidad which is abt 14 days (depending on various factors, such as
night navigation on the river, etc)
If the barges are collected in Trinidad prior loading, vessel and cranes will only be used for approx 1 - 2
days, resulting in lower overall cost.
Oldendorff Carriers will handle the entire ocean freight of the manganese concenctrate ex Guyana to the
final destination ports. There are various advantages for Reunion Manganese Inc. incl. better scheduling,
less demurrage risks and most of all the management and operation of the entire logistical chain lies in
one hand which makes communication and organization much more efficient and reliable.
This system takes different restricting factors into account. The biggest technical and operational
challenge is the shallow draft in Waini River, especially at the river entrance. In addition, the river is also
width restricted thus allowing only one-way traffic. Other restricting factors are load rate at the load berth,
weather and swell factors on the ocean and currents.

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 1: Damen Stan Tug 1606 delivered in February 2013
(source: http://www.damen.com/en/markets/stan-tugs)

REUNION MANGANESE
Figure 2: Tug Transfer Facility location near Waini Point (source: Reunion Manganese - Matthews Ridge
Transportation - Tug Transfer Facility Concept, by WorleyParsons, October 2012)
Figure 3: Tug Transfer Facility Set-Up (source: Reunion Manganese - Matthews Ridge
Transportation - Tug Transfer Facility Concept, by WorleyParsons, October 2012)

Appendix PRO A: Design Criteria

Date:20130715
Revision:04
Project:MatthewsRidge
Preparedby:GMiningServicesinc.
ProcessDesignCriteriaMatthewsRidge
Criteria Units Value

PlantGeneral
YearlyThroughput tpa 2,737,500
DailyThroughput(wet) tpd 7,500
OperatingSchedule
Mine 7d/wk,24hr/d
Crushing 7d/wk,24hr/d
Plant 7d/wk,24hr/d
DesignFactor 1.20
FeedGrade %Mn 14
FeedSG(dry) 2.75
BulkDensity tonnes/m3 1.90
OreReclaim/Crushing
Availability % 70
GrizzlyOpening mm 450x450
CrushingWorkIndex(CWI) kWh/t 2.00
CrushingParticleOutputSize mm 100.00
%SolidsatCrusher %w/w 85.00
Scrubbing/Screening
Availability % 70
%SolidsatScrubberOutput %w/w 45.00
Particle Size Distribution out of Scrubber (passing 19mm)
ParticleSizeDistributionoutofScrubber(passing19mm) % 88 00
88.00
ScreeningFirstStage mm +19
ScreeningSecondStage mm 19,+6.3
ScreeningThirdStage mm 6.3,+0.85
CircuitWaterConsumption m3/hr 1,220.00
Jigging
ThroughputLumpJigging(design) t/hr 86.25
ThroughputFinesJigging(design) t/hr 86.25
LumpJIGmasspull(design) % 85.00
FinesJIGmasspull(design) % 85.00
LumpJigproductdimension mm 19,+6.3
FinesJigproductdimension mm 6.3,+0.85
RetentionTimeLumpBin hrs 4.50
RetentionTimeLumpFines hrs 4.50
LumpConcentrateSGWeightedAverage 3.33
FinesConcentrateSGWeightedAverage 3.28
LumpJigTailsSGWeightedAverage 2.61
FinesJigTailsSGWeightedAverage 2.71
MaxFinalProductMoisture % 8.00
CircuitWaterconsumption m3/hr 1,300.00
Thickening
Rate m3/m2/h 4.44
UnderflowDensity %w/w 40.00
ConcentrateStorage
UnderflowDensity %w/w 40.00
LumpStorageCapacity tons 800.00
FinesStorageCapacity tons 800.00
Thickening
Flocculant(pettonofrejects) g/t 30.00
Appendix PRO B: Flowsheets

611
PRIMARY CRUSHER
STOCKPILE
F O R
U E D T U DY
ISS T Y S
I B I LI
E A S
-F
PRE F O R
NOT CTION
S T RU
CON
620-D-8002
620-D-8001
621
SCRUBBING & SCREENING
640-D-8001
610-D-8001
F O R
U E D T U DY
ISS T Y S
B I L I
AS I
-F E
PRE T F OR
NO T I ON
T R UC
O N S
C
620-D-8002
660-D-8001
660-D-8001
640-D-8001
301-D-8001
624
SECONDARY CRUSHING
620-D-8001
F O R
U E D T U DY
ISS T Y S
I B I LI
E A S
-F
PRE F O R
NOT CTION
S T RU
CON
610-D-8001
642
REJECTS THICKENING
301-D-8001
620-D-8001
660-D-8001
685-D-8001
680-D-8001
BY GRAVITY
OVERFLOW
F O R
U E D T U DY
ISS T Y S
I B I LI
E A S
-F
PRE F O R
NOT CTION
S T RU
620-D-8001 CON
660-D-8001
301-D-8002
680-D-8001
301-D-8001
301-D-8001
661
JIGGING
620-D-8001
620-D-8001
F O R
U E D T U DY
ISS T Y S
I B I LI
E A S
-F
PRE F O R
NOT CTION
S T RU
CON
680-D-8001
JIGS REJECTS STOCKPILE
640-D-8001
640-D-8001
670-D-8001
670-D-8001
301-D-8001
671
CONCENTRATE STORAGE (SITE)
660-D-8001
F O R
U E D T U DY
ISS T Y S
I B I LI
E A S
-F
PRE F O R
NOT CTION
S T RU
CON
AREA 535
660-D-8001
AREA 535
681
AIR SERVICES
660-D-8001
660-D-8001
F O R
U E D T U DY
ISS T Y S
I B I LI
E A S
-F
PRE F O R
NOT CTION
S T RU
CON
685
FLOCCULANT
640-D-8001
FLOCCULANT BULK BAG
640-D-8001
301-D-8002
640-D-8001
Appendix PRO C: Process Plant Layout

N
FOR
NOT CTION
U
STR
CON
PLAN SCALE = 1:2000

FOR
NOT CTION
T R U
C ONS
129
FOR
NOT CTION
R U
ST
CON
FOR
NOT CTION
T U
R
CONS
FOR
NOT CTION
T U
R
CONS
FOR
NOT CTION
T U
R
CONS
FOR
NOT CTION
T U
R
CONS
FOR
NOT CTION
T U
R
CONS
FOR
NOT CTION
T U
R
CONS
Appendix RSF A: GUMR-TM-13-07-19-Golder-

Water Balance & Potential Alternate Rejects
Storage Facilities
Appendix RSF B: GUMR-TM-13-08-08-Golder

Geochemical Characterization Waste Rock &
Jig Reject

Matthews Ridge Pre Feasibility Study W App Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matthews Ridge Pre Feasibility Study W App Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREFEASIBILITYSTUDY

Date: 20\3 . 0 B' 'Z .\

Date: 2f13 -tJ<J .. ZI

Vice President, Metallurgy & Mineral Processing

Table of Contents August, 2013 Page i

4.8 Royalties and Other Encumbrances .............................................................................. 4-4

Table of Contents August, 2013 Page ii

11. SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ................................................... 11-1

Table of Contents August, 2013 Page iii

13.8 Solid / Liquid Separation Testwork ............................................................................ 13-35

Table of Contents August, 2013 Page iv

16.8.3 Truck Shop Facilities .................................................................................... 16-38

Table of Contents August, 2013 Page v

18.5.1 Administration Offices .................................................................................... 18-8

Table of Contents August, 2013 Page vi

20.12 Socio-Cultural ............................................................................................................ 20-11

Table of Contents August, 2013 Page vii

22.4.2 Gross Revenues ............................................................................................. 22-4

Table of Contents August, 2013 Page viii

List of Figures August, 2013 Page ix

List of Figures August, 2013 Page x

List of Figures August, 2013 Page xi

Figure 16.2: Double Lane Ramp Design................................................................................................ 16-13

List of Figures August, 2013 Page xii

Figure 19.12: BHPs Mn Pricing CIF China (USD/dmtu) ........................................................................ 19-16

List of Figures August, 2013 Page xiii

List of Tables August, 2013 Page xiv

Table 13.9: SWS+JIG Hill 9 Processing Models .................................................................................... 13-24

List of Tables August, 2013 Page xv

Table 14.24: Sample Search Ellipsoid Settings ..................................................................................... 14-26

List of Tables August, 2013 Page xvi

List of Tables August, 2013 Page xvii

Table 22.5: Unit Processing Costs ........................................................................................................... 22-6

List of Tables August, 2013 Page xviii

Appendix INF A: Drawings and Layouts (11 pages)

Appendix INF B: GUMR-TM-13-05-22-Golder-Process Plant Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation PFS (9 pages)

Appendix INF C: GUMR-TM-13-07-17-Golder-Preliminary Aggregate and Soil Investigation and Transportation

MINING & MINERAL RESERVES

Appendix MIN A: Mineral Agreement, March 24, 2011 (44 pages)

Appendix MIN B: GUMR-TM-13-05-23-Golder-Pit Slope Design PFS (73 pages)

OPERATING & CAPITAL COSTS

Appendix OPE A: Manpower Schedule (7 pages)

Appendix OPE B: Capital Costs (4 pages)

Appendix OPE C: Construction Unit Costs (3 pages)

Appendix OPE D: GUMR-RE-12-11-13-Worley Parsons-Transportation Pre-feasibility Study-Final (247 pages)

Appendix PRO A: GUMR-DC-R-0001-04 Process (2 pages)

Appendix PRO B: Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) (7 pages)

Appendix PRO C: Process Plant Layout (9 pages)

RSF & WATER MANAGEMENT

Appendices August, 2013 Page xix

1.2 Property Description and Ownership

Section 1 August, 2013 Page 1-1

Figure 1.1: Matthews Ridge Location Map

1.3 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources and Infrastructures

Section 1 August, 2013 Page 1-2

Section 1 August, 2013 Page 1-3

1.5 Geology and Mineralization

Section 1 August, 2013 Page 1-4

a) Program implemented by geologist Grantley Walrond, and supervised by engineer Franois

Validate total hole lengths and final sample depth data.

Verify for overlapping and missing intervals (correction as necessary).

Visual check of spacial distribution of drill holes and trenches.

Validate lithology and weathering codes.

1.8 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testwork