DOCSLIB.ORG

TECHNICAL REPORT for the QUEBEC WESDOME PROJECT (According to National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TECHNICAL REPORT for the QUEBEC WESDOME PROJECT (According to National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1) InnovExplo Inc. Consultants – Mines – Exploration 560, 3e Avenue, Val-d’Or, Québec, Canada, J9P 1S4 Telephone: 819-874-0447 Facsimile: 819-874-0379 Toll-free: 1-866-749-8140 TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE QUEBEC WESDOME PROJECT (according to National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1) Project Location Latitude 48°08' North and Longitude 77°54' West Province of Quebec, Canada Prepared for Wesdome Gold Mines Limited 8 King St. East, Suite 1305 Toronto, Ontario M5C 1B5 Canada Prepared by: Bruno Turcotte, P.Geo. Denis Gourde, Eng. Pierre-Luc Richard, P.Geo. InnovExplo Inc. Effective Date: December 16, 2015 Signature Date: December 16, 2015 www.innovexplo.com TABLE OF CONTENTS SIGNATURE PAGE – INNOVEXPLO ........................................................................................................ 12 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR - BRUNO TURCOTTE ................................................................................. 13 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR – DENIS GOURDE ...................................................................................... 14 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR – PIERRE-LUC RICHARD .......................................................................... 15 1. SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 16 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 16 1.2 Property Description and Location .............................................................................................. 16 1.3 Environment ................................................................................................................................ 17 1.4 Geological Setting ....................................................................................................................... 17 1.5 Deposit Type ............................................................................................................................... 17 1.6 Mineralization .............................................................................................................................. 18 1.7 Main Exploration Guides Related to Gold Mineralization ........................................................... 19 1.8 Drilling ......................................................................................................................................... 20 1.9 Quality Control from surface drilling programs ............................................................................ 20 1.10 Mineral Resources Estimate ....................................................................................................... 21 1.11 Interpretation and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 25 1.12 Exploration Potential for New Mineral Resources ....................................................................... 25 1.12.1 Potential of mineralized zones related to historical resources ............................................ 25 1.12.2 Potential of the studied mineralized zones ......................................................................... 26 1.13 Potential of Mineralized Zones on Adjacent Properties .............................................................. 26 1.14 Risks and Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 26 1.15 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 29 1.15.1 3D-GIS geological model .................................................................................................... 29 1.15.2 Mineral resource upgrade ................................................................................................... 29 1.15.3 Drilling ................................................................................................................................. 29 1.15.4 Environment ........................................................................................................................ 29 1.15.5 Recommended work program ............................................................................................. 30 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 32 2.1 The Issuer ................................................................................................................................... 32 2.2 Terms of Reference and Scope of Work ..................................................................................... 32 2.3 Qualified Persons ........................................................................................................................ 33 2.4 Principal Sources of Information ................................................................................................. 33 2.5 Effective Date .............................................................................................................................. 33 2.6 Units and Currencies ................................................................................................................... 33 3. TARGET DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 34 4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .................................................................................. 35 4.1 Location ....................................................................................................................................... 35 4.2 Mining Rights in the Province of Québec .................................................................................... 35 4.3 Current Property Description ....................................................................................................... 35 4.4 Historical Property Description .................................................................................................... 35 4.4.1 Lamothe property ................................................................................................................ 40 4.4.2 Vassan property .................................................................................................................. 40 4.4.3 Yankee Clipper property ..................................................................................................... 40 4.4.4 Wesdome property .............................................................................................................. 40 4.4.5 Callahan property ................................................................................................................ 40 4.4.6 Siscoe and Siscoe-Extension properties ............................................................................ 41 4.4.7 Lac de Montigny property .................................................................................................... 41 TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE QUEBEC WESDOME PROJECT 2 www.innovexplo.com 4.4.8 Maufort property .................................................................................................................. 41 4.4.9 Lac Dubuisson property ...................................................................................................... 41 4.4.10 Kiena property ..................................................................................................................... 42 4.4.11 Kiena West property ............................................................................................................ 42 4.4.12 Rosenbaum property ........................................................................................................... 42 4.4.13 Dubuisson property ............................................................................................................. 42 4.4.14 Audet Block property ........................................................................................................... 43 4.4.15 Elmac property .................................................................................................................... 43 4.4.16 Kiena South Block property ................................................................................................. 43 4.4.17 Roy Option property ............................................................................................................ 43 4.4.18 Shawkey property................................................................................................................ 44 4.4.19 School Mine property .......................................................................................................... 44 4.4.20 Joubi property ...................................................................................................................... 44 4.4.21 Other mining titles ............................................................................................................... 45 4.5 Environmental Studies ................................................................................................................ 48 4.5.1 Study area ........................................................................................................................... 48 4.5.2 Fauna .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abuse by Barrick Gold Corporation Barrick's Porgera Gold Mine
    FACTSHEET: Abuse by Barrick Gold Corporation Representing survivors of gang rape and those killed by Barrick Gold Corporation’s security guards at the Porgera gold mine in Papua New Guinea Canadian mining company Barrick Gold Corporation, the largest gold mining company in the world, operates the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea (PNG), where security guards have raped and gang-raped hundreds of local women and girls and killed several local men. EarthRights International (ERI) represents a number of survivors of rape and family members whose relatives were killed by Barrick security guards. Barrick’s Porgera Gold Mine Barrick has owned and operated the Porgera gold mine since 2006, when it acquired the previous owner, Placer Dome. Barrick also acquired a legacy of environmental damage and human rights abuses that it has failed to remedy. Each day, Barrick dumps more than 16,000 tons of waste into the Porgera River and local creeks that villagers have long relied upon for drinking water, bathing, and washing clothes and food. The mine’s ever-expanding waste dumps continue to take over the land and bury the homes of the original landowners that have lived in the region for generations, long before large-scale mining came to Porgera. Surrounded on all sides, villagers have no choice but to cross the dangerous dumps to reach agricultural land, commercial areas, schools or other villages. Many have not been compensated for the loss of their land and their homes, and Barrick has refused to relocate them. Without land to farm and sources of clean water, practically the only means of income available to some of the local indigenous communities is to scavenge for remnants of gold in the open pit or the treacherous waste dumps.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geochemistry and Petrogenesis of the Paleoproterozoic Du Chef Dyke Swarm, Québec, Canada
    This is an Open Access document downloaded from ORCA, Cardiff University's institutional repository: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/60323/ This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted to / accepted for publication. Citation for final published version: Ciborowski, Thomas, Kerr, Andrew Craig, McDonald, Iain, Ernst, Richard E., Hughes, Hannah S. R. and Minifie, Matthew John 2014. The geochemistry and petrogenesis of the Paleoproterozoic du Chef dyke swarm, Québec, Canada. Precambrian Research 250 , pp. 151-166. 10.1016/j.precamres.2014.05.008 file Publishers page: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2014.05.008 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2014.05.008> Please note: Changes made as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing, formatting and page numbers may not be reflected in this version. For the definitive version of this publication, please refer to the published source. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite this paper. This version is being made available in accordance with publisher policies. See http://orca.cf.ac.uk/policies.html for usage policies. Copyright and moral rights for publications made available in ORCA are retained by the copyright holders. The geochemistry and petrogenesis of the Paleoproterozoic du Chef dyke swarm, Québec, Canada T. Jake. R. Ciborowski*1, Andrew C. Kerr1, Iain McDonald1, Richard E. Ernst2, Hannah S. R. Hughes1, and Matthew J. Minifie1. 1School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University, Park Place, Cardiff, Wales, CF10 3AT, UK 2Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada & Ernst Geosciences, 43 Margrave Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • The Porgera Mine – Papua New Guinea
    To the Ministry of Finance Recommendation of 14 August 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Sources 2 3 The Council’s considerations 3 4 Accusations of severe environmental damage and other factors 4 5 The Porgera mine – Papua New Guinea 6 5.1 Background 6 5.2 Riverine tailings disposal 8 5.2.1 Sediment load 8 5.2.2 Discharge of heavy metals 11 5.3 Environmental effects on the flood plain and Lake Murray 13 5.3.1 Mercury pollution 16 5.3.2 Health and social effects associated with the tailings disposal 18 6 Barrick’s response to the Council 20 7 The Council’s assessment 22 8 Conclusion 25 9 Recommendation 25 1 Introduction At a meeting held on 4 October 2005, the Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund – Global decided to assess whether investments in the company then known as Placer Dome, currently Barrick Gold Corporation, would imply a risk of the Fund contributing to severe environmental damage under the Ethical Guidelines, point 4.4. As of 31 December 2007 the Government Pension Fund – Global held shares worth some NOK 1,274 million in the company. Barrick Gold is a Canadian mining company, which, in several countries, has been accused of causing extensive environmental degradation. The Council has investigated whether riverine tailings disposal from the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea generates severe environmental damage, and finds it established that the mining operation at Porgera entails considerable pollution. The Council attributes particular importance to the heavy metals contamination, especially from mercury, produced by the tailings.
    [Show full text]
  • Kinsley Technical Report
    MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES A Division of RESPEC TECHNICAL REPORT Of THE KINSLEY PROJECT, Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada, U.S.A. Submitted to: Authors: Michael Gustin, C.P.G. Gary L. Simmons, MMSA QP 605 - 815 Hornby Street, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6Z 2E6 Report Date: May 26, 2021 Effective Date: May 5, 2021 775-856-5700 210 S Rock Blvd Reno, NV 89502 www.respec.com MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES A Division of RESPEC CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Location and Ownership ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Exploration and Mining History .......................................................................................... 2 1.3 Past Production ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Geology and Mineralization ................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Drilling, Sampling, Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security ........................................ 4 1.6 Data Verification and Quality Assurance-Quality Control .................................................. 5 1.7 Metallurgical Testing ........................................................................................................... 6 1.8 Mineral Resource Estimate .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vedron Gold Inc.: Placer Dome Commences Follow-Up Drilling
    NEWS RELEASE TRANSMITTED BY CCNMatthews FOR: VEDRON GOLD INC. SHARES: 25,351,863 TSX VENTURE SYMBOL: YVG OCTOBER 21, 2002 - 09:15 EDT Vedron Gold Inc.: Placer Dome Commences Follow-up Drilling TORONTO, ONTARIO-- Timmins Gold Camp, Timmins, Ontario Vedron Gold Inc. is pleased to announce Placer Dome (CLA) Limited has commenced follow-up drilling on the Buffalo Ankerite property, on which Vedron holds a gold production royalty in the form of a Net Smelter Royalty. The Buffalo Ankerite Property is located directly south of the Fuller Deposit property where Vedron established a 700,000 ounce gold resource during 1996-1998. During April and May of this year Placer completed 23 drill holes on the Buffalo Ankerite property where nearly one million gold ounces were produced from 1926-1974. Placer plans to complete about 25 more drill holes in the current phase of program to confirm the presence of a potentially economic gold zone. The Vedron Fuller Deposit property and the Buffalo Ankerite property are adjacent to the Dome Mine operation, now part of the Porcupine Joint Venture with Kinross Gold, where Placer Dome produces in excess of 300,000 gold ounces per year. Vedron Gold holds the Fuller Deposit property subject to Placer earning their option to acquire the Fuller Deposit property and then making an acquisition payment plus production royalty payments. Vedron holds a 2% NSR on the Buffalo Ankerite property. Vedron recently announced the acquisition a production royalty on the Zenda Mine project in Kern County, California. Vedron Gold is continuing to review further possible royalty purchases.
    [Show full text]
  • 70-26,250 University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor
    70-26,250 BICKEL, Edwin David, 1941- PLEISTOCENE NON-MARINE MOLLUSCA OF THE GATINEAU VALLEY AND OTTAWA AREAS OF QUEBEC AND ONTARIO, CANADA. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Geology University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan PLEISTOCENE NON-KARINE NCLLUSCA OF THE GATINEAU VALLEY AND OTTAWA AREAS OF QUEBEC AND ONTARIO, CANADA DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Edwin David Bickel, A.B., M.Sc* * * * * * The Ohio State University 1970 Approved by r I' N J U u Adviser // Department of Geology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am most appreciative of the valuable guidance and assistance Professor Aurele La Rocque has given to this work and my other academic endeavors at The Ohio State University. Ky wife, Barbara Sue, deserves special recognition for many hours of skillful help in the field and laboratory. I wish to thank John G. Fyles and R, J. Kott of the Geological Survey of Canada, who generously made available samples and data gathered in conjunction with Dr. Mott*s research. Figure 3 from Geological Survey Memoir 2 M is reproduced as Fig. 2 of this paper by permission of the Geological Survey of Canada, Financial assistance for field work was provided by National Science Foundation Grant GB-818. I am grateful to the Friends of Orton Hall Fund for helping defray the cost of reproducing the illustrations. Finally, I wish to dedicate this dissertation to four teachers who have inspired and directed my scientific training. Professors Daniel F.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nevada Mineral Industry 1999
    Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication MI-1999 Metals Industrial Minerals The Nevada Oil and Gas Mineral Industry Geothermal 1999 Exploration Development Mining Processing This report, twenty-first of an annual series, describes 1999 mineral, oil and gas, and geothermal activities and accomplishments in Nevada: production statistics, exploration and development including drilling for petroleum and geothermal resources, discoveries of orebodies, new mines opened, and expansion and other activities of existing mines. Statistics of known gold and silver deposits, and directories of mines and mills are included. Mackay School of Mines UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO University and Community College System of Nevada 2000 Board of Regents Thalia Dondero, Chair Mark Alden David L. Phillips Jill Derby Howard Rosenberg Dorothy Gallagher Douglas Seastrand Douglas R. Hill Steve Sisolak Thomas E. Kirkpatrick Tom Weisner Jane Nichols, Interim Chancellor University of Nevada, Reno Joseph N. Crowley, President Mackay School of Mines Jane C.S. Long, Dean Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Jonathan G. Price, Director/State Geologist Scientific Research Staff Research and Administrative Support Staff Economic Geology Administration and Publication Sales Stephen B. Castor, Research Geologist Terri M. Garside, Executive Secretary John W. Erwin, Geophysicist (Emeritus) Cheryl Steed, Management Assistant Liang-Chi Hsu, Research Mineralogist (Emeritus) Charlotte Stock, Sales Manager Daphne D. LaPointe, Research Geologist Analytical Laboratory, Sample Curation, and Keith Papke, Industrial Minerals Geologist (Emeritus) Geologic Information Joseph V. Tingley, Research Geologist David Davis, Geologic Information Specialist Engineering Geology Paul J. Lechler, Chief Chemist/Geochemist John W. Bell, Research Engineering Geologist Mario Desilets, Chemist/Quality Assurance Officer Geoffrey Blewitt, Research Professor Bret Pecoraro, Laboratory Assistant Craig M.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries
    Submission to the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries In regard to the relationship between private military and security companies and extractive industry companies from a human rights perspective in law and practice This Submission is in regard to the North Mara Gold Mine in Tanzania and the Porgera Joint Venture Gold Mine in Papua New Guinea. March 2019 Catherine Coumans, Ph.D. Table of contents Introduction p. 1 1. Context p. 2 2. The relationship between the mines’ security, the company and the State p. 6 3. Alleged human rights abuses of the mines’ security forces p. 12 4. International, national, and company-level regulations, p. 15 mechanisms and procedures, and standards 5. Recommendations p. 20 Introduction This submission is made in support of an investigation and forthcoming report by the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (the Working Group)1 that examines the relationship between private military and security companies and extractive industry companies from a human rights perspective. Following communications with the Working Group, this submission covers issues related to excess use of force by private mine security and by police who participate in securing mines through memorandums of understanding between mine proponents and police agencies of the states hosting the mines. The sections below follow organizational and informational guidelines provided by the Working Group.2 This submission highlights that: state security forces deployed with private security often abuse their power in violation of the human rights of local populations; corporate-led monitoring and responsive measures are insufficient both to prevent abuse and to ensure meaningful accountability; greater attention needs to be given to crafting robust remedy mechanisms for those who have been harmed by both public and private security at mine sites; and, international soft law guidance on these issues (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • By Earle B. Amey
    GOLD By Earle B. Amey Domestic survey data and tables were prepared by Mahbood Mahdavi and Wanda G. Wooten, statistical assistants. The world production table was prepared by Regina R. Coleman, international data coordinator. In 2003, domestic mine production of gold fell to its lowest on December 31. The average for the year was, to the nearest level since 1989. The continuing trend toward consolidation dollar, $365 per ounce. The previous year’s price ranged from among the major gold companies was the primary cause of the 7% about $279 to $357 per ounce and averaged $311 per ounce. decline from the 2002 level. Although gold output fell by 21,000 The 12-month London, United Kingdom, gold lease rates in kilograms per year (kg/yr), the value of the U.S. gold production 2003 remained in the doldrums because the demand for lent gold increased to about $3.3 billion in 2003. Stronger global gold fell more quickly than the reduction in the amount of gold lent to prices and the weakening of the U.S. dollar resulted in an increase the market by central banks. Short-term lease rates continued to in gold value for 2003. The United States dropped to the world’s remain near zero (CRU International Ltd., 2004, p. 31). third leading gold producer (behind South Africa and Australia) Total world mine production of gold was about the same as the after being second since 1991 when U.S. production surpassed level reached in 2002. South Africa decreased its annual output that of the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Placer Dome: Implementation of a Global Land Management GIS System
    Placer Dome: Implementation of a Global Land Management GIS System Authors: Glen Kuntz (Presenting) Global Spatial Data Systems Coordinator Placer Dome Group Level 2 Rams House 189 Coronation Drive Milton, QLD 4064 Australia 61-7-3510-6702 Office 61-4-0717-8072 Mobile 61-7-3510-6740 Fax Email: [email protected] Andrew Scott Manager Geology and Technical Systems PLACER DOME GROUP Suite 1600 - 1055 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver BC V7X 1P1 Canada Fx +1 604 628 6330 Ph +1 604 6286213 Mob +1 604 616 6532 Email: [email protected] Abstract: Placer Dome (PDG) is one of the largest Diversified Gold Mining companies of the world. Land management is a core business and the need to integrate to existing regional geographic land management systems with the company’s business process models is crucial to the development of the Global Land Management System (LMS). The success of the implementation of the LMS was the result of the understanding of the technology, but more importantly on the data, content, workflows and business requirements and the recognition of the stakeholders support and requirements from the very beginning. PDG has taken full advantage of the recent advances in both database and spatial mapping technologies to help manage the development of a LMS that is based upon ArcSDE and an ArcIMS/ArcGis/Mapinfo platform. LMS provides PDG with an avenue to standardize corporate policies for land management and create minimum metadata requirements with the ability to adapt to regional requirements. Placer Dome is the world’s sixth largest gold mining company, pursuing quality assets around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Mine Rescue Awards
    Ontario Mine Rescue Awards November1 2019 Table of Contents Provincial Championship Award (M.S.A. Trophy) – 3 John Guthrie (Special Equipment) Award – 5 Firefighting Championship Award – 6 First Aid Award – 7 Theory Exam Award – 8 Equipment Technician Award – 9 Algoma District – 10 Kirkland Lake District – 11 Onaping District – 13 Red Lake District – 14 Southern District – 15 Sudbury District – 16 Thunder Bay District – 17 Timmins District – 18 Former District Trophies – 21 P.C. Smith Trophy – 24 Ontario Mine Rescue Officer Award 2 Provincial Championship Award The M.S.A. Trophy, donated by MSA Canada Ltd., has been awarded to the top team in the annual Provincial Mine Rescue Competition since 1955. A cut and polished granitoid slab with plaque rests above a silver, trapezoidal engraved scene of a linked six-man mine rescue team wearing McCaa breathing apparatus. The team is traversing a double-tracked drift, as the lead rescuer holds a Wolf flame safety lamp, while the second holds a self-rescuer. The trophy originally consisted only of the slab and the first tier with the engraving. The bottom three tiers were added. 1950 – Pamour Porcupine Gold Mines 1986 – Lac Minerals Ltd., Macassa Division 1951 – Hallnor Mines Ltd. 1987 – Denison Mines Ltd. 1952 – Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd. 1988 – Denison Mines Ltd. 1953 – Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. 1989 – American Barrick Resources, 1954 – MacLeod Cockshutt Gold Mines Ltd. Holt McDermott Mine 1955 – Kerr Addison Gold Mines Ltd. 1990 – Sifto Canada, Goderich Mine 1956 – Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd., 1991 – Placer Dome Inc., Campbell Mine East Mine 1992 – Placer Dome Inc., Dome Mine 1957 – Steep Rock Iron Mines Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Human Rights Benchmark 2020 Company Scoresheet
    Corporate Human Rights Benchmark 2020 Company Scoresheet Company Name Barrick Gold Corporation Industry Extractives UNGP Core Score (*) 17.0 out of 26 Score Out of For indicators Governance and Policy Commitments 1 2 A.1.1 Commitment to respect human rights 2 2 A.1.2 Commitment to respect the human rights of workers 1 2 A.1.4 Commitment to engage with stakeholders 1 2 A.1.5 Commitment to remedy Embedding respect and Human Rights Due Diligence Embedding respect 1.5 2 B.1.1 Embedding - Responsibility and resources for day-to-day human rights functions Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) 2 2 B.2.1 HRDD - Identifying: Processes and triggers for identifying human rights risks and impacts 2 2 B.2.2 HRDD - Assessing: Assessment of risks and impacts identified (salient risks and key industry risks) 1 2 B.2.3 HRDD - Integrating and Acting: Integrating assessment findings internally and taking appropriate action 0 2 B.2.4 HRDD - Tracking: Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of actions to respond to human rights risks and impacts 0.5 2 B.2.5 HRDD - Reporting: Accounting for how human rights impacts are addressed Remedies and Grievance Mechanisms 1.5 2 C.1 Grievance channels/mechanisms to receive complaints or concerns from workers 1.5 2 C.2 Grievance channels/mechanisms to receive complaints or concerns from external individuals and communities 2 2 C.7 Remedying adverse impacts and incorporating lessons learned 17.0 26 (*) Instead of the full list of indicators in the 2020 CHRB Methodology, this year’s assessment uses the CHRB Core UNGP Indicators.
    [Show full text]