Mcfaulds Lake Preliminary Assessment NI 43-101 Report

NORONT RESOURCES LTD.

NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT McFAULDS LAKE PROPERTY EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT JAMES BAY LOWLANDS ONTARIO, CANADA

Effective Date: September 9, 2010 Signing Date: October 22, 2010

Simon Baker, P.Geo. Harry Burgess, P.Eng. Richard Gowans, P.Eng. Greg Greenough, P.Geo. Christopher Jacobs, C.Eng., MIMMM Charley Murahwi, M.Sc., P.Geo., MAusIMM Paul Palmer, P.Eng., P.Geo.

SUITE 900 - 390 BAY STREET, TORONTO ONTARIO, CANADA M5H 2Y2 Telephone (1) (416) 362-5135 Fax (1) (416) 362 5763

Table of Contents Page

1.0 SUMMARY ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.3 OWNERSHIP ...... 2 1.4 HISTORY ...... 2 1.5 GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION ...... 3 1.6 EXPLORATION AND OTHER PROGRAMS ...... 3 1.7 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION ...... 4 1.8 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ...... 4 1.9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 10 1.9.1 Recommendations ...... 13 1.9.2 Budget for Ongoing Work ...... 13

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 15 2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 16 2.2 UNITS AND CURRENCY ...... 18

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ...... 22

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ...... 23 4.1 LOCATION ...... 23 4.2 CLAIMS ...... 24

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ...... 34 5.1 ACCESS ...... 34 5.2 CLIMATE ...... 34 5.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY ...... 35 5.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 35 5.5 FLORA AND FAUNA ...... 35

6.0 HISTORY ...... 37 6.1 EXPLORATION HISTORY ...... 37 6.2 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY ...... 38

7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ...... 39 7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...... 39 7.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY ...... 40 7.3 LOCAL DEPOSITS AND MINERAL OCCURRENCES ...... 41 7.3.1 Eagle’s Nest Deposit ...... 42 7.3.2 Blackbird Deposit ...... 42 7.3.3 Triple J Gold Mineral Occurrence ...... 42 7.3.4 AT12 Nickel-Copper Mineral Occurrence ...... 43

7.3.5 Thunderbird Vanadium-Titanium-Iron Mineral Occurrence ...... 43

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES ...... 44

9.0 MINERALIZATION ...... 45 9.1 MASSIVE SULPHIDES ...... 45 9.2 NET-TEXTURED AND DISSEMINATED SULPHIDES ...... 45

10.0 EXPLORATION ...... 46 10.1 AIRBORNE GEOPHYSICS ...... 46 10.1.1 2003 Fugro Airborne Survey ...... 46 10.1.2 2007 Noront AeroTEM III Helicopter Survey...... 47 10.1.3 2008 VTEM Airborne Survey ...... 48 10.1.4 2009 Gravity Gradiometry Airborne Survey ...... 48 10.1.5 2009 Z-Axis tripper Electromagnetic Geophysical Survey – Airborne Survey ...... 48 10.1.6 2009 High Resolution Aeromagnetic Gradient and VLF-EM Airborne Surveys ...... 48 10.2 GROUND GEOPHYSICS ...... 49 10.2.1 2004 Ground Magnetic and Horizontal Loop EM Survey ...... 49 10.2.2 2006 Condor Diamond Corp In-fill Ground Magnetic Survey ...... 50 10.2.3 2007 Magnetics, HLEM and Gravity Surveys over Eagle’s Nest Deposit ...... 50 10.2.4 2007 Gravity Survey ...... 51 10.2.5 2008 Magnetic, VLF, HLEM, Gravity and Large Loop TDEM Surveys ...... 51 10.2.6 2009 Magnetic, VLF, HLEM, Gravity and Large Loop TDEM Surveys ...... 51 10.2.7 2009 Gravimeter Survey on the Grid 2 Extension – Ground Survey ...... 51 10.3 DIAMOND DRILLING ...... 52 10.3.1 2006 Probe Diamond Drill Program ...... 52 10.3.2 2007 and 2008 Noront Diamond Drill Program ...... 52 10.3.3 2009 Noront Diamond Drill Program ...... 53 10.4 OTHER EXPLORATION WORK ...... 53 10.4.1 2008 Drill Hole IP Surveys ...... 53 10.4.2 2009 to Present Drill Hole EM Surveys ...... 53 10.5 RESULTS OF FIELD PROGRAMS ...... 54 10.5.1 Eagle’s Nest Deposit ...... 54 10.5.2 Blackbird Deposit ...... 56 10.5.3 Eagle Two Mineral Occurrence ...... 56 10.5.4 Triple J Mineral Occurrence ...... 56 10.5.5 AT12 Mineral Occurrence ...... 57 10.5.6 Thunderbird Mineral Occurrence ...... 57

11.0 DRILLING ...... 58

11.1 EAGLE’S NEST ...... 59

12.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH ...... 63 12.1 CORE LOGGING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES ...... 63 12.2 SURVEYING OF DRILL HOLES ...... 64

13.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ...... 65 13.1 ALS CHEMEX ...... 65 13.2 SGS MINERAL SERVICES ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES ...... 65 13.3 ACTLABS ...... 66 13.4 SECURITY ...... 67

14.0 DATA VERIFICATION ...... 68 14.1 P&E DATA VERIFICATION – EAGLE’S NEST DEPOSIT ...... 68 14.2 MICON DATA VERIFICATION – BLACKBIRD DEPOSIT ...... 68 14.3 SMEE AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTING REVIEW ...... 70 14.4 GOLDER DATA VERIFICATION ...... 71 14.4.1 Core Logging and Sample Verification ...... 71 14.4.2 Collar Survey Verification ...... 72 14.4.3 Actlabs Visit...... 72 14.4.4 Review of Database ...... 72 14.4.5 Review of QA/QC Program ...... 73 14.4.6 Golder Recommendations ...... 74

15.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ...... 75

16.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING...... 76 16.1.1 Sample Characterization ...... 76 16.1.2 Bond Ball Mill Grindability Tests ...... 78 16.1.3 Flotation Tests ...... 78 16.1.4 Magnetic Separation ...... 78 16.2 RECOVERY ESTIMATES ...... 78

17.0 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ...... 80 17.1 EAGLE’S NEST ...... 80 17.1.1 Drill Hole Data ...... 80 17.1.2 Solid Modelling ...... 81 17.1.3 Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) ...... 83 17.1.4 Resource Estimation ...... 89 17.1.5 Mineral Resource Classification...... 96 17.1.6 Block Model Validation ...... 96 17.1.7 Resource Statements ...... 99 17.2 BLACKBIRD ...... 101 17.2.1 Database Details ...... 101 17.2.2 Estimation Methodology ...... 102 17.2.3 Block Modeling Results and Classification ...... 103

iii

18.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ...... 106 18.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 106 18.2 MINING OVERVIEW ...... 106 18.3 METALLURGY AND PROCESSING ...... 107 18.4 SURFACE INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 108 18.5 TAILINGS AND WASTE ROCK MANAGEMENT ...... 108 18.6 WATER MANAGEMENT ...... 113 18.7 AGGREGATES ...... 113 18.8 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING, MANAGEMENT AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...... 113 18.9 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...... 113 18.10 ECONOMIC EVALUATION AND RISK ...... 114 18.10.1 Capital Costs ...... 114 18.10.2 Operating Costs ...... 116 18.10.3 Financial Analysis ...... 116 18.10.4 Sensitivity and Project Risk ...... 118

19.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 120 19.1 RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 122

20.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 124 20.1 BUDGET FOR ONGOING WORK ...... 124

21.0 SIGNATURE PAGE ...... 126

22.0 REFERENCES ...... 127

List of Tables Page Table 1.1 Summary of Diamond Drilling Listed by Project ...... 3 Table 1.2 Eagle’s Nest Summary of Mineral Resources ...... 4 Table 1.3 LOM Total Net Smelter Return ...... 6 Table 1.4 Base Case NPV for a Range of Discount Rates ...... 8 Table 1.5 Sensitivity of NPV (6.5% Discount Rate) to Share of Off-site Infrastructure Costs ...... 10 Table 1.6 Summary of the Scoping Study Base Case Results ...... 12 Table 2.1 Participants in McFaulds Lake Project Preliminary Assessment ...... 17 Table 2.2 List of Abbreviations ...... 19 Table 4.1 List of Noront Claims ...... 25 Table 10.1 Breakdown of Drilling by Target Area, 2007 and 2008 ...... 52 Table 10.2 Breakdown of Drilling by Target Area, 2009 ...... 53 Table 11.1 Summary of Diamond Drilling Listed by Project ...... 58 Table 11.2 Summary of Diamond Drilling Listed by Year for Each Project...... 58 Table 11.3 Summary of Major Intersections in the Eagle’s Nest Drill Holes ...... 59 Table 16.1 Composition of Metallurgical Composite Samples ...... 76 Table 16.2 Metallurgical Composite Head Analyses ...... 77 Table 17.1: Eagle's Nest Raw Sample Data ...... 83 Table 17.2: Eagle’s Nest Captured Sample Data Statistics ...... 84 Table 17.3: Eagle’s Nest Captured Samples with Missing Assays ...... 84 Table 17.4: Eagle's Nest Correlation Matrix ...... 86 Table 17.5: Eagle’s Nest Regression Formulae for Absent Data ...... 86 Table 17.6: Eagle's Nest Composite Sample Data Statistics...... 89 Table 17.7: Eagle’s Nest Grade Variogram Parameters ...... 91 Table 17.8: Eagle’s Nest Grade Variogram Models ...... 91 Table 17.9: Eagle’s Nest Block Model Definition ...... 93 Table 17.10: Eagle’s Nest Block Model vs. Wireframe Volume Check ...... 93 Table 17.11: Eagle’s Nest Estimation Search Parameters ...... 94 Table 17.12: Eagle’s Nest Block Model Validation Statistics ...... 98 Table 17.13: Eagle's Nest Summary of Mineral Resources ...... 100 Table 17.14: Eagle's Nest Indicated and Inferred Blocks above Cut-off ...... 100

Table 17.15 Summary of Estimation Methodology ...... 103 Table 17.16 Summary of the Blackbird Chromite Block Model Mineral Resources ...... 103 Table 18.1 Summary of Estimated Mining, Process and Infrastructure LOM Project Capital Costs ...... 115 Table 18.2 LOM Total Net Smelter Return ...... 116 Table 18.3 Base Case NPV for a Range of Discount Rates ...... 118

Table 18.4 Sensitivity of NPV6.5 to Share of Off-site Infrastructure Costs ...... 119 Table 19.1 Summary of the Scoping Study Base Case Results ...... 121 Table 19.2 Eagle’s Nest Project, Risk Assessment ...... 122

List of Figures Page Figure 1.1 McFaulds Lake Project Site Location ...... 2 Figure 1.2 Contribution of Metals to NSR (Base Case) ...... 7 Figure 1.3 Base Case Cash Flow ...... 8 Figure 1.4 Sensitivity to Metal Prices ...... 9 Figure 1.5 Sensitivity to Capital, Operating Costs and Revenue ...... 9 Figure 4.1 McFaulds Lake Project Site Location ...... 23 Figure 4.2 Map of Noront Mineral Tenure ...... 24 Figure 4.3 Ring of Fire Property Map Including the McFaulds Lake Area ...... 25 Figure 7.1 Regional Geology...... 39 Figure 7.2 McFaulds Lake Local Geology ...... 40 Figure 7.3 Map of ENB Complex Mineral Occurrence Locations...... 41 Figure 10.1 High Resolution Total Magnetic Fields of the Eagle’s Nest Area ...... 54 Figure 17.1: Eagle's Nest 3D Isometric View of Mineralized Zone and Diamond Drill Coverage ...... 82 Figure 17.2: Eagle’s Nest Captured Samples Histograms ...... 85 Figure 17.3: Eagle’s Nest Ni - SG Correlation...... 87 Figure 17.4: Eagle’s Nest Captured Sample Length Histogram ...... 88 Figure 17.5: Eagle’s Nest Use of Unfolding in Grade Estimation ...... 90 Figure 17.6: Eagle’s Nest QNI Variograms ...... 92 Figure 17.7: Eagle’s Nest Drill hole Spacing Varying with Depth ...... 93 Figure 17.8: Eagle’s Nest Location of Indicated and Inferred Resource ...... 96 Figure 17.9: Eagle’s Nest Block Model Visual Validation ...... 97 Figure 17.10: Eagle’s Nest Block Model Swath Plots ...... 99 Figure 17.11 Block Model of the Blackbird Deposits ...... 105 Figure 17.12 Grade-tonnage Curve for the Combined Blackbird Deposits ...... 105 Figure 18.1 Preliminary LOM Mining Schedule...... 107 Figure 18.2 Preliminary Process Flow Diagram ...... 109 Figure 18.3 Conceptual Process Plant Layout ...... 110 Figure 18.4 Overall Site Area Map Showing Proposed Access Road Route ...... 111 Figure 18.5 McFaulds Lake Project Site Plan ...... 112 Figure 18.6 Annual Capital Expenditures ...... 115

vii

Figure 18.7 Contribution of Metals to NSR (Base Case) ...... 117 Figure 18.8 Base Case Cash Flow ...... 117 Figure 18.9 Sensitivity to Metal Prices ...... 118 Figure 18.10 Sensitivity to Capital, Operating Costs and Revenue ...... 119

viii

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Micon International Limited (Micon) has been retained by Noront as lead consultant for the feasibility study on the McFaulds Lake project. Presently, the main focus of the McFaulds Lake project is the development of the Eagle’s Nest high grade nickel-copper-platinum-palladium- gold deposit. The other feasibility study participants include Cementation Canada Inc. (Cementation) and its sub-consultant, Penguin Automated Systems Inc. (Penguin ASI), Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), SNC Lavalin Inc. (SLI), Knight Piésold Consulting (KP) and AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM).

A scoping study, or preliminary assessment, has been completed as part of on-going development of the McFaulds Lake project. The results of the scoping study were published by Noront in a press release dated September 9, 2010. Noront requires an independent Technical Report to fulfill the requirements of Canadian National Instrument (NI) 43-101 for a first time disclosure of a preliminary assessment on the McFaulds Lake project.

1.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

The McFaulds Lake project area is located approximately 250 km west of the community of Attawapiskat on James Bay and 575 km northwest of Timmins (see Figure 1.1). The closest all- season accessible community to the McFaulds Lake project area is currently Nakina, 300 km to the south. The First Nations communities of Webequie and Ogoki/Marten Falls are located 110 km west and 130 km south southeast of McFaulds Lake, respectively.

Mineral deposits and occurrences that Noront has discovered since 2007 and is currently exploring, include the Eagle’s Nest deposit, Eagle Two and AT12 nickel-copper-platinum- palladium mineral occurrences, the Blackbird deposits which are a series of chromite deposits, the Thunderbird mineral occurrence which is a vanadium-titanium zone and the Triple J mineral occurrence which is a gold zone. The Eagle’s Nest, Eagle Two, Blackbird and Triple J occurrences are located within a 4-km2 surface area and are defined as the Eagle’s Nest- Blackbird (ENB) Complex. The AT12 and Thunderbird mineral occurrences are 8 and 10 km to the northeast of the ENB Complex, respectively.

Figure 1.1 McFaulds Lake Project Site Location

1.3 OWNERSHIP

Noront controls land held directly through joint ventures (JVs), optioned claims and earn-in programs. As of the effective date of this report, Noront holds 522 claims of approximately 133,376 ha. Of these claims, there are 14 claims hosting the Eagle’s Nest, Blackbird, Eagle Two and Triple J deposits, and the AT12 and Thunderbird mineral occurrences, consisting of approximately 3,136 ha.

1.4 HISTORY

Early geological work in the McFaulds Lake area was conducted by the Geological Survey of Canada and the Ontario Department of Mines (1886, 1906 and 1940 to1965). In the 1990s, joint venture partners Spider Resources Inc. (Spider) and KWG Resources Inc. (KWG) conducted an airborne magnetic survey throughout the northern part of the James Bay Lowlands. The first volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits (McFaulds No. 1 and No. 3) were discovered in 2001 by follow-up drilling after the Spider/KWG airborne magnetometer surveys were completed. The discovery of these deposits and the recognition of the region as a poorly exposed greenstone belt suggested good prospective potential for further discoveries of base metal deposits in the area. Noront discovered the Eagle’s Nest magmatic massive sulphide deposit in 2007.

The first mineral resource estimate completed in the area was for the Eagle One (Eagle’s Nest) deposit, it was prepared by P&E Mining Consultants Inc. (P&E) and is discussed in a Technical Report dated August 14, 2008 (P&E, 2008). The Eagle’s Nest deposit mineral resource estimate was updated by Golder in 2010 (Golder, 2010).

An independent mineral resource estimate of the chromite mineralization on the Blackbird 1 (BB1) and Blackbird 2 (BB2) deposits and an associated Technical Report were completed in January 2010 by Micon (Micon, 2010).

1.5 GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION

The McFaulds Lake area is underlain by Precambrian rocks of the northwestern part of the Archean Superior Province. Within the area, volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits are collectively recognized as being within a significant greenstone belt located at the eastern limit of exposure of the Oxford-Stull Domain, where it disappears under the Paleozoic cover.

A key feature of the McFaulds Lake area is the formational magnetic high that forms a half- circle, 60 km in diameter, in the area labeled as the Ring of Fire (ROF) Intrusive, which hosts the Eagle’s Nest Deposit.

1.6 EXPLORATION AND OTHER PROGRAMS

Since Noront acquired the claims that include the ENB Complex, AT12 and Thunderbird occurrences in 2003 and 2006, there have been a total of 13 geophysical surveys undertaken, continuous and on-going drilling from Noront since 2007, and an additional 11-hole diamond drill program completed by Probe in 2006.

Table 1.1 Summary of Diamond Drilling Listed by Project

Project Number of Holes Total Metres Number of Mineralization Drilled Mineralized Holes Hit Rate (%) Eagle's Nest 92 38,661 76 83 Blackbird 154 52,375 82 53 Eagle Two 25 10,160 n/a n/a Triple J 58 25,416 n/a n/a AT12 32 10,709 23 72 Thunderbird 5 2,227 3 60 Note: Drill holes listed for Eagle Two and Triple J are included in the number of holes listed for Blackbird and do not, therefore, contribute to the totals of holes or meterage.

1.7 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION

The Eagle’s Nest mineral resource model consists of a single mineralized zone, of approximately 200 m strike length and extending from near surface to approximately 1,200 m depth. The mineralization consists of massive sulphide occurrences within relatively lower grade disseminated and ‘net-textured’ sulphides in the ultramafics.

The Indicated and Inferred Resources outlined by Golder in April, 2010 for the Eagle’s Nest deposit are summarized in Table 1.2. The Qualified Persons responsible for the estimate are Messrs. Greg Greenough, P.Geo., and Paul Palmer, P.Eng., P.Geo.

Table 1.2 Eagle’s Nest Summary of Mineral Resources

Eagle’s Nest Indicated Resources Tonnes Ni Cu Pt Pd (%) (%) (g/t) (g/t) 6,900,000 2.04 0.95 1.3 3.4 Eagle’s Nest Inferred Resources Tonnes Ni Cu Pt Pd (%) (%) (g/t) (g/t) 4,300,000 1.42 0.87 0.8 3.4

This resource estimate assumes no selectivity during mining and represents all material contained within the 0.3% Ni mineral envelope. Some minor inclusions of internal dilution will be included in the resource, but no external dilution has been defined. No recoveries (mining or processing) or dilution factors have been considered in these estimations, and the results should be considered strictly in situ.

The Blackbird mineral resource estimate with an effective date of December 31, 2009 was first published in a Technical Report by Micon in January, 2010. Although it is part of the McFaulds Lake project area, development of the Blackbird deposit was not included in the preliminary assessment.

Mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing or other relevant issues. Golder or Micon cannot guarantee that Noront will be successful in obtaining any or all of the requisite consents, permits or approvals, regulatory or otherwise for the project. There are currently no mineral reserves on the Eagle’s Nest property and there is no assurance that the project will be placed into production.

1.8 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

The mining of the Eagles Nest deposit will be undertaken by using bulk stoping techniques. Mining will include production of aggregates for local infrastructure development, and underground void space will be created for location of processing plant and storage of mine

tailings. Initial access will be by a surface ramp, followed by a 7-m diameter hoisting and access winze from the 125 m level (L) to the 1,200 m L.

A preliminary mine plan was developed using the combined indicated and inferred resources. This plan applies a mine recovery factor of 95% of the Golder resources and includes a 10% external mining dilution at zero grade. This preliminary mine plan was used as the basis for the preliminary assessment.

SGS Mineral Services (SGS-MS) undertook preliminary metallurgical testing during 2009 and 2010 on two composite samples provided by Noront. The testwork program included grinding tests, comprehensive mineralogical analysis and a series of preliminary developmental flotation tests.

The results from the preliminary testwork program were used as the basis for the scoping-level process design of a 3,000 t/d processing plant comprising conventional crushing, grinding, flotation and concentrate dewatering to produce a single concentrate containing typically 10% Ni, 5.0% Cu, 17 g/t Pd, 6 g/t Pt, 1 g/t Au and 15 g/t Ag. The base case assumes that the concentrate is pumped to Webequie, dewatered, loaded for bulk road transportation to Pickle Lake and then railed to Sudbury.

Planned site infrastructure includes all-season and winter access roads, site roads, a camp, airstrip, surface buildings, storage and other facilities such as a truck scale, gatehouse and fuel storage. A sewage treatment plant is included in the design. Power will be provided by diesel generator sets situated near Webequie. Concentrate will be pumped from the mine site to a dewatering and storage facility situated near Webequie.

Hydrological and hydrogeological studies have been commissioned by Noront. The results of these studies will be available and be incorporated into the next phase of project development. The study assumes that fresh water for the project will be supplied from a local lake.

The preliminary mine plan includes a long term aggregate rock stope production rate of approximately 750 t/d which is required to provide underground storage volume for tailings. The initial characterisation studies undertaken on samples of the local granodiorite rock suggest that this material will be suitable as aggregate which can be used for the project infrastructure and possible external markets.

Federal and Provincial permitting processes apply. It is anticipated that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be completed by August 31, 2011. Approval for the project is anticipated at earliest to be six months after submission of the EIA. Permits for various aspects of the project would then be expected late in 2012.

A number of First Nation communities have taken an interest in the project including those at Webequie and Marten Falls. First Nations and public consultations are ongoing and are being conducted by Noront.

The following implementation schedule is anticipated:

Project feasibility study complete March 18, 2011. Commence basic engineering April 22, 2011. Prepare and Submit Permit Applications June 1, 2011 Issue EIA August 31, 2011. Commence major equipment purchasing November 14, 2011. EIA approved February 29, 2012. Permit Approval August 31, 2012 Commence construction March 18, 2013. Engineering complete December 31, 2013. Construction complete September 30, 2015.

The capital cost estimate developed for the scoping study is considered to be at a scoping level with an accuracy of +50%. Pre-production capital expenditures are estimated to total $622 million (M), including$124M mining, $102M processing and on-site infrastructure, $166M off- site infrastructure, $129M indirect costs and a contingency of $102M, equivalent to 25.9% of the direct capital cost estimate. This estimate assumes that certain proportions of the off-site infrastructure costs will be borne by other stakeholders potentially including the provincial and federal governments and other mining companies with interests in the ROF.

The sustaining capital costs are estimated to be $274M comprising mainly the costs of sinking an internal shaft during the first three years of operation.

Estimated cash operating costs for the project average $123.57/t milled over the LOM period, including $75.50/t mining, $32.64/t processing and $15.44/t general and administrative (G&A) costs.

Project revenues assume that a bulk concentrate product is sold and shipped to a smelter in North America. Treatment and refining charges, metal payability and settlement terms are assumed on the basis of Micon’s recent experience with similar concentrate products. Assumed NSR terms and base case values are presented below.

Table 1.3 LOM Total Net Smelter Return

Item Units Nickel Copper Platinum Palladium Gold Silver Total Average grade % or g/t 1.640 0.769 0.960 2.913 0.141 2.398 Recovery % 89.10 90.75 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00

Item Units Nickel Copper Platinum Palladium Gold Silver Total Conc.grade % or g/t 10.00 4.78 5.26 15.95 0.77 13.13 Payability % 95.00 90.00 85.00 85.00 90.00 85.00 Gross value US$M 3,252 473 350 257 36.0 9.3 4,377 Off site costs US$M 578 113 47 43 5.1 1.5 787 NSR US$M 2,674 360 303 214 31.0 7.8 3,590 NSR US$/t 228.47 30.74 25.93 18.30 2.65 0.67 306.76

Using the base case price assumptions (i.e., 3-year trailing average), the contribution of each of the above metals to the NSR over the LOM period is shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Contribution of Metals to NSR (Base Case)

The base case project cash flow is presented below. The project demonstrates an undiscounted pay back of around 3.5 years, or approximately 4.0 years discounted at 6.5%, leaving a production tail of around 7 years. The base case evaluates to an IRR of 26.0% before tax and 21.4% after tax, with a net present value at a discount rate of 6.5% per year (NPV6.5) of $732.5M before tax and $505M after tax. At a discount rate of 6%, the net present value (NPV6) of the cash flow is $778.2M before tax and $540.2M after tax.

Figure 1.3 Base Case Cash Flow

To demonstrate the robustness of the project, the pre-tax and after tax NPV is presented in Table 1.4, over a range of discount rates applied to the base case cash flow

Table 1.4 Base Case NPV for a Range of Discount Rates

Discount rate $ 000 (%) Pre-Tax After-Tax NPV NPV 6.00 778,173 540,179 6.50 732,487 505,037 7.00 689,294 471,832 7.50 648,444 440,447 8.00 609,796 410,772 8.50 573,218 382,704 9.00 538,587 356,148 9.50 505,789 331,016

The sensitivity of the project returns to changes in metal price and exchange rate assumptions was tested using the 5-year trailing averages and recent spot prices and rates. The chart demonstrates that the project returns remain robust when using past metal prices and exchange rates over a five-year period, and also using recent spot prices.

Figure 1.4 Sensitivity to Metal Prices

The sensitivity of the project returns to changes in all revenue factors (including grades, recoveries, prices and exchange rate assumptions) together with capital and operating costs was tested over a range of 30% above and below base case values. The results show that the project is most sensitive to changes in revenue. The project is less sensitive to capital and operating costs.

The following chart shows the results of changes in each factor separately.

Figure 1.5 Sensitivity to Capital, Operating Costs and Revenue

The sensitivity of the project returns to changes in the assumptions made in respect of the share of off-site infrastructure costs borne by the project was tested. Off-site infrastructure includes an all-weather road, power line and winter road. The results in the table below show that NPV6.5 remains positive even when the total cost of the off-site infrastructure is included in the cash flow.

Table 1.5 Sensitivity of NPV (6.5% Discount Rate) to Share of Off-site Infrastructure Costs

Power line and All-weather road winter road (%) (%) 25% 50% 75% 100% 25 512,458 477,019 441,402 405,743 50 505,037 469,416 433,845 398,185 75 497,617 461,947 426,287 390,628 100 490,196 454,389 418,730 383,070

1.9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This preliminary assessment was completed by Micon International Limited and included technical input from SNC Lavalin Inc., Cementation Ltd., Knight Piésold Ltd., and Golder Associates Ltd. It was prepared to analyse the preliminary operating and economic parameters of the development of Noront Resource’s Eagle’s Nest project as an underground mining operation with an on-site nickel-copper-PGM concentrating facility. The study is based on the proposed mining and processing of the Eagle’s Nest mineral resource previously defined by Golder Associates in a NI 43-101 resource estimate reported in April, 2010.

A preliminary mine plan has been developed using the combined indicated and inferred resources. This plan applies a mine recovery factor of 95% of the Golder resources and includes a 10% external mining dilution at zero grade. This preliminary mine plan is the basis for this Preliminary Assessment the objectives of which were:

 To demonstrate the economic potential of Eagle’s Nest as a stand-alone project.

 To estimate operating costs to determine cut-off grades to guide for exploration.

 To address the technical and environmental challenges of developing a mine in the McFaulds Lake region.

The results of the study comprise the following:

 The Eagle’s Nest Ni-Cu-PGM mineralization will be extracted using standard underground mining methods.

 Initial mine production will be from an internal ramp. A winze (internal shaft) will be developed by year three to access the lower levels of the deposit.

 Nominal throughput rate of 1.0 million tonnes of ore per year.

 The life of the operating mine is 11 years.

 Conventional mineral processing technology will be used to produce a single concentrate product containing nickel, copper, platinum, palladium and gold.

 Estimated life-of-mine nickel recovery of 88.3% and copper recovery of 89.7%.

 Production of a 10% Ni product containing copper, PGMs and gold.

 All major facilities (including the mill) will be located underground.

 All tailings will be stored underground.

 The project is designed for minimal surface disturbance.

 Aggregate for construction will be sourced from underground.

 Access to site will be via an all-season road from Pickle Lake to Webequie and a winter road from Webequie to site. The winter road will significantly reduce the project’s environmental impact on the wetlands.

 Electrical power will be provided by a diesel power plant located near Webequie and a transmission line to the mine site.

 A slurry pipeline will be used to transport concentrate from site to a filter plant located near Webequie. The pipeline and remote electrical power plant will greatly reduce traffic between Webequie and the project site.

 The planned off-site infrastructure will benefit other companies and local communities. Although the project could carry 100% of these costs, the preliminary assessment assigned 25% of the all season road, 50% of the power line and 50% of the winter road costs against the project.

The results of the study are summarized in Table 1.6. All dollars are Canadian dollars.

Table 1.6 Summary of the Scoping Study Base Case Results

Item Unit Value Total life-of-mine ore production kt 11,704 Average nickel grade % 1.64 Average copper grade % 0.77 Average palladium grade g/t 2.91 Average platinum grade g/t 0.96 Average gold grade g/t 0.14 Average nickel process recovery % 89.1 Average copper process recovery % 90.8 Annual Ni production (average) lb (000’s) 34,787 Annual Cu production (average) lb (000’s) 16,614 Annual Pd production (average) oz (000’s) 80.9 Annual Pt production (average) oz (000’s) 26.7 Annual Au production (average) oz (000’s) 3.9 Life of the mine Years 11 Pre-production capital cost $000 622,000 Sustaining capital $000 274,000 LOM operating cost $000 1,446,000 LOM cash operating cost $/t milled 124 Average base case nickel price $/lb 9.08 Average base case copper price $/lb 2.92 LOM gross metal sales $000 4,714,000 LOM off-site costs $000 848,000 LOM net revenue $000 3,867,000 Project cash flow before tax $000 1,594,000 Pre-tax NPV@ 10.0 % discount rate $000 475,000 Pre tax NPV @ 8.0% discount rate $000 610,000 Pre tax NPV @ 6.5% discount rate $000 732,000 Pre-tax NPV@ 6 % discount rate $000 778,000 Post-tax NPV @ 6.5% discount rate $000 505,000 Post-tax NPV @ 6% discount rate $000 540,000 Pre-tax IRR % 26.0 After-tax IRR % 21.3

Sensitivity analyses indicate that the project economics is most sensitive to revenue and is less sensitive to capital and operating costs.

Opportunities exist in several areas:

 Infrastructure development synergies with other stakeholders.

 Infrastructure synergies with development of other projects in the area, including Noront’s Blackbird chromite deposit.

 Potential infrastructure and service synergies with other companies exploring in the region.

 External aggregates sales to future infrastructure projects.

 First Nations employment, training and development.

 Further resource potential through exploration.

1.9.1 Recommendations

The results from the preliminary assessment demonstrate that the Eagle’s Nest project is technically and economically viable and should continue to be developed towards production. The next phase of development should be a pre-feasibility study.

The following activities are recommended for the pre-feasibility study (PFS):

 Update the mineral resource model.

 Develop detailed mine design using updated mineral resources categorized as measured and indicated.

 Compile updated mine capital and operating costs to a PFS level of accuracy based on the new detailed mine plan.

 Undertake additional metallurgical testwork using samples representing the whole deposit.

 Use new metallurgical results to finalise the process flowsheet and process design criteria.

 Use revised process design to update process engineering and associated capital and operating cost estimates to a PFS level of accuracy.

 Complete all identified trade-off studies.

 Develop and cost all on and off-site infrastructure to a PFS standard.

 Complete a Technology Roadmap study to determine the base case mining and processing control technology that will be used for the project.

 Complete risk analyses and associated studies to identify mining and processing technology opportunities.

1.9.2 Budget for Ongoing Work

The following proposed studies and exploration programs are planned by Noront for the McFaulds Lake projects for 2010:

 Eagle’s Nest Definition Drilling: o Indicated Resource (above 1200 m) ~15,000 m drilling o Inferred Resources (between 1200 m and 2000+m) ~10,000 m.

 Geophysical Surveys: o Airborne – Regional High Resolution Magnetic Survey of the ENB Complex end of Q2, 2010. o Ground – SQUID survey moving loop of the AT 12 and Eagle’s Nest deposits area.

 Feasibility Study: o EN Drilling for Field Studies: . Geotechnical Logging, Hydrology, and Rock Mechanics Model. . Metallurgical Test Work. o Engineering studies and testing on mineral processing o Engineering studies on access options. o Engineering studies on mining methods and scheduling. o Resource update at Eagle’s Nest and at Blackbird. o Environmental Baseline and Impact Assessment Work. o First Nations Consultations.

 Budget Drilling $1.0M Field Work and Environmental Studies $1.3M Technical Studies $6.9M Socio-economic costs/expenses $0.8M Total $10.0M

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

Noront Resources Ltd. (Noront) has been engaged in extensive exploration activities in the McFaulds Lake project area located in the James Bay Lowlands in northern Ontario, Canada. More recently the area has been referred to as the Ring of Fire (ROF). With 133,376 ha of mineral claims, Noront is one of the largest landholders in this region. Since August, 2007, Noront has completed several major exploration programs of drilling and geophysics in the ROF area targeting several multi-metal deposits.

Mineral deposits and occurrences that Noront has discovered since 2007 and is currently exploring include:

 Eagle’s Nest deposit, Eagle Two and AT12 mineral occurrences which are multiple high- grade nickel-copper-platinum-palladium deposits.

 Blackbird deposits which are a series of massive to intercalated chromite deposits.

 Thunderbird mineral occurrence which is a vanadium-titanium zone.

 Triple J mineral occurrence which is a gold zone.

A scoping study has been completed as part of on-going development of the McFaulds Lake project. The main focus of the scoping study was the development of the Eagle’s Nest deposit.

The Eagle’s Nest deposit is a high grade nickel-copper-platinum-palladium-gold mineralized pipe up to 60 m across and 200 m in length on strike. It is a near-vertical structure that underlies up to 20 m of saturated vegetative matter, glacial till, sand and gravel. The host rock is a strong to very strong granodiorite.

Micon International Limited (Micon) has been retained by Noront as lead consultant for the feasibility study on the McFaulds Lake project. The other feasibility study participants include:

 Cementation Canada Inc. (Cementation) and its sub-consultant Penguin Automated Systems Inc. (Penguin ASI): underground mining and mining infrastructure design and costing portions of Feasibility Study.

 Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder): mineral resource estimates, geotechnical characterization and hydrology.

 SNC Lavalin Inc. (SLI): process and on-site surface infrastructure design, off-site infrastructure and access road engineering and costing.

 Knight Piésold Consulting (KP): environmental assessment and baseline studies.

 AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM): environmental baseline studies.

The base case design at the preliminary assessment stage is an underground mine capable of consistently delivering 3,000 t/d ore to the mill. The design assumes the underground location of many facilities, including mineral processing and hoisting infrastructure, given the extensive bog conditions at the site. Another salient feature of the mine design is the development of aggregate rock stopes within the mine to produce crushed aggregate for the site and possible northern construction projects. This approach will avoid the surface storage of tailings. The main project design assumptions include:

 Minimized surface footprint by maximizing facilities below surface.

 The technology utilized will be proven in underground hard rock mines and nickel/copper mineral processing facilities.

 Process operating criteria 24 h/d, 7 d/w, 365 d/y.

 Additional technology opportunities will be identified through trade-off studies and risk analysis at the pre-feasibility stage.

 The project will be designed, constructed and operated to international environmental standards in order to minimize environmental and social impacts.

 Local First Nations will be engaged proactively with the project in order to ensure sustainable benefits to the First Nations and to support the permitting process.

2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The results of the scoping study were published by Noront in a press release dated September 9, 2010. Noront requires an independent Technical Report to fulfill the requirements of Canadian National Instrument (NI) 43-101 for a first time disclosure of a preliminary assessment on the McFaulds Lake project. Micon has been retained to review and compile the results of preliminary assessment work carried out for Noront and to prepare a Technical Report in accordance with the reporting requirements of National Instrument (NI) 43-101 which discloses the results.

The preliminary assessment is part of the on-going development of the McFaulds Lake project. The main focus of the preliminary assessment is the development of the Eagle’s Nest deposit.

The preliminary assessment is based on the mineral resource estimate for the Eagle’s Nest deposit prepared by independent Qualified Person, Greg Greenough, P.Geo., of Golder, Report Number 10-1117-0001, Technical Report and Resource Estimate, McFaulds Lake Project, James Bay Lowlands, Ontario, Canada, April 23, 2010 (Golder, 2010). This report can be found on the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR).

Participants in the study are listed in Table 2.1. The role of each participant is more fully described below.

Table 2.1 Participants in McFaulds Lake Project Preliminary Assessment

Mineral resource estimate – Eagles’s Nest Golder Mineral resource estimate - Blackbird Micon Mine design, schedule, mine equipment selection, mine facilities, Cementation mining cost estimates Penguin Geotechnical and hydrological characterization Golder Metallurgical testing and flowsheet development SGS Lakefield Research SLI Micon Process selection, design and engineering SLI Micon On site surface infrastructure and plant design, capital expenditures SLI and operating costs Tailings backfill design and costing Penguin SLI Access road and off-site infrastructure design, engineering and SLI costing Environmental baseline studies AECOM & KP Environmental assessment KP Economic evaluation Micon Overall study management Noront Micon Concentrate Market analysis Noront Micon

The Eagle’s Nest April, 2010 Mineral Resource Estimate was prepared by independent Qualified Person, Greg Greenough, P.Geo., of Golder, and the estimate and report were peer reviewed by Paul Palmer, P.Eng., P.Geo, of Golder. A site visit to the McFaulds Lake Project area was conducted by Paul Palmer between April 9 and April 13, 2010.

The Blackbird Mineral Resource estimate has an effective date of 31 December, 2009. It was disclosed in a Technical Report entitled “Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Blackbird Chrome Deposits, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada” (Micon, 2010). The Qualified Person responsible for the mineral resource estimate is Mr. Charley Murhawi P.Geo., of Micon. Mr. Murahwi visited the McFaulds Lake Project area from 6 to 9 July, 2009. The mineral resource estimate for the Blackbird deposit has been included herein since it is part of the McFaulds Lake property. Development of the Blackbird deposit has not been considered as part of this preliminary assessment.

Cementation and its sub-consultant Penguin ASI completed the underground mining and mining infrastructure design and costing for the preliminary assessment. This work was reviewed by Mr. Harry Burgess P.Eng., of Micon who is the Qualified Person responsible for this area of the work.

Geotechnical testing and hydrological characterization work has been undertaken by Golder; however, the results from this work were not available for inclusion into the preliminary assessment.

SGS Mineral Services (SGS-MS) of Lakefield, Ontario, completed a preliminary metallurgical testwork program in 2009 using mineralized samples from the Eagle’s Nest deposit. This work was used as a basis for the metallurgical and process design aspects of the study.

SLI completed the process and on-site surface infrastructure and off-site infrastructure and access road design and engineering for the study. SLI also estimated the capital and operating costs for these areas of the study. This work was reviewed by Mr. Richard Gowans, P.Eng., of Micon who is the Qualified Person responsible for this area of the work. Mr. Gowans visited the project site on May 5, 2010.

Environmental baseline studies have been underkaken by AECOM and KP. KP is presently working on behalf of Noront on the project Environmental Assessment.

The project economic evaluation included in the preliminary assessment was undertaken by Micon. Mr. Christopher Jacobs, C.Eng., of Micon is the Qualified Person responsible for this area of the study.

The overall management of the preliminary assessment was undertaken by Mr. Simon Baker, P.Geo., of Micon.

2.2 UNITS AND CURRENCY

In this report, all currency amounts are stated in Canadian dollars ($), with commodity prices typically expressed in US dollars (US$). Quantities are generally stated in Système International d’Unités (SI) metric units, the standard Canadian and international practice, including metric tons (tonnes, t) and kilograms (kg) for weight, kilometres (km) or metres (m) for distance, hectares (ha) for area, grams (g) and grams per tonne (g/t) for gold and platinum group metal (PGM) grades. PGM and gold grades may also be reported in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Quantities of PGM and gold may also be reported in troy ounces (oz) and quantities of nickel and copper in avoirdupois pounds (lb). Nickel and copper and metal assays are reported in percent (%) while gold and PGM assay values are reported in grams of metal per tonne (g/t) unless ounces per short ton (oz/T) are specifically stated.

The following conversions are used in the preparation of this report:

 1 troy ounce = 31.1035 g.  1 pound = 14.5833 oz.  1 tonne = 2204.627 lb.  1 foot = 0.3048 m.

Units of measure and abbreviations used are provided in Table 2.2

Table 2.2 List of Abbreviations

Term Abbreviation Acceleration due to gravity g Aluminum Al Atomic absorption spectrometry AAS Billion years old Ga Bond work index BWI Canadian dollar $ Canadian National Instrument 43-101 NI 43-101 Centimetres per second cm/s Chromium Cr Carboxymethylcellulose CMC Cobalt Co Cubic feet per minute CFM Cubic metre(s) m3 Cubic metres per day m3/d Cubic metres per minute m3/min Cubic metres per second m3/s Cubic metres per second per metre m3/s/m Cubic metres per year m3/y Days per week d/y Days per year d/y Degree(s) o Degrees Celsius oC Dollar(s), Canadian $ Environmental assessment EA Environmental impact assessment EIA Environmental impact statement EIS Factor of safety FS Foot (feet) ft Footwall FW General and Administration G&A Gallons per minute gpm Global positioning system GPS Gram(s) g Grams per cubic centimetre g/cm3 Grams per litre g/L Greater than > Gold Au Hanging wall HW Hectare(s) ha Hertz Hz High density polyethylene HDPE Horsepower HP Hour(s) h Hours per day h/d Inch(es) in Induced polarization IP Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission ICP-AES spectrometry Internal rate of return IRR

Term Abbreviation Inverse distance to the power of 2 ID2 Inverse distance to the power of 5 ID5 Iridium Ir Iron Fe Kilogram(s) kg Kilograms per cubic metre kg/m3 Kilograms per day kg/d Kilometre(s) km Kilopascal(s) kPa Kilovolt(s) kV Kilovolt ampere kVA Kilowatt(s) kW Kilowatthours per tonne kWh/t Lead Pb Less than < Litre(s) L Lerchs-Grossmann LG Life-of-mine LOM Litres per second L/s London Metal Exchange LME Loss on ignition LOI Low voltage LV Megavolt ampere MVA Megawatt(s) MW Metre(s) m Metres above sea level masl Metres per kilometre m/km Metres per second m/s Micron(s) μm Milliampere(s) mA milliGal mGal Milligrams mg Milligrams per litre mg/L Millimetre(s) mm Millimetres per year mm/y Million M Million pounds Mlb Million cubic metres Mm3 Million tonnes Mt Million tonnes per year Mt/y Million years old Ma Mine rock storage area(s) MRSA Minute(s) min Molybdenum Mo Motor control centre MCC Net acid generating NAG Net present value NPV Net present value at 6.5%/y discount rate NPV6.5 Neutralization potential NP Neutralization potential ratio NPR Nickel Ni Newtons per square millimetre Nmm2

Term Abbreviation Osmium Os Ounce(s) (troy ounce) oz Ounces per tonne oz/t Ounces per short ton oz/T Palladium Pd Parts per billion ppb Parts per million ppm Platinum Pt Platinum group elements PGE Platinum group metals PGM Potentially acid generating PAG Potassium amyl xanthate PAX Pound(s) lb Provincial water quality objectives PWQO Quality assurance QA Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC Quality control QC Rest and Recreation R&R Rhodium Rh Rock quality designation RQD Programmable logic controller PLC Ruthenium Ru Second s Short ton (2,000 pounds) T Specific gravity SG Square metre(s) m2 Square metres per tonne m2/t Square kilometre(s) km2 Standard deviation Std Dev Sulphur S Supervisory control and data acquisition SCADA Thousand tonnes kt Three dimensional 3D Titanium Ti Tons per day TPD Tons per vertical foot TPVF Tonne(s) t Tonnes per cubic metre t/m3 Tonnes per day t/d Tonnes per hour t/h Tonnes per year t/y Tonne-seconds per hour-cubic metre ts/hm3 Treatment charges/refining charges TC/RC US gallons per minute USgpm United States dollars US$ Vanadium V Volcanogenic massive sulphide VMS Volt(s) V Weight Wt. Year y Zinc Zn

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

The authors wish to make clear that they are qualified persons only in respect of the areas in this report identified in their “Certificates of Qualified Persons” submitted with this report to the Canadian Securities Administrators.

While exercising all reasonable diligence in checking, confirming and testing it, the authors have relied upon Noront’s presentation of its project data and its consultants in formulating its opinion.

The various agreements under which Noront holds title to the mineral claims for this project have not been reviewed by Micon, and Micon offers no legal opinion as to the validity of the mineral title claimed. A description of the property, and ownership thereof, is provided for general information purposes only.

Comments on the state of environmental conditions, liability, and estimated costs of closure and remediation have been made where required by NI 43-101. In this regard Micon has relied on the work of AECOM, KP and other experts it understands to be appropriately qualified, and Micon offers no opinion on the state of the environment on the property. The statements are provided for information purposes only.

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The following description of the McFaulds Lake property is based on Micon, 2010 and Golder, 2010.

4.1 LOCATION

The McFaulds Lake project area is located at approximately UTM 5844000 N and 547000 E, and between approximately 52º30' and 53º00' N latitude and 86º00' and 86º30' W longitude, approximately 250 km west of the community of Attawapiskat on James Bay and 575 km northwest of Timmins. The closest all-season accessible community to the McFaulds Lake project area is currently Nakina, 300 km to the south, where there is a paved, 3,880-ft airstrip, in addition to all weather road and railroad access.

Figure 4.1 McFaulds Lake Project Site Location

The First Nations communities of Webequie and Ogoki/Marten Falls are located 110 km west and 130 km south southeast of McFaulds Lake, respectively. Both communities are served by regularly scheduled air service, primarily from Thunder Bay; both Thunder Bay and Timmins serve as support centres for the James Bay communities and the projects.

The Eagle’s Nest, Eagle Two, Blackbird and Triple J occurrences are located within a 4-km2 surface area and are defined as the Eagle’s Nest-Blackbird (ENB) Complex. The AT12 and Thunderbird mineral occurrences are 8 and 10 km to the northeast of the ENB Complex, respectively.

Figure 4.2 presents Noront’s mineral tenure for the McFaulds Lake area showing the location of the Noront’s Eagle’s Nest and Blackbird chromite deposits and the Eagle Two, Triple J, AT12, and Thunderbird mineral occurrences. Also shown are the locations of the Esker Camp, Koper Lake, the McFaulds Lake Camp, and local bodies of water.

Figure 4.2 Map of Noront Mineral Tenure

4.2 CLAIMS

Noront controls land held directly through joint ventures (JVs), optioned claims and earn-in programs. As of the effective date of this report, Noront holds 522 claims of approximately 133,376 ha. Of these claims, there are 14 claims hosting the Eagle’s Nest, Blackbird, Eagle Two and Triple J deposits and the AT12 and Thunderbird mineral occurrences, consisting of approximately 3,136 ha.

A property map showing the claims in the Ring of Fire area is presented as Figure 4.3 and a detailed list of claims is shown in Table 4.1.

Figure 4.3 Ring of Fire Property Map Including the McFaulds Lake Area

Table 4.1 List of Noront Claims

Claim Number Township/Area Division Area (ha) 1221423 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3005505 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 128 3005526 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 80 3005533 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 64 3005534 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 128 3005622 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3005667 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 3005668 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 144 3005669 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 3005670 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 3006707 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 128 3006708 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 32 3006709 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 32 3008260 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3008261 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3008266 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 3008267 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 3008687 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 3008773 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256

Claim Number Township/Area Division Area (ha) 3008774 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3011019 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 240 3011020 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 240 3011021 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 240 3011022 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 240 3011024 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 3011025 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 3011553 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3011554 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3011555 BMA 526 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 3011556 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3011557 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3011558 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3011559 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3011560 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3011561 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3011562 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3012256 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 3012259 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3012260 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3012261 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3012262 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 3012264 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 64 3012265 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 64 4208213 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4208214 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4208215 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 240 4211293 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 128 4211294 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4211295 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 240 4211296 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4211297 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4211298 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4211299 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 32 4211300 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 64 4211340 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 192 4211341 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 64 4215900 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4215901 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4215902 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4215903 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4215904 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4215905 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4215906 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4215907 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4215908 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4215909 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4218183 BMA 526 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4218184 BMA 526 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4218185 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4218186 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4218187 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4218188 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4218233 BMA 531 854 Porcupine 160 4218234 BMA 531 854 Porcupine 256 4218241 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4218242 BMA 531 854 Porcupine 240 4218247 BMA 531 854 Porcupine 144 4218250 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 224 4218258 BMA 531 854 Porcupine 256 4218887 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4218888 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4218889 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256

Claim Number Township/Area Division Area (ha) 4218890 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4218901 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4218902 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4218903 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4218904 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 192 4221421 BMA 527 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4221422 BMA 527 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4221423 BMA 527 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4221424 BMA 527 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4221425 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4221426 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4221427 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4221428 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4221429 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4221430 BMA 526 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4222249 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4222256 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4222257 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 128 4222258 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4222259 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4222260 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4222261 BMA 533 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4222262 BMA 533 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4222263 BMA 533 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4222265 BMA 533 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4222270 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4222285 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4222286 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4222287 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4222291 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4222292 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4222293 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4222294 BMA 531 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4222295 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4222296 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4222297 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4222301 MAMCHUR LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4222302 MAMCHUR LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4222303 MAMCHUR LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4222304 MAMCHUR LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4222305 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4222306 MAMCHUR LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4222307 MAMCHUR LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4222308 MAMCHUR LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4222309 MAMCHUR LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4222499 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4222500 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4222622 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4222625 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4222629 BMA 531 854 Porcupine 256 4222630 BMA 531 854 Porcupine 256 4222644 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4222671 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4222672 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4222673 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4222674 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4222675 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4222676 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4222677 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4222678 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4222679 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4222680 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4223453 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 128

Claim Number Township/Area Division Area (ha) 4223454 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4223455 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4223487 BMA 533 861 Porcupine 80 4223488 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 224 4225176 BMA 526 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4225177 BMA 526 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4225178 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4225179 BMA 526 864 Thunder Bay 256 4225180 BMA 526 864 Thunder Bay 256 4225831 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 96 4225833 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 32 4225835 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 32 4225836 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 128 4225839 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 240 4225861 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 64 4225862 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 64 4225863 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 16 4225864 BMA 526 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4225865 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4225866 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 224 4225868 BMA 526 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4225869 BMA 526 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4225870 BMA 526 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4225871 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4225872 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4225873 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4225874 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4225875 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4225876 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4225877 BMA 525 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 64 4225878 BMA 525 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4225879 BMA 525 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4225880 BMA 525 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4225881 BMA 525 862 Porcupine 256 4225882 BMA 525 862 Porcupine 256 4225883 BMA 525 862 Porcupine 256 4225953 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4225981 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 64 4225982 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 64 4225988 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 64 4225989 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 192 4225990 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 240 4225994 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 128 4225995 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4225997 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 80 4225998 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 32 4225999 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 32 4226001 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4226002 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4226008 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4226009 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4226011 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4226012 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4226013 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 256 4226014 BMA 528 862 Porcupine 256 4226015 BMA 528 862 Porcupine 256 4226016 BMA 528 862 Porcupine 256 4226071 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4226072 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4226073 BMA 533 861 Porcupine 256 4226075 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4226076 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 128 4226077 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 256

Claim Number Township/Area Division Area (ha) 4226078 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4226081 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 80 4226082 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 224 4226083 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 80 4226091 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 112 4226093 BMA 528 854 Porcupine 256 4226094 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 64 4226095 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 64 4226096 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 64 4226097 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 64 4226100 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226111 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4226112 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4226113 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4226114 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4226115 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4226116 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4226117 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4226118 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4226119 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4226581 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226582 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4226583 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 224 4226584 BMA 533 861 Porcupine 112 4226585 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 160 4226586 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226588 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 64 4226589 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4226590 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4226611 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226612 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226613 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 32 4226614 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 160 4226615 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4226616 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226617 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226618 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 192 4226619 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 192 4226623 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4226624 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226625 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226626 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226627 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 240 4226628 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226631 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226632 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226633 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226635 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226636 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226637 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226638 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226639 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226640 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226651 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4226652 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226653 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226654 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4226655 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 192 4226656 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4226657 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226658 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 224 4226659 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226660 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256

Claim Number Township/Area Division Area (ha) 4226661 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226662 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226663 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226665 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226670 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4226672 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 80 4226673 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4226674 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 256 4226675 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226676 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 192 4226677 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226678 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 224 4226679 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 256 4226680 BMA 526 861 Porcupine 160 4226681 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226682 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226683 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226684 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226685 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226686 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226687 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226688 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226689 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4226690 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226691 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226692 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226693 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226694 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226695 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226696 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226697 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226698 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226699 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226700 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226701 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4226702 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4226703 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226704 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4226705 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 256 4226706 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226707 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226708 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226709 BMA 526 862 Porcupine 256 4226710 BMA 527 862 Porcupine 256 4228770 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 240 4228771 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4228772 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4228773 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4228774 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 128 4228775 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4229408 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 96 4229428 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 64 4229429 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 144 4229432 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 32 4229435 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 16 4229436 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 240 4229437 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4229438 BMA 527 861 Porcupine 64 4229439 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 192 4229440 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 240 4229442 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 192 4229443 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 160 4229445 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 32

Claim Number Township/Area Division Area (ha) 4229451 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 256 4229452 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 256 4229453 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 64 4229454 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 208 4229455 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 256 4229456 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 256 4229457 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 192 4229458 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 256 4229459 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 256 4229460 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 96 4229628 BMA 528 862 Porcupine 256 4229629 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 192 4229630 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 192 4229656 BMA 528 862 Porcupine 256 4229657 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4229658 BMA 528 862 Porcupine 256 4229659 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4229660 BMA 528 862 Porcupine 256 4229661 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4229662 BMA 528 862 Porcupine 256 4229663 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4229664 BMA 528 862 Porcupine 256 4229665 BMA 528 861 Porcupine 256 4229666 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 144 4229667 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4229668 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4229669 BMA 533 861 Porcupine 256 4229670 BMA 533 861 Porcupine 256 4229671 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 144 4229672 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4229673 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4229674 BMA 533 861 Porcupine 240 4229675 BMA 533 861 Porcupine 256 4229916 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4229917 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 240 4229918 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 144 4229919 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 128 4229920 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4229921 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 240 4229922 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4229923 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 256 4229924 BMA 532 861 Porcupine 192 4229925 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4240155 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4240156 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4240157 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4240226 BMA 533 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4240227 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 224 4240228 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 144 4240229 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 16 4240231 BMA 533 863 (POR) Porcupine 160 4240232 BMA 533 863 (POR) Porcupine 32 4240240 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240241 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240242 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240243 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240244 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240245 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240266 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 128 4240267 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 144 4240268 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4240269 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 192 4240270 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 224

Claim Number Township/Area Division Area (ha) 4240271 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4240273 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4240274 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 144 4240275 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4240286 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 192 4240287 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 16 4240288 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 80 4240428 BMA 533 863 (POR) Porcupine 64 4240526 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4240527 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4240528 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 128 4240529 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 32 4240742 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240743 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240744 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 128 4240745 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 64 4240746 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 160 4240747 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240748 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240749 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4240750 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 256 4241051 BMA 532 871 Thunder Bay 96 4241052 BMA 532 871 Thunder Bay 256 4241053 BMA 532 871 Thunder Bay 256 4241054 BMA 532 871 Thunder Bay 256 4241058 BMA 532 871 Thunder Bay 64 4241059 BMA 532 871 Thunder Bay 256 4241060 BMA 532 871 Thunder Bay 256 4241251 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 240 4241252 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4241253 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4241254 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4241255 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4241256 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 48 4241257 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 80 4241258 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 128 4241271 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4241272 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4241273 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4241274 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4241275 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4241276 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4241277 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 224 4241278 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4241279 BMA 532 864 Thunder Bay 256 4241280 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4241281 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4241282 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4241283 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4241284 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 256 4241285 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4241289 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 176 4241290 NABISH LAKE AREA Thunder Bay 224 4243401 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 144 4243402 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243403 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243404 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243405 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243406 BMA 532 863 (POR) Porcupine 208 4243407 BMA 532 863 (POR) Porcupine 208 4243408 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 160 4243409 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243410 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256

Claim Number Township/Area Division Area (ha) 4243411 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 240 4243412 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 192 4243413 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243414 BMA 532 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4243415 BMA 532 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4243416 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4243417 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243418 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243419 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 224 4243420 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243421 BMA 528 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243422 BMA 532 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4243423 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243424 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243425 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243426 BMA 532 863 (TB) Thunder Bay 256 4243427 BMA 533 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4243428 BMA 533 863 (POR) Porcupine 256 4243429 BMA 533 862 Porcupine 256 4244732 BMA 533 863 (POR) Porcupine 160 4245934 BMA 531 862 Porcupine 16 4245937 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 112 4245943 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 32 4245944 BMA 531 861 Porcupine 64 4245947 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 192 4245948 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 144 4247111 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4247112 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4247113 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 256 4247114 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 256 4247115 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 256 4247116 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 96 4247117 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 256 4247118 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 256 4247119 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 256 4247120 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 128 4247166 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 256 4247167 BMA 533 871 Thunder Bay 128 4247168 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 224 4247169 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 224 4247170 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 80 4247171 BMA 533 864 Thunder Bay 96 4258451 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 96 4258452 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 96 4258453 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 80 4258454 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 32 4258455 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 112 4258456 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 32 4258457 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 64 4258458 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4258459 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 144 4258460 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 96 4258461 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 128 4258462 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4258463 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4258464 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 192 4258465 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 192 4258466 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4258467 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 256 4258468 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 16 4258469 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 192 4258470 BMA 532 862 Porcupine 144

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

The following description has been extracted from Micon, 2010 and Golder, 2010.

5.1 ACCESS

Regional access to the ENB Complex is currently from Nakina, 300 km to the south, where there is a paved, 3,880-ft airstrip, in addition to all weather road and railroad access.

The First Nations communities of Webequie and Ogoki Post/Marten falls are located 90 km west and 130 km south-southeast of McFaulds Lake, respectively. Both communities are served by regularly scheduled air service, primarily from Thunder Bay, although both Thunder Bay and Timmins serve as support centers for the James Bay communities and the projects.

Charter air service to the property is available with West Caribou Air Service from Webequie with Nakina Air Service from Nakina and with Wasaya Airways from Pickle Lake, which is 300 km to the west-southwest. A winter road system services the communities of Marten Falls, Webequie, Lansdowne House, Fort Albany and Attawapiskat, and could potentially be extended to give access to the project area. In recent years, a side road to the winter road from Moosonee to Attawapiskat was built to service the Victor diamond mine site operated by De Beers Canada Exploration Inc. The Victor mine is located approximately 150 km east of the ENB Complex.

Year-round operations performed by Noront are based in Esker Camp located at 5843750N, 547500E, approximately 1.5 km northeast of the Blackbird project and 250 m northeast of the Eagle’s Nest project. Direct access to the property is by helicopter in summer and with snowmobiles or small trucks in the winter. Access to Esker camp is through Koper Lake at 5841600N, 550500E.

Alternative access is from the original McFaulds Lake exploration camp established on the corner of McFaulds Lake, at 5849850N, 564850E, which is accessible to float and ski-equipped aircraft, and is approximately 18 km north north-east of the Eagle’s Nest deposit.

On the Blackbird property, drill moves were performed from January to June of 2009, using a bulldozer, since it is located primarily within a forested area that is less waterlogged than the surrounding ground. Drill moves were done with a helicopter in 2008. During break-up and in the summer of 2009, people were transported to the drills via helicopter. Fuel, food and equipment were flown into the camps using float planes and helicopters.

Small ponds closer to work areas may form potential winter ice strips. Advanced programs require helicopter support for moving equipment and transporting personnel and supplies.

5.2 CLIMATE

The climate is warm in summer and very cold in winter, with freeze-up during late October. Long winters extend until spring break-up in April. The mean daily minimum temperature in

January is -27º C, the mean total annual precipitation is 660 mm, and the mean snowfall is 2,400 mm. The mean annual maximum and minimum daily temperatures are 1.9 and -8.1º C, respectively.

5.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The property lies within the James Bay Lowlands of Northern Ontario, a poorly drained peneplain that slopes gently (0.7 m/km) from approximately 170 m above sea level in the property area toward James Bay and Hudson's Bay to the east and northeast. The terrain is flat and swampy, generally covered by string bogs and muskeg. Vegetation is dominated by moss, grass and sedges with sparsely scattered stunted larch and black spruce due to the very poor drainage of this almost completely flat landscape. There are occasional patches of boreal forest where drainage is locally enhanced by the presence of low sand ridges or next to incised water courses.

The main rivers which drain the general area include, from south to north, the Albany River, the Atikameg River, the Attawapiskat River, the Muketei River, the Winisk River and the Ekwan River. All of these rivers flow eastward or north into James and Hudson Bays, with string bogs that have developed between local drainages. Wetlands cover roughly 50% of the area and are composed of northern ribbed fens, northern plateau bogs and palsa bogs. River levels reach their maximum during spring runoff in late April to early May and water levels usually drop during the summer months and increase prior to freeze-up in the late fall.

5.4 INFRASTRUCTURE

Infrastructure in the project area consists of the Esker and McFaulds Lake camps. The McFaulds Lake camp is located on the shore of McFaulds Lake which is shared by several companies working in the area. The Esker camp, immediately adjacent to the Eagle’s Nest deposit, is used exclusively by Noront. The closest town with infrastructure is Nakina, which is 300 km to the south.

The local services available at Attawapiskat, Webequie and Marten Falls/Ogoki Post are limited, but do include airports, health clinics, public schools, mail services, telephone/facsimile services, internet services, and various community stores and other services. There are also two hotels in Attawapiskat and one in Webequie.

West Caribou Air Service has offered charter air service operation from Webequie since 2008. Flights to Thunder Bay from Webequie are available on a regular schedule via both Wasaya Airways and Nakina Air Service. Camp supplies and equipment are normally brought in through Nakina, but are also occasionally brought in through Webequie, Marten Falls, Pickle Lake and Hearst

5.5 FLORA AND FAUNA

The McFaulds Lake area is in the Tundra Transition Zone of the James Bay Lowlands. This is an area of transition lying between coniferous and mixed forests of the clay belt to the south, and

the tundra to the north. Where it is poorly drained, vegetation is primarily grasses, sedges and lichens, and sometimes stunted black spruce and tamarack. On well-drained raised beaches and along rivers and creeks, forests are composed of larger balsam fir, white and black spruce, trembling aspen and paper birch and rarely jack pine. Willows and alders are also present along creeks and in poorly drained areas.

Characteristic larger wildlife includes barren-ground caribou, black bear, wolf, moose and lynx. Smaller mammals are numerous, such as muskrat, weasel, American marten and red fox. A number of migratory bird species nest in the James Bay Lowlands in the summer, including Canada goose, ruffed grouse and American black duck. The wetlands also provide an ideal breeding ground for swarms of mosquitoes, black flies and other biting insects. Local fish species include pickerel (walleye), northern pike (jackfish), trout (lake, brook, brown, speckled and rainbow), whitefish and sturgeon.

6.0 HISTORY

The following description is based on Micon, 2010 and Golder, 2010.

6.1 EXPLORATION HISTORY

An initial exploration camp was established on the northwest corner of McFaulds Lake. Subsequently, Noront constructed a second base known as the Esker camp, proximal to the discovery area.

Early geological work in the McFaulds Lake area was conducted by the Geological Survey of Canada and the Ontario Department of Mines (1886, 1906 and 1940 to1965). Early exploration activities focused on diamonds and occurred sporadically between 1959 and 1990, and included Consolidated African Selection Trust, De Beers South Africa (1962) with Monopros (the Canadian subsidiary of De Beers), discovering the Attawapiskat kimberlite cluster in 1988.

In the early to mid 1990s, joint venture partners Spider Resources Inc. (Spider) and KWG Resources Inc. (KWG) conducted an airborne magnetic survey for diamond exploration throughout the northern part of the James Bay Lowlands. They discovered the Good Friday and MacFayden kimberlites in the Attawapiskat cluster, as well as the five Kyle series kimberlites to the northeast of the McFaulds Lake properties.

The first volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits (McFaulds No. 1 and No. 3) were discovered in 2001 by follow-up drilling after the Spider/KWG airborne magnetometer surveys were completed. The discovery of these deposits, and the recognition of the region as a poorly exposed greenstone belt with a great prospective potential for further discoveries of base metal deposits, led to a staking rush in December, 2002 and through 2003 (including Noront). Six additional volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits were discovered in 2003 by junior exploration companies. Subsequent geophysical surveys (VTEM and ground magnetometer) between 2004 and 2006 identified magnetic high targets that were drilled in 2006 by Probe Mines Ltd. (Probe) on Noront ground confirming ultramafic rock, which highlighted the potential for Ni-Cu-PGE-Cr mineralization in the area.

Noront discovered the Eagle’s Nest magmatic massive sulphide deposit while searching for volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) mineralization in 2007. Follow up testing with other airborne anomalies led to the discovery of the Eagle Two shear hosted sulphide deposit. It was drilling of this occurrence that led to the later discovery of the Blackbird chromite deposits in 2008, which are hosted by the same ultramafic complex as Eagle’s Nest. The most recent discoveries by Noront in the ultramafic complex are the Thunderbird vanadium and Triple J gold occurrences. The latter was discovered to occur within the contact between the granodiorite and peridotite hosting the Blackbird deposits and has been intersected by drilling over a strike length of approximately of 1 km.

The Double Eagle (ENB Complex) claims were staked by Noront on March 30, 2003, and recorded by John Weduwen on April 22, 2003, following the Spider/KWG VMS discoveries. A Fugro Geotem survey was flown later that year. The claims were then transferred 100% to

Richard Nemis (175159) on June 22, 2003, and were transferred 100% to Noront on June 21, 2004.

Noront optioned the ENB Complex claims to Hawk Precious Minerals Inc., (now Hawk Uranium Inc.), which in turn optioned them to Probe. Probe completed an exploration program in early 2006 with 11 holes testing mostly VMS style anomalies. Probe returned the ENB Claims back to Noront in early 2007.

Drilling programs on the Blackbird deposits were designed to follow an earlier discovery of Ni- Cu-PGE mineralization by Noront, but resulted in massive chromitite being encountered downhole from the stringer sulphides. The original discovery hole was NOT-08-1G017 which intersected 48.4 m (not true width) of massive chromite at 194.6 m.

6.2 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

The first mineral resource estimate completed in the area was for the Eagle One (Eagle’s Nest) deposit located approximately 1.0 km to the northeast of the Blackbird deposits. This estimate was prepared by P&E Mining Consultants Inc. (P&E) and is discussed in a Technical Report prepared for Noront, dated August 14, 2008 (P&E, 2008).

An independent mineral resource estimate of the chromite mineralization on the Blackbird 1 (BB1) and Blackbird 2 (BB2) deposits and associated Technical Report were completed by Micon. The Technical Report was entitled “The Mineral Resource Estimate for the Blackbird Chrome Deposits, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada”, and dated January 22, 2010 (Micon, 2010).

The Eagle’s Nest deposit mineral resource estimate was updated by Golder in 2010 (Golder, 2010).

7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING

A detailed description of the geological setting of the McFaulds Lake are is included in Micon, 2010 and Golder, 2010, on which the following summary is based.

7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The McFaulds Lake area is underlain by Precambrian rocks of the northwestern part of the Archean Superior Province. The Superior Province is a part of the central region of the Canadian Shield and is the world's largest, contiguous, exposed Archean craton. A series of Meso-archean volcanic and plutonic domains and terranes trending from west to east formed as micro-continents and are separated by Neo-archean meta-sedimentary belts and crustal faults. The regional geology of the area is illustrated in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1 Regional Geology

Golder, 2010.

7.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY

The McFaulds Lake volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits are collectively recognized as an area within a significant greenstone belt located at the eastern limit of exposure of the Oxford- Stull Domain, where it disappears under the Paleozoic cover. The greenstone belt is not fully understood due to the lack of exposed supracrustal rocks in the region. Interpretation is almost exclusively through airborne geophysical surveys and diamond drilling. Local geology is illustrated in Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2 McFaulds Lake Local Geology

Key: Orange = granodiorite; purple = ultramafic rocks; green = volcanic rocks; brown = sediments/iron formation. Golder, 2010.

A key feature of the McFaulds Lake area is the formational magnetic high that forms a half- circle, 60 km in diameter, in the area known as the Ring of Fire (ROF) Intrusive. The magnetic high is a mantle-derived, ultramafic intrusion that has been emplaced along the margin of a regional-scale granodiorite pluton which, in turn, has been intruded into and caused a doming of the host Sachigo greenstone belt rocks. The magnetic high is a marker between highly deformed rocks within the ROF and the younger rocks outside the ROF that show relatively simple

aeromagnetic fabric, indicative of a simpler deformational history. It appears that a series of conduits cutting across the granodiorite have acted as feeders to the ROF.

After the deposition of the ROF iron formation, a major episode of ultramafic magmatism was marked by the emplacement of peridotitic to dunitic dikes and sills of the ROF Intrusion. The ultramafic dikes and sill cut through older tonalitic to granodioritic intrusions that are structurally beneath the iron formation, and they also cut up through the iron formation and into the overlying mafic to intermediate lava flows. The ultramafic dikes below the iron formation are host to the magmatic nickel-copper-platinum group elements (PGE) deposits, notably including Eagle’s Nest, Eagle Two and AT12. The ultramafic intrusions above the dikes were preferentially developed at the horizon formerly occupied by the ROF iron formation, which has been replaced by extensive layered sills of dunite, harzburgite, orthopyroxenite, and chromitite, probably through a process of magmatic assimilation. The Blackbird, Black Creek, Big Daddy, and Black Thor chromitite deposits are hosted by examples of these ultramafic sills.

7.3 LOCAL DEPOSITS AND MINERAL OCCURRENCES

The Eagle’s Nest Deposit is interpreted as occurring well within a conduit feeder, at some distance from the main ultramafic intrusive. Two kilometres southwest of the Eagle’s Nest deposit, Noront has discovered the Blackbird One chromite deposit, the Eagle Two shear-hosted Ni-Cu-PGE deposit, and most recently, the Blackbird Two chromite occurrence within the ultramafic intrusive. The locations of these discoveries are shown on Figure 7.3.

Figure 7.3 Map of ENB Complex Mineral Occurrence Locations

Golder, 2010.

7.3.1 Eagle’s Nest Deposit

The Eagle’s Nest deposit is a sub-vertically dipping body of massive magmatic sulphide (pyrrhotite, pentlandite, chalcopyrite, magnetite) in a pipe-like form approximately 200 m long, up to several tens of metres thick, and at least 1,200 m deep. It strikes northeast-southwest and occupies the northwestern margin of a vertically inclined serpentinized peridotite dyke that is present in subcrop over a north-south strike length of about 500 m, with a maximum width of about 75 m.

A simplified lithological succession of the intrusion from the base upwards comprises talc altered peridotite/dunite, serpentinized dunite/peridotite with chromite bands and layers, peridotite with lesser chromite, talc-tremolite schist, and gabbro which is usually talc-chlorite altered.

7.3.2 Blackbird Deposit

The Blackbird chromite occurs entirely within altered ultramafic rocks which are associated with serpentine, talc, tremolite-hornblende, chlorite, magnesite and lesser biotite. The stratigraphy has been overturned and is dipping roughly 60° towards 335° (azimuth). There is evidence of folding to the southwest of the deposit where the intrusion pinches out. This folding is based on geophysical interpretation.

Intense faulting and associated alteration cuts through the southern part of the Blackbird 2 trending north-northeast (025° to 045°) and is likely sub-vertical. The fault appears to widen between the Blackbird 2 zone 2 (BB2-2) chromitite and the southernmost massive chromitite layer (BB2-4). This fault shows as part of a magnetic anomaly that is occurring as stringers and veins throughout the intensely altered zone. All chromite within the fault has been partially or wholly replaced by magnetite and ferrichromite.

Folding and deformation are visible in the drill cores and manifest as changing angles of chromitite beds to core axis and strong foliation that is well developed within talc alteration units.

7.3.3 Triple J Gold Mineral Occurrence

The gold mineralization of the Triple J is directly related to the sheared contact between the talc- altered peridotite hosting the Blackbird and Eagle Two occurrences and the hanging wall granodiorite. The sheared zone consists of biotite-chlorite-actinolite schist which contains or is flanked by brecciated quartz-rich fragments. The thickness of the zone ranges from several centimetres to tens of meters with a strike length currently defined at 1km and to a depth of 300 m. Results of a re-sampling program completed early in 2010 are pending but the zone is interpreted as a large, low grade gold occurrence flanking the Blackbird and Eagle Two deposits, with a consistent strike of 065° and a dip of 50°.

7.3.4 AT12 Nickel-Copper Mineral Occurrence

Located 12 km northeast of Eagle’s Nest, the AT12 occurrence is a Ni-Cu-PGE-bearing body that occurs within the ROF region. It has been periodically drilled since 2008 and the inferred boundaries are delineated by a strong magnetic anomaly that trends north-northeast, coincident with conductivity anomaly highlighted by a Fugro GeoTEM and a VTEM surveys.

Drilling indicates that the geology of the AT12 is hosted by ultramafic rocks, which occur mainly as massive rocks, with intrusive breccias noted in the northern extents of the intrusion. The AT12 mineralization occurs in all observed rock character (e.i., massive to brecciated) as disseminated to net textured sulphides in more massive-type to breccia-sulphides where breccia associated with felsic dykelets is observed in the northern portions of the intrusion.

7.3.5 Thunderbird Vanadium-Titanium-Iron Mineral Occurrence

The Thunderbird mineral occurrence is located 12 km northeast of the Eagle’s Nest deposit, 2 km to the east of the AT12. The zone is demarcated by a magnetic high which trends north- south as part of a magnetic anomaly that is 7 km long, 3 km wide. This is thought to be the result of a mafic intrusion which hosts the magnetite rich ferrogabbro which has noteworthy values of V-Ti-Fe.

Magnetic data highlight a magnetite-rich ferrogabbro which was rich in vanadium, titanium and iron. This anomaly within the larger magnetic high is 7 km long and 3 km wide, and is assumed to delineate the bulk of a mafic intrusion, which hosts the Thunderbird occurrence.

The Thunderbird occurrence is composed of a medium to coarse-grained ferrogabbro, which is texturally homogenous but contains magnetite-rich sections. Despite an observed variability in leucocratic to melanocratic phases, the intrusion is in large part monolithic. However, a lack of drill hole data leaves much of the geology inconclusive in nature.

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES

A detailed description of the deposit types at McFaulds Lake is included in Micon, 2010 from which the following summary has been extracted.

The interpreted geology of the area has been shown to be conducive to many deposit types including Ni-Cu+PGM in magmatic massive sulphides (MMS), Cu-Zn±Au in volcanogenic massive sulphides (VMS), magmatic Cr-Ni-Cu-PGM, V+Ti, and gold in shear hosted settings.

The focus of interest within the McFaulds Lake area is the ROF which is a mantle derived mafic- ultramafic intrusion. The ROF is host to the Blackbird chromite deposits as well as the Eagle’s Nest Ni-Cu-PGM MMS deposit, the Eagle Two Ni-Cu-PGM occurrence, and the Thunderbird vanadium occurrence on Noront property, and the Black Thor and Big Daddy chromite deposits on adjacent properties.

The Eagle’s Nest deposit is komatiitic. Proterozoic komatiitic deposits of the Thompson Nickel Belt in Manitoba account for one-quarter to one-third of current nickel production in Canada. Archean komatiitic deposits at Kambalda and elsewhere in Western Australia yield most of that country's produced nickel. Several small nickel mines in the Abitibi greenstone belt of Ontario and Quebec are also Archean komatiitic deposits.

A common feature of these deposits is that most of the ore-bearing komatiite is directly underlain by sulphidic sediments. It is generally believed these sediments are the source of sulphur that became incorporated in the komatiitic magmas and gave rise to the mineralization.

9.0 MINERALIZATION

A detailed description of mineralization at McFaulds Lake is provided in Micon, 2010 and Golder, 2010 from which the following summary has been extracted.

The mineralization of the Eagle’s Nest deposit is composed of massive and net-textured sulphides with little to no disseminated sulphides.

9.1 MASSIVE SULPHIDES

Massive sulphides at Eagle’s Nest are comprised of pyrrhotite, pentlandite, and chalcopyrite, with subsidiary amounts of magnetite. At peak metamorphic conditions, all the nickel and perhaps all the copper in the sulphide was probably present within a homogeneous monosulphide solid solution. The pentlandite probably nucleated and grew during retrogression from peak metamorphic conditions, and its occasional habit of forming along the margins of fractures probably indicates that it was more easily nucleated on discontinuities. It is important to recognize that the extreme deformational textures that may have existed in the sulphide at peak conditions will have been erased by recrystallization.

9.2 NET-TEXTURED AND DISSEMINATED SULPHIDES

Net-textured sulphides are characterized by a closely-packed orthocumulate-textured framework, the interstices of which are fully occupied by sulphide minerals. This arrangement is generally understood to result from the invasion of a silicate crystal blend by dense immiscible sulphide melt that has effectively expelled all the interstitial silicate melt.

The voluminous amount of sulphide and ultramafic cumulates present at Eagle’s Nest indicate that it was formed in a magmatic conduit. It is believed that sulphides left behind were due to a through-going volume of magma much greater than what is presently represented in the intrusion. The mafic chilled margins can be interpreted to represent samples of the liquid from which the intrusion formed; the ultramafic rocks are cumulates that were gleaned from large volumes of mafic liquid that deposited small increments of olivine and pyroxene as it passed by. Present research shows that in order to form a mass of immiscible sulphide liquid on the scale observed at Eagle’s Nest deposit, a mafic or ultramafic magma must have become contaminated by sulphide-rich crustal rock. At the present level of exposure, the mineralized intrusion is entirely surrounded by sulphur-poor felsic intrusive rocks, leaving the origin of the required sulphide in doubt. The presence of abundant magnetite-rich xenoliths in the intrusion has been interpreted as recording a previous episode of assimilation of iron formation, which has added sufficient sulphide to the magma to induce sulphide liquid saturation.

10.0 EXPLORATION

A detailed description of exploration at McFaulds Lake is provided in Golder, 2010 from which the following summary has been extracted.

Since Noront acquired the claims that include the ENB Complex, AT12 and Thunderbird occurrences in 2003 and 2006, there have been a total of 13 geophysical surveys undertaken, as well as an 11-hole diamond drill program completed by Probe in 2006, and continuous and on- going drilling by Noront since 2007. No other exploration work has been done on the property apart from diamond drilling.

The main exploration grid in the area is centred on the Grid One baseline, which was initially designed to cover the Blackbird deposits, and has an azimuth of 045° with cross lines at 135° starting at Line 0E and terminating at Line 5400E. The grid was only used in the initial exploration of the Blackbird deposits since it was found in later drilling that a line orientation of 155° provided intersections closer to the true thickness of the mineralization.

10.1 AIRBORNE GEOPHYSICS

Late in 2007, Noront commissioned a collaborative regional survey and contracted Aeroquest to perform an AeroTEM III time domain electromagnetic survey over the project areas.

Some weak or deeply buried conductors under the thick and commonly highly conductive overburden in the ROF region were more thought to be readily detected using the recently developed fifth-generation VTEM system. This system had already been mobilized to the area by Geotech, and Noront commissioned a second time domain airborne survey (VTEM) to cover approximately the same survey blocks and was completed by Geotech in June, July, and August, 2008. The VTEM detected additional conductors that were invisible to the AeroTEM system. The results became available too late in the year to have a major effect on the 2008 exploration program but were used to guide work in 2009.

Noront has also undertaken three additional airborne surveys: a gravity Air-FTG survey, a Z-axis tripper Electromagnetic Survey (ZTEM) survey during the late spring of 2009, and a High Resolution Aeromagnetic Gradient (HRAM) survey in late 2009. These surveys covered the Eagle’s Nest, Blackbird, Eagle Two and Triple J projects, while the ZTEM and HRAM also covered the AT12 project and the HRAM covered the Thunderbird area as well.

The AeroTEM and horizontal loop electromagnetic (HLEM) profiles centred on the net-textured sulphides, indicating that these surveys did not respond well to the massive sulphide but picked up the less conductive net-textured mineralization. A magnetic peak is centred on the massive sulphides.

10.1.1 2003 Fugro Airborne Survey

An airborne magnetic and electromagnetic survey over the McFaulds Lake area was carried out by Fugro Airborne Surveys (Fugro) between July 26 and August 10, 2003, from an operating

base at Pickle Lake, Ontario. A total of 2,148 line-km of data were collected, which added detail to the geophysical information available in the area. The survey identified several bedrock conductors that closely correlated with magnetic anomalies. These surveys were used to identify potential targets for VMS-style mineralization and other sulphide mineralization in the area, and showed the strong magnetic anomalies related to the ultramafic units that host the Blackbird deposits. A ground survey using a horizontal loop electromagnetic system and magnetometer was suggested at the recommended locations and was completed in 2004.

10.1.2 2007 Noront AeroTEM III Helicopter Survey

In late 2007, following the discovery of the Eagle’s Nest deposit, Noront carried out an airborne magnetic and electromagnetic survey over a more extensive area in McFaulds Lake in conjunction with other JV stakeholders in the region. Aeroquest Ltd. (Aeroquest) was contracted to fly the survey using the AeroTEM III helicopter transient electromagnetic system. When completed, the final Aeroquest data, maps and report were distributed.

Twelve anomalies were identified (13 counting the Eagle’s Nest deposit which showed up very well as a highly conductive body with a coincident magnetic anomaly). The twelve anomalies were prioritized as to high, medium, low. Follow-up exploration was recommended for seven of the twelve anomalies.

The AeroTEM III survey was flown over the area of the McFaulds Lake property with Total Magnetic Field (TMF) results. Anomalous responses were detected by Aeroquest’s preliminary treatment of the AeroTEM survey profiles and some bedrock conductors were determined. Graphite is rare in the McFaulds Lake greenstone belt, suggesting that these conductors are potentially related to base metal sulphide mineralization.

Shallow horizontal overburden conductors were interpreted but found to be of no economic significance. The conductors are largely confined to the area of Grid 1. The magnetic fabric of the area can be divided into several zones with different geophysical responses.

The northwestern edge of the survey block shows moderate magnetic response inferred to represent the basement gneiss complex with variable amounts of magnetite. Southeastward into the block, there is a broad zone of muted magnetic response and subtle northeast-southwest lineaments interpreted to represent a stacked series of felsic intrusions similar to the granodiorite hosting the Eagle’s Nest deposit and the AT12 mineral occurrence. The southeastern margin of the magnetic quiet zone is a string of highly magnetic bodies, several of which contain bedrock conductors that are now known to be intrusions of ultramafic rock (Eagle Two, Blackbird, Eagle’s Nest, AT12, ), appearing both as isolated bodies surrounded by granodiorite, similar to Eagle’s Nest, and as a lineament spanning the entire belt. Southeast of this belt of ultramafic and mafic intrusions, there is a second string of highly magnetic rocks that also show intermittent bedrock conductivity, and is now known to correspond to the iron formation of the ROF. In the far northeast of the property, there is a prominent highly magnetic structure showing what appear to be concentric layers of alternating high and very high magnetic susceptibility. Drilling in early 2009 revealed the presence of magnetite-rich gabbro in the most magnetic portion of this

structure, indicating that this is a sill-sediment complex that has probably been folded into a doubly-plunging syncline.

10.1.3 2008 VTEM Airborne Survey

The VTEM survey flown on behalf of Noront in early 2008 covered the areas of the ENB Complex, AT12 occurrence and Thunderbird occurrence and provided valuable additional information. The existence of conductors at the first three targets was confirmed. The AT12 target area was defined on the basis of the new VTEM data, but remained undetected in the AeroTEM data.

Where the AeroTEM and VTEM surveys overlap, the magnetic field data are not significantly different. Several prospective conductive and magnetic targets were identified in the McFaulds Lake project area based on the VTEM survey results.

10.1.4 2009 Gravity Gradiometry Airborne Survey

Bell Geospace Inc. based out of Houston Texas completed an airborne gravity survey over the ENB Complex from January 30 to February 16, 2009. The survey was flown in a northwest to southeast direction with perpendicular tie lines. The flight paths were spaced 100 m apart and were 10.3 km long and the tie lines were 17 km long and 1,000 m apart. In total, there were 167 lines and 11 tie lines. A final gradient colour contoured map was produced by Bell Geospace Inc. at 1:50000 scale.

10.1.5 2009 Z-Axis tripper Electromagnetic Geophysical Survey – Airborne Survey

A helicopter-borne ZTEM survey was flown from May 8, 2009 to May 23, 2009 by Geotech Ltd. (Geotech). The survey was performed to map the geology in the ENB Complex, by using resistivity contrast and magnetometer data. A total of 896 km of flight lines oriented in a northwest to southeast (N135oE/N315oE) direction were flown covering an area of 165.8 km2. The flight line spacing was generally at 200 m with no tie lines, although infill lines were completed at 50-m spacing from L4555-L4575.

Extracted from the data were both the In-phase and Quadrative components; this data was formulated into 1:20000 scale maps. Profile plans for the EM data for the Z/X and Z/Y components as well as coloured contoured maps of the DT (total divergence) for each frequency used 30, 45, 90, 180 and 360 Hz. Geotech did not interpret the data but did note a few interesting structural features throughout the property. Follow-up interpretation was recommended by Geotech.

10.1.6 2009 High Resolution Aeromagnetic Gradient and VLF-EM Airborne Surveys

Simultaneous HRAM and VLF-EM surveys completed by Terraquest Ltd. (Terraquest) during October and November, 2009 covered two blocks, known as Block B and Block D, located in the ROF. Block B, in the southern part of the ROF, includes the Noront Eagle’s Nest and Blackbird deposits and Eagle Two, Triple J, AT12 and Thunderbird mineral occurrences.

A total of 11,163 km of data were collected along 100 m flight traverses with 1,000 m tie lines, 8,504 km in Block B with a flight path orientation of 142/322° and 2,659 km in Block D with a flight path orientation of 046/226°.

Four magnetic maps and six XDS-EM maps were produced by Terraquest, and TMF and Calculated Vertical Magnetic Gradient maps were produced for both blocks as well. The Terraquest XDS VLF-EM system produced good resolution and consistent results. The data was generated as line field (Vcx), Ortho Field (Vcp) and Vertical Field (hcp) with contoured plots for both blocks. Terraquest did not interpret the data and follow-up interpretation is currently in progress.

10.2 GROUND GEOPHYSICS

Noront conducted a ground magnetic and horizontal loop EM survey in March and April 2004, on two separate grids which included the Blackbird deposit and Eagle Two and Triple J mineral occurrences.

During 2006, Condor Diamond Corp., (Condor) conducted an infill ground magnetic survey in the Blackbird-Eagle Two-Triple J area. Three anomalies were identified, named A, B and C. Follow-up drilling was conducted with anomaly A, which was subsequently identified as the Eagle One Deposit (now referred to as Eagle’s Nest) situated on one of the two claims that were optioned to Noront.

During the winter of 2008, the ground geophysical Grid 1 and Grid 2, originally cut for the Probe/Noront JV in 2003, were re-occupied, and new surveys were conducted between January and May 2008

Grid 2 was extended to cover Noront claims northeast of the original extent of Grid 2. Ground surveys were conducted between September and November, 2008.

The results of a borehole induced polarization (IP) program conducted on Eagle’s Nest boreholes in December, 2007 were presented in a report in March, 2008.

10.2.1 2004 Ground Magnetic and Horizontal Loop EM Survey

In March and April, 2004, Noront carried out two ground geophysical surveys on two separate grids over its mineral claims in the McFaulds Lake area which included the Eagle’s Nest and Blackbird deposits and Eagle Two and Triple J mineral occurrences. The data were compiled and interpreted by Scott Hogg & Associates Ltd. (SHA) of Toronto, Ontario. Ground survey grids were cut with a line interval of 200 m, perpendicular to a base line trending 045°, using GPS for reference. The data were collected and presented with reference to line and station.

The ground magnetic survey was carried out using a Scintrex MP3 proton recession magnetometer and readings were taken at 12.5 m intervals along the line and recorded by the instrument. A second MP3 magnetometer, at a fixed location at the camp, recorded diurnal

magnetic variation and a correction was applied in the field. The corrected digital magnetic files were recorded on disk and sent to SHA in Toronto for compilation and analysis. The magnetic data, collected as profiles, were interpolated by SHA using a technique that preserves all of the detail of the profile data and optimizes the correlation of information between adjacent survey lines.

The ground horizontal loop electromagnetic survey was carried out using a MaxMin II instrument. A coil spacing of 150 m was used and the in-phase and quadrature response amplitudes were recorded at three frequencies: 444, 1,777 and 3,555 Hz. Measurements were made every 25 m and recorded manually. The field notes were converted to digital files and sent to SHA for interpretation.

Conductive axes of bedrock origin were mapped within and adjacent to magnetic anomalies interpreted to be intermediate to mafic volcanic rocks with a conductive response from sulphide mineralization. Weaker response was associated with pyrite mineralization possibly associated with gold and the strong conductance was associated with possible massive sulphides.

10.2.2 2006 Condor Diamond Corp In-fill Ground Magnetic Survey

In 2003, Condor staked several mining claims in the McFaulds Lake area based on a regional aeromagnetic survey; two of the claims were later optioned to Noront and the Eagle’s Nest discovery was made on claim number 3012264. In early 2004, Condor took part in a ground magnetic and horizontal loop electromagnetic survey that partially covered one of these claims. Their target was kimberlite and the claim was one of a contiguous pair of four-unit claims that captured two aeromagnetic anomalies. The survey revealed an elliptically shaped magnetic anomaly with an associated EM response. The original line spacing was 200 m and was considered insufficient to site a drill hole, and infill lines were therefore recommended.

In February 2006, Condor contracted Greenstone Exploration Ltd. to survey infill lines and to extend the survey to include the northwest claim. Three anomalies were identified and named A, B and C. Follow-up drilling was conducted and Anomaly A was identified as Eagle’s Nest deposit.

10.2.3 2007 Magnetics, HLEM and Gravity Surveys over Eagle’s Nest Deposit

HLEM (or MaxMin) and magnetic surveys were completed over the Eagle’s Nest deposit during the period from September 17 to October 16, 2007, and are detailed in report JVX 7-79. The grid is largely within claims 3012256, 3012259, 3012264 and 3012265.

Total magnetic intensity readings were made at a station spacing of 12.5. HLEM surveys were done at a coil spacing of 50 m with readings every 25 m.

The Eagle’s Nest deposit is marked by a distinct magnetic high with a peak over 10,000 nT. The magnetic body looks to be no more than 150 m in strike length and of modest width. Eagle’s Nest is also marked by strong 440 Hz HLEM anomalies consistent with multiple shallow, strong conductors.

10.2.4 2007 Gravity Survey

During the fall of 2007, JVX Ltd. (JVX) completed a gravity survey over the Eagle’s Nest deposit, detailed in report JVX 7-84. Gravity readings were made at 198 stations on 9 traverse lines (49+00E to 54+00E) with a station spacing of 25 m or 50 m.

The Eagle’s Nest deposit is clearly marked in the residual Bouguer gravity as a roughly circular gravity high of 0.6 mGal, which may be open to the south. Small outlier gravity highs were not explained.

10.2.5 2008 Magnetic, VLF, HLEM, Gravity and Large Loop TDEM Surveys

Magnetic/VLF, HLEM, gravity and large loop transient EM (TDEM) surveys were completed on all or parts of Grid 1 by JVX in 2008. Part of Grid 1 includes the Blackbird deposit and Eagle Two and Triple J mineral occurrences. The fieldwork took place from January 20 to May 27, 2008 and total magnetic intensity and VLF readings were taken every 12.5 m. HLEM surveys were done with a 150-m coil spacing with readings every 25 m. Gravity surveys were done over selected grid sections at station spacing of 25 m, and spacing of 50 m in areas of less interest. Large loop TDEM surveys were done over selected grid sections with readings every 25 or 50 m. A high pass filter was used on the Bouguer gravity channel and Fraser filter was applied to the VLF data in the database.

The results yielded a second anomaly continuing to the northeast of Blackbird One, which became known as the Blackbird Two anomaly. The gravity response for Blackbird Two was much stronger than that of Blackbird One and it was traceable along a 1-km strike length oriented at 065°. This was considered a high priority target for drilling during the summer of 2008.

10.2.6 2009 Magnetic, VLF, HLEM, Gravity and Large Loop TDEM Surveys

A small part of Grid 1 was covered in a TDEM coincident moving loop survey by JVX. The field work was done from March to April, 2009, when the work was stopped because conditions became too wet to continue. The coincident loop transient EM (TDEM) surveys were done over selected grid sections, with readings every 25 m. The total Grid 1 coverage was 2,000 m, whereas the total coverage of all project areas included in the survey was 29,900 m. The survey was used to better delineate in granodiorite-peridotite contact at Blackbird.

10.2.7 2009 Gravimeter Survey on the Grid 2 Extension – Ground Survey

The gravimeter survey was completed in two stages from February 5 to February 25, 2009 and from March 22 to April 1, 2009, by Geosig Inc. (Geosig). The survey covered the Grid 2 Extension on the Thunderbird property; 88 km of grid was surveyed. The ground survey covered eleven 100% Noront owned claims as well as eight shared claims. Readings were taken at 25 m stations on a grid orientation of 45°, with 100 m spacing between grid lines, except from L40N-

L47N, along the western part of the grid, to L47-L97N which were spaced 200 m apart; in the eastern part of the grid L47-L95N, lines were spaced 400 m apart with the baseline at 0+00.

A profile map, Bouguer anomaly contour map, and a Residual Bouguer contour map at 1:10000 scale were produced by Geosig. Results from the survey successfully demonstrated that often the Residual Bouguer anomalies corresponded to known aeromagnetic anomalies, and the survey also highlighted known mineralized zones. A strong western anomaly extended into Freewest ground to the known Black Thor deposit which hosts chromite. Further testing of this extension could yield chromite mineralization within Noront claim boundaries. Several weaker anomalies were also described by Geosig.

10.3 DIAMOND DRILLING

10.3.1 2006 Probe Diamond Drill Program

Noront optioned the McFaulds Lake claims to Hawk Uranium Inc. which, in turn, optioned them to Probe.

Probe drilled 11 holes from February 14 through April 4, 2006, to test selected ground and airborne geophysical targets identified from previous surveys; the closest hole to the Eagle’s Nest deposit was drilled approximately 2.5 km north-east of the deposit. The holes ranged in length from 103 to 167 m for a total of 1,585 m.

The conclusions stemming from the diamond drill program were that the geology and geophysical indications were favourable for the presence of VMS-type deposits and a second- phase program of airborne geophysics and diamond drilling was proposed.

Probe returned the claims to Noront in early 2007.

10.3.2 2007 and 2008 Noront Diamond Drill Program

Between February 4 and December 14, 2008, three drills were used to drill 127 exploration boreholes on the McFaulds Lake property. The majority produced NQ size core, however, in rare circumstances where rods became lodged in a hole without the possibility of recovery, smaller BQ size core was used to continue drilling the hole. The breakdown of drilling by target area shown in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 Breakdown of Drilling by Target Area, 2007 and 2008

Number of Holes Target 9 Eagle’s Nest, completed definition of mineral resource 8 Peridotite intrusion south of Eagle’s Nest; explore massive sulphide pod 4 Airborne target 1 (AT1); massive sulphide pod overlap (as above) 63 Airborne target 2 (AT2); 3 related and overlapping deposits: Eagle 2 (Ni-Cu-PGE), Blackbird One (Cr), Blackbird Two (Cr) 8 Ultramafic rock in AT3 area

Number of Holes Target 4 VMS targets in AT4 area 3 Airborne target 5 (AT5), ultramafic rock, one hole failed 3 Airborne target 6 (AT6), iron formation 1 Airborne target 7 (AT7), iron formation 1 Airborne target 8 (AT8), ultramafic rock 17 Airborne target 12 (AT12), ultramafic intrusion on Grid 2, 5 produced no core 6 Grid 2 and Grid 2 Extension, mafic and ultramafic rocks

10.3.3 2009 Noront Diamond Drill Program

In 2009, between three and five drills were used to produce 152 drill holes, totalling 58,364 m, on the McFaulds Lake property. The majority produced NQ size core, however, in rare circumstances where rods became lodged in a hole without the possibility of recovery, smaller BQ size core was used to continue drilling the hole.

The breakdown of drilling by target area is shown in Table 10.2

Table 10.2 Breakdown of Drilling by Target Area, 2009

Number of Holes Target 43 Eagle’s Nest 92 Blackbird, including 2 that intersected Eagle 2 and 17 that intersected Triple J 12 AT12 5 Thunderbird

10.4 OTHER EXPLORATION WORK

10.4.1 2008 Drill Hole IP Surveys

Borehole Spectral IP/resistivity surveys (BHIP) were performed by JVX between May and August 2008. Thirteen holes on a variety of Noront’s anomalies were done; only one was done on the AT2 anomaly (Eagle Two and Blackbird deposits), NOT-08-1G039. In the borehole IP survey, direction logs (Gradient) and detection logs (Pole-dipole and Mise-a-la-masse) were used. NOT-08-1G39 was blocked at 274 m but showed a weak conductive zone starting at 257 m and a chargeability zone at 247.5 m which continued to the blockage. Chargeability profiles show four chargeable zones centred at 72.5 m, 112.5 m, 172.7 m, and 212.5 m, respectively, using gradients. No known mineralization accounted for the observations listed above.

10.4.2 2009 to Present Drill Hole EM Surveys

Beginning in 2009, the majority of drill holes targeting sulphides were surveyed by borehole electromagnetic (BHEM) by Crone Geophysics and Exploration Ltd. (Crone). All results are used to aid in the interpretation of the Ni-Cu-PGE mineralization and to assist in the decision of future drill targets. Results of the BHEM surveys have been very valuable, indicating where the holes have intersected the mineralized zones and in which directions strong continuity exists.

10.5 RESULTS OF FIELD PROGRAMS

10.5.1 Eagle’s Nest Deposit

Eagle’s Nest is a sub-vertically dipping body of massive magmatic sulphides in the form of a flattened pipe approximately 200 m long and 60 m thick, and currently defined vertically to 1,200 m. The deposit remains open along strike and occupies the northwestern margin of a vertically-inclined serpentinized peridotite dyke that is present in subcrop over a north-south strike length of about 500 m with a maximum width of about 75 m. The massive sulphides are strictly confined to a volume occupying the northwestern tip of this body, and are bordered to the southeast by a thicker zone of net-textured sulphide hosted by serpentinized peridotitic cumulates. The dyke is open at the north and south ends, and plunges very steeply to the south or vertically; the exact attitude of the sulphide-filled keel at the northern tip of the dyke is impossible to state because of the irregularity of the contact. Although a considerable amount of local deformation is evident around the contacts, particularly where they are occupied by massive sulphide, the body appears to be essentially still in place and not significantly deformed.

The host rock of the Eagle’s Nest dyke is granodiorite that apparently post-dates the overlying ROF iron formation but clearly predates the intrusion of the peridotite. Because the host rocks are magnetically inert felsic rocks with little or no structural fabric and relatively low density, the intrusion is easy to recognize on magnetometer or gravimetric survey data. A high-resolution total magnetic field of the Eagle’s Nest area is illustrated on Figure 10.1.

Figure 10.1 High Resolution Total Magnetic Fields of the Eagle’s Nest Area

Diamond drilling in the fall of 2007 had essentially outlined the limits of the Eagle One resource mineralization ahead of the start of the 2008 drill program. Holes NOT-08-030 to NOT-08-035 were drilled in February, 2008, to test gaps in the previous coverage and to better delineate the mineralized zone. Hole NOT-08-030 was allowed to run almost 200 m beyond the edge of the

dyke to test for the possible presence of another ultramafic body at depth but this was not encountered. Hole NOT-08-031 was used to determine the northern tip of the deposit.

Inspection of the magnetometer survey results indicates that there is a second dyke parallel to the Eagle One dyke but offset en echelon to the southeast. This has been called the Eastern dyke. A third, the Southern dyke, occurs south of both of these, along strike with the Eagle’s Nest dyke. Several holes were drilled into the Eagle’s Nest dyke south of Eagle’s Nest and into the Eastern dyke during the summer and fall of 2008, in the hopes of locating other pods of sulphide in the same general ultramafic system. Some of these appear in the plans and sections relating to Eagle’s Nest. Holes NOT-08-036, NOT-08-037, and NOT-08-038 were drilled along section 5843425 N, 100 m south of any previous drilling on Eagle’s Nest. The first was collared in granodiorite and passed through the ultramafic dyke before running back out into granodiorite on the west side. Hole NOT-08-037 was collared in the serpentinized ultramafic rock of the Eastern dyke, passing through nearly 100 m of very weakly disseminated sulphide mineralization before encountering the screen of granodiorite that separates the two ultramafic dykes and passing entirely through the Eagle One dyke. Hole NOT-08-038 was collared to the east of the Eastern dyke and passed completely through both it and the Eagle’s Nest dyke. The last hole in this series was NOT-08-039, which was collared 100 m further south and again passed through both the Eastern dyke and the Eagle’s Nest dyke. A small amount of disseminated sulphide mineralization was intersected by hole NOT-08-039 about 200 m below surface on the western margin of the Eastern dyke. A second zone of weak disseminated sulphide was encountered near the western margin of the Eagle’s Nest dyke. Careful inspection of the core shows that all of the mineralized peridotite occurs as blocks hosted by an intrusive igneous breccia and has, therefore, been transported along the dyke from its original point of deposition. The host magma in the matrix of the breccia belongs to the much younger suite of potassic mafic dykes that are common throughout the deposit area but do not carry any sulphide mineralization.

The near total absence of sulphide mineralization in the Eagle’s Nest dyke in the more southerly intersections, coupled with the presence of extensive magmatic breccias with clear evidence for stoping of the host rocks along the southeastern margin of the dyke, tends to confirm that the bottom of the Eagle’s Nest dyke was the northwestern tip at the time of emplacement. If the roughly flat surface of the south-eastern limit of net-textured sulphide is taken as a paleo- horizontal plane then the entire system can be considered to have been subjected to a right- handed rotation of about 100º (i.e. slightly overturned) about a horizontal axis oriented at N030º. In this interpretation, the dyke originally was a flat blade-shaped intrusion ascending along a shallowly inclined fracture towards the base of the overlying sill containing the Blackbird deposit. The abundant presence in the dyke of autobrecciated textures, stoping, and repeated re- intrusion along the same axis, suggests that the conduit followed a brittle fault which would have simultaneously guided the intrusion and facilitated assimilation of the previously fractured wallrocks.

The present plunge of the keel of the dyke at the level of the deposit is about 70º along an azimuth of N180º from surface to a depth of 300 m. If the dyke system has been slightly overturned, then future efforts to locate more pods of sulphide down plunge should be done on the assumption that the original base of the dyke, and any sulphide-hosting embayments along it,

might be at lower paleolevels than the current Eagle’s Nest pod; this would place them beneath Eagle’s Nest and, possibly, slightly to the southwest.

The response of the Eagle’s Nest deposit to airborne and ground geophysical surveys provides a useful case study for future exploration in the area.

Four other holes drilled in the NOT-08- series, from 40 through 43, were drilled into the Southern dyke in the vicinity of the AT1 target. These holes are not discussed in this report.

Hole NOT-09-049, initially designed as a BHEM platform, was near-vertical (with a dip of - 87.5°) targeted to trace the interpreted sub-vertical dipping conduit system that emplaced the original Eagle One discovery. The intention was to explore in very close proximity to the conduit in order to later employ down-hole geophysics with the intention of identifying other potential lenses of nickel and copper sulphides. This hole crossed in and out of the main footwall granodiorite-peridotite conduit contact no less than five times prior to reaching the depth limits of the drill rig at 1,004.1 m. This discovery hole defined what was initially interpreted to be two additional lenses (Eagle 1B and Eagle 1C). Subsequent drilling focused on a series of angled holes along east-west cross sections targeting the areas of the body formerly referred to as lenses Eagle 1B and Eagle 1C. In order to accurately reach the deeper targets, Tech Directional Services commenced directional drilling on the project in July, 2009. The deepest intersection at Eagle’s Nest by the end of 2009 was in NOT-09-069A, which extended the known mineralization at Eagle’s Nest down to below 1,100 m. All gaps along the vertical length defining the mineralization to this depth have now been filled in, resulting in the quadrupling of Eagle’s Nest known down-dip extension in 2009.

10.5.2 Blackbird Deposit

Many drill holes have intersected massive chromitite mineralization of the Blackbird One deposit beneath the Eagle Two mineralization and along a trend extending about one kilometre to the northeast. The layers vary widely in thickness, from centimetres on the margins of the Blackbird One deposit to continuous massive chromitite intersections approaching true thicknesses of 40 m at its central axis. Along the west side of the deposit the top of the chromite strikes N-S and dips steeply to the west, like the overlying sulphide-bearing shear zones, but in the east end it appears to strike parallel to the northwest contact of the ultramafic sill, at about N065º.

10.5.3 Eagle Two Mineral Occurrence

The AT2 target was detected first by the Fugro GeoTEM survey and again by the HLEM, AeroTEM, and VTEM surveys. The profile forms indicate the presence of a thin sheet conductor with high conductance and a steep northwestward dip.

10.5.4 Triple J Mineral Occurrence

The Triple J zone was intersected during the definition drilling of the Blackbird chromite deposit in 2008 and 2009 and was first identified in 2009 upon observation of assay values. The gold mineralization, which ranges in value between 0.3 and 30.0 g/t, is directly related to the sheared

contact between the peridotite hosting the Blackbird and Eagle Two occurrences and the hanging wall granodiorite. The zone appears to be delineated by a northeast-southwest striking, shear structure that passes through the north extent of the Blackbird chromite deposit and through the southern portion of the Eagle’s Nest Ni-Cu-PGE deposit. Great potential remains for the zone to continue along strike, which will be tested with further drilling during the 2010 exploration program.

10.5.5 AT12 Mineral Occurrence

The AT12 anomaly was identified as a high conductance target in the original Fugro GeoTEM survey and in the VTEM surveys. AT12 was not detected by the AeroTEM survey or by the follow-up ground HLEM which may have resulted from the presence of very thick conductive overburden as later identified through diamond drilling.

10.5.6 Thunderbird Mineral Occurrence

The Thunderbird occurrence was first observed as part of a prominent, north-south trending magnetic anomaly roughly 7 km in length and 3 km in width, centred 4 km to the east of AT12 on the Grid 2 extension property.

11.0 DRILLING

The following description of drilling at McFaulds Lake that was used in the mineral resource estimate for the Eagle’s Nest and Blackbird deposits, on which this preliminary assessment has been based, has been extracted from Golder, 2010.

Noront has continued with drilling in the McFaulds Lake area. The results of this drilling are pending as of the date of the present report.

Noront has drilled a total of 283 holes and 103,972 m since mobilizing drills onto the property in 2007, until March 2010. A summary of the number of holes drilled for each project is listed in Table 11.1 and annual drilling for each project is listed in Table 11.2. The majority of drilling was carried out by Forage Orbit Garant (Orbit), and the remainder by Cyr Drilling International Ltd. (Cyr). Orbit drilling is provided in metric units, whereas Cyr works with Imperial measurements, which are converted to metres. Drill moves were accomplished by truck, tractor or snow machine when accessible and by helicopter when surface travel was not possible.

Table 11.1 Summary of Diamond Drilling Listed by Project

Project Number of Holes Total Metres Number of Mineralization Drilled Mineralized Holes Hit Rate (%) Eagle’s Nest 92 38,661 76 83 Blackbird 154 52,375 82 53 Eagle Two 25 10,160 n/a n/a Triple J 58 25,416 n/a n/a AT12 32 10,709 23 72 Thunderbird 5 2,227 3 60 Note: Drill holes listed for Eagle Two and Triple J are included in the number of holes listed for Blackbird and do not, therefore, contribute to the totals of holes or meterage.

Table 11.2 Summary of Diamond Drilling Listed by Year for Each Project

Project 2007 2008 2009 January to Total March 9 2010 Eagle’s Nest 29 17 43 3 92 Blackbird 0 62 92 0 154 Eagle Two 0 23 2 0 25 Triple J 0 41 17 0 58 AT12 0 19 12 1 32 Thunderbird 0 0 5 0 5 Total 29 98 152 4 283 Note: Drill holes listed for Eagle Two and Triple J are included in the number of holes listed for Blackbird and do not, therefore, contribute to the totals of holes or meterage.

11.1 EAGLE’S NEST

Noront mobilized drilling upon acquisition of the Condor claims in May, 2007, upon which the Eagle’s Nest deposit is located. Between May, 2007 and March, 2010, a total of 92 holes totalling 38,661 m were drilled at the Eagle’s Nest project. Holes were typically spaced on 20 m sections over a strike length of 200 m and the deepest mineralized intersection encountered to date is -1,100 m below surface.

The majority of the Eagle’s Nest holes were drilled to produce NQ diameter core. In rare instances, where drill casings became lodged in a hole, smaller BQ core was drilled in order to continue the hole. All collar locations were surveyed using a Trimble differential GPS with an accuracy of + 30 cm and downhole surveys were recorded using a gyro instrument (GyroSmart) measuring dip and azimuth every 15 m. Core recovery was considered excellent.

All holes were drilled by Orbit except holes NOT-09-069A, NOT-09-069A-W1, NOT-09-064, NOT-09-064-W1, NOT-09-064-W2, which were drilled by Cyr. All core was flown into camp by helicopter, and all drill moves were accomplished by helicopter.

The Eagle’s Nest deposit was intersected in 52 of the 92 holes. The deposit dips sub-vertically and remains open at depth. Table 11-3 lists the significant intersections through the Eagle’s Nest deposit.

Table 11.3 Summary of Major Intersections in the Eagle’s Nest Drill Holes

Hole Number From To Interval Ni Cu Pt Pd Au Ag (m) (m) Length (%) (%) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (m) NOT-07-001 55.00 126.50 71.50 1.12 0.86 0.70 2.14 0.09 2.90 NOT-07-001 56.00 92.00 36.00 1.84 1.53 1.14 3.49 0.13 4.80 NOT-07-001 92.00 126.50 34.50 0.40 0.19 0.24 0.74 0.06 1.00 NOT-07-002 91.10 177.50 86.40 1.88 1.16 0.99 3.16 0.13 4.10 NOT-07-002 91.10 149.00 57.90 2.02 1.40 1.00 3.27 0.14 5.30 NOT-07-002 149.00 177.50 28.50 1.65 0.70 0.96 2.97 0.09 1.70 NOT-07-005 7.00 124.40 117.40 4.10 2.20 2.09 7.13 0.42 6.30 NOT-07-005 47.40 115.60 68.20 5.90 3.10 2.87 9.78 0.61 8.50 NOT-07-005 112.60 115.60 3.00 8.65 10.90 40.79 14.57 9.39 8.70 NOT-07-007 72.00 123.50 51.50 3.70 1.50 2.28 7.51 0.82 5.20 NOT-07-007 72.00 75.20 3.20 0.61 1.25 0.68 2.58 0.07 4.10 NOT-07-007 75.20 89.50 14.30 6.27 2.47 5.92 16.21 0.24 8.30 NOT-07-007 75.20 78.00 2.80 8.46 3.02 22.15 22.42 0.17 10.10 NOT-07-007 89.50 103.80 14.30 6.31 2.42 0.40 8.71 2.63 8.00 NOT-07-007 103.80 123.50 19.70 0.45 0.17 1.29 1.15 0.06 1.11 NOT-07-008 129.00 136.90 7.90 0.31 0.13 0.13 0.57 0.38 1.30 NOT-07-009 43.00 88.60 45.60 2.89 1.82 0.60 7.16 0.15 5.00 NOT-07-009 43.00 45.80 2.80 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.00 NOT-07-009 45.80 63.20 17.40 4.82 3.87 1.06 14.78 0.27 11.30 NOT-07-009 63.20 65.30 2.10 0.06 0.28 0.30 0.14 0.07 0.00 NOT-07-009 65.30 69.90 4.60 8.30 2.01 0.14 11.53 0.23 5.10 NOT-07-009 69.90 88.60 18.70 0.51 0.31 0.34 0.84 0.06 0.50 NOT-07-010 84.20 99.00 14.80 0.25 0.12 0.16 0.64 0.09 0.00

Hole Number From To Interval Ni Cu Pt Pd Au Ag (m) (m) Length (%) (%) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (m) NOT-07-010 84.20 93.50 9.30 0.28 0.14 0.18 0.70 0.11 0.00 NOT-07-011 54.50 95.00 40.50 1.00 0.58 0.55 2.20 0.07 2.31 NOT-07-011 54.50 75.80 21.30 1.68 1.02 0.64 3.78 0.08 3.93 NOT-07-011 57.40 63.50 6.10 2.27 1.56 1.03 4.88 0.11 4.30 NOT-07-011 58.50 60.10 1.60 7.11 4.82 2.53 14.65 0.19 14.00 NOT-07-011 71.00 80.00 9.00 1.49 0.86 0.85 3.88 0.07 2.70 NOT-07-011 74.50 75.80 1.30 7.37 4.43 1.08 18.10 0.22 13.00 NOT-07-011 75.80 95.00 19.20 0.23 0.10 0.44 0.96 0.05 0.52 NOT-07-012 81.50 176.00 94.50 1.38 0.62 0.74 2.63 0.12 1.90 NOT-07-012 81.50 113.00 31.50 3.19 1.35 1.53 5.78 0.15 4.40 NOT-07-012 82.50 92.00 9.50 6.99 1.54 2.61 10.07 0.15 5.21 NOT-07-012 113.00 176.00 63.00 0.47 0.25 0.35 1.06 0.11 0.60 NOT-07-014 45.90 110.00 64.10 1.49 0.78 1.02 2.75 0.12 NA NOT-07-014 45.90 80.00 34.10 2.28 1.22 1.60 4.13 0.14 NA NOT-07-014 45.90 52.80 6.90 0.41 0.15 0.23 0.94 0.06 NA NOT-07-014 52.80 56.40 3.60 7.45 3.43 5.00 9.10 0.12 NA NOT-07-014 56.40 80.00 23.60 2.04 1.19 1.48 4.30 0.17 NA NOT-07-014 80.00 110.00 30.00 0.59 0.28 0.37 1.18 0.10 NA NOT-07-015 8.60 24.00 15.40 0.52 0.13 0.25 0.79 0.02 1.90 NOT-07-016 92.90 133.80 40.90 1.03 0.67 1.04 2.50 0.15 2.00 NOT-07-016 92.90 121.10 28.20 0.57 0.50 0.47 1.50 0.17 1.50 NOT-07-016 121.10 133.80 12.70 2.40 1.55 2.63 5.10 0.12 4.50 NOT-07-017 96.50 177.50 81.00 1.55 0.77 0.91 2.97 0.13 3.10 NOT-07-017 96.50 137.70 41.20 0.45 0.23 0.36 1.10 0.07 0.87 NOT-07-017 137.70 170.00 32.30 1.73 1.28 1.31 3.68 0.21 5.24 NOT-07-017 170.00 177.50 7.50 6.81 1.54 2.17 6.62 0.15 6.12 NOT-07-018 105.20 229.80 124.60 2.39 1.09 1.12 3.86 0.28 3.89 NOT-07-018 105.20 132.50 27.30 0.50 0.22 0.33 1.06 0.06 1.05 NOT-07-018 132.50 211.00 78.50 1.85 0.89 1.40 3.33 0.37 3.67 NOT-07-018 132.50 191.70 59.20 1.84 0.93 1.28 3.15 0.45 3.91 NOT-07-018 191.70 215.00 23.30 2.70 1.52 2.02 5.86 0.15 4.97 NOT-07-018 211.00 229.80 18.80 7.38 3.18 1.05 10.16 0.23 8.92 NOT-07-018 215.00 229.80 14.80 7.59 2.63 0.56 9.44 0.25 7.28 NOT-07-019 93.00 110.80 17.80 1.30 0.37 0.56 1.93 0.06 1.70 NOT-07-019 93.00 104.20 11.20 0.43 0.21 0.23 0.75 0.06 0.92 NOT-07-019 104.20 110.80 6.60 2.32 0.63 1.13 3.93 0.06 3.01 NOT-07-020 113.90 128.20 14.30 0.74 0.24 0.50 1.61 0.06 1.20 NOT-07-020 113.90 125.10 11.20 0.86 0.29 0.59 1.84 0.08 1.40 NOT-07-020 125.10 128.20 3.10 0.32 0.08 0.20 0.79 0.01 0.30 NOT-07-021 144.00 174.80 30.80 1.10 0.50 0.71 1.86 0.11 2.20 NOT-07-021 144.00 162.00 18.00 0.71 0.25 0.47 1.06 0.06 1.10 NOT-07-021 162.00 174.80 12.80 1.65 0.86 1.05 2.98 0.19 3.90 NOT-07-022 222.40 244.50 22.10 0.65 0.14 0.16 1.40 0.03 0.40 NOT-07-022 222.40 223.50 1.10 7.15 0.60 0.19 16.65 0.03 1.40 NOT-07-022 223.50 244.50 21.00 0.31 0.12 0.16 0.60 0.03 0.40 NOT-07-023 241.10 243.20 2.10 1.14 2.16 0.93 5.78 0.17 12.90 NOT-07-024 119.00 190.50 71.50 1.81 1.12 1.06 3.18 0.27 3.60 NOT-07-024 119.00 133.00 14.00 0.39 0.14 0.23 0.72 0.03 0.10 NOT-07-024 133.00 187.80 54.80 1.91 1.26 1.31 3.46 0.35 4.20 NOT-07-024 187.80 190.50 2.70 7.07 3.33 0.25 10.23 0.04 8.90 NOT-07-025 235.50 238.70 3.20 0.85 0.47 0.32 1.53 0.06 2.40 NOT-07-027 112.80 159.00 46.20 6.25 2.75 1.85 10.23 3.00 7.26 NOT-07-027 112.80 116.80 4.00 0.20 0.12 0.31 0.42 0.02 0.00 NOT-07-027 116.80 152.40 35.60 7.91 3.45 1.66 12.79 3.87 9.27 NOT-07-027 152.40 155.50 3.10 1.70 0.90 2.26 4.54 0.11 2.10

Hole Number From To Interval Ni Cu Pt Pd Au Ag (m) (m) Length (%) (%) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (m) NOT-07-027 155.50 159.00 3.50 0.28 0.26 0.41 0.46 0.11 0.20 NOT-07-028 169.00 242.20 73.20 1.31 0.71 0.63 2.62 0.34 2.20 NOT-07-028 169.00 175.00 6.00 0.43 0.21 0.30 0.91 0,02 0.30 NOT-07-028 175.00 217.00 42.00 1.62 0.84 0.80 3.13 0.49 2.80 NOT-07-028 217.00 218.50 1.50 6.73 5.11 0.05 14.00 0.41 12.90 NOT-07-028 218.50 242.20 23.70 0.63 0.33 0.45 1.44 0.16 0.80 NOT-07-029 18.30 84.20 65.90 1.48 1.10 1.18 2.94 0.12 3.30 NOT-07-029 18.30 35.00 16.70 1.65 1.36 2.48 3.87 0.08 3.60 NOT-07-029 35.00 70.50 35.50 1.81 1.30 0.82 3.04 0.12 4.20 NOT-07-029 70.50 84.20 13.70 0.42 0.22 0.49 1.45 0.12 0.50 NOT-08-030 12.50 97.20 84.70 1.10 0.77 0.33 2.12 0.60 2.80 NOT-08-030 12.50 23.60 11.10 3.50 3.54 0.48 8.96 0.22 9.30 NOT-08-030 23.60 99.20 75.60 0.76 0.35 0.31 1.09 0.65 1.90 NOT-08-032 182.80 240.50 57.70 1.89 0.87 1.13 3.70 0.16 9.00 NOT-08-032 182.80 190.40 7.60 6.64 1.68 0.10 3.87 0.05 0.40 NOT-08-032 190.40 196.10 5.70 0.08 0.19 0.66 0.87 0.06 0.30 NOT-08-032 196.10 221.30 25.20 1.58 1.17 1.92 5.37 0.28 7.00 NOT-08-032 221.30 240.50 19.20 0.94 0.37 0.64 2.27 0.06 1.20 NOT-08-033 9.50 72.50 63.00 0.65 0.31 0.32 1.02 0.07 4.50 NOT-08-033 9.50 19.40 9.90 0.54 0.24 0.10 0.31 0.03 0.30 NOT-08-033 19.40 46.20 26.80 0.41 0.23 0.22 0.72 0.06 1.50 NOT-08-033 46.20 61.50 15.30 1.48 0.66 0.68 2.39 0.12 1.90 NOT-08-033 61.50 72.50 11.00 0.17 0.68 0.25 0.50 0.07 0.80 NOT-08-034 26.00 64.50 38.50 2.34 1.65 2.21 5.45 0.16 4.90 NOT-08-034 26.00 36.60 10.60 6.88 5.05 2.53 14.07 0.39 15.10 NOT-08-034 36.60 64.50 27.90 0.63 0.36 2.08 2.18 0.07 0.90 NOT-08-035 9.50 45.00 35.50 1.14 0.51 0.67 2.05 0.12 4.40 NOT-08-035 9.50 24.00 14.50 2.29 0.87 0.78 3.02 0.17 3.70 NOT-08-035 24.00 45.00 21.00 0.48 0.26 0.61 1.39 0.09 1.00 NOT-08-044 294.00 322.80 28.80 4.21 2.14 0.35 6.30 0.14 4.31 NOT-08-044 294.00 301.60 7.60 1.16 0.98 0.73 2.73 0.10 2.65 NOT-08-044 301.60 315.70 14.10 7.46 3.65 0.10 10.33 0.20 6.80 NOT-08-044 315.70 322.80 7.10 1.03 0.38 0.43 2.12 0.08 1.15 NOT-08-045 445.68 460.30 14.62 0.77 0.27 0.43 1.30 0.06 0.52 NOT-08-045 445.68 446.83 1.15 0.39 0.18 0.48 0.88 0.03 0.23 NOT-08-045 446.83 447.19 0.36 3.27 2.28 1.00 7.18 0.21 3.04 NOT-08-045 447.19 454.38 7.19 0.42 0.09 0.29 0.68 0.03 0.07 NOT-08-045 454.38 460.30 5.92 1.12 0.38 0.56 1.77 0.09 0.98 NOT-09-047 362.80 364.95 2.15 6.11 1.56 1.71 5.98 0.10 3.76 NOT-09-049 269.21 270.98 1.77 5.16 3.04 0.69 6.45 0.07 8.10 NOT-09-049 270.98 306.68 35.70 0.48 0.13 0.33 1.03 0.02 0.25 NOT-09-049 306.68 485.52 178.84 1.19 0.53 0.87 2.01 0.10 1.32 NOT-09-049 306.68 308.68 2.00 2.53 1.97 0.39 4.68 0.11 4.94 NOT-09-049 308.68 312.84 4.16 0.63 1.22 3.89 1.70 0.05 2.31 NOT-09-049 312.84 344.56 31.72 1.12 0.66 1.26 2.12 0.07 1.79 NOT-09-049 344.56 404.15 59.59 0.57 0.26 0.73 1.23 0.15 0.55 NOT-09-049 404.15 464.69 60.54 1.39 0.58 0.66 2.20 0.08 1.53 NOT-09-049 464.69 469.34 4.65 5.29 1.29 0.59 5.29 0.16 2.77 NOT-09-049 469.34 485.52 16.18 1.70 0.55 0.77 2.72 0.07 1.34 NOT-09-049 510.43 511.75 1.32 1.05 1.15 5.04 3.14 0.10 4.05 NOT-09-049 796.20 945.67 149.47 2.43 1.09 1.04 5.10 0.58 4.32 NOT-09-049 796.20 852.88 56.68 2.11 0.63 1.17 4.36 0.10 2.92 NOT-09-049 852.88 866.41 13.53 1.66 3.12 2.13 5.40 0.58 8.99 NOT-09-049 866.41 893.14 26.73 1.54 1.28 1.18 4.69 2.53 5.18 NOT-09-049 893.14 916.82 23.68 5.18 1.04 0.19 7.92 0.10 5.18

Hole Number From To Interval Ni Cu Pt Pd Au Ag (m) (m) Length (%) (%) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (m) NOT-09-049 916.82 937.82 21.00 2.52 0.97 0.42 5.34 0.08 3.66 NOT-09-049 937.82 945.67 7.85 0.66 0.68 1.91 2.16 0.16 1.55 NOT-09-053 854.00 880.40 26.40 1.29 0.39 0.72 2.91 0.07 1.76 NOT-09-053-W1 873.30 928.00 54.70 2.31 1.91 1.43 5.77 0.24 6.37 NOT-09-053-W1 917.90 926.00 8.10 5.04 2.83 1.14 8.60 0.05 8.26 NOT-09-053-W3 841.00 856.40 15.40 1.03 0.24 0.52 2.95 NOT-09-053-W4 783.00 842.00 59.00 1.73 0.81 1.08 4.08 NOT-09-053-W5 933.00 1020.60 87.60 1.83 1.84 1.44 4.20 NOT-09-053-W6 727.90 785.00 57.10 1.89 0.85 1.06 4.54 NOT-09-055 501.50 507.30 5.80 1.26 0.42 0.51 1.91 0.11 1.43 NOT-09-056 526.40 595.00 68.60 1.99 0.94 1.05 3.57 0.12 2.90 NOT-09-056 526.70 532.00 5.30 4.77 1.95 0.84 6.75 0.11 4.34 NOT-09-057 545.20 596.00 50.80 1.94 1.05 1.38 3.38 0.15 3.13 NOT-09-058 431.90 441.30 9.40 1.30 0.52 1.07 1.90 0.06 1.30 NOT-09-059 507.30 514.10 6.80 6.51 5.51 2.44 11.84 NOT-09-063 517.60 531.60 14.00 2.92 1.14 1.05 5.21 NOT-09-063 526.89 530.32 3.43 7.28 1.71 0.06 6.43 NOT-09-064 1079.33 1132.46 53.13 1.94 0.95 0.60 3.85 NOT-09-064 1104.50 1117.70 13.20 4.98 1.92 0.07 6.71 NOT-09-064-W1 1099.94 1231.76 131.82 1.27 0.56 0.85 2.89 NOT-09-064-W1 1167.70 1176.40 8.70 5.82 1.62 0.05 6.62 NOT-09-065 504.70 541.70 37.00 1.23 0.39 0.68 1.80 NOT-09-066 584.00 633.40 49.40 2.03 1.50 0.76 2.99 NOT-09-067 530.70 631.70 101.00 1.75 1.07 0.86 2.71 NOT-09-068 672.40 721.90 49.50 2.22 0.74 1.26 3.68 NOT-09-068 716.40 721.90 5.50 7.49 0.95 0.23 10.28 NOT-09-068-W1 683.00 818.20 135.20 1.65 0.80 1.03 3.24 NOT-09-069A 1094.12 1154.00 59.88 1.40 0.84 1.03 3.33 NOT-09-070-W1 607.60 630.40 22.80 4.41 2.38 28.07 7.95 NOT-09-070-W1 607.60 613.30 5.70 5.78 4.42 37.87 8.26 NOT-09-070-W1 612.80 621.20 8.40 1.19 1.46 68.78 7.55 NOT-09-070-W1 622.40 630.40 8.00 7.41 2.19 0.18 9.33 NOT-09-070-W2 510.90 515.80 4.90 1.23 0.30 0.35 1.60 NOT-09-071 720.89 851.18 130.29 1.75 0.88 1.27 3.55 NOT-09-071 727.50 728.80 1.30 3.55 1.63 25.44 13.58 NOT-09-072 666.00 678.76 12.76 0.41 0.14 0.18 0.67 NOT-09-073 693.40 753.20 59.80 1.70 0.90 1.45 3.73 NOT-09-074 552.60 635.20 82.60 2.05 1.00 0.64 2.94 NOT-09-074 628.20 634.92 6.72 7.41 1.26 0.93 6.64 NOT-09-075 602.10 612.60 10.50 6.51 1.68 2.00 8.18

12.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH

The following description of the sampling method and approach at McFaulds Lake has been extracted from Golder, 2010.

12.1 CORE LOGGING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

All core logging data are directly entered into DH Logger software from Century and stored in Noront’s Century Fusion Data Management (Fusion) system, which includes a QA/QC module. Logging into DH Logger is first completed on laptops, and then uploaded to the local Fusion database which is then transferred to Noront’s main office Fusion database in Toronto. Noront has a full time Database/GIS manager in their main office who inputs all the assay results, reviews the QA/QC data, requests re-assay runs, and maintains the Fusion database.

Once core is transported from the drill rigs, which occurs at least once a day, it is received by the geologists who create a new file in DH Logger in order to complete a quick log. The quick log identifies the major and minor lithological units including mineralization, as well as any major structural features. This report is the sent to Noront’s main office on a daily basis.

Prior to sampling the core, technicians complete geotechnical logging which includes the measurement of the total core recovery (TCR) per run (3 m) and the determination of the rock quality designation (RQD) per run (3 m). During geotechnical logging, the core is placed back together (where appropriate) and depth blocks are checked. The geotechnical data is collected on paper logs and subsequently digitally stored into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets which are then added to the DH Logger files for each drill hole.

Geological detailed logging is performed by the geologist upon completion of the geotechnical logging. Data included in the geological logs include mineralogy, mineralization percentages, alteration, structural features, lithological contacts and the sampling intervals and descriptions. Sample size varies depending on the deposit drilled and the mineralization variability. For example, samples from the Blackbird deposit can be as small as 4 cm due to the scale of variability in the observed chromite mineralization. Typical samples are between 1 and 1.5 m in length, and increased variability in mineralization results in the collection of more samples. A Niton XRF hand analyzer is used by the geologist to assist with the estimation of metal content in the core. Each sample is given a unique sample tag that is entered in the sample book and the DH Logger file. A straight line along the length of the core is drawn by the geologist as a guide for the core cutter to follow. This aids in ensuring that representative samples of half core are taken for assaying.

Prior to the core being sampled (sawed) or placed back into the core storage (un-sampled core), it is photographed both wet and dry by the geotechnicians. The core photos are stored on the same server as the Fusion database, but are not directly linked to the DH Logger file for the particular drill hole. Metal tags are placed on the end of the core tray by the geotechnicians. These tags include the hole name, core intervals and core box numbers.

Core selected for sampling is sawed in half then each sample is washed in a pail with one core half placed in the core tray and the other in the sample bag with the sample tag. The remaining sample tag is stapled to the core box. Remaining half cores are placed on the core racks. Un- sampled core is either stored on the core racks or placed in the cross-piled core area.

All half core samples are placed in rice bags and seal tied with a unique plastic tag. Included in the pails are the QA/QC standards which are added by the geologist. These standards are previously outlined in the sample books based on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Each batch of samples typically includes one standard, one blank, three duplicates (field, coarse and pulp duplicate), and 29 core samples. Each of these QA/QC standards is given a sample tag number in sequence with the rest of the core samples. Fragments of granodiorite drill core are used as blanks. Standards are in the form of powder in an envelope. The field duplicates are half core samples sawed into two ¼ pieces and placed in separate bags. The coarse duplicate and pulp duplicates are added in the laboratory by Activation Laboratory Ltd. (Actlabs) staff based on the sample numbers submitted by the Noront geologist.

After the core and QA/QC samples are sealed in the pails they are flown from site either by helicopter to Ogoki Post (via Heli Qwest Kmax), then to Pickle Lake (via Wasaya Air) and then transported by ground from Pickle Lake to Actlabs in Thunder Bay (via Manitoulin Transport). During the winter months and after spring break-up, samples are transported from camp to Nakina (via Nakina Air) and then from Nakina to Actlabs in Thunder Bay by ground transport (via Carrick Express).

12.2 SURVEYING OF DRILL HOLES

Collars for drilling are located in the field by the geologist using a Trimble GPS Pathfinder with a Zephyr antenna. All drill holes are located in the field using the UTM NAD 83 Zone 16 system with an accuracy of 20 cm post processed. After the drill holes are completed, their casing is left in place for a final collar survey by the geologist using the Trimble.

In-hole surveying is completed by the drilling companies (Orbit and Cyr) using the Reflex EZ- Shot system to determine hole dip and azimuth. Surveys are taken approximately every 50 m and given to the geologist to enter in DH Logger. The Reflex EZ-Shot system is a single shot magnetic survey instrument and the acquisition of accurate measurements requires the instrument to be several metres away from any magnetic interface. Therefore, at the end of a drill hole with high magnetic content, a Reflex Gyro survey is conducted to confirm hole azimuth and dip.

Drill holes determined to be off-azimuth from their intended target are corrected on site by using the Devico directional drilling system. The Devico system is completed with assistance from Tech Directional Services of Millertown, Newfoundland, who work with the drilling companies to correct holes that are either going off-target or are planned to be wedged from a parent drill hole. All completed holes are also geophysically surveyed using borehole electromagnetic (BHEM) by Crone Geophysics and Exploration Ltd. Data from the surveys are sent to the Crone main office for processing and is then subsequently supplied to Noront. The purpose of the BHEM is to assist in directing the drilling program.

13.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

The following description of the sampling preparation, analyses and security at McFaulds Lake has been extracted from Golder, 2010.

Three analytical companies have been employed since exploration began in 2007 for the deposits. These include ALS Chemex in Vancouver, British Columbia (ALS) during 2007 to 2008, SGS-MS in Toronto, Ontario (SGS) during 2008 and Actlabs facilities in Thunder Bay, Ontario (preparation laboratory) and Ancaster, Ontario (analysis) in April 2008 to current. Outlined in the following sections are the sample preparation and analyses used at each facility.

13.1 ALS CHEMEX

From 2007 to April 2008 half the core sampled was sent to the ALS prep laboratory in Thunder Bay and then forwarded for analysis in Ancaster. Sawed drill half-core samples submitted to ALS Thunder Bay were crushed in their entirety to 90% passing 2 mm and the crusher was cleaned with barren rock between samples. From the coarse rejects a sub-sample of one kilogram was split and pulverized to 85% passing 75 µm. The pulveriser was cleaned with silica sand between samples.

From each pulp, a 100-g sub-sample was split and shipped to the ALS Ancaster. The remainder of the pulp and the rejects were held at the ALS Thunder Bay facility.

The base metals of economic interest (Ni and Cu), were determined using a 0.2-gram aliquot that was digested from a four-acid solution followed by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) or inductively coupled plasma-atomic absorption spectroscopy (ICP- AAS).

Samples assayed for Ag were digested using aqua regia (3-acid) followed by AAS. Samples assayed for Au, Pd and Pt were subject to a 30-gram fire assay, followed by ICP-AES finish.

13.2 SGS MINERAL SERVICES ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

In addition to samples submitted to ALS from 2007 to April 2008, half of the core was submitted to SGS-MS as a result of a back log of samples at ALS.

The sawed drill half-core samples were crushed in their entirety to 90% passing 2 mm and the crusher was cleaned with barren rock between samples. From the coarse rejects a sub-sample of 1-kg was split and pulverized to 85% passing 75 µm. The pulverizer was cleaned with silica sand between samples.

From each pulp, a 100-g sub-sample was split for assay. The remainder of the pulp and the rejects are held at the preparation laboratory in Toronto for future reference.

The base metals of economic interest (Ni and Cu), were determined using a 0.2-gram aliquot that was subjected a four-acid solution to digest the sample, followed by ICP-AES or ICP-AAS

finish. Following discussions with SGS, the method for Ni and Cu was changed to a sodium peroxide fusion decomposition and analyzed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICO-OES), as it was believed by SGS that the results for Ni and Cu would be more accurate with this method.

Samples assayed for Ag were digested using aqua regia (3-acid) followed by AAS.

Samples assayed for Au, Pd and Pt were determined using a thirty-gram fire assay, followed by ICP-AES.

13.3 ACTLABS

After April 2008, all samples were submitted to Actlabs preparation laboratory in Thunder Bay and then transported to Ancaster for analysis. The drill half-core samples received at the prep laboratory were sorted and verified against the customer list to ensure that all samples were received and there were no discrepancies. The sorted samples were dried in the original samples bags to ensure that any damp fines were not discarded on transferring into drying containers. The samples were entered into the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). Upon completion of sample analysis and being accepted by the Actlabs analyst, the results were entered into the LIMS system and approved. Reports were then generated and a final quality control check by an independent person was performed. This person also did the final certification of the data. Data was then reported to the Noront.

The sorted samples were dried at 60 degrees C in a large volume drying room. When dry, the samples were then crushed in their entirety to better than 85% -10 mesh in a TM Engineering Terminator jaw crusher. The sample was then riffle split and an aliquot is pulverized in a TM Engineering TM MAX2 ring and puck pulveriser to 95% -150 mesh.

Samples analysed for chromite were pulverized still finer to 95% -200 mesh to ensure adequate fusion for the analysis. A separate split of the reject was prepared in the same fashion and was designated as a preparation duplicate (prep duplicate). Duplicates from pulps were designated as pulp duplicates. Samples were routinely monitored to ensure that the required fineness was achieved as this was critical to maintaining the required quality for the final analytical methods. Analytical methods for assaying elements varied during the exploration program in order to better detect specific elements (i.e. chromite). Most samples were initially assayed with a TD (total digestion) ICP which provided a 35 element suite (including Cu). Ni and Cu were analysed using ICP OES and Au, Pd and Pt were analysed using a FA (fire assay) with an ICP finish. Cr2O3, Cr and Fe were analysed using instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) which encapsulated the sample and irradiated in a nuclear reactor. It was identified by a chromite expert consultant for Noront that chromite would be better analysed using FUS (fusion) XRF. Samples with chromite were re-assayed using FUS XRF for Cr2O3, V2 O5, Ni, Cu, Co and loss of ignition (LOI).

Details of the analytical procedures described above are provided on Actlabs’ website: www.actlabs.com.

13.4 SECURITY

Prior to shipment for assaying, all samples were placed into rice bags which were closed with a security seal and subsequently placed into closed a plastic pail. All samples awaiting shipment to Thunder Bay were placed in the outbound cargo area at the project site. Samples were not secured in locked facilities as this precaution was deemed unnecessary due to the remote and isolated camp location. A strict chain of custody protocol was followed during the transportation of all sample-bearing plastic pails to the assaying laboratory. No aspect of the sample preparation was conducted by an employee, officer, director or associate of Noront.

14.0 DATA VERIFICATION

The following description of the data verification procedures at McFaulds Lake has been extracted from Golder, 2010.

A number of data verification checks have been completed by previous authors for the McFaulds Lake Project and are summarized below.

14.1 P&E DATA VERIFICATION – EAGLE’S NEST DEPOSIT

A data verification review was completed for the Eagle’s Nest deposit (formerly called the Eagle One deposit) and described in detail the P&E 2008 NI 43-101 technical report (Armstrong et al., 2008) that included a site visit and sample collection by P&E QP, T. Armstrong, P.Geo., from April 8 to April 10, 2008. During the site visit, the drill core was examined and 24 samples consisting of ¼ split core were taken from 15 drill holes. Both the disseminated and massive sulphides were equally sampled across a range of grades on an anonymous basis.

The samples were personally delivered to Fedex Courier in Thunder Bay and then to Actlabs (Ancaster) for analysis. Samples were analysed by three methods to determine Ni content: 3- acid (aqua regia) digest, 4-acid digest and a lithium metaborate fusion. It was identified that the 4-acid and lithium metaborate fusion methods did not differ in their results apart from the analytical variability while the 3 acid method did not dissolve Ni contained in the silicates.

In addition, the QP from P&E assisted Noront by setting up and monitoring the Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) program for drilling in 2007 (starting at hole NOT-07- 05) until October of 2009, when Noront took full control of the QA/QC program. The QA/QC program at that time consisted of the insertion of two certified reference materials which monitored the lab accuracy on the Cu, Ni and PGE analyses, blank material comprised of sterile granodiorite drill core and field (1/4 core) coarse reject and pulp duplicates.

The QC monitoring was done on a real-time basis, that is, as the lab certificates were received, the QC data were graphed to ensure results were accurate as defined by a strict protocol determined between T. Armstrong and the two labs (ALS and SGS). It was noted that likely due to the overextended capacity of the labs, there were problems with the QC in that the certified reference materials were often not meeting the required norms. This problem was noted and dealt with on a real-time basis and work orders were re-run as required. Once the data were shown to have passed the QC, they were transferred to the master database. All of the data in the master database met the QC requirements. It was the opinion of the QP that the sample preparation, security and analytical procedures were satisfactory (Armstrong et al., 2008).

14.2 MICON DATA VERIFICATION – BLACKBIRD DEPOSIT

A data verification review was completed by Micon for the Blackbird Deposit in the first NI 43- 101 technical report (Gowans et al., 2009). The data verification review included four stages: (i) site visit to the project area; (ii) laboratory visit; (iii) repeat analyses on selected pulps; and (iv)

database inspection and validation. A description of the data verification completed by Micon was provided in the technical report (Gowans et al., 2009).

The site visit, by a Micon QP, was completed from July 6 to July 8, 2009, and included the following:

 Verification of topography and some of the drill hole collar positions in the company of Patrick Chance, P.Eng., who was the Project Manager for Noront at the time.

 Review of the drill core logging and sampling procedures.

 Review of facilities and security arrangements in place for samples and drill cores.

 Visual verification of massive/semi-massive/disseminated chromite mineralization in drill hole numbers NOT-08-1G025, NOT-09-1G130 and NOT-09-1G136.

 Verification of lithological units encountered in drill hole numbers NOT-08-1G025, NOT-09-1G130 and NOT-09-1G136.

 Independent sampling of quarter core from drill hole NOT-09-1G130.

 Independent sampling of core pieces for petrographic analyses.

It was observed by Micon that standard logging and sampling procedures were in place, and that a QA/QC program similar to that used for the Eagle’s Nest deposit program was being implemented. Follow-up on the performance of control samples was achieved through the use of control charts and reports on a monthly basis by Noront.

A review of the assay results of independent ¼-core samples by Micon indicated a reasonable conformation between duplicate and original assays obtained reflecting the accuracy (lack of bias) and precision (degree of reproducibility) of the laboratory.

The results of the petrographic investigation completed by Micon were consistent with a transposed layered intrusion with a fractionation trend/younging direction to the southeast (Gowans et al., 2009).

As part of Micon’s data verification, an inspection of the Actlabs facilities in Thunder Bay on July 9 and 10, 2009 occurred. This was the laboratory used by Noront for sample preparation before shipment to the main Actlabs in Ancaster for analyses. Micon observed that the sample preparation was carried out to the highest industry standards. Contamination between samples during crushing was eliminated using a barren quartz rich material to clean the jaw/primary/secondary crushers after the treatment of every sample. Dust control was achieved by the use of a vacuum ventilation system that employs the latest technology (Gowans et al., 2009).

Micon selected 18 sample pulps (assay splits) and re-numbered them in a different sequence using a new set of sample numbers. The samples were re-submitted to Actlabs in Thunder Bay, and then subsequently sent to Actlabs in Ancaster for analyses. The original assays and repeat analyses were compared and the basic statistics completed indicated a strong bias towards the high side. In order to rectify this situation, Micon used a 97 percentile for Cr2O3 to determine an upper top-cut value for the assays which was used in the mineral resource estimate (Gowans et al., 2009).

Micon completed a verification of the database (resource) by reviewing the construction of the information contained in it and data entry validation by comparing the database against the original assay certificates. In addition, wherever repeat assays had been conducted, the accepted value was obtained by averaging the two sets of assays (Gowans et al., 2009).

14.3 SMEE AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTING REVIEW

Smee and Associates Consulting Ltd. (Smee) were retained by Noront to review the quality control data provided in 2009 and to make recommendations for adjustments in the data handling and quality control protocol, if necessary (Smee, 2009). Smee reviewed data that was exclusively from Actlabs in Ancaster from the 2009 drilling programs.

As part of this review, Smee plotted the blanks, duplicates (¼ core duplicates, coarse reject duplicate and pulp duplicate) and standards for Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd, Au (OREAS-73A, PGMS-16), Cr (SARM-8), TiO2 and V2O5 (COULSONITE).

The review of the blanks data indicated that there were 670 blank samples monitored for Au, 671 blanks for Pt and Pd, and 774 blanks for Cu and Ni. In total, 100 of the blanks failed for various elements, with some blanks failing for multiple elements. It was recommended by Smee that given the significant number of blank failures further investigation was required. It was suggested that each failure be examined and corrected or explained. It was suggested that those failures that potentially affected or influenced a mineralised area be re-assayed from the reject, i.e. with a new pulp.

A review of the four reference standards indicated that there were a number of failures in Ni (13) and Cu (70) from the OREAS-73A standard. The failures seemed to have been time dependent, as there may have been a change in analytical method or calibration change for parts of the data. A review of the standard for Au, Pt and Pd (PGMS-16) identified a total of 14 failures. The lab appears to have a bias in Au as well, although the concentrations for Au were low in this standard. A review of the standard for Cr (SARM-8) showed no failures, but did show that the standards analysed over time had a narrow spread. This indicated that the lab may have changed their analytical procedures. A review of the standard for TiO2 and V2O5 (COULSONITE) indicated no failures.

It was recommended by Smee that the failures in the reference standards be examined to determine if the standards occurred in a batch of samples that contained mineralization. If so, and if the failures were deemed to have an impact on the mineral resource calculation, the cause of the failures should have been determined and the failures be corrected either by correcting the

data base or by re-assaying the batch. Of particular importance were any positive failures that might lead to an overstatement of the grades.

A review of the coarse reject and pulp duplicates for Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd and Au indicated no significant outliers. A review of the field duplicates (¼ core) indicated some outliers for Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd and Au.

Smee identified that there was poor precision for Au of low grade at the lab which was greater than 20%. Precision for Pd and Pt was more than 10% which meant the pulp size was too small. Cu precision was more than 20% for the field duplicate and 10% for the Ni field duplicate. Cu and Ni should be similar since they were within the same sulphide matrix.

It was identified that a lack of suitable commercial standards for the PGE (Pt, Pd), Cu and Ni had hampered the effectiveness of the accuracy for these elements. Therefore, more suitable standards were required. Noront purchased additional standards for Ni, Cu and PGE (AMIS- 0061) and no longer uses OREAS-73A or PGMS-16 anymore. A list of the current and past standards used in the QA/QC program is summarized in the following section. It was also recommended that a table of failures be regularly completed for the blanks and standards and the use of a QC module in the database should be considered for monitoring and for assisting with producing tables and charts. As a result, Noront is now using the Century System Technologies Inc. (Century) QC module for on-going drilling programs.

14.4 GOLDER DATA VERIFICATION

Golder completed a data verification review of the McFaulds Lake Project which was described in detail in the April 2010 NI 43-101 Technical Report. The data verification included the following:

 Site visit by Golder QP between April 9 and April 12, 2010 and verification sampling.  Comparison of Actlab’s assay certificates against Noront’s database.  Review of the QA/QC program for the 2008 and 2009 drilling program.  Verification completed during mineral resource estimating (see Section 17.1).

14.4.1 Core Logging and Sample Verification

As part of the core logging data verification, Golder compared a selection of core logs against half-core stored at the project site. A total of 15 half-core drill holes were reviewed from the Eagle’s Nest, Blackbird, AT12 and the Triple J deposits. The DH Logger files were first reviewed, and drill holes representative of the typical mineralization style for each deposit were selected. In addition to this, a total of 26 verification samples were taken from these drill holes. Each verification sample was half core samples sawed in half again with the ¼ sample sent for analysis and the other ¼ returned to the core racks

All samples were submitted for analysis of Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd and Au, except samples from the Blackbird deposit which were only submitted for analysis of Cr2O3.

Observations from the core logs (from DH Logger) against the drill core indicated an excellent match between the core logs and the retained core. In addition, Cu and Ni mineralization was observed in the Eagle’s Nest and AT12 deposits drill core, chromite mineralization was observed in the Blackbird deposit drill core and visible Au was observed in the Tripe J deposit core. The mineralization observed was consistent with what has been published for each deposit. There was also a noticeable increase in core quality (i.e. sawing of core half) observed in the more recent drill holes compared to earlier holes. This indicates that Noront continues to improve the quality of their data collection procedures.

14.4.2 Collar Survey Verification

As part of the drill hole collar survey verification, Golder visited the Eagle’s Nest, AT12 and Blackbird deposits. During the visit, GPS surveys (Garmin) were taken of the various drill hole casing and then compared against Noront’s final collar surveys completed by their Trimble system. All data were in UTM NAD 83 and the accuracy of the Garmin GPS is +/-10 m. A total of 37 drilling sites were visited and the comparison against Noront’s final collar surveys was excellent, with the majority of the northing and easting values only different by 1-10 m which was within the tolerance of the Garmin GPS.

14.4.3 Actlabs Visit

A site visit was conducted at the Thunder Bay Actlabs site on April 12, 2010, by a Golder QP. During the visit, a description of the sample analytical process at the Thunder Bay lab was provided. This included descriptions from the samples entering the lab (Actlabs ID label and tracking process), the sample drying, crushing and pulverizing procedures. Observations were made on the sample preparation including cleaning screens with silica sand between sample crushing, the insertion of coarse reject duplicates and pulp duplicates. At the Thunder Bay lab, samples can be analyzed for all of the elements requested by Noront using Fire Assay, ICP and AAS methods. Samples that require XRF or INAA analysis are transported to Actlabs Ancaster. Noront’s coarse rejects and pulps are currently stored at the Actlabs Thunder Bay lab. In addition to Noront’s QA/QC program, Actlabs also includes a number of QA/QC samples within each batch for internal quality control that is provided to Noront. Golder concluded that the procedures being conducted at Actlabs Thunder Bay with respect to sample processing, preparation, analyzing, storage and internal QA/QC programs conform to industry standards.

14.4.4 Review of Database

A review of the DH Logger/Fusion database was completed by Golder to verify the data transfer process of analytical sample results from Actlabs to the Fusion database. Noront provided Golder all the Actlabs assay certificates for batches from mid-2008 (309 assay certificates) and 2009 (867 assay certificates) and Golder compared the assay certificates against the CSV file of the Fusion Database. The review indicated that there were no errors in the sample assay transfer from the lab to the Fusion Database. Golder noted that the samples that were below detection were recorded in the Fusion database as a value of 0.

14.4.5 Review of QA/QC Program

The QA/QC programs employed by Noront at the McFaulds Lake Project have changed since the first drilling program in 2007. Initially, the QA/QC program was set up by P&E and instituted by Noront. Some earlier drill holes in 2007 (NOT-07-001 to NOT-07-004) were not covered by the QA/QC program at that time (Armstrong et al., 2008). It was outlined in the first Technical Report for the Eagle’s Nest deposit that the QC monitoring was done on a real-time basis and, as the laboratory certificates were received, the QC data were graphed to ensure results were accurate as defined by strict protocol (P&E, 2008). The same QA/QC program was used for the Blackbird drilling program and for the follow-up drilling program for Eagle’s Nest.

During the 2009 drilling programs, Noront hired Smee to perform a review of the 2009 drilling data QA/QC program. Based on the conclusions from Smee, it was identified that there were concerns that inappropriate standards were being used. For example, the standard OREAS 73A was being used for Ni, Cu, Pt, Pd and Au. A review of this data by Smee and Noront identified that the Cu in this standard was failing regularly. It was determined that the amount of Cu in this standard (approx 0.1%) was too low to be considered reliable. Therefore, a new standard (AMIS 0061) was selected to better represent the Ni and Cu values of the Eagle’s Nest deposit.

In November, 2009, in order to better control the QA/QC program, Noront’s full-time GIS/Database manager instituted and began the maintenance of the QA/QC program with the Fusion database system. Currently, as the sample assays are provided to Noront in the form of CSV files and imported into the Fusion database, they are automatically flagged during the import process if a reference standard or blank has failed. A blank standard is considered to have failed if it is three times greater than the detection limit of the analytical process and a reference standard is considered to have failed if it is above or below three times the standards deviation of the average value for the reference standards. If a reference standard or blank fails, it is first checked by the GIS/Database manager to determine if it is not an error due to reporting wrong standard or a typo. If it is not resolved due to import error, there is a request to re-run the entire 35 sample batch. Since November, 2009, it is our [Golder’s] understanding than any reference standards or blanks that have failed have been resolved when the batch was re-analyzed.

It was identified during the QA/QC review that the blank standards analysed for Cr2O3 and TiO2 have primarily failed 100% of the time. It has been identified that the granodiorite drill core, used as a blank, likely contains Cr and Ti in values that exceed three times the detection limit. In some cases, there is up to 9% Cr2O3. Therefore, it is recommended that the granodiorite standard be tested to better understand its elemental composition in order to be used for a blank for the Blackbird and Thunderbird deposits. The other option is to replace the blank for the Blackbird and Thunderbird but keep the granodiorite for the Eagle’s Nest and Eagle Two deposits.

A review of the duplicate samples was completed based on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet provided to Golder from Noront’s GIS/Database manager. The spreadsheet file contained a total of 2,363 duplicate samples from the Blackbird, Eagle’s Nest, AT12 and Thunderbird deposits and included assay values for Ni, Cu, Pd, Pt, Au, Cr2O3, TiO2 and V2O5. The duplicate samples in the spreadsheet included ¼ core field duplicates (945 pairs), coarse rejects (944 pairs) and

pulp duplicates (473 pairs). In general the review showed a good correlation between the pairs for all duplicate types with the widest spread observed in the ¼ core field duplicates.

The review of the active standards used in the QA/QC program indicated that the standards are appropriate for the elements being analyzed and no significant failures have occurred.

The blank standards were provided to Golder in a Microsoft Excel file which was an export from the Fusion database. A total of 1493 blank samples were included in the database for elements Au, Pd, Pt, Cu, Ni, Cr, Cr2O3, TiO2 and V2O5. As noted earlier the majority, and in some cases 100% of the blanks, failed for Cr, Cr2O3, TiO2 and V2O5 which indicated the granodiorite blank is not appropriate as a standard for these elements. In addition a number of Cu and Ni samples have failed which may also indicate that the blank may contain trace amounts of Cu and Ni. There is indication that some of the standards have been re-assayed indicating that the entire batch has been re-assayed. The introduction of the QA/QC program in the Fusion database is able to flag standard failures allowing for early identification of batches requiring re-assaying.

14.4.6 Golder Recommendations

Based on the QA/QC and site visit review completed by Golder, the following was recommended:

 Recalculation of the RQD values in the Fusion database such that no values are greater than 100%.

 All drill hole casings at each deposit require hole identification.

 It was noted that there were a large number of lithological rock type names. Some of these names were more representative of a texture or minor feature than of a rock type. In order to allow for simple plotting of drill holes on section and plan, it may be appropriate to reduce the number of major lithological rock types and put the secondary feature as a minor unit.

 Plot the standards regularly (monthly) and generate a table of errors.

 Investigate the blanks for the Blackbird deposit. The Cr2O3, Cr and TiO2 values are much higher than 3 times the detection limit. Sampling and assaying a selection (minimum of 50 samples) of the granodiorite core from the various deposits should be able to assist in identifying background values for these elements.

 Send a selection of coarse rejects to another lab facility to assist with determining the main laboratory’s accuracy.

15.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

Interest and subsequent activity in the vicinity of McFaulds Lake area has increased since 2007, and has resulted in the claims in the ROF area being staked by several companies and JV partners. The nearest producing mine to the McFaulds Lake area is the DeBeers Victor diamond mine near Attawapiskat, approximately 150 km to the east. There is currently no other mining activity in the immediate area of the McFaulds Lake or in the James Bay Lowlands.

The Blackbird deposits were discovered when drilling the AT2 geophysical target. This target was first identified as the Eagle Two Ni-Cu deposit and initial drilling did not target the Blackbird chromite deposits. The Triple J gold zone was later discovered at the contact between the granodiorite and the ROF Intrusion in the same area.

The Blackbird chromite deposits and the Eagle’s Nest Ni-Cu-PGE deposit owned by Noront, are central to much of the current activity in the area. Discovery of two VMS deposits has prompted recent activity within 20 km of Blackbird and the McFaulds Lake area, and has included claim staking, exploration and the discovery of several occurrences of VMS, many hosted in a peridotite unit of the ROF Intrusion. Some of these discoveries include Noront properties, namely: Eagle’s Nest and Eagle Two Ni-Cu-PGE magmatic sulphide and the AT12 Ni-Cu-PGE occurrence which is in the early stages of exploration.

Other discoveries near the Blackbird chromite deposit include the Big Daddy chromite deposit by the Spider/KWG/Freewest JV, to the north of Blackbird, and the Black Thor and Black Label chromite deposits by Freewest.

The number and diversity of the discoveries around the ROF area has prompted a higher level of activity than most exploration camps in Canada, and the district is seen as a potential new metal district; however, infrastructure needs in the area still must be addressed prior to the area becoming an active mining district. The continued exploration and development of surrounding deposits may positively impact the progress and economics of Noront projects.

16.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

SGS Mineral Services (SGS-MS) undertook preliminary metallurgical testing during 2009 and 2010 at the Lakefield testing facility on two composite samples submitted by Noront. These composites, which were selected by Noront, were labelled “Comp 1”, which was made up of massive sulphide mineralization and “Comp 2”, which was designated disseminated mineralization. A report was issued entitled “An Investigation into Metallurgical Testing on the Eagle One Deposit, prepared for Noront Resources Ltd, Project 12055-002 Final Report” dated March 11, 2010.

The scope of the testing program included grinding testwork (Bond work index) on a head sample of the two composites, comprehensive mineralogical analysis on the flotation feed of the two composites, a series of developmental flotation testwork, flotation product (concentrates and tailings) characterization testwork and preliminary magnetic separation tests. The metallurgical test program was managed by Noront.

16.1.1 Sample Characterization

A list of samples selected for the two composites is included in Table 16.1.

Table 16.1 Composition of Metallurgical Composite Samples

Sample From To Length Weight Sample From To Length Weight ID (m) (m) (m) (kg) ID (m) (m) (m) (kg) 28409 75.5 77.0 1.5 2.93 28372 20.0 21.5 1.5 1.96 28410 77.0 78.5 1.5 2.83 28373 21.5 23.0 1.5 1.99 28391 48.5 50.0 1.5 2.53 28374 23.0 24.5 1.5 1.90 28392 50.0 51.5 1.5 2.95 28375 24.5 26.0 1.5 1.86 28393 51.5 53.0 1.5 2.69 28376 26.0 27.5 1.5 1.75 28432 108.0 110.0 1.5 3.02 28433 110.0 112.0 1.5 2.73 815383 58.5 60.0 1.5 1.83 28421 92.0 93.5 1.5 3.05 815384 60.0 61.5 1.5 1.90 28422 93.5 95.0 1.5 2.76 815385 61.5 63.0 1.5 1.67 815386 63.0 64.5 1.5 2.04 814966 212.0 214.0 1.5 2.35 815387 64.5 66.0 1.5 1.56 814967 214.0 215.0 1.5 2.11 815388 66.0 67.5 1.5 1.90 814968 215.0 216.0 1.5 2.27 815389 67.5 69.0 1.5 1.77 814969 216.0 218.0 1.5 2.32 815390 69.0 70.5 1.5 1.85 814970 218.0 220.0 1.5 2.17 814971 220.0 221.0 1.5 2.45 814684 168.0 170.0 1.5 1.24 814972 221.0 222.0 1.5 1.60 814685 170.0 172.0 1.5 1.51 814973 222.0 224.0 1.5 2.40 814686 172.0 173.0 1.5 1.65 814687 173.0 174.0 1.5 1.74 28540 65.3 66.5 1.2 1.82 814688 174.0 176.0 1.5 1.53 28541 66.5 67.5 1 1.59 814689 176.0 178.0 1.5 1.35 28542 67.5 68.5 1 2.45 28544 69.0 69.9 0.85 1.46 814933 166.0 167.0 1.5 1.82 28523 48.0 49.0 1 1.60 814934 167.0 168.0 1.5 1.93 28524 49.0 50.0 1 1.48 814935 168.0 170.0 1.5 1.81

Sample From To Length Weight Sample From To Length Weight ID (m) (m) (m) (kg) ID (m) (m) (m) (kg) 814936 170.0 172.0 1.5 1.68 814700 189.0 190.0 1.9 2.69 814937 172.0 173.0 1.5 1.20 814938 173.0 174.0 1.5 1.92 814940 176.0 178.0 1.5 1.94 28545 69.9 71.0 1.15 1.05 28546 71.0 72.0 1 1.29 28547 72.0 73.0 1 1.15 Total Weight 56.2 Total Weight 48.8

The complete chemical analyses of the two composites are included in Table 16.2.

Table 16.2 Metallurgical Composite Head Analyses

Element/Compound Units Comp 1 Comp 2 Cu % 3.07 1.01 Ni % 7.89 2.11 Fe % 50.9 19.6 Ni Sulphide % 5.59 1.60 S2- % 35.4 10.1 Pd g/t 10.1 3.40 Pt g/t 0.83 0.21 Au g/t 0.16 0.99 Ag g/t 8.00 3.00 Al g/t 280 8,300 As g/t <30 <30 Ca g/t 720 4,100 Co g/t 2,000 560 Cr g/t 150 2,700 Mg g/t 2,100 160,000 Mn g/t 110 850 Na g/t 96 300 Pb g/t <200 <200 Sr g/t 0.72 5.40 Ti g/t 46 480 V g/t 34 49 Zn g/t <70 <70

Sub-samples, representative of a flotation feed at a grind size of 80% passing 100 μm, of both Comp 1 and Comp 2 were submitted for mineralogy using the combination of optical microscopy and XRD examination. Mineralogical examination of Comp 1 showed a massive sulphide system containing 98% total sulphides. The major Cu-bearing mineral was chalcopyrite and the Ni-bearing mineral was pentlandite. Examination of Comp 2 determined that the composite contained 27% sulphides. The major Cu and Ni bearing minerals present in Comp 2 were chalcopyrite and pentlandite, respectively. In addition trace amounts of pyrite, bornite and covellite were detected.

Optical examination found an increase in locked chalcopyrite and pentlandite in Comp 2. The majority of the chalcopyrite, pentlandite and pyrrhotite appeared to be liberated (50-90% liberation) at a mineral grain size of between 40-80 μm for both composites.

16.1.2 Bond Ball Mill Grindability Tests

The Bond ball mill work indices for Comp 1 and Comp 2 were 8.6 kWh/t and 18.4 kWh/t, respectively. The material is considered soft for Comp 1 and medium-hard to hard for Comp 2 when compared to all ores tested in the SGS database.

16.1.3 Flotation Tests

Batch flotation tests evaluated the effect of primary grind size, collector dosage, and collector addition points for both Comp 1 and Comp 2 on rougher kinetics. In addition, talc depressants were investigated on Comp 2. Most of the flotation work was directed at separate copper and nickel concentrate production.

For Comp 1, Cu/Ni separation was effective in producing a Cu concentrate grading 34.0% Cu and 0.63% Ni at 74% Cu recovery. A final Ni concentrate grading 20.5% Ni at 61% Ni recovery was produced. Rougher bulk concentrates containing around 7% Cu and 15% Ni were produced during the scoping testwork with recoveries of around 96% and 90% for Cu and Ni, respectively.

The Cu/Ni separation tests using Comp2 were incomplete. Using the non optimized preliminary open circuit batch test results, SGS estimated that a bulk Cu/Ni concentrate from Comp 2 grading 5.38% Cu and 10.8% Ni could be produced with metal recoveries of 80% for Cu and 76% for Ni, respectively.

16.1.4 Magnetic Separation

A Davis tube test was conducted on a sample from Comp 1 that was ground to a K80 passing 100μm. The non-magnetic fraction contained 26% of the mass grading 9.5% Cu, 22.2% Ni with recoveries of 89% for Cu and 80% for Ni, respectively. The magnetic fraction contained 74% of the mass and graded 0.41% Cu and 1.96% Ni.

16.2 RECOVERY ESTIMATES

For the purposes of the preliminary assessment, Micon estimated the copper and nickel recoveries using the preliminary batch flotation testwork results. For both the massive and net textured mineralization, a 10 Ni concentrate product was assumed and the copper, PGE, Au and Ag grades were calculated using the concentration ratio determined by the Ni metal balance and the respective metal recoveries.

For net textured material, Micon used the average rougher recoveries from the 5 tests undertaken by SGS-MS using Comp 2 and applied a cleaner recovery of 97%. The estimated net textured recoveries are 84.1% for Cu and 82.9% recovery for Ni.

For massive material, Micon used the average rougher recoveries from the 4 SGS batch tests of 97.3% Cu and 86.1% Ni which produced an average 17.85% Ni concentrate and assumed additional recovery from the rougher tails, which will feed the net textured circuit, of 90% of the net textured recovery. The final recoveries estimated for the massive mineralization into a 10% Ni concentrate were 99.3% and 96.5% for Cu and Ni, respectively.

Metallurgical recoveries of 80% for Pd, Pt, Au and Ag were applied in the preliminary assessment for both styles of mineralization.

17.0 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

The following description of the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates at McFaulds Lake for the Eagle’s Nest deposit has been extracted from Golder, 2010.

“Mineral Resource Estimates have been produced for two of the deposits on the McFaulds Lake Property. The Eagle’s Nest Nickel Mineral Resource Estimate was produced by Golder (see Section 17.1). This supersedes the Mineral Resource Estimate known as Eagle One produced by P&E Engineering and filed on SEDAR on August 18, 2008. The Blackbird Chromite Mineral Resource Estimate was produced by Micon (see Section 17.2) and filed on SEDAR on January 22, 2010.

17.1 EAGLE’S NEST

The March 8, 2010, Eagle’s Nest Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate was completed by Greg Greenough, P.Geo., and reviewed by O. Tavchandjian, P.Geo. The estimate incorporated data analysis, 3- dimensional solids modelling, and a block model utilizing Datamine Studio v2 (Datamine) in extended (double) precision.

The Eagle’s Nest resource model consists of a single mineralized zone, of approximately 200 m strike length and extending from surface to approximately 1200 m. The pipe-like shape of the deposit makes regular sectional drilling from surface difficult, but drill spacing in the plane of the deposit ranges from 25-30 m in the better defined upper areas to 75 m towards the bottom.

This resource estimate is an update to the July 3, 2008 independent NI 43-101 mineral resource estimate reported by P&E Mining Consultants Inc. for Noront. The July 3, 2008 estimate was based on 23 drill holes and extended to a depth of approximately 250 m. Drilling carried out by Noront since the July 2008 estimate resulted in an additional 40 holes for this estimate, 8 of which were in the area of the previous estimate.

17.1.1 Drill Hole Data

The Eagle’s Nest drill hole database information supplied to Golder by Noront, and included a total of 90 surface drill holes, 14 of which are wedged from parent holes. Four of the holes are 700 m away from the deposit and were not used. The collar, survey, and lithological data were supplied in CSV format on Dec 12, 2009, and the final assay data was supplied in Excel XLS format on Feb 22, 2010. Four of the drill holes supplied were awaiting final assay and were excluded from the resource estimation (NOT-09- 064-W2, NOT-10-076, NOT-10-077, and NOT-10-078).

The drill hole data provided to Golder by Noront is as follows:

File name Content Date collars.csv Drill hole collar data Dec 12, 2009 Surveys.csv Drill hole survey data Dec 12, 2009 Major_Lithology.csv Drill hole lithological data Dec 12, 2009 Drill hole assay data EaglesNest_Assays_Feb22.xls Feb 22, 2010 (includes 285 SG assays)

The data was imported into Datamine and de-surveyed using internal processes. Local grid coordinates were used for the drill hole collars. Intervals greater than 10 m were composited to 10 m, and a ‘dummy’ data file included in the process for more accurate de-surveyed holes. A list of drill hole names and collar locations is provided in Appendix B [see Golder, 2010].

17.1.2 Solid Modelling

Data terrain models (dtm) surfaces representing the topography and base-of-overburden/top-of-bedrock were generated from the drill hole collars and the end of the casing intervals in the drill hole logs, respectively. This approach is justified based on the terrain in the area being relatively flat and showing minimal relief.

Lithological data was examined, but since all the mineralization occurs within the Ultramafic unit no lithological domaining was required. No structural interpretations were available and no contiguous structural data was apparent in the de-surveyed drill holes, therefore there was no structural modelling either.

The mineralization consists of massive sulphide occurrences within lower grade disseminated and ‘net- textured’ ultramafics. However, the continuity of massive sulphide zones could not be established with certainty at the present level of drilling; neither was there sufficient information to partition the data into separate structural domains. Therefore, a single mineralization envelope was generated from a combination of points and control strings, using a Ni “cut-off” of 0.3 % as a guide, that being the estimated bulk-mining cut-off proscribed by Noront. The outer limits of the mineralization were extended using a distance of approximately 1/2 the drill spacing (to the closest un-mineralized hole or from the last mineralized hole) as a control. Surface meshes (dtms) were made from the digitized points in the general plane of the deposit using control strings for the outer limits. This method is useful for removing irregularities in the outer limits, and also for minimizing interpretational bias that can exist in wire frames generated from section or plan strings/polylines.

To ensure proper sample capture, points defining the mineralized envelope were snapped to the end points of the appropriate drill hole intervals and validated through visual checks. The volume was verified to ensure that there were no intersections or invalid (open or shared) edges.

The upper limit of the zone was terminated at the overburden/bedrock contact using Boolean wire frame facilities in Datamine.

Figure 17-1-1 [Figure 17.1] shows the mineralized zone with diamond drill hole coverage.

Figure 17.1: Eagle's Nest 3D Isometric View of Mineralized Zone and Diamond Drill Coverage

17.1.3 Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA)

17.1.3.1 Raw Assay Data

Primary statistics of raw assay data for the entire drill hole database are summarized in Table 17-1-1 [Table 17.1].

Although it is not expected to add in-situ value to the block model, Cobalt (CO_PCT) was included in the data analysis, capture and compositing. Fe (FE_PCT) and Sulphur (S_PCT) were also included so that the amount of Sulphides could be calculated in the block model if required. Arsenic (AS_PPM) assays were part of the final assay data received from Noront, and was included to look for any anomalous values of this potentially deleterious element.

Table 17.1: Eagle's Nest Raw Sample Data

Field Samples MinimumMaximum Total Mean Variance Standdev LENGTH 31467 0.01 13.8 44712.3 1.42 4.748 2.18 CU_PCT 5733 0 24.9 0.63 1.538 1.24 NI_PCT 5733 0 11.8 1.3 4.163 2.04 PT_PPM 5736 0 1170 0.74 62.678 7.92 PD_PPM 5736 0 85.2 2.29 12.552 3.54 AU_PPM 5736 0 106 0.17 3.612 1.9 AG_PPM 5735 0 53.6 2.03 11.407 3.38 S_PCT 5834 0 43.6 5.53 69.499 8.34 FE_PCT 5834 0.41 50 13.3 105.113 10.3 AS_PPM 5834 0 1210 2.12 267.097 16.3 CO_PCT 5834 0 0.296 0.04 0.002 0.05 SG_MEAS 290 2.7 5.09 3.37 0.414 0.64 Note: LENGTH statistics are not weighted SG_MEAS (SG assays) statistics weighted by LENGTH All other statistics weighted by LENGTH x SG

17.1.3.2 Data Capture

The mineralization wire frame volume was used to capture drill hole samples. Samples with their centres lying within the wire frame were selected, and since almost all points defining the volume are snapped to the appropriate ends of the samples no significant sample lengths appeared outside the wire frame.

Length-weighted statistical analysis of the captured samples is presented in Table 17-1-2 {Table 17.2]. As noted for Table 17-1-1 [Table 17.1], all statistics are weighted by LENGTH x SG except SG, which is weighted by LENGTH only.

Table 17.2: Eagle’s Nest Captured Sample Data Statistics

Field Samples Minimum Maximum Total Mean Variance Standdev LENGTH 3495 0.01 11 3,997.8 1.14 0.36 0.60 CU_PCT 3495 0 24.9 0.96 2.07 1.44 NI_PCT 3495 0 11.8 1.98 5.32 2.31 PT_PPM 3495 0 1170 1.12 98.64 9.93 PD_PPM 3495 0 85.2 3.50 15.68 3.96 AU_PPM 3495 0 61 0.23 3.01 1.74 AG_PPM 3495 0 53.6 3.03 13.80 3.71 S_PCT 3475 0 43.6 8.72 85.387 9.24 FE_PCT 3477 0.41 50 17.28 125.318 11.19 AS_PPM 3477 0 1210 2.04 363.529 19.07 CO_PCT 3477 0 0.296 0.05 0.003 0.06 SG 3495 2.7 5.09 3.14 0.205 0.45 Note: LENGTH statistics are not weighted SG statistics weighted by LENGTH All other statistics weighted by LENGTH x SG

The SG values included in the captured and composite sample data consist of a combination of 263 measured SG values, and the remaining SG values calculated from its close correlation to Ni (see Section 14.4 Density) [see Section 14.4].

Captured sample intervals with absent (null) assay values were assumed to be identified as barren during core logging and were assigned 0.0 (zero) prior to compositing (see Table 17-1-3) [Table 17.3].

Table 17.3: Eagle’s Nest Captured Samples with Missing Assays

ELEMENT NULL Action CU_PCT 18 NI_PCT 18 PT_PPM 17 PD_PPM 17 AU_PPM 17 SET TO 0.0 AG_PPM 18 S_PCT 20 FE_PCT 18 AS_PPM 18 CO_PCT 18

Figure 17.2: Eagle’s Nest Captured Samples Histograms

17.1.3.3 Correlations

Correlation matrix analysis shows good correlation between some elements in the Eagle’s Nest deposit. As shown in Table 17-1-4 [Table 17.4], key correlations in the mineral envelope captured data are:

 Ag-Cu: 89%;  Pd-Ni: 75%;  Co-Ni: 99%:  S-Ni: 88%;  Fe-Ni: 93% Table 17.4: Eagle's Nest Correlation Matrix

NI CU PT PD AU AG CO S FE AS NI 1.00 CU 0.41 1.00 PT 0.04 0.13 1.00 PD 0.75 0.52 0.08 1.00 AU 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.05 1.00 AG 0.46 0.89 0.08 0.57 0.26 1.00 CO 0.99 0.41 0.05 0.76 0.01 0.47 1.00 S 0.88 0.54 0.07 0.71 0.04 0.58 0.88 1.00 FE 0.93 0.45 0.04 0.72 0.03 0.52 0.93 0.87 1.00 AS 0.04 0.09 0.28 0.24 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 1.00

From the correlations with Nickel, formulae using polynomial regression were developed for the absent Sulphur (S), Iron (Fe) and Cobalt (Co) intervals, and applied to the captured samples before compositing (see Table 17-1-5) {Table 17.5].

Table 17.5: Eagle’s Nest Regression Formulae for Absent Data

No. of Element Formula Samples S 20 S_PCT=3.64578*NI_PCT+1.69772 FE 18 FE_PCT=4.51662*NI_PCT+8.32808 CO 18 CO_PCT=0.02386*NI_PCT+0.00655

17.1.3.4 Density

Of the samples captured in the mineralization envelope, 263 contained measured SG values which showed a very good correlation to Ni (94%). Due to its high correlation with grade it is important to use density weighting in all grade interpolations (see Figure 17-1-3) [Figure 17.3]. For this reason, values were calculated for missing SG intervals using the regression formula: SG = 2.76635 + (0.22524*NI_PCT).

To compensate for weakness in the formula at very high Ni grades the SG was capped at 4.75, and for absent data intervals where the Ni grade is assumed to be 0.0 SG was set to 2.77 (lowest measured SG value).

Figure 17.3: Eagle’s Nest Ni - SG Correlation

17.1.3.5 Capping Strategy

Gold (AU_PPM) was capped at the median of the top 1% of composites (4.44 ppm).

17.1.3.6 Composites

A histogram of the captured sample data lengths was used to determine an optimum composite length for grade estimation (see Figure 17-1-4) [Figure 17.4]. The vast majority of sample lengths are 1.5 m, and the mean length is 1.14 m. At the chosen composite length of 1.5m, 90% of the raw samples are combined into longer lengths, and 10% are split into smaller lengths.

Figure 17.4: Eagle’s Nest Captured Sample Length Histogram

Prior to compositing, un-assayed sample lengths for Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd, Au and Ag were assumed to have no mineralisation and assigned 0.0 values, and the regression formulae shown in Table 17-1-5 for S, Fe and Co were applied. Sampled intervals with assays still outstanding were assigned a NULL value.

A compositing process mode was used that does not eliminate any samples from the compositing process, but rather forces all samples to be included by adjusting the composite length, while keeping it as close as possible to the chosen composite interval. The maximum possible composite length is 1.5 times the interval.

Density-weighted values for all elements to be estimated were calculated for the composites by multiplying each element by the density.

Statistics for composite sample data, weighted by sample length, are shown in Table 17-1-6 [Table 17.6]. Note that the total length of composited samples is the same as the corresponding captured samples total length (Table 17-1-2) [Table 17.2].

Table 17.6: Eagle's Nest Composite Sample Data Statistics

Field Samples Minimum Maximum Total Mean Variance Standdev LENGTH 2670 0.32 2.15 3,997.8 1.50 0.00 0.04 CU_PCT 2670 0.00 12.86 0.88 1.43 1.20 NI_PCT 2670 0.00 10.04 1.81 4.64 2.15 PT_PPM 2670 0.00 233.41 0.94 21.73 4.66 PD_PPM 2670 0.00 33.34 3.16 11.74 3.43 AU_PPM 2670 0.00 4.44 0.17 0.22 0.46 AG_PPM 2670 0.00 29.06 2.77 10.47 3.24 S_PCT 2670 0.00 40.31 8.43 74.99 8.66 FE_PCT 2670 2.03 50.00 16.93 115.10 10.73 AS_PPM 2670 0.00 704.97 1.72 159.90 12.65 CO_PCT 2670 0.00 0.27 0.05 0.00 0.05 QCU 2670 0.00 50.83 3.02 20.82 4.56 QNI 2670 0.00 46.98 6.19 76.03 8.72 QPT 2670 0 724.58 3.52 369.38 19.22 QPD 2670 0 114.51 10.96 186.07 13.64 QAU 2670 0 20.178 0.57 2.61 1.61 QAG 2670 0 125.47 9.50 145.90 12.08 SG 2670 2.71 4.968 3.14 0.18 0.43 Note: QNI = SG x Ni%; QCU = SG x Cu%; QPT = SG x Pt (ppm); QPD = SG x Pd (ppm); QAU = SG x Au (ppm); QAG = SG x Ag (ppm) LENGTH statistics are un-weighted SG and density-weighted statistics are weighted by LENGTH All other statistics weighted by LENGTH x SG

17.1.4 Resource Estimation

17.1.4.1 Unfolding

The unfold process within Datamine Studio 2 was used to transform the composite sample data coordinates into an unfolded coordinate system, as defined by the geometries of the mineralized footwall and hanging wall contacts. This transformation essentially removes bends, pinches and swells in the mineral model, allowing for more robust variogram calculations and grade estimation.

Strings representing the footwall and hanging wall contacts of the deposit were constructed and tagged, as shown in the Figure 17-1-5 [Figure 17.5]. These strings are then used to ‘unfold’ the composite samples into the transformed coordinate system. The same unfold strings are used in the grade estimation process to unfold the blocks into the same transformed system as the composite samples.

Figure 17.5: Eagle’s Nest Use of Unfolding in Grade Estimation

Checks are conducted throughout the unfolding process to ensure that all samples are properly captured and unfolded.

17.1.4.2 Grade Variography:

Experimental variograms were calculated for the density-weighted elements using the parameters shown in Table 17-1-7 [Table 17.7]. Since the unfolded composites were used, no rotations were required. Normally when using unfolded data a rotation is needed only if there is a plunge in grade continuity. To check this, variograms were calculated in the unfolded plane of the deposit. No noticeable preferred direction in continuity was observed.

Initial variograms for the elements other than Ni were difficult to interpret, and so parameters were relaxed slightly to obtain more data for the calculations.

Table 17.7: Eagle’s Nest Grade Variogram Parameters

QCU, QPT, QPD, QNI QAU, QAG Lag Distance 10 10 Number of Lags 30 20 Sub-lag Distance 2 2 Number Lags to be Sub-lagged 5 5 Regularization angle 30 45 Number of Azimuths 2 2 Cylindrical search radius 10 30

Interactive fitting of models to the experimental variograms was carried out using the tools in Datamine. In addition to the variograms, the process calculates pair-wise relative variograms (PWRVGRAM), which are the same except that every term in the calculation is divided by the average value of the two samples contributing to that term. These pair-wise relative variograms were used in the modelling process.

Variogram modelling assumed the best fit using an anisotropic two structure spherical model. As can be seen by the variogram modelling results in Table 17-1-8 [Table 17.8] and Figure 17-1-6 [Figure 17.6], the first structure ranges for all directions are relatively short. The second structure ranges were used to help define the search distances of the three axes orthogonal to the unfolded plane of the deposit.

A third structure with long ranges and a very small variance was manually added for each element, to give the variography some relevance in the kriged estimates using very long searches used to interpolate grades into the last blocks.

Figures of all variogram models can be found in the Appendix C [see Golder, 2010].

Table 17.8: Eagle’s Nest Grade Variogram Models

1st Structure 2nd Structure 3rd Structure

N Sill UGGET LEME -Range -Range -Range -Range -Range -Range -Range -Range -Range Variance Variance Variance E T N X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z QNI 0.1 16 24 42 0.2 21 80 67 0.36 50 300 150 0.005 0.67 QCU 0.2 8.6 23 21 0.3 20 67 50 0.3 40 300 150 0.005 0.74 QPT 0.3 3.6 20 17 0.3 8.5 76 30 0.16 50 300 150 0.005 0.69 QPD 0.1 9.1 28 27 0.3 14 80 50 0.18 26 300 150 0.005 0.61 QAU 0.3 8.4 14 10 0.1 17 40 25 0.24 28 300 150 0.005 0.62 QAG 0.2 11 23 14 0.2 18 54 25 0.39 25 300 150 0.005 0.85

Figure 17.6: Eagle’s Nest QNI Variograms Note: In the unfolded coordinates, X (vertical) is across the mineralization, Y is down-dip, and Z is along strike.

17.1.4.3 Block Model Definition

The block model covers a 3D block in UTM coordinates from 547,100 to 547,300 East, 5,843,500 to 5,843,700 North, and -1,060 to 170 Elevation. Generally, block shape should reflect the geometry of the deposit, and block size should be influenced by the density of sample data.

The geometry of Eagle’s Nest deposit, at this stage, is very pipe-like and drilling from surface requires various orientations with generally low angles to the deposit. This does not lend itself to clear section definition for the purpose of determining typical drill spacing. To overcome this problem data was reduced longitudinally by creating 1-sample composites of the captured samples, and using their centre points, the drill spacing in the mineralized envelope was approximated (see Figure 17-1-7) [Figure 17.7].

On this basis, a 3 m (E-W) by 6 m (N-S) by 18 m (Elevation) parent block size was employed. It is expected that in the bottom third of the deposit where data is less dense, there will be some over- smoothing of grade with these block dimensions. This is, however, addressed in large part by the variance correction applied later in the modelling process. The block model definition parameters are summarized in Table 17-1-9 [Table 17.9].

Figure 17.7: Eagle’s Nest Drill hole Spacing Varying with Depth

Table 17.9: Eagle’s Nest Block Model Definition

Origin Block size (m) Number of blocks Extent (m) X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z 547100 5843460 -1060 3 6 18 77 44 70 213 264 1260

The mineralization envelope was filled with blocks, using the block model volume parameters described in Table 17-1-8 [Table 17.8]. Sub-blocking was permitted at the mineralization boundary to get an accurate volume representation. To allow more efficient grade estimation and more thorough validation techniques, the blocks were then regularized (all blocks put back to the parent cell size), with the field FILLVOL representing the volume of the block lying within the wire frame. A volume check of the regularized block model versus the mineralization wire frames revealed a very good representation of the volume (see Table 17-1-10) [Table 17.10].

Table 17.10: Eagle’s Nest Block Model vs. Wireframe Volume Check

Number of Wireframe Volume FILLVOL blocks volume difference 14,767 3,170,337 3,169,251 < 0.03%

17.1.4.4 Estimation Methodology

Block model grades for the density-weighted elements were estimated using Ordinary Kriging (OK). Nearest Neighbour (NN) estimates of the same elements provided declustered sample grades for block model validation, and Inverse (squared) power of distance (IPD) estimates were also produced for comparison purposes.

Anisotropic searches were performed, using the variogram model ranges for each density-weighted element as a guide for each of the 3 axes, orthogonal to the unfolded plane of the deposit. The search parameters for all elements are summarized in Table 17-1-11 [Table 17.11].

Table 17.11: Eagle’s Nest Estimation Search Parameters

1st Search 2nd Search 3rd Search All Searches

t t les les les p p p

am am am Octan Octan S S S Y-Range Z-Range X-Range Maximum Maximum Maximum Range factor Range factor Min. Samples per Max. Samples per Max. Samples Minimum Octants Minimum Samples Minimum Samples Minimum Samples QNI 20 80 60 12 32 2 8 24 5 5 24 5 1 4 QCU 20 65 50 12 32 2 8 24 5 5 24 5 1 4 QPT 10 75 30 12 32 2 8 24 5 5 24 5 1 4 QPD 15 75 50 12 32 2 8 24 5 5 24 5 1 4 QAU 15 40 25 12 32 2 8 24 5 5 24 5 1 4 QAG 15 50 25 12 32 2 8 24 5 5 24 5 1 4

Due to their very good correlation to Ni (see Section 1.4.3), the density-weighted estimates for Co, S, Fe and used the variogram models and search parameters for density-weighted Ni.

Three searches were utilized to grade as many blocks in the model as possible. The first search reflected the ranges determined in the variogram modelling, the second search factored these ranges by 2, and the third search factored them by 5. As part of the Kriged estimate, the search volume used in the interpolation of each block was written to the model file. This information was used in the resource classification, to help differentiate between Indicated and Inferred resource.

Octant restrictions were used in all cases, with a minimum of 1 sample in each of at least 5 octants required to estimate a grade.

The octant restrictions used have a tendency to result in blocks along the contacts to remain ungraded. To compensate for this, ungraded blocks from the interpolations using the searches in Table 17-1-11 [Table 17.11] were retrieved from the model and the estimation re-run using the same search parameters, but without octant restriction.

17.1.4.5 Post Processing

Kriged estimates can occasionally result in the use of negative weights in the interpolation. In the case of the Eagle’s Nest density-weighted Ni estimate, 11 blocks had slightly negative values. Block model post processing set any negative estimates to 0.0, and also, any SG values outside the minimum 2.77 and maximum 4.75 values (as determined from the sample data) were reset to those limits.

Finally, the grade for each block was reconstituted by dividing the density-weighted value by the interpolated SG.

17.1.4.6 Variance Correction

The variability of individual block grades in the model must be close to that of the declustered sample data (NN), otherwise estimates of tonnages above a cut-off from the block model will be slightly inaccurate. If the actual variance is too low, tonnages will tend to be overstated and grade understated, while if the variance is too high, tonnages will tend to be understated and grade overstated. This comparison of actual variance to the theoretical variance can be called the Smoothing Ratio. A smoothing ratio of >1 indicates over-smoothing, and a smoothing ratio of <1 indicates under-smoothing.

The amount of smoothing in a grade interpolation is determined by a number of items, including the block model cell size, variography, grade estimate search parameters, and the cell discretization used in the estimate.

It is generally accepted that if the difference between the block model global variance and the NN global variance is greater than approximately 20%, a variance correction should be considered.

Smoothing corrections are applied separately to each mineralogical domain, and if data density varies significantly within each mineralogical domain, ratios and corrections for each area of data density are examined. In the case of Eagle’s Nest, both drill density and angle of drill holes to the deposit begin to decrease around the -70 m elevation, so smoothing corrections were applied separately to blocks above and below this level.

In the case of Ni, in the Eagle’s Nest block model, a smoothing ratio of 1.62 above -70 m and 2.47 below -70 m, were calculated, so log-normal smoothing corrections were applied.

Correctly applied smoothing corrections should result in:

 The mean grades of the corrected and un-corrected grades should be the same.  The corrected global variance should be close to the expected global variance.

Checks of the Eagle’s Nest show that these criteria were met. A detailed tabulation of the variance correction parameters and validation statistics are provided in the Appendix D.

17.1.5 Mineral Resource Classification

Resource classification was determined by interrogating the Kriged block model to show those blocks graded by the expanded search parameters (distances beyond the variogram ranges for Ni) having significant volume (>50% of the default block size volume). The illustration to the right (Figure 17-1-8) indicates a significant increase in blocks meeting this criteria at approximately -575 m elevation. The model below this elevation was therefore classified as Inferred, and above this elevation as Indicated. This boundary corresponds roughly, as expected, to the decrease in drill hole density.

Figure 17.8: Eagle’s Nest Location of Indicated and Inferred Resource

17.1.6 Block Model Validation

17.1.6.1 Visual Checks

The Kriged block model (corrected for smoothing) was visually inspected in plan and section to ensure reasonable estimates when compared to the composite sample file. Figure 17-1-9 [Figure 17.9] shows %Ni on a typical section and plan for the top part of the deposit. Note in the plan view the higher grade (red) following the contact as a result of the unfolding option (Section 17.1.4.1).

Typical West-East Section Typical Plan View Figure 17.9: Eagle’s Nest Block Model Visual Validation

17.1.6.2 Statistics

Statistical comparisons between the composite samples and block model grade interpolation are presented in Table 17-1-12 [Table 17.12]. Also shown are the results from a 1-sample Nearest Neighbour estimate, where the samples are composited along the entire length of each drill hole for a Nearest Neighbour estimate. This method approximates the results from a polygonal estimate, and can help to identify in particular any issues created by drill holes oriented at a low angle to the deposit.

Table 17.12: Eagle’s Nest Block Model Validation Statistics

S S S E V D M M MEAN MINIMU MAXIMU VARIANC NMISVAL WGTFIEL STANDDE NSAMPLE SKEWNES Composites 2670 0 0.00 10.04 1.81 4.64 2.15 2.047 SGLENGTH NN 14690 77 0.00 10.04 1.77 3.90 1.97 2.28 TONNES NI 1_Sample 14690 77 0.11 7.61 1.80 1.57 1.25 2.91 TONNES OK 14690 77 0.00 10.04 1.80 2.61 1.6141 2.29 TONNES Composites 2670 0 0.00 12.86 0.88 1.43 1.20 3.091 SGLENGTH NN 14690 77 0.00 17.46 0.90 1.51 1.23 3.95 TONNES CU 1_Sample 14690 77 0.00 8.11 0.92 0.42 0.64 2.66 TONNES OK 14536 231 0.00 12.86 0.92 0.81 0.902 3.14 TONNES Composites 2670 0 0.00 233.41 0.94 21.73 4.66 38.21 SGLENGTH NN 14690 77 0.00 199.44 1.04 18.65 4.32 34.75 TONNES PT 1_Sample 14690 77 0.02 19.12 1.03 2.12 1.46 9.63 TONNES OK 14646 121 0.02 41.49 1.13 3.80 1.9506 9.99 TONNES Composites 2670 0 0.00 33.34 3.16 11.74 3.43 2.323 SGLENGTH NN 14690 77 0.00 34.21 3.36 11.88 3.45 2.76 TONNES PD 1_Sample 14690 77 0.06 18.88 3.37 4.07 2.02 2.63 TONNES OK 14658 109 0.00 20.57 3.40 6.14 2.478 2.07 TONNES Composites 2670 0 0.00 4.44 0.17 0.22 0.46 7.817 SGLENGTH NN 14690 77 0.00 6.62 0.20 0.31 0.56 6.67 TONNES AU 1_Sample 14690 77 0.00 1.40 0.25 0.05 0.22 2.00 TONNES OK 14016 751 0.00 3.97 0.19 0.09 0.2936 3.46 TONNES Composites 2670 0 0.00 29.06 2.77 10.47 3.24 2.280 SGLENGTH NN 14690 77 0.00 45.14 2.98 13.41 3.66 3.10 TONNES AG 1_Sample 14690 77 0.00 21.99 3.04 3.73 1.93 2.17 TONNES OK 14285 482 0.00 29.06 3.00 6.38 2.5257 2.27 TONNES Note: 1_Sample = 1 sample nearest neighbour.

17.1.6.3 Swath Plots

Swath plots comparing the various grade interpolations along with the composites were generated to further validate the general accuracy of the estimate. Figure 17-1-10 [Figure 17.10] shows %Ni in the vertical and east-west directions. A complete set of plots for all interpolated elements is provided in the Appendix E.

Figure 17.10: Eagle’s Nest Block Model Swath Plots

17.1.7 Resource Statements

The Indicated and Inferred Resources for the Eagle’s Nest deposit are summarized in Table 17-1-13 [Table 17.13].

Table 17.13: Eagle's Nest Summary of Mineral Resources

EAGLE’S NEST INDICATED RESOURCES TONNES NI % CU % PT g/t PD g/t 6,900,000 2.04 0.95 1.3 3.4

EAGLE’S NEST INFERRED RESOURCES TONNES NI % CU % PT g/t PD g/t 4,300,000 1.42 0.87 0.8 3.4

No recoveries (mining or processing) or dilution factors have been considered in these estimations, and the results should be considered strictly in situ.

Table 17-1-14 [Table 17.14] includes statements of blocks above cut-off to illustrate sensitivity to Ni grade.

Table 17.14: Eagle's Nest Indicated and Inferred Blocks above Cut-off

INDICATED

CUTOF TONNES NI % CU % PT g/t PD g/t AU g/t AG g/t F %NI 0.5 5,943,512 2.31 1.08 1.45 3.82 0.18 3.08 1 4,841,619 2.67 1.23 1.64 4.35 0.20 3.47 2 2,299,495 3.98 1.71 2.28 6.03 0.24 4.50 3 1,250,402 5.31 2.16 2.80 7.63 0.28 5.45 4 842,337 6.21 2.52 2.81 8.90 0.33 6.31 5 600,292 6.91 2.82 2.90 9.94 0.38 6.97 6 399,372 7.64 3.17 2.92 11.09 0.44 7.79 7 259,562 8.24 3.36 2.80 11.96 0.50 8.26

100

INFERRED

CUTOF TONNES NI % CU % PT g/t PD g/t AU g/t AG g/t F %NI 0.5 4,050,123 1.50 0.91 0.83 3.60 0.25 3.54 1 2,650,781 1.88 1.11 0.90 4.21 0.28 4.24 2 685,490 3.28 1.25 0.71 5.39 0.21 4.80 3 280,372 4.60 1.17 0.56 6.33 0.14 4.32 4 164,931 5.40 1.19 0.52 7.14 0.12 4.43 5 91,834 6.12 1.22 0.47 7.93 0.10 4.62 6 44,672 6.81 1.21 0.45 8.81 0.05 4.90 7 15,870 7.52 1.15 0.42 9.22 0.05 4.69

Mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing or other relevant issues. Micon cannot guarantee that Noront will be successful in obtaining any or all of the requisite consents, permits or approvals, regulatory or otherwise for the project. There are currently no mineral reserves on the Blackbird property and there is no assurance that the project will be placed into production.”

17.2 BLACKBIRD

The Blackbird mineral resource estimate was first published in a Technical Report by Micon entitled “Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Blackbird Chrome Deposits, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada” with an effective date of December 31, 2009 and filed on SEDAR on 22 January, 2010.

17.2.1 Database Details

17.2.1.1 Drill Hole Database

Mineral resources for the Blackbird 1 and Blackbird 2 deposits were estimated exclusively from diamond drill holes. Utilizing collar elevations and lithology logs, the overburden contact was created. The resource estimate was completed using Surpac Version 6.1.3 Software. The Blackbird database consists of a total of 154 diamond drill holes completed over two drill campaigns (2008 – 2009). However, only 82 drill holes contain the relevant information that was used for geological and resource modelling. The majority of the drill holes are on a 50 m grid.

101

17.2.1.2 Sample and Assay Database

The assay database consists of a total of 13,564 samples for a total length of assayed core of 11,705.38 m. The principal analyses were conducted for Cr, Fe, Cr2O3, Al2O3, PGEs and SiO2.

17.2.1.3 Lithology

Logging at Blackbird has included the identification and documentation (from-to interval format) of major rock types which include granodiorite, peridotite, pyroxenite, dunite, gabbro, schist (most commonly talc-altered), mafic volcanic rock, fragmental mafic volcaniclastic rocks, and intermediate volcanic rocks. Less common and minor rock types in the database include felsic volcanic rocks and sedimentary rocks. The mineralized zone has been variably logged and recorded over the two drill campaigns; in some cases being broadly categorized. In other cases the mineralized intercepts have been described in the logs within the rock type in which they occur.

17.2.1.4 Specific Gravity

During the 2008/2009 drill campaigns specific gravity (SG) has been determined on a total of 7,209 samples at the Activation Laboratory in Ancaster during the course of sample analyses. The SG data set was representative of the range of Cr2O3 grades intersected at Blackbird and includes representative determination of the SG of the major rock types. The SG was determined using the ASTM D854 Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils.

17.2.1.5 Surpac Database

The Surpac database used for the Blackbird resource estimate was imported from the Excel spreadsheet provided by Noront. This database was utilized for data management, geological interpretation/modelling, and block modelling during the estimation process.

17.2.1.6 Validation

The integrity of the entire database was validated as per the methodology described in Section 14 of this report.

17.2.2 Estimation Methodology

The Blackbird resource estimate has been prepared using a conventional approach that includes block modeling based on a geological interpretation. The main elements of the procedure and sequence of estimation are contained in Table 17.15.

102

Table 17.15 Summary of Estimation Methodology

Procedure Description Geological Sectional interpretation of geology and mineralization; verification of interpretation in plan, creation Modeling of geological surfaces and wireframes; includes application of cut-off grade and minimum width parameters; creation of surface and overburden wireframe models; creation of excavation models based on similar deposits. Statistics and Statistical analyses of assay data; evaluation of assay populations within and related to geological and Geostatistics mineralization solids; determination of appropriate top cut value; calculation and evaluation of composites for grade interpolation; variography. Block Modeling: Creation of block model; grade estimation of blocks (interpolation) using ID3; and parallel estimation using kriging methods; estimation of block density; estimation of percent of block within (and outside of) geological or mineralogical domains (wireframes); estimation of tonnage; tabulation of tonnage and grade. Classification Evaluation of the block model; extraction of overburden volume and otherwise non-resource blocks; classification of resource blocks based on geological, data density, and statistical/geostatistical criteria. Validation Various procedures and tests to ensure model validity.

17.2.3 Block Modeling Results and Classification

The results of the Blackbird chrome block model are summarized in Table 17.16 which includes the total tonnage of the model, the net tonnage of the model where the overburden has been extracted, and the classified tonnages and average grades. The Mineral Resource estimate is effective as of December 31, 2009, and is compliant with the current CIM standards and definitions required by NI 43-101. The Qualified Persons responsible for the estimate are Messrs Richard Gowans, P.Eng., Alan San Martin MAusIMM, and Charley Murahwi, MSc., P.Geo.

Table 17.16 Summary of the Blackbird Chromite Block Model Mineral Resources

BLACKBIRD MINERAL RESOURCE SUMMARY REPORT BY CATEGORY (i) MASSIVE CHROMITE RESOURCES a) RESOURCES MEASURED AND INDICATED Deposit Zone Category Tonnes Avg. Cr2O3 (%) Cr:Fe Ratio BB2-1 Measured 1,635,000 38.42 1.97 BLACKBIRD 2 BB2-2 Measured 881,000 35.35 1.95 BB2-4 Measured 1,675,000 35.36 1.90 Sub-total Measured 4,191,000 36.55 1.94

Deposit Zone Category Tonnes Avg. Cr2O3 (%) Cr:Fe Ratio BLACKBIRD 1 BB1 Indicated 1,895,000 36.56 1.97 BB2-1 Indicated 816,000 36.75 1.94 BLACKBIRD 2 BB2-2 Indicated 438,000 32.91 1.88 BB2-4 Indicated 223,000 35.76 1.85 Sub-total Indicated 3,371,000 36.08 1.94

Grand Total Measured and Indicated 7,562,000 36.34 1.94

b) RESOURCES INFERRED Deposit Zone Category Tonnes Avg. Cr2O3 (%) Cr:Fe Ratio BB2-1 Inferred 2,142,000 36.07 1.95 BLACKBIRD 2 BB2-2 Inferred 624,000 24.83 1.65 BB2-4 Inferred 722,000 40.26 2.19 Total Inferred 3,488,000 34.93 1.95 Note: All resources have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Constraining was at 30% Cr2O3 allowing for maximum internal dilution of 3 m down the hole.

103

(ii) INTERCALATED CHROMITE RESOURCES (FRAGMENTED ZONES) a) RESOURCES MEASURED AND INDICATED Deposit Zone Category Tonnes Avg. Cr2O3 (%) Cr:Fe Ratio BB2-3a (301) Measured 450,000 20.35 1.39 BLACKBIRD 2 BB2-3b (302) Measured 537,000 29.63 1.79 Total Measured 987,000 25.40 1.60

Deposit Zone Category Tonnes Avg. Cr2O3 (%) Cr:Fe Ratio BB2-3a (301) Indicated 245,000 25.42 1.55 BLACKBIRD 2 BB2-3b (302) Indicated 61,000 28.31 1.67 Total Indicated 306,000 26.00 1.57

Total Measured and Indicated 1,293,000 25.54 1.60

b) RESOURCES INFERRED Deposit Zone Category Tonnes Avg. Cr2O3 (%) Cr:Fe Ratio BB2-3a (301) Inferred 121,000 22.38 1.37 BLACKBIRD 2 BB2-3b (302) Inferred 185,000 30.51 1.84 BB2-Lenses (50) Inferred 2,280,000 31.94 1.78 Total Inferred 2,586,000 31.39 1.77 Note: Intercalated includes disseminated, semi-massive and thin bands of chromite. All resources have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Constraining was based on mineralization and geological trends.

Mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing or other relevant issues. Micon cannot guarantee that Noront will be successful in obtaining any or all of the requisite consents, permits or approvals, regulatory or otherwise for the project. There are currently no mineral reserves on the Blackbird property and there is no assurance that the project will be placed into production.

There are no known mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, or other factors that materially affect this mineral resource estimate, at this time.

The block model is shown in Figure 17.11 and an overview of the Blackbird 1 and Blackbird 2 combined chromite mineralization is presented as a grade-tonnage curve in Figure 17.12.

104

Figure 17.11 Block Model of the Blackbird Deposits

Figure 17.12 Grade-tonnage Curve for the Combined Blackbird Deposits

105

18.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

18.1 INTRODUCTION

It is planned that The McFaulds Lake Property Eagle’s Nest project will be mined using underground methods with processing operations also located underground. Production at a rate of 3,000 t/d is to be supplemented with aggregates production from host rock to meet infrastructure needs.

This preliminary assessment includes Inferred Mineral Resources in order to demonstrate the potential viability of the project. The economic analysis contained in this report is based in part on Inferred Mineral Resources and is, therefore, preliminary in nature. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too geologically speculative to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the mine plan, production schedule, and economic projections on which this preliminary assessment is based will be realized. There are no mineral reserves at the Eagle’s Nest project.

Within this section of this report, reference is made to potentially mineable mineral resources as an estimate of the material which might be produced from the Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources of the Eagle’s Nest project. This is a label for convenience and is not meant to indicate that there are, or will be, Mineral Reserves at Eagle’s Nest.

18.2 MINING OVERVIEW

The Eagle’s Nest deposit mineralized zone is overlain by 3 to 20 m of generally saturated organic matter, glacial till and sandy gravel. The deposit is a sub-vertical zone of massive magmatic sulphides in the form of a flattened pipe, 60 m across and 200 m long on strike.

Initial access will be by a surface ramp, followed by a 7 m diameter hoisting and access winze from the 125 m level (L) to the 1,200 m L. The ramp will be continued to connect the production levels. The design production rate is 3,000 t/d of mill feed material with additional excavation rock production bringing the required shaft output to 4,500 t/d. The mining schedule reflects mining of the entire resource base with a 10% dilution and a 95% mining recovery.

The schedule for the production mining is based on extracting standard 15 m x 15 m x 50 m high blast hole stopes in a primary/secondary sequence along the strike of the zone. Mining within the designated blocks will advance level to level using a bottom up approach with a chevron sequence traversing from hanging wall to foot wall east and west across each level.

106

The first mining is in the high grade zones on 175 m L and 125 m L, close to the mill location which will provide high value tonnages at relatively low costs.

A preliminary mining schedule is presented in Figure 18.1.

Figure 18.1 Preliminary LOM Mining Schedule

Pre‐production period Item Yr 1Yr 2Yr 3Yr 4Yr 5Yr 6YrYr 7Yr 8Yr 9Yr 10 Yr 11 Yr 12 13 Yr 14 Yr 15

Develop surface portal Ramp surface to 25m L Ramp 25 M L to 175m L Ramp 175m L to 625m L Ramp 625m L to 1225m L FAR & RAR to 175m L Mill excavation, 1st stage Mill excavation, 2nd stage Mill construction Mill commissioning Production prep Shaft set up & headworks Sink Shaft to 625m L Commission 625m L Pocket Sink Shaft to 625m L to 1225m L Commission shaft Aggregate rock complex dev 225m L dev 175m L dev 125m L dev 75m L dev

Mine 225m L Mine 175m L Mine 125m L Mine 725m L ‐ 575m L Mine 975m L ‐ 825m L Mine 475m L ‐ 325m L Mine sill pillars Mine 1225m L ‐ 1075m L

18.3 METALLURGY AND PROCESSING

SGS-MS undertook preliminary metallurgical testing during 2009 and 2010 on two composite samples provided by Noront. Results include grinding testwork (Bond work index) on a head sample of the two composites, comprehensive mineralogical analysis on the flotation feed of the two composites, a series of developmental flotation testwork, flotation product (concentrates and tailings) characterization testwork and preliminary magnetic separation tests. The metallurgical test program was managed by Noront. The metallurgical testwork program is discussed in Section 16.0.

Process design is based on Metallurgical test results and a 3,000 metric tonne per day nickel- copper ore processing plant. The process related facilities associated with the processing plant are crushing, grinding, flotation and dewatering, producing a nickel-copper concentrate. The process comprises conventional crushing, grinding, flotation and concentrate dewatering to produce a single concentrate which, typically, will contain 10% Ni, 5% Cu, 17 g/t Pd, 6 g/t Pt, 1 g/t Au and 15 g/t Ag. The base case assumes that the concentrate is pumped to Webequie, dewatered, loaded for bulk road transportation to Pickle Lake and then railed to Sudbury for treatment.

107

The process plant assumes separate grinding circuits for the massive and net-textured sulphide mineralization. It is anticipated that processing plant will be located underground.

The preliminary flowsheet selected by SLI, based on the preliminary test work results discussed in Section 16.0, is presented in Figure 18.2. The conceptual plant layout is presented in Figure 18.3.

The process plant assumes separate grinding circuits for the massive and net-textured sulphide mineralization.

18.4 SURFACE INFRASTRUCTURE

Site geotechnical investigations are on-going. The construction work on the surface includes site clearing, excavation and general re-grading using local material to level the sites and to prepare them for construction of the new facilities at the mine-site complex and permanent residential camp.

Plans include all season roads, winter access roads, access roads, site roads, a camp, airstrip, surface buildings, storage and other facilities such as a truck scale, gatehouse and fuel storage. A sewage treatment plant is included in the design.

Power will be provided by seven 4,200-kW capacity diesel generator sets (six operating) situated near Webequie. Concentrate will be pumped from the mine site to a dewatering and storage facility situated near Webequie.

A plan of the proposed access route is shown in Figure 18.4. A winter road will be used to access the mine from Webequie. A conceptual site plan is presented in Figure 18.5.

Basic site access and assumptions will be confirmed during additional work programs.

18.5 TAILINGS AND WASTE ROCK MANAGEMENT

Geochemical and geotechnical testing of tailings will be undertaken during the pre-feasibility stage of the project. The tailings produced by the underground processing plant will be stored underground and there are no current plans for surface storage of the tailings. Much of the tailings produced will be used for backfilling the production stopes. The remainder will be stored in empty underground aggregate rock production stopes.

108

Figure 18.2 Preliminary Process Flow Diagram 109

Figure 18.3 Conceptual Process Plant Layout

110

Figure 18.4 Overall Site Area Map Showing Proposed Access Road Route

111

Figure 18.5 McFaulds Lake Project Site Plan

112

18.6 WATER MANAGEMENT

Fresh water supply is based on a water intake pipe and wet well off Koper Lake. An insulated and metal-clad combined-duty fire and potable water storage tank is provided. Firewater is supplied to the residential campsite, via a shallow-buried insulated heat-traced HDPE pipe. Firewater is also supplied to a buried distribution pipe main in the yard and to the underground mine portal.

Hydrological and hydrogeological studies have been commissioned by Noront. The results of these studies will be available and be incorporated into the next phase of project development.

18.7 AGGREGATES

Material suitable for use as aggregate required for the project infrastructure and possible external markets will be produced on site. The initial characterisation studies undertaken on samples of the local granodiorite rock suggest that this material will be suitable as aggregate.

The preliminary mine plan includes a long term aggregate rock stope production rate of approximately 750 t/d which is required to provide underground storage volume for tailings.

The aggregate stopes will be situated in the host rock between the 75 mL and 125 mL, away from the shaft, ramp and mill infrastructure, and mined out using the same production practices as the ore stopes using a blast hole method with long hole drills.

18.8 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING, MANAGEMENT AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Based on initial baseline work and subsequent findings, key environmental impacts are likely to be related to habitat disturbance, water and waste management, and access.

18.9 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The following implementation schedule is anticipated:

Project feasibility study complete March 18, 2011. Commence basic engineering April 22, 2011.

113

Prepare and Submit Permit Applications June 1, 2011 Issue EIA report August 31, 2011. Commence major equipment purchasing November 14, 2011. EIA approved February 29, 2012. Permit Approval August 31, 2012 Commence construction March 18, 2013. Engineering complete December 31, 2013. Construction complete September 30, 2015.

18.10 ECONOMIC EVALUATION AND RISK

Capital expenditures, operating costs, financial analysis and project risk have been assessed for the purposes of this preliminary assessment.

18.10.1 Capital Costs

The capital cost estimate for the project presented herein, is considered to be at a scoping level with an accuracy of + 50%. Micon added a contingency of 20% on total direct and indirect costs or 27% based on total direct costs.

Pre-production capital expenditures are estimated to total $622M, including $124M mining, $102M processing and on-site infrastructure, $166M off-site infrastructure and $129M indirect costs. A contingency of $102M, equivalent to 25.9% of the direct capital cost estimate, has been added.

For the base case, capital expenditures for off-site infrastructure are assumed to be shared with other users.

The base case preproduction capital cost estimate is $622M. This estimate assumes that certain proportions of the off-site infrastructure costs will be borne by other stakeholders potentially including the provincial and federal governments and other mining companies with interests in the ROF. The base assumptions are that the project bears 25% of the cost of an all-weather road, 50% of the cost of a power line, and 50% of the cost of a winter road, required during construction.

The sustaining capital costs are estimated to be $274M comprising mainly the costs of sinking an internal shaft during the first three years of operation.

Closure plans and associated costs will be developed by KP during the environmental assessment process. The scoping study assumes that the eventual cost of closure will amount to 2.5% of the total mining, plant and on-site infrastructure direct capital costs, or $11.4M. The financial model assumes the present value of that amount is required as a bond payment of $7.0M in Year -1, which is then projected to grow at a real rate of 3% per year.

A summary of the life of mine (LOM) project capital cost estimate is presented below.

114

Table 18.1 Summary of Estimated Mining, Process and Infrastructure LOM Project Capital Costs

Area Total Estimated Cost Base Case Estimate ($000’s) ($000’s) Mine 352,112 352,112 Direct Process and On Site Surface Infrastructure 102,292 102,292 Indirect Process and On Site Surface Infrastructure 96,329 96,329 Off Site Surface Infrastructure 1, 2, 3 319,953 165,750 Owner’s Costs 25,640 25,640 Closure Costs 7,079 7,079 Contingency (20%) 178,084 147,243 Total Cost 1,081,489 896,445 1 Only 25% of the all season road capital cost is allocated to the project. 2 Only 50% of the power line capital cost is allocated to the project. 3 Only 50% of the winter road capital cost is allocated to the project.

Project capital expenditures over the preproduction and LOM periods are presented in the following chart.

Figure 18.6 Annual Capital Expenditures

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000 000)

200,000 (CAD

150,000 Expenditure 100,000 Capital 50,000

‐ Yr‐3Yr‐2Yr‐1 Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 Yr15 (50,000)

(100,000) Indirect Capital Plant & Site Infrastucture Mining Off‐site Infrastr Working Capital

115

18.10.2 Operating Costs

Estimated cash operating costs for the project average $123.57/t milled over the LOM period, including $75.50/t mining, $32.64/t processing and $15.44/t general and administrative (G&A) costs.

Mine costs were estimated by Cementation and process and G&A costs by SLI.

18.10.3 Financial Analysis

Micon has prepared its assessment of the Project on the basis of a discounted cash flow model, from which Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), payback and other measures of project viability can be determined. Assessments of NPV are generally accepted within the mining industry as representing the economic value of a project after allowing for the cost of capital invested.

Table 18.2 LOM Total Net Smelter Return

Item Units Nickel Copper Platinum Palladium Gold Silver Total Average grade % or g/t 1.640 0.769 0.960 2.913 0.141 2.398 Recovery % 89.10 90.75 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 Concentrate grade % or g/t 10.00 4.78 5.26 15.95 0.77 13.13 Payability % 95.00 90.00 85.00 85.00 90.00 85.00 Gross value US$M 3,251.9 472.7 350.5 257.0 36.0 9.3 4,377.4 Smelting US$M 254.5 36.8 27.1 20.0 2.8 0.7 342.0 Refining US$M 179.1 56.7 3.7 11.2 0.6 0.4 251.6 Transport US$M 144.3 19.3 16.2 11.5 1.7 0.4 193.5 NSR US$M 2,674.1 359.8 303.4 214.2 31.0 7.8 3,590.3 NSR US$/t 228.47 30.74 25.93 18.30 2.65 0.67 306.76

Using the base case price assumptions (i.e., 3-year trailing average), the contribution of each of the above metals to the NSR over the LOM period is shown in Figure 18.7.

116

Figure 18.7 Contribution of Metals to NSR (Base Case)

Working capital has been estimated to include 30 days product inventory (including the mill, pipeline, dewatering and rail transport), and 45 days receivables from delivery of concentrate to the smelter. Stores provision is for 60 days of consumables and spares inventory, less 30 days accounts payable.

The base case project cash flow is presented below. The project demonstrates an undiscounted pay back of around 3.5 years, or approximately 4.0 years discounted at 6.5%, leaving a production tail of around 7 years. The base case evaluates to an IRR of 26.0% before tax and 21.4% after tax, with a net present value (NPV6.5) of $732.5M before tax and $505M after tax. At a discount rate of 6%, the net present value (NPV6) of the cash flow is $778.2M before tax and $540.2M after tax.

Figure 18.8 Base Case Cash Flow

117

To demonstrate the robustness of the project, the pre-tax and after tax NPV is presented below, over a range of discount rates applied to the base case cash flow.

Table 18.3 Base Case NPV for a Range of Discount Rates

Discount rate ($ 000’s) (%/y) Pre-Tax After-Tax NPV NPV 6.00 778,173 540,179 6.50 732,487 505,037 7.00 689,294 471,832 7.50 648,444 440,447 8.00 609,796 410,772 8.50 573,218 382,704 9.00 538,587 356,148 9.50 505,789 331,016 10.00 474,717 307,223

18.10.4 Sensitivity and Project Risk

Figure 18.9 Sensitivity to Metal Prices

The sensitivity of the project returns to changes in all revenue factors (including grades, recoveries, prices and exchange rate assumptions) together with capital and operating costs was

118

tested over a range of 30% above and below base case values. The results show that the project is most sensitive to changes in revenue. The project is less sensitive to capital and operating costs.

The following chart shows the results of changes in each factor separately.

Figure 18.10 Sensitivity to Capital, Operating Costs and Revenue

Table 18.4 Sensitivity of NPV6.5 to Share of Off-site Infrastructure Costs

119

19.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary assessment was completed by Micon International Limited and included technical input from SNC Lavalin Inc., Cementation Ltd., Knight Piésold Ltd., and Golder Associates Ltd. It was prepared to analyse the preliminary operating and economic parameters of the development of Noront’s Eagle’s Nest project as an underground mining operation with an on-site nickel/copper/PGM concentrating facility. The study is based on the proposed mining and processing of the Eagle’s Nest mineral resource previously defined by Golder in a mineral resource estimate reported in April, 2010.

Mineral resources for the Eagle’s Nest deposit comprise an indicated resource of 6.9 Mt grading 2.04% Ni, 0.95% Cu, 1.3 g/t Pt and 3.4 g/t Pd and an inferred resource of 4.3 Mt grading 1.42% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.8 g/t Pt and 3.4 g/t Pd. (See Section 17.0).

A preliminary mine plan has been developed using the combined indicated and inferred resources. This plan applies a mine recovery factor of 95% of the Golder resources and includes a 10% external mining dilution at zero grade. This preliminary mine plan is the basis for this preliminary assessment the objectives of which were:

 To demonstrate the economic potential of Eagle’s Nest as a stand-alone project.

 To estimate operating costs to determine cut-off grades to guide for exploration.

 To address the technical and environmental challenges of developing a mine in the McFaulds Lake region.

The results of the study comprise the following:

 The Eagle’s Nest Ni-Cu-PGM mineralization will be extracted using standard underground mining methods.

 Initial mine production will be from an internal ramp. A winze (internal shaft) will be developed by year three to access the lower levels of the deposit.

 Nominal throughput rate of 1.0 Mt/y ore.

 The life of the operating mine is 11 years.

 Conventional mineral processing technology will be used to produce a single concentrate product containing nickel, copper, platinum, palladium and gold.

 Estimated life-of-mine nickel recovery of 88.3% and copper recovery of 89.7%.

 Production of a 10% Ni product containing copper, PGMs and gold.

120

 All major facilities (including the mill) will be located underground.

 All tailings will be stored underground.

 The project is designed for minimal surface disturbance.

 Aggregate for construction will be sourced from underground.

 Electrical power will be provided by a diesel power plant located near Webequie and a transmission line to the mine site.

The results of the study are summarized inTable 19.1. All dollars are Canadian dollars.

Table 19.1 Summary of the Scoping Study Base Case Results

121

Item Unit Value LOM cash operating cost $/t milled 124 Average base case nickel price $/lb 9.08 Average base case copper price $/lb 2.92 LOM gross metal sales $ 000 4,714,000 LOM off-site costs $ 000 848,000 LOM net revenue $ 000 3,867,000 Project cash flow before tax $ 000 1,594,000 Pre-tax NPV@ 10.0 % discount rate $ 000 475,000 Pre tax NPV @ 8.0% discount rate $ 000 610,000 Pre tax NPV @ 6.5% discount rate $ 000 732,000 Pre-tax NPV@ 6 % discount rate $ 000 778,000 Post-tax NPV @ 6.5% discount rate $ 000 505,000 Post-tax NPV @ 6% discount rate $ 000 540,000 Pre-tax IRR % 26.0 After-tax IRR % 21.3

Sensitivity analyses indicate that the project economics is most sensitive to revenue and is less sensitive to capital and operating costs.

19.1 RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Micon has assigned a level of confidence to individual key parameters as high, medium or low with a corresponding risk assessment as low, medium or high, as summarized in Table 19.2.

Table 19.2 Eagle’s Nest Project, Risk Assessment

Subject or Technical Area Confidence Level Risk Level Mineral and Surface Rights High Low Geology Medium Low to Medium Resources/ Reserves Medium Low to Medium Geotechnical Low to Medium Medium Mining Medium to High Low to Medium Hydrology/Mine Dewatering Low to Medium Medium Metallurgical Testing Low to Medium Low to Medium Aggregates Testing (Granodiorite) High Low Plant Design Medium Low Utilities and Services Medium Medium Surface Infrastructure Medium Medium Logistics (Climate, Access and Roads) Medium Medium Environmental Medium to High Medium Recruitment, Training & Retention Medium Medium Meeting Projected Schedules Low to Medium Medium to High Construction Plan Low to Medium Medium Capital Costs Medium Medium Operating Costs Medium Medium Economic Assessment Medium Medium Socio/Governmental Consultations Medium High Overall Medium Medium

122

Overall the project is considered to be of medium risk. Work is continuing in several areas, including the collection of technical data related to the resource and environmental components.

Opportunities exist in several areas:

 Infrastructure development synergies with other stakeholders.

 Infrastructure synergies with development of other projects in the area, including Noront’s Blackbird chromite deposit.

 Potential infrastructure and service synergies with other companies exploring in the region.

 External aggregates sales to future infrastructure projects.

 First Nations employment, training and development.

 Further resource potential through exploration.

123

20.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The results from this preliminary assessment demonstrate that the Eagle’s Nest project is potentially technically and economically viable and should continue to be developed towards production. The next phase of development should be a pre-feasibility study (PFS).

The following activities are recommended for the PFS:

 Update the mineral resource model.

 Develop detailed mine design using updated mineral resources categorized as measured and indicated.

 Compile updated mine capital and operating costs to a PFS level of accuracy based on the new detailed mine plan.

 Undertake additional metallurgical testwork using samples representing the whole deposit.

 Use new metallurgical results to finalise the process flowsheet and process design criteria.

 Use revised process design to update process engineering and associated capital and operating cost estimates to a PFS level of accuracy.

 Complete all identified trade-off studies.

 Develop and cost all on and off-site infrastructure to a PFS standard.

 Complete a Technology Roadmap study to determine the base case mining and processing control technology that will be used for the project.

 Complete risk analyses and associated studies to identify mining and processing technology opportunities.

20.1 BUDGET FOR ONGOING WORK

The following proposed studies and exploration programs are planned by Noront for the McFaulds Lake projects for 2010:

 Eagle’s Nest Definition Drilling: o Indicated Resource (above 1200 m) ~15,000 m drilling o Inferred Resources (between 1200 m and 2000+m) ~10,000 m.

124

 Budget Drilling $1.0M Field Work and Environmental Studies $1.3M Technical Studies $6.9M Socio-economic costs/expenses $0.8M Total $10.0M

125

21.0 SIGNATURE PAGE

MICON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

“Simon Baker” {signed and sealed}

Simon Baker P.Geo. Senior Geologist October 22, 2010

“Richard Gowans” {signed and sealed}

Richard Gowans P.Eng. President and Principal Metallurgist October 22, 2010

“Harry Burgess” {signed and sealed}

Harry Burgess P. Eng. Vice President and Senior Mining Engineer October 22, 2010

“Charley Murahwi” {signed and sealed}

Charley Murahwi, M.Sc., P. Geo., Pr.Sc.Nat., MAusIMM Senior Geologist October 22, 2010

“Christopher Jacobs” {signed and sealed} October 22, 2010 Christopher Jacobs, C.Eng., MIMMM

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

“Paul Palmer” {signed and sealed} October 22, 2010 Paul Palmer, P.Eng., P.Geo.

“Greg Greenough” {signed and sealed} October 22,1010 Greg Greenough, P.Geo.

126

22.0 REFERENCES

Golder Associates Ltd, Report Number 10-1117-0001, Technical Report and Resource Estimate, McFaulds Lake Project, James Bay Lowlands, Ontario, Canada, April 23, 2010.

Micon International Limited, Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Blackbird Chrome Deposits, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada, effective date December 31, 2009.

P&E Mining Consultants Inc., Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment on the Eagle One Deposit Double Eagle Property,McFaulds Lake Area, James Bay Lowlands, Ontario, effective date October 20, 2008.

Smee, B.W., Results of a Review of Quality Control Data, Double Eagle Project, Ontario, October, 2009.

127

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

SIMON BAKER

1) I am employed as a Senior Consultant by, and carried out this assignment for, Micon International Limited, Suite 900, 390 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y2, telephone 416 362 5135, fax 416 362 5763, e-mail [email protected].

2) I hold the following academic qualifications: B.Sc. (Hons) Geology, University of Portsmouth, UK - 1986 Certified Management Services Practitioner, Southampton College of Technology, UK - 1978

3) I am a registered Professional Geoscientist of Ontario (membership # 0657), and a registered member of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (membership #103221)

4) I have worked as a Geoscientist for over 23 years;

5) I do, by reason of education, experience and professional registration, fulfill the requirements of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. My work experience includes the management of minerals production facilities, numerous exploration projects and technical studies.

6) I have not visited the McFauld’s Lake Property.

7) I have had no prior involvement with the mineral property in question.

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

9) I am independent of the parties involved in the McFaulds Lake Area property, under Section 1.4 of NI 43-101, other than providing consulting services.

10) I have read the NI 43-101 and the portions of this Technical Report for which I am responsible have been prepared in compliance with this Instrument.

11) I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 1 through 5 and Sections 18.1, 18.7, 18.8, 19.0 and 20.0 of this Technical Report dated September 9, 2010 and entitled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment on the McFaulds Lake Property, Eagle’s Nest Project, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada”.

Effective Date: September 9, 2010. Signing Date: October 22, 2010

“Simon L. Baker” {signed and sealed}

Simon Baker, P. Geo.

128

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

RICHARD M. GOWANS

As a co-author of this report entitled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment on the McFaulds Lake Property, Eagle’s Nest Project, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada” dated September 9, 2010, I, Richard M. Gowans, P. Eng. do hereby certify that: 1. I am employed by, and carried out this assignment for Micon International Limited Suite 900, 390 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y2 tel. (416) 362-5135 fax (416) 362-5763 e-mail: [email protected]

2. I hold the following academic qualifications:

B.Sc. (Hons) Minerals Engineering, The University of Birmingham, U.K. 1980

3. I am a registered Professional Engineer of Ontario (membership number 90529389); as well, I am a member in good standing of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.

4. I have worked as an extractive metallurgist in the minerals industry for over 29 years.

5. I do, by reason of education, experience and professional registration, fulfill the requirements of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. My work experience includes the management of technical studies and design of numerous metallurgical testwork programs and metallurgical processing plants.

6. I visited the project site on May 5, 2010.

7. I am responsible for the preparation of Section 16, and Sections 18.3, 18.4, 18.6 and 18.9 of this report dated September 9, 2010 and entitled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment on the McFaulds Lake Property, Eagle’s Nest Project, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada”.

8. I am independent of the parties involved in the McFaulds Lake Area property, as defined in Section 1.4 of NI 43-101, other than providing consulting services.

9. I was a co-author of the co-author of this report entitled “Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Blackbird Chromite Deposits, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada” dated December 31, 2009.

10. I have read NI 43-101 and the portions of this report for which I am responsible have been prepared in compliance with the instrument.

11. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of this Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make this report not misleading.

Effective Date: December 31, 2009 Signing Date: January 22, 2010

“Richard M. Gowans” {signed and sealed}

Richard M. Gowans, P.Eng.

129

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

HARRY BURGESS

1) I am employed as a Senior Mining Engineer by, and carried out this assignment for, Micon International Limited, Suite 900, 390 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y2, telephone 416 362 5135, fax 416 362 5763, e-mail hburgess@micon- international.com.

2) I hold the following academic qualifications:

B.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering) London University 1966 B.Sc. (Mining Engineering) London University 1968 M.Sc. (Engineering) University of Witwatersrand 1980

3) I am a registered Professional Engineer with the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (membership number 6092506); as well, I am a member in good standing of several other technical associations and societies, including:

The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (Fellow) The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (Fellow) The Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (Member)

4) I have worked in the mining industry as an operator and consultant for over 40 years;

5) I do, by reason of education, experience and professional registration, fulfill the requirements of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. I am familiar with NI 43-101 and, by reason of education, experience and professional registration, My work experience includes 13 years as a mining engineer working in mine planning and production operations in underground copper and gold mining and 22 years as a consulting mining engineer working in open-pit and underground operations involving many minerals and all aspects of mining from mine design to financial evaluation.;

6) I have not visited the McFauld’s Lake Property.

7) I have had no prior involvement with the mineral property in question.

9) I am independent of the parties involved in the McFaulds Lake Property, as defined in Section 1.4 of NI 43-101, other than providing consulting services.

10) I have read NI 43-101 and the portions of this Technical Report for which I am responsible have been prepared in compliance with this Instrument.

11) I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 18.2 and 18.5 of this Technical Report dated September 9, 2010 and entitled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment on the McFaulds Lake Property, Eagle’s Nest Project, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada”.

Effective Date: September 9, 2010. Signing Date: October 22, 2010

“Harry Burgess” {signed and sealed}

Harry Burgess, P.Eng.

130

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

CHARLEY Z. MURAHWI

1) I am employed as an Senior Geologist by, and carried out this assignment for, Micon International Limited, Suite 900, 390 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y2, telephone 416 362 5135, fax 416 362 5763, e-mail cmurahwi@micon- international.com.

2) I hold the following academic qualifications: B.Sc. (Geology) University of Rhodesia, Zimbabwe 1979 Diplome d΄Ingénieur Expert en Techniques Minières, Nancy, France 1987 M.Sc. (Economic Geology), Rhodes University, South Africa, 1996.

3) I am a registered Professional Geoscientist of Ontario (membership # 1618), a registered Professional Natural Scientist of South Africa (SACNASP membership # 400133/09) and a registered member of the AusIMM (membership # 300395).

4) I have worked as a mining and exploration geologist in the minerals industry for over 28 years;

5) I do, by reason of education, experience and professional registration, fulfill the requirements of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. My work experience includes 12 years on Cr-Ni-Cu-PGE deposits (on and off- mine), and the balance on a wide variety of other mineral commodities including gold, silver, copper, nickel, tin, and tantalite.

6) I visited the Blackbird chrome project area from 6 to 9 July, 2009 and the Activation Laboratory in Thunder Bay on 10 July, 2009.

7) I was a co-author of the co-author of this report entitled “Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Blackbird Chromite Deposits, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada” dated December 31, 2009..

9) I am independent of the parties involved in the McFaulds Lake Area property as defined in Section 1.4 of NI 43-101, other than providing consulting services.

10) I have read the NI 43-101 and the portions of this Technical Report for which I am responsible have been prepared in compliance with this Instrument.

11) I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 15, and Section 17.2 of this Technical Report dated September 9, 2010 and entitled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment on the McFaulds Lake Property, Eagle’s Nest Project, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada”.

Effective Date: September 9, 2010. Signing Date: October 22, 2010

“Charley Z. Murahwi” {signed and sealed}

Charley Z. Murahwi, M.Sc., P. Geo., Pr.Sci.Nat, MAusIMM

131

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

CHRISTOPHER A. JACOBS, C. Eng.

As the author of portions of this report entitled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment on the McFaulds Lake Property, Eagle’s Nest Project, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada” dated September 9, 2010. I, Christopher A. Jacobs, do hereby certify that:

1. I am employed by, and carried out this assignment for: Micon International Limited, Suite 900 – 390 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5H 2Y2 tel. (416) 362-5135 fax (416) 362-5763

2. I hold the following academic qualifications: B.Sc. (Hons) Geochemistry, University of Reading, 1980; M.B.A., Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria, 2004.

3. I am a Chartered Engineer registered with the Engineering Council of the U.K. (registration number 369178);

4. Also, I am a professional member in good standing of: The Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (Member); and The Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (Member);

5. I have worked in the minerals industry for 29 years;

6. I do, by reason of education, experience and professional registration, fulfill the requirements of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. My work experience includes 10 years as an exploration and mining geologist on gold, platinum, copper/nickel and chromite deposits; 10 years as a technical/operations manager in both open pit and underground mines; 3 years as strategic (mine) planning manager and the remainder as an independent consultant;

7. I have not visited the McFaulds Lake project area.

8. I am responsible for the preparation of Section 18.10 of this Technical Report dated September 9, 2010 and entitled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment on the McFaulds Lake Property, Eagle’s Nest Project, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario, Canada”.

9. I am independent of the parties involved in the McFaulds Lake project, as defined in Section 1.4 of NI 43-101;

10. I have had no prior involvement with the mineral property in question.

11. I have read NI 43-101 and the portions of this report for which I am responsible have been prepared in compliance with the instrument;

12. As of the date of this certificate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of this Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make this report not misleading.

Effective date: September 9, 2010 Signing date: October 22, 2010

“Christopher A. Jacobs” {signed and sealed}

Christopher A. Jacobs, C.Eng., MIMMM

132

133

134

135

136