2009 07 23 Scoping Study For The Sierra Gorda Project Region II Chile

Scoping Study
for the Sierra Gorda Project
Region II, Chile
July 2009
Prepared by:
quadra
MINING LTD.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SIERRA GORDA PROJECT ............................................................... 1-1
1.2 GEOLOGY OF THE SIERRA GORDA DISTRICT AND PROPERTY .................................................... 1-3
1.3 ASSAY QUALITY CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 1-4
1.4 RESOURCE AND RESERVE ESTIMATES....................................................................................... 1-5
1.5 MINING ..................................................................................................................................... 1-7
1.6 METALLURGY AND PROCESSING ............................................................................................... 1-8
1.7 TAILINGS MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 1-10
1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATER SUPPLY .................................................................................... 1-11
1.9 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................... 1-12
1.10 CAPITAL COSTS ........................................................................................................................ 1-14
1.11 OPERATING COSTS .................................................................................................................... 1-15
1.12 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 1-17
1.13 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 1-18
1.14 PROJECT MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS AND SUMMARY FACT SHEET .................................................. 1-19
2. INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

2.1 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 2-4
2.1.1 FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................... 2-4
3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

4.1 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ............................................................................................................. 4-4
4.1.1 SPENCE DEPOSIT ................................................................................................................ 4-4
5. ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE
6. EXPLORATION AND RESOURCE HISTORY

6.1 HISTORY OF EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 EXPLORATION BY OUTOKUMPU ......................................................................................... 6-2
6.2 HISTORY OF RESOURCE ESTIMATES .......................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.1 OUTOKUMPU ESTIMATE OF 1996 ....................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.2 MINTEC ESTIMATE FOR ANDES PACIFIC, 2001 .................................................................. 6-8
6.2.3 OTHER HISTORIC ESTIMATES OF THE QUANTITY OF MINERALIZED MATERIAL ................. 6-12
6.2.4 MDA ESTIMATE OF 2005................................................................................................... 6-12
6.2.5 MDA ESTIMATE OF 2008................................................................................................... 6-13
7. GEOLOGY, EXPLORATION AND DRILLING

7.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND METALLOGENY ........................................................................ 7-1
7.1.2 SIERRA GORDA DISTRICT GEOLOGY.................................................................................. 7-3
7.1.2.1 EARLY CRETACEOUS VOLCANIC ROCKS ................................................................. 7-3
7.1.2.2 PALEOCENE INTRUSIVE ROCKS ............................................................................... 7-5
7.1.2.3 IGNEOUS AND HYDROTHERMAL BRECCIAS ............................................................. 7-8
7.1.2.4 QUATERNARY DEPOSITS ......................................................................................... 7-10
7.1.2.5 GEOCHRONOLOGY .................................................................................................. 7-11
7.2 DEPOSIT TYPES ......................................................................................................................... 7-12
7.3 MINERALIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 7-13
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE ii
7.3.1 HYPOGENE MINERALIZATION ............................................................................................ 7-13

7.3.1.1 DISCUSSION OF HYPOGENE MINERALIZATION ........................................................ 7-15
7.3.2 LEACHED/OXIDE ZONE AND SUPERGENE MINERALIZATION .............................................. 7-15
7.3.2.1 LEACHED/OXIDE ZONE ........................................................................................... 7-16
7.3.2.2 SUPERGENE COPPER SULFIDE MINERALIZATION .................................................... 7-17
7.3.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND MINERALIZATION ......................................... 7-18
7.3.4 GOLD MINERALIZATION .................................................................................................... 7-18
7.4 EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................................... 7-19
7.4.1 HISTORY OF EXPLORATION BY QUADRA............................................................................ 7-20
7.4.2 GEOLOGICAL MAPPING AND LOGGING .............................................................................. 7-23
7.4.3 GEOPHYSICS ...................................................................................................................... 7-23
7.4.4 SAMPLING AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 7-23
7.4.5 PETROGRAPHICAL, MINERALOGICAL, AND OTHER STUDIES .............................................. 7-23
7.5 DRILLING .................................................................................................................................. 7-24
7.5.1 CIMA MINES: 1968-1970.................................................................................................. 7-26
7.5.2 OUTOKUMPU: 1991 - 1996................................................................................................. 7-27
7.6 DRILLING BY QUADRA MINING ................................................................................................ 7-28
7.7 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH ........................................................................................ 7-29
7.7.1 RC AND CORE SAMPLING BY QUADRA .............................................................................. 7-29
7.7.2 RC SAMPLING .................................................................................................................... 7-29
7.7.3 CORE SAMPLING ................................................................................................................ 7-31
7.8 RE-SAMPLING OF OUTOKUMPU DRILL-HOLE MATERIAL ......................................................... 7-32
7.9 SAMPLE PREPARATION ANALYSES AND SECURITY ................................................................... 7-34
7.9.1 OUTOKUMPU SAMPLES ...................................................................................................... 7-34
7.9.2 OUTOKUMPU QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES ................................................................ 7-35
7.9.3 MQES RE-ASSAY PROGRAM .............................................................................................. 7-36
7.10 QUADRA DRILL PROGRAM SAMPLES ........................................................................................ 7-38
7.11 DATA VERIFICATION................................................................................................................. 7-40
8. ASSAY QUALITY CONTROL

8.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 SAMPLING PROGRAM ................................................................................................................ 8-2
8.3 ACCURACY ............................................................................................................................... 8-3
8.4 RESULTS OF ROUTINE ANALYSES ............................................................................................. 8-5
8.5 COPPER ..................................................................................................................................... 8-9
8.6 MOLYBDENUM .......................................................................................................................... 8-10
8.7 GOLD ........................................................................................................................................ 8-12
8.7.1 OUTOKUMPU GOLD-ONLY RE-ASSAYS ............................................................................. 8-13
8.8 PRECISION ................................................................................................................................. 8-14
8.9 CONTAMINATION ...................................................................................................................... 8-29
8.10 EXTERNAL CHECK ASSAY ........................................................................................................ 8-30
8.11 ANALYTICAL METHODS ............................................................................................................ 8-31
8.12 COMPARISON OF CHECK ASSAYS AND ORIGINAL ASSAYS ........................................................ 8-31
8.13 QUALITY CONTROL................................................................................................................... 8-37
8.14 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 8-39
8.15 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 8-39
9. MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

9.1 DATABASE ................................................................................................................................ 9-1
9.2 DENSITY ................................................................................................................................... 9-4
9.3 RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 9-5
9.3.1 GEOLOGIC MODEL AND MINERAL DOMAINS ..................................................................... 9-5
9.3.1.1 LITHOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 9-5
9.3.1.2 COPPER ................................................................................................................... 9-6
9.3.1.3 MOLYBDENUM ........................................................................................................ 9-7
9.3.1.4 GOLD ...................................................................................................................... 9-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE iii
9.3.1.5 OTHER..................................................................................................................... 9-9

9.3.2 MODELING PROCEDURES ................................................................................................... 9-13
9.3.3 COMPOSITING .................................................................................................................... 9-17
9.4 ESTIMATION .............................................................................................................................. 9-20
9.5 RESOURCE ................................................................................................................................ 9-20
9.6 RESOURCE VALIDATION AND CHECKING .................................................................................. 9-34
9.7 QUALIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 9-35
10. METALLURGICAL TESTING

10.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.2 METALLURGICAL TESTWORK REVIEW...................................................................................... 10-1
10.2.1 SAMPLE SELECTION ........................................................................................................... 10-2
10.2.2 GRINDING AND ABRASION TESTS ...................................................................................... 10-2
10.2.2.1 SUPPLEMENTAL GRINDING TEST WORK ................................................................. 10-3
10.2.3 FLOTATION TESTS ............................................................................................................. 10-5
10.2.4 BOTTLE ROLL AND COLUMN TESTS ................................................................................... 10-7
11. MINING OPERATIONS

11.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................. 11-1
11.2 PIT DESIGN PARAMETERS ......................................................................................................... 11-2
11.3 ECONOMIC PARAMETERS .......................................................................................................... 11-2
11.4 ECONOMIC SENSITIVITIES ......................................................................................................... 11-4
11.5 DESIGNED PIT ........................................................................................................................... 11-6
11.6 PIT PHASES ............................................................................................................................... 11-7
11.7 WASTE ROCK DUMP ................................................................................................................. 11-7
11.8 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................... 11-7
11.8.1 MILL THROUGHPUT ........................................................................................................... 11-7
11.8.2 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 11-8
11.9 MINE EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................. 11-10
11.10 MINE PERSONNEL.................................................................................................................. 11-11
12. PROCESSING
12.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................. 12-1
12.2 PROCESS ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION ................................................................................ 12-1
12.3 PROCESS PLANT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 12-2
12.3.1 PRIMARY CRUSHING AND OVERLAND CONVEYING ........................................................... 12-2
12.3.2 SECONDARY CRUSHING ..................................................................................................... 12-3
12.3.3 TERTIARY CRUSHING ......................................................................................................... 12-3
12.3.4 FINE ORE STORAGE (F.O.S.).............................................................................................. 12-4
12.3.5 GRINDING .......................................................................................................................... 12-5
12.3.6 BULK FLOTATION .............................................................................................................. 12-6
12.3.7 MOLYBDENUM SEPARATION.............................................................................................. 12-7
12.3.8 CONCENTRATE DEWATERING ............................................................................................ 12-8
12.3.9 TAILING DEWATERING ...................................................................................................... 12-9
12.3.10 CONCENTRATE PIPELINE TO MEJILLONES ...................................................................... 12-9
12.3.11 PORT SITE PROCESS FACILITIES ..................................................................................... 12-10
12.3.12 PROCESS PLANT WATER ................................................................................................ 12-12
12.4 PROCESS PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................ 12-13
13. GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES

13.1 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS: PROGRAMS AND FINDINGS ................................................................. 13-1
13.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 13-2
13.2.1 TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY ................................................................................... 13-2
13.2.2 OPEN PIT............................................................................................................................ 13-3
13.2.3 WASTE ROCK DUMPS ........................................................................................................ 13-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE iv
14. TAILINGS AND WATER MANAGEMENT

14.1 DESIGN BASIS AND CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 14-1
14.2 TAILINGS CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................... 14-2
14.3 TMF DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 14-2
14.4 PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................ 14-4
14.5 PLANNED OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 14-7
14.6 CLOSURE................................................................................................................................... 14-8
15. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ANCILLARY SERVICES

15.1 SITE ACCESS ............................................................................................................................. 15-1
15.2 SITE LAYOUT AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES............................................................................... 15-1
15.3 POWER SUPPLY ......................................................................................................................... 15-1
15.4 WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................................................ 15-2
15.4.1 GROUNDWATER FROM DEWATERING SIERRA GORDA OPEN PIT ........................................ 15-3
15.4.1.1 LOCATION AND SETTING ......................................................................................... 15-3
15.4.1.2 QUANTITY AND QUALITY........................................................................................ 15-3
15.4.2 SWRO FROM MEJILLONES AND/OR MICHILLA .................................................................. 15-4
15.4.2.2 QUANTITY AND QUALITY........................................................................................ 15-6
15.4.3 DIRECT SEAWATER FROM MICHILLA ................................................................................. 15-6
15.4.3.2 PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................. 15-6
15.5 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL .......................................................................................................... 15-7
15.6 ANCILLARY FACILITIES ............................................................................................................ 15-7
15.6.1 ROADS ............................................................................................................................... 15-7
15.6.2 TRUCK SHOP COMPLEX ..................................................................................................... 15-7
15.6.3 ADMINISTRATION FACILITY............................................................................................... 15-7
15.6.4 CAMP ................................................................................................................................. 15-7
15.7 COMMUNICATIONS.................................................................................................................... 15-8
15.8 EXPLOSIVES STORAGE .............................................................................................................. 15-8
15.9 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 15-8
15.10 FIRE PROTECTION .................................................................................................................. 15-8
15.11 DUST CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 15-8
15.12 TRANSPORTATION AND SHIPPING .......................................................................................... 15-9
15.13 MOBILE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................................. 15-9
16. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

16.1 OVERVIEW OF CHILEAN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .................................. 16-1
16.2 PERMITTING PROCESS IN CHILE ................................................................................................ 16-1
16.2.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT .......................................................................................... 16-2
16.2.2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL-SECTORIAL PERMITS ..................................................................... 16-6
16.2.3 THE SECTORIAL PERMITS .................................................................................................. 16-7
16.3 EIA SCHEDULE ......................................................................................................................... 16-7
16.4 SITE CLOSURE AND REHABILITATION ....................................................................................... 16-8
16.4.1 CONCEPTUAL DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PROCESS ............................................... 16-8
16.4.2 CLOSURE COSTS ................................................................................................................ 16-11
17. CAPITAL COSTS

17.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................. 17-1
17.2 PROCESSING .............................................................................................................................. 17-1
17.3 MINING ..................................................................................................................................... 17-3
17.4 SITE G&A................................................................................................................................. 17-5
17.5 SUSTAINING CAPITAL ............................................................................................................... 17-6
18. OPERATING COSTS

18.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................. 18-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE v
18.2 PROCESSING .............................................................................................................................. 18-1

18.3 MINING ..................................................................................................................................... 18-3
18.4 SITE G&A................................................................................................................................. 18-4
19. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
20. INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
21. RECOMMENDATIONS
21.1 PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY .......................................................................................................... 21-1
21.2 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 21-1
21.3 METALLURGICAL ...................................................................................................................... 21-1
21.4 PERMITTING .............................................................................................................................. 21-2
21.5 LEGAL/LAND POSITION............................................................................................................. 21-2
21.6 RESOURCE ................................................................................................................................ 21-2
21.7 MINING ..................................................................................................................................... 21-4
21.8 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................. 21-4
22. REFERENCES
23. CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS
APPENDIX A: EXPLOITATION AND EXPLORATION CONCESSIONS
APPENDIX B: METALLURGICAL AND PROCESSING TESTWORK
APPENDIX C: PIT PHASES
APPENDIX D: EQUIPMENT LISTS AND MINE PERSONNEL
APPENDIX E: PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS
APPENDIX G: MINE OPERATING COSTS
APPENDIX H: PRODUCTION SCHEDULE AND CASH FLOW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE vi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1-1 SIERRA GORDA PROJECT LOCATION MAP .................................................................. 1-2
FIGURE 2-1 SIERRA GORDA PROJECT LOCATION MAP .................................................................. 2-2
FIGURE 4.1-1 SIERRA GORDA CONCESSIONS .................................................................................... 4-2
FIGURE 7.1-1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT .............................................. 7-2
FIGURE 7.1-2 GEOLOGY OF THE SIERRA GORDA DISTRICT ............................................................... 7-4
FIGURE 7.5-1 MAP OF SIERRA GORDA DRILL HOLES SHOWING OUTLINE OF 0.2 PERCENT
COPPER RESOURCE PROJECTED TO SURFACE ............................................................. 7-26
FIGURE 7.7-1 QUADRA RC SAMPLE SPLITTING AT THE DRILL RIG .................................................. 7-31
FIGURE 7.9-1 OUTOKUMPU SAMPLE PREPARATION PROCEDURE ..................................................... 7-34
FIGURE 7.10-1 SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR QUADRAS 2004 SAMPLES .............................................. 7-39
FIGURE 7.10-2 SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR QUADRAS 2005-2008 SAMPLES ..................................... 7-40
FIGURE 8.4-1 COLOUR CODED GRADE VS. SEQUENCE PLOT USED TO RESOLVE MISS-IDENTIFIED
STANDARDS ................................................................................................................ 8-7
FIGURE 8.4-2 Z-SCORE COPPER CHART ON AUGUST 14 WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF OUT OF
LIMIT ANALYSES DUE TO MISIDENTIFIED STANDARDS IN FIELD (TOP). THE LOWER
PLOT IS THE SAME DATA WITH THE SAMPLE IDENTIFIER ADJUSTED BASED ON MULTI-
ELEMENT ANALYSES. .................................................................................................. 8-8
FIGURE 8.4-3 SIGNIFICANT LABORATORY ANALYTICAL EVENTS ...................................................... 8-9

FIGURE 8.5-1 Z-SCORE CONTROL CHART - ALL COPPER STANDARDS ................................................ 8-10
FIGURE 8.6-1 Z-SCORE CONTROL CHART, ALL MOLYBDENUM STANDARDS ...................................... 8-11
FIGURE 8.6-2 SHEWHART CONTROL CHART - MOLYBDENUM ANALYSES OF IN-HOUSE STANDARD
CU-MO-AU-1 ............................................................................................................. 8-12
FIGURE 8.7-1 Z-SCORE CONTROL CHART - ALL GOLD STANDARD ANALYSES FROM 2008 DRILL
SAMPLES .................................................................................................................... 8-13
FIGURE 8.7-2 SHEWHART CONTROL CHART - GOLD ANALYSES FROM OUTOKUMPU PULPS ............... 8-14
FIGURE 8.8-1 RELATIVE DIFFERENCE PLOT OF QUARTER CORE COPPER DUPLICATES. THIS PLOT
INDICATES IF THERE IS ANY SIGNIFICANT BIAS BETWEEN THE QUARTER CORE
DUPLICATE AND THE HALF CORE ORIGINAL. THE BLUE CALIBRATION CURVE SETS
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RD% ON THE PRIMARY-AXIS, THE SEQUENTIAL
NUMBER OF THE DATA PAIRS PLOTTED ALONG THE X-AXIS, AND THE AVERAGE
GRADE OF DATA PAIRS PLOTTED ON THE SECONDARY Y-AXIS ..................................... 8-15
FIGURE 8.8-2 QUADRA DUPLICATE SAMPLE SCATTER PLOTS COPPER ............................................ 8-18
FIGURE 8.8-3 AAA DUPLICATE SAMPLE SCATTER PLOTS COPPER .................................................. 8-19
FIGURE 8.8-4 QUADRA DUPLICATE SAMPLE SCATTER PLOTS MOLYBDENUM ................................. 8-21
FIGURE 8.8-5 AAA DUPLICATE SAMPLE SCATTER PLOTS MOLYBDENUM ....................................... 8-22
FIGURE 8.8-6 QUADRA DUPLICATE SAMPLE SCATTER PLOTS GOLD................................................ 8-23
FIGURE 8.8-7 AAA DUPLICATE SAMPLE SCATTER PLOTS GOLD ..................................................... 8-24
FIGURE 8.8-8 PRECISION PLOT - ABSOLUTE RELATIVE DIFFERENCE VS. PERCENTILE (RANK)
COPPER. AS A REFERENCE THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION IS EXPRESSED AS A
PERCENT (CV(%))IS INDICATED ON THE RIGHT Y-AXIS.............................................. 8-26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE vii
MOLYBDENUM ............................................................................................................ 8-27
GOLD .......................................................................................................................... 8-28
FIGURE 8.9-1 FIELD BLANKS ANALYSED AS PART OF QUADRA'S EXTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL
PROGRAM.................................................................................................................... 8-30
FIGURE 8.12-1 COMPARISON PLOTS ALS CHEMEX VS. AAA EXTERNAL CHECK ANALYSES
COPPER ....................................................................................................................... 8-34
MOLYBDENUM ............................................................................................................ 8-35
GOLD .......................................................................................................................... 8-36
FIGURE 8.13-1 Z-SCORE CHART - ALL EXTERNAL CHECK STANDARDS COPPER............................. 8-37
FIGURE 8.13-2 Z-SCORE CHART - ALL EXTERNAL CHECK STANDARDS MOLYBDENUM ................. 8-38
FIGURE 8.13-3 Z-SCORE CHART - ALL EXTERNAL CHECK STANDARDS GOLD ................................ 8-38
FIGURE 9.1-1 DRILL-HOLE MAP ....................................................................................................... 9-3
FIGURE 9.3-1 ILLUSTRATION OF THE COPPER MODEL IN SECTION FOR CATALINA AND AREA 281 .. 9-10
FIGURE 9.3-2 ILLUSTRATION OF THE MOLYBDENUM MODEL IN SECTION FOR CATALINA
AND AREA 281............................................................................................................ 9-11
FIGURE 9.3-3 ILLUSTRATION OF THE GOLD MODEL IN SECTION FOR CATALINA AND AREA 281...... 9-12
FIGURE 9.5-1 ILLUSTRATION OF THE COPPER BLOCK MODEL GRADES IN SECTION FOR CATALINA . 9-31
FIGURE 9.5-2 ILLUSTRATION OF THE MOLYBDENUM BLOCK MODEL GRADES IN SECTION
FOR CATALINA............................................................................................................ 9-32
FIGURE 9.5-3 ILLUSTRATION OF THE GOLD BLOCK MODEL GRADES IN SECTION FOR CATALINA .... 9-33
FIGURE 10.2-1 SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING FOR GRINDING WORK INDEX .......................................... 10-4
FIGURE 10.2-2 GRADE-RECOVERY CURVE SHOWING OPTIMUM OPERATING POINT .......................... 10-6
FIGURE 10.2-3 LEACH EXTRACTIONS WITH COLUMN DEPTH ............................................................. 10-8
FIGURE 10.2-4 COPPER EXTRACTION USING DIFFERENT SOURCES OF WATER .................................. 10-9
FIGURE 11.4-1 MATERIALS WITHIN L-G PIT SHELLS .......................................................................... 11-4
FIGURE 11.4-2 RESULTS OF PIT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .................................................................... 11-6
FIGURE 12.3-1 CORRIDOR FOR MEJILLONES PIPELINE........................................................................ 12-11
FIGURE 15.4-12 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PACIFIC OCEAN FACILITIES .......................................... 15-5
FIGURE 16.2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS IN CHILE ....................................... 16-4
FIGURE 16.4-1 MINE CLOSURE SEQUENCE ......................................................................................... 16-9
FIGURE 17.2-1 PROCESSING CAPITAL COSTS ..................................................................................... 17-3
FIGURE 17.3-1 DISTRIBUTION OF INITIAL MINE CAPITAL COSTS ....................................................... 17-4
FIGURE 17.4-1 DISTRIBUTION OF G&A CAPITAL COSTS .................................................................... 17-6
FIGURE 18.2-1 PROCESSING OPERATING COSTS ................................................................................. 18-2
FIGURE 18.3-1 MINE OPERATING COSTS ............................................................................................ 18-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE viii
FIGURE 18.4-1 G&A OPERATING COSTS ............................................................................................ 18-5

FIGURE 19-1 EFFECTS OF COSTS AND METAL PRICES ON NPV ....................................................... 19-2
FIGURE 19-2 EFFECTS OF COSTS AND METAL PRICES ON IRR......................................................... 19-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.4-1 SUMMARY OF THE SIERRA GORDA COPPER, MOLYBDENUM AND GOLD RESOURCES . 1-6
TABLE 1.5-1 PIT DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 1-7
TABLE 1.5-2 MATERIALS INSIDE DESIGNED ULTIMATE PIT ............................................................ 1-7
TABLE 1.9-1 SIERRA GORDA LIFE-OF-MINE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE ............................................ 1-13
TABLE 1.10-1 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS .............................................................................................. 1-14
TABLE 1.10-2 SUSTAINING CAPITAL COSTS ...................................................................................... 1-15
TABLE 1.11-1 LIFE-OF-MINE OPERATING COSTS .............................................................................. 1-16
TABLE 1.12-1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS .................................................................................. 1-17
TABLE 6-1 HISTORY OF MINING AND EXPLORATION.................................................................... 6-1
TABLE 6.2-1 MINERAL RESOURCES OF OUTOKUMPUS CATALINA COPPER BLOCK MODEL
(FROM OUTOKUMPU, 1996B)...................................................................................... 6-6
TABLE 6.2-2 MINERAL RESOURCES OF OUTOKUMPUS CATALINA MOLYBDENUM BLOCK
MODEL (FROM OUTOKUMPU, 1996B)......................................................................... 6-6
TABLE 6.2-3 OUTOKUMPU OPEN PIT RESERVE ESTIMATE, 1996 (FROM OUTOKUMPU, 1996B) ...... 6-8
TABLE 6.2-4 MINTEC RESOURCE ESTIMATE 2001 (FROM MINTEC CHILE, 2001)............................ 6-9
TABLE 6.2-5 PARAMETERS OF MINTEC PRELIMINARY RESERVE ESTIMATE 2002 (FROM
MINTEC CHILE, 2002)................................................................................................. 6-11
TABLE 6.2-6 RESULT OF MINTEC PRELIMINARY RESERVE ESTIMATE 2002 (FROM MINTEC
CHILE, 2002) .............................................................................................................. 6-12
TABLE 6.2-7 MDA RESOURCE ESTIMATE 2005 (FROM RISTORCELLI AND RONNING, 2005)........... 6-13
TABLE 6.2-8 MDA RESOURCE ESTIMATE 2008 (FROM RISTORCELLI AND OTHERS, 2008) ............. 6-14
TABLE 7.1-1 APPROXIMATE VOLUME PERCENT MINERALOGY AND GROUNDMASS CONTENT
OF SIERRA GORDA INTRUSIVE ROCKS ........................................................................ 7-5
TABLE 7.5-1 SUMMARY OF DRILL HOLES BY DRILLING TYPE AND HOLES USED IN RESOURCE
ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................... 7-25
TABLE 7.6-1 DRILLING BY QUADRA AT SIERRA GORDA ................................................................. 7-29
TABLE 7.10-1 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN QUADRAS 2004 DRILLING CAMPAIGN .... 7-38
TABLE 7.10-2 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN QUADRAS 2005-2008 DRILLING
CAMPAIGN .................................................................................................................. 7-39
TABLE 7.11-1 SUMMARY OF MQES SAMPLE CERTIFICATE CHECKS ................................................. 7-42
TABLE 7.11-2 CHECKS OF ANALYSES IN THE DIGITAL DATABASE .................................................... 7-43
TABLE 7.11-3 SUMMARY OF MAIN DATABASE CHECKS, OCTOBER 2007.......................................... 7-45
TABLE 7.11-4 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL DATABASE CHECKS, OCTOBER 2007.......................... 7-45
TABLE 7.11-5 SUMMARY OF CHECKS AGAINST LUSTIG DATABASE .................................................. 7-46
TABLE 8.2-1 SAMPLING INCLUDED IN 2008 QC DATABASE ............................................................ 8-2
TABLE 8.2-2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF 2008 ROUTINE SAMPLES ............................................... 8-3
TABLE 8.3-1 STANDARDS USED DURING THE 2008 DRILL PROGRAM ............................................. 8-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE x
TABLE 8.4-1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF ROUTINE ANALYSES OF STANDARD REFERENCE

MATERIALS ................................................................................................................ 8-6
TABLE 8.8-1 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE SAMPLES ...................................................... 8-17
TABLE 8.8-2 PRECISION ERROR ESTIMATED AS CVAVR(%).......................................................... 8-29
TABLE 8.8-3 BEST AND ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF PRECISION ERRORS CVAVR(%) FOR
PORPHYRY CU-MO-AU DEPOSITS (ABZALOV, 2008) ................................................. 8-29
TABLE 8.12-1 STATISTICAL SUMMARY EXTERNAL CHECK ASSAYS ............................................... 8-32
TABLE 9.1-1 COUNT OF ASSAYS IN DATABASE ............................................................................... 9-4
TABLE 9.1-2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE SIERRA GORDA DATABASE .................................... 9-4
TABLE 9.2-1 GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF DENSITY CHECK SAMPLES ............................ 9-5
TABLE 9.3-1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY COPPER MINERAL DOMAIN SAMPLES ........................ 9-14
TABLE 9.3-2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY MOLYBDENUM MINERAL DOMAIN - SAMPLES .............. 9-15
TABLE 9.3-3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY GOLD MINERAL DOMAIN - SAMPLES ............................ 9-16
TABLE 9.3-4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY COPPER MINERAL DOMAIN COMPOSITES ................... 9-18
TABLE 9.3-5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY MOLYBDENUM MINERAL DOMAIN COMPOSITES ....... 9-19
TABLE 9.3-6 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY GOLD MINERAL DOMAIN COMPOSITES ...................... 9-19
TABLE 9.5-1 MEASURED COPPER, MOLYBDENUM AND GOLD RESOURCES FOR SIERRA
GORDA: SULFIDE ...................................................................................................... 9-24
TABLE 9.5-2 INDICATED COPPER, MOLYBDENUM AND GOLD RESOURCES FOR SIERRA
GORDA: SULFIDE ........................................................................................................ 9-25
TABLE 9.5-3 INFERRED COPPER, MOLYBDENUM AND GOLD RESOURCES FOR SIERRA
GORDA: SULFIDE ........................................................................................................ 9-26
TABLE 9.5-4 MEASURED COPPER, MOLYBDENUM AND GOLD RESOURCES FOR SIERRA
GORDA: OXIDE ........................................................................................................... 9-27
TABLE 9.5-5 INDICATED COPPER RESOURCES FOR SIERRA GORDA: OXIDE .................................... 9-28
TABLE 9.6-6 INFERRED COPPER RESOURCES FOR SIERRA GORDA: OXIDE ...................................... 9-29
TABLE 10.2-1 ORE HARDNESS PARAMETERS .................................................................................... 10-2
TABLE 10.2-2 HARDNESS AND GRINDING CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION OF RELEVANT PROJECTS ........ 10-3
TABLE 10.2-3 AVERAGE FEED GRADES AND LOCKED CYCLE TEST RESULTS (%) ............................ 10-6
TABLE 10.2-4 COLUMN TEST SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 10-8
TABLE 11.2-1 PIT DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 11-2
TABLE 11.3-1 ECONOMIC PARAMETERS............................................................................................ 11-3
TABLE 11.3-2 PROCESS RECOVERIES ................................................................................................ 11-3
TABLE 11.5-1 MATERIALS INSIDE DESIGNED ULTIMATE PIT ............................................................ 11-6
TABLE 11.8-1 MILL THROUGHPUT AND BWI VALUES ...................................................................... 11-8
TABLE 11.8-2 SIERRA GORDA LIFE-OF-MINE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE ............................................ 11-9
TABLE 11.9-1 MAJOR MINING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 11-10
TABLE 12.2-1 TRADE-OFF ECONOMICS FOR VARIOUS GRINDING CIRCUIT CONFIGURATIONS .......... 12-2
TABLE 15.4-1 SIERRA GORDA MINE WATER DEMAND1 .................................................................... 15-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE xi
TABLE 16.2-1 TIME SCHEDULE TO OBTAIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOLUTION OF A PROJECT

SUBMITTED TO THE EAS AS AN EIS IN CHILE............................................................. 16-5
TABLE 16.2-2 ENVIRONMENTAL-SECTORIAL PERMITS ENVISIONED FOR THE SGP
CONSTRUCTION PHASE................................................................................................ 16-6
TABLE 16.4-1 CONCEPTUAL DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PLAN AND REVEGETATION

MEASURES.................................................................................................................. 16-10
TABLE 17.1-1 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS .............................................................................................. 17-1
TABLE 17.2-1 PROCESSING CAPITAL COSTS ..................................................................................... 17-2
TABLE 17.3-1 INITIAL MINE CAPITAL COSTS .................................................................................... 17-4
TABLE 17.4-1 G&A CAPITAL COSTS ................................................................................................ 17-5
TABLE 17.5-1 SUSTAINING CAPITAL COSTS ...................................................................................... 17-7
TABLE 18.1-1 LIFE-OF-MINE OPERATING COSTS .............................................................................. 18-1
TABLE 18.2-1 PROCESSING OPERATING COSTS ................................................................................. 18-2
TABLE 18.2-2 CHANGES FROM AMINPRO OPERATING COSTS ........................................................... 18-3
TABLE 18.3-1 MINE OPERATING COSTS ............................................................................................ 18-3
TABLE 18.4-1 G&A OPERATING COSTS ............................................................................................ 18-4
TABLE 19-1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS .................................................................................. 19-1
TABLE 19-2 UNIT COSTS, LIFE OF MINE AND FIRST SEVEN YEARS ................................................ 19-1
TABLE 19-3 EFFECTS OF METALS PRICES ON NPV AND IRR ......................................................... 19-4
1. Executive Summary
1. Executive Summary
This document is a technical scoping study report on the Sierra Gorda project in the
Atacama Desert of Chile, owned by Quadra Mining Ltd. The Sierra Gorda property has
been explored by numerous companies who defined modest molybdenum and copper,
brecciacontrolled, stockwork mineralization. Quadra optioned the project in 2004, and
since that time has completed considerable exploration and development work. Quadras
plan upon acquiring the Project was to further evaluate and develop the established oxide
copper resource. However, it was recognized that there had been no drilling for an
underlying sulphide deposit and in 2006 a specific program was initiated, resulting in
drill-hole QSG06-281 intersecting a new zone of sulphide copper, molybdenum and gold
mineralization. This discovery led to a large exploration program that defined a very
substantially expanded resource. This study evaluates the larger resource.
There are four locally overlapping centers of mineralization: the 281 Zone (the new area),
Catalina, Salvadora, and the 285 or Isabela Zone. The mineralization is typical of
porphyry copper deposits in northern Chile, with large volumes of disseminated and
stockwork vein hosted copper mineralization in andesites and lesser intrusive rocks and a
smaller volume of breccia hosted material. The sulphides are overlain by about 150 m of
weathered rock containing low grade to locally moderate grade oxide copper. Supergene
enriched copper at the top of the sulphides is irregularly developed. The principal metal
is copper, occurring throughout the mineralized area, though molybdenum also occurs
dominantly at Catalina and Salvadora. Gold grades are low, but economically
significant. The next development phase is production of a pre-feasibility study.
For the purposes of this study, oxides are considered as waste. It is envisioned that the
oxide material could be placed such that it could be rehandled and processed subject to
further optimization studies.
1.1 General Description of Sierra Gorda Project
The Sierra Gorda property is located in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile, in the
District of Sierra Gorda, II Region of Antofagasta, Chile (Figure 1.1-1). The Atacama
Desert is one of the driest regions on earth. As such, there is no surface water in the
project area, and precipitation is extremely rare. The approximate geographic
coordinates of the center of the property are latitude 225050 South, longitude
692020 West. The project is located about 5 km by gravel road from the village of
1-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE 1-2
Figure 1.1-1: Sierra Gorda Project Location Map
Sierra Gorda at an elevation of approximately 1,700 m.a.s.l. The village is on a paved

highway and a railway line. The small city of Calama is located about 60 road km
northeast of Sierra Gorda.
The port city and railway terminus of Antofagasta is located about 140 km southwest of
Sierra Gorda on the Pacific Coast. The port at Antofagasta is equipped with cargo-
handling facilities for the import of equipment and cathode handling facilities for the
export of cathode. There are no concentrate handling facilities. The port of Mejillones
handles the import and export of sulphuric acid. Calama and Antofagasta both have
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
airports served by national airlines, with service to the main international airport at
Santiago de Chile, about 1,200 km to the south.
1.2 Geology of the Sierra Gorda District and Property
The Sierra Gorda mining district is in the extensive plain known as the intermediate
depression or the Intermediate Valley, situated between the Cordillera de la Costa to the
west and the Cordillera de los Andes to the east. The district lies close to the eastern
edge of the Intermediate Valley, near where it gives way to the pre-Cordillera. Three
distinct age belts of porphyry copper trend north-south between latitudes 20S and 27S.
The three belts are progressively younger from west to east: eastward: from Early
Cretaceous (about 130 Ma) in the west; through Paleocene (66-55Ma) in the central belt,
to early Oligocene (42-31 Ma) in the eastern belt. The central, Paleocene porphyry belt
corresponds approximately to the Intermediate Valley. Sierra Gorda is located in the
Paleocene. Within the overall northerly trend of the Paleocene porphyry belt, Sierra
Gorda lies in the center of a cluster of deposits and prospects on a northeasterly cross-
trend measuring one to three km wide by 13 km long. This cross trend includes the
Spence mine. Several other districts in Chile (e.g. Quebrada Blanca/Rosario/Ujina)
consist of porphyry copper deposits localized along cross-trends within the major north-
trending belts.
At Sierra Gorda, as well as at Spence (a BHP Billiton operation 7 km to the north that
produces 200,000 tonnes of copper per year), a sequence of early Cretaceous volcanic
rocks are intruded by a complex Paleocene granitic batholith and a series of related
smaller plutons. Extensive zones of hydrothermal alteration and local copper,
molybdenum and gold mineralization are associated with these plutons. All known
mineralization within the district appears to be related to porphyry copper hydrothermal
systems.
Recent drilling in the 281 Zone and other areas on the property has shown large volumes
of disseminated and vein-controlled copper-molybdenum-gold mineralization, which are
primarily hosted in andesitic volcanic rocks and, to a much lesser extent, in altered
porphyries or batholithic rocks. The mafic to intermediate wall rock host is similar to a
number of other major porphyry systems, including El Teniente and Esperanza and the
style of the mineralization is similar to both of those porphyry copper systems. The
mineralized breccias, long recognized in the Catalina and Salvadora zones and elsewhere
at Sierra Gorda, are only part of a larger, more complex porphyry copper hydrothermal
system. Drilling since 2005 has demonstrated clearly that the volume of porphyry-style
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
mineralization and alteration is considerably larger than the volume of breccia

mineralization. The hypogene deposit at Sierra Gorda is a porphyry copper-molybdenum
deposit, with a large volume of disseminated, stockwork and strong fracture or fault
controlled mineralization; and significant associated breccia hosted mineralization.
The deposits at Sierra Gorda contain three distinct types of mineralization including:
1. Hypogene Sulphide Mineralization forms the bulk of the known mineralization, both
in terms of volume as well as contained metal. Hypogene copper sulphides consist
dominantly of chalcopyrite, although bornite has been locally recognized as an accessory.
Chalcopyrite-mineralized rock exists from below the leached zone to the current limits of
drilling, more than 1,000 m below the surface. Hypogene molybdenite occurs in distinct
bodies at Catalina and Salvadora; elsewhere it is weak to absent. Gold typically
accompanies the copper.
2. The Leached/Oxide Zone is the product of in situ oxidation of the hypogene

sulphides. The leached zone extends from the surface to variable depths of up to 200 m
and is grouped into copper-rich zones and copper-leached or barren zones. Whether the
copper in the oxide zone was leached out of the rock or remained as copper oxides
depended considerably on local lithochemistry, primary sulphide content and mineralogy,
and hydrology, the latter in part controlled by structures. Over large areas, the leached
oxide zone still contains a significant portion of its original copper endowment.
Hypogene molybdenite is typically oxidized to ferrimolybdite, but the primary metal
distribution was apparently little affected by the oxidation.
3. The Supergene Copper Sulphide Zone is an irregular zone of secondary copper

sulphide enrichment, dominated by the mineral chalcocite. It has a variable thickness of
10 m to 150 m and generally occurs at the boundary between the oxidized zone and the
hypogene zone but can exist well down into the hypogene zone or some distance up into
the oxide zone.
1.3 Assay Quality Control
Quality control procedures at Sierra Gorda were initiated during the 2004 drill program
and have continued through to the current program. Quality control samples consisted of
one blank, one duplicate and one standard reference material in each group of 20
samples. In addition, approximately 5% of the sample pulps within zones geologically
logged as mineralized have been randomly selected for check assays at a second
laboratory.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The analytical results of the quality control samples have been continuously and
independently monitored throughout the programs, with a table of QC failures maintained
to document both the QC failures and the corrective action taken. All outstanding QC
issues have been resolved.
The primary analytical laboratories, Acme (2005) and Andes Analytical Assays (2006,
2007) are certified to ISO 9001:2000 and have quality control protocols compatible with
industry standards. External check assays have been performed at ALS Chemex, La
Serena, which is ISO17025.2005 accredited.
The quality control and check assays completed confirm that the 2008 Sierra Gorda assay
data meets or exceeds industry standards and is of sufficient quality to be used in
resource estimation.
1.4 Resource and Reserve Estimates
As Quadra has advanced the Sierra Gorda project, the perception of it has evolved from
two distinct smaller deposit areas to four areas, three of which have now been shown to
be contiguous, forming one very large deposit area, leaving one smaller, almost satellite-
like deposit. The larger deposit area is comprised of the three contiguous areas, Catalina,
the 281 Zone, and the 285 Zone, now collectively referred to as Isabela.
The cutoff grades used by MDA for resource reporting for Sierra Gorda are based on two
different copper equivalent grades, one in the oxide, where it is the same as the total
copper grade, and one in the sulphide.
Two cutoff grades are used because the oxide and sulphide mineralization will have
different processing and extraction costs. Copper is likely to be extracted from the oxide
material by heap leaching, as opposed to the more expensive milling and flotation
processing required for the sulphide material. The reported cutoff grades are 0.20% total
copper for the oxide and 0.30 % copper equivalent for the sulphide. As neither
molybdenum nor gold will be recovered in the oxidized material using the anticipated
acid heap-leach processing, no credit is given for the molybdenum or gold in oxides. The
oxide material is therefore tabulated only on the copper grade. Milling and flotation of
the sulphide mineralization on the other hand is expected to yield not only recoverable
copper, but also molybdenum and gold. As such, copper equivalent grades were
calculated for each model block for reporting and tabulation. In all cases, MDA
considered metal prices, metallurgical recoveries, mining methods and costs, and
economics to derive the reported cutoffs. Table 1.4-1 summarizes the Measured,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Indicated and Inferred resources for Cu, Mo and Au in both sulphide and oxide at Sierra
Gorda.
Table 1.4-1:
Summary of the Sierra Gorda Copper, Molybdenum and Gold Resources
Sulphide Measured
Cutoff Tonnes CuEq Cu Cu Cu Mo Mo Mo Au Au
CuEq% (%) (%) (tonnes) (lbs) % tonnes lbs (g/t) (ounces)
0.30 140,987,000 0.75 0.45 641,348 1,413,931,000 0.049 69,365 152,925,000 0.092 415,700
Sulphide Indicated
0.30 1,204,662,000 0.56 0.42 5,025,851 11,080,104,000 0.022 267,435 589,593,000 0.064 2,494,300
Sulphide Measured Plus Indicated

0.30 1,345,649,000 0.58 0.42 5,667,199 12,494,035,000 0.025 336,800 742,518,000 0.067 2,910,000
Sulphide Inferred
0.30 455,808,000 0.46 0.38 1,726,139 3,805,484,000 0.012 55,612 122,603,000 0.044 649,300
Oxide Measured
0.20 61,186,000 0.37 0.37 224,737 495,460,000 NA NA NA NA NA
Oxide Indicated
0.20 189,791,000 0.32 0.32 613,945 1,353,516,000 NA NA NA NA NA
Oxide Measured Plus Indicated

0.20 250,977,000 0.33 0.33 838,682 1,848,976,000 NA NA NA NA NA
Oxide Inferred
0.20 26,826,000 0.28 0.28 75,801 167,113,000 NA NA NA NA NA
The Sierra Gorda Project has a significant Measured and Indicated resource that can be
developed into a reserve with the completion of a pre-feasibility or feasibility study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.5 Mining
The Sierra Gorda deposit contains approximately 4 billion total tonnes of mineable
material in the designed pit, and will be mined using large scale open pit mining methods.
Modest grades, high production rates, and the ultimate pit size dictate the use of the
largest mining equipment currently available. Truck-shovel mining has been selected and
will utilize electric cable shovels, 340-tonne haul trucks, and electric production drills.
Pit design parameters used for the ultimate pit design as well as phase designs are listed
in Table 1.5-1.
Table 1.5-1:
Pit Design Parameters
Bench Height 16 meters
Road Width 38 meters
Road Grade 8%
Minimum Mining Width 150 meters
Face Slope Angles 70 Degrees
Inter-Ramp Angles 45 Degrees
Overall Slope Angle 40-42 Degrees
The ultimate size and shape of the pit were based on the $2.00/lb copper price L-G pit
shell. A summary of material within the pit is provided in Table 1.5-2.
Table 1.5-2:
Materials Inside Designed Ultimate Pit
Mill kt 989,331
Cu % 0.42
Mo % 0.027
Au g/t 0.069
Waste kt 2,497,095
Total kt 3,618,760
Strip Ratio 2.5
Note that the economic analysis set out in this report is based on mineral resources and
not mineral reserves.
The waste rock dump is designed to the criteria developed by Knight Piesold. The
maximum ultimate dump height is 120 m and face slopes are 1.5H:1V. The toe of the
dump is set back about 250 m from the ultimate pit rim to allow for possible future pit
expansion. Waste rock dump design and capacity are based on the final design
requirements for reclamation and contain sufficient volume to contain all of the waste in
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
the pit design at a swell factor of 1.3. The capacity of the dump is 1.3 billion cubic
meters or 2.6 billion tonnes at a specific gravity of 2.0. The size of the dump can be
readily increased in all directions except to the south where the pit and tailings facilities
are located.
1.6 Metallurgy and Processing
Quadra initiated a scoping level test campaign in 2008 to provide a basis for the design
criteria and process flow sheet development. The metallurgical test program was
developed by Aminpro/AME Ltda. and the test work was conducted at SGS-Lakefield
Santiago. Metallurgical test work on Sierra Gorda sulphide ores focused on establishing
a high level concept of ore hardness and a spectrum of the flotation and leaching
amenability of the ores. Key conclusions from the test program report are as follows.
1. The ore is unusually hard. The average SAG Power index is 180 minutes and the
average Bond work index is 18.1 kWh/tonne.
2. The flotation kinetics are fast.
3. For the given hardness and flotation kinetics, and using current equipment pricing
for milling equipment, the optimum grind size is approximately 175 microns.
The following grinding circuit configurations were evaluated during the course of several
trade-off studies:
SAG and ball mill circuit
Secondary cone crushing followed by tertiary HPGR crushing and ball milling
Secondary and tertiary cone crushing followed by ball milling
Crushing, rod milling and ball milling circuit
It was determined that a circuit consisting entirely of cone crushers for the secondary and
tertiary circuits and ball mills for the grinding circuit provided the most attractive
risk/reward combination and this circuit was identified for the final design. The nominal
throughput rate for the plant will be 111,000 tpd.
The flotation plant is designed to treat nominal and design head grades of 0.44% and
0.53% Copper and achieve corresponding recoveries of 87% and 89% while maintaining
concentrate grades at approximately 28% copper. Molybdenum head grades will be
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.03% with nominal and design recoveries of 64 and 70% respectively. For the design
case, the plant recoveries of copper and molybdenum are 88% and 74%, respectively
with the concentration copper grade of 28%. Design molybdenum recovery is 70% in the
bulk circuit and 90% in the molybdenum separation circuit for a total combined recovery
of 63%. Gold levels of 1.4 to 1.6 g/tonne are expected in the concentrate. The flotation
separation and associated process components include:
two Cu/Mo rougher rows of ten 250 m3 tank cells,
a regrind station with tower mills
two mechanical cleaner rows
three column cells for final cleaning
a moly separation, dewatering, and bagging circuit
tailings water reclaim thickeners
a tailings impoundment facility
Copper concentrate is to be piped 141 km to a port facility at Mejillones where it will be

thickened, filtered, and loaded on ships. The port facility and pipeline components
include:
A concentrate pipeline to the Mejillones port facility
A concentrate dewatering thickener
Plate and frame filters
Concentrate load-out facilities.
A port facility including concentrate dewatering, filtration, and load-out
All power, water and ancillary facilities
Metallurgical testwork performed on Sierra Gorda oxide ores was to determine the
amenability of the oxide ores to a leach process and to estimate their acid consumption.
Recovery of copper was determined to be rock type and grade dependent. Copper
recoveries on the higher grade green ore of 80% could be achieved utilizing a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
crush/agglomerate processing scheme. The acid consumption by the ore was determined
to be moderate in the 24 kg acid/kg ore range.
1.7 Tailings Management
The design basis and criteria for the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) are based on
the requirements of the Ministro de Mineria Diario Oficial de la Republica de Chile
Decreto Supremo (April 2007) and international standards for the design of dams
(Canadian Dam Association, International Commission on Large Dams, and the Mining
Association of Canada. Tailings generated from processing ore will be stored in the TMF.
Tailings management options were assessed prior to initiating the TMF design as follows:
An assessment of potential storage locations for tailings and waste rock was
completed. The preferred locations for the facilities were selected on the basis of
inspection and preliminary layouts.
Different tailings transport alternatives were assessed, including conventional

thickened (55% and 60% solids), ultra-thickened (65% solids), paste (70% solids) and
filtered tailings (85% solids). The thickened systems all have similar capital costs,
with filtering requiring a substantially higher investment. The 65% ultra-thickened
tailings system has the lowest annual operating cost based on the median cost for
make-up water and was analyzed for the scoping study.
Based on the tailings management options described above, the tailings stream will be
thickened to a solids content of approximately 65% prior to being pumped to the TMF.
This ultra-thickening of the tailings is primarily incorporated as a cost effective
mechanism for water recovery and conservation.
The capacity of the TMF is provided by confining embankments and the natural
topographic relief around the impoundment area. The embankment crests are sloped to
take advantage of the natural ground contours and the expected profiles of deposited
tailings solids (to minimize embankment fill requirements). The result is that the final
impoundment incorporates embankments along 3 sides and is also confined by the
hillside near the plant. The total tailings storage volume is approximately 735 million m3
(1.1 billion tonnes). The TMF can be expanded beyond this capacity however.
The tailings embankment construction sequence is designed so that the starter

embankments (Stages 1 and 2) will be built first and will provide up to 4 years of tailings
storage. The construction materials for the Stage 1 and 2 embankments will consist of
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
local overburden borrowed from within the tailings basin. These materials generally
comprise silty sand with trace gravel, as determined from the recent geotechnical
investigations. The larger north embankment and the expansions to the Stage 1 and 2
embankments will be constructed from mine waste rock during the initial 4-year (Stage 1
and 2) operating period. Ongoing embankment raises for the remainder of the operations
will be built using waste rock placed in different zones (of varying lift/layer thickness)
following the centerline construction method.
The tailings delivery pipeline will be a 650 mm nominal bore steel pipe with a wall
thickness of 12.7 mm to meet the flow and minimum operating velocity requirements.
The primary purpose for using steel instead of HDPE is pressure rating, cost and
wear/replacement needs. The tailings delivery pipeline will include off-takes (end-of-pipe
discharge points where the pipeline is disconnected) to allow direct discharge of tailings
into the facility from various points along the embankments.
Reclamation and closure of the TMF will follow the requirements of the Ministro de
Mineria, Diario Oficial de la Republica de Chile - Decreto Supremo (April 11, 2007).
The primary objective of the reclamation and closure activities will be to transform the
TMF area to its pre-mining usage well as manage any remaining impacts through a
program of post-closure care and maintenance. In this environment, and at this location,
the focus will be on stabilizing the exposed tailings surfaces and limiting dust generation
by selective placement of erosion resistant rockfill and establishing permanent surface
flow patterns to manage potential runoff from a storm event.
1.8 Infrastructure and Water Supply
Power for the Sierra Gorda Project will be generated by a new thermal power plant
located in the port of Mejillones. A 220 KV three phase power line capable of carrying
175 Megawatts of power will be installed from Mejillones to Sierra Gorda. An additional
tap line from this line to the port of Michilla to power the water supply pumps will also
be installed delivering 100 KV at 25 MW of three phase power.
Water supply for Sierra Gorda will be seawater extracted at the port facility of Michilla.
Seawater will be pumped utilizing multi-stage pumps. Transportation of seawater will be
via a 34' diameter lined (external/internal) steel pipe. Design capacity for the pump
station and pipeline is 818 L/s, which is sufficient for the entire project requirements.
Upstream terrestrial surface water and groundwater sources would probably represent
lower cost alternatives; however, the permitting for the use of these sources is typically a
longer process than comparable seawater applications.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.9 Production Schedule
The life of mine production schedule, as used to establish economics at the scoping study
level is shown in Table 1.9-1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1.9-1:
Sierra Gorda Life-of-Mine Production Schedule
Period Year-1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 TOTAL
Mill kt 31,300 39,900 40,500 40,900 40,500 40,500 39,800 41,200 42,000 40,200 41,200 41,200 40,500 40,900 39,100 40,200 40,500 40,500 41,200 41,600 41,600 41,600 42,000 40,900 19,531 989,331
Cu % 0.44 0.39 0.41 0.35 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.48 0.47 0.41 0.25 0.25 0.42
Mo % 0.029 0.048 0.042 0.055 0.051 0.057 0.055 0.046 0.016 0.030 0.029 0.040 0.024 0.022 0.007 0.010 0.011 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.015 0.019 0.016 0.009 0.009 0.027
Au g/t 0.026 0.035 0.043 0.076 0.073 0.067 0.063 0.070 0.085 0.092 0.077 0.070 0.067 0.079 0.097 0.081 0.056 0.067 0.073 0.080 0.080 0.084 0.080 0.036 0.036 0.069
to Stockpile kt 8,395 8,387 11,055 12,721 10,489 10,862 4,258 66,167
Cu % 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.25
Mo % 0.009 0.012 0.007 0.010 0.008 0.010 0.005 0.009
Au g/t 0.021 0.019 0.020 0.045 0.044 0.052 0.044 0.036
from Stockpile kt 5,736 40,900 19,531 66,167
Cu % 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Mo % 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
Au g/t 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
Waste kt 3,000 88,628 149,974 154,015 162,761 173,502 175,000 175,000 176,245 156,477 168,709 152,437 132,461 121,935 122,890 122,097 81,869 82,564 39,784 15,866 10,407 11,319 10,542 9,613 0 0 2,497,095
Total kt 3,000 128,323 198,261 205,570 216,382 214,002 215,500 214,800 217,445 208,966 219,771 193,637 173,661 162,435 163,790 161,197 126,327 123,064 80,284 57,066 52,007 52,919 52,142 57,349 81,800 39,062 3,618,760
Strip Ratio 2.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.5
Period Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 TOTAL
Payable Cu lbs Millions 245.7 268.6 292.6 245.9 248.8 265.0 284.4 302.7 317.0 287.3 294.4 294.4 361.2 356.8 333.4 342.8 345.4 415.3 414.8 411.1 371.0 362.9 317.0 176.9 84.5 7,639.9
Payable Mo lbs Millions 14.7 33.2 29.3 38.7 35.5 39.7 37.6 32.6 7.7 20.7 20.1 28.3 14.5 12.7 1.8 3.3 3.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 6.8 10.1 7.7 2.8 1.4 408.8
Payable Au ozs x1000 0.0 14.1 19.1 41.4 40.2 35.8 32.5 38.6 50.7 53.4 43.8 38.6 35.8 45.0 55.4 45.6 28.2 35.8 40.8 46.4 46.4 49.4 46.9 15.7 7.5 907.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.10 Capital Costs
Capital costs are derived from several sources depending on the area and available detail.
Mine equipment capital was obtained from vendor quotes for major equipment and some
support equipment. In situations where a current quote was unavailable, actual purchase
costs from other Quadra operations were used. Process equipment capital costs were
obtained from vendor quotes and engineering studies as appropriate. Construction
supplies, labor, and contingencies were estimated based on engineering studies. Where
these more detailed estimates are not available, costs were estimated based on experience
at Quadras operating mines or from data available for mines operating in Chile. No
escalation or inflation factors were applied and all costs are in 2009 US dollars. The total
capital costs for the project are summarized in Table 1.10-1.
Table 1.10-1:
Total Capital Costs
1
Area $ Millions $/lb. Cu
Process $ 1,072 $ 0.140
Mine $ 287 $ 0.038
G&A $ 302 $ 0.040
2
Total Capital $ 1,661 $ 0.218
1: total recovered copper
Sustaining capital is that capital spent after the plant starts operating and over the 25 year
mine life. Most of the sustaining capital at Sierra Gorda is in the mine and consists of the
purchase of new and replacement equipment. The Sierra Gorda sustaining capital is
summarized in Table 1.10-2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1.10-2:
Sustaining Capital Costs
1
Area $ Millions $/lb. Cu
New Haul Trucks $ 264 $ 0.035
Other New Mine Equipment $ 117 $ 0.015
Replacement Haul Trucks $ 54 $ 0.007
Other Replacment Mine Equip. $ 224 $ 0.029
Truck Shop $ 7 $ 0.001
Pit Power $ 2 $ -
Tank Farm $ 0.7 $ -
TMF $ 45 $ 0.006
Site Closure $ 20 $ 0.003
Total Sustaining Capital $ 734 $ 0.096
1: total recovered copper
1.11 Operating Costs
Operating costs for the project are estimated from a combination of sources. Vendor
estimates were obtained for consumables, labor, and supplies. Some equipment vendors
also supplied estimated unit operating costs based on their experience and history. For
areas where these more-detailed estimates are not available, Quadra estimated costs based
on experience at other operating mines. All operating costs were compared to costs at
Quadras operations. Wherever possible, Chilean quotes are obtained for costs and
supplies. No escalation or inflation factors were applied and all costs are in 2009 US
dollars.
Life-of-mine operating unit costs are shown in Table 1.11-1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1.11-1:
Life-of-Mine Operating Costs
On-Site Costs $/tonne
Process $/milled tonne $4.90
Mining $/milled tonne $3.31
G&A $/milled tonne $1.17
Total $/milled tonne $9.38
Mining $/total tonne $0.94
On-Site Costs $/lb Cu*

Process $0.63
Mining $0.43
G&A $0.15
Total $1.21
*total recovered copper
Off-Site Costs $/lb Cu*

Smelting & Refining $0.19
Concentrate Transport $0.07
Selling Charges $0.06
Total $0.32
Byproduct Credits $/lb Cu*

Molybdenum $0.64
Gold $0.10
Total $0.74
Total Net Costs $/lb Cu*

Total $0.79
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.12 Economic Analysis
An economic analysis of Sierra Gorda was developed using the parameters and costs
described above. A long-term copper price of US$2.00/lb, molybdenum price of
US$12.00/lb, and gold price of US$800/oz were used in the analysis. The measurements
chosen as gauges of Sierra Gorda economic viability are after tax net present value
(NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). The results of the analysis are shown in Table
1.12-1.
Table 1.12-1:
Economic Analysis Results
After Tax Results
Discount NPV MM$
Rate Millions $
0% $ 4,550
8% $ 983
10% $ 622
12% $ 355
IRR 16%
Years
Mine Life 25
Payback* 7.1
*Includes capital investment period, 3yrs
Contingency costs were estimated on a case by case basis. Where firm vender quotes
were available (i.e. mining and plant equipment), reduced contingencies were used. In
cases where quotes were not available or not as defined, a higher contingency estimate
was used.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.13 Recommendations
The results of the scoping study indicate positive economics for the project; the
project should proceed to a prefeasibility study, which should refine the economic
inputs, extend metallurgical testwork and develop a formal reserve.
The use of seawater from Michilla, while viable and dependable, carries high
capital and operating costs. Therefore, Quadra needs to investigate and pursue
other options for water supply for the project including supply of water from
elevations above the project. Other sources of water could include surface water
and groundwater. Issues are ownership and permitting for all such water sources.
Because molybdenum production impacts economics, predominantly during the

first ten years of the project, metallurgical testing is required to verify
molybdenum recoveries and concentrate grade.
Reinitiate the EIS process.
Continue land acquisition activities with a view to securing all surface rights
necessary for the project. Continue to resolve the lawsuits through the court and
arbitration system.
Further the resource definition for the project.
o The standard of certainty for feasibility studies and financing is that

roughly 60 percent of Measured plus Indicated resources should be in the
Measured category. Upgrading of portions of the Indicated resource to
Measured can be accomplished mostly by additional drilling. Conversion
of Inferred to Indicated will also require additional drilling.
o North side of the proposed pit: The limits of low grade copper
mineralization are poorly defined along the north side of the proposed pit,
with some indications that significant mineralization may be present.
Significant zones of higher grades in the area could drive a pit expansion
to the north and affect the current mine and dumping plan.
o Historic drill holes: There are several historic drill holes with significant
reported but unverified mineralization in them. While the data are
unverified, the drill holes have no nearby drill holes that either negate or
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
support these mineralized intervals. These reportedly mineralized drill

holes should be investigated further.
o Evaluate the oxide resource in more detail.
Review in-pit crushing and conveying possibilities with the idea of reducing
haulage costs.
Explore possibilities for reducing electric power costs.
Continue tradeoff studies to reduce capital and operating costs.
1.14 Project Major Assumptions and Summary Fact Sheet
Project Major Assumptions
Area Assumption
Water Source Seawater
Power Source Coal Fired (Mejillones)
Power Cost $0.10/kWh
Diesel Cost $0.47/liter
Contingency Variable (Area Specific)
Escalation Factor None
Copper Price $2.00/lb
Moly Price $12.00/lb
Oxide Leach None
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Fact Sheet
Area Fact
Mining Type Open Pit Operation-Truck Haulage
Process Type Conventional Crushing, Grinding & Flotation
Production Rate 111,000 tpd
Maximum Tonnage Design 120,000 tpd
Mine Life 25yrs
Crusher 3 Stage (Primary, Secondary and Tertiary)
Tailings Disposal Ultra-Thickened Paste to 65%
Tailings Management Facility Reclaim, drainage and seepage collection system
Water Source Seawater (Michilla)
Water Transport Pipeline (Michilla)
Concentrate Transport Pipeline (Sierra Gorda to Mejillones)
5-inch, HDPE lined, 141 km long
Total Employees 800
Camp Size 800 Person
Construction Camp Size 2000 Person
Power Consumption 150 MW
Water Consumption 760 L/s
Waste Dump Design 120 m maximum height/1.5-1 slope
Port Load-Out Storage Covered 40,000 tonnes
Ship Loader 40,000 tonne loads/1,200 t/h capacity
2. Introduction and
Terms of Reference
2. Introduction and Terms of Reference
This document is a technical scoping study report, prepared for the Sierra Gorda project,
owned by Quadra Mining Ltd. The Sierra Gorda property is located in the Atacama
Desert of northern Chile, approximately 140 km northeast of Antofagasta in the District
of Sierra Gorda, Province of Antofagasta, II Region of Antofagasta, and approximately
60 km southwest of Calama (Figure 2-1). The closest town to the project is Sierra Gorda,
approximately 5 km to the southwest of the project. The project is located at an elevation
of 1,700 m.a.s.l, and is a copper porphyry deposit where the main target is the primary
sulphide.
This report contains the results of the study and provides recommendations for additional
site investigations and actions to further advance the project. The scope considers an
open pit mining operation using a milling and flotation plant to process copper sulphides.
Key infrastructure items such as access, water, power supply, buildings, storage and other
facilities required during construction and operation have been included within the study.
Cost estimates have been made using benchmark comparisons and appropriate
assumptions.
Quadra acquired the project in 2004, and since that time has completed considerable
exploration and development work. In August 2005, and again in May 2008, Quadra
published Technical Reports in compliance with Canadas National Instrument 43-101
(Ristorcelli and Ronning, 2005 and Ristorcelli et. al., 2008, respectively). These reports
provided documentation of drilling, sampling, analytical, and QA/QC procedures as well
as geologic, mineralogical, and preliminary metallurgical studies that supported resource
estimates. These estimates and supporting Technical Reports were prepared by Mine
Development Associates (MDA) of Reno, Nevada; and are based on historic drilling as
well as a continually increasing percentage of Quadra drilling. MDA is also responsible
for the resource estimate provided in this report.
In 2004, Quadra acquired a large amount of historical data with the project and this
information has been compiled, verified, systematized and expanded with major
exploration programs every year since acquisition. All of this information has been
utilized in the preparation of the present updated resource estimate and report.
The resource estimate complies with the standards of the Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleums Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions
and Guidelines (CIM Standards). In comparison to the 2008 Technical Report, the
2-1
INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
present study contains more detailed geologic and mineralogical studies and increased
metallurgical data. The study also includes a preliminary economic analysis of the
recently expanded zones of sulfide mineralization and is the first to address permitting,
environmental baseline data, electrical power, water supply and regional infrastructure
for the project.
Figure 2-1: Sierra Gorda Project Location Map
The property is situated immediately southwest of the recently developed Spence Copper
Project, which is operated by BHP-Billiton (Figure 2-1). The Sierra Gorda property has a
history of exploration and mining that includes early prospecting for nitrates, later
prospecting for copper, small scale artisanal mining, industrial-scale mining in glory
holes and underground workings. Mines on the property produced copper and nitrates
from the 1800s into the 1980s; and the larger district has considerable current copper
production from the nearby Spence and Tesoro mines. During the 1990s, extensive
exploration of the Sierra Gorda property was carried out by Minera Outokumpu Chile
S.A. and Compaia Minera Rio Tinto. This work led to the definition of a modest
tonnage of molybdenum and copper mineralization on the property.
Initially, Quadras intentions upon acquiring the project were to further evaluate and
develop the known low grade oxide copper resource. However, in 2006, drill-hole
QSG06-281 intersected a new zone of sulfide copper, molybdenum and gold
mineralization. This discovery led to a large exploration program that defined the
substantially expanded resource reported herein.
There are four locally overlapping centers of mineralization: the 281 Zone (the new area),
Catalina, Salvadora, and the 285 or Isabela Zone. The mineralization is typical of
porphyry copper deposits in northern Chile, with large volumes of disseminated and
stockwork vein hosted copper mineralization in andesites and lesser intrusive rocks and a
smaller volume of breccia hosted material. The sulfides are overlain by about 150 m of
weathered rock containing low grade to locally moderate grade oxide copper. The
oxidized rock also locally contains molybdenum and gold, which are not reported due to
the lack of a suitable extraction procedure. Supergene enriched copper at the top of the
sulfides is irregularly developed. The principal metal is copper, occurring throughout the
mineralized area, though molybdenum also occurs dominantly at Catalina and Salvadora.
Gold grades are low, but economically important. The project has just entered into a
phase of exploration and development aimed at producing a pre-feasibility study.
The present state of knowledge of Sierra Gorda reflects the cumulative work of many
individuals. While authors of specific chapters and sections of this report are
responsible for the conclusions contained herein, the following individuals have made
additional direct contributions, through providing information and text, and indirectly
through the results of their work in the noted areas: Jack Currie, Quadras Project
Manager: Geology, Mineralization, Land, Drilling and QA/QC support,
Jorge Maya, Quadras Chief Geologist of the Sierra Gorda Project: Geology
Alteration and Structure,
Jaime Diaz, Quadras Senior Geologist of the Sierra Gorda Project: Geology,
Scott Manske, Geological Consultant, Geology, Mineralization, Alteration and

Structure, and
Steve Shaver, Geological Consultant, Geology, Mineralization and Structure.
2.1 Definitions
Acronyms and abbreviations commonly used in this report are presented in the following
section. Both imperial and metric units are used in this report depending on the source of
the data referenced. The units used are identified in the text of this report but this may
not apply to secondary documents and/or references quoted in this report
Note that the term "ore" as used in this report refers to material that is intended to be
processed, as opposed to waste material, and is not intended to convey that the economic
viability of such material has been determined.
2.1.1 Frequently Used Acronyms and Abbreviations

3D three dimensional
40
Ar/39Ar Argon radiometric date
AAA Andes Analytical Assays Ltda.
AAS atomic absorption spectrometry
ALS ALS Chemex Analytical Laboratory
AND andeisite
approx. approximately
ARD absolute relative difference
ASCu acid soluble copper
Au gold
AuC capped gold grade
B boron
BWI Bond work index
BXH hydrothermal breccia
BXI intrusion breccia
BXT tourmaline breccia
capex capital expenditures
CCP Conceptual Closure Plan
CDA Canadian Dam Association
CIM Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
CIMM Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Cl chloride
cm centimeters
cm/s centimeter per second
CO2 carbon dioxide
CONAMA Comisin Nacionel del Medio Ambiente (Chile) (national environmental

authority)
COREMA regional environmental authority
Cu Sol. soluble copper
Cu copper
CuEq copper equivalent
CuS soluble copper
CuT Total copper
CuTC capped total copper grade
CV coefficient of variation
CVavr average coefficient of variation
DCS distributed control system
DDH diamond drill hole
DGA Direccin General de Aguas
DGV Road General Direction
DIA Declaracin de Impacto Ambiental
DIRECTEMAR General Direction of the Marine Territory and Commercial Navy
EAS environmental assessment system
EIA environmental impact assessment
EIS environmental impact study
EqCu copper equivalents=
FCP Final Closure Plan
FOS fine ore storage
Freq. frequency
G&A General and Administrative
g Au/t grams gold per tonne
G(GN) granite
g/t grams per tonne
gpm gallons per minute
ha hectare
HARD half absolute relative difference
HCO3 bicarbonate
HDPE high density polyethylene
HPGR high pressure grinding rolls
ICOLD International Commission on Large Dams
ICP inductively coupled plasma
ID3 inversed disturbance cubed
IP induced polarization
IRR internal rate of return
ISO International Organization for Standardization
JORC Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee
km kilometer
km2 square kilometer
kPa kilopascal
kt kilotonne
kV kilovolt
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt hour
L/s litre per second
lb pound
lbs pounds
LCL lower control limit
L-G Lerchs-Grossmann
LWL lower warning limit
M million
m meter
m.a.s.l. meters above sea level
m3 cubic meters
Ma millions of years ago
MAC Mining Association of Canada
MD monzodiorite
MDA Mine Development Associates
MG monzogranite
mg/L milligrams per litre
MGD million gallons per day
MIBC methylisobutyl carbinol
MillTon million tonnes
Mintype mineral type
mm millimeters
Mo molybdenum
MoC capped molybdenum grade
MQes Mine Quarry Engineering Services
MW megawatt
Na sodium
NaCl sodium chloride
NaHS sodium bisulfide
NE northeast
NI 43-101 National Instrument 43-101 -/Standards of Disclosure for Mineral
Projects/
NNE north-northeast
No. number
NPV net present value
o
C degrees celsius
opex operating expenditures
oz ounce
ozs ounces
P80 optimum grind
PAS environmental-sectorial permits
PF feldspar porphyry
PFD process flow diagram
PG granodiorite porphyry
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million

PSI pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride plastic
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QC quality control
QLT sequential copper leach
QP qualified person
RC reverse circulation
RCA environmental permit
RDH rotary drill hole
Re/Os Rehnium-Osmium radiometric age
RMA reduced major axis
RO reverse osmosis
RQD rock quality designation
S.A. South America
SABC semiautogenous-ball-crusher
SAG semiautogenous grinding
SCPD sulfide chalcopyrite dominant ore
SDI silt density index
SEC Secretary of Electricity and Combustibles
SEIA environmental impact evaluation system
SEREMI Regional Ministry Secretary (Chile)
SERNAGEOMIN National Geological and Mining Service (Chile)
SEZ supergene enriched zone
SG Sierra Gorda
SG syenogranite
SPI SAG power index
SPPD sulfide pyrite dominant ore
std standard
Std.dev. standard deviation
SWRO seawater reverse osmosis
SX/EW solvent extraction and electrowinning
TCu total copper
TDS total dissolved solids
T-H Thompson Howarth
TMF tailings management facility
TMF tailings management facility
tpd tonnes per day
tph tonnes per hour
UCL upper control limit
UST unidirectional solidification textures
UTM universal transverse mercator
UWL upper warning limit
vol. volume
WMC Water Management Consultants
WNW west-northwest
wt.% weight percent

standard deviation
3. Reliance on Other Experts
3. Reliance On Other Experts
This report is provided for the development and presentation of data with
recommendations to allow Quadra to make informed decisions regarding the Sierra
Gorda project. The report contains the professional opinions of the contributors and
those of other consultants, based on information available at the time of preparation.
Quadra provided the text and information regarding the status of mining rights of the
Sierra Gorda project. The information provided to Quadra was compiled by, researched
by, and approved by its Chilean legal counsel, and Quadra has relied on such counsels
assessment of the validity of mining rights. The documentation provided to Quadra is
referenced or included in this report. All of the information in Chapter 4 has been
provided to Quadra by its legal counsel. The authors of this report are not qualified to
assess the validity of the information in Chapter 4 and therefore the authors present the
information with no opinion.
In parts of this report, references are made to matters of Chilean mining and/or
environmental law. The authors are not legal professionals and therefore readers
requiring assurance on matters of law should consult qualified experts.
Information provided in this report regarding permitting has been supplied to Quadra by
its Chilean legal counsel and environmental consultants. The authors are not qualified to
assess the validity of any of this information and present it with no opinion. Since this
report references environmental matters, readers requiring assurance on environmental
matters should consult qualified experts.
In regards to the resource estimate, Mine Development Associates (MDA) has relied
almost entirely on data and information derived from work done by Quadra, much of it
verified by independent sampling experts, and its predecessor operators of the Sierra
Gorda project, which also has had recent verification. MDA has reviewed the available
data and made site visits and has made judgments about the general reliability of the
underlying data. Where deemed either inadequate or unreliable, the data were either
eliminated from use or procedures were modified to account for lack of confidence in that
specific information. If materiality was uncertain with respect to underlying data quality,
recommendations were made to modify that datas use.
In regards to other sections of the report, the authors of this report relied on the
following consultants:
Ken Embree, Consultant-Knight Piesold: Geotechnical, and Tailings

Design/Management support,
3-1
RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
Ken Brouwer, Consultant-Knight Piesold: Geotechnical and Pit Wall Stability

support,
Roger Amelunxen, Consultant-Amipro: Process Design and Metallurgy

support,
Peter Amelunxen, Consultant-Amipro: Process Design and Metallurgy support,
Mike Geddis, Consultant-Water Management Consultants: Water Supply

support, and
John Currie, Sierra Gorda Project Manager, Quadra Mining Ltd.: Section 7 -
Information on Geology as well as Drilling, Sampling Methods and Approach,
Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security, and Data Verification; and
Gary N. Lustig, (M.Sc., P. Geo.) of G.N. Lustig Consulting Ltd., Kamloops,

British Columbia, Canada: Section 8 Assay Quality Control
4. Property Description
and Location
4. Property Description and Location
The information in this chapter has been provided by Quadras Chilean legal counsel.
The authors are not experts in legal or land issues in Chile and are not qualified to offer
an opinion on this information. The information in this section is presented as required by
NI 43-101 with no opinion expressed or implied as to the specific content.
Environmental issues and permitting are discussed in Chapter 16 of this report.
The Sierra Gorda property is located in Region II (formally II Regin de Antofagasta) in
the Atacama Desert of northern Chile (Figure 4.1-1). The approximate geographic
coordinates of the center of the property are latitude 225050 South, longitude
692020 West.
Quadras holdings consist of 3 types of properties: exploitation concessions, exploration
concessions, and provisional surface rights (Figure 4.1-1). Quadra acquired most of the
exploitation concessions in 2008, by exercising the right to purchase the properties which
were granted in option agreements executed in January and February of 2004. In 2008
Quadra applied for 22 exploration concessions, overlapping the exploitation concessions,
to cover any gaps that may exist in the property position in between existing concessions,
which are still in process of been finalized according to the Chilean Mining Code.
Lastly, in 2008 Quadra applied for and has received provisional surface rights,
(Servidumbres) independent of underlying mineral rights, sufficient to cover the project
infrastructure outside the area of the mineral resource.
The approximate total area contained within the perimeter of the block of exploitation
concessions is about 3.3 km2, in addition to which the area of provisional surface rights is
approximately 13.8 km2 for a total of 17.1 km2 controlled by Quadra. Note that because
some of the concessions overlap each other the total area is less than the sum of the areas
of the individual concessions.
Quadra's exploration concessions, in some cases, also overlap concessions belonging to
other companies and individuals that lie adjacent to Quadras property position. The
adjacent concessions, not controlled by Quadra, are not shown on Figure 4.1-1.
4-1
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Additionally there is a program to option additional mineral rights. At June 30, 2009
outstanding option payments were as follows:
OUTSTANDING OPTION PAYMENTS
Year Amount
2009 $650K
2010 $1.8M
2011 $1.1M
2012 $325K
The Company was originally served with four lawsuits that were filed in Chilean courts
against the Companys wholly-owned Chilean subsidiary, Minera Quadra Chile
Limitada. The lawsuits were filed on August 13, 2007, April 2, 2008, June 20, 2008 and
July 10, 2008. Based on advice of Chilean counsel, Quadra believes that the option
agreements are valid and that the legal claims are without merit. The company settled
one of the lawsuits for a non-material sum on June 9th 2009.
The remaining plaintiffs are minority shareholders in the sociedades legales mineras
(SLMs) or legal mining companies that owned certain of the mining tenements that were
optioned to Quadra in 2004. In two of the cases, the plaintiffs are requesting that the
option agreements to purchase the mining tenements be declared null and void. The
plaintiffs in these cases are claiming that the SLMs did not properly authorize the sale of
the mining tenements. In the third case, the plaintiffs argue that if either of the first two
cases are successful, then further option agreements are invalid by virtue of the fact that
the option agreements were intended to be exercised in either all or none of the cases.
The first two remaining lawsuits relate to two of the ten option agreements that the
Company entered into with respect to its Sierra Gorda mineral property. Although
Quadra believes that the option agreements are valid and that the legal claims are without
merit, the outcome is uncertain. The proceedings are subject to the procedural and
substantive laws of Chile, and the allegations are based on the actions of the optioners, in
respect of which Quadra has no direct knowledge. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against these claims. However there is no assurance that it will be successful in its
defense.
4.1 Adjacent Properties

As noted earlier in this report, Sierra Gorda is situated in the central, Paleocene porphyry
belt that corresponds approximately to the Intermediate Valley in the Atacama region of
northern Chile. A number of large deposits and mines exist in the region.
In the immediate vicinity of Quadras Sierra Gorda property, a number of other copper
prospects exist. They are probably geologically similar to the prospects on the Sierra
Gorda property but are less advanced in terms of exploration. Quadra has not
investigated these other prospects, and it is unclear to what extent the available
information is in the public domain. Specifics of such nearby prospects are not discussed
here, with the exception of the Spence deposit. The presence of other prospects does
indicate that Sierra Gorda is part of an important mineralized district.
4.1.1 Spence Deposit

The nearest copper deposit to Sierra Gorda that has a demonstrated, economic mineral
reserve is BHP Billitons Spence deposit, about 10km to the northeast of Quadras Sierra
Gorda project. According to a March 25, 2007 press release on BHP Billitons website,
production began at Spence in December 2006. A brief description is provided for local
context however readers are cautioned that Quadra has not verified any information
concerning Spence. Quadra has no beneficial interest in the Spence deposit and
information about the Spence deposit is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization or
any other aspect of the Sierra Gorda project.
This information about the Spence deposit is derived from the electronic documents
Spence Briefing, dated October 2004 (listed on the website as Spence Briefing with a
date of 25 October 2006), and Spence, Project to Operations; Analyst Visit, dated
March 19, 2007 (listed on the website as Spence Presentation with a date of 20 March
2007), which were available on the internet site www.bhpbilliton.com in April 2008.
The Spence deposit is a porphyry copper deposit of Upper Paleocene age. Before
development commenced, it was completely covered by gravels and alluvium. The
identified mineral resource in the deposit is comprised of both copper oxide and copper
sulfide mineralization. Molybdenum appears to be more important at Sierra Gorda than
at Spence.
Spence has been developed as an open pit mine with a 50,000 tpd crushing plant. Copper
is recovered from the oxide and sulfide ores using leaching, solvent extraction and
electrowinning technology. The nominal capacity of the electrowinning plant is 200,000
tonnes of copper cathode per year.
The existence of the Spence deposit demonstrates the important point that Sierra Gorda is
in a mineralized district that contains at least one large, economically viable copper
deposit.
5. Accessibility, Climate, Local
Resources and Infrastructure
5. Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources,
and Infrastructure
The Sierra Gorda property is located in the Atacama Desert, II Region of Antofagasta,
Chile. The project is about 5 km by gravel road from the village of Sierra Gorda. The
village is on a paved highway and a railway line. The small city of Calama is located
about 60 road kilometers northeast of Sierra Gorda. This city serves as a local supply and
service center for several mining operations. The port city and railway terminus of
Antofagasta is located about 140 km southwest of Sierra Gorda on the Pacific Coast. The
port at Antofagasta is equipped with cargo-handling facilities for the import of equipment
and cathode handling facilities for the export of cathode. There are no concentrate
handling facilities. The port of Mejillones handles the import and export of sulphuric
acid. Calama and Antofagasta both have airports served by national airlines, with service
to the main international airport at Santiago de Chile, about 1,200 km to the south.
The Atacama Desert is one of the driest regions on earth. As such, there is no surface
water in the project area, and precipitation is extremely rare. Temperatures at the site
range from a minimum of 0C in Austral winter (e.g. June to August) to a high of about
33C in Austral summer (e.g. December to February), as reported from an on-site weather
station located within the project study area and another located in the town of Sierra
Gorda.
The terrain is a level plain, studded by low hills. Elevations range from about 1,650 m to
approximately 1,750 m. Natural exposures of bedrock are few and vegetation is
essentially absent.
Given the extremely arid conditions at site, water supply is an important consideration for
project development. Water sources for the project can be divided into two categories:
terrestrial and oceanic. The oceanic supplies are essentially unlimited, and the flow rate
depends primarily on the infrastructure developed to obtain them.
Based upon a recent process water requirement estimate, 760 L/s (nominal) would be
required for an 111,000 tonne per day (tpd) leaching and milling operation.
Construction and operating supplies will most likely come from, or through, Antofagasta.
Some specific supplies will be sourced from Calama. Most of the equipment required for
the project will originate outside of Chile. Labor for the project will predominately come
from the Antofagasta area, however, it is expected that labor will also be selected
throughout Chile.
5-1
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Initial construction power will be provided by generators. Grid power may be available
for construction purposes within 1 year. Delivery of permanent power will come from
Mejillones and is expected to be on line within 3 years of start of construction. This
timeframe can be expedited depending upon the supplier.
6. Exploration and Resource
History
6. Exploration and Resource History
6.1 History of Exploration
The history of exploration and mining at Sierra Gorda is summarized in Table 6.1-1.
Table 6.1-1:
History of Mining and Exploration
Period Description
Late 19th century Small-scale exploitation of high-grade oxidized copper mineralization

1874 First railway commences operation.
End of WW I Mining ceased as a result of decreased demand for copper.
early 1900s Evaporite nitrate deposits were extensively mined in the Pampa Lina area.
1930 1950 Small leaching plants were built near the Salvadora and Catalina deposits.
1955 Anomalous radiation was detected in the area. In later years this was investigated by
the US Atomic Energy Commission with the Chilean government.
1957 Empresa Minera de Mantos Blancos S.A. drilled two holes in the Salvadora area,
intersecting sulfide copper mineralization.
1962 Latin American Mines of Toronto, with NISHO of Japan, had an option over the
area. That option was transferred to Mitsubishi in 1963. In 1964 Mitsubishi did
trenching, sank some shafts, and did geochemical work. Nusbaum (1970) stated that
Japanese interests sampled the Catalina-Santiaguina area with pits 1 m deep on a
grid with 10 m spacing.
1966 ITT Geophysical Inc. had an option over most of what is now the Sierra Gorda
property. ITT did geological, geochemical, and geophysical surveys, the latter
including magnetics and induced polarization (IP). The IP survey was considered
inconclusive due to poor ground contact (Nusbaum, 1970). ITT drilled 2,521.5 m in
61 holes. Most of their drilling consisted of short rotary drill holes, but ITT drilled
seven core holes in the Catalina area (Nusbaum, 1970).
pre-1968 Nusbaum (1970), reporting on behalf of CIMA Mines, described seven localities that
had experienced small-scale mining in the past: Salvadora, San Armando North, San
Armando South, Angelita, Etna, Catalina and Santiaguina. Each locality was said to
contain numerous open cuts, pits and shafts, varying in size from mere potholes to
a shaft over 100 m deep at the Catalina mine.
1968 CIMA Mines Ltd., a subsidiary of Atlas Exploration Ltd., with private Chilean
partners, held an option over most of the properties in the area. This group did
geological mapping, sampling, a radiometric survey, attempted some bulldozer
trenching, and did 9,706 m of drilling. This led to the identification of the
mineralized body at Salvadora.
1970s The properties covering the Catalina-Santiaguina area were acquired by ENAMI,
who leased them to Compaia Eulogio Gordo. This company developed and
exploited the Los Caballos, Sulfato Peta, and Etna pits. They operated a leaching
plant close to the village of Sierra Gorda.
6-1
EXPLORATION AND RESOURCE HISTORY
Table 6.1-1:
History of Mining and Exploration (continued)
1980 1984 Several international companies performed preliminary studies of the district.
1981-1992 Compaia Minera Catalina purchased the properties from ENAMI and mined
underground, producing between 3,000 and 6,000 tons of ore per month grading
between 2% and 3% copper.
1982 1984 Minera Chevron Chile had an option over most of the properties of the area. They
performed extensive geological, geochemical, and geophysical surveys and drilled
nearly 20,000 m in 601 holes. The majority of the Chevron holes were on ground
that is not part of the present Sierra Gorda land package.
1991 - 1996 Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A. optioned most of the properties that now comprise
the project. They did systematic exploration of the area, including geological,
geophysical, geochemical, mineralogical, and metallurgical studies. They drilled
63,738.8 m in 226 holes and did 1,365 m of underground exploration in drifts,
starting from the old Catalina underground workings. In 1996, Outokumpu
produced a pre-feasibility study, using prices of US$1.00/lb Cu and US$4.00/lb
Mo. The pre-feasibility study recommended proceeding to feasibility.
Exploration by Outokumpu is described in greater detail later in this section.
1997 Compaia Minera Rio Tinto optioned some of the properties that now comprise
the Sierra Gorda property. They did not have the core Catalina and Salvadora
properties. Rio Tinto drilled approximately 50 reverse circulation holes
amounting to about 14,150 m.
2000 Placer Dome Inc. acquired a package of properties, including Catalina, from
Outokumpu. Andes Pacific Development S.A. (Andes Pacific), a Chilean
company, purchased the Catalina project from Placer. Andes Pacific also
acquired rights to some adjacent properties and began referring to the project as
Catalina Expandida. Andes Pacific contracted a new resource estimate, put
together a sales package, and put the project on the market.
2004 Quadra acquired options covering the Sierra Gorda property
6.1.1 Exploration by Outokumpu

The extensive exploration conducted by Outokumpu from 1991 to 1996 was systematic
and resulted in the production of a pre-feasibility study in 1996. The results of the
exploration work led to a much greater understanding of the deposits and it is this work
which has been built on by Quadra. This subsection presents a summary of Outokumpus
exploration activities that is, for the most part, copied from the undated Confidential
Investment Memorandum prepared by Andes Pacific Development S.A. with deviations
from this information noted where they occur.
Starting in November 1991, Outokumpu performed exploration programs focusing

mainly on the Catalina, Salvadora, and Isabela areas. The work included:
Geological Mapping:
District: Surface 8 x 7 km Scale 1:10,000
Catalina: Surface 1.2 x 1.5 km Scale 1:1,000
Underground 1,000 m Scale 1:500
Salvadora: Surface 1 x 0.8 km Scale 1:1,000
Underground 350 m Scale 1:500
Isabel: Surface 1.2 x 0.8 km Scale 1:1,000
Geophysical Surveys:
Catalina: Magnetic survey 34 lines 76.5 km (3.5 x 3.5 km)
Catalina: E.M. Gefinex 400S 18 lines 11.2 km (2.2 x 0.9 km)
Catalina: Mise-a-la-Masse A down-hole electromagnetic survey was tried in
1994 (Hattula, 1994). It demonstrated that the
technique could help to discern the dimensions of
mineralized bodies, but at the time it was done, too
few drill holes were accessible for the survey to add
significant new information.
Sampling and Chemical Analysis:
Sampling in Mineralized Zones:

Catalina: Surface - 50 samples; Analysis: Cu-Mo;
Underground - 200 samples; Analysis: Cu-Mo.
Salvadora: Surface - 20 samples; Analysis: Cu-Mo;
Underground - 50 samples: Analysis: Cu-Mo.
Geochemical Sampling:
Catalina: Surface - 630 samples; Analysis: Cu-Mo.
Drill Hole Sampling:

Catalina: 37,549 samples; Analysis: 37,549 CuT
14,320 Cu Sol.
20,688 Mo
2,397 Au
Salvadora: 11,875 samples; Analysis: 11,875 CuT

4,815 Cu Sol.
3,552 Mo
572 Au
Isabel: 4,943 samples; Analysis: 4,943 CuT

985 Cu Sol.
1,024 Mo
88 Au
Drilling:
Catalina: 169 drill holes 19,526 m RDH
27,313 m DDH
46,839 m Total
Salvadora: 36 drill holes 6,593 m RDH

5,347.9 m DDH
11,940.9 m Total
Isabel: 21 drill holes 3,955 m RDH

1,003.9 m DDH
4,958.9 m
TOTAL: 226 drill holes 63,738.8 m
Tunnel excavation: 1,365m
Petrographical, Mineralogical and Other Studies:
35 rock samples, for studies in thin section, by Paula Cornejo
29 sulfide ore samples, for mineralogical studies in polished section, by CIMM
19 oxidized and 31 sulfide ore samples for mineralogical studies by the

Geoanalytical Laboratory of Outokumpu (Finland).
61 ore samples (including oxides, supergene sulfides and primary sulfides) for
studies at the Geoanalytical Laboratory of Outokumpu (Finland).
Diverse Metallurgical Laboratory Tests, for the study of the metallurgical

characteristics of the oxide and sulfide mineralization in the Catalina deposit.
6.2 History of Resource Estimates
6.2.1 Outokumpu Estimate of 1996

In May of 1996, Outokumpu issued a Santa Catalina Project Pre-Feasibility Study
(Outokumpu, 1996b). That study included a resource estimate for the Catalina deposit.
A summary of the procedures and parameters used by Outokumpu, as stated in the pre-
feasibility report, follows:
Lithology, structures, ore type, copper grade limits, and molybdenum grade limits
were interpreted onto vertical sections.
A minimum thickness of 3 m was used for mineralized zones, though exceptions

were made when the continuation of a grade zone was quite evident. Where
clear geological control was missing, the grade limits were extended half way to
the next drill core information (the word core was used in the report but it likely
should have used the term hole). The outermost grade limits were extended
25 m from the drill-hole information.
Geological information from vertical sections was transformed to horizontal plans

15m apart. From the horizontal sections, geological information was painted
into blocks with dimensions of 7.5 m by 7.5 m by 15 m vertically.
Specific gravities for each ore type were used.
A statistical study of the sample grades was done. Based on its findings, all total
copper grades above 6.7% were cut back to 6.7% and all molybdenum assay
grades above 8,000 ppm were cut back to 8,000 ppm. Soluble copper grades were
cut proportionately to the total copper grades.
Estimation was done using ordinary Kriging.

The results of Outokumpus estimate appear in Table 6.2-1 and Table 6.2-2. Outokumpu
included only Measured and Indicated resources in their pre-feasibility study.
Table 6.2-1:
Mineral Resources of Outokumpus Catalina Copper Block Model
(From Outokumpu, 1996b)
Material Type Cutoff TCu % Tonnes Millions TCu % ASCu %
Oxide 0.2 41.0 0.59 0.43
Oxide 0.4 17.8 0.97 0.76
Oxide 0.7 9.5 1.34 1.11
Supergene 0.2 10.6 0.62 0.15
Supergene 0.4 6.4 0.83 0.17
Supergene 0.7 2.8 1.19 0.22
Primary 0.2 65.8 0.49 0.02
Primary 0.4 33.6 0.69 0.03
Primary 0.7 10.7 1.04 0.04
Total 0.2 117.0 0.54 0.17
Total 0.4 57.8 0.79 0.27
Total 0.7 23.0 1.18 0.50
Notes: This table is copied from Table 3.7 of the 1996 Outokumpu pre-feasibility report.
Only the Catalina deposit is included.
The report did not state whether short tons or metric tonnes were being used. Given the jurisdiction, metric tonnes are probable.
Outokumpu stated that only Measured and Indicated resources were used, but did not provide separate totals for those two categories.
TCu is total copper; ASCU is Acid Soluble copper.
The term Material Type replaces the term Ore Type from the original table. Material is preferred, as it does not imply that the material has
been shown to be mineable at a profit.
The term Supergene replaces the term Secondary from the original table.
Table 6.2-2:
Mineral Resources of Outokumpus Catalina Molybdenum Block Model
Material Type Cutoff, Mo in ppm Tonnes Millions Mo (ppm)
300 71.8 1,334

Supergene &
1,000 33.5 2,120
Primary
2,000 13.5 3,140
Notes as for Table 6.2-1, above.
In the 1996 pre-feasibility report, Outokumpu stated that their estimate was classified
using the Australasian Code for Reporting of Identified Mineral Resources and Ore
Reserves. This code, sometimes referred to as the JORC code, was first published in
1989. The code and guidelines were revised in 1992, 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2004.
Outokumpus 1996 estimate must have used one of the 1996 or earlier versions.
Although the wording is not identical to the CIM Standards, the 1996 JORC code defined
measured, indicated and inferred resources in a way that was substantially similar to the
later CIM Standards. Outokumpus resource estimate, as presented in the pre-feasibility
report, was not strictly in compliance with the 1996 JORC code, as it stated combined
Measured and Indicated resources and did not separately state the quantities estimated in
each category. It also applied the term Ore to the estimated resources, which is
inconsistent and incorrect.
The 1996 Outokumpu resource estimate (Outokumpu, 1996b) is set out here as a matter
of significant historical record, but it should not be viewed as a current resource estimate.
It pre-dated establishment of NI 43-101 reporting standards so is presented here for
historical information only.
A reserve estimate based on the Outokumpu resource estimate formed part of the 1996
pre-feasibility study (Outokumpu, 1996b). A 1996 reserve estimate using parameters
suitable for a large integrated company is by no means applicable in 2008. Furthermore,
Outokumpu categorized their entire reserve as Mineable Ore, making no attempt to
categorize it as required by the JORC code or the later CIM guidelines. The Outokumpu
reserve estimate, as it was reported, did not comply with the JORC code of the time and
would not be in compliance with the present CIM guidelines. Nevertheless, the outcome
of Outokumpus reserve estimate is mentioned here as a significant item in the historical
record. Some of the parameters used in the reserve estimate were:
All mining was planned to be done by open pit. Medsystem software was
employed using a floating cone algorithm, and the pit was then optimized
manually. An average pit wall slope of 45 and 15m bench heights were used.
No cutoff grade was stated, either in terms of metal concentration or dollar value.
Anticipated mining and processing costs were applied to each block, with those
blocks becoming ore that showed a positive net value after costs were applied.
Metal prices assumed were, in US dollars:

o Copper: $1/lb
o Molybdenum: $4/lb
o Gold: $400/Troy oz.
Outokumpus reserve estimate is summarized in Table 6.2-3, which has been copied from
the 1996 pre-feasibility study.
Table 6.2-3:
Outokumpu Open Pit Reserve Estimate, 1996
Material Type Tonnes Millions Total Copper (%) Molybdenum (%)
Dump-Leaching Ore 8.2 0.35 n/a
Heap-Leaching Ore 15.4 1.04 n/a
Flotation Ore 47.4 0.50 0.152
Ore Total 71.0 0.60 0.102
Waste 330 n/a n/a
Waste/Ore Ratio 4.65 n/a n/a

Notes: Copied from Table 1.1 of Outokumpu, 1996b. Abbreviations have been eliminated for clarity. n/a has been placed
where blanks appeared in the original table. No other editing has been done.
This estimate does not comply with the current CIM Standards.
6.2.2 Mintec Estimate for Andes Pacific, 2001

Andes Pacific contracted Mintec Chile (Mintec) to prepare a resource estimate for the
Catalina deposit. The estimate used data that Andes Pacific had acquired with its
purchase of the Catalina project from Outokumpu via Placer Dome. Mintecs estimate
was delivered in November of 2001. A summary of the procedures and parameters
employed by Mintec and taken from their report (Mintec Chile, 2001) follows:
The database included 157 drill holes totaling 43,896 m with 35,434 analyses of
total copper, 19,363 analyses of soluble copper, 20,765 molybdenum analyses,
and 2,870 gold analyses.
A geological model was built using vertical sections arrayed in a radial pattern
approximately centered on the center of the Catalina deposit.
A set of three-dimensional solids was generated, and each was assigned a code
according to its geology and type of mineralization. The solids were generated by
assigning codes to areas on the sections and then sweeping each coded area,
concentrically, halfway towards the next section. [Potentially, this would have
the effect of giving drill holes farther from the center of the radial array a greater
range of geological influence than those closer to the center of the array.]
A statistical study of the grade distribution in each type of mineralization was

done.
Grades were composited to 1 m intervals.
Grade variability was modeled using variography.

A block model was constructed using 10 m cubes. Each block was assigned
codes for ten variables describing its mineral content, position with respect to
actual analyses, geology, etc.
Estimation was done using ordinary Kriging. The grades for blocks were
estimated using between three and 16 samples. Samples with grades exceeding
3% TCu were allowed to influence only the block in which they occurred.
For blocks outside the range of the variograms, an inverse-distance-cubed (ID3)

method was used to estimate grades.
Copper, soluble copper, molybdenum, and gold grades for each block were
estimated using the variograms developed for total copper. Mintec acknowledged
the lack of rigor in this method but argued that it was sufficient for the
preliminary level of the study.
A density of 2.6 tonnes/m3 was assigned to all material. [Note that in the
available documents there is no statement as to whether short tons or metric
tonnes were used. Given the stated density of 2.6, it is likely that metric tonnes
were used.]
The Mintec report stated that the resource estimate was done according to the
requirements of NI 43-101. Descriptions of the resource categories used are
Spanish translations of those in the CIM Standards.
Table 6.2-4 is part of Tabla No 5 of the 2001 Mintec report. It shows the results of the
Mintec estimate for combined oxide, sulfide, and mixed material. Some editing has been
done, as described in the notes at the end of Table 6.2-4.
Table 6.2-4:
Mintec Resource Estimate 2001
(From Mintec Chile, 2001)
Measured & Indicated Inferred
Cutoff Tonnes CuT% CuS% Mo Au Tonnes CuT% CuS% Mo Au
CuT% Million ppm g/t Million ppm g/t
0.2 218.87 0.53 0.16 654 95.49 0.47 0.08 305
0.3 184.38 0.57 0.16 698 84.1 0.50 0.08 315
0.4 120.78 0.70 0.19 816 61.63 0.56 0.13 379
0.5 79.74 0.83 0.23 921 38.09 0.62 0.12 447
0.6 51.63 0.98 0.28 1003 18.1 0.70 0.12 496
0.7 35.20 1.13 0.35 1058 5.46 0.88 015 656
Notes: Some Spanish words have been changed to English.
Mill = million; CuT = total copper; CuS = soluble copper.
Measured and Indicated resources are not stated separately in the report.
A section of this table that showed Inferred resources added to the Measured & Indicated has been eliminated.
One statement in the 2001 Mintec report indicates that this resource estimate was a
preliminary study. In a later section of the report, the somewhat contradictory statement
is made that the block model is sufficient for mine planning. In the digital copies of the
report available to MDA, neither the authors nor a qualified person are named. The
resource estimate summarized in Table 6.2-4 is probably not in compliance with
NI 43-101. It is presented here as part of the recent historical record of the project, not as
a current estimate.
The resource estimate of Table 6.2-4 was subsequently used to generate what was termed
a Preliminary Reserve Estimate (Mintec Chile, 2002). Preliminary Reserve Estimate
is not a class of estimate recognized by NI 43-101 or the CIM guidelines. Furthermore,
the Preliminary Reserve Estimate was based on a resource estimate that, as stated above,
would probably not be in compliance with NI 43-101. In any case, the Preliminary
Reserve Estimate was done at a time (2002) when the metal markets were considerably
different than those of 2008. The Preliminary Reserve Estimate of 2002 is not a current
NI 43-101-compliant estimate. Nevertheless, it is an important part of the historical
record for the project and is presented here in that context. Table 6.2-5, copied and
pasted out of a digital copy of the 2002 Mintec report, with translation of terms from
Spanish to English, sets out the assumptions and parameters built into the Preliminary
Reserve Estimate. Using the parameters set out in Table 6.2-5, Mintec arrived at the
reserve estimate set out in Table 6.2-6.
Table 6.2-5:
Parameters of Mintec Preliminary Reserve Estimate 2002
Copper Price 0.92 US$/lb
Molybdenum Price 3.4 US$/lb
Gold Price 280 US$/ounce gold
Copper concentrate smelting cost 85 US$/tonnes concentrate
Copper cathode refining cost 0.10 US$/lb Cu
Molybdenum refining cost 0.45 US$/lb Mo
Freight cost for cathode copper 57 US$/tonnes cathode
Freight cost for copper concentrate 35 US$/tonnes concentrate
Freight cost for molybdenum concentrate 80 US$/tonnes concentrate
Leaching cost 4.85 US$/tonnes of ore
Flotation (milling) cost 4.45 US$/tonnes of ore
Fixed mining cost 0.50 US$/tonnes of ore
Variable mining cost (variable with transport distance) 0.11 US$ / tonnes-km
Copper recovery in leaching 80%
Copper recovery in flotation 90%
Molybdenum recovery in flotation 80%
Copper grade in concentrate 27% Cu
Molybdenum grade in concentrate 55%
Gold grade in concentrate 4 grams Au/tonne
Mining Method open pit
Pit wall slope 50
Bench Height 10m
*Critical Mining Grade, oxides 0.32 % Cu, total
*Critical Processing Grade, oxides 0.27 % Cu, total
*Critical Mining Grade, sulfides and mixed ore 0.30% Cu, total
*Critical Processing Grade, sulfides and mixed ore 0.26% Cu, total
Notes: Table copied, with translation from Spanish to English, from Mintec, 2002.
* Critical Mining Grade is a near-literal translation of the Spanish phrase ley critica mina and is probably roughly similar
to an external cutoff grade, the cutoff used for pit design. Critical Processing Grade is a near-literal translation of the
Spanish phrase ley critica planta and is probably roughly similar to an internal cutoff grade, the cutoff used to determine
whether mined material is processed.
Table 6.2-6:
Result of Mintec Preliminary Reserve Estimate 2002
Total Ore 129,385,000 tonnes 0.62 Cu total% 0.18 Cu soluble%
Inferred Resources 43,326,000 tonnes
Total Waste 426,675,000 tonnes
Total Material 599,386,000 tonnes
Notes: This table is copied from Mintec, 2002, with translation of Spanish terms to English and minor changes for clarity
6.2.3 Other Historic Estimates of the Quantity of Mineralized Material

The Outokumpu and Mintec estimates described in the preceding sections are relatively
modern estimates using substantially similar databases. Earlier estimates, based on
considerably less data, are not described herein, but their existence is noted for the
record:
Nusbaum (1970) reported a tonnage and grade in what he called a preliminary

idea of the potential of the mineralized zone.
In 1970, Chapman, Wood and Griswold Ltd. did a preliminary evaluation of the
Salvadora deposit, the results of which are reported in Simic (1971).
6.2.4 MDA Estimate of 2005

In August 2005, MDA prepared a resource estimate (Table 6.2-7) for Quadra that met
NI 43-101 reporting standards (Ristorcelli and Ronning, 2005). The following
information in this subsection is taken from Ristorcelli and Ronning (2005). The drill-
hole database used by MDA in the 2005 resource estimate included 538 drill holes
totaling 113,568 m, of which 289 holes totaling 76,679 m were deemed to have sufficient
support, in terms of original data, to be useable for the resource estimate. The estimate
included both the Salvadora and Catalina deposits, which are about 2 km apart; the
smaller Salvadora deposit lies west-northwest of the Catalina deposit. In addition, some
of the oxide and supergene material included in the estimate is in the Isabela area, north-
northwest of Catalina. As reported by Ristorcelli and Ronning (2005), the MDA
resource estimate is reported to a depth of 650 m or elevation 1034 m and the potential
for additional primary hypogene mineralization at Sierra Gorda is for the most part
untested and still exists.
Table 6.2-7:
MDA Resource Estimate 2005
(From Ristorcelli and Ronning, 2005)
Indicated Resources - Oxide material
Cutoff Tonnes Cu% Copper Copper Mo%Molybdenum Molybdenum
EqCu% (tonnes) (lbs) (tonnes) (lbsX1000)
0.20 180,770,000 0.37 660,000 1,464,580,000 NA NA NA
Inferred Resources - Oxide material

EqCu% (tonnes) (lbs) (tonnes) (lbs)
0.20 36,470,000 0.29 104,000 229,660,000 NA NA NA
Indicated Resources - Sulfide material

0.34 215,100,000 0.38 810,000 1,789,500,000 0.066 141,000 311,600,000
Inferred Resources - Sulfide material

0.34 182,200,000 0.38 700,000 1,534,600,000 0.024 43,000 95,000,000
MDA estimated the resource using Kriging but made several checks of the estimate
during and after the estimation process and also checked the Kriged estimate against
estimates using nearest neighbor and inverse distance algorithms. MDA believed that
the kriged estimate fairly represents the global resource, and while being relatively
conservative, it is suitable for this early-stage estimate. MDAs estimate reported
copper grade for total copper; the estimate did not address the issue of soluble copper.
The copper equivalent calculation was based on average copper and molybdenum metal
prices to arrive at a ratio of 5 to 1; this calculation reflects gross metal content and was
not adjusted for metallurgical recoveries or relative processing and smelting costs.
6.2.5 MDA Estimate of 2008

MDA prepared an updated resource estimate (Table 6.2-8) for Quadra in May 2008 that
met NI 43-101 reporting standards (Ristorcelli and others, 2008). The information in this
subsection is extracted from that report. The drill-hole database used in the 2008
resource estimate included 899 drill holes totaling 200,195 m, of which 653 holes totaling
164,243 m had sufficient documentation to be useable for the resource estimate.
Quadras drilling comprised 411 holes for a total of 97,243 m of the total used in the
estimate. The estimate subdivided the deposit into four resource areas. Three of the
resource areas are contiguous - Catalina, 281 Zone and 285 Zone (also called Isabela)
and actually form a single deposit. The fourth zone, Salvadora, is separate from the
others.
Table 6.2-8:
MDA Resource Estimate 2008
(From Ristorcelli and others, 2008)
Sierra Gorda: Sulphide Indicated
Cutoff Tonnes CuEq Cu Cu Cu Mo Mo Mo
CuEq% (%) (%) (tonnes) (lbs) % tonnes lbs
0.30 923,173,000 0.56 0.44 4,101,000 9,040,600,000 0.023 215,000 474,210,000
Sierra Gorda: Sulphide Inferred

0.30 590,269,000 0.46 0.38 2,253,000 4,966,700,000 0.016 96,000 210,870,000
Sierra Gorda: Oxide Indicated

0.20 206,011,000 0.34 0.34 705,000 1,554,900,000 NA NA NA
Sierra Gorda: Oxide Inferred

0.20 83,298,000 0.30 0.30 249,000 549,500,000 NA NA NA
MDA made several standard checks of the estimate during and after the estimation
process, including volume checks, comparisons with historic estimates, point validation,
comparisons of estimation method results, checks between new drilling and the old
model and assay-composite-model checks. The ordinary Kriged estimate was checked
against estimates using nearest neighbor and inverse distance algorithms. MDA stated
that the ordinary Kriged estimate fairly represented the global resource and was the most
suitable method. As with the 2005 estimate, MDA reported total copper analyses and did
not report soluble copper in the oxide zone. Again, as in the 2005 estimate, the standard
of a 5 to 1 ratio (molybdenum to copper) was used when calculating the copper
equivalent. There was no gold grade estimated in the 2008 report because of the lack of
data from Outokumpu era drilling (Ristorcelli and others, 2008).
7. Geology, Exploration and
Drilling
7. Geology, Exploration and Drilling
This chapter provides an overview of the geology and mineralogical characteristics of the
Sierra Gorda property and ore types.
7.1 Geologic Setting
7.1.1 Regional Geology and Metallogeny

The Sierra Gorda mining district is in the extensive plain known as the intermediate
depression (Llaumett, 1994) or the Intermediate Valley (Sillitoe and McKee, 1996),
situated between the Cordillera de la Costa to the west and the Cordillera de los Andes to
the east. The district lies close to the eastern edge of the Intermediate Valley, near where
it gives way to the pre-Cordillera. The Sierra Gorda project held by Quadra Mining Ltd.
(approximately 7.5 km x 5.0 km of concession) lies within the larger Sierra Gorda mining
district, an area about 15 km by 10 km (Figure 7.1-1).
Sillitoe and McKee (1996) identified three distinct age belts of porphyry copper
mineralization in Chile; trending north-south between latitudes 20S and 27S. The three
belts young eastward: from Early Cretaceous (about 130 Ma) in the west; through
Paleocene (66-55Ma) in the central belt, to early Oligocene (42-31 Ma) in the eastern
belt. The Oligocene belt has been described by Sillitoe and McKee (1996) as the largest
repository of copper in the world.
The central, Paleocene porphyry belt corresponds approximately to the Intermediate
Valley. Sierra Gorda is located in the Paleocene belt, about 50 kilometers to the west of
the Oligocene deposits. The Paleocene belt includes the copper deposits and locally
associated molybdenum mineralization at Guanuco, Lomas Bayas, Spence, Toquepala,
Cuajone and Cerro Verde (Awmack, 2004b; Llaumett, 1994).
Within the overall northerly trend of the Paleocene porphyry belt, Sierra Gorda lies in the
center of a cluster of prospects on a northeasterly cross-trend measuring one to three
kilometers wide by 13 kilometers long. This cross trend includes the Spence mine as
well as other prospects. Several other districts in Chile (e.g. Quebrada
Blanca/Rosario/Ujina) consist of porphyry copper deposits localized along cross-trends
within the major north-trending belts.
7-1
GEOLOGY, EXPLORATION AND DRILLING
Figure 7.1-1: Regional Geology of the Sierra Gorda Project

At Sierra Gorda, as well as at Spence and Pampa Lina, a sequence of early Cretaceous
volcanic rocks are intruded by a complex Paleocene granitic batholith and a series of
related smaller plutons. Extensive zones of hydrothermal alteration and local copper,
molybdenum and gold mineralization are associated with these plutons.
All known mineralization within the district appears to be related to porphyry copper
hydrothermal systems. Within the project concession, there are at least 6 distinct zones
of copper-molybdenum-gold mineralization including the Salvadora, Isabela, Isabela
Norte 285, Catalina, and 281 Zones (Figure 7.1-2).
This hypogene sulfide mineralization occurs in breccia and porphryry intrusive
complexes; as well as disseminated and stockwork vein mineralization in volcanic rocks,
crystalline rocks of the batholith and the late stage intrusions.
Llaumett (1994) also reports copper-silver-gold veins in the Sierra Gorda district,
particularly at Cerro Dominador to the northwest of Sierra Gorda. Llaumett (1994) also
notes that district alteration and mineralization tends to concentrate in zones where late
stage intrusions and breccia bodies occur near the contact between the regional batholith
and the volcanic rocks.
7.1.2 Sierra Gorda District Geology

7.1.2.1 Early Cretaceous Volcanic Rocks
The lower Cretaceous volcanic rocks form a discontinuous north-northeast-trending belt
that extends over tens of kilometers through the Intermediate Valley. These volcanic
rocks crop out in the northern, southern and eastern flanks of the Sierra Gorda district.
The volcanic rocks are primarily coarse-to-fine-grained porphyritic andesites and
andesitic flow breccias that form a thick sequence with intercalations of breccias,
conglomerates, tuffs and volcanically derived siltstones and sandstones. Llaumett (1994)
correlated the volcanic rocks with the Quebrada Seca Formation, which has yielded
radiometric (40Ar/39Ar) age dates of 111 3 million years.
The andesites include several textural varieties, dominantly:
(1) coarsely porphyritic andesites with tabular plagioclase phenocrysts 2-8 millimeters in
size,
(2) finely porphyritic andesites with tabular plagioclase phenocrysts 1 to 2 millimeters in
size,
(3) andesitic tuff breccias with lithic fragments of andesite and/or tuff 1-10 mm in size in
an indistinct matrix of clastic or pyroclastic material; and
(4) amygdaloidal andesites with vesicles up to 1 cm in size now dominantly filled by
calcite, gypsum, and/or chalcedonic silica.
Figure 7.1-2: Geology of the Sierra Gorda District

In all varieties, the groundmass is microcrystalline and composed dominantly of variable

proportions of biotite, chlorite, quartz, sericite, and/or potassium feldspar, with lesser and
variable proportions of other hydrothermal minerals such as albite, tourmaline, epidote,
or calcite (Table 7.1-1).
Table 7.1-1:
Approximate Volume Percent Mineralogy and Groundmass Content of
Sierra Gorda Intrusive Rocks
Monzodiorite Batholith Late Stage Intrusions
Feldspar
Quartz
Grano- Grano- Porph Feldspar
Monzo- Quartz bearing Monzo- Syeno-
diorite Granite diorite Crowded Porph
diorite Bearing Monzo- granite granite
(Llaumett, (GN) Porph (PF- Graphic (PF-
(MD) Monzonite diorite (MG) (SG)
1994) (PG) ** crowded) graphic) **
(MD)
**
plagioclase 30-40 50-70 30-35 30-60 4-8 0-5 20-30 15-30 35-55 30-50
hornblende 3-5 5-20 10 5-20 1-8 0-1 1-4 0-2 1-2 0-1
biotite 5-10 5-10* 1-2 5-20* 0-3 0-2 2-8 5-7 1-2 0-1
orthoclase 20-30 5-10 25-35 2-20* 55-60* 60-70* 45-55 1-5
quartz 20-25 1-15 10-15 5-15 20-35 20-35 10-25 5-10 1 0-1
magnetite 1-2 1-2 <2 1-2 <1 <1 1-2 1 1 <1
groundmass 0 <5 0-20 0-80 85-95 > 95 >5 60-70 35-65 40-65
* Biotite or orthoclase percentages marked by an asterisk include significant but unquantifiable proportions of secondary
(hydrothemal) biotite or orthoclase, respectively.
** Mineral percentages shown for these three intrusive phases reflect phenocryst mineralogy only. Accurate quantification of
groundmass mineralogy in these phases is not yet available.
Within the district, the andesites are typically strongly altered. In parts of the Catalina
and Isabela deposits, and much of the 281 Zone, these andesites are an important host to
the copper-molybdenum-gold mineralization. The volcanic rocks are a common host in
the nearby Spence deposit (Rowland, 2001; and Jorge Maya, personal communication,
2005-2008).
7.1.2.2 Paleocene Intrusive Rocks

Outcrops of crystalline rocks ranging in composition from monzodiorite to granodiorite to
granite are part of a complex multiphase batholith extending over tens of kilometers in the
region. At Sierra Gorda and elsewhere, the batholith and its country rocks are cut by
numerous late stage dikes, small plutons and porphyritic marginal phases of intermediate to
silicious composition, with textures ranging from aplitic to graphic to porphyritic. The late
stage porphyritic intrusions are internal as well as external to the batholith, but are most
common near the margins, and have associated hydrothermal alteration, breccia facies and
metallic mineralization. The intrusive rocks have radiometric age dates in the range of 64
million years for some coarse grained phases to as young as 55 million years for
mineralized porphyry bodies at Sierra Gorda (Laumett, 1994; and Quadra internal company
reports, 2008) as well as at the Spence deposit (Rowland, 2001).
The following descriptions are modified from Llaumett (1994) on the basis of petrographic
examination of over 200 thin sections cut from Sierra Gorda drill core in the period 2006
2008. All intrusive rocks described below are completely crystalline with granular
interlocking textures. The term porphyry, when used as an adjective describing a lithology,
refers to the texture of the rock and not a class of mineralization.
Batholithic Rocks
The western and southeastern part of the Sierra Gorda project concession is underlain by
Paleocene batholithic rocks. Laumett (1994) called the batholith the Sierra Gorda
granodiorite and described it as a medium-grained, equigranular granodiorite to
monzonite. Drill hole intercepts since 2005 indicate that in much of the Sierra Gorda
project area, the batholiths composition can vary significantly from that described by
Llaumett (1994), and current Sierra Gorda project geologists refer to the batholith as
monzodiorite (MD). In these new intercepts, where nearly all of the batholiths
orthoclase and much of its biotite are hydrothermal, the batholiths pre-alteration lithology
ranges from monzodiorite to diorite to quartz diorite.
Late Stage Intrusions
As noted above, the batholith is a composite pluton. It contains a number of lithologic
variants that represent (a) irregular stock-like plutons formed from the central batholithic
mass, and (b) dikes and small plugs that intrude the batholith, each other, and
surrounding andesitic country rock. The stock-like intrusions (G, SG, MG, and MD,
below) vary from equigranular to porphyritic with medium-to-coarse-grained (0.1-2 mm)
graphic groundmass, while the dikes and small plugs (PF and PG, below) commonly are
porphyritic with fine-grained (0.01-0.1 mm) groundmass (hypabyssal texture).
Syenogranite (SG): Syenogranite is found in several parts of the district, including within
and near the Catalina and Salvadora deposits and near the San Armando deposit. It is
typically gray to pink with a distinctive medium-to-coarse-grained (0.1-2 mm) sugary,
graphic texture. Texturally, it is essentially a weakly porphyritic (<5% phenocrysts)
coarse-grained graphic aplite and it often has gradational contacts with monzogranite
(below). It is almost ubiquitously intensely altered to hydrothermal potassium feldspar.
Monzogranite (MG): Monzogranite (termed by Llaumet (1994) as microgranite to
porphyritic granite) is most common within and near Catalina, where it typically occurs
between, and in gradational contact with, syenogranite and porphyritic monzodiorite. In
both hand sample and thin section, monzogranite appears to be a phenocryst-richer

variant of syenogranite, with 5-15 % combined phenocrysts of hornblende, plagioclase,
and/or lesser biotite, as compared to <5% total phenocrysts in syenogranite.
Monzogranite has medium-to-coarse grained (0.1-1+mm) graphic groundmass and
intense potassium feldspar alteration.
Porphyritic Quartz-Bearing Monzodiorite (MD): The Catalina, Salvadora, and San
Armando deposits host a quartz-bearing hornblende biotite-bearing monzodiorite that
are typically porphyritic with a medium-to-coarse-grained (0.1-1+mm) graphic
groundmass. At Catalina, this monzodiorite is clearly in gradational contact with
monzogranite, as the interior phase of an igneous zonation that extends from
monzodiorite to monzogranite to syenogranite. This zonation is less clear at Salvadora
and San Armando, but throughout Sierra Gorda all three of these intrusive phases display
a similar graphic groundmass, differing mainly in their percent quartz and their percent
phenocrysts. Monzodiorite is the most phenocryst-rich (>15-20%), as compared to
monzogranite (~5-15%) or syenogranite (0-5%), and quartz content generally decreases
with increasing phenocryst content. At Catalina, porphyritic monzodiorite has both sharp
and gradational contacts with equigranular monzodiorite batholithic rock, and it cross-
cuts and K-feldspathizes this batholithic rock in deeper parts of some drill holes (e.g.,
QSG-7-351). Like monzodiorite and syenogranite, quartz-bearing monzodiorite is
generally strongly altered by hydrothermal potassium feldspar.
Granite (G): Granite occurs chiefly in the area of the Salvadora deposit. It is a coarse-
grained, biotite hornblende-bearing, generally equigranular rock with 45 55 vol.%
potassium feldspar.
Granodiorite Porphyry (PG): Granodiorite porphyry, given the name Granodiorite
Felicidad by Llaumett (1994) and referred to as Rhyolitic Porphyry by Ristorcelli and
Ronning (2005), is present as small dikes or plugs in the Catalina, Isabel, Copucha,
Begoa, and Lina areas, and locally also in the 281 Zone. It is referred to as PG
(porfido granodioritico) by current Sierra Gorda project geologists. It is a
biotite+hornblende-bearing quartz-eye porphyry, hypabyssal in texture with ~60-70
vol.% fine-grained (0.01-0.1 mm) aplitic groundmass and 5 10 vol.% rounded-to-
embayed quartz eyes 0.5 5.0 mm in diameter. Llaumett (1994) noted a 63 Ma K-Ar
date for this type rock at the Copucha deposit several kilometers south of Sierra Gorda,
but specifics about the sample(s) dated are not known.
Feldspar Porphyry (PF): Feldspar porphyry bodies occur throughout the Sierra Gorda
project concession as dikes and small plugs, termed PF (porfido feldespatico) in the
current usage of Sierra Gorda staff geologists. PF is the dominant intrusive rock in the
281 zone (Figure 7.1-2), where it forms a NS-striking, steeply-dipping dike swarm
cutting the andesitic volcanic sequence on the eastern margin of the main batholith.
There are two temporally and texturally distinct varieties of PF: (1) PF-graphic (also
called PF-Temprano because it is an early intramineral intrusion) and (2) PF-crowded
(also called PF-Tarde because it is a late intramineral intrusion). In some drill holes (e.g.
QSG-7-305), there are multiple nearly identical-composition PF-crowded dikes that cut
one another (evidenced by chilled contacts, USTs (see below), and/or intrusion
breccias), indicating repeated pulses of magma from single reservoirs. The PF-Temprano
variant commonly has a distinctive graphic matrix. In some drillholes (e.g., QSG-8-524),
this graphic matrix gives way with increasing depth to a more seriate texture and the rock
can lose its porphyritic character. Locally (especially with depth) both PF variants can
grade into nearly equigranular batholithic monzodiorite. A number of PF bodies have
margins or carapaces of crenulate-quartz layers or other unidirectional solidification
textures (USTs) such as plumose quartz or feldspar. PF dikes clearly intrude some
granodiorite porphyry bodies (PG) in the 281 Zone. All PF bodies are hornblende
biotite bearing rocks in which tiny quartz eyes may be present, but are not common.
In summary, studies over the last two years at Sierra Gorda present a picture of two major
suites of mineralizing intrusive rocks: a monzodiorite-monzogranite-syenogranite group
with groundmass that is both graphic and fine to medium grained (0.1-2 mm); and a
granodiorite porphyry - feldspar porphyry group with fine grained (0.01-0.1 mm) aplitic-
to-seriate-to-graphic groundmass more typical of hypabyssal intrusions. Fluid inclusion
data (see below) suggest these intrusions were shallow, at a roughly 2 kilometer
paleodepth.
7.1.2.3 Igneous and Hydrothermal Breccias

Concomitant with the multiple episodes of intrusion that generated the Tertiary batholith
at Sierra Gorda, there also developed numerous bodies of igneous and magmatic-
hydrothermal breccia that are a distinguishing characteristic of the district. Breccias at
Sierra Gorda come in all shapes and sizes, from cm-wide intercepts in drill core that
may represent hydrothermally-cemented fault rubble, to subcircular pipes hundreds of
meters across that resulted from multiple, violent episodes of magmatic fluid release
and/or phreatomagmatic eruption.
Intrusion breccia: Many of the stocks and dikes that form the Tertiary batholithic
complex manifest intrusion breccia along their borders in the 10s-of-centimeters to
meters-scale. Intrusion breccia is designated BXI by the Sierra Gorda geology staff.
Commonly, BXI has a monomict (single rock type) clast population that clearly is
derived from the adjacent wall rock. The geometry of BXI bodies may be irregular and
discontinuous as they mantle the margins and apex of a given intrusion. In some cases,
larger masses of intrusion breccia appear to be slabs or relict septa of the andesitic
country rock that had foundered into the molten interior of the batholith. BXI may be cut
by sulfide veins or overprinted by hydrothermal alteration, but may also remain relatively
unaltered and unmineralized.
Tourmaline breccia. BXT, in the current geologic parlance of the Sierra Gorda project,
is a paragenetically-early, pre-potassic, pre-sulfide hydrothermal breccia with a dark
tourmaline quartz matrix. In some cases, massive tourmaline replacement of the wall
rocks occurs on the margins of these breccia bodies, and quartz-tourmaline veins (with or
without white albitic halos) may be associated with them (see below, Hydrothermal
alteration and mineralization). A large composite mass of BXT bodies known as the
Brecha Santiaguina forms the core of the compound Catalina breccia pipe (Figure 7.1-2),
is some 200 m across at the present surface, and is surrounded by the BXH (see below) of
Brecha Catalina. This Santiaguina BXT contains a polymict population of rounded-to-
angular clasts, mostly in the size range 1 10 cm, comprising andesite, tuffs, sandstone,
and porphyritic intrusive rocks. The Brecha Santiaguina tapers at depth to a diameter of
10 m.
Hydrothermal breccia. BXH (brecha hidrotermal) is used as a general term for all
other hydrothermal breccias on the Sierra Gorda project in which the matrix is not
dominated by quartz-tourmaline. Several of the named pipe-like breccia bodies in the
district (e.g., Brecha* Catalina, Brecha Salvadora, Brecha Olvidada, and Brecha
Copucha) fall into this category (Figure 7.1-2).
In the Brecha Catalina, BXH material, by and large, surrounds the Santiaguina body
discussed above, with an elliptical surface footprint some 600 m by 150 m in extent.
Centimeters-scale, rounded to subangular clasts of granodiorite porphyry, syenogranite,
monzodiorite, and andesite are cemented by a hydrothermal matrix consisting of K-
feldspar (45 70 vol. %), chlorite, and quartz sericite. A little tourmaline also is
present as rosettes and small grains in both the matrix and clasts, but is not volumetrically
dominant. In thin section, this tourmaline is clearly altered by K-feldspar or chlorite.
The Catalina breccia has been intersected in drill hole up to 430 m below the present
surface (QSG-7-351). Sillitoe (1993) considered the composite body of Brecha
Catalina/Brecha Santiaguina to exemplify an orthomagmatic hydrothermal breccia
system. This observation was confirmed in 2008 by fluid inclusion analyses of matrix
quartz in brecciated syenogranite on the northern flank of the Catalina complex. Vuggy
quartz that cements platy fragments of heavily-tourmalinized syenogranite in drill hole
QSP-7-416 contains fluid inclusions that are 35 45 wt. % NaCl-equivalent salinity, with
homogenization temperatures in the range 375 - 425 C (Reynolds, 2008). Co-existing

vapor-rich and/or vapor-halite inclusions indicate a magmatic fluid that was flashing to
steam at ~2 km paleodepth as the system fluctuated between pressures of 700200 bars
(lithostatic to hydrostatic transition), which generated the mechanical energy necessary to
brecciate the rock mass.
The Brecha (Spanish for Breccia) Olvidada and Brecha Salvadora are two other
examples of larger BXH masses in the Sierra Gorda district, located about two kilometers
west of the Catalina breccia complex. These bodies are more lunate than circular in plan,
and form a pair of subparallel arcs convex to the northeast. The Olvidada breccia
contains 1 3 cm size, subangular clasts of syenogranite in a matrix of rock flour, quartz,
sericite, K-feldspar, and minor tourmaline.
Other hydrothermal breccias on the Sierra Gorda project include late-stage features in
mineralized zones, cemented up with pyrite-quartz-sericite or siderite-dolomite. These
breccias are volumetrically insignificant as compared to the BXH pipes described above,
rarely more than a few meters in maximum dimension. Some may represent
hydrothermally-cemented faults or shear zones.
7.1.2.4 Quaternary Deposits

Much of the district is covered by a thin veneer of alluvium and colluvium and minor
windblown and lacustrine deposits. These units are locally lithified and cemented with
caliche, sulfates or nitrates. They range from less than a meter to upwards of 30 meters
in thickness locally.
Regionally, the Cretaceous volcanic rocks exhibit wide, open southeast plunging folds.
These rocks strike north to north-northeast, with variable dips in the project area. Faults
of regional scale are present and some are postulated to have significant movement,
though the extensive surficial cover in the region makes them difficult to trace in detail.
Very large scale movement postulated on faults along the east side of the project area
(Figure 7.1-2) seems unlikely given the similarity of lithologies and age dates from Sierra
Gorda to to Spence some 10 kilometers to the northeast.
Fault patterns no doubt have played a fundamental role in the development of the Sierra
Gorda mineralization as a major factor in localizing intrusions, breccia bodies, and
subsequent hydrothermal alteration and mineralization. Postmineral movement on faults
has created numerous rubbly zones, evident in Sierra Gorda drill core, and to some
degree has rearranged the original geometry of rock units and mineralized zones. Faulted
and fractured ground naturally has facilitated the infiltration of meteoric waters and
consequent oxidation of the hypogene mineral resource, and influenced the development
of supergene copper mineralization. Fortunately, as documented thus far in evaluation of

the Sierra Gorda drill hole data, postmineral fault dislocations are not so great that they
are noticeable in the geological model used for resource estimation.
Llaumett (1994) and Ristorcelli and Ronning (2005) describe four major sets of faults
and fractures in the Sierra Gorda district. The oldest and largest-scale set consists of
NNE-striking major faults related to regional-scale features such as the Lomas Bayas,
Sierra Gorda and El Inca lineaments. These structures predate the early Tertiary batholith
and were factors in its emplacement. Quadra work since 2006 suggests that the
subvertical north-south structural corridor that controls the 281 Zone dike swarm may be
part of this older, regional tectonic grain.
The second dominant structural set consists of many subvertical, WNW-striking normal
faults (azimuth 280 to 300). These faults have small to moderate displacement. They
were active before, during, and after the mineralizing events. Prominent examples include
the Filo and San Armando faults that bracket the structural block containing the Catalina,
Carmen, San Armando, and Isabel mineralized zones (Figure 7.1-2). The Filo fault forms
the southwest side of this structural block and has been interpreted as a district-scale
tensional feature striking northwest between two north-south fault systems (Contreras,
1996). The bulk of the Catalina mineralized system is immediately to the north of the
Filo fault. The Salvadora deposit appears to lie right on the Filo fault, with the bulk of
the Salvadora and Olvidada breccias lying on the south side of the structure. Several
dikes and numerous tourmaline, base-, and precious-metals veins in the area have
attitudes similar to the Filo fault.
The third prominent structural set is a closely-spaced array of NE-striking faults,
fractures, veinlets, and dikes, e.g., the Salvadora, Vertice, and Carmen faults
(Figure 7.1-2). Llaumett (1994) considered the intersections of the WNW faults (above)
with the NE-striking faults as favorable loci for the formation of hydrothermal breccia
bodies.
The fourth and youngest major fault/fracture set strikes approximately east-west, and has
displaced some of the altered and mineralized blocks.
7.1.2.5 Geochronology
There is a significant gap between the 64-63 Ma radiometric ages reported by Llaumett
(1994) for the batholith, and the 60-59 Ma ages that Llaumett (1994) reports for altered
intrusive rocks that are closely associated with Sierra Gorda mineralization. This gap has
been difficult to explain or verify due to lack of specifics about samples or sample
locations to which the Llaumett (1994) dates refer. To better constrain Sierra Gordas
geochronology, new samples of mineralized intrusive rocks (MD, SG, PG, and PF) and
andesitic wall rock (AND) were collected by Quadra personnel from the Catalina and 281
Zone areas in 2007 for radiometric dating. Age dates were completed in 2008, using Re-
Os dating on hydrothermal molybdenite (7 dates), and 40Ar/39Ar dating on igneous
plagioclase and hydrothermal sericite, biotite, and K-feldspar (20 dates). The new Re-Os
and 40Ar/39Ar dates indicate that the Catalina and 281 Zone mineralized areas were
produced by multiple mineralization events that began at least as early as 60.06 0.39 Ma
and continued until at least 57.05 0.29 Ma. This long episode of hydrothermal activity
appears to have immediately preceded or overlapped the 57.00 0.69 to 56.61 0.63 Ma
reported for alteration associated with copper mineralization at the Spence mine 10
kilometers to the northeast (hydrothermal biotite 40Ar/39Ar; Rowland and Clark, 2001).
7.2 Deposit Types

As mentioned in Section 7.1.1 of this report, Sierra Gorda is situated in the central,
Paleocene porphyry belt that corresponds approximately to the Intermediate Valley in the
Atacama region of northern Chile.
Recent drilling in the 281 Zone and other areas on the property has shown large volumes
of disseminated and vein-controlled copper-molybdenum-gold mineralization, which are
primarily hosted in andesitic volcanic rocks and, to a much lesser extent, in altered
porphyries or batholithic rocks. The mafic to intermediate wall rock host is similar to a
number of other major porphyry systems, including El Teniente (Cannell et al., 2005) and
Esperanza (Perello et al., 2004), and the style of the mineralization is similar to both of
those porphyry copper systems. The mineralized breccias, long recognized in the
Catalina and Salvadora zones and elsewhere at Sierra Gorda, are only part of a larger,
more complex porphyry copper hydrothermal system which is still being explored.
Drilling since 2005 has demonstrated clearly that the volume of porphyry-style
mineralization and alteration is considerably larger than the volume of breccia
mineralization. The hypogene deposit at Sierra Gorda is a porphyry copper-molybdenum
deposit, with a large volume of disseminated, stockwork and strong fracture or fault
controlled mineralization; and significant associated breccia hosted mineralization
The hypogene sulfide mineralization was modified by supergene processes during some
period between about 44 Ma and 14 Ma. Although a well-developed chalcocite
enrichment blanket is not present, there is a significant amount of supergene chalcocite
present locally, generally at or near the present water table. Over much of the property,
sulfide mineralization was oxidized in place and the copper now occurs as copper sulfates
and oxides above the water table.
7.3 Mineralization
As mentioned in Section 7.1.1, the mineralized belt, in which Sierra Gorda is located, is
about 13 km long and trends in a northeast direction. It contains at least three known
major hydrothermal systems with significant hypogene copper-molybdenum
mineralization: Sierra Gorda and Spence. At Sierra Gorda, a large volume of hypogene
copper sulfide mineralization is accompanied by important oxide copper and lesser
supergene sulfide copper mineralization, which are the result of Tertiary weathering
processes acting on the earlier hypogene mineralization.
1. Hypogene Sulfide Mineralization forms the bulk of the known mineralization, both
in terms of volume as well as contained metal. Hypogene copper sulfides consist
dominantly of chalcopyrite, although bornite has been locally recognized as an accessory.
Chalcopyrite-mineralized rock exists from below the leached zone to the current limits of
drilling, more than 1,000 m below the surface. Hypogene molybdenite occurs in distinct
bodies at Catalina and Salvadora; elsewhere it is weak to absent. Gold typically
accompanies the copper.
2. The Leached/Oxide Zone is the product of in situ oxidation of the hypogene sulfides.
The leached zone extends from the surface to variable depths of up to 200 m and is
grouped into copper-rich zones and copper-leached or barren zones. Whether the copper
in the oxide zone was leached out of the rock or remained as copper oxides depended
considerably on local lithochemistry, primary sulfide content and mineralogy, and
hydrology, the latter in part controlled by structures. Over large areas, the leached oxide
zone still contains a significant portion of its original copper endowment. Hypogene
molybdenite is typically oxidized to ferrimolybdite, but the primary metal distribution
was apparently little affected by the oxidation.
3. The Supergene Copper Sulfide Zone is an irregular zone of secondary copper sulfide
enrichment, dominated by the mineral chalcocite. It has a variable thickness of 10 m to
150 m and generally occurs at the boundary between the oxidized zone and the hypogene
zone but can exist well down into the hypogene zone or some distance up into the oxide
zone.
7.3.1 Hypogene Mineralization

The hypogene sulfide mineralization at Sierra Gorda is the product of multiple stages of
mineralization hosted in the volcanic and, to a much lesser extent, the intrusive rocks
both the batholith and hypabyssal rocks.
The higher-grade intervals within the 281 Zone correspond mainly to subvertical tabular
to pipe-like volumes of rock with (1) breccia, (2) stockwork veining, (3) vein-dikes,
and/or (4) larger volumes of the graphic phase of the feldspar porphyry dikes. Hypogene
Cu-Mo mineralization is predominantly vein-controlled, but also appears in disseminated
form. It is suspected that a strong, north-trending, subvertical spatial control will become
increasingly evident in the 281 Zone as assay data continue to accumulate.
Sillitoe (1993) noted that much of the Catalina mineralization is located outboard of the
main breccia column and is interpreted to be present in an annular zone of sheeted
fractures and veins up to at least 200 m wide, encompassing the main breccia complex
and the associated minor bodies (Sillitoe, 1993). Much of the mineralization Sillitoe
speaks of appears to be contiguous with the 281 Zone.
The main sulfide minerals in the primary zone are chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), pyrite (FeS2),
and molybdenite (MoS2), with bornite (Cu5FeS4) observed to date only locally and
confined to a deeper zone intercepted by post-2005 drill holes. The relative abundance of
pyrite and other sulfides varies significantly throughout the system, but volume percent
estimates show that overall sulfide content probably averaging around three percent is
low when compared to typical porphyry copper systems. Pyrite occurs mainly as
subhedral disseminated grains of several hundreds of microns in diameter. Chalcopyrite
is found predominantly as disseminated grains bounded by silicates, with typical grain
sizes of 30 to 70 microns. It also forms some massive fillings with dimensions of several
millimeters in breccias. Llaumett (1994) reported that in Catalina and Salvadora,
chalcopyrite carried 80% of the copper value.
Molybdenite is found mainly as grain clusters and disseminated grains bounded by
silicates. The larger grains exceed 1,000 microns in diameter, while the disseminated
grains are usually in 10 to 20 micron size range. Molybdenite generally occurs in early
potassium silicate veinlets or in the matrix of some breccias, with quartz, pyrite, and/or
chalcopyrite. At least locally, molybdenite may be intimately intergrown with
chalcopyrite (Lamberg, 1993), but chalcopyrite also exists as cross-cutting fill that post-
dates molybdenite where these minerals occur together, especially in the 281 Zone, where
molybdenite generally pre-dates chalcopyrite. Studying rhenium in molybdenum
concentrates from pilot plant tests, Lamberg (1994b) determined that molybdenite in the
hypogene mineralization contained about 170 ppm Re, and molybdenite in the supergene
mineralization contained about 210 ppm Re. These two different values may simply
reflect the range of rhenium concentrations that originally existed in hypogene
molybdenite, rather than any supergene effect.
7.3.1.1 Discussion of Hypogene Mineralization

Most of the mineralization discovered recently occurs in the Cretaceous andesites and
tuffs. Although it appears relatively clear from the style of alteration and mineralization
that it is related to one or more porphyry copper source intrusions, those source(s) have
not yet been clearly identified. Identification of the intrusive source is a useful
exploration task, because it may lead to considerably more tonnes and higher grades.
However, it is worth bearing in mind that in several major porphyry districts, including
Butte, Montana, the source intrusions were never identified or located.
Much of the chalcopyrite mineralization is spatially associated with potassium silicate
alteration of the wall rocks (mainly biotite), but veinlet cross-cutting studies based on
petrography and detailed logging with hand lenses suggest that most or all chalcopyrite is
associated with veins associated with chlorite-sericite alteration, which post-dates
potassium silicate alteration. It appears that the interaction of the hydrothermal fluids
with andesitic host rocks produced volumetrically more chalcopyrite than did the
interaction of the same fluids with less iron-rich intrusive rocks. This association of
strong mineralization with andesites is a common feature of many porphyry copper
districts with andesitic host rocks, including El Teniente, Chile, and Safford, Arizona.
Chalcopyrite is relatively sparse in the late quartz-sericite veins that cut the andesitic
country rocks in the 281 Zone. However, in this same area, widely-spaced late extension
fractures are mineralized with a polymetallic assemblage of base-metal sulfides
comprising sphalerite, galena, and minor chalcopyrite. These Late Base-Metal veins
may be correlative with the scattered Au-Agbearing veins that are described in the
outskirts of the district (e.g., Llaumett, 1994).
7.3.2 Leached/Oxide Zone and Supergene Mineralization

Most of the major porphyry copper deposits in the Paleocene copper belt where Sierra
Gorda is situated are characterized by volumetrically important pyrite-rich, sericitic
alteration, generally superimposed on earlier potassium-silicate assemblages. The latter
contain appreciably lower hypogene sulfides than the former (Sillitoe and McKee, 1996).
The pyrite-rich alteration was important for the subsequent development of leached zones
and related supergene copper enrichment. Important supergene oxidation and enrichment
took place between about 34 Ma and 14 Ma. At about 14 Ma, the climatic and
geomorphologic conditions permissive for the supergene enrichment process ceased to
dominate. Rowland and Clark (2001) found that the Spence deposit, near Sierra Gorda,
contains supergene minerals dated as old as 44 Ma, the oldest recorded for a north
Chilean porphyry system.
Discussing supergene processes at Sierra Gorda, Sillitoe (1993) wrote:

Much of the best-grade hypogene copper mineralization at Santa Catalina and
Salvadora is present as chalcopyrite accompanied by only minor pyrite. This
assemblage oxidized essentially in situ and, under the arid conditions which
prevailed in the region during maximum supergene activity in the Oligocene and
early Miocene, gave rise to atacamite-dominated oxidized ore along with
goethite-rich limonites. [Authors note: these are the two principal oxide types
identified on the property.]
7.3.2.1 Leached/Oxide Zone

Oxidation and leaching of sulfide minerals have affected approximately the upper 80 m
to 200 m of the mineralized bodies in the Sierra Gorda district. Each of the deposits has a
leached zone containing pockets of copper oxide minerals. The secondary copper oxides
are most abundant in and near andesite and, at Catalina, in and near the Brecha Catalina.
Llaumett (1994) and the Quadra geologic staff believe that the greater abundance of
copper oxides in the andesite and Brecha Catalina was due to the greater chemical ability
of the more basic rocks to fix copper in place as the sulfides decomposed. Llaumett
(1994) also noted that the andesite tends to have lower pyrite content than many other
rocks in the mineralized zones, also a factor in lowering the mobility of copper.
Llaumett (1994) described a somewhat similar relationship at Salvadora, where he
observed that the Brecha Salvadora, in monzodiorite, contains significant copper oxides
in its leached zone. The Brecha Olvidada, in more granitic rock, is completely leached
in its upper 150 m, whereas from 150 m to 250 m depth there is a significant zone of
supergene sulfide enrichment, where copper leached from the upper part was re-
deposited.
Llaumett (1994) observed some relict chalcocite in the Catalina and Salvadora oxidized
zones. Llaumett interpreted this as an indication that there was a primitive enrichment
zone, which later oxidized as the groundwater table dropped.
Mineralogy of the Leached Zones
The most important copper oxide minerals are atacamite (Cu2Cl(OH)3), brochantite
(Cu4(SO4)(OH)6), chrysocolla ((Cu,Al)2H2Si2O5(OH)4n(H2O)) and vermiculite
(Mg,Fe2+,Al)3(Al,Si)4O10(OH)24(H2O) (Copper can substitute for potassium in biotite,
producing a vermiculite-type mixed-layer mineral (Dold,
http://www.esga.org/news16/art01.html, April 2005). Atacamite is the most abundant
oxide copper mineral, containing more than 70% of the copper in the leached zones of
acidic host rocks. In more basic host rocks such as andesite, atacamite contains 30 50%
of the copper. Chrysocolla and vermiculite are the other important copper-bearing
minerals in the oxide zone in andesite. The oxide copper minerals occur as fine- and
medium-grained fracture filling with sizes of 20 to 200 microns. They also appear as
clusters bounded by silicates or intergrown with silicates or goethite.
Lamberg (1994a) reported the presence of copper wad hydrous manganese oxide
containing 6.8 to 20.1 weight percent copper. It was found as a fracture filling in one of
19 samples of drill core studied. Lamberg also found that iron hydroxides contain up to
4.95 weight percent copper. Quadra has segregated copper-bearing iron oxide zones as a
separate mineral type in logging and mapping. The wad zones were not segregated by
Quadra geologists. They are volumetrically small and generally occur within the zone of
copper-bearing iron oxides.
To the extent that molybdenum is present in oxide minerals, it seems to be in lindgrenite
(Cu3(Mo)4)2(OH)2), powellite (CaMoO4) and ferrimolybdenite (Fe3+ 2(MoO4)37(H2O)).
Lamberg (1994a) noted the presence of up to 3.9 weight percent molybdenum in iron
hydroxides.
7.3.2.2 Supergene Copper Sulfide Mineralization

Supergene sulfides are always present, to some degree, in the deposits of the Sierra Gorda
district. Rather than relatively cohesive supergene blankets, the supergene zones at
Sierra Gorda are irregular and discontinuous. Sillitoe (1993) observed that A well-
developed supergene chalcocite blanket is absent at Sierra Gorda because much of the
mineralization is deficient in pyrite. Hence oxidation took place largely in situ, and
enrichment took place only locally along the more pyritic fractures in the sheeted zone.
Although copper-grade enrichment is generally not significant, and the presence of
supergene chalcocite is erratic, the development of the supergene copper sulfides is
consistent in that it typically occurs at or immediately below the current top of sulfides;
there is generally little or no sulfides above that level.
Supergene Mineralization at Catalina
In Catalina, the supergene zone is between 15 and 150 m thick. To some degree, the
thickness of the supergene zone is dependent on the original pyrite/chalcopyrite ratio of
the overlying leached zone. In many instances, a more direct relationship is seen between
the supergene mineralization and structures that probably controlled the movement of
supergene fluids. In the central sector of the deposit, there is a basin approximately
150 m long, between 80 m and 120 m wide, and 50 m to 150 m deep, where supergene
processes were controlled by the Etna fault and its associated fractures. The supergene
zones average much closer to 15 m. The associated leached zone exhibits abundant relict
pyrite in granitic rocks.
Supergene Mineralization at Salvadora
There are two important breccia bodies at Salvadora, the Brecha Olvidada and the Brecha
Salvadora. The two have quite different supergene characteristics. The Brecha
Salvadora is hosted mainly by monzodiorite porphyry. It contains irregular pockets of
oxide mineralization and has only a minor supergene enrichment zone about 240 m long,
60 m wide, and 100 m thick.
The Brecha Olvidada is in syenogranite. It has or had a high pyrite content, and its upper
zone is completely leached. Beneath the leached zone is a supergene enrichment zone
about 600 m long, 80 m wide and 100 to 140 m thick.
Mineralogy of the Supergene Zones
The main copper mineral in the supergene sulfide mineralization is chalcocite (Cu2S).
Other minerals that are locally important are covellite (CuS), digenite (Cu9S5), and
bornite (Cu5Fe2+S4). Optical microscopy and electron microprobe analysis have
identified additional minerals yarrowite (Cu9S8), geerite (Cu8S5), and anilite (Cu1.75S)
(Lamberg, 1993). Commonly the copper minerals appear as disseminations and in
veinlets. The average grain size of the copper sulfides varies from 20 to 200 microns. In
some instances, the supergene copper sulfides are found coating pyrite or chalcopyrite
grains 1 to 90 microns in size.
7.3.3 Relationship between Structures and Mineralization

Contreras (1996a) described the faults and fracture systems at Sierra Gorda as generally
being sub-parallel to the mineralization. The deformation is interpreted as being, at least
in part, contemporaneous with the mineralization.
Core from angle holes drilled in the 281 Zone and elsewhere commonly exhibits fracture
and vein sets parallel to core axes. These structures seem to be present in mineralized
zones regardless of hole orientation, suggesting that at least some mineralization is
controlled by vertical structures with multiple orientations. Supergene mineralization,
particularly in the Catalina zone, shows strong local control by post mineral faults.
7.3.4 Gold Mineralization

Low levels of gold mineralization are associated with the mineralization at Sierra Gorda.
All of Quadra drilling in the sulfide zone has included gold analyses, and re-assay work
in 2008 expanded consistent modern gold assay data throughout the Catalina and Isabella
zones on all available historic drill samples, mainly from Outokumpu drilling. The
electronic database used by MDA in this study contains 46,248 gold analyses, as
compared to 151,797 copper analyses and 120,576 molybdenum analyses.
A 1994 mineralogical study demonstrated that most of the gold particles are associated
with copper sulfides. Limited scanning electron microscope studies have been
undertaken by Quadra specifically focused on gold. The 1994 study showed gold
occurring with pyrite, chalcopyrite and magnetite. It also showed gold occurring with
those minerals disseminated and in fractures or veins. While the occurrence on a
macroscopic scale is quite varied, clearly the gold occurs in zones with higher grades of
copper and with similar geometries. In all likelihood, gold will be a by-product at Sierra
Gorda.
On a local scale, material containing higher grades of gold (say 0.3 to 1.0 g Au/t) is not
often visually discernable from the surrounding rock. On occasion, these gold spikes
are found with the late base metal veins that contain zinc.
7.4 Exploration
Sierra Gorda has a long history dating back to the 1800s of prospecting, minor
production and exploration by a number of individuals and companies. Pirqueneros and
small mining companies produced several hundred thousand tonnes of high grade oxide
material from open cuts and glory holes in the Catalina, Salvadora and Isabella zones
during the era from the late 1800ss through the early 1990s. Most of this material was
probably produced in the 1980s. Modern exploration in the district started with an
extensive shallow drilling program done by Minera Chevron Chile S.A. in the early
1980s. In the early 1990s Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A. drilled more than 60 thousand
meters mostly in the area of the Catalina workings, and completed more than 1300 meters
of drifting in exploration work that culminated in a pre-feasibility study on the breccia
hosted mineralization around Catalina and Salvadora. In spite of a recommendation to
move ahead with the project, Outokumpu withdrew from Chile and the exploration
business in the middle 1990s. Rio Tinto optioned some of the claims to the north of
Catalina and Salvadora in the late 1990s and drilled a number of holes without
significant results before dropping the properties. Outokumpu generated more data, more
systematically and with better documentation, than any other operator prior to Quadra.
Most of the data used in the 2005 resource estimate had originated with Outokumpu
(Ristorcelli and Ronning, 2005). Quadra had invested considerable time and effort in
compiling, checking, and validating the Outokumpu work. Outukumpus work still
comprises an important part of the Sierra Gorda drill-hole database.
7.4.1 History of Exploration by Quadra

The initial strategy driving Quadras exploration work upon acquisition of the property in
2004 was to define sufficient grade and tonnage of leachable copper mineralization to
support a moderate-sized heap leach solvent extraction and electrowinning (SX/EW)
operation, as well as to document, validate, and check historic exploration data. The first
two years of exploration were devoted solely to this effort.
In 2005 it was recognized that the source and genesis of the widespread low-grade oxide
copper in the district were poorly understood. While significant sulfide copper was
known, and had been drilled in the area around Catalina, large areas of the property with
significant oxide mineralization had little or no drilling in the sulfide zone. In 2006,
drilling for hypogene sulfide mineralization below known oxide copper in several parts of
the property encountered high-grade copper intercepts in areas where hypogene
mineralization had not been previously known. Follow-up drilling in these areas, and
additional exploration drilling elsewhere since then, has shown the presence of significant
new resources outside but adjacent to the Catalina Zone.
Important activities, results, and milestones during Quadra exploration are presented
below chronologically:
2004
Mine and Quarry Engineering Services (MQes) consultants conducted check
sampling of historic Outokumpu sample intervals to verify database.
Quadra contracted Quantec Geophysics Ltd. (Chile), to perform 45 line
kilometres of IP (induced potential) and resistivity surveys as well as 335.5 line
kilometres of ground magnetic surveys over the Sierra Gorda project area.
Quadra drilled 10,712m in 50 reverse circulation (RC) holes. These holes were
mostly drilled in the oxide zone away from the core of the Catalina deposit in an
effort to discover additional leachable copper resources. New mineralization was
found in the Isabela Norte and San Armando zones.
Quadra initiated a district-wide mapping program at 1:4,000 and 1:2,000 scales to
better understand the geology, alteration, and structural controls for
mineralization, as well as to aid geologic sectional modeling. This work was
completed in 2005.
2005
Quadra technical staff at the project site re-logged all historic drill core and
cuttings for compilation and construction of a new geologic model.
MDA was retained to review complete integrity of the database and to estimate a
NI 43-101-compliant resource estimate. A technical report written to NI 43-101
reporting standards and the NI 43-101-compliant resource estimate were
completed in August, 2005 (Ristorcelli, S., and Ronning, P., 2005).
Quadra drilled an additional 15,489 m in 74 reverse circulation (RC) drill holes.
As in 2004, the focus of this drilling was to delineate additional leachable copper
resources.
Quadra technical staff constructed and modelled complete property-wide east-
west sections for lithology, structures, alteration and mineral type.
Quadra began the organization and compilation of over 80,000 historic pulp and
coarse-reject samples stored by Outokumpu for possible future re-sampling
purposes.
Quadra technical staff began detailed underground mapping late in 2005 in the
Catalina area, designed to aid in targeting drill holes for oxide copper and
hypogene sulfide mineralization in and around the Catalina workings.
2006
Site staff completed the organization, preservation, and storage of historic drill
pulps and rejects.
The drilling program again focused on increasing leachable copper resources but
was expanded to include hypogene sulfide porphyry-style copper targets. More
than 140 shallow RC holes (averaging 30 to 40 m) were drilled to test covered
areas of the project for hidden mineralization. Core holes (with RC pre-collars)
up to 700 m in depth were designed to test several hypogene sulfide targets.
Hole QSG06-281, some 500 m to the northeast of Catalina, intersected strong
hypogene copper mineralization beginning at 242 m and continuing to the bottom
of the hole at 580 m. An interval of 316 m averaged 1.05%Cu, 0.020%Mo, and
0.2 g Au/t. Soon after the results had been received for hole 281, Quadra received
results for hole QSG06-278, which was drilled some 250 m to the southwest of
hole 281. Hole 278 encountered 516 m of 0.49%Cu, 0.010%Mo and 0.11 g Au/t.
At that point, the program was refocused on core drilling to confirm the intervals
seen in holes 281 and 278, as well as to determine the potential for significant
tonnage around these holes.
Follow up deep drilling confirmed the presence of significant deep sulfide

mineralization in the Isabela area, as well as the deeper parts of the Catalina area.
Some additional oxide resources have been defined during this exploration.
Total drilling by the end of the year was nearly 18,400 m in 174 holes.
Geologic work completed during the year - logging, mapping, compilation and
synthesis was completed by Quadra personnel with the aid of a number of
consulting geologists, including Gregory McKelvey and Steven Shaver both of
the United States. Gary Lustig of Kelowna, B.C, Canada, was responsible for
overseeing QA/QC matters
2007
Drilling during the year was designed to define the size of the newly discovered
disseminated sulfide mineralization. The program was designed to explore and
expand the mineralization, as well as to demonstrate sufficient continuity and drill
density to establish a resource for public release.
Detailed geologic and petrographic studies were initiated to better understand the
chronology, evolution, and spatial variation of the hydrothermal systems in order
to define exploration vectors and increase the ability to delineate high-grade
zones.
Geologic work completed during the year - logging, mapping, petrography,
compilation and synthesis was completed by Quadra personnel with the aid of a
number of consulting geologists, including Steven Shaver, Scott Manske and
Gregory McKelvey all of the United States. Gary Lustig of Kelowna, B.C,
Canada, was responsible for overseeing QA/QC matters.
2008
Drilling was directed towards establishing the continuity of known mineralization,
especially zones of higher grades, and upgrading the resource category to
measured and indicated as much as possible. Expanding the resource was a
secondary goal, but exploration and condemnation drilling was a significant part
of the program.
An updated Technical Report was completed and filed in May (Ristorcelli et. al.
2008), establishing a greatly expanded resource based primarily on the work since
the 2006 discovery in hole 281. Steven Ristorcelli and Peter Ronning with MDA,
of Reno, Nevada, coordinated the completion of the report with Quadra personnel.
Detailed geologic and petrographic studies were continued and a number of well
controlled, well described and located samples of altered and mineralized rocks
were dated by Re/Os and 40Ar/39Ar methods.
Exploration and evaluation drilling was shut down in early November in the face
of decreasing metal prices. The early shut down of drilling did not significantly
impact the quality or amount of information available for this scoping study.
Geologic work completed during the year - logging, mapping, petrography,
compilation and synthesis was completed by Quadra personnel with the aid of a
number of consulting geologists, including Steven Shaver, Scott Manske and
Gregory McKelvey all of the United States. Gary Lustig of Kelowna, B.C,
Canada, was responsible for overseeing QA/QC matters and was a co-author on
the updated Technical Report.
7.4.2 Geological Mapping and Logging

After taking control of the project in 2004, Quadra embarked upon a comprehensive
technical exploration program, which included remapping the surface extent of the claim
package at a scale of 1:4,000 to 1:2,000 and remapping the accessible underground
workings at a scale of 1:500. A number of shallow trenches in the 281 Zone have been
mapped as well at a scale of 1:500. The geologic mapping work is ongoing. In addition,
all available core from prior exploration was re-logged on at least a reconnaissance basis.
Most of this core, roughly 37,000 m, was from the Outukumpu era.
7.4.3 Geophysics
During the period from August to October 2004, Quantec Geoscience Chile Limitada
(Quantec) conducted IP and resistivity surveys and ground magnetic surveys at the
Sierra Gorda project.
7.4.4 Sampling and Chemical Analysis

Quadra drill samples, both for RC and core, were split and analyzed on 2m intervals for
copper, molybdenum, and fire assay gold as well as for a multi-element ICP analysis.
Ten-meter composites of samples from the oxide and supergene sulfide zones have been
analyzed for soluble copper as well as acid consumption.
7.4.5 Petrographical, Mineralogical, and Other Studies

To aid rock and vein and alteration mineral identification as well as to help understand
cross-cutting relationships, approximately 220 polished thin sections of core and hand
samples have been cut and examined. Most of these sections are from recent core drilled
by Quadra. Scanning electron microscopy work has been completed on several

mineralized samples to determine mineral particle size and location, particularly for gold.
This work continued into 2008.
In 2008, Quadra geologists and consultants selected a well located, well described series
of samples for Re/Os dating and 40Ar/39Ar age dating of alteration and mineralization.
Prior geochronologic work on the property is very poorly documented and was primarily
done in the period from the late 1970s to the late 1980s (Llaumett, 1994). Quadras
work provides a significant advance in the geologic understanding of the district.
7.5 Drilling
The Sierra Gorda drill-hole database compiled and constructed by Quadra contains data
for 1110 drill holes completed by at least seven different operators (Table 7.5-1). Some
data are deemed to be sufficiently well documented to be useable in the resource estimate
and some not (Table 7.5-1). A map of the drill holes is given in Figure 7.5-1. For history
of past operators activity see Section 6.1. Of the entire database, 58% is RC, 40% is
core, and 2% is undocumented.
Table 7.5-1:
Summary of Drill Holes by Drilling Type and Holes Used in Resource Estimate
SUMMARY OF DRILL HOLES - SIERRA GORDA PROJECT

COMPANY HOLES YEAR RC DDH TOTAL M
*Unknown 136 (1957 - ?) ? ? 4,500
*ITT Geophysical Inc 6 1966 ? ? 855
*CIMA Mines 10 1968 ? ? 2,519
*Chevron 37 1982 - 1984 ? ? 13,726
Chevron 3 1982 - 1984 0 938 938
Outokumpu 241 1991 - 1992 31,776 34,083 65,859
*RTZ 55 1997 9,857 4,362 14,219
Quadra Mining 50 2004 10,712 - 10,712
Quadra Mining 75 2005 15,498 - 15,498
Quadra Mining 175 2006 11,476 6,911 18,387
Quadra Mining 116 2007 23,308 25,140 48,448
Quadra Mining 206 2008 38,215 28,788 67,003
TOTALS - all drilling 1,110 140,805 100,222 262,664
TOTALS - for resource est. 866 130,985 95,860 226,845
* Not used in resource estimate
All Quadra and Outokumpu holes and 3 of 40 Chevron holes used for resource estimate.
Note: in 2007 102 new drill holes were executed and 12 existing drill holes were deepened.
2 drill holes abandoned at short depths due to mechanical problems or bad ground.
Note: in 2008 173 new drill holes were executed and 26 existing drill holes were deepened.
7 drill holes abandoned at short depths due to mechanical problems or bad ground.
RC - 160
DDH - 46
It is noted that the number of holes listed as having been completed by past operators
(Table 7.5-1) is different from those stated in Section 6.1. Quadra has no certain
explanation for these differences. The information in Section 6.1 is derived from Andes
Pacific Developments undated Confidential Investment Memorandum, whereas Table
7.5-1 is a product of compilation work by Quadra. It may well be that some of the holes
drilled by those operators were not on the property that now comprises the Sierra Gorda
project. It is also possible that some holes are not in the database because no information
about them has been recovered.
Figure 7.5-1: Map of Sierra Gorda Drill Holes Showing Outline of 0.2 Percent
Copper Resource Projected to Surface
7.5.1 CIMA Mines: 1968-1970

Drilling done by CIMA constitutes only about 1% of the drill holes and of the meters
drilled in the present Sierra Gorda database. MDA did not use the CIMA holes for grade
estimation.
During the Con-Cor drilling program, samples were collected at 1.5m intervals, each
consisting of about 75 pounds of cuttings. The samples were split using a Jones splitter,
resulting in a 7 to 10lb sample that was sent for analysis.
Starting in August of 1969, CIMA drilled 18 rotary holes. These holes were also 4 in. in
diameter and varied from 100 to 170m deep. The cuttings were collected using air above
and below the water table. Samples were collected and processed similarly to the Con-
Cor samples, but sample recoveries were very poor. Nusbaum (1970) stated that quite
often only a handful of cuttings could be collected from an interval of 1.5m which should
have yielded 75 pounds.
Also in 1969, according to Nusbaum (1970), CIMA drilled 2,068m of core in a number
of holes that is not explicitly stated. The drill-hole database provided to MDA contains
records of 10 core holes attributed to CIMA, totaling 2,518.5m. MDA does not know the
reason for the difference between Nusbaums total for core drilling and that in the current
database.
The core drilling was plagued with technical and labor problems. Core recovery was
described as ranging from none to 100%. Nusbaum (1970) reported an expected core
recovery of 80% to 85% in the oxide zone and an average of 80% to 90% in the sulfide
zone. BX (about 36.4mm core diameter) and NX (about 47.6mm core diameter)
equipment was used.
Drill core was split, probably using a percussion core splitter. One half of the core was
sent for analysis, and one half was retained at the Sierra Gorda site. Samples from the
oxide zone were analyzed in Antofagasta. Nusbaum (1970) reported that local assayers
have a problem reporting reliable results for molybdenum so the samples from the sulfide
zone were shipped to Canada for copper and molybdenum assays.
In most instances, the casing could not be completely recovered from drill holes, and in
one instance all of the casing and the drill rods were lost at a depth of 122m.
7.5.2 Outokumpu: 1991 - 1996

Although drilling by Outokumpu comprises the largest part of the present drill-hole
database, no descriptions of Outokumpus drilling procedures are available. The evidence
of their work does suggest that it was systematic and followed good practices.
About 80% of Outokumpus samples from drill core were 1m long, 16% were 2m long,
and the remainder ranged from 0.2m to a rather questionable 24.65m. In the case of
samples from RC drilling, about 95% were 1m long, 4% were 2m long, 0.5% were 3m
long, and the other 0.5% ranged from 0.55m to 8m.
Most of the Outokumpu drill core is still available, is in good condition, and has been re-
logged by Quadra geologists. Pulps from Outokumpus samples are stored in paper
envelopes, organized, and shelved in shipping containers in a fenced yard at the project
site. Prior to Quadras acquisition of the project, some of the samples had been disturbed
at various times by other parties, and a small percentage of the pulps is now missing.
Crushed reject material for many sample intervals is available, and these are also
organized and stored on shelves in shipping containers. Quadra has found that in most
instances where pulps are missing, crushed reject material is available.
7.6 Drilling by Quadra Mining

Quadra drilling through the end of 2008 totals some 160,000m, including nearly 61,000m
of core (Table 7.6-1). The samples have been logged and analyzed as part of the ongoing
exploration program. Standard geologic logging includes detailed information about
lithologies, structures, alteration and veining, sulfide mineralogy and volume percent,
iron and copper oxide mineralogy and volume percent, and classification for sulfide or
oxide mineral type. Information on Rock Quality Designation (RQD) and core
recovery is recorded.
In the first two years of exploration - 2004 and 2005 - Quadra concentrated on
evaluation of the oxide resource and using a single RC drill rig for the drilling
campaigns. The years 2006 through 2008 saw a combination of RC and core
drilling as the program expanded to include the sulfide resources. The core holes
were primarily collared in HQ diameter; some were eventually downsized to NQ
at varying depths depending upon the drilling conditions. Core holes are typically
drilled with RC pre-collars which extend a short distance into the sulfide zone or
to the water table. The RC holes varied in diameter from 5-3/8 inch and 5-1/2 inch
to 5-3/4 inch. The following is the breakdown on drilling equipment used for
periods 2004 to 2008: 2004 and 2005 RC drilling only. One Schramm T650
with hole diameters varying from 5-3/8 inch and 5-1/2 inch to 5-3/4 inch.
2006 RC and core drilling. One UDR-1200 multi-purpose rig (RC and core
capability) and one UDR-200 core rig. Core diameters were HQ (63.5 mm) and
NQ (47.6 mm), and RC diameter was 5 inch.
2007 and 2008 RC and core drilling. One Schramm T650 with RC diameter of
5-1/2 inch. Three or four UDR-200s (core drilling) and one UDR-1200 (core
drilling). Core diameter was HQ (63.5 mm) and NQ (47.6 mm).
Harris y CIA (Harris and Company) from Antofagasta, Chile, was the drilling contractor
for all five drilling campaigns.
Table 7.6-1:
Drilling by Quadra at Sierra Gorda
Year Holes RC Meters Core Meters Total Meters

2004 50 10,712 10,712
2005 75 15,489 15,489
2006 175 11,476 6,911 18,387
2007 116 23,308 25,140 48,448
2008 206 38,215 28,788 67,003
2009 0 0 0 0
Total Quadra 622 99,200 60,839 160,039
7.7 Sampling Method and Approach

All of the sampling described herein refers to work by Quadra. In addition to Quadras
own drill sampling, another major effort by Quadra has involved re-sampling and re-
analysis of material remaining from Outokumpus work, including sample pulps, sample
rejects, and drill core.
7.7.1 RC and Core Sampling by Quadra

Core and cuttings from the drill sites were transported twice daily to Quadras sample
handling and storage area on-site, where core and RC cuttings were logged. Quadra
geologists used the same forms for both types of drill holes. Lithology, alteration,
mineralogy, and mineral types were routinely logged using abbreviations and brief
descriptions. Logging was performed on 2m intervals. Alteration styles were noted with
their intensities. Relative or absolute concentrations of mineral species were also noted.
The sample number and rig duplicate sample numbers were noted on the logs. The
weight of the sample was noted. Sample recovery for core samples was noted.
Fundamental geotechnical parameters were logged for core. The parameters included
core recovery, rock hardness, RQD, fracture frequency, fracture fill, and a rock mass
rating (RMR). A density sample was taken every 20m.
7.7.2 RC Sampling
During the Quadra RC drilling, samples were routinely collected every 2m, and virtually
all of Quadras roughly 49,600 RC samples are 2m intervals. The drill rods were marked
at 2m intervals for sampling purposes.
The RC-sampling flow sheet is illustrated in Figure 7.7-1. The sample material is split
into three components, labeled A, B and C, as illustrated in the figure. Component
A was the sample used for analysis. Component B is stored underground at the Sierra
Gorda site in polyethylene rice sacks. Component C remained for a period at the drill
site, in polyethylene rice sacks, one for each sample; it has since been disposed of.
A few tens of grams of material from each sample are stored in clear plastic chip trays for
logging and inspection purposes. These chip trays are stored on shelves in Quadras
shipping containers at the Sierra Gorda site. The chips have been digitally photographed.
Reject sample material, returned from the lab, is stored in polyethylene rice sacks in
Quadras warehouse at the Sierra Gorda site. Unused pulps are returned from the lab and
are stored by Quadra in paper envelopes organized on shelves in steel shipping
containers. A small split of each pulp, about 100 grams, is stored separately in the same
manner.
ENTIRE SAMPLE
FROM 2M INTERVAL
1st Split (50-78kg)
RIFFLE
SPLITTER
Half of 1st Split

Discarded
2nd Split (25-40kg)
RIFFLE
SPLITTER
Half of 2nd Split
Retained & Bagged
(C Sample)
3rd Split
RIFFLE
SPLITTER
4-8 kg
DUPLICATE SAMPLE
4-8 kg
SPLIT (B) LAB (A)
Figure 7.7-1: Quadra RC Sample Splitting at the Drill Rig
7.7.3 Core Sampling

Since the first core drilling beginning in 2006 Quadra has taken roughly 30,400 core
samples; generally on 2 meter intervals. During the 2006, 2007 and 2008 drill
campaigns, all core boxes were transported twice a day (at the end of every shift) by
truck to Quadras secure storage facility on-site, where core was geotechnically logged,
photographed, geologically logged, and sampled. Drill core was sampled and split on site
with a diamond saw, using a 2m average sampling interval. The saw blade is cooled and
lubricated by a constant flow of re-circulating water. The re-circulating water is replaced
with clean water every 10 to 15 samples. The re-circulation has the potential for fine
material to re-circulate with the water and cross-contaminate samples. It would be
preferable to cool the saw blade with a constant supply of clean water, however, water is
a scarce commodity in the Atacama Desert. Sawn core was logged and then stacked on
pallets and stored on site.
Drill-hole collars were surveyed by Quadra surveyors upon completion of each drill hole.
Downhole deviation measurements were completed by Comprobe Ltda., from Calama,
once each core drill hole was completed.
During the logging in 2006 and 2007, select core samples were identified for
petrographic analysis by Dr. Steve Shaver (University of the South, Suwanee, Tennessee)
and were sent to the University of the South for analysis.
7.8 Re-Sampling of Outokumpu Drill-Hole Material

Due to the importance of these holes, Quadra has done several stages of re-sampling
and/or resubmission of old samples. Quadra used sample intervals corresponding to the
original Outokumpu sample intervals. Quadra employees did all of the handling,
including taking sub-samples from reject material and re-cutting drill core, prior to
delivery to the lab. There have been three types of resampling and/or re-submission.
1. Re-analysis of Outokumpu pulps
As noted in Section 7.5.2, Outokumpu received the unused pulps from the
laboratories doing the analyses and stored them at the Sierra Gorda site, each sample
in a paper envelope. Since 2004, Quadra has resubmitted many of the pulps for re-
analysis. Descriptions of the submissions and results appear in Section 7.9 of this
report. The standard procedure was to simply pack each paper envelope into a small
plastic pouch and send it to the laboratory. The laboratory used as much of the pulp as
required and sent the remainder back to the Sierra Gorda site for storage.
2. Re-sampling of Outokumpu rejects
In instances in which pulps were not available, or in some cases as an additional
check, Quadra resampled the coarse reject material stored by Outokumpu at the Sierra
Gorda site. From 2004 to 2005, the procedure in use was:
Empty contents of each plastic jar onto a clean plastic sheet with
dimensions of about 40cm x 40cm.
Mix the material by holding opposite corners of the plastic sheet and
rolling it repeatedly, so that material that had originally settled to the
bottom of the jar was remixed into the bulk of the reject, performing a
crude form of homogenization.
Hold the plastic sheet up by opposite corners so that it takes a sling-like

form, with the homogenized sample material distributed along the trough
of the sling.
Pour approximately half of the reject material from one end of the sling
into a plastic sample bag for shipment to the laboratory.
While this procedure for homogenizing and splitting improves homogeneity of the
reject material, it still leaves considerable potential for unintended classification of
material by specific gravity during the splitting process. It is also considerably
different from any procedure that would have been used by the original laboratories
to create sub-samples, thus reducing the degree to which the new sub-sample can be
considered a duplicate of sub-samples that would have been used for the original
analyses. Quadra has implemented the use of a riffle splitter since mid 2005.
3. Re-sampling of Outokumpu drill core
Outokumpu originally sampled their drill core by sawing it in half along the core axis.
Quadra has re-sampled some of the same core by quartering it along the core axis,
There are two available approaches to taking a second sample from an already-
sampled interval of drill core. One is to quarter the core, as Quadra has done. The
other is take the entire remaining half of the core as a sample. Each approach has
advantages and disadvantages. In the case of Quadras approach, the biggest
advantage is that some of the core remains, as evidence of the drilling, for future
examination should it be required. The disadvantages to quartering the core are:
The second sample is at best half the size of the first, so that the first and
second samples have different degrees of support.
If the first sampler oriented the cut optimally, to provide the most
representative sample possible, the second sampler by necessity makes the
cut in a less desirable orientation.
For these reasons, quartered core samples should not be treated as duplicates of the
original half-core samples. At best, quartered core provides a guide to how relatively
well-behaved or homogeneous the material will appear to be, by demonstrating
how well, or how poorly, immediately adjacent samples, of different bulk, compare to
each other. Despite the disadvantages of quartering core, it is a useful and accepted
practice in the industry, providing that its limitations are understood.
7.9 Sample Preparation Analyses and Security
7.9.1 Outokumpu Samples

The MQes report (2004b) described the sample preparation procedure used for
Outokumpus samples (Figure 7.9-1). According to the same MQes report, the following
analytical procedures were used by some or all of the laboratories that analyzed
Outokumpus samples. MQes was unable to confirm that all the laboratories used by
Outokumpu followed exactly the same procedures or that conditions in each laboratory
were the same.
Coarse Sample 2-3 kg

Jaw Crusher 100% passing (12.7 mm)

Cone Crusher 100% passing (6.3 mm)

Roll Crusher 100% passing 10 mesh (Tyler, 1.68 mm)

Jones type riffle splitter

Reject to archive 350g split for analytical split

Dry at 105 C for 1 hour

Pulverize to 100% passing 100 mesh (Tyler, 0.149 mm)

Split to two samples of approximately 200g each
copied from Figure 3.1 of MQes, 2004b
Figure 7.9-1: Outokumpu Sample Preparation Procedure

For the initial determination of total copper and molybdenum:
1g of sample is placed in a mix of HNO3 and HClO4 (aqua regia).
The solution is heated until a dry residue is left.
The dry residue is digested in HCl.
Copper and molybdenum values are determined using atomic absorption
spectrometry (AA).
To determine molybdenum concentrations of less than 30 ppm:
10g of sample is placed in aqua regia.
The solution is heated until syrupy.
The dry residue is digested in HCl.
Molybdenum is determined using atomic absorption spectrometry.

To determine how much soluble copper is present:
2.5g of sample are leached in 1 molar citric acid and 5% H2SO4 acid.
The sample is agitated for 30 minutes.
The solution is decanted, homogenized, and filtered.
The copper in solution is determined using atomic absorption spectrometry.
Although Quadra has a large percentage of the original laboratory certificates, it has no
records from the laboratories themselves of the actual sample preparation and analytical
procedures used in analyzing Outokumpus samples. MDA has found minimal
information about analytical procedures in the available Outokumpu reports. The 1996
Outokumpu Pre-Feasibility report states, "All laboratories used the same type of sample
preparation and analyzing methods. Analyzing was done by using AAS [atomic
absorption spectrometry]." The pre-feasibility report identifies four different laboratories
used by Outokumpu: Centro de Investigacin Minera y Metalrgica (CIMM), Alfred
H. Knight Ltda., SGS Chile Ltda. (SGS), and Centro de Estudios Medicin y
Certificacin de Calidad Ltda. (CESMEC). MQes (2004b) noted that two different
CIMM facilities had been used, one in Antofagasta and the other in Santiago. MQes also
pointed out that some samples had been analyzed at the Zaldivar Mine Lab.
Any security procedures that might have been employed by Outokumpu are unknown to
Quadra.
7.9.2 Outokumpu Quality Control Procedures

The following description is paraphrased from section 3.8 of the draft 2004 MQes report.
Outokumpu split 5% of the RC samples at the drill and submitted those samples to two
laboratories to serve as check analyses. Outokumpu also took quarter-core splits from 5%
of the drill core samples, submitting them to two laboratories. The results are summarized
in Contreras (1995) and Contreras (1996b). These are field duplicates, which can provide
useful information about the very local geological variability of the mineralization but do
not provide any check on the quality of the routine analytical work. Outokumpu did not
routinely insert duplicates, standards, or blanks into the sample stream.
MQes (Section 3.8.2) did note that considerable duplicate data exist in the analytical
certificates.
Outokumpu had sent approximately 657 samples to CIMM Antofagasta and SGS for
what MQes deduced were duplicate check assays. MQes did not state and may not have
been able to determine at what stage of the sampling, preparation, and analytical process
the duplicates were originally taken. MQes found that:
CuT (total copper) results indicate an approximately 3% bias between the laboratories
which is judged by MQes to be adequate. (Judging from MQes graph it appears that
SGS had the high bias relative to CIMM). Twenty-four samples were excluded from these
data because they were troublesome. The excluded samples are, in large part, bag swaps
and mislabeled bags, only the most obvious of which are excluded. This leads MQes to
question all of the data to some degree as there are almost certainly other problem
samples that were not identified.
For soluble copper (CuS), The data show a bias of about 14% between CIMM-
Antofagasta and SGS for the 93 samples included in the data. The origin of the bias is
unknown. Which laboratory is more accurate is also unknown as no standards were
inserted with the samples. It is not possible to determine the cause [of the bias] from
these data...
For molybdenum (Mo), A total of 81 samples are included in the graph [Figure 3.4 of
the MQes report, not reproduced here]. Eleven outliers were removed. When all of the
data are considered, there is a bias of about 6% between the two data sets. When the two
very high-grade samples are removed, the bias is about 3.5% and is considered
acceptable.
7.9.3 MQes Re-assay Program

Due to the lack of quality control samples in the original Outokumpu work, MQes
performed a re-assay program to determine how the laboratories used by Outokumpu
performed when compared to an independent laboratory. They started by selecting
samples that had assays for total copper, soluble copper, and molybdenum from the same
laboratory. MQes noted that the selection technique resulted in the great majority of the
selected samples being those that had greater than 0.3% CuT (total copper) in the original
analyses. MDA notes that this imparts a selection bias to the check sampling. Only a
very small number had less than 0.3% CuT. This selection process found approximately
6,000 samples from CIMM-Antofagasta, 3,000 from Alfred Knight, 3,000 from SGS, and
approximately 150 from CESMEC.
The samples from each laboratory were ordered from highest to lowest grade. Then every
12th sample was selected from the CIMM-Antofagasta list and every 6th sample was
selected from the Alfred Knight and SGS lists. All of the CESMEC samples were chosen.
Once the lists of samples for re-analysis were prepared, MQes attempted to recover the
corresponding pulps from the on-site storage. They succeeded in recovering almost all of
the pulps from CIMM-Antofagasta and Alfred Knight. A total of 205 pulps from samples
originally analyzed by SGS were recovered. None of the CESMEC pulps were found.
The final set of check samples numbered about 1,250.
MQes collected samples from the stored pulps by mixing each pulp with a spatula and
then removing about 20 grams as a sample. In some cases, insufficient material remained
to supply 20-gram sub-samples. In those instances, MQes took half of what pulp there
was.
MQes check samples were analyzed at ALS Chemex (Chemex). Total copper (CuT)
and molybdenum (Mo) were analyzed using Chemexs method AA621. For soluble
copper (CuS), MQes selected Chemexs method AA05. This method uses a sulfuric acid
leach followed by copper determination using AA. MQes reported that in the case of total
copper, the original labs show small and insignificant biases relative to ALS-Chemex.
While this evaluation indicates that the data from those laboratories is probably
adequate, it is not a substitute for routine, rigorous quality control. For soluble copper
The three laboratories each exhibit small biases relative to ALS-Chemex that are not
considered to be significant.
In the case of molybdenum, The three laboratories exhibit significantly different biases
relative to ALS-Chemex. Alfred Knight and CIMM-Antofagasta show biases on the order
of 3% to 5% while SGS is biased on the order of 12% high. The biases exhibited by
Alfred Knight and CIMM-Antofagasta are within reasonable limits (generally considered
to be 5%). The SGS bias, however is somewhat problematical. It is outside the limits of
general acceptability and in some cases, adjustment of the data to conform more closely
to the check assay laboratory is indicated. In this case MQes elected not to adjust the
data because SGS analyzed only 15% of the verified Mo assays and the impact of the
small overestimation of grade will have a minimal impact on the estimated Mo grade in
the deposit.
MQes employed thorough quality control checking of its own re-assay program. It used
four certified reference materials (CRMs) from GeoStats Pty., one of which was inserted
every 15 samples, but at irregular intervals. Pulp duplicates were collected and inserted
approximately every 25 samples. A duplicate of one in 20 pulp samples was sent to
another laboratory, Acme Laboratories (Acme) in Santiago, for checking. Based on its
quality control monitoring, MQes concluded that the re-assay program was
adequately precise and accurate for the purposes of the check assay program. The
conclusions reached in the comparison between the historic data and the current data
are thus based on data with adequate quality controls.
7.10 Quadra Drill Program Samples

Chemex in La Serena analyzed samples from the Quadra drilling program in 2004, Acme
in Santiago in 2005, and Andes Analytical Assays Ltda. (Andes) in Santiago in 2006
and 2007. All laboratories are ISO9001:2000 certified. The analytical and preparation
procedures for the 2004 drilling program are described in Table 7.10-1. The analytical
and preparation procedures for the 2005 through 2008 drilling programs are described in
Table 7.10-2. The sample preparation flowsheet for the 2004 drilling program is shown in
Figure 7.10-1. The sample preparation flowsheet for the 2005 through 2008 drilling
programs is shown in Figure 7-10-2. When Andes took over the assaying in 2006, they
established a preparation facility on site in the fenced compound at Sierra Gorda. The
only difference in sample preparation was that Andes pulverized samples to >85% less
than 150 mesh, whereas Chemex and Acme had pulverized to >85% less than 200 mesh.
Table 7.10-1:
Analytical Procedures Followed in Quadras 2004 Drilling Campaign
ALS
Chemex Detection
Element Description of Method
Method Range
Code
Log sample in tracking system, weigh, dry, fine
crush entire sample to better than 70% -2mm,
Prep PREP-31 n/a split off up to 250 g and pulverize split to better
than 85% passing 75 micron. This procedure is
illustrated in Figure 13.2
HF-HNO3-HClO4 acid digestion; determination by
Copper Cu-AA62 0.01 to 50%
AAS
Sequential analysis; results are reported for
sulfuric acid soluble, cyanide soluble, residual
Copper Cu-AN06 n/a
copper and total copper, total being the sum of
acid soluble, cyanide soluble and residual.
Molybdenum Mo-AA62 0.01 to 10%
AAS.
HF-HNO3-HClO4 acid digestion, HCl leach,
varies by
27 elements ME-ICP61 considered a near-total digestion; determination
element
by ICPAES
Notes: Information about procedures derived from an electronic version of ALS Chemex US and
International catalog for 2004.
All samples analyzed using ME-ICP61.
Most samples analyzed using Cu-AN06
If Cu by ME-ICP61 exceeded detection limit, Cu-AA62 done.
If Mo by ME-ICP61 exceeded detection limit, Mo-AA62 done. In later holes the criterion was
changed to Mo greater than 90% of the initial detection limit.
Table 7-10-2:
Analytical Procedures Followed in Quadras 2005-2008 Drilling Campaign
Detection
Element Method Description of Method
Range
Code
Log sample in tracking system, weigh, dry, fine
crush entire sample to better than 70% -2mm,
Prep PREP-31 n/a split off up to 250 g and pulverize split to better
than 85% passing 75 micron. This procedure is
illustrated in Figure 13.3
Copper Cu-AA62 0.005 to 50%
AAS
Molybdenum Mo-AA62 0.005 to 10%
AAS.
HF-HNO3-HClO4 acid digestion, HCl leach,
varies by
35 elements ME-ICP61 considered a near-total digestion; determination
element
by ICPAES
Gold Fire Assay 1 ppb Fire Assay 30-40g; determination by AAS
Figure 7-10-1: Sample Preparation for Quadras 2004 Samples

DRILL PROGRAMS - 2005 TO 2007

SAMPLE PREPARATION FLOW
SHEET (Prep 31)
UIREMENTS PROCCESS
eption yard asphalted at
RECEPTION
50 m2.
g Chamber with capacity

0 hardened steel trays of DRYING
0x5 cm or 50x30x10 cm.
o Jaw Crusher CRUSHING
Carry out a granulometric

control every 30 samples.
es Splitter
HOMOGENIZATION
15
Figure 7-10-2: Sample Preparation for Quadras 2005-2008 Samples

While sample materials are at the Sierra Gorda site, they are kept in a fenced yard or in a
building that can be locked when no personnel are present. Currently all on-site handling
and sampling are done by employees of Quadra or the analytical laboratory. During the
2005 drill program, samples were normally picked up at the Sierra Gorda site by Acme
laboratory personnel. For the 2006 through 2008 drill programs, Andes installed a
preparation facility on site within a fenced compound. Once the samples have been
crushed and pulverized, packaged and labeled, Quadra staff inserts appropriate quality
control samples into the sample dispatch. After the insertion of quality control samples,
Quadra staff organizes all samples into sealed transport sacks and returns sealed sacks to
Andes personnel for transport to their laboratory in Santiago, Chile.
7.11 Data Verification

No new data verification work has been completed since March of 2008; work
documented in Ristorcelli et. al., 2008. The section on data verification from that report
is quoted below.
Since March of 2008, Quadra has drilled an additional 206 core and reverse circulation
holes for roughly 67,000 meters, including nearly 33,300 usable analyses for copper and
molybdenum, and more than 15,100 analyses for gold. It is anticipated that data
verification on this newest information will be complete before the end of 2009.
From Ristorcelli et. al. (2008), Chapter 14.0 :
Since Quadra acquired the Sierra Gorda project in 2004, the company has invested
considerable time and effort in building a database for the project that is as complete and
clean as possible. All of the information about drilling and analyses that exists on paper
is stored in well-organized file cabinets at the Sierra Gorda site. At the time of MDAs
first visit in 2005, a digital drill-hole database had been created, using databases obtained
from previous operators as a starting point. Since 2005, the process of cleaning and
adding to the database has continued.
Checks Preceding the 2005 Resource Estimate

Ristorcelli and Ronning (2005) described data verification done prior to MDAs
involvement and by MDA in 2005. The following summary is condensed from their
2005 report.
Checks by Mine and Quarry Engineering Services, Inc. in 2004

Quadras files and the database were reviewed by MQes, a consulting group, in 2004
(MQes, 2004b). MQes reported that they checked every sample on every assay
certificate that was available at that time. The results of the MQes checks were
summarized in Table 3.10 of their report. Table 7.11-1, is a summary prepared by MDA
in 2005 of the material presented in MQes Table 3.10.
MQes identified a number of issues in the database and made some corrections, described
in MQes (2004b). MQes also did some checks of the digital database for evidence of
down-hole contamination in Outokumpus reverse circulation drill holes. They did not
find any conclusive evidence of down-hole contamination.
Table 7.11-1 Summary of MQes Sample Certificate Checks
Description CuT CuS Mo Au

Catalina Area
Number of Analyses 38,717 13,845 22,878 3,223
Number of Analyses with certificates 33,403 11,040 19,688 3,158
Number of Analyses without
5,314 2,805 3,190 65
certificates
% of Analyses Having Certificates 86 80 86 98
Salvadora Area
Number of Analyses 11,895 4,667 3,422 1,108
Number of Analyses with certificates 8,007 3,020 1,997 791
3,888 1,647 1,425 317
certificates
Isabela Area
Number of Analyses 6,341 1,351 1,422 389
Number of Analyses with certificates 2,277 1,147 1,094 373
4,068 204 328 16
certificates
Checks by MDA in 2005

During MDAs visit to the Sierra Gorda project site in March of 2005, considerable time
and effort were devoted to checking the digital database to be used for the resource
estimate. MDA checked a subset of the analyses in the digital database, as set out in
Table 7.11-2, which appeared in Ristorcelli and Ronning (2005).
Table 7.11-2 Checks of Analyses in the Digital Database

(Ristorcelli and Ronning, 2005)
Drill Errors Source of Check Data

Analyses Found Significant Original Original Digital
Element Holes
Checked and Errors Certificates Logs Print-
Checked Corrected Outs
Total 7,438 30 271 86 5,053 2,138 247
Copper
Soluble 2,237 29 52 not 1,587 580 70
Copper
checked
Molybdenum 3,593 28 51 12 2,283 1,060 250
Gold 570 15 30 not 348 189 33
checked
Silver 139 1 nil not nil 106 33
checked
Lead nil nil nil not nil nil nil
checked
Zinc nil nil nil not nil nil nil
checked
Notes: These checks compared original hard copy data to the digital database eventually used by MDA for the
resource estimate. The hard copy data used was obtained from the files of Quadra Mining Ltd. at the
Sierra Gorda site. MDA did no independent searches for hard copy data that may not have been
gathered by Quadra. The quality of available hard copy data varied:
Original certificates are the original analytical certificates issued by the several laboratories used by
various operators. Some were available as originals and some as photocopies. MDA treated
photocopies as having the same value as originals.
MDA checked analyses in the database against original, hand-written drill logs, only if no
certificates were available. For analyses, the logs are secondary sources, not having the same
value as certificates. They are nevertheless closer to the origin of the data than the digital
database. Where the hand-written log and digital database differed, and no certificate was
available, the database was changed to match the log.
Early digital print-outs of analyses are of marginal use as checks against the present database. It is
likely that the digital files used to generate the print-outs were compiled into the present database,
so errors in the early digital files might well be inherited by the present database. Furthermore,
MDA has no way to determine whether the early digital files were created by hand-entering data, or
were received as digital files from the laboratories. Some comparisons of digital print-outs against
certificates did reveal a few errors that presumably resulted from data entry. Despite all of these
concerns, if neither original certificates nor original logs were available, MDA did check the present
database against earlier digital print-outs.
Neither soluble copper, gold, silver, lead or zinc were used in the 2005 estimate.
* Significant errors are those that, in the subjective judgment of the authors, would have a significant
impact or this or a similar resource estimate, were they numerous. This judgment was made only for
total copper and molybdenum, as those were the elements used in this resource estimate.
In addition to checking the digital assay database, MDA did the following in 2005:
Field checked the locations of 75 drill holes using a hand-held GPS. While this
type of check cannot verify the detailed precision of survey-quality data, it does
test the reasonableness of collar locations and will identify gross errors in
location.
Checked the down-hole survey data file by comparing the digital file against
original records and checking plots generated from the data file for anomalies,
such as unusually deviating holes. The original digital data file was found to have
an unacceptably high error rate. Quadra re-built the file from original sources.
Checked the drill-hole collar locations against the digital topographic model
(DTM) in Quadras possession. MDA found that there was a poor match
between the drill hole collar elevations and the DTM. Given that the collar
locations had been re-surveyed by Quadra, they were deemed more likely to be
correct, and the then-available DTM was deemed to be of poor quality. In
addition, MDA found two different campaigns of topographic data, which did not
join accurately, and found that neither covered the entire modeled area. Quadra
commissioned a new DTM from Eagle Mapping in Chile. After several
iterations, a DTM was provided to MDA.
Checks Preceding the Current Resource Estimate
October 2007
In preparation for the present resource estimate, MDA visited the Sierra Gorda site in
October of 2007 and in January of 2008. Among other tasks, considerable time was
invested in data verification.
During the site visit of October 2007, MDA found that the assay database had been
considerably improved since 2005. MDA began the 2007 audit by comparing the then-
current database to that of 2005. Differences were expected and were indeed found.
MDA checked much of the pre-Quadra data against original hard copies and found that
Quadras database of 2007 was considerably more correct than that of 2005. Table 7.11-
3 summarizes those checks:
Table 7.11-3 Summary of Main Database Checks, October 2007

Number and Number and
Number
Item Checked Percent Percent Significant
Checked
Discrepancies Discrepancies
Pre-Quadra Collars: Location, Dip and
37 4 (11%) 1 (3%)
Azimuth
Quadra Collars: Location, Dip and
110 14 (13%) 4 (4%)
Azimuth
Pre-Quadra Sample ID 889 7 (1%) 1 (0.1%)
Pre-Quadra From-To 883 3 (0.3%) 1 (0.1%)
Pre-Quadra CuT 1,471 12 (1%) 1 (< 0.1%)
Pre-Quadra CuS 234 1 (0.4%) 0
Pre-Quadra Mo 1,509 11 (1%) 0
Pre-Quadra Au 162 12 (7%) 0
In October of 2007, MDA also checked geotechnical data, consisting of core recovery
and RQD data that were, at the time, kept separately from the main drill-hole database.
Results of those checks are summarized in Table 7.11-4. The procedures of measuring
and the form of Quadras geotechnical data need attention and change. The data are
stored in files such that the core recovery and the RQD are recorded in the same file in
the same fields with overlapping intervals. Furthermore, the RQD is measured by 1m
intervals rather than core run to core run.
Table 7.11-4 Summary of Geotechnical Database Checks, October 2007

Percent Percent of Percent Significant
Item Checked
Checked Discrepancies Discrepancies
Outokumpu Geotech 20% 1% 0.3%
SV drill-hole Geotech 14% 0.5% -
Some other items checked, and resulting comments, from the October 2007 visit are:
In October of 2007, there were few or no density data available from Quadras
drilling.
MDA checked the water-level data for Quadras 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007
drilling and found that all but the 2004 data were properly recorded. MDA
cleaned over half of the water level records and requested that Quadra clean the
remaining ones.
When loading the database of October 2007 into geological modeling software,
some inconsistencies were found, such as instances of drill holes having different
depths recorded in different tables, or overlapping sample intervals.
Recovery from RC drill holes had been calculated using different assumed
average rock densities during different periods of drilling. MDA elected to use
the recorded sample weights and re-calculate recoveries using consistent
assumptions.
October 2007 to March 2008

During the October 2007 field visit, MDA chose not to audit assay data for the holes
drilled by Quadra, concentrating instead on pre-Quadra holes. Subsequent to that visit,
from late 2007 through February of 2008, MDA used electronic databases compiled by
Gary Lustig (Lustig), independently of Quadra, as a means of auditing Quadras
database. As part of the monitoring of QA/QC results, Lustig receives analytical data in
electronic form directly from the laboratories that do the analyses. Lustig compiles a
database for QA/QC purposes, and MDA used two separate generations of Lustigs
database, one of October 14, 2007 and one of February 1, 2008, to check the Quadra
database. The checks were done by using the query tools within Microsoft Access()
software. This has an advantage over checking against hard-copy certificates, in that it
allows for checking all the records that Lustigs and Quadras databases have in common,
without the errors inherent in visual, paper vs. screen comparisons. Between October of
2007 and March of 2008, MDA, Lustig and Quadra had numerous email exchanges
dealing with various issues that appeared during the course of comparing Quadras and
Lustigs databases. While there were some issues, MDA is satisfied that, with the
cooperation of Lustig and Quadra, issues were resolved satisfactorily.
Table 7.11-5 indicates what proportions of the total database were verified by comparing
Lustigs and Quadras data.
Table 7.11-5 Summary of Checks against Lustig Database
Total Number of Total Number Percent Verified

Metal Usable Analyses in Verified Against Against Lustig
Database Lustig Database Database
Copper 104,101 40,982 39 %
Molybdenum 74,338 40,979 55 %
Note: this table was compiled in early April 2008 and does include a small number of recent
sample results that were not used in the resource estimate.
8. Assay Quality Control
8. Assay Quality Control
8.1 Introduction
Quality control procedures at Sierra Gorda were initiated during the 2004 drill program
and have continued through to the current program (Lustig, 2005, 2008a). These
procedures include routine analysis of standard reference material (standard), field and/or
preparation duplicate and blank in each group of 20 samples analyzed. Analytical results
for these samples have been continuously monitored to assure that the quality of analyses
is maintained. Quality control results have been recorded in a failure table to document
variances from the accepted limits, as well as to track corrective actions taken. Assays
exceeding the acceptable limits are examined to ensure that field and analytical standard
operating procedures are adhered to. Where corrective action is required analytical
batches are re-assayed.
All routine analyses were completed by Andes Analytical Assays Ltda. (AAA) of
Santiago, an ISO 9001:2000 certified laboratory. Assays for copper and molybdenum
were by atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) following a four-acid digestion. Gold
was determined by fire assay followed by AAS measurement.
To ensure the precision of analytical results, reverse circulation chip sampling was
monitored by blind field duplicates. The field duplicates are taken from splits every 20
samples. Where core drilling is employed, quarter core duplicate samples taken after the
first crushing stage, were analyzed. In addition, lab duplicates taken after crushing of the
sample by the lab are analyzed as part of internal laboratory quality control programs,
which are reported and monitored.
Duplicates are taken at each stage where the sample size and grain size is reduced to
monitor the overall sampling system. The field duplicates represent the first split of the
sample. Due to the coarse particulate nature of the material, the field duplicate samples
incorporate the maximum amount of geological variability.
The general expectation is that the precision will improve progressively from the field
duplicate to the preparation and to the pulp duplicate as the samples become more
homogenous as a result of crushing, pulverizing and mixing. A number of samples
exhibit Cu and Mo concentrations below the detection limit, <0.005%. Where samples
exhibit below detection concentrations a value of the detection limit is assigned, for
instance for Cu and Mo the concentration of 0.0025% would be assigned for statistical
8-1
ASSAY QUALITY CONTROL
purposes. Where concentrations are at or near the detection limit, reproducibility of

results with precision is inherently unreliable, this is considered when evaluating quality
control samples.
To ensure the integrity of the laboratory results, the laboratory and sample preparation
facility were visited near the end of the program. These facilities were found to be clean
and well run (Lustig, 2008b).
8.2 Sampling Program
Table 8.2-1 outlines the sampling included in the 2008 QC database. As the 2007 and
2008 programs were continuous with no break in the drilling, this review includes all
sampling after the 2008 resource estimation (Ristorcelli et al, 2008). The sampling was
divided between split core and reverse circulation chips. The program to date has
comprised 41,846 analyses (in the QC database), including 35,365 drill samples. The
external quality control samples include 2,159 standards, 2,246 blanks, 677 crush
(preparation) duplicate, 262 quarter core duplicates and 1,137 RC rig duplicates. In
addition, AAA assayed 2,335 pulp duplicates, 1,173 preparation duplicates, 2,159
standards, 208 blanks, and 228 samples of barren quartz wash.
Table 8.2-1:
Sampling Included in 2008 QC Database
Primary Drill Samples

Core 15748
RC Cuttings 19617
Total Drill Sample 35365
QC Samples
Crush 677
RC Field 1137
Quarter Core 262
Blank 2246
Std 2159
Total QC Samples 6481
All Samples 41846
A statistical summary of the routine drill sample analyses included in the 2008
quality control database is presented in Table 8.2-2.
Table 8.2-2:
Descriptive Statistics of 2008 Routine Samples
All RC Chips Core Reassay

Statistic
Au Cu Mo Au Cu Mo Au Cu Mo Au
No. of observations 15145 33285 33285 275 18403 18403 14867 14870 14870 15354
Minimum 0.500 0.003 0.003 0.500 0.003 0.003 0.500 0.003 0.003 0.005
Maximum 4771 6.28 1.38 370.0 3.94 1.23 4771.0 6.28 1.38 15.89
Freq. of minimum 558 3745 24551 3 3449 16836 555 295 7709 1071
Range 4770.5 6.27 1.37 369.50 3.93 1.23 4770.50 6.27 1.37 15.89
1st Quartile 16.0 0.01 0.00 8.00 0.01 0.00 16.00 0.08 0.00 0.02
Median 33.0 0.05 0.00 12.00 0.01 0.00 34.00 0.19 0.00 0.04
3rd Quartile 64.0 0.20 0.01 17.00 0.04 0.00 64.00 0.39 0.01 0.08
Mean 55.3 0.15 0.01 21.78 0.05 0.00 55.91 0.28 0.02 0.07
Variance (n1) 10767.1 0.07 0.00 1717.65 0.02 0.00 10914.16 0.09 0.00 0.03
Standard deviation (n1) 103.8 0.26 0.04 41.44 0.14 0.02 104.47 0.31 0.05 0.17
Variation coefficient 1.9 1.67 3.91 1.90 2.71 4.74 1.87 1.10 3.16 2.35
Skewness (Pearson) 17.8 4.69 13.85 5.31 10.40 30.38 17.79 3.91 9.78 52.17
Kurtosis (Pearson) 567.3 47.29 263.45 32.32 175.47 1223.08 561.96 36.34 130.09 4514.42
Standard error of the mean 0.8 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lower bound on mean (95%) 53.6 0.15 0.01 16.86 0.05 0.00 54.23 0.27 0.02 0.07
Upper bound on mean (95%) 56.9 0.16 0.01 26.70 0.05 0.01 57.59 0.28 0.02 0.08
8.3 Accuracy
Control limits are established at a recommended mean 3 (standard deviation) and

warning limits at a recommended mean 2. Standard analyses beyond the upper (UCL)
or lower (LCL) control limits are considered a failure. In addition, two successive
standard analyses outside of the upper warning limit (UWL) or lower warning limit
(LWL) on the same side of the mean constitute a failure. The mean and standard
deviation used to set the limits are those established during standard characterization
analyses.
A 3 control limit for single analyses is based on the probability of normal analyses of a
single standard exceeding these limits of 0.3%, which would occur infrequently and
indicates anomalous occurrence. In a normal distribution ~5% of samples exceed the
2 warning limits, therefore this could result in numerous false failures.
Results of the analyses of the standards are routinely plotted on separate Shewhart charts
for each standard and each metal; plotting concentration vs. the sample sequence. On
each of the plots the warning and control limits are plotted as horizontal lines. The
summary plots that are included in this report incorporate all standards on a single plot,
with the assay value converted to a z-score. A z-score is calculated by subtracting the
accepted value of the standard from the analytical value and dividing it by the standard
deviation derived from the analyses used to establish the accepted value (round robin
assays). This converts the analytical value to standard deviation units above and below
the mean, so all standards can be compared on the same plot.
The standards used in quality assurance and quality control of sample assays include:
3 in-house copper standards;
an in-house Cu-Mo standard;
an in-house Cu-Mo-Au standard;
one commercial Cu-Au standard;
one commercial Cu-Mo standard; and,
two commercial Cu-Mo-Au standards
A summary of the standards utilized for quality assurance and quality control of sample
assays is presented in Table 8.3-1.
Table 8.3-1:
Standards Used During the 2008 Drill Program
Round Robin Round Robin Mean Cu Mean Mo Mean Au
Standard Type Source
Analyses Labs % % %
CDNCGS9 Commercial CDN Resource Labs. 120 12 0.473 340
CDNCM1 Commercial CDN Resource Labs. 120 12 0.853 0.076 1850
CDNCM3 Commercial CDN Resource Labs. 120 12 0.548 0.029 460
Cu111 Commercial WCM Minerals 15 4 0.832 0.117
CuHG Inhouse Sierra Gorda 60 5 0.622
CuLG Inhouse Sierra Gorda 60 5 0.210
CuMG Inhouse Sierra Gorda 60 5 0.420
CuMoAu1 Inhouse Sierra Gorda 80 8 0.468 0.169 320
CuTMo Inhouse Sierra Gorda 60 5 0.778 0.312
For every 20 samples submitted for analysis, a standard was submitted for analysis.
Analytical batch identifiers were provided by AAA allowing batch level quality control.
8.4 Results of Routine Analyses
Summary statistics of the analyses of standards in 2008 are listed in Table 8.4-1. Results
reported in this table are the final results after adjustment of the sample identifiers and
any batch re-assays performed.
Quality control failures can generally be divided into two categories: type 1 which is
due to sample confusion either in the field or lab, data entry errors and/or
misidentification of sample; or, type 2 consisting of analytical errors. Identifying which
category a failure represents is important as re-assaying samples based on type 1 errors
will result in the same failure occurring.
Table 8.4-1:
Summary of Results of Routine Analyses of Standard Reference Materials
CGS9 CM1 CM3 Cu111 CuHG CuMG CuLG CuMoAu1 CuTMo

Statistic
Au Cu Au Cu Mo Au Cu Mo Cu Mo Cu Cu Cu Au Cu Mo Cu Mo
No. of observations 107 107 339 339 339 339 339 339 107 107 175 210 243 346 346 346 291 291
No. of missing values 35 0 142 0 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 0 0
Minimum 0.500 0.452 1601.000 0.826 0.065 138.000 0.528 0.026 0.810 0.107 0.587 0.408 0.206 35.00 0.442 0.167 0.749 0.313
Maximum 362 0.495 1972.000 0.889 0.081 520.000 0.579 0.031 0.850 0.124 0.654 0.443 0.265 358.00 0.498 0.191 0.818 0.356
Freq. of minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3
Range 361.500 0.043 371 0.063 0.016 382.000 0.051 0.005 0.040 0.017 0.067 0.035 0.059 323.00 0.056 0.024 0.069 0.043
1st Quartile 316.75 0.471 1734 0.847 0.074 449.5 0.547 0.028 0.816 0.111 0.612 0.415 0.211 307.00 0.456 0.174 0.766 0.331
Median 324.00 0.476 1805 0.850 0.076 462.0 0.552 0.029 0.823 0.114 0.616 0.418 0.213 317.00 0.463 0.176 0.773 0.340
3rd Quartile 331.00 0.483 1862 0.856 0.078 474.0 0.560 0.030 0.833 0.117 0.623 0.423 0.216 326.00 0.469 0.178 0.781 0.346
Mean 320.757 0.477 1797.4 0.852 0.075 462.353 0.554 0.0290 0.825 0.114 0.618 0.419 0.214 315.432 0.462 0.177 0.774 0.338
Accepted Mean 340 0.473 1850.0 0.853 0.076 460.000 0.548 0.029 0.832 0.117 0.632 0.420 0.210 320.000 0.468 0.169 0.778 0.312
Bias (%) 5.7 +0.7 2.8 0.1 0.7 +0.5 +1 0.1 0.9 2.5 2.3 0.2 +1.7 1.4 1.3 +4.5 0.5 +8.3
Variance (n1) 1599.7 0.000 7076.6 0.000 0.000 918.477 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 607.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Standard deviation (n1) 39.996 0.008 84.122 0.008 0.003 30.306 0.009 0.001 0.010 0.003 0.009 0.007 0.005 24.638 0.009 0.004 0.011 0.010
Variation coefficient 0.124 0.017 0.047 0.009 0.036 0.065 0.016 0.037 0.012 0.031 0.015 0.016 0.022 0.078 0.020 0.022 0.015 0.030
RSD(%) 12.382 1.702 4.668 0.892 3.649 6.537 1.571 3.720 1.202 3.051 1.507 1.555 2.230 7.790 1.961 2.186 1.480 3.043
Skewness (Pearson) 7.228 0.023 0.075 0.885 0.649 6.419 0.681 0.215 0.476 0.295 0.342 1.000 5.173 7.950 0.040 0.763 1.157 0.486
Kurtosis (Pearson) 55.761 0.300 0.812 1.579 0.339 68.418 0.238 0.471 0.763 0.366 1.490 1.002 53.020 88.986 0.082 0.909 1.850 0.660
Standard error of the mean 4.714 0.001 5.993 0.000 0.000 2.216 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.811 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001
Lower bound on mean (95%) 311.358 0.475 1785.591 0.851 0.075 457.981 0.553 0.029 0.823 0.113 0.616 0.418 0.213 311.859 0.461 0.176 0.773 0.337
Upper bound on mean (95%) 330.156 0.478 1809.231 0.853 0.076 466.725 0.555 0.029 0.827 0.115 0.619 0.420 0.214 319.006 0.463 0.177 0.776 0.339
An example of type 1 errors is presented in Figure 8.4.1. A number of standard assay

results were considerably above or below the accepted limits. The colour-coded plot of
grade vs. sequence in Figure 8.4-1 indicates that many of these standards were
misidentified standards. The results aligned with the accepted values for other standards
(type 1 errors). Before and after z-score plots (Figure 8.4-2) show the result of a re-
identification of standards based on multi-element analyses.
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
Copper (%)
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
Figure 8.4-1: Colour coded grade vs. Sequence plot used to resolve miss-identified
standards
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Z-Score ( Units)
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 -4
-5 -5
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Z-Score ( Units)
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 -4
-5 -5
Figure 8.4-2: Z-Score copper chart on August 14 with a large number of out of limit
analyses due to misidentified standards in field (top). The lower plot is
the same data with the sample identifier adjusted based on multi-
element analyses.
There were also two periods during which the laboratory analyses of the standards
indicated a significant departure from accepted results. This is observed in the
molybdenum z-score plot from October 24th. A significant number of analyses of
standards exceed the +3 upper control limit (Figure 8.4-3). The first period commenced
in late February with an increasing high bias, particularly for molybdenum. It is believed
that during this period of time many of the experienced laboratory technicians were on
holidays, therefore leaving less experienced personnel to run assay samples. The second
period was in September October, when Quadra had submitted a large number of
samples (~16,000) as part of a program to re-analyze historic Outokumpu samples to

determine gold content.
The result of the increased number of samples being submitted to the laboratory, quality
of sample analysis was compromised. A series of batches from were resubmitted for
assay. Results from the re-analyses provided results of acceptable quality. The following
sections present plots of the final analyses of standard reference material demonstrate the
result of the quality control program after applying corrective action to the failed
samples.
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Z-Score ( Units)
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 Holidays Increased Sample -4

Load
-5 -5
Figure 8.4-3: Significant laboratory analytical events
8.5 Copper
A chart of the z-scores of all copper standard analyses (Figure 8.5-1) demonstrates the
final results of copper analyses. These results are within quality assurance and quality
control guidelines discussed previously. Standard CDN-CM-1 and CuT-Mo have
average Cu content that plot adjacent to the consensus mean (z-score = 0). Cu-HG, Cu-
MG and Cu-LG have Cu content adjacent to the mean during the initial period of
analysis, with the average grade decreasing slightly during the analysis program. CDN-
CGS-9 and CDN-CM-3 copper analyses averaged slightly higher than the accepted mean,
while Cu111 and Cu-Mo-Au-1 were slightly lower than the accepted mean.
As can be seen in Figure 8.5-1, the red moving average line is generally near the z=0
point during the initial period of analysis, with the period with a low overall bias related
to the use of standard Cu111, which has a consistent low bias. The few remaining points
Z-Score ( Units)
8.6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
LabJob
Disptach__Assay
EN085004 QSG-1010
EN085011 QSG-1019
FE085016 QSG-1024
FE085019 QSG-1027
EN085009 QSG-1014
FE085024 QSG-1032
EN085008 QSG-1013
FE085031 QSG-1037
FE085034 QSG-1040
FE085030 QSG-1036
MZ085036 QSG-1042
FE085026 QSG-1015
MZ085037 QSG-1022-A
FE085025 QSG-1017
MZ085040 QSG-1023B
MZ085042 QSG-1046
MZ085044 QSG-1047
MZ085043 QSG-1055
a high bias of 4.5%.

MZ085053 QSG-1054
MZ085048 QSG-1049
AB085060 QSG-1061
MZ085055 QSG-1058
Molybdenum
AB085065 QSG-1070
AB085069 QSG-1073
AB080560 QSG-1096BF
MZ085050 QSG-1016
AB085073 QSG-1101
AB085076 QSG-1111
did not require re-analyses.
AB085079 QSG-1116
AB085067 QSG-1067
AB085072 QSG-1066
AB085072 QSG-1066
MY085082 QSG-1124
MY085085 QSG-1125
MY085090 QSG-1107
MY085095 QSG-1128
MY085097 QSG-1104
MY085088 QSG-1130
MY085094 QSG-1127
JN085106 QSG-1146
MY085089 QSG-1131
MY085100 QSG-1145
MY085100 QSG-1145
JN085108 QSG-1148
JN085111 QSG-1114
JN085115 QSG-1120
JN085118 QSG-1129
JL085134 QSG-1202
JN085101 QSG-1154
JN085102 QSG-1155
JN085103 QSG-1156
JL085123 QSG-1177
JL085129 QSG-1140
AG085161 QSG-1192
JL085133 QSG-1151
JN085104 QSG-1157
AG085167 QSG-1174
JL085139 QSG-1152
JL085142 QSG-1183
JL085135 QSG-1204
JL085136 QSG-1205
JL085137 QSG-1206
Dispatch/Lab Job
JL085145 QSG-1200
JL085149 QSG-1184
JL085152 QSG-1179
AG085155 QSG-1181
SCOPING STUDY FOR THE SIERRA GORDA PROJECT - REGION II, CHILE
AG085158 QSG-1189
AG085162 QSG-1193
AG085164 QSG-1197
AG085166 QSG-1212
AG085170 QSG-1217
AG085173 QSG-1220
AG085174 QSG-1221
AG085176 QSG-1222
AG085177 QSG-1173
AG085177 QSG-1173
SE085181 QSG-1230
SE085183 QSG-1232
OC085185 QSG-1234
Figure 8.5-1: Z-Score control chart - all copper standards OC085188

SE085179
OC085190
OC085196
QSG-1237
QSG-1175
QSG-1239
QSG-1244
OC085192 QSG-1241
OC085192 QSG-1241
OC085199 QSG-1287
OC085189 QSG-1238
OC085189 QSG-1238
OC085201 QSG-1290
NO085204 QSG-1291
NO085207 QSG-1295
OC085193 QSG-1242
OC085202 QSG-1289
OC081308 QSG-1251BF
NO085208 QSG-1296
NO085209 QSG-1297
NO085211 QSG-1299
NO085212 QSG-1300
NO085212 QSG-1300
NO085213 QSG-1302
NO085214 QSG-1303
NO085216 QSG-1301
NO085216 QSG-1301
OC085195 QSG-1243
OC085195 QSG-1243
OC081324 QSG-1267BF
OC081339 QSG-1280BF
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0.312%. Although the final consensus mean for the characterization of this standard was
(Table 8.4-1). The CDN standards CM-1 and CM-3 analyses are all close to the
of in-house standards CuT-Mo with an overall high bias of 0.3% and Cu-Mo-Au-1, with
standards have the most rigorous certification with 120 analyses from 10 separate
previous programs is 0.328% compared to 0.338 for 2008 and a round robin mean of
Acme, Santiago, and the 2006-2008 analyses by AAA. Average Mo analyses in all
laboratories (Table 8.3-1). Cu111 was biased low by 2.5%, but the round robin analyses
that exceed the control limits are batches that were generally at background levels that
8-10
0.312% Mo, individual lab averages ranged from 0.296 to 0.391. The lab with the 0.391
consensus mean with low average biases of -0.7 % and -0.2%, respectively. These
(Figure 8.6-1), which is attributable to the consistent biases of individual standards
Analyses of molybdenum in quality control standards indicate an overall high bias
resulted in consistent high biases in each program, with the 2005 analyses provided by
only consisted of 15 analyses from 4 labs. The overall results are skewed by the analyses
The in-house standard CuT-Mo has been in use since the 2005 drill program, and has
CM-3
CM-1
Cu-LG
Cu114
Cu111
Cu-Mo
CGS-9
Cu-HG
Cu-MG
Cu-Mo-Ag-1
Z-Score ( Units)
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
limits.
LabJob
Disptach__Assay
EN085004 QSG-1010
EN085011 QSG-1019
FE085016 QSG-1024
FE085019 QSG-1027
EN085009 QSG-1014
FE085024 QSG-1032
EN085008 QSG-1013
FE085031 QSG-1037
FE085034 QSG-1040
FE085030 QSG-1036
MZ085036 QSG-1042
FE085026 QSG-1015
MZ085037 QSG-1022-A
FE085025 QSG-1017
MZ085040 QSG-1023B
MZ085042 QSG-1046
MZ085044 QSG-1047
MZ085043 QSG-1055
MZ085053 QSG-1054
MZ085048 QSG-1049
AB085060 QSG-1061
MZ085055 QSG-1058
AB085065 QSG-1070
AB085069 QSG-1073
AB080560 QSG-1096BF
MZ085050 QSG-1016
AB085073 QSG-1101
AB085076 QSG-1111
AB085079 QSG-1116
compared to the final value.
AB085067 QSG-1067
AB085072 QSG-1066
AB085072 QSG-1066
MY085082 QSG-1124
MY085085 QSG-1125
MY085090 QSG-1107
MY085095 QSG-1128
MY085097 QSG-1104
MY085088 QSG-1130
MY085094 QSG-1127
JN085106 QSG-1146
MY085089 QSG-1131
MY085100 QSG-1145
MY085100 QSG-1145
JN085108 QSG-1148
JN085111 QSG-1114
JN085115 QSG-1120
JN085118 QSG-1129
JL085134 QSG-1202
JN085101 QSG-1154
JN085102 QSG-1155
JN085103 QSG-1156
JL085123 QSG-1177
JL085129 QSG-1140
AG085161 QSG-1192
JL085133 QSG-1151
JN085104 QSG-1157
AG085167 QSG-1174
JL085139 QSG-1152
JL085142 QSG-1183
JL085135 QSG-1204
JL085136 QSG-1205
JL085137 QSG-1206
Dispatch/Lab Job
JL085145 QSG-1200
JL085149 QSG-1184
JL085152 QSG-1179
AG085155 QSG-1181
AG085158 QSG-1189
AG085162 QSG-1193
AG085164 QSG-1197
AG085166 QSG-1212
AG085170 QSG-1217
AG085173 QSG-1220
characterization overall results are considered acceptable.

AG085174 QSG-1221
AG085176 QSG-1222
AG085177 QSG-1173
AG085177 QSG-1173
SE085181 QSG-1230
SE085183 QSG-1232
OC085185 QSG-1234
OC085188 QSG-1237
SE085179 QSG-1175
OC085190 QSG-1239
OC085196 QSG-1244
OC085192 QSG-1241
OC085192 QSG-1241
OC085199 QSG-1287
Figure 8.6-1: Z-score control chart, all molybdenum standards
OC085189 QSG-1238
OC085189 QSG-1238
OC085201 QSG-1290
NO085204 QSG-1291
NO085207 QSG-1295
OC085193 QSG-1242
OC085202 QSG-1289
OC081308 QSG-1251BF
NO085208 QSG-1296
NO085209 QSG-1297
NO085211 QSG-1299
NO085212 QSG-1300
NO085212 QSG-1300
NO085213 QSG-1302
NO085214 QSG-1303
NO085216 QSG-1301
NO085216 QSG-1301
OC085195 QSG-1243
OC085195 QSG-1243
OC081324 QSG-1267BF
OC081339 QSG-1280BF
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
The Shewhart chart of the routine analyses for this standard (Figure 8.6-2) shows the
in part to the lower absolute values, and inherent difficulties in molybdenum analyses.
Molybdenum analyses tend to emphasize laboratory problems more so than copper, due
molybdenum, although the results were consistent with the analyses by AAA during the
Given the good results from the commercial standards and the varying biases during
round robin analyses. Of the eight labs participating in the round robin analysis, two
The new in-house standard, Cu-Mo-Au-1, also had a consistent high bias for
in Figure 8.6-2 and in Figure 8.6-1 are either batches where all Mo values were less than
consistent high bias, which decreases throughout the program. All of the round robin
8-11
detection and not re-assayed, or where another standard in the same batch was within
average was a clear outlier from the other labs, but each lab had either a high or low bias
analyses are shown on the left of Figure 8.6-2. The remaining outlying (>3) values seen
were eliminated from the calculation due to outlying values compared to the other labs.
CM-3
CM-1
Cu-LG
Cu114
Cu111
Cu-Mo
CGS-9
Cu-HG
Cu-MG
Cu-Mo-Au-1
Cu-Mo-Au_1
Round Robin
0.190 0.190
0.185 UCL +3 0.185
0.180 UWL +2 0.180

Molybdenum (%)
0.175 0.175
0.170 0.170
0.165 0.165
0.160 LWL -2 0.160
0.155 LCL -3 0.155
0.150 0.150
0.145 0.145
15-Oct-2008
15-Oct-2008
17-Oct-2008
17-Oct-2008
17-Oct-2008
29-Oct-2008
2-Dec-2008
3-Dec-2008
Date
5-Sep-2008
5-Sep-2008
10-Sep-2008
10-Sep-2008
8-Oct-2008
8-Oct-2008
8-Oct-2008
10-Oct-2008
16-Oct-2008
13-Nov-2008
20-Nov-2008
20-Nov-2008
20-Nov-2008
21-Nov-2008
21-Nov-2008
21-Nov-2008
1-Dec-2008
1-Dec-2008
9-Dec-2008
9-Dec-2008
10-Dec-2008
10-Dec-2008
11-Dec-2008
11-Dec-2008
12-Dec-2008
12-Dec-2008
22-Dec-2008
4-Jul-2008
22-Jul-2008
5-Sep-2008
8-Sep-2008
12-Sep-2008
15-Sep-2008
10-Oct-2008
11-Dec-2008
11-Dec-2008
12-Dec-2008
12-Dec-2008
19-Dec-2008
19-Dec-2008
28-Jul-2008
31-Jul-2008
11-Jun-2008
27-Jun-2008
5-Aug-2008
14-Aug-2008
20-Aug-2008
22-Aug-2008
25-Aug-2008
Round Robin Assays

MY085099
MY085089
MY085100
JN085113
JN085102
JN085104
AG085167
AG085154
AG085157
AG085160
AG085164
AG085168
AG085173
AG085175
AG085176
AG085177
SE085180
SE085182
OC085185
SE085179
SE085179
OC085190
OC085197
OC085192
OC085192
OC085199
OC085189
OC085189
OC085201
NO085204
NO085206
OC085193
OC085202
OC081305
OC081314
NO085209
NO085209
NO085211
NO085212
NO085212
NO085213
NO085214
NO085216
OC085195
OC085195
OC081320
OC081330
OC081340
JL085134
JL085123
JL085132
JL085143
JL085137
JL085137
JL085138
JL085149
AG085170
LabJob
Lab Job - Finalized Date
Figure 8.6-2: Shewhart control chart - molybdenum analyses of in-house standard

Cu-Mo-Au-1
8.7 Gold
There were fewer gold analyses compared with copper and molybdenum, 14,248
compared with 33,285. Gold analysis was only performed on core samples and as such
there were a limited number of samples. A few RC samples (275) were analyzed for gold
due to lab errors or as part of batch re-assays where gold was included.
Analyses of gold standards are generally within the 2 warning limits with an overall low
bias (Figure 8.7-1). CDN standard CM-1 was biased low, with average results increasing
throughout the program until early December, when the averages decreased. Standard
CM-3 followed a similar pattern, with values very close to the accepted mean and
showing the same increase in early December followed by a decrease.
Gold analyses of standard Cu-Mo-Au-1 follow the accepted mean. This standard created
from Sierra Gorda material had considerable variability during round robin analyses with
an RSD of 7.2%, which is higher than the ideal 5% for a standard. Analyses of CDN
standard CGS-9 was biased low, but the range of analyses was still generally within the
range of the round robin analyses.
Gold results are of acceptable accuracy. Biases related to specific standards may be due
to differing matrices. The one standard prepared from Sierra Gorda was generally within
acceptable limits of the round robin mean.
5 5
4 4
3 3
CGS-9
2 2 CM-1
Z-Score ( Units)
CM-3
1 1 Cu111
Cu114
0 0 Cu-HG
Cu-LG
-1 -1 Cu-MG
Cu-No-Ag_1
-2 -2 Cu-Mo
-3 -3
-4 -4
-5 -5
OC081305 QSG-1248BF
OC081329 QSG-1270BF
DI081526 QSG-1312BF
QSG-1012
QSG-1022
QSG-1026
QSG-1014
QSG-1013
QSG-1018
QSG-1039
QSG-1036
QSG-1043
QSG-1015
QSG-1017
QSG-1048
QSG-1047
QSG-1053
QSG-1049
QSG-1062
QSG-1068
QSG-1072
QSG-1016
QSG-1102
QSG-1116
QSG-1067
QSG-1066
QSG-1122
QSG-1100
QSG-1107
QSG-1128
QSG-1113
QSG-1130
QSG-1146
QSG-1131
QSG-1145
QSG-1196
QSG-1114
QSG-1121
QSG-1143
QSG-1154
QSG-1155
QSG-1156
QSG-1137
QSG-1192
QSG-1151
QSG-1157
QSG-1174
QSG-1183
QSG-1204
QSG-1206
QSG-1207
QSG-1213
QSG-1179
QSG-1187
QSG-1191
QSG-1194
QSG-1212
QSG-1218
QSG-1216
QSG-1223
QSG-1173
QSG-1229
QSG-1231
QSG-1233
QSG-1237
QSG-1175
QSG-1240
QSG-1241
QSG-1241
QSG-1287
QSG-1238
QSG-1290
QSG-1291
QSG-1242
QSG-1289
QSG-1296
QSG-1297
QSG-1299
QSG-1300
QSG-1302
QSG-1303
QSG-1301
QSG-1243
QSG-1243
AB080560 QSG-1096BF
MZ085040 QSG-1023B
Disptach__Assay
SE085180
SE085182
SE085184
LabJob
AB085061
AB085063
AB085068
AB085067
AB085072
AG085156
AG085160
AG085163
AG085166
AG085171
AG085169
AG085175
AG085177
OC085188
SE085179
OC085191
OC085192
OC085192
OC085199
OC085189
OC085201
NO085204
OC085193
OC085202
NO085208
NO085209
NO085211
NO085212
NO085213
NO085214
NO085216
OC085195
OC085195
FE085014
FE085018
FE085033
FE085030
FE085026
FE085025
AB085074
AB085079
MY085080
MY085084
MY085090
MY085095
MY085099
MY085088
MY085089
MY085100
AG085161
AG085167
JL085137
JL085138
JL085147
JL085152
EN085007
EN085009
EN085008
EN085010
MZ085038
MZ085045
MZ085044
MZ085052
MZ085048
MZ085050
JN085106
JN085122
JN085111
JN085116
JN085120
JN085101
JN085102
JN085103
JL085126
JL085133
JN085104
JL085142
JL085135
Dispatch/Lab Job
Figure 8.7-1: Z-score control chart - all gold standard analyses from 2008 drill
samples
8.7.1 Outokumpu Gold-Only Re-Assays
Historically, gold assays were not conducted. In order to evaluate historic samples for
gold content 14, 502 Outokumpu pulps were submitted to AAA for gold assay. Gold was
determined by atomic absorption following fire assay. The treatment of these samples
was similar to routine drill samples, but the target grade for the historic samples was
higher. The detection limit for historic samples was limited to 0.01 g/t (10 ppb), rather
than the trace level detection limit of 1 ppb used for the current assay program. As part
of Quadras external quality control program, 453 pulp blanks and 454 standards were
submitted into the sample stream. Standards used include the in-house reference material
Cu-Mo-Au-1. All but one analysis were within the 2 warning limits (Figure 8.7-2).
The single outlier was determined to be a mislabeled sample, with the following sample
in sequence being the actual standard. The slight low bias is a bit misleading due to the
higher detection limit of 10 ppb.
430 430
410 410
UCL +3
390 390
370 UWL +2 370
350 350
Gold (ppb)
330 330
310 310
290 290
LWL -2
270 270
LCL -3
250 250
230 230
Cu-Mo-Au_1
210 Round Robin 210
Round Robin Assays

Date
22-Aug-2008
22-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
27-Aug-2008
27-Aug-2008
27-Aug-2008
27-Aug-2008
27-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
29-Jul-2008
29-Jul-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
22-Aug-2008
22-Aug-2008
22-Aug-2008
22-Aug-2008
22-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
26-Aug-2008
27-Aug-2008
27-Aug-2008
27-Aug-2008
27-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
29-Jul-2008
29-Jul-2008
29-Jul-2008
29-Jul-2008
29-Jul-2008
30-Jul-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
13-Aug-2008
28-Aug-2008
22-Aug-2008
22-Aug-2008
LabJob
AG081036
AG081037
AG081038
AG081049
AG081049
AG081047
AG081048
AG081051
AG081051
AG081052
AG081054
AG081056
AG081056
AG081061
AG081062
AG081063
AG081063
AG081064
AG081065
AG081065
AG081068
AG081069
AG081069
AG081070
AG081073
AG081074
AG081074
AG081075
AG081076
AG081076
AG080988
AG080989
AG080989
JL080940
JL080941
JL080941
JL080944
JL080945
AG080990
AG080990
AG080992
AG080993
AG080994
AG080994
AG080995
AG080996
AG081070
AG081028
AG081029
AG081030
AG081037
AG081048
AG081050
AG081053
AG081053
AG081060
AG081061
JL080939
JL080943
JL080944
AG080993
AG080996
AG080997
AG081028
AG081030
Lab Job - Finalized Date
Figure 8.7-2: Shewhart control chart - gold analyses from Outokumpu pulps
8.8 Precision
Precision was monitored through a program of field and laboratory duplicates

representing each time a sub-sample was taken. These included quarter core duplicates
from drill core, a duplicate split from RC cuttings, preparation (crush) duplicates as part
of Quadras external quality control procedures. Preparation duplicates are taken after
primary jaw crushing and before pulverizing. In addition to the field duplicates samples,
AAA routinely analyzed preparation duplicates and pulp duplicates. The Quadra
preparation duplicates are given a sample number in the sequence and although not blind
to the preparation lab on site (operated by AAA); the pulps will be identical to all of the
routine pulps and should be blind to the analytical lab in Santiago. The lab preparation
duplicates are selected by AAA and have an indicator on the sample number (DP
suffix) that they are preparation duplicates.
The most important duplicates, with regards to precision analysis, are the duplicates of
the core and RC cutting (the first split). Precision error estimated with these data is a
cumulative error, which will include all subsequent sample preparation and analytical
stages (Abzalov, 2008).
The split core represents the maximum geological variability. Ideally the duplicate
should consist of the other half of the primary sample. This leaves no material for that
interval for a permanent record. As this practice is often not acceptable a compromise of
using split core for sample duplicates. There are obviously two methods by which this
can be done; splitting the remaining half core into two quarters and submitting one as a
duplicate, and splitting the primary sample into two quarters and submitting one as
primary and the other as duplicate. Both methods have their drawbacks the first is
comparing quarter core to half core; there could be greater variability in the smaller
quarter core sample. The second is comparing two quarter core samples which will have
greater variability than the normal half core sample.
The method employed by Sierra Gorda is to submit core as the primary sample and a
core as a duplicate. As such it is not an equal split, therefore greater sampling error may
occur, especially where the mineralization is nuggety. A relative difference plot of the
copper assays of the quarter core duplicate compared to the half core original indicates
little systematic bias, with several ranges of conditional bias (Figure 8.8-1). The
conditional bias where the original samples are returning higher average grades than the
duplicates between 0.16% copper, and above 0.545% copper where the duplicate sample
are returning higher values.
100 1.6
90 Original Half Core Higher 1.5
80
1.4
70
Mean Grade of theData Pairs (Cu, %)

60 1.3
50 1.2
Relative Difference (%)
40 1.1
30
1
20
10 0.9
0 0.8
-10 0.7
-20
0.6
-30
-40 0.5
-50 0.545% 0.4
-60 0.3
0.22%
-70
0.16% 0.2
-80
-90 Duplicate Quarter Core Higher 0.1
-100 0
0 50 100 150 200 250

Sequential Number of Data Pairs(increasing order of mean)
Figure 8.8-1: Relative difference plot of quarter core copper duplicates. This plot
indicates if there is any significant bias between the quarter core
duplicate and the half core original. The blue calibration curve sets
the relationship between RD% on the primary-axis, the sequential
number of the data pairs plotted along the x-axis, and the average
grade of data pairs plotted on the secondary y-axis.
Statistical summaries of each duplicate set are presented in Table 8.8-1. Quarter core
duplicates consistently exhibit higher than the mean Cu, Mo and Au of the original half
core sample. Medians are less affected, with median of copper analyses of the duplicates
being higher than the original.
Table 8.8-1:
Statistical Summary of Duplicate Samples
Statistic Au_Orig_ppb Au_Dup_ppb Cu_Orig_pct Cu_Dup_pct Mo_Orig_pct Mo_Dup_pct
Quarter core duplicates
No. of observations 271 271 271 271 271 271
Minimum 4 2 0.009 0.007 0.003 0.003
Maximum 1968 1948 1.650 1.468 0.339 0.322
Median 38 39 0.249 0.246 0.005 0.005
Mean 63.1 69.3 0.314 0.323 0.015 0.016
Variance (n1) 16889 18821 0.067 0.074 0.001 0.002
Standard deviation (n1) 129.96 137.19 0.258 0.273 0.033 0.041
Variation coefficient 2.054 1.975 0.819 0.842 2.216 2.538
Field Crush (Preparation) Duplicate
Minimum 0.5 0.5 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
Maximum 786 597 2.029 2.038 0.793 0.803
Median 38 39 0.208 0.210 0.005 0.005
Mean 57.029 57.102 0.282 0.282 0.019 0.019
Variance (n1) 5088.990 4090.796 0.067 0.068 0.003 0.003
RC Rig Duplicates
No. of observations 1408 1408 1408 1408
Minimum 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
Maximum 1.156 1.107 1.170 1.053
Median 0.015 0.015 0.003 0.003
Mean 0.054 0.054 0.005 0.005
Variance (n1) 0.012 0.012 0.001 0.001
Standard deviation (n1) 0.111 0.110 0.033 0.030
Variation coefficient 2.033 2.014 6.352 5.849
Lab Prep Duplicates
Minimum 0.5 0.5 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
Maximum 1795 1869 5.389 5.417 1.201 1.185
Median 34 35 0.059 0.059 0.003 0.003
Mean 53.885 53.943 0.168 0.168 0.011 0.011
Variance (n1) 8115.791 8562.307 0.084 0.084 0.002 0.002
Lab Pulp Duplicates
Minimum 0.5 0.5 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.003
Maximum 1940 1903 3.935 3.886 0.800 0.803
Median 37 36 0.058 0.057 0.003 0.003
Mean 73.031 73.370 0.174 0.174 0.015 0.015
Variance (n1) 29871.478 30336.089 0.071 0.071 0.002 0.002
Scatter plots of all of the duplicate types allow a visual comparison at the precision at the
various stages of sample size reduction (Figure 8.8-2 to 8.8-7). Quadra external and the
AAA internal duplicates, are included as linear-scaled plots which emphasize the higher
values and log scaled plots that provide detail at lower concentrations. The red line on
the normal plots is a reduced major axis (RMA) regression line.
10
1.6
Cu Duplicate (%)
Cu Duplicate (%)
1
1.2
Quarter Core
0.1
Duplicates 0.8
0.4 0.01
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Cu Original (%) Cu Original (%)
10
2.0
Cu Duplicate (%)
Cu Duplicate (%)
1.6 1
Crush
1.2
Duplicates 0.1
0.8
0.01
0.4
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

1.2 10
Cu Duplicate (%)
Cu Duplicate (%)
1
0.8
RC Field
Duplicates 0.1
0.4
0.01
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Figure 8.8-2: Quadra duplicate sample scatter plots copper

Copper field duplicates (Figure 8.8-2) indicate considerable scatter at grades greater than
~0.5%. The RMA fit line indicates a slight high bias of the original half core sample
although the mean value of the duplicates is higher. The crush (preparation) duplicates
and RC rig duplicates both indicate good precision with no significant bias.
The lab copper duplicates (Figure 8.8-3) indicates good precision both for preparation
duplicates and pulp duplicates.
Lab Preparation Duplicates
10
2.0
Cu Duplicate (%)
Cu Duplicate (%)
1
0.1
1.0
0.01
0.0 0.001
0.0 1.0 2.0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Lab Pulp Duplicates
2.0 10
1.6
Cu Duplicate (%)
Cu Duplicate (%)
1
1.2
0.1
0.8
0.4 0.01
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Figure 8.8-3: AAA duplicate sample scatter plots copper
Precision for molybdenum is difficult to estimate as a large proportion of the analyses are
less than the detection limit:
Quarter core 49% <DL
Field Crush 48% <DL

Rid Duplicate 92% <DL
Lab Prep. 72% <DL
Lab Pulp 70% <DL
The scatter plot for the quarter core duplicates for Mo (Figure 8.8-4) indicates
considerable variability of values above detection limit. The RMA line does not indicate
any significant bias. The quarter core duplicates do indicate that there is a considerable
geological variability which cannot be determined from the preparation duplicates and
RC field duplicates that have been homogenized as part of the preparation and splitting
process. The AAA lab duplicates (Figure 8.8-5) indicate good precision at this level of
sub-sampling.
0.50 1
0.40
Mo Duplicate (%)
Mo Duplicate (%)
0.1
0.30
Quarter Core
Duplicates 0.20
0.01
0.10
0.00 0.001
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Mo Original (%) Mo Original (%)
1.0 1
0.8
Mo Duplicate (%)
Mo Duplicate (%)
0.1
Crush 0.6
Duplicates
0.4
0.01
0.2
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Mo Original (%)
0.4 Mo Original (%)
10
Mo Duplicate (%)
Mo Duplicate (%)
0.3 1
RC Field
0.2 0.1
Duplicates
0.1 0.01
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Figure 8.8-4: Quadra duplicate sample scatter plots molybdenum


1.5 10
Mo Duplicate (%)
Mo Duplicate (%)
1
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.01
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Lab Pulp Duplicates
1.0 1
0.8
Mo Duplicate (%)
Mo Duplicate (%)
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.01
0.2
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Figure 8.8-5: AAA duplicate sample scatter plots molybdenum
As gold was only assayed on drill core samples, the field duplicates only consist of
quarter core and crush (preparation) duplicates. There is considerable variability seen in
both the quarter core and crush duplicates scatter plots (Figure 8.8-6). The RMA line is
influenced by a few outliers with high original values that returned lower duplicate
values. The lab preparation duplicates indicate very good precision (Figure 8.8-7).
Of note are the differences between the field preparation duplicates and the lab
preparation duplicates. They are prepared in the same sample preparation facility using
the same techniques with the only difference being that the lab duplicates are known as
duplicates to the analytical lab. The field duplicates are known as duplicates to the
sample preparation facility, but this information is not explicit on the sample pulp labels.
Quarter Core Duplicates

800 10000
Au Duplicate (ppb)
Au Duplicate (ppb)
600 1000
400 100
200 10
0 1
0 200 400 600 800 1 10 100 1000 10000

Au Original (ppb) Au Original (ppb)
Crush Duplicates
800 1000
Au Duplicate (ppb)
600
Au Duplicate (ppb) 100
400 10
200 1
0 0.1
0 200 400 600 800 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Figure 8.8-6: Quadra duplicate sample scatter plots gold

700 10000
600
Au Duplicate (ppb)
Au Duplicate (ppb)
1000
500
400 100
300
10
200
100 1
0 0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Lab Pulp Duplicates
2000 10000
Au Duplicate (ppb)
Au Duplicate (ppb)
1500 1000
100
1000
10
500
1
0 0.1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Figure 8.8-7: AAA duplicate sample scatter plots gold
There has been no measure of precision universally accepted within the mineral industry.
Thompson-Howarth (T-H) precision estimates have been commonly used as they provide
a measure of precision at varying concentrations. Also, a variety of plots of absolute
relative difference (ARD, AMPD) or half absolute relative difference (HARD) versus
percentile (rank) or duplicate pair mean are widely used. Recent studies into the use of
the Thompson-Howarth precision estimates (Abzalov, 2008, Stanley and Lawie, 2007a)
have indicated that the condition of a normal distribution of error required by the T-H
estimate is rarely met in mineral duplicate samples, particularly where there is a
significant nugget effect. In the specific case of Sierra Gorda samples, the requirement
that the y-intercept of the regression line be positive was not met for any of the three
metals analyzed during the 2008 program. Stanley and Lawie (2007b) has advocated
replacing ARD, HARD and other measures of relative error with the coefficient of
variation (CV) as they are all related to and directly proportional to the CV:
x1 and x2 are the original and duplicate sample pair and is the mean of the duplicate pair.
Abzalov, 2008 has concurred with the use of CV as the standard measure of precision
error, and has proposed a series of best practice and acceptable practice levels of
precision errors presented as the average coefficient of variation (CVAVR(%)).
A variety of plots have been employed during the course of the project to assess the
precision on an ongoing basis. Plots presented here are absolute relative difference (%)
vs. percentile or rank to be consistent with previous programs, with the addition of a
CV(%) scale on the right side y-axis.
These plots compare the precision of all duplicate types on a single plot for each metal
and can be used to compare the precision against a predefined specification. A general
guideline is that 90% of samples should have a precision better than (lower % figure)
20% for preparation duplicates and 10% for pulp duplicates. A value of 30% for field
duplicates has been suggested, but it is not always achievable, particularly with core
drilling.
The plot for copper (Figure 8.8-8) indicates an ARD(%) better than ~41% for 90% of the
quarter core splits, which is consistent with the variability seen in the scatter plots. The
precision measurement would be somewhat better if half core duplicates were used.
Molybdenum ARD(%) results are probably not reliable on these diagrams due to the large
number of values returning less than detection limit values (Figure 8.8-9). If the
detection limit had been lower, many of these values would have the greatest error due to
the relationship of precision improving with concentration.
100 70.7
Precision
90 Cu_Lab Pulp 63.6
Cu_Lab Prep
Cu_Field Crush
80 56.6
Cu_Rig duplicate
Cu_Quarter Core
70 49.5
Absolute Relative Difference (%)
60 42.4
CV(%)
50 35.4
40 28.3
30 21.2
20 14.1
10 7.07
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile (Rank)
Figure 8.8-8: Precision plot - absolute relative difference vs. percentile (Rank)
copper. As a reference the coefficient of variation is expressed as a percent
(CV(%))is indicated on the right y-axis.
100 70.7
Precision
90 Mo_Lab Pulp 63.6
Mo_Lab Prep
Mo_Field Crush
80 56.6
Mo_Rig duplicate
Mo_Quarter Core
70 49.5
Absolute Relative Difference (%)
60 42.4
CV(%)
50 35.4
40 28.3
30 21.2
20 14.1
10 7.07
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile (Rank)
molybdenum
The relatively poor precision of gold (Figure 8.8-10) in the quarter core duplicates is
clear from the ARD(%) vs. percentile plot, with 90% of samples having an ARD(%) better
than 72%. Again, this would represent a maximum error due to the comparison of quarter
core and half core. The lab preparation duplicates actually have a slightly better
precision than the lab pulp duplicates based on this plot, at the 90% percentile rank lab
preparation duplicates have an ARD(%) of 20.4, while lab pulp duplicates have an
ARD(%) of 20.6. The better precision indicated by the field crush duplicate is likely a
function of the large number of less than detection limit analyses.
100 70.7
Precision
90 Au_Lab Pulp 63.6
Au_Lab Prep
Au_Field Crush
80 56.6
Au_Quarter Core
Absolute Relative Percent Difference
70 49.5
60 42.4
CV(%)
50 35.4
40 28.3
30 21.2
20 14.1
10 7.07
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile (Rank)
gold
Following the recommendation of Abzalov (2008) and Stanley and Lawie (2007b) the
overall precision error expressed as CVAVE(%) was determined based on the following
equation from Abzalov (2008):
where a1 and b1 are the original and duplicate samples and N is the number of pairs.
Results for copper and gold are indicated in Table 8.8-2. Molybdenum results are not
included as they produced unrealistic low average precision errors. Best and Accepted
levels of precision errors suggested for Cu-Mo-Au porphyry deposits by Abzalov are
indicated in Table 8.8-3. It should be kept in mind that this is just a suggested guideline.
In some cases these levels are not attainable by practical methods. A comparison of the
two tables indicate that the quarter core samples for Cu and Au are outside of the
acceptable range, while the RC field duplicates are at the acceptable level. There is
no distinction in the data used for table 7 between RC field duplicates and core field
duplicates, so an increased error in the core samples that cannot be homogenized would
be expected. In case histories presented, there are average precision errors in field
duplicates of up 41.7% for Au in porphyries and 74.5% for Archean gold deposits.
Table 8.8-2:
Precision Error Estimated as CVAVR(%)
Duplicate
Cu Au
Type
Quarter Core 18.31 30.77
RC Field Dup. 10.00
Field Prep. 6.49 23.23
Lab Prep. 3.88 13.47
Lab Pulp 3.22 14.62
Table 8.8-3:
Best and Acceptable Levels of Precision Errors CVAVR(%) for
Porphyry Cu-Mo-Au Deposits (Abzalov, 2008)
Field Duplicates Pulp Duplicates

Metal
Best Acceptable Best Acceptable
Cu 5 10 3 10
Mo 10 15 5 10
Au 10 15 5 10
8.9 Contamination
Contamination has been monitored by the routine inclusion of blank material in assay
samples. It was recommended in the previous reports (Lustig, 2008, Ristorcelli et al,
2008) that coarse blank material that required crushing be used as the primary jaw
crushing stage where most of the contamination would be expected to occur. The pulp
blanks as used in the 2008 program did not require any sample preparation, therefore they
could only monitor contamination at the analytical stage.
Plots of the analyses of field blank material (Figure 8.9-1) against the sample sequence
indicates two gold results that would be considered outliers. Limits for blanks is
commonly taken at 5 x the detection limit, but with the case of gold with a trace level
detection limit of 1 ppb, this would put the limits for the blanks within the normal range
of the blank material. To that end, the limit has been set at 5 times the normal upper
maximum of the routine samples (10 ppb) for a limit of 50 ppb.
0.05 FIELD BLANKS 0.25
0.04 0.2
Copper (%)
0.03 0.15
0.02 0.1
0.01 0.05
0 0
0.05 0.020
0.04 0.016
Molybdenum (%)
0.03 0.012
0.02 0.008
0.01 0.004
0.00 0.000
70 084213
70
087039
60 60
50 50
Gold (ppb)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
MZ085038
MZ085040
MZ085045
MZ085053
MZ085048
MY085086
MY085092
MY085088
MY085100
MY085100
JN085103
JL085123
JL085129
JL085132
JN085104
AG085167
JL085141
JL085136
JL085138
JL085150
JL085152
AG085156
AG085170
AG085174
AG085176
SE085180
SE085183
SE085184
SE085179
SE085179
OC085191
OC085192
OC085200
OC085189
NO085203
OC085193
OC085202
NO085209
NO085209
NO085212
NO085213
NO085216
OC085195
LabJob
EN085007
FE085014
FE085018
EN085009
FE085024
EN085010
FE085033
FE085030
FE085026
FE085025
MZ085044
AB085062
AB085064
AB080554
MZ085050
AB085071
AB085077
AB085057
AB085067
AB085072
MY085082
MY085097
JN085105
MY085089
JN085109
JN085112
JN085114
JN085120
JN085121
AG085173
AG085177
OC085192
OC085189
NO085207
OC081310
NO085211
NO085215
OC085195
DI081528
Figure 8.9-1: Field blanks analysed as part of Quadra's external quality control
program.
The gold analyses samples that exhibit abnormally high gold concentrations are from
samples within a low Au grade section with all surrounding values less than the
anomalous blank value. There was no indication of contamination.
8.10 External Check Assay
Duplicate pulps were submitted to ALS Chemex (ALS) in La Serena as an additional

check on the quality of the primary assays by AAA. Including blanks and standards there
were 690 samples, which is approximately 5% of the 2008 samples. Samples were
selected from within the mineralized subset using a computerized random number
generator. The excluded lithology codes are 210pyrite dominant sulphides, 290-leached
rock and 295-sterlie/not mineralized. As grade of the original samples was not used to
select the subset, a selection bias is avoided. The resulting random selection was
compared on log-probability plots against the total population of mineralized material to
assure that it was representative.
8.11 Analytical Methods
ALS analyzed copper and molybdenum by their method AA61 and for gold by method
AA23. Method AA61 is a trace level geochemistry method using a four acid (HNO3-
HCLO4-HF-HCL) digestion followed by atomic absorption determination. It differs from
the method used by the primary laboratory, Andes Analytical Assays in that the target
grade is lower and expected precision is less at 10% compared to 5% for assays.
Generally, the digestion is less rigorous for trace level geochemical analyses. The
method has an upper limit of 10,000 ppm for Cu and Mo. Overlimit samples were re-
analyzed by method AA-62, an ore grade assay with a four acid digestion and atomic
absorption measurement. Gold analyses at both labs were by AAS after a 30 g fire assay
fusion, with a detection limit of 1 ppb (0.001 g/t) for the AAA originals and 0.005 g/t (5
ppb) for the ALS Chemex checks.
Detection limits for ALS copper analyses is 2 ppm (0.0002 %) compared to 0.005%
(50 ppm) for the AAA primary analyses. Molybdenum detection limits vary from 5 ppm
(0.0005%) for ALS and 0.005% (50 ppm) on AAA samples, although ALS reported
results as low as 3 ppm. The AAA gold assays have a lower detection limit of 1 ppb
(0.001 ppm) compared to the ALS limit of 0.005 ppm (5 ppb). The difference in
digestion, dilution and upper and lower reporting limits will have the greatest effect at
higher and lower grades when doing comparisons. Results less than detection have been
assigned a default value of half the detection limit.
8.12 Comparison of Check Assays and Original Assays
A statistical summary of the check analyses (Table 8.12-1) indicates a good correlation of
the external ALS Chemex check assays with the original AAA analyses, considering the
differing analytical methods. ALS mean copper analyses were 1.19% lower than the
original AAA analyses. Molybdenum analyses were very close with AAA 0.105%
higher than ALS Chemex. The difference between the gold analyses was greater with the
original AAA average being 9.8% higher than the corresponding ALS Chemex average.
In spite of this difference a Students t-test has indicated that one should accept the null
hypothesis that the difference between the means is equal to 0. for all three metals.
Table 8.12-1:
Statistical Summary External Check Assays
Statistic Cu_AAA_pct Cu_ALS_pcf Mo_AAA_pct Mo_ALS_pct Au_AAA_ppb Au_ALS_ppb

Minimum 0.0025 0.0013 0.0025 0.0003 0.500 2.500
Maximum 3.001 2.980 0.720 0.829 742.000 828.000
Median 0.128 0.126 0.003 0.004 37.000 31.000
Mean 0.228 0.226 0.01674 0.01673 58.116 52.396
%Difference 1.192 0.105 9.843
Variance (n1) 0.090 0.088 0.003 0.004 5476.072 5082.272
Skewness (Pearson) 3.480 3.558 8.427 8.932 4.363 4.964
Kurtosis (Pearson) 19.305 20.205 81.490 93.167 27.570 38.045
Correlations Cu_ALS_pct Mo_ALS_pct Au_ALS_ppb

Pearson
Cu_AAA_pct 0.999
Mo_AAA_pct 0.996
Au_AAA_ppb 0.831
Spearman (Rank)
Cu_AAA_pct 0.996
Mo_AAA_pct 0.896
Au_AAA_ppb 0.841
Comparison plots for copper, molybdenum and gold include linear and log scaled scatter
plots, Q-Q and relative difference vs. mean plots. The copper plots (Figure 8.12-1)
indicate the good correlation between the initial AAA and duplicate ALS analyses. The
red RMA line on the linear scatter plot follows the ideal 45 line. The Q-Q plot indicates
a similar distribution of both sets of analyses, while the relative difference plot indicates
no significant bias between the datasets.
The differences between the molybdenum analyses are greater than the copper analyses
due to the low absolute values of molybdenum (Figure 8.12-2). The differences at lower
concentrations are a function of the differing detection limits. Of the 690 analyses, 393
Mo AAA samples were below detection, but none of the corresponding ALS analyses
were below detection. At concentrations above 0.5% Mo, (5,000 ppm) ALS results tend
to be higher than the corresponding AAA analyses. At these concentrations the AAA
assays are likely more accurate than the ALS trace level analyses.
Gold analyses tend to be lower in the ALS check assays compared to the original AAA
analyses, which can be clearly seen in the scatter, Q-Q and relative difference plots
(Figure 8.12-3). This is consistent with Table 8.12-1, which indicates that the mean
grade of the AAA gold analyses is 9.8% higher than the ASL mean.
3 10
ALS Chemex Check - Cu (%)

ALS Chemex Check - Cu (%) 2.5
1
2
1.5 SCATTER 0.1
1
0.01
0.5
0 0.001
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

AAA Original - Cu (%) AAA Original - Cu (%)
3 10

1
2
Q-Q 0.1
1
0.01
0 0.001
0 1 2 3 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

AAA Original - Cu (%) AAA Original - Cu (%)
70 70
Relative Difference of Pairs (%)
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 RELATIVE 0
-10 DIFFERENCE -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
-50 -50
-60 -60
-70 -70
0 1 2 3 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Average Cu (%) of Pairs Average Cu (%) of Pairs
Figure 8.12-1: Comparison plots ALS Chemex vs. AAA external check analyses
copper
1 1
ALS Chemex Check - Mo (%)

0.8
0.1
0.6
SCATTER 0.01
0.4
0.001
0.2
0 0.0001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

AAA Original - Mo (%) AAA Original - Mo (%)
1 1

0.8
0.1
0.6
Q-Q 0.01
0.4
0.001
0.2
0 0.0001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

AAA Original - Mo (%) AAA Original - Mo (%)
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 RELATIVE 0
-10 DIFFERENCE -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
-50 -50
-60 -60
-70 -70
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Average Mo (%) of Pairs Average Mo (%) of Pairs
molybdenum
1000 1000
ALS Chemex Check - Au (ppb)

800
100
600
SCATTER 10
400
1
200
0 0.1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000

AAA Original - Au (ppb) AAA Original - Au (ppb)
1000 1000

800
100
600
Q-Q 10
400
1
200
0 0.1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000

AAA Original - Au (ppb) AAA Original - Au (ppb)
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 RELATIVE 0
-20 DIFFERENCE -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80 -80
-100 -100
0 200 400 600 800 1 10 100 1000

Average Au (ppb) of Pairs Average Au (ppb) of Pairs
gold
8.13 Quality Control
The sample pulps submitted to ALS included 26 standards and 26 pulp blanks. Standards
used include CDN-CM-1, CDN-CM-3 and Cu-Mo-Au-1. A z-score chart for copper
indicates that results have considerable variability, which is to be expected
(Figure 8.13-1). Round robin analyses were generally ore grade assays with a higher
precision than the trace element analyses used by ALS. Two sample exceeded the +3
upper control limit, but the average indicated by the moving average line is close to the
accepted mean.
5 5
4 4
3 3
CM-1
2 2 CM-3
Z-Score ( Units)
Cu-Mo-Au-1
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 -4
-5 -5
LabJob Finalized
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177301 18-Dec-08
LS08177301 18-Dec-08
LS08177301 18-Dec-08
LS08177301 18-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
Date/Lab Job
Figure 8.13-1: Z-Score Chart - All External Check Standards Copper
Molybdenum results are extremely variable in the early part of the program, with later
analyses showing better precision and accuracy (Figure 8.13-2). The erratic high values
are confined to the in-house standards Cu-Mo-Au-1, so there may be some matrix issues
early on that were resolved for the later results.
The analyses for the gold standard indicate a generally decreasing trend of all standards
(Figure 8.13-3), with a high bias in the early results, changing to a low bias by the end of
the program. Only one sample was outside acceptable limits.
Pulp blanks included with the external check sample indicated no contamination.
Z-Score ( Units) Z-Score ( Units)
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
LS08177301 18-Dec-08 LabJob Finalized
LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08 LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177300 18-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08 LS08177301 18-Dec-08
LS08177301 18-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177301 18-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08 LS08177301 18-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08 LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177310 23-Dec-08
Date/Lab Job
Date/Lab Job
LS08177311 23-Dec-08 LS08177310 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08 LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177311 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08 LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08 LS08177312 23-Dec-08
Figure 8.13-3: Z-Score Chart - All External Check Standards Gold

LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
LS08177312 23-Dec-08
Figure 8.13-2: Z-Score Chart - All External Check Standards Molybdenum
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
8-38
CM-3
CM-1
CM-3
CM-1
Cu-Mo-Au-1
Cu-Mo-Au-1
8.14 Recommendations
A number of recommendations can be made to improve the quality control program at

Sierra Gorda for future sampling and analysis programs.
1. Additional Cu-Mo-Au standards that are matrix matched to Sierra Gorda material
should be prepared covering the range or assays from cut-off, average grade and
high grade.
2. The primary blank material should be coarse material ~2 cm in size that requires
jaw crushing and pulverizing. This will provide a quality control test of the
crushing/grinding circuit where contamination is most likely to occur.
8.15 Conclusions
Quality control samples consisted of one blank, one duplicate and one standard reference
material in each group of 20 samples. In addition, approximately 5% of the sample pulps
within zones geologically logged as mineralized have been randomly selected for check
assays at a second laboratory.
The analytical results of the quality control samples have been continuously and
independently monitored throughout the programs, with a table of QC failures maintained
to document both the QC failures and the corrective action taken. All outstanding QC
issues have been resolved.
The primary analytical laboratories, Acme (2005) and Andes Analytical Assays (2006,
2007) are certified to ISO 9001:2000 and have quality control protocols compatible with
industry standards. External check assays have been performed at ALS Chemex, La
Serena, which is ISO17025.Of2005 accredited.
The quality control and check assays completed confirm that the 2008 Sierra Gorda assay
data is accurate, precise and free of contamination to industry standards and is of
sufficient quality to be used in resource estimation.
9. Mineral Resource and
Mineral Reserve Estimate
9. Mineral Resource and
Mineral Reserve Estimates
As Quadra has advanced the Sierra Gorda project, the perception of it has evolved from
two distinct smaller deposit areas to four areas, three of which have now been shown to
be contiguous, forming one very large deposit area, leaving one smaller, almost satellite-
like deposit. The larger deposit area is comprised of the three contiguous areas, Catalina,
the 281 Zone, and the 285 Zone, now collectively referred to as Isabela. Salvadora is
separate from the other three, is distinctly smaller, and is less well understood.
9.1 Database
The 2009 Sierra Gorda database was reconstructed from the 2008 database with the
addition of new data accumulated since the 2008 resource estimate. The 2008 database
was in turn reconstructed from the 2005 database. There was extensive work done with
Quadra staff to insure completeness and reliability. Simultaneously, the assay database
compiled by Mr. Gary Lustig, QP for quality control and the analytical database (Chapter
8.0) was compared with the Quadra database and one compiled by MDA; differences
found between the three databases were resolved and corrected. In the end, all significant
differences were resolved and very few insignificant differences were left unexplained.
Audited and accepted data include collar, down-hole survey, and copper, molybdenum,
and gold grades. Historic soluble copper data, while compiled and rather extensive, are
not audited and are derived from multiple types of analytical techniques. More recent
sequential-leach copper data (QLT) were not audited. Those data could still be used
for preliminary oxide copper solubility evaluations, but were not used as part of this
resource estimate. A more thorough and complete oxide metallurgical model will be
necessary for any economic study.
The database includes many recent density measurements taken by Quadra and geologic
codes for mintype (mineralogy), lithology, and alteration. Geologic logging data were
reviewed and used while developing the deposit model, but were not audited.
Geotechnical (core recovery and RQD) data were provided late but reviewed to assess
reasonableness of core sample recovery.
Those historic holes for which Quadra had no supporting documentation such as original
assay certificates, or whose accuracy and reliability were in doubt, were flagged as do
not use for grade estimation, although they were used as contextual information for
modeling the deposits. Since the 2005 resource estimate, more of the historic assay data
9-1
MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
has been made usable through Quadras persistent efforts at locating assay certificates
and other supporting documentation.
There are 1074 drill holes in the entire database. All pertinent holes were used for
sectional domain modeling, unless they contained unrealistic results from questionable
sources. Those 1,048 holes (261,766 m) with supporting documentation were used also
for grade estimation. Those holes flagged as do not use (Use=0) were not used in
grade estimation. In the database MDA also tracked the type of drilling from which the
sample was taken (TYPE). Figure 9.1-1 provides a map of the drill-hole locations at
Sierra Gorda.
The database has 151,818 copper (total), 120,590 molybdenum, and 46,283 gold assays,
excluding duplicates and checks. Those assays used in grade estimation are listed in
Table 9.1-1. The mineral resource estimate is based upon assay results from 222,158 m
of drilling out of the 259,616 m in the Sierra Gorda database. About 60% of the drilling
database is RC drilling. Quadras drilling represents about 55% (586 of 1,074) of all the
holes or 61% (160,102 m of 262,963 m) of the drilled meters. Quadra has re-assayed a
subset of the historic samples to validate historic data, resurveyed all of the identifiable
drill collars, and verified the underlying data of most of the earlier holes. Descriptive
statistics of all of the data in the database are given in Table 9.1-2. Table 9.1-1 describes
the database on which statistics and resource estimation were performed.
No work was done with the soluble copper analytical data as the existing soluble copper
data are derived from variable methods of analyses, and the soluble copper database is
not audited or verified. If the soluble copper data are used in the future, these issues
should be considered. The data are valuable but not absolute.
9.1-1
Table 9.1-1:
Count of Assays in Database
CuT assays CuS assays Mo assays Au assays
Don't Use 16,522 4,014 15,039 14

Use 135,296 22,145 105,551 46,269
Grand Total 151,818 26,159 120,590 46,283
Table 9.1-2:
Descriptive Statistics of the Sierra Gorda Database
Valid N Mean Std. CV Minimum Maximum Units

Dev.
Holename 1,075
East 155,170 461,450 471,603 m
North 155,170 7,470,100 7,477,028 m
Elevation 155,170 63.31 1,739 m
From 155,170 0.00 1,620 m
To 155,170 0.50 1,622 m
Length 155,170 1.69 0.00 0.03 378 m
Type 152,693 1 9
Use 155,055 0 1
CuT 151,818 0.19 0.38 1.94 0.00 18.80 %
CuS 26,159 0.15 0.46 2.99 0.00 11.40 %
Ratio 24,183 33.9 38.5 1.1 0 509 %
Mo 120,590 0.017 0.074 4.314 0.000 3.550 %
Au 46,283 0.064 0.236 3.681 0.001 25.868 g/tonne
Density 5,785 2.6 0.154 0.00 2 4 g/cm3
LithC 142,318 110 199
MintC 140,370 210 299
AltC 138,372 300 399
9.2 Density
The historic Sierra Gorda density database was compiled early in Quadras efforts at
Sierra Gorda. It was validated by 146 duplicate density determinations that Quadra had
evaluated by ALS in 2005. Many additional samples have been measured since then, and
the total number of density measurements in the database used for estimation is now
5,715.
Analysis of density data was performed in the context of mineral domain, lithology,
mineral type (Mintype), and oxidation. After numerous analyses of the data, it was found
that two geologic criteria affect the differences in density. The most significant is
weathering (or oxidation), and the other is lithology which is somewhat less significant.
MDA broke out all density samples by these groupings to obtain values to use in the
block model (Table 9.2-1). These data are the basis for assigned density measurements in
the Sierra Gorda block model.
Table 9.2-1:
General Descriptive Statistics of Density Check Samples
Oxidized Rock
Used in
Rock Valid N Mean 1% Red. model Std. Dev CV Minimum Maximum Units
Granite 342 2.49 2.47 2.45 0.12 0.05 2.05 2.86 g /cm3
Porphyry 166 2.50 2.48 2.45 0.10 0.04 2.21 2.91 g /cm3
Breccia 256 2.47 2.45 2.42 0.13 0.05 2.09 3.01 g /cm3
Volcanics 390 2.56 2.53 2.50 0.14 0.06 2.14 2.83 g /cm3
Unoxidized Rock
Used in
Rock Valid N Mean 1% Red. model Std. Dev CV Minimum Maximum Units
Granite 1216 2.62 2.59 2.60 0.10 0.04 2.32 3.18 g /cm3
Porphyry 873 2.61 2.58 2.60 0.10 0.04 2.02 3.15 g /cm3
Breccia 734 2.63 2.61 2.60 0.14 0.05 2.23 3.14 g /cm3
Volcanics 1738 2.78 2.75 2.75 0.10 0.03 2.31 3.14 g /cm3
A notable difference in mean density values exists between Salvadora and Catalina.
Because the Salvadora samples are all historic, whereas both historic and recent density
data are available for Catalina, it is not clear whether this difference is real or merely a
function of procedures and methods used in measurement. The same density values were
assigned throughout the model based on the chosen breakdowns of lithology and
oxidation. A distinction of density between Salvadora and the rest of the areas was not
made because it is not known if such a distinction really exists. The assigned specific
gravity values are given in Table 9.2-1 in the column headed Used in model.
9.3 Resources
9.3.1 Geologic Model and Mineral Domains
9.3.1.1 Lithology
Since 2005, Quadra geologic staff has continued to re-log existing drill core and cuttings,
as well as to log their current drill core and cuttings. The effort continues to produce
modifications and improvements to the understanding of the geologic setting of the
deposit.
Quadra supplied MDA with electronic files of sectional lithologic interpretations for part
of the model area, along with 3D interpretations of faults. Because these sections were
extraordinarily complex, the sections were simplified for block modeling and the
lithologic classifications were grouped into five main units:
Granites;
Porphryries: pre-, syn- and post(?)- mineral;
Volcanic rocks;
Breccias (all types); and
Alluvium.
The interpretations are somewhat coarse and subjective, and could use some iterative
modifications and smoothing between sections, but more for cosmetic reasons than
materiality.
9.3.1.2 Copper
MDA updated the 2008 copper domain interpretations on screen using the originally
designed-on-paper models as the template. Very little substantial changes had to be made
where new drilling was done in areas where there were some existing drill holes, attesting
to the predictable nature of the deposit. The major differences between the 2008 and
2009 models are where new mineralization has been discovered. Using these previous
models as the foundation for updating the resource model, MDA re-defined the copper
mineral domains, which were used for controlling the estimation. Members of Quadras
staff had reviewed the sections and approved the domain interpretation in 2008, and have
since reviewed the modified domain interpretation.
There is a new copper domain modeled in the 2009 resource estimate: low-grade or late-
porphyry copper domain. This domain is defined by a combination of distinctly lower-
grade material, most often lying within what are interpreted by Quadras geologists to be
porphyry dikes and intrusive bodies. These domains are somewhat nebulous as the
porphyries are complex and known to be temporally early, contemporaneous, and late
with respect to mineralization. It is clear, however, that there are distinct low-grade
zones, which are probably related to the late (tardia) porphyries. The known low-grade
zones more often lie within the higher-grade stockwork zone, possibly because the grade
contrasts are more easily recognized. These weakly mineralized tardia zones cannot be
estimated or projected with any confidence at any distance from drill data.
Quantile plots of grade populations were made to help define styles of mineralization in
an effort to better model the mineral domains. Breaks defining different populations
were observed for copper at 0.1% Cu, 0.5% Cu, and 3% Cu for oxide mineralization and
0.1% Cu, 0.4% Cu and 1.5% Cu for sulfide mineralization. The modeled copper domains
are:
Sulfide disseminated domain (domain 10, hypogene; 110 for Salvadora, or high
pyrite),
Sulfide stockwork domain (domain 11, hypogene; 111 for Salvadora, high
chalcopyrite),
Green copper domain (domain 13, oxide copper; 113 for Salvadora),
Supergene or enriched domain (domain 12; 112 for Salvadora),
Low-grade mineralization in late (tardia) porphyry dikes (domain 14; none at
Salvadora),
Alluvium (9), and
Barren or unmineralized domain (domain 99).
A brown-red-black oxide metallurgical domain, consisting of irregular and unpredictably
shaped zones, was modeled but is used only for metallurgical characterization. As it does
not appear to have a relationship to copper grades, the zones in this domain were used for
coding blocks for metallurgical characteristics but not for controlling grade estimation.
The sole use of this domain and tabulation will be for assigning different metallurgical
properties to model blocks, likely lower recoveries and possibly higher costs, but that is a
metallurgical question that is considered elsewhere in this report. This brown-red-black
metallurgical zones lie above the top of the sulfides only and are not predictable in
continuity or shape.
In 2005, Quadra described a black copper (wad) zone of alteration. This unit was not
accounted for in the models of 2005, 2008 and 2009 because:
1) volumetrically it is not significant; and
2) there is some sense that it is not well defined in the logs. It might be a concern
locally in metallurgical characterization.
9.3.1.3 Molybdenum
The three principal modeled molybdenum mineral domains are:
Disseminated (domain 21; 121 for Salvadora),
Stockwork (domain 23; 123 for Salvadora), and
Strong stockwork/sheeted/structural (domain 25; 125 for Salvadora).
Breaks defining molybdenum populations exist at 0.004%Mo, 0.04%Mo, and 0.6%Mo.

Because molybdenum mineralization is not particularly strong in the newly discovered
281 area or even north of Catalina towards and at Isabela, the molybdenum model
remains essentially unchanged since 2005, with the exception that a very large, very low-
grade (over say 40 ppm Mo) disseminated halo of mineralization has been defined.
Due to missing molybdenum assays, most notably at Salvadora and also but to a lesser
extent at Catalina, molybdenum zones had been minimized in the 2005 and 2008
estimates because, while there were indications that they might be larger, the then-
existing data could not support such an interpretation. However, infill sampling
completed since the 2008 update, and some infill assaying of already-existing samples
has increased the known size of some of the zones. The morphology of the molybdenum
zones remains rather odd, some having suggestions of structural controls, others having
cylindrical pipe-like shapes. Studying the controls of molybdenum mineralization would
be a prudent task to better understand the molybdenum distribution. The highest-grade
domain is characterized by scattered grade spikes throughout the zone, making this zone
difficult to estimate.
9.3.1.4 Gold
Gold in a quantile plot had relatively broad gradational transitions at 0.04 g Au/t and 0.15
g Au/t. The highest-grade group could not be put into a domain; therefore, the upper
domain samples were restricted during estimation.
The gold domain morphologically mimics the higher-grade copper
chalcopyrite/stockwork domain. This estimate is the first-time gold resource estimate
with sufficient confidence and data to classify and report publically. There still remains
additional gold mineralization, either not estimated at Salvadora, or classed as Inferred
and probably under-reported at Catalina, because of the dearth of gold analytical data.
Clearly the gold domains (>0.04 g Au/t) mimic the higher-grade copper domain
(0.4%Cu) as a bulbous mass (281 zone) and broad east-dipping tabular bodies (Isabela)
and vertical bodies (Catalina). On a deposit scale, the gold is well behaved but on a
hand-sample scale it is very difficult to define. Within the gold zone there are late
(tardia) porphyry intrusive rocks that clearly cut the main zone and diminish its grades.
The late, weakly mineralized zones cannot be estimated or projected with any confidence
at any material distance from drill data. These late porphyry low-grade gold domains are
similar to the late porphyry low-grade copper domains.
9.3.1.5 Other
Other characteristics modeled include oxidation, density, and lithology. The density
model was based on some 5,715 specific gravity measurements, classified according to
whether the material was oxidized or not, and according to whether it was andesite,
breccias, porphyry, or granitic intrusive; the tuff, while coded separately, has the same
assigned density value as the andesite. The lithologic model was taken directly from
Quadras November 2008 cross-sectional interpretation. In this model, material was
classified as volcanic rock, breccia, porphyry, or granitic rock, or alluvium. Cross
sections illustrating the copper, molybdenum and gold domains are given in Figure 9.3-1
through Figure 9.3-3.
9.3.2 Modeling Procedures

Once the domains were modified for new data, checked, and smoothed back and forth
between sections, they were re-checked for accuracy and completeness, and cleaned up.
These domains were then used to code samples in the drill-hole database. Assay statistics
by domain are given in Table 9.3-1, Table 9.3-2 and Table 9.3-3 for all those samples
deemed useable (USE=1).
All reported resource metal statistics are presented in those tables and are broken down
for Salvadora, Isabela/281, and outside the mineralized domains. The capped grades are
given in these tables. Capping levels were chosen based on quantile plots of the domain
grade distributions, coefficients of variation, and a review of the locations of samples.
Each domain has a different capping level. For the copper domains, the original east-
west cross sections were sliced to north-south line/points and redrawn or modified from
the 2008 model on the north-south sections. One section was made for each 15 m block
(285 sections). The north-south orientation (as opposed to level plans) for domain
interpretation and block model coding was chosen as the preferred method because it
gives better detail for the model and allows for more appropriate dilution calculations of
the more flat-lying supergene and oxide domains. The effect on the hypogene of using
north-south sections instead of level plans is considered negligible.
Table 9.3-1: Descriptive Statistics by Copper Mineral Domain Samples

Copper Zone 10
Valid N Median Mean Std. Dev. CV Minimum Maximum Units
CuT 21,817 0.14 0.19 0.20 1.01 0.00 3.70 %
CuTC 21,817 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.98 0.00 2.00 %
Copper Zone 11 Cap grade 5.00
CuT 18,206 0.43 0.52 0.38 0.74 0.00 18.80 %
CuTC 18,206 0.43 0.51 0.36 0.70 0.00 5.00 %
CuT 3,407 0.36 0.56 0.80 1.43 0.00 12.20 %
CuTC 3,407 0.36 0.54 0.64 1.19 0.00 4.00 %
CuT 25,454 0.19 0.31 0.49 1.58 0.00 11.69 %
CuTC 25,441 0.19 0.30 0.39 1.32 0.00 3.50 %
CuT 1,841 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.87 0.00 1.56 %
CuTC 1,841 0.10 0.15 0.12 0.82 0.00 0.50 %
CuT 54,353 0.02 0.04 0.09 2.16 0.00 5.12 %
CuTC 42,897 0.03 0.04 0.06 1.44 0.00 1.00 %
CuT 321 0.02 0.06 0.09 1.54 0.00 0.67 %
CuTC 279 0.02 0.05 0.07 1.31 0.00 0.30 %
CuT 2,746 0.08 0.11 0.13 1.21 0.00 2.23 %
CuTC 2,746 0.08 0.11 0.12 1.11 0.00 1.00 %
CuT 1,507 0.40 0.47 0.39 0.82 0.00 4.87 %
CuTC 1,507 0.40 0.47 0.35 0.76 0.00 2.00 %
CuT 698 0.35 0.71 1.01 1.43 0.01 13.70 %
CuTC 698 0.35 0.66 0.78 1.18 0.01 3.00 %
CuT 4,946 0.17 0.22 0.24 1.12 0.01 6.62 %
CuTC 4,855 0.17 0.22 0.21 0.98 0.01 2.50 %
Note: discrepancies between the number of capped grades and uncapped grades are due to the uncapped grades including samples outside block
model limits
Table 9.3-2: Descriptive Statistics by Molybdenum Mineral Domain - Samples

Molybdenum Zone 21 Cap grade 0.40
Mo 27,254 0.01 0.01 0.02 1.56 0.00 0.61 %
MoC 27,254 0.01 0.01 0.02 1.53 0.00 0.40 %
Mo 9,529 0.06 0.07 0.08 1.07 0.00 2.95 %
MoC 9,529 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.97 0.00 1.00 %
Mo 3,347 0.21 0.28 0.27 0.97 0.00 3.55 %
MoC 3,347 0.21 0.28 0.26 0.92 0.00 2.00 %
Mo 2,880 0.01 0.02 0.02 1.02 0.00 0.31 %
MoC 2,880 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.96 0.00 0.15 %
Molybdenum Zone 123 Cap grade none
Mo 808 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.42 %
MoC 808 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.42 %
Mo 221 0.27 0.38 0.36 0.94 0.00 3.33 %
MoC 221 0.27 0.36 0.24 0.66 0.00 1.20 %
Molybdenum Zone 9 Cap grade none
Mo 304 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.14 0.00 0.11 %
MoC 262 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.11 0.00 0.11 %
Mo 61,223 0.00 0.00 0.01 4.14 0.00 1.23 %
MoC 49,663 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42 0.00 0.06 %
Note: discrepancies between the number of capped grades and uncapped grades are due to the uncapped grades including samples outside block model limits
Table 9.3-3: Descriptive Statistics by Gold Mineral Domain - Samples

Gold Zone 31 Cap grade 3.00

Au 22,500 0.07 0.10 0.29 3.04 0.00 25.87 %
AuC 22,500 0.07 0.09 0.13 1.34 0.00 3.00 ppm
Au 557 0.04 0.06 0.08 1.38 0.00 1.06 %
AuC 557 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.65 0.00 0.11 ppm

Au 29 0.02 0.07 0.18 2.61 0.01 1.01 ppm
AuC 29 0.02 0.05 0.06 1.39 0.01 0.30 %

Au 23,183 0.02 0.03 0.08 2.31 0.00 6.20 %
AuC 23,183 0.02 0.03 0.07 1.97 0.00 1.50 ppm
For the molybdenum domains, the east-west sections were taken to plan and reinterpreted
on plan because the more steeply dipping hypogene molybdenum mineralization is more
appropriately diluted on level plans. Dilution is incorporated in the model through the
use of partial blocks.
Attempts were made to build three-dimensional solids of both copper and molybdenum
domains, but these solids were found to take on implausible forms due to complexities of
the supergene and oxide copper domains and the higher-grade molybdenum domains.
Gold domains were modeled as solids.
9.3.3 Compositing
Once the samples were capped, they were composited into 8 m composite lengths for
gold and copper, but to 4 m composite lengths for molybdenum. The change to 4 m
composites from 8 m for molybdenum samples was done to better reflect and honor the
high variability of the molybdenum mineralization, particularly in the higher-grade zones.
For copper composites, compositing was done down-hole, honoring the supergene
enrichment zone, top of sulfides, and overburden contacts as hard boundaries. All other
mineral domain boundaries were ignored during compositing. Once composited, coding
of those composites was done by the same east-west sections used for coding the samples
and defining the north-south sectional interpretations. In this way, all other contacts
(unmineralized to disseminated to stockwork for sulfide and mineralized and
unmineralized for oxide) were softened. This compositing routine was necessitated by
too wide drill spacing to estimate an interpolated contact accurately, and justified by the
unexpected grade change relationship between the hypogene copper domains; there is a
grade change from ~0.1%Cu to ~0.4+%Cu over less than 20 m for low-grade to high-
grade copper domain contacts. All domain composites, including overburden and
supergene, were used to estimate grades into their respective domains. Table 9.3-4 and
Table 9.3-5 present the descriptive statistics of the composite database used for copper
and molybdenum estimation, respectively. Molybdenum composites ignored all but
alluvium contacts, thereby softening those domain contacts. The same was done with
gold (Table 9.3-6).
Table 9.3-4: Descriptive Statistics by Copper Mineral Domain Composites
Zone(s) 10 Effect of Capping on Maximum Composite Grade 1.77 %

CuT 4,496 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.77 0.00 3.51 %
CuTC 4,496 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.71 0.00 1.77 %
Zone(s) 11 Effect of Capping on Maximum Composite Grade none %
CuT 4,154 0.45 0.51 0.28 0.54 0.01 4.02 %
CuTC 4,154 0.45 0.51 0.27 0.53 0.01 4.02 %
CuT 622 0.39 0.56 0.58 1.04 0.01 4.92 %
CuTC 622 0.39 0.54 0.49 0.91 0.01 3.37 %
CuT 4,670 0.20 0.30 0.35 1.16 0.01 5.91 %
CuTC 4,669 0.20 0.29 0.29 1.00 0.01 3.41 %
CuT 392 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.73 0.00 0.59 %
CuTC 392 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.71 0.00 0.50 %
CuT 415 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.85 0.00 0.85 %
CuTC 415 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.79 0.00 0.62 %
CuT 203 0.42 0.46 0.26 0.57 0.01 1.58 %
CuTC 203 0.42 0.45 0.25 0.54 0.01 1.46 %
CuT 116 0.39 0.71 0.71 1.00 0.02 3.52 %
CuTC 116 0.39 0.66 0.60 0.90 0.02 2.63 %
CuT 714 0.19 0.22 0.14 0.65 0.04 1.62 %
CuTC 691 0.19 0.22 0.13 0.60 0.04 1.24 %
Above Top of Sulfide
CuT 6,473 0.04 0.05 0.06 1.34 0.00 2.48 %
CuTC 6,448 0.04 0.05 0.05 1.06 0.00 0.93 %
Below Top of Sulfide
CuT 2,695 0.03 0.05 0.07 1.41 0.00 1.40 %
CuTC 2,360 0.03 0.04 0.06 1.24 0.00 0.64 %
Note: discrepancies between the number of capped grades and uncapped grades are due to the uncapped grades including samples
outside block model limits
Table 9.3-5: Descriptive Statistics by Molybdenum Mineral Domain Composites

Zones 21 Effect of Capping on Maximum Composite Grade none %
Mo 12,001 0.01 0.01 0.02 1.27 0.00 0.32 %
MoC 12,001 0.01 0.01 0.02 1.25 0.00 0.32 %
Zones 23 Effect of Capping on Maximum Composite Grade 0.92 %
Mo 3,242 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.85 0.00 1.75 %
MoC 3,242 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.77 0.00 0.92 %
Mo 991 0.23 0.27 0.19 0.71 0.00 1.91 %
MoC 991 0.23 0.27 0.19 0.69 0.00 1.84 %
Mo 1,080 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.84 0.00 0.31 %
MoC 1,080 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.80 0.00 0.15 %
Zones 123 Effect of Capping on Maximum Composite Grade none %
Mo 276 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.32 %
MoC 276 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.32 %
Mo 68 0.31 0.38 0.29 0.76 0.06 2.16 %
MoC 68 0.31 0.36 0.21 0.58 0.06 1.09 %
Mo 24,154 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.00 0.29 %
MoC 23,393 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.00 0.19 %
Note: discrepancies between the number of capped grades and uncapped grades are due to the uncapped grades including samples
outside block model limits
Table 9.3-6: Descriptive Statistics by Gold Mineral Domain Composites

Zone 31 Max Grade (using capped assays) 2.30 g Au/t
Au 4,819 0.07 0.10 0.17 1.78 0.01 8.12 g Au/t
AuC 4,819 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.95 0.01 2.30 g Au/t
Au 145 0.04 0.06 0.06 1.10 0.01 0.47 g Au/t
AuC 145 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.55 0.01 0.12 g Au/t
Au 5,375 0.03 0.03 0.05 1.45 0.00 1.77 g Au/t
AuC 5,375 0.03 0.03 0.04 1.30 0.00 1.06 g Au/t
9.4 Estimation
Once the samples were capped and then composited, geostatistical analyses were
completed. MDA constructed correlograms in numerous directions, dips, and tilts, with
varying lag lengths and by domain individually and, in some cases, with combined
domains. Ordinary Kriging was chosen as the base case, while estimates were also made
by inverse distance cubed and nearest neighbor. The Kriged estimate was chosen
because the global mean grade of the Kriged estimate was closer to the mean of the
samples in the point validation tests. Because of the very subtle geological controls of
mineralization noted in the core, MDA chose to accept an estimation method that has a
tendency to produce a more reliable global mean grade, at the expense of smoothing the
grades, thereby reducing the local estimation accuracy. Additional reasons for choosing
ordinary Kriging as the base case were that the geostatistics produced correlograms with
good structures, and the mineralization is relatively well-behaved. Depending upon the
domain being estimated and the pass, two to four maximum composites per hole were
used for estimation, and each domain was estimated separately. At contacts of domains,
percentages of each domain in each block were coded into the block model, and these
were used to weight-average the grade from each respective domain to obtain the average
grade per block. In this manner, contacts are further smoothed, beyond the initial
smoothing induced by compositing across the boundaries.
In addition to ordinary Kriging, MDA also estimated by inverse distance cubed and by
nearest neighbor in order to evaluate the reliability of the base case Kriged estimate.
9.5 Resource
MDA classified the resource in order of increasing geological and quantitative
confidence, into Inferred, Indicated and Measured categories to be in compliance with NI
43-101 and the CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and
Guidelines, issued in 2000 and modified with adoption of the CIM Definition
Standards - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves in 2005. CIM mineral
resource definitions are given below:
Mineral Resource
Mineral Resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into
Inferred, Indicated and Measured categories. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower
level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource. An Indicated
Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than an Inferred Mineral Resource but
has a lower level of confidence than a Measured Mineral Resource.
A Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of diamonds, natural solid inorganic

material, or natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals,
coal, and industrial minerals in or on the Earths crust in such form and quantity and of
such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The
location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics and continuity of a Mineral Resource
are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge.
The term Mineral Resource covers mineralization and natural material of intrinsic
economic interest which has been identified and estimated through exploration and
sampling and within which Mineral Reserves may subsequently be defined by the
consideration and application of technical, economic, legal, environmental, socio-
economic and governmental factors. The phrase reasonable prospects for economic
extraction implies a judgment by the Qualified Person in respect of the technical and
economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction. A Mineral
Resource is an inventory of mineralization that under realistically assumed and
justifiable technical and economic conditions might become economically extractable.
These assumptions must be presented explicitly in both public and technical reports.
Inferred Mineral Resource

An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and
grade or quality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited
sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity. The
estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate
techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes.
Due to the uncertainty that may be attached to Inferred Mineral Resources, it cannot be
assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will be upgraded to an
Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource as a result of continued exploration.
Confidence in the estimate is insufficient to allow the meaningful application of technical
and economic parameters or to enable an evaluation of economic viability worthy of
public disclosure. Inferred Mineral Resources must be excluded from estimates forming
the basis of feasibility or other economic studies.
Indicated Mineral Resource

An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity,
grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics can be estimated with a
level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and
economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability
of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration and testing
information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops,

trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough for geological and
grade continuity to be reasonably assumed.
Mineralization may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource by the Qualified
Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such as to allow
confident interpretation of the geological framework and to reasonably assume the
continuity of mineralization. The Qualified Person must recognize the importance of the
Indicated Mineral Resource category to the advancement of the feasibility of the project.
An Indicated Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient quality to support a Preliminary
Feasibility Study which can serve as the basis for major development decisions.
Measured Mineral Resource

A Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity,
grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are so well established that
they can be estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of
technical and economic parameters, to support production planning and evaluation of the
economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable
exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques
from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced
closely enough to confirm both geological and grade continuity.
Mineralization or other natural material of economic interest may be classified as a
Measured Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity
and distribution of data are such that the tonnage and grade of the mineralization can be
estimated to within close limits and that variation from the estimate would not
significantly affect potential economic viability. This category requires a high level of
confidence in, and understanding of, the geology and controls of the mineral deposit.
Because NI 43-101 and CIM guidelines stipulate that a resource exists in such form and
quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic
extraction, MDA is reporting the resource at cutoffs that are reasonable for deposits of
this nature and for the expected mining conditions and methods and metallurgical
extraction. MDA also considered consistency in reporting with historic cutoffs. The
cutoff grades used for resource reporting for Sierra Gorda are based on two different
copper equivalent grades, one in the oxide, where it is the same as the total copper grade,
and one in the sulfide.
Two cutoff grades are used because the oxide and sulfide mineralization will have
different processing and extraction costs. Copper is likely to be extracted from the oxide
material by heap leaching, as opposed to the more expensive milling and floatation
processing required for the sulfide material. The reported cutoff grades are 0.20% total
copper for the oxide and 0.30 % copper equivalent for the sulfide. As neither
molybdenum nor gold will be recovered in the oxidized material using standard heap-
leach processing, no credit is given for the molybdenum or gold in oxides. The oxide
material is therefore tabulated only on the copper grade, thus the equivalent copper grade
and the total copper grade in the oxide are one and the same. Milling and flotation of the
sulfide mineralization on the other hand is expected to yield not only copper, but also
molybdenum and gold. As such, copper equivalent grades utilizing molybdenum and
gold were calculated for each model block for reporting and tabulation. In all cases,
MDA considered metal prices, metallurgical recoveries, mining methods and costs, and
economics to derive the reported cutoffs. Tables 9.5-1 to 9.5-6 summarize the Measured,
Indicated and Inferred resources for Cu, Mo and Au in both sulfide and oxide at Sierra
Gorda.
The copper equivalent calculations are based on long-term average molybdenum, gold,
and copper metal price ratios. The ratios are the same as used in the previous MDA
resource estimates for two reasons; historic price ratios have not changed significantly,
and using the same ratios as earlier estimates allows for easier comparisons of resources.
Copper equivalent is calculated by multiplying the molybdenum grade (%) by 5.0 and the
gold grade (g/t) by 0.55 and adding these values to the copper grade (%). Copper
equivalent calculations reflect gross metal content and have not been adjusted for
metallurgical recoveries or relative processing and smelting costs. The copper equivalent
grades were used only for resource reporting purposes. Tabulating the material in this
manner presents a more accurate view allowing for reporting economic material
regardless of which metal is dominant or provides the most economic value.
The cutoffs chosen to report the Sierra Gorda resource are based upon information from
Quadra concerning the anticipated mining, general and administration costs. MDA
considered reasonableness in their application. The differences between the oxide and
sulfide costs are due to increased costs for extracting the copper and molybdenum from
unoxidized sulfide material. Although preliminary in nature, MDA believes there is
sufficient information to make reasonable estimates on projected economic cutoffs.
Table 9.5-1: Measured Copper, Molybdenum and Gold Resources for Sierra Gorda: Sulfide
Cutoff Tonnes CuEq Cu Cu Cu Mo% Mo Mo Au Ounces
CuEq% (%) (%) (tonnes) (lbs) (tonnes) (lbs) (g/t)
0.10 147,956,000 0.73 0.44 651,006 1,435,222,000 0.048 70,279 154,939,000 0.090 427,200
0.15 147,412,000 0.73 0.44 650,675 1,434,492,000 0.048 70,315 155,019,000 0.090 426,100
0.20 146,532,000 0.73 0.44 650,014 1,433,037,000 0.048 70,189 154,740,000 0.090 424,900
0.25 144,524,000 0.74 0.45 647,322 1,427,101,000 0.048 69,949 154,212,000 0.091 421,900
0.30 140,987,000 0.75 0.45 641,348 1,413,931,000 0.049 69,365 152,925,000 0.092 415,700
0.35 135,594,000 0.77 0.46 629,971 1,388,848,000 0.051 68,475 150,962,000 0.093 405,400
0.40 128,758,000 0.79 0.48 612,631 1,350,620,000 0.052 67,212 148,176,000 0.095 391,200
0.45 119,409,000 0.82 0.49 583,910 1,287,301,000 0.055 65,675 144,788,000 0.097 370,900
0.50 105,819,000 0.86 0.51 536,077 1,181,848,000 0.060 63,491 139,974,000 0.099 338,200
0.55 90,215,000 0.92 0.53 474,443 1,045,968,000 0.067 60,805 134,053,000 0.103 299,000
0.60 75,850,000 0.98 0.54 412,850 910,179,000 0.076 57,873 127,589,000 0.107 260,900
0.70 51,858,000 1.14 0.58 299,479 660,239,000 0.100 51,910 114,441,000 0.116 192,600
0.80 36,075,000 1.31 0.60 216,916 478,218,000 0.129 46,428 102,356,000 0.127 146,800
0.90 26,853,000 1.48 0.61 164,934 363,617,000 0.157 42,267 93,184,000 0.137 118,100
1.00 21,262,000 1.62 0.63 133,799 294,976,000 0.182 38,611 85,122,000 0.143 97,600
1.20 15,129,000 1.83 0.66 99,958 220,371,000 0.216 32,724 72,145,000 0.156 75,700
1.40 10,880,000 2.04 0.69 74,907 165,142,000 0.251 27,297 60,180,000 0.170 59,400
1.60 8,071,000 2.23 0.71 57,450 126,655,000 0.283 22,801 50,267,000 0.183 47,600
1.80 6,116,000 2.40 0.74 45,011 99,232,000 0.311 19,026 41,944,000 0.194 38,000
2.00 4,484,000 2.58 0.77 34,609 76,300,000 0.340 15,226 33,568,000 0.205 29,600
2.50 1,910,000 3.08 0.89 17,091 37,680,000 0.411 7,850 17,307,000 0.234 14,400
3.00 808,000 3.57 1.08 8,760 19,312,000 0.468 3,779 8,331,000 0.274 7,100
3.50 404,000 3.94 1.22 4,920 10,847,000 0.512 2,066 4,556,000 0.296 3,800
4.00 169,000 4.29 1.36 2,292 5,052,000 0.549 927 2,044,000 0.346 1,900
Notes: CuEq cutoff based on Mo:Cu ratio of 5 and Au:Cu ratio of 0.55
Table 9.5-2: Indicated Copper, Molybdenum and Gold Resources for Sierra Gorda: Sulfide

0.10 2,009,701,000 0.42 0.31 6,300,964 13,891,248,000 0.016 313,725 691,644,000 0.048 3,092,700
0.15 1,835,495,000 0.45 0.33 6,131,439 13,517,510,000 0.017 308,580 680,301,000 0.051 2,990,100
0.20 1,611,914,000 0.48 0.36 5,815,387 12,820,733,000 0.019 298,344 657,735,000 0.055 2,837,300
0.25 1,382,344,000 0.53 0.39 5,405,363 11,916,786,000 0.021 283,404 624,798,000 0.060 2,658,100
0.30 1,204,662,000 0.56 0.42 5,025,851 11,080,104,000 0.022 267,435 589,593,000 0.064 2,494,300
0.35 1,057,169,000 0.60 0.44 4,657,886 10,268,881,000 0.024 251,606 554,697,000 0.068 2,318,000
0.40 937,291,000 0.63 0.46 4,319,976 9,523,917,000 0.025 236,197 520,726,000 0.071 2,133,500
0.45 815,571,000 0.66 0.48 3,920,448 8,643,109,000 0.027 220,204 485,467,000 0.073 1,911,500
0.50 666,077,000 0.70 0.50 3,353,699 7,393,640,000 0.030 201,821 444,940,000 0.075 1,608,300
0.55 508,569,000 0.75 0.53 2,684,734 5,918,825,000 0.036 181,559 400,269,000 0.078 1,273,700
0.60 373,318,000 0.81 0.55 2,059,596 4,540,632,000 0.043 162,020 357,193,000 0.081 972,200
0.70 195,322,000 0.97 0.59 1,156,499 2,549,644,000 0.065 127,350 280,758,000 0.089 557,000
0.80 111,792,000 1.13 0.62 688,192 1,517,205,000 0.093 104,302 229,947,000 0.096 344,700
0.90 74,266,000 1.28 0.62 462,229 1,019,042,000 0.121 89,713 197,783,000 0.101 240,700
1.00 53,536,000 1.41 0.63 335,083 738,732,000 0.146 78,056 172,084,000 0.104 179,500
1.20 32,087,000 1.63 0.63 203,496 448,632,000 0.187 59,907 132,071,000 0.111 114,700
1.40 19,587,000 1.85 0.63 123,493 272,255,000 0.230 45,029 99,273,000 0.121 76,200
1.60 13,138,000 2.02 0.64 84,492 186,272,000 0.262 34,435 75,917,000 0.124 52,300
1.80 9,049,000 2.17 0.65 59,056 130,196,000 0.289 26,171 57,696,000 0.127 36,900
2.00 5,599,000 2.34 0.67 37,655 83,015,000 0.318 17,806 39,255,000 0.132 23,700
2.50 1,079,000 2.93 0.79 8,540 18,828,000 0.412 4,438 9,785,000 0.142 4,900
3.00 248,000 3.68 0.91 2,258 4,978,000 0.539 1,337 2,948,000 0.139 1,100
3.50 98,000 4.41 1.01 994 2,191,000 0.664 652 1,438,000 0.156 500
4.00 56,000 4.97 1.19 669 1,474,000 0.737 414 913,000 0.171 300
Table 9.5-3: Inferred Copper, Molybdenum and Gold Resources for Sierra Gorda: Sulfide

0.10 1,511,256,000 0.26 0.22 3,305,962 7,288,400,000 0.006 93,747 206,676,000 0.021 1,003,100
0.15 1,084,747,000 0.32 0.26 2,865,830 6,318,074,000 0.008 83,559 184,215,000 0.025 884,100
0.20 789,388,000 0.37 0.31 2,423,557 5,343,028,000 0.009 73,424 161,872,000 0.031 797,700
0.25 591,623,000 0.42 0.35 2,043,564 4,505,288,000 0.011 63,901 140,877,000 0.038 721,100
0.30 455,808,000 0.46 0.38 1,726,139 3,805,484,000 0.012 55,612 122,603,000 0.044 649,300
0.35 355,922,000 0.50 0.41 1,457,500 3,213,238,000 0.013 47,341 104,368,000 0.050 567,700
0.40 281,056,000 0.54 0.44 1,233,558 2,719,531,000 0.014 39,351 86,754,000 0.053 479,000
0.45 217,487,000 0.57 0.47 1,013,490 2,234,363,000 0.015 32,625 71,926,000 0.055 386,700
0.50 154,365,000 0.61 0.50 764,106 1,684,566,000 0.017 26,089 57,517,000 0.057 283,400
0.55 98,222,000 0.66 0.52 514,976 1,135,327,000 0.021 20,430 45,041,000 0.059 187,600
0.60 57,789,000 0.72 0.56 321,250 708,234,000 0.027 15,487 34,144,000 0.060 111,500
0.70 20,733,000 0.87 0.61 126,246 278,324,000 0.046 9,517 20,981,000 0.062 41,300
0.80 10,938,000 0.99 0.63 68,811 151,702,000 0.065 7,088 15,626,000 0.071 24,900
0.90 6,471,000 1.09 0.63 40,704 89,736,000 0.085 5,468 12,055,000 0.078 16,200
1.00 3,351,000 1.23 0.60 20,017 44,130,000 0.118 3,957 8,724,000 0.083 8,900
1.20 1,359,000 1.46 0.53 7,151 15,766,000 0.179 2,425 5,347,000 0.071 3,100
1.40 492,000 1.79 0.33 1,625 3,582,000 0.286 1,408 3,104,000 0.044 700
1.60 304,000 1.98 0.26 782 1,724,000 0.341 1,038 2,289,000 0.033 300
1.80 220,000 2.08 0.25 553 1,220,000 0.362 798 1,759,000 0.032 200
2.00 126,000 2.21 0.28 350 772,000 0.384 485 1,069,000 0.032 100
2.50 19,000 2.63 0.17 32 70,000 0.490 92 202,000 0.019 -
3.00 47,000 3.95 0.78 368 811,000 0.621 294 648,000 0.137 200
3.50 33,000 4.28 0.91 302 665,000 0.658 219 483,000 0.161 200
4.00 28,000 4.38 0.84 238 525,000 0.692 196 432,000 0.156 100
Table 9.5-4: Measured Copper, Molybdenum and Gold Resources for Sierra Gorda: Oxide

0.10 101,487,000 0.28 0.28 286,294 631,170,000 NA NA NA NA NA

0.15 83,471,000 0.32 0.32 263,518 580,957,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.20 61,186,000 0.37 0.37 224,737 495,460,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.25 44,364,000 0.42 0.42 187,215 412,738,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.30 32,179,000 0.48 0.48 153,943 339,386,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.35 23,162,000 0.54 0.54 124,798 275,131,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.40 16,961,000 0.60 0.60 101,664 224,132,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.45 12,952,000 0.65 0.65 84,721 186,777,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.50 10,026,000 0.71 0.71 70,871 156,243,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.55 7,790,000 0.76 0.76 59,163 130,433,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.60 6,187,000 0.81 0.81 49,970 110,165,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.70 4,093,000 0.89 0.89 36,489 80,444,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.80 2,492,000 0.99 0.99 24,559 54,143,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.90 1,487,000 1.08 1.08 16,022 35,321,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.00 867,000 1.17 1.17 10,166 22,413,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.20 266,000 1.38 1.38 3,673 8,098,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.40 106,000 1.54 1.54 1,632 3,597,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.60 35,000 1.68 1.68 593 1,308,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.80 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
2.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
2.50 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
3.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
3.50 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
4.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
Notes: Mo and Au are not considered in CuEq calcuation above top of sulfides
Mo and Au are not reported in oxides because at present there is no economic procedure known for extraction; but they do exist
Table 9.5-5: Indicated Copper Resources for Sierra Gorda: Oxide

0.10 364,831,000 0.24 0.24 881,614 1,943,625,000 NA NA NA NA NA

0.15 286,664,000 0.27 0.27 782,683 1,725,521,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.20 189,791,000 0.32 0.32 613,945 1,353,516,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.25 123,516,000 0.38 0.38 466,612 1,028,703,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.30 81,787,000 0.43 0.43 352,738 777,653,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.35 53,823,000 0.49 0.49 262,321 578,319,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.40 36,186,000 0.54 0.54 196,507 433,225,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.45 24,501,000 0.60 0.60 147,211 324,544,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.50 17,483,000 0.65 0.65 113,977 251,277,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.55 12,707,000 0.70 0.70 89,053 196,329,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.60 8,897,000 0.76 0.76 67,204 148,160,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.70 4,975,000 0.84 0.84 41,899 92,372,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.80 2,508,000 0.94 0.94 23,495 51,798,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.90 1,276,000 1.03 1.03 13,150 28,992,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.00 651,000 1.11 1.11 7,227 15,934,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.20 84,000 1.29 1.29 1,079 2,380,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.40 4,000 1.62 1.62 71 157,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.60 4,000 1.62 1.62 71 157,000 NA NA NA NA NA
1.80 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
2.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
2.50 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
3.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
3.50 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
4.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
Table 9.5-6: Inferred Copper Resources for Sierra Gorda: Oxide

0.10 126,677,000 0.17 0.17 210,276 463,580,000 NA NA NA NA NA

0.15 56,749,000 0.22 0.22 127,357 280,775,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.20 26,826,000 0.28 0.28 75,801 167,113,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.25 13,821,000 0.34 0.34 47,194 104,045,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.30 8,233,000 0.39 0.39 32,103 70,774,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.35 5,250,000 0.43 0.43 22,424 49,437,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.40 2,402,000 0.49 0.49 11,736 25,874,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.45 1,535,000 0.53 0.53 8,084 17,823,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.50 809,000 0.57 0.57 4,648 10,247,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.55 418,000 0.62 0.62 2,607 5,748,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.60 191,000 0.69 0.69 1,320 2,910,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.70 67,000 0.78 0.78 523 1,153,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.80 22,000 0.85 0.85 188 414,000 NA NA NA NA NA
0.90 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
1.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
1.20 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
1.40 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
1.60 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
1.80 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
2.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
2.50 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
3.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
3.50 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
4.00 - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA
Resource classification used distance to the nearest sample along with geologic and
qualitative criteria. As a consequence of estimation parameters, most of the resources
tabulated in this estimate lie within at least one of the metal domains. Classification
criteria for the resource are based on a complex set of criteria depending upon location in
the deposit. Because Sierra Gorda is a multi-metal deposit, MDA considered the degree
of confidence that could be applied to each metal in assigning the resource classification.
For a block to be classified as Measured, at least two samples from at least two holes
within 20 to 30 m or two samples from one hole within 10 m to 20 m from the closest
sample were required. Indicated material required that a block used at least two samples
from at least two holes within 80 m or two samples from at least one hole from within 30
to 50 m. Inferred material required that at least one sample was within 150 m of the
block being estimated. There is no Measured material estimated at Salvadora because
that deposit is less well understood and is less well sampled.
MDA understands that the Carmen concession is not controlled by Quadra and therefore
has excluded from reporting that material that lies underneath the Carmen concession.
Figure 9.5-1 through Figure 9.5-3 present cross-section examples of the block model.
The model blocks are 15 m north by 15 m east by 8 m deep. The 15 m dimensions were
chosen as practical sizes for open pit mining. The vertical height of 8 m allows for
versatility in mine design at 8 m in the oxide where vertical dilution is more profound and
16 m in the sulfide material, a more likely size for mining a deposit of this scale.
9.6 Resource Validation and Checking

MDA made several checks on the estimate during and after the estimation process:
volume checks, point validation, comparisons of estimation method results, and assay-
composite-model checks. Furthermore, MDA had the additional benefit of comparing
post-2008-model drill data to the 2008 model to assess the performance of the estimate.
The first check was volume checks on the mineral domains to test for consistency in
volumes from section to plan, or cross section to long section and solids volumes to block
model volumes. The copper sections to plan or long sections volume checks were within
3%, except for the smaller higher-grade domains in Salvadora, which are expected to
have greater variability. The block model volumes matched the sectional volumes. The
east-west molybdenum domain sectional interpretation volumes are all within 2% of the
corresponding level plan domain volumes that were used for coding.
Point validation was used to optimize the estimation parameters. The estimate for copper
and gold was not sensitive to varying estimation parameters, but molybdenum was, and
as a consequence of this test as well as the post-2008-model drilling comparison, MDA
modified the estimation parameters for molybdenum. In particular, MDA modified the
number of samples and eliminated the high-grade restriction in the estimate.
MDA compared the final Kriged model with the assays, composites, nearest neighbor
estimate, and the Kriged estimate by domain and in total. While some distortions exist,
none are considered materially incorrect. Bench composite to corresponding estimated
block grades showed a bias from one to six percent, with the greatest being in the
molybdenum and oxide copper. In the more extreme cases, the estimation parameters
were made less restrictive as in for example, molybdenum where MDA removed the
high-grade restriction in the molybdenum estimate and added a short about one-block
uncapped pass. On the other hand, MDA increased the restrictions on the higher grade
population within the oxide copper mineralization, which has also shown to be bimodal.
MDA compared post-2008 model drill hole composite data to the 2008 block model
grades. The global averages of the block model grades for molybdenum were
substantially lower than the coincident composite sample grades, which further added
credence to loosening up the estimation parameters. Copper block model grades were
very slightly lower than the coincident composite sample grades in the sulfide and
materially higher (6%) in the oxide and enriched zones. These tests gave direction in
modifications from the 2008 model estimation parameters.
9.7 Qualifications and Discussion

MDA is impressed by the predictability of the copper mineralization in the sulfides. The
copper mineralization in the oxides has a bimodal distribution and is more erratic and
therefore more difficult to estimate.
While the molybdenum mineralization is somewhat predictable, it is less so than the
copper, because molybdenum, by its very nature, is much more erratic. At Sierra Gorda,
molybdenum can be found occurring in clots that, by definition, are not continuous and
yet are a real part of the metal distribution. The less-predictable nature of molybdenum is
also likely a result of more structurally controlled mineralization, and the problem is
magnified by having fewer analyses. Moreover, the understanding of the mineralization
styles is not as good for molybdenum as it is for copper.
Having a relatively small amount of Measured material relative to Indicated is a direct
result of the many vertical or steeply dipping holes combined with near-vertical controls
of mineralization, and the rather complex and unpredictable low-grade tardia porphyries.
The ability to properly estimate near-vertical mineralization and grade distribution with
steeply dipping holes is difficult and adds risk to the estimate, or at least makes it less
reliable.
The tardia porphyries are complex and unpredictable. Those tardia porphyries that are
modeled are projected much further than we can with confidence but this was necessary
to compensate for those tardia porphyries that are not intersected in the drill holes but
likely exist.
Other issues that require further work for modeling include an assessment of density
changes with depth, an assessment of other metals, continued study of the controls on the
higher-grade domains, particularly gold and molybdenum, more work on the mineralogy
and mineral domains, some sub-horizontal grade estimation just below the top of sulfides,
and an evaluation of the potential to find more mineralization at depth and the economic
viability of deep mineralization.
The sulfide-oxide contact is quite predictable. While post-2008 model drilling does
usually modify the interpreted locations, the changes are often less than a block height,
and sometimes the interpreted contact does not need to be modified. All supergene
contacts are based on Quadras geologic logging.
Based on post-2008 model drilling, Salvadora has demonstrably poor continuity for
mineral domains and supergene domains in at least one area. The sulfide-oxide surface,
however, was shown to be well defined.
10. Metallurgical Testing
10. Metallurgical Testing
This chapter provides a summary of the metallurgical testing and results that have been
compiled for the Sierra Gorda project.
10.1 General
During the period that Outokumpu explored the Sierra Gorda Property in the 1990s,
extensive metallurgical test work was completed and documented in numerous reports.
The reports included two Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (CIMM) reports in
1994 regarding oxide material and analyses of primary Santa Catalina sulfide material
presented in reports by Heimala and Riekkola-Vanhanen (1994), Jounela and Lamberg
(1994a, 1994b and 1994c), Jounela and Lamberg (1995a, 1995b, Knuutila, (1993, 1994),
Knuutila et. al. (1994), Knuutila et. al. (1995), Lamberg (1993), Lamberg (1994a, 1994b
and 1994c), Lamberg (1995a, 1995b, Lamberg et. al. (1996), Minera Santa Catalina,
(1993), and Mrsky et. al. (1995a, 1995b and 1995c).
More recently, sampling of drill core representing a majority of mineral type and
lithology in Zone 281 was conducted during the first quarter of 2008.
Quadra initiated a scoping level test campaign in 2008 to provide a basis for the design
criteria and process flow sheet development. The metallurgical test program was
developed by Aminpro/AME Ltda. and the test work was conducted at SGS-Lakefield
Santiago starting in September 2008 and completed in January 2009. A detailed report
on the test results and interpretation is included in Appendix B of this report and
summarized below.
10.2 Metallurgical Testwork Review

Metallurgical test work on Sierra Gorda sulfide and oxide ores focused on establishing a
high level concept of ore hardness and a spectrum of the flotation and leaching
amenability of the ores.
The test program encompassed the following test work:
Ore hardness determination for grinding circuit design
Rougher Flotation tests on reagents, basic variables: grind and pH
Rougher cleaner tests examining cleaner pH and regrind levels
Locked cycle tests to determine the concentrate grade levels
Leach tests on oxide ores at various crushed sizes
10-1
METALLURGICAL TESTING
Flotation work on oxide column residue in order to investigate molybdenum

recovery from leached ore.
10.2.1 Sample Selection

Samples submitted for test work were based on a random selection within ore types
defined by mineral predominance for flotation test work and a random spatial distribution
for grinding test work. Following initial testwork results, additional samples for grinding
were selected to determine trends for ore hardness and discern the proportion of the
reserve with soft, medium, and hard grinding properties. Flotation ore types were defined
as SEZ (supergene enriched), SCPD (sulfide chalcopyrite dominant), and SPPD (sulfide
pyrite dominant). Sample selection was made from the recent drilling campaign
performed by Quadra and previous holes designated with the QSG- prefix. The QSG-
holes provide comprehensive coverage for all areas of the deposit with equally or nearly
equally spaced collars.
10.2.2 Grinding and Abrasion Tests

The following hardness tests were performed:
Crusher Index test, a proprietary SGS test that measures the rate of reduction in a
laboratory jaw crusher
SAG power index test (SPI), a proprietary SGS test that measures the amenability
to autogenous grinding
The Bond work index test, for amenability to ball milling,
The Bond abrasion index test, for estimating grinding media consumption.
Results, shown in Table 10.2-1, indicated that the Sierra Gorda ore deposit is quite hard.
Table 10.2-2 shows the known hardness of local ore deposits of known hardness and their
respective grinding circuit configuration.
Table 10.2-1:
Ore Hardness Parameters
Crusher Index SPI Bond Wi Ai
% minutes kWh/tonne g
Minimum 2.3 12.8 9.6 0.042

Maximum 24.3 278.4 22.3 0.449
Average 12.0 183.4 18.1 0.236
Stan Dev 4.8 67.6 2.6 0.112
RSD 40.4% 36.8% 14.5% 47.5%
Table 10.2-2:
Hardness and Grinding Circuit Configuration of Relevant Projects
Mine Province SPI Work Index Grinding Circuit
Collahuasi / Ujina 1st Region 45 11 SABC

Escondida 2nd Region 60 12.5 SABC
Collahuasi / Rosario 1st Region 85 13 SABC
Andina 5th Region 110 14 SABC Precrush
Candelaria 3rd Region 120 13.5 SABC
Cerro Verde Arequipa, Peru 150 15.5 HPGR
Sierra Gorda 2nd Region 183 18.1 n/a
Raglan Quebec, Canada 322 ~25 AG w/ pebble crusher @ 200% C.L.
As a result of the hard nature of the ore samples tested, economic trade-off studies were
performed to evaluate alternative process configurations including:
SABC grinding
HPGR (high pressure grinding roll) followed by ball milling
Secondary crushing followed by rod and ball milling
Secondary and tertiary crushing, followed by ball milling
The preferred configuration, based on economics, was a traditional cone crushing circuit
for the secondary and tertiary crushing followed by ball milling. Based on the test results
and nominal design conditions of 111,000 tonnes/day (tpd) and P80 of 170 microns, the
following equipment was selected:
Three secondary crushers in open circuit with three screen decks;
Ten tertiary crushers in closed circuit with ten screen decks; and
Four 7.9 m (26') by 11.9 m (39') ball mills with 16.2 MW motors and standard
drive trains
10.2.2.1 Supplemental Grinding Test Work

An additional 76 samples were selected spatially over the proposed pit area, representing
predominant lithology and alteration characteristics. The intent of the supplemental
program was to determine trends for ore hardness and discern the proportion of the
reserve with soft, medium, and hard grinding properties. The average work index of the
samples was 17.2 kWh/tonne, with histogram of results shown in Figure 10.2-1.
Figure 10.2-1: Supplemental Sampling for Grinding Work Index

The Sierra Gorda sulfide mineralized bodies within the economic pit are mainly
comprised of Volcanic rocks (Andesites & Tuffs), Breccias (Hydrothermal, Tourmaline
& Intrusive breccias) and Felsic rocks (Porphyries and all other Intrusive host rocks).
The approximate non-statistical distribution is as follows:
Volcanics 50%
Felsic 35%
Breccias 15%
BWI determinations from the 105 drill core samples sent to SGS Lakefield (Santiago)
returned the following average values for the three lithological variants:
Volcanics 18.4 kWh/tonne (60 samples)
Felsic 15.5 kWh/tonne (25 samples)
Breccias 17.3 kWh/tonne (20 samples)
BWI samples were collected from sections 7.473.100N to 7.473.900N, yielding a fairly
comprehensive distribution from within the economic pit. When these samples are
plotted on section, we have the ability to assign and predict BWI values from the
different Lithologic units spatially (3D) within the pit. For the scoping level of study, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
The Volcanic rock package, primarily within the eastern half of the pit, have
predictable BWI values, especially when in proximity to large and small heat
convection cells (Catalina Breccias, porphyritic intrusives). They show BWI
values on average of 18.4 and up to 22 locally when near contacts/heat sources.
The Felsic rock packages have a generally much lower BWI value on average
(15.5), and with the data collected to date, appear to have a rather homogenous
value in 3D. This is especially noticeable when tracing the mineralized
porphyries of the 281 zone from south to north.
The Brecciated rocks appear to have the most variability in BWI values, ranging
from 13 to 23, with an average value to date of 17.3. This is not surprising given
that matrix composition of the breccias or how they are cemented. However, the
volume % within the economic pit is the lowest amongst the lithologic units.
10.2.3 Flotation Tests

The flotation test program was designed to provide rougher kinetics as a function of grind
and pH. Cleaner kinetics were not measured; they were inferred from the rougher rate
constants and maximum recoveries of the rougher-cleaner tests. Locked cycle tests were
performed to calibrate the flotation model used for circuit design and to provide an
estimate of concentrate grade and quality. The results, shown in Table 10.2-3, indicate
that Sierra Gorda sulfides are very amenable to froth flotation, yielding concentrate
grades between 25% and 30% at copper recoveries above 87%. Low zinc levels were
detected in the chalcopyrite dominant (SCPD) and pyrite dominant (SPPD) composites
while higher concentrations were present in the enriched zone (SEZ) samples. The
enriched zone comprises approximately 5% of the ore volume. Although the zinc levels
do not exceed typical smelter limits for the composite samples tested, it is expect that a
small fraction of the SEZ concentrate may require blending. Accordingly, routine zinc
determinations are recommended for future metallurgical work.
Table 10.2-3:
Average Feed Grades and Locked Cycle Test Results (%)
Average Feed Grades
Element SEZ SCPD SPPD
Au 0.06 0.09 0.05
Cu 0.45 0.53 0.35
Mo 0.006 0.029 0.023
Zn 0.10 0.02 0.04
Locked Cycle Test Recoveries Locked Cycle Test Concentrates

Recovery SEZ SCPD SPPD Grade SEZ SCPD SPPD
Cu 87% 90% 87% Cu 26.7 29.5 25.6
Mo 83% 88% 75% Mo 0.3 1.6 2.3
Au 50% 58% 49% Au 1.6 3.5 4.2
Zn 31% 14% 28% Zn 3.4 0.3 1.8
Flotation test results were used to calibrate the Aminpro flotation model, which was used
to construct the grade recovery curve for the optimized Sierra Gorda flotation circuit.
The flotation circuit will consist of a roughing stage with two cleaning stages and a
regrind section treating the rougher concentrate and the cleaner-scavenger concentrate.
The grade recovery curve showing the optimum operating point is shown in
Figure 10.2-2, in which the green revenue curve is in USD per tonne of ore.
34 18.4
18.2
32
18.0
30 17.8
$ Revenue/tonne
Grade of Cu
17.6
28
17.4
26
17.2
24 17.0
16.8
22
Model Grade-Recovery 16.6
Revenue/tonne
20 16.4
76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
Recovery, %
Figure 10.2-2: Grade-Recovery Curve Showing Optimum Operating Point
The optimized flotation circuit is expected to average 88% copper recovery producing
concentrate grades averaging 25%. Gold recovery is expected to average 39%, yielding
approximately 2 g/tonne of Au in the concentrate. Molybdenum recovery is expected to
average 78% in the bulk concentrate and does not include losses in the molybdenum
separation circuit. The calibrated flotation model was integrated with hardness data,
operating cost models from the Aminpro/AME Ltda. database, and updated equipment
capital quotations. Simulations were performed to identify the optimal grind size with
respect to net revenue. The optimum grind (P80) was found to be between 169 and 174
microns.
Salt water flotation tests were performed on a composite sample of the three ore types to
examine the effects, if any, of saline process water. The same reagent scheme used for
the fresh water tests were applied to the salt water tests.
10.2.4 Bottle Roll and Column Tests

The test work on oxide ores was done on two ore types, classified as Green oxide and
Brown oxide. The scope of work entailed:
Bottle Roll test work;
Column test work to evaluate performance versus crushed rock size;
Column test work to evaluate effect of using sea water and/or salar water; and
Flotation of the feed and residue samples of the columns.
Analytical results on each oxide composite showed that the Green oxide had the highest
total copper values (0.68%) with 85% of the copper oxidized and readily leachable. The
Brown oxide assayed 0.28% total copper with 54% of the copper being readily leachable.
The column leach tests were terminated when the extraction curves leveled off. Table
10.2-4 provides a summary of the results obtained from the column testing:
Table 10.2-4:
Column Test Summary
Acid
% Cu Consumption Leach
Ore Type Extraction Kg/tonne Ore Days
Green 76 - 85 23.5 57
Brown 45 24 49
The overall copper extraction did not appear to be significantly affected by crushing to
finer sizes in the P80 range from 25 mm to 6 mm viewed from a macro scale. However,
seen from the depth of the column perspective, sizing had a larger impact. Figure 10.2-3
depicts the extraction of copper achieved with depth of column. Section 1 is the bottom
of the column, representing a 5 meter depth. As illustrated, there is a loss in recovery
with depth in the column, a feature that was accentuated with the use of salt water.
Section Extraction by Section Section
Extraction by Section
3 Sample Green 3 Sample Brown
90 60
Col-1 p80 1" Agua
Section potable Section Col-7 p80 5/8" Agua
2 85 2 potable
Col-2 p80 5/8" Agua 50
Col-8 p80 1/4" Agua
80 potable potable
Section Section
Col-3 p80 5/8" 40
75 1
Extraction, %
1
Extraction, %
Mejillones
70 30
Col-4 p80 5/8" Pampa
Yalqui
65
20
Col-5 p80 5/8"
60 Mejillones+Pampa
Yalqui 10
55 Col-6 p80 1/4" Agua
potable
50 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Column section Column section
Figure 10.2-3: Leach Extractions with Column Depth
In addition to fresh water, column testing was also performed using three types of salt
water:
ocean water
water from the Llalqui wells
a 50:50 mixture of ocean water and Llalqui well water.
As shown in Figure 10.2-4, water source did not significantly affect the outcome of the
test, nor did the acid consumption show a significant difference.
90
Cu Extraction kg/t Acid
80
70
60
50
Variable
40
30
20
10
0
Tap Water Mejillones Pampa Yalqui 50:50 Blend
Source of Water
Figure 10.2-4: Copper Extraction Using Different Sources of Water
The oxide ores, particularly the Green oxide, contained significant amounts of
molybdenum. Flotation tests were conducted on both oxide ores and column leach
residues to examine the potential of recovering metal values. The test results produced
poor molybdenum recoveries and gold recoveries that were variable and inconclusive for
this scoping level work.
QEMSCAN studies did not find any refractory molybdenum in these ores, therefore it
would be a recommendation that further studies be undertaken to investigate how the
molybdenum recovery could be enhanced in oxide material.
11. Mining Operations
11. Mining Operations
11.1 General
The Sierra Gorda deposit contains approximately 4 billion total tonnes of mineable
material in the designed pit, and will be mined using large scale open pit mining methods.
Modest grades, high production rates, and the ultimate pit size dictate the use of the
largest mining equipment currently available. It will be imperative to maintain a high
production, low cost operation in order to maintain economic viability.
A conceptual open pit design has been made for Sierra Gorda that will extract copper
sulphide minerals that will be treated by a conventional flotation concentration process.
For the purposes of this report, truck-shovel mining has been selected and will utilize
electric cable shovels, 340-tonne haul trucks, and electric production drills. Several
preliminary studies were undertaken to assess the economic viability of in-pit crushing
and conveying. Traditional truck-shovel mining generally compared favorably with in-
pit crushing and conveying with truck-shovel mining having higher operating costs but
lower initial capital costs. The installation of conveyors out of the pit requires departures
from optimum pit designs effectively increasing strip ratios.
Sierra Gorda has a considerable oxide resource that was not considered in this study.
However, the potential for development of this oxide resource is discussed in Chapter 21.
Mineable tonnes and grades are derived from the MDA resource model described in
Chapter 9. The procedure used to develop the pit designs and define economically
mineable material is as follows.
1. Metals prices and operating costs were estimated and used to calculate the
economic value for each block below topography. These net values were stored
in the model as both US dollars per block and US dollars per tonne.
2. Physical pit design parameters and economic parameters were developed.
3. Using these input data, multiple pit shells were generated using the MineSight
Lerchs-Grossmann (L-G) and floating cone ultimate-pit programs. Each pit shell
represents the largest physical pit shape that contains the maximum value for the
given economic inputs. The pit shells are used as guides or templates for the pits
designed in the next step. Only Measured and Indicated materials were used to
generate positive values.
11-1
MININGOPERATIONS
4. The ultimate or final pit was designed using the appropriate pit shells as guides.
This design includes haul roads, detailed bench geometry, and eliminates areas
that could not be mined because of practical mining limitations.
5. Phases, or pushbacks, were designed within the ultimate pit design to facilitate
mining higher-value materials first and delay waste mining. The ultimate pit
program pit shells were used as guides for these designs.
6. Materials inside the designs were tabulated and reported using the net value as the
cutoff between economic material and waste.
11.2 Pit Design Parameters

Pit design parameters used for the ultimate pit design as well as phase designs are listed
in Table 11.2-1.
Table 11.2-1:
Pit Design Parameters
Bench Height 16 meters
Road Width 38 meters
Road Grade 8%
Minimum Mining Width 150 meters
Face Slope Angles 70 Degrees
Inter-Ramp Angles 45 Degrees
Overall Slope Angle 40-42 Degrees
The specific bench height and road parameters were chosen to compliment the mining
equipment selected for the project. Roads are based on running surfaces that are three
times the haul truck width plus additional width to accommodate berms and ditches.
A 150-meter minimum mining width is maintained whenever possible to ensure that
loading equipment has room to operate efficiently.
Pit slope and face angles were specified by Knight Piesold Consulting Engineers. Slopes
are consistent around the pit except for a portion of the northwest pit wall that has an
overall angle of 40. Details are described in Section 13.2.2.
11.3 Economic Parameters

The basic economic parameters used to determine ultimate pit size, establish cutoff
grades, and provide the basic values for analyses and scheduling are summarized in
Table 11.3-1. Processing recoveries are shown in Table 11.3-2.
MININGOPERATIONS
Table 11.3-1:
Economic Parameters
Descripton Units Value
Metals Prices
Copper $/lb $2.00
Molybdenum $/lb $12.00
Gold $/oz $800
Offsite Costs
Copper $/lb $0.40
Molybdenum % of price 20%
Gold % of price 10%
Processing
Sulfide Milling $/tonne $6.15
G&A $/tonne $1.00
Total Processing $/tonne $7.15
Mining
Base $/tonne $0.95
Incremental 16-m bench $/tonne/bench $0.024
Table 11.3-2:
Process Recoveries
Sulfide Material Recovery Formula Maximum
Copper Hypogene 1.1911*(TCu) - 2.253*(TCu)2 + 1.4143*(TCu) + 0.5827
3
88%
Copper Enriched 1.5758*(TCu)3 - 3.0026*(TCu)2 + 1.9328*(TCu) + 0.4322 86%
Molybdenum Hypogene -263.96*(Mo)2 + 30.672*(Mo) + 0.0943 78%
Molybdenum Enriched 10159*(Mo)3 - 640.05*(Mo)2 + 13.321*(Mo) + 0.6413 74%
Gold Hypogene -19.491*(Au)2 + 4.694*(Au) + 0.2014 48%
Gold Enriched -24.535*(Au)2 + 5.2492*(Au) + 0.1745 45%
The incremental mining cost is zero at the pit rim (1692 bench), but is added to the base
mining cost for every bench below that elevation. Offsite costs are applied to the base
metal price. In the case of copper, the value is subtracted from the price; however, for
molybdenum and gold, the amount is determined by multiplying the price by the
percentage.
Net value per tonne and net value per block value are calculated for every block in the
resource model using the parameters in Tables 11.3-1 and 11.3-2. Blocks with positive
values are considered economic to process and those with negative values are considered
waste.
MININGOPERATIONS
For reference (considering that the net value cutoff is used in all economic calculations)
cutoff grades for copper and molybdenum using the same data were calculated
separately. The cutoffs are:
Copper 0.24% assuming Mo grade of 0.028%
Molybdenum 0.045% assuming Cu grade of 0.44%
Gold contributes little value relative to copper or molybdenum and as such is not
included in the cutoff calculations, but is included in other economic calculations. Some
locations in the deposit have higher molybdenum grades and lower copper grades, which
means that molybdenum contributes an average of 36% of the total revenue during the
first 12 years of mining. After year 12, molybdenum contributes only 8% of the total
revenue. Gold accounts for about 4% of the total over the life of the mine.
11.4 Economic Sensitivities

In order to better understand the deposit, and to determine how the pit shape and size
varies with economics, multiple L-G pit shells were generated at different copper prices.
The resulting pit shells can then be used in developing phases and the ultimate pit size,
identifying risk, and optimizing production schedules.
Tonnes and grades inside the multiple pit shells are presented in Figure 11.4-1.
L-G Results
5,000,000 0.50
4,500,000 0.45
4,000,000 0.40
3,500,000 0.35
3,000,000 0.30 Cu & Mo Grade %
2,500,000 0.25
kt
2,000,000 0.20
1,500,000 0.15
1,000,000 0.10
500,000 0.05
0 0.00
$0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.30 $1.40 $1.50 $1.60 $1.70 $1.80 $1.90 $2.00 $2.10 $2.20 $2.30 $2.40 $2.50 $2.60 $2.70 $2.80 $2.90 $3.00 $3.10 $3.20 $3.30
$ per lb Cu
Ore kt Waste kt Cu% Mo%
Figure 11.4-1: Materials within L-G Pit Shells

MININGOPERATIONS
As can be seen in Figure 11.4-1, there are two distinct pit behaviors, separated at the
$1.40/lb pit. Changes in tonnes below the $1.40 pit are not pronounced, whereas at
tonnages above that value, pit changes become more noticeable. The difference is due to
material at depth becoming economic with increasing copper price and driving the pit
deeper and in an easterly direction. In effect, the economics become favorable enough at
that point that the deep material overcomes stripping costs and makes the pit significantly
larger.
A small pit forms in the Salvadora area northwest of the main pit at copper prices above
$1.80/lb. The pit contains approximately 8 million economic tonnes at the base $2.00/lb
copper price. This pit was not included in the analyses nor was a pit design created for it
due to its small size and limited economic contribution. There exists the possibility that
under certain circumstances this pit could expand, and if these conditions are realized,
this pit should be added to the project.
Further sensitivity analyses were performed in conjunction with the Lerch Grossman
economic analysis. These analyses evaluate the sensitivity of the optimized Sierra Gorda
pit to variations in the key cost factors.
Copper price, processing and G&A cost, mining cost, mining bench increment, off-site
costs, molybdenum price, and gold price were chosen as the sensitvitiy input variables.
Each variable was adjusted one at a time to +/- 10, 20 and 30% of its base case value and
an optimized pit was generated.
A summary of the results is shown in Figure 11.4-2. The pit is most sensitive to copper
price, followed by processing cost. Gold price, mining bench increment, and offsite costs
each have smaller similar influences on the pit size.
MININGOPERATIONS
L-G Pits Sensitivity
1,400,000
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
Economic kt
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
-30% -20% -10% 0 10% 20% 30%
Change to Base Value
Copper Price Molybdenum Price Gold Price Mining Cost

Process & G&A Cu Offsite Costs Mining Increment
Figure 11.4-2: Results of Pit Sensitivity Analysis
11.5 Designed Pit

The designed pit was developed using the parameters described in Table 11.2-1. The
ultimate size and shape of the pit were based on the $2.00/lb copper price L-G pit shell.
A summary of material within the pit is provided in Table 11.5-1.
Table 11.5-1:
Materials Inside Designed Ultimate Pit
Mill kt 989,331
Cu % 0.42
Mo % 0.027
Au g/t 0.069
Waste kt 2,497,095
Total kt 3,618,760
Strip Ratio 2.5
MININGOPERATIONS
11.6 Pit Phases

The pit is mined in a series of five phases, or pushbacks. The phases are designed within
the ultimate pit design to facilitate mining higher-value materials first and delay waste
mining. The phases also are used to balance stripping so that the mine equipment can be
used most efficiently.
The phases all are designed to the same parameters as the ultimate pit. Plan views of the
phases are provided in Appendix C.
11.7 Waste Rock Dump

The waste rock dump is designed to the criteria developed by Knight Piesold described in
Section 13.2.3. The maximum ultimate dump height is 120 meters and face slopes are
1.5H:1V. The toe of the dump is set back about 250 meters from the ultimate pit rim to
allow for possible future pit expansion. Waste rock dump design and capacity are based
on the final design requirements for reclamation and contain sufficient volume to contain
all of the waste in the pit design at a swell factor of 1.3. The capacity of the dump is 1.3
billion cubic meters or 2.6 billion tonnes at a specific gravity of 2.0. The size of the
dump can be readily increased in all directions except where the pit is situated and the
eventual location of the tailings facilities..
Average ore haul for life of mine is approximately 5.9km, one way, comprising 4.9km at
8% and 1km relatively flat. Average waste haul for life of mine is 8.2km, one way,
comprising 5.5km at 8% and 2.7km relatively flat. This is approximate and is based on
from centroid of mining area to centroid of truck dump location.
11.8 Production Schedule
11.8.1 Mill Throughput

Mill throughput is dictated by rock hardness which is measured at Sierra Gorda by the
Bond Work Index (BWI). Throughput is higher with lower BWI numbers and the
relationship between the two is described in Chapter 10. Table 11.8-1 shows mill
throughputs for a typical range of BWI values.
The controls on rock hardness are not fully understood at this time but it appears that
lithology and alteration are key factors. Because lithology is currently in the resource
model but alteration is not, it was decided to model BWI values using lithology as the
major control. As alteration and other geologic features are modeled the BWI model will
be refined as appropriate.
MININGOPERATIONS
Table 11.8-1:
Mill Throughput and BWI Values
Mill Throughput
BWI tonnes/day kt/year
15.0 120,000 43,800
15.5 120,000 43,800
16.0 120,000 43,800
16.5 118,000 43,070
17.0 115,000 41,975
17.5 111,000 40,515
18.0 108,000 39,420
18.5 105,000 38,325
19.0 102,000 37,230
19.5 100,000 36,500
20.0 97,000 35,405
Modeling was accomplished by loading the BWI values into the MineSight drill
database, compositing the values, and estimating them into the block model. There are
107 BWI values, taken from core samples, 83 of which are 4 meters in length, the
remainder being either 2 or 6 meters in length. The samples were composited to 4 meter
lengths and back coded from the block model with the appropriate lithology code. The
nearest neighbor (polygonal) method was used to estimate values.
The estimation was restricted by lithology so that only samples having the same
lithologic code as a given block could be used to estimate that block. This method also
honors the variability within the lithologic units, as opposed to assigning a single average
value to all the blocks in one unit. The different units used are volcanics, porphyryies,
granitic intrusives, and breccias.
Search ranges for values at the extreme high and low ends were reduced to lessen the
influence of these potentially anomalous values. This decision was based on the theory
that very high or low values are probably localized occurrences. Otherwise search ranges
were established at 1200 m in order to fill all blocks in the pit area.
During production scheduling the mill throughputs by period were adjusted to correspond
with the average BWI model values for that period. Thus mill throughput is not
consistent from period to period but varies with estimated rock hardness.
11.8.2 Production Schedule

The life of mine production schedule is shown in Table 11.8-2.
MINING
Table 11.8-2:
Sierra Gorda Life-of-Mine Production Schedule
Period Year-1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 TOTAL
Mill kt 31,300 39,900 40,500 40,900 40,500 40,500 39,800 41,200 42,000 40,200 41,200 41,200 40,500 40,900 39,100 40,200 40,500 40,500 41,200 41,600 41,600 41,600 42,000 40,900 19,531 989,331
Cu % 0.44 0.39 0.41 0.35 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.48 0.47 0.41 0.25 0.25 0.42
Mo % 0.029 0.048 0.042 0.055 0.051 0.057 0.055 0.046 0.016 0.030 0.029 0.040 0.024 0.022 0.007 0.010 0.011 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.015 0.019 0.016 0.009 0.009 0.027
Au g/t 0.026 0.035 0.043 0.076 0.073 0.067 0.063 0.070 0.085 0.092 0.077 0.070 0.067 0.079 0.097 0.081 0.056 0.067 0.073 0.080 0.080 0.084 0.080 0.036 0.036 0.069
to Stockpile kt 8,395 8,387 11,055 12,721 10,489 10,862 4,258 66,167
Cu % 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.25
Mo % 0.009 0.012 0.007 0.010 0.008 0.010 0.005 0.009
Au g/t 0.021 0.019 0.020 0.045 0.044 0.052 0.044 0.036
from Stockpile kt 5,736 40,900 19,531 66,167
Cu % 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Mo % 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
Au g/t 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
Waste kt 3,000 88,628 149,974 154,015 162,761 173,502 175,000 175,000 176,245 156,477 168,709 152,437 132,461 121,935 122,890 122,097 81,869 82,564 39,784 15,866 10,407 11,319 10,542 9,613 0 0 2,497,095
Total kt 3,000 128,323 198,261 205,570 216,382 214,002 215,500 214,800 217,445 208,966 219,771 193,637 173,661 162,435 163,790 161,197 126,327 123,064 80,284 57,066 52,007 52,919 52,142 57,349 81,800 39,062 3,618,760
Strip Ratio 2.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.5
Period Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 TOTAL
Payable Cu lbs Millions 245.7 268.6 292.6 245.9 248.8 265.0 284.4 302.7 317.0 287.3 294.4 294.4 361.2 356.8 333.4 342.8 345.4 415.3 414.8 411.1 371.0 362.9 317.0 176.9 84.5 7,639.9
Payable Mo lbs Millions 14.7 33.2 29.3 38.7 35.5 39.7 37.6 32.6 7.7 20.7 20.1 28.3 14.5 12.7 1.8 3.3 3.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 6.8 10.1 7.7 2.8 1.4 408.8
Payable Au ozs x1000 0.0 14.1 19.1 41.4 40.2 35.8 32.5 38.6 50.7 53.4 43.8 38.6 35.8 45.0 55.4 45.6 28.2 35.8 40.8 46.4 46.4 49.4 46.9 15.7 7.5 907.1
MINING
Low grade material (but still above cutoff) is stockpiled during several periods in order to
improve economics. Over the life of the mine a total of just over 66 million tonnes will
be stockpiled adjacent to the pit. This stockpiled material is fed to the mill during the last
3 years of operation by the mining equipment on site at that time.
11.9 Mine Equipment

Major mining equipment proposed for the project is summarized in Table 11.9-1.
Table 11.9-1:
Major Mining Equipment
Description # of Units
At startup Maximum
Bucyrus 495 HR Electric Shovel 3 5
Bucyrus 49RIII Electric Drill 3 6
IR Viper 271 Drill 3 4
CAT 797F Haul Truck 12 57
Letourneau L2350 Loader 1 1
CAT 24M Grader 1 2
CAT 16M Grader 2 3
Rubber Tire Dozer 2 4
Water Truck 2 5
CAT D10T Track Dozer 6 10
The loading, hauling, and production drilling equipment was selected to meet the project
production demands. The number of haul trucks varies with haul distances, which are
related to the strip ratio, pit depth, and waste dump elevations and locations. Electric
drills and electric cable shovels were selected for their relatively low operating costs
compared to similar diesel-powered equipment. Haul trucks are of 340 tonnes capacity
and are standard models currently offered by major equipment manufacturers.
Some major equipment will require replacement during the mine life, specifically one
shovel, all of the production drills, and ten haul trucks. The equipment replacement
schedule is based on the production schedule and the anticipated life of the specific piece
of equipment. Productive equipment life is determined by experience and vendor
suggestions and based on operating 17 hours per day, 365 days per year.
As would be expected for a project of this magnitude, the support work, services and
equipment are quite extensive and include:
equipment to maintain haul roads and waste dumps,
load blast holes,
service production equipment (fuel, lube, and maintenance),
clean up around shovels and drills,
MINING
perform miscellaneous tasks on the property, and

transport personnel within the mine site as required.
An equipment list and replacement schedule is provided in Appendix D.
A truck shop, lube and fuel facilities, wash bays, warehouse, and offices are necessary to
support the operation and are described in Chapter 17 along with mine capital costs.
11.10 Mine Personnel

The number of mine employees varies by period depending on the production rate and
number of haul trucks required (more operators as well as maintenance personnel are
required as the haulage fleet size increases). The initial complement consists of 101
salary and 296 hourly employees. The number of salaried employees is unchanged over
the mine life but the number of hourly employees increases to a maximum of 572 in year
10. After this year the number generally decreases until the end of mining.
Initially several key positions may be filled by expatriates but it is expected that all
positions will be occupied by Chilean nationals within about five years. No contractors
are included in the mine personnel but some of the G&A contractors may have duties that
include mine-related tasks.
The mine employees will be housed in the site camp and work the same 12-hour shift
schedules as the process and support crews.
A list of mine personnel can be found in Appendix D.
12. Processing
12. Processing
12.1 General
This section describes the trade-off comparisons that were made in determining the
process plant flow sheet for Sierra Gorda. In addition, the process control and
instrumentation of the plant is described and the discussion provides a comprehensive
description of the process plant that was selected. The process description that follows is
described in detail in Appendix B. In addition, the process description is also illustrated
in the process flow diagrams (PFDs) contained in Appendix E.
12.2 Process Alternatives and Selection

The following alternative comminution circuit configurations were evaluated:
100 kt/d SAG and ball mill circuit
100 kt/d secondary cone crushing, tertiary HPGR crushing and ball mill circuit
100 kt/d secondary and tertiary cone crushing followed by a ball mill circuit
100 kt/d secondary crushing, rod mill and ball mill circuit
76 kt/d secondary cone crushing, tertiary HPGR crushing and ball mill circuit
The rod mill circuit trade-off study was terminated when it became known that the rods
had a limited size because of straightness issues and therefore the circuit would require at
least 13 mills. Results of the tradeoff study are summarized in Table 12.2-1 and indicate
that the HPGR circuit is more economical than the alternative circuit configurations. The
next most economical configuration is the 100 kt/d cone crushing alternative with
virtually the same capital cost requirements and only $0.22/tonne increased operating
cost.
Quadras decision to select this circuit over the more cost efficient HPGR configuration
was related to:
Risk associated with an open circuit secondary crushing system combined with
2.6 m diameter rolls, neither of which has been used in hard rock crushing circuits
such as that considered for Sierra Gorda.
The aforementioned operating costs for the HPGR were based on a 25% de-rating
for roll life (ie an expected life of 6,000 hours is reduced to 4,500 hours), in
comparison to higher de-ratings (up to 50%) experienced at Cerro Verde. A
12-1
PROCESSING
minor increase in the de-rated value assumed for the HPGR roll life begins to
economically move in favor of the cone crushing circuit.
The economics of a more traditional and proven HPGR flow sheet such as the
Cerro Verde process is less attractive than those considered herein1.
Table 12.2-1:
Trade-off Economics for Various Grinding Circuit Configurations
1 2
Case Capital Cost Operating Cost IRR
K$ $/ton %
100 kt/d SABC $364,769 $6.63 -

100 kt/d HPGR $419,053 $5.31 89%
100 kt/d Cone Crushing $424,480 $5.53 67%
76 kt/d SABC $243,090 $6.49 -

76 kt/d HPGR $308,398 $5.44 44%
Notes
1
Capital costs are only for the grinding circuit and may exclude some costs that are common to
all cases
2
IRR is the return on investment for the incremental capital, achieved through operating cost
reductions. It is calculated relative to the base case.
Note that the trade-off evaluation was performed in the absence of HPGR test work.
Should the ore prove more conducive to HPGR-based crushing, or less wear-intensive
than the assumptions used for this study, this economic evaluation should be updated.
12.3 Process Plant Description
12.3.1 Primary Crushing and Overland Conveying

The primary crusher consists of a semi-mobile gyratory crusher, designed with double
feed ports with a pocket capable of holding the contents of a single 340 tonne haul truck.
The crusher unit selected is a 1524 mm x 2795 mm (60x110). The station will be
equipped with a 115 MT overhead crane and have a second hook rated for 20 tonnes.
The crusher will be equipped with fog dust suppression systems and have dust collectors.
A rock breaker is also included.
The crushed rock from the primary crusher will discharge onto a 3 m wide conveyor
capable of handling 14,000 tph of ore in order to accommodate a single truck discharging
1
The economics are less attractive because the Cerro Verde process would require larger screens to produce a finer secondary circuit
product size and a fourth 2.4m diameter HPGR unit. Required bin sizes and operating costs would also increase due to the additional
circulating load in the secondary crushing circuit.
PROCESSING
in 2.1 to 2.4 minutes. The crusher discharge conveyor will discharge into a free standing
650 tonne capacity surge bin. From the surge bin, crushed ore will discharge onto a 3 m
wide, variable speed reclaim belt that will feed the overland conveyor.
The overland conveyor, 1.8 m wide, travels at 4.8 m/s and has a design capacity of
8,500 tph. The overland conveyor is 678.5 m long and discharges onto a tripper
conveyor located above the coarse ore stockpile.
12.3.2 Secondary Crushing

Four belt feeders, each with a capacity of 1,525 tph, draws the crushed ore from the
primary stockpile onto the coarse ore conveyor belt with a design capacity of 6,100 tph
and total length of 317 m. The conveyor has a tripper that discharges into three
secondary bins.
Material is drawn from the secondary bins with 10 m long belts that feed three covered
3.7 m x 7.3 m (12 x 24) double deck banana screens with 45 mm top deck openings and
12 mm bottom deck openings. The oversized material from the top deck feeds three
secondary cone crushers (Raptor XL1100, Metso MP1000, or equivalent 750-kW cone
crushers) with a 36 mm closed side setting. The midsized material from the middle deck
joins the crushed product from the secondary crushers and is conveyed 314 m by the 2.1
m (84") crusher product belt conveyor, which lifts the material 29 m to the tertiary screen
feed bins. The secondary screen undersize material falls on the fine ore conveyor, which
also collects the undersize material from the tertiary screens.
The secondary crushers and screens are located in the same open air building as the
tertiary crushers. The bins are modular and the tertiary crushers are convertible to
secondary crushers. All cone crushers are serviced via a large maintenance slab and a
120 tonne bridge crane. All conveyor belts are equipped with cross belt electromagnets
and alignment sensors. Dust control for the crushing area is accomplished through fog or
atomizer type dust suppression systems for the conveyor belts and chutes and four wet
dust collectors with venturi scrubbers and dust collection take-offs from crusher
discharge, screens, and bins.
12.3.3 Tertiary Crushing

The tertiary screens are in the open and located in a separate building. Material is drawn
from the feed bins via ten 10 m feeders. Screens are covered 3.7 m x 7.3 m (12 x 24)
double deck banana screens with 12 mm bottom deck openings. The screen undersize
joins the bottom deck undersize from the secondary screens on the fine ore conveyor.
The fine ore conveyor is 1.8 m (72") wide and 788 m long and is designed for up to 6,100
PROCESSING
tph capacity. The screen oversize reports to the tertiary crusher feed belt and is conveyed
28 m and lifted 30 m to the tertiary screen feed bins.
The tertiary crushers and feed bins are located in the same open air building as the
secondary crushers. Material is drawn from the bins via 10 m belt feeders and choke-fed
to ten (Raptor XL1100, Metso MP1000, or equivalent 750-kW) cone crushers operating
with 12 mm closed side settings. Crusher discharge reports to the crusher product belt
that returns material to the tertiary screen feed bins.
The crushing circuit is expandable up to a maximum of 4 additional modules on the west
side of the crushing building and two additional screen modules on the west side of the
tertiary screen building.
All belts are equipped with cross belt electromagnets and alignment sensors. Dust
control for the crushing building is accomplished through fog or atomizer type dust
suppression systems for the conveyor belts and chutes and four wet dust collectors
(shared with the secondary crushers) with venturi scrubbers and dust collection take-offs
from crusher discharge, screens, and bins.
12.3.4 Fine Ore Storage (F.O.S.)

The ore from the secondary/tertiary crushing plant will be distributed in the F.O.S. with a
tripper running on rails. The tripper will be equipped with a dust skirt and a fog spray
dust suppression system.
The tripper conveyor distributes the ore over the feeders for the four ball mills. This
facility is covered and is an A-frame configuration with a 37 degree sloped roof. The
stockpile live capacity is 60,000 tonnes or approximately 12 hours of operation. The total
capacity is 300,000 tonnes with approximately 100,000 tonnes covered and the remainder
uncovered.
The ore in the fine ore stockpile is drawn by three feeder belts per ball mill line, each 18
m long by 1829 mm wide and fed by three static steel lined feeders imbedded in the
concrete. The feeders positions are such that the distance from the feeder discharge lip to
the belt is increased downstream of the belt, allowing the ore to be drawn from nine
locations per mill. The feeder belts are positioned at 90 degrees from the ball mill main
feed conveyor and are driven by variable speed motors to control the tonnage rate of the
mill.
The ball mill feed belts are each 224 m long by 914 mm and allow for an access road
between the mills building the F.O.S and sufficient space for gravity collection of spillage
and cleanup material from the stockpile tunnels. The floors inside the tunnels slope
PROCESSING
towards the mills to allow hosing, and the slurries formed are piped to the mill discharge
pump boxes. The ball mill feed conveyors are off the ground to permit access to the
entire floor of the tunnel. Dust collecting piping is installed at each transfer area and the
collected particulates are mixed with water and sent to the grind area.
12.3.5 Grinding
The grinding process is comprised of closed circuit ball mills. The ball mill feed belts,
each equipped with belt scales and integrator, feed the fine ore directly to the ball mill
feed chute. Water is added together with the cyclone underflow to dilute the slurry to
78% solids.
There are four ball mills 7.9 m (26) in diameter by 12 m (39) long operating 97.5% of
the time at a nominal rate of 1,186 tph, per mill. Design capacity for periods of soft ore is
1,300 tph, per mill. Each mill operates with its own cyclone cluster and mill discharge
pump box. The cyclone cluster is composed of 840 mm (33") diameter cyclones fed by a
single pump operating at 5,102 m3/h (22,240 gpm) of slurry. This provides flexibility in
the operations and a means to compare circuit performance between the mills.
The ball mill discharge reports to the cyclone feed sump, and water addition to the box
dilutes the slurry in the cyclone cluster feed line to achieve the necessary densities for the
cyclone operation. The cyclones operate at a nominal pressure of 70 kPa (10 PSI).
The mills are controlled by a distributed control system (DCS) with an expert system (or
supervisory system) that controls the tonnage rate and product sizing by adjusting the
slurry densities, cyclone pressures, and pump speeds. In the grinding equipment, particle
size measurement devices (PSI) have been included together with sampling stations and
reagent addition points.
The circuit is equipped with two quick release spare pumps for the four cyclone feed
pumps, placed in a strategic location where they can be refurbished and where there is
crane access for rapid deployment (1.5 hours). The arrangement between the cyclone
feed elevation and pump intake elevation has been selected to allow the pump to operate
at a low impeller tip speeds for long wear.
Spillage from the ball mills is contained and channeled to the flotation tailing launders.
Any coarse rock that may accumulate in the basement will be removed with a bobcat or
small loader. In this manner, maintenance-intensive floor sumps have been eliminated
from the grinding section.
The reagent unloading area and storage is located between the F.O.S. and the grinding
section, at an elevation that will permit gravity feed of all reagents to the plant. Likewise,
PROCESSING
the ball storage area will be located at this point so that balls can be loaded on the
conveyor belts outside of the plant. This will prevent closure of areas during ball loading
periods and allow balls to be loaded into the mills on a continuous manner.
12.3.6 Bulk Flotation

The overflows from the primary cyclones report to a common rubber-lined overflow line
that discharges into the rougher feed distributor. At the distributor the entire feed to
flotation is sampled for metallurgical control. Lime and reagents are added at the
grinding stage to provide an initial rise in pH and complementary lime and reagents are
added at the distributors to bring the pH to 9.5 to 10.5 and primary collector (AP 3894) to
20 grams of copper collector per tonne of ore. Frother (MIBC) is also added to the
distributor at a rate of 15 grams per tonne of feed.
The distributor will be an up-flow device which will have 2 outlets equipped with darts.
Each outlet will direct the flow to a single row of ten 250 cubic meter rougher cells. The
cells considered are self aspirating Wemco cells. The flotation cells sit on the floor and
the product launders are built in concrete and embedded in the floor, requiring no costly
platforms. Any spills from the cells are directly channeled into concentrate launders that
send the spill to the proper section of the plant, eliminating the need for floor sump
pumps and lessening the need for hosing and clean-up. Tailings from the cells are also
channeled into a large common launder that ultimately joins the grinding spillage channel
and directs all the waste slurry to the tailing thickeners.
The rougher concentrate is channeled to the regrind feed pump box. This box, located
below the floor level of the rougher cells, has three pumps, two operating and one
standby. The concentrate is classified in the cyclones and the underflow or coarse
fraction of the slurry reports to the VERTMILLS to be reground to approximately 40 to
60 micron P80 size (cyclone overflow size). There are two regrind cyclone clusters of
fourteen 508 mm (20") cyclones, each operating at 80% circulating load. Under normal
conditions, each cluster will operate with six spare cyclones, but during periods of soft
ore and higher grades, it is expected that all 14 cyclones per cluster will be operational.
The nominal operating pressure is 124 kPa. The underflow of the cyclones will be
directed to the bottom feed port of the VERTIMILL without requiring additional
pumps, as the height of the underflow is sufficient to meet the pressure requirements by
the vertical mill manufacturer. The regrind cyclone feed pump will be located 8 m below
the flotation floor level at the tailing end of the rougher cells to receive all cyclone feed
streams by gravity. The benefit of this is that when a power failure occurs, this pump box
and all the flotation launders will serve as storage volume. Should this storage volume
fill, the overflow from this pump box will discharge into two agitated storage tanks (10 m
PROCESSING
diameter x 10 m high). During power failures these agitators will operate with the
emergency power generator.
The product of the regrind circuit is directed to the first cleaner feed distributors to be
distributed equally between two rows of 1st cleaners and cleaner scavenger cells. Each 1st
cleaner row consists of 3 cells, 160 m3 followed by five cleaner-scavenger cells of
160 m3. The 1st cleaners upgrade the rougher concentrate from approximately 5% Cu in
the feed to 15% Cu. The cleaner-scavengers receive the first cleaner tail and are designed
to recover 98.5% of the contained copper. These cells also sit on the ground with in-floor
launders (however, the first cleaner concentrate launder is elevated so it can discharge
into the 2nd cleaner feed pump box). Cleaner scavenger tailings will discharge into the
same launder as rougher tails. In-line samplers will be place on all strategic lines in order
to provide a metallurgical control and/or process control.
The second cleaning stage will consist of 3 column cells (4.5 m diameter x 12 m height).
The units will be instrumented so they can operate under a positive bias through the
addition of wash water on the concentrate. They are operated from the DCS control
station but can also be operated in local control. The concentrate from the first cleaners
will be upgraded in the columns to a final grade near 28% Cu.
The entire copper-molybdenum circuit will operate with recovery levels for copper,
molydenum and gold of approximately 88%, 77% and 40%, respectively. It will produce
nominally 60 tonnes per hour of concentrate with an operating time of 97.5%.
The flotation area was designed to operate in the open without being enclosed in a
building. A tower crane is strategically located to reach all flotation cells to assist in the
replacement of agitators.
12.3.7 Molybdenum Separation

The copper-molybdenum separation will be done in a roughing stage and 3 cleaner
stages. The bulk concentrate produced in the Cu-Mo circuit will be thickened in the bulk
thickener to an underflow density of approximately 63% to 65% solids by weight. There
will be only one 20 m diameter thickener in the circuit. The thickener underflow will be
piped directly to two inline pumps, one operating, and one standby. These will be
equipped with density gauges to enable a control of the density through inline pinch
valves.
The slurry from the bulk thickener will be pumped to two agitated stock tanks (10 m
diameter x 10 m tall) with a holding capacity of 1.5 days. Carbon dioxide (CO2) will be
added to the stock tanks to eliminate any free calcium in solution and lower the pH to
levels between 8 and 9. The slurry is fed to the molybdenum feed attrition machine to
PROCESSING
ensure the copper collector has been stripped from the copper minerals and diesel will be
added to collect the molybdenum sulfide. After a two minute period, the slurry from the
attrition machine is gravitated to the molybdenum rougher feed box and diluted to 45%
solids with NaHS-bearing water from the copper thickener overflow stream.
The moly rougher stage consists of a single row of 10 cells, 8 m3 each, operating with
forced nitrogen gas and averaging 49 minutes of pulp residence time. As the incoming
rougher feed is diluted, NaHS is added for the depression of copper minerals and diesel is
added to float the molybdenum. A small 30 kW regrind mill in conjunction with
cyclones is included in the circuit to treat rougher concentrate in the event some
additional regrind is required for liberation of middlings. The tailing of the molybdenum
rougher is the final copper concentrate and is sent to the copper thickener.
Reground molybdenum rougher concentrate is subsequently upgraded in three cleaning
stages:
1st Cleaners: 1 row of 8 mechanical cells, 8 m3each
2nd cleaners: 1 column cell 2.44 m in diameter, 12 m tall
3rd cleaners: 1 column cell 1.5 m in diameter, 12 m tall
These stages operate in a counter-current fashion, where the concentrate of the 1st
cleaners feeds the second and that of the second cleaner feeds the third stage. The
tailings recycle back to the previous stage. The last two cleaning stages have been
designed with columns, operating with air and using fresh (desalinated water) as the sole
source of water-makeup to the molybdenum plant. It is important to note that the tails of
the 1st cleaners should be low in molybdenum values and may, at times, be sent to the
copper thickener.
The circuit has been equipped with an intermediate thickener, 12 m in diameter, to handle
all of the 1st cleaner feed material in order to provide means for dewatering, steady the
flow and eliminate excessive foaming. Molybdenum final concentrate is dewatered in a
5 m diameter thickener to an underflow density of 55% solids. The dewatered product
from the thickener will be processed by a ceramic filter.
12.3.8 Concentrate Dewatering

The concentrate dewatering section described herein pertains mainly to the bulk
thickening and the copper thickening. The reason for this is that, often these two
thickeners become interchangeable in case of a breakdown in one of the units. In the
event of a failure of either the bulk thickener or the copper thickener, the other thickener
assumes the role of copper thickener and the molybdenum circuit is operated until no
PROCESSING
feed is left in the molybdenum plant feed stock tanks. At that point the molybdenum
circuit is shut down and the copper production continues. The water from both these
thickeners is collected in the internal reclaim water pool. Some waters from the copper
thickener are recycled to the molybdenum plant feed.
The underflow of the bulk thickener, as explained in Section 12.3.7, is the feed source for
the molybdenum plant.
The copper thickener on the other hand, is fed by the molybdenum rougher tailings. This
stream will often be a source of NaHS reagent that can be used in the bulk circuit for
sulfidization should there be oxidized copper present. The underflow stream of the
copper thickener is stored in three agitated storage tanks where the concentrates are
accumulated prior to being pumped to the Mejillones port.
12.3.9 Tailing Dewatering

Both the rougher tails and cleaner-scavenger tails from the bulk circuit feed the tailings
thickeners. The tailings will be sent to the thickener distributor where the feed is divided
into three thickeners. There will be a dart mechanism that will allow for a thickener to be
put out of service for maintenance. Flocculant will be added at a rate of approximately
20 g/tonne at both the thickener distributor and feed well.
The flocculant storage and preparation will be located near the thickener distributor in
order to minimize pumping costs. The thickeners designed for the project are 90 m in
diameter and will have an educt system included in their design.
The underflow densities are designed for 65% solids by weight. The overflow water will
be collected at the internal reclaim water pool and will be recycled back to the internal
reclaim water reservoir at an elevation above the mill grinding circuit. There will be two
underflow pumps for each of the thickeners dedicated to pumping the slurry away to the
next stage in the tailing impoundment circuit. Each pump will be equipped on the
discharge line with a density gauge, a flow meter and a control valve in order to maintain
control over the thickener product sent to the impoundment. In addition, a recycle pump
will be provided to maintain the underflow in continuous movement at all times to avoid
sanding of the paste-like slurry.
12.3.10 Concentrate Pipeline to Mejillones

The copper concentrate is thickened to 65% solids and is pumped to three agitated stock
tanks measuring 11 m in diameter x 11 m tall. Each tank will be equipped with a set of
discharge pipes that deliver the contents of a dedicated tank or a mixture of various tanks
to piston discharge pumps. This arrangement allows the operators flexibility to blend the
PROCESSING
contents of the tanks or to isolate a batch of concentrate that might have either a low
grade of concentrate or high concentrations of deleterious metals. These stock tanks will
have a nominal retention time of 48 hours and will permit continuous pumping to
Mejillones for over 3 days.
The pipeline route follows the proposed water supply line, with a total length of 141 km
and an elevation drop of 1740 m to sea level at Mejillones (Figure 12.3-1). The system
will require two piston pumps, one located at the plant site and the other some 50 km
downstream. An intermediate valve station is provided at 113 km for slack flow control
where the terrain drops from 1200 m.a.s.l. to 500 m.a.s.l. Under normal operating
conditions, the pipeline will operate 74% of the time.
12.3.11 Port Site Process Facilities

The concentrate filtering, storage and load out facility in Mejillones will receive the
concentrate in the pipeline from Sierra Gorda. The concentrate line pressure will be
reduced in a series of chokes and the slurry will be thickened. The process is intended to
provide flexibility for blending by having four agitated stock tanks for a nominal 73
hours capacity at 65% solids.
Given the potential operational swings from the pipeline, two horizontal press filters are
provided that will each operate at 40% utilization. This conservative value was adopted
to accommodate swings in accumulated concentrate and prevent delays in ship loading.
The designed concentrate moisture is 8.5%.
The filtered concentrate is sent to the concentrate shed via conveyor, equipped with a
tripper that allows multiple discharge points. Ship loading will be carried out with two
988 front end loaders that will load the concentrate onto one of three reclaim conveyors
that transport the concentrate to the ship. During ship loading, the 988 units will load the
first reclaim conveyor that will be equipped with a large dust hood, where dust collectors
remove any fugitive dust. The dust collector bags are shaken to return the collected
concentrate back onto the reclaim conveyor. The first reclaim conveyor discharges onto
a second reclaim conveyor. At the transfer point, a concentrate sample will be collected
for metallurgical and quality control. The first reclaim conveyor will also be equipped
with a weigh scale.
The port facilities will need to treat nominally 40 m3/hr of filtrate water. It is anticipated
that a series of purification stages will be required to bring the purity to acceptable
discharge levels.
Corridor for Mejillones Pipeline
Figure 12.3-1
PROCESSING
It is assumed sewage disposal and raw water services are available through the
infrastructure of the areas municipality.
12.3.12 Process Plant Water

The process plant will have four classifications of water:
Sea Water: Water from the ocean without desalination.
Raw Water: Any type of water coming into the plant as make-up. It will
be delivered either as partially desalinated water or a
mixture of waters from nearby wells.
Reclaimed water: Water that has gone through the process and has been
reclaimed for re-use.
Potable water: Water that has undergone treatment and is suitable for
human consumption.
The scoping study assumes that the raw water delivered to the plant has been treated in
salinity to levels similar to the salt concentrations of salars. The use of water for ore
processing from deep wells in the Atacama salt flats is widespread. These waters have
generally a lower concentration of Na and K ions as compared to sea water.
In designing the network for water receiving, distribution and reclaim for the Sierra
Gorda process, full consideration was given to take advantage of surrounding topography
and the raw water tanks will be placed approximately 40 meters above the ball mill feed
chutes to provide 350 to 400 kPa (50 to 60 PSI) pressure. The potable water tanks will be
located below this elevation to enable gravity feed to a reverse osmosis (RO) plant. The
internal reclaim water reservoir will be located below the raw water tanks at an elevation
to provide 200 to 275 kPa (30 to 40 PSI) pressure. The raw water tanks have 3 hours of
residence time.
The water supply from the raw water tanks for fire, human and process consumption will
be done by placing tank discharge nozzles at strategic elevations; the fire water line will
be placed at the bottom of the water tanks to satisfy a volume of 250 m3 (Chilean law).
The supply nozzle for the RO plant will be located above the fire discharge nozzle, and
above the RO nozzle will be the outlet for process water. Tank overflows will be directed
to the internal reclaim reservoir located above the plant elevation.
Some areas of the process, such as fine ore storage and conveyor tripper areas will have
fire water lines pressurized by pumps that are located near the raw water tanks.
PROCESSING
12.4 Process Personnel

The number of process employees varies by period depending on the production rate.
The initial complement consists of 210 salary and hourly employees.
Initially several key positions may be filled by expatriates but it is expected that all
positions will be occupied by Chilean nationals within about five years. No contractors
are included in the process personnel but some of the G&A contractors may have duties
that include process-related tasks.
The process employees will be housed in the site camp and work the same 12-hour shift
schedules as the mine and support crews.
13. Geotechnical Studies
13. Geotechnical Studies
13.1 Field Investigations: Programs and Findings
A limited geotechnical site investigation program was conducted at the Sierra Gorda
project site in October 2008. The 2008 site investigation program included 3
geotechnical drillholes and 20 test pits to characterize potential Tailings Management
Facility (TMF), Heap Leach Pad and Plant Site areas. Knight Pisold staff logged the
drillholes and the test pits and also sampled the test pits. In-situ permeability tests were
carried out in the drillholes to characterize the permeability of the bedrock. Percolation
tests were conducted both within and adjacent to select test pits to characterize the
permeability of the overburden. A total of 16 percolation tests were performed. Key
observations from the site investigations are summarized below.
Overburden
The overburden stratigraphy is very consistent in the areas investigated. Surface Crust,
Caliche and the Bedrock Transition Zone are the main overburden stratigraphic layers
encountered in the site investigation area. The observed thicknesses are as follows:
Surface Crust: up to 0.4 m
Caliche: 0.8 to 2.7 m
Bedrock Transition Zone: 2 to 3 m (other reports indicate up to 6 m)
The in-situ permeability of the overburden ranged from 10-1 to 10-3 cm/s.
The overburden ranges from sand (with trace silt) to silty sand (with trace gravel).
Soluble salt content values for 5 samples were determined to be 1%, 3.7%, 1%, 0.6% and
13.3%. The highest observed soluble salt value of 13% was obtained at the contact zone
of the Surface Crust and Caliche and therefore this result is not considered to be
representative of the overburden. Additional investigations will be required to determine
the extent of high soluble salt content materials, as this will need to be considered during
construction. No sources of clean aggregate (fine or coarse) were observed during the
investigation program.
Bedrock
Depth to bedrock varies from 1 to 24 m in the areas investigated. One test pit recorded a
shallow depth to bedrock of 0.8 m. In other areas the overburden thickness typically
varied from less than 4 m upwards to 16 m. The in-situ permeability of the upper
13-1
GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES
bedrock surface may be equal to, or greater than, the permeability of the overburden
based on observations from permeability testing.
Summary
The 2008 site investigation program confirmed the anticipated foundation conditions. No
potentially problematic materials were encountered. The regional groundwater table was
not intersected and is known to occur at considerable depth (approximately 150 m in the
open pit areas).
13.2 Design Recommendations
13.2.1 Tailings Management Facility

Based on the 2008 investigations, design recommendations for the TMF are summarized
as follows:
Starter embankments will be constructed using local borrow material (silty sand
and gravel) excavated from within the tailings basin.
No source of fine-grained low permeability material has been identified at the
site and therefore a geomembrane liner will be installed on the upstream face of
the starter embankments to control seepage and ensure low permeability
according to regulations established by the Ministro de Mineria in Diario Oficial
de la Republica de Chile - Decreto Supremo (April 11, 2007).
The upstream toe of the starter embankments will be excavated and the
geomembrane liner will be installed below the overburden, on the surface of the
underlying bedrock.
Potential foundation seepage is expected to be low and will be collected to the
greatest degree possible using a toe drain installed in the starter embankments,
an internal drainage collection system and seepage collection wells located
downstream of the embankments.
The foundations will be stable for the starter embankments and the ongoing
embankment expansions, which will be constructed using mine waste rock.
The tailings mass and embankments are expected to be free draining and the
potentially adverse effect of elevated water pressure will not be a significant
factor in the design.
Additional investigations will be required to support more advanced design
phases for the TMF.
Other geotechnical design recommendations related to the TMF are addressed in Section
14.3.
13.2.2 Open Pit

Knight Pisold completed a preliminary geotechnical assessment for the slopes of the
proposed Sierra Gorda open pits. The main objective was to provide preliminary pit wall
geometry recommendations, which include bench width and height, bench face angles,
inter-ramp angles, and overall pit slope angles for use in the current scoping study.
The scope of work for this pit slope geotechnical study included a review of
geological/structural information, rock mass characterization, slope stability analyses,
and pit slope design. The technical review focused on the 2006 to 2008 exploration drill
core data provided by Quadra in September 2008. A simplified geological model was
developed for the pit slope geotechnical assessment. A scoping level pit shell model
(provided by Quadra, September 2008) was utilized for the slope stability assessment.
The Technical Report produced by Mine Development Associates (MDA, May 2008)
was also reviewed.
The Sierra Gorda Project is made up of four resource areas. Three of the resource areas,
Catalina, 281 Zone and 285 Zone, make up one deposit, referred to as the Catalina
deposit. Salvadora is a separate, smaller deposit to the northwest.
A technical review was performed on select data collected during the 2006 to 2008
exploration programs. Lithologic units exposed in the Sierra Gorda deposit range in age
from early Cretaceous to Quaternary. A simplified design model was developed that
incorporates the inferred distribution of five major geological domains including:
Quaternary Overburden
Tertiary Breccia Bodies
Tertiary Monzogranite Batholith and Granodiorite Porphyry Intrusions
Cretaceous Andesite
Cretaceous Tuff
The geotechnical database was used to evaluate the rock mass characteristics and develop
recommendations for pit slope design. Pit design sectors were delineated for both
proposed pits in accordance with the spatial distribution of the geological domains and
the wall geometries and orientations. Design methods used to determine the appropriate
pit slope angles for the Sierra Gorda pits included kinematic stability analyses using
stereographic methods and the evaluation of the overall stability of the rock mass using
limit equilibrium and numerical modeling techniques.
Three major structural features were incorporated into the kinematic stability assessment
with nominal orientations. Identified kinematic concerns are highlighted below:
Potential toppling failure mode for the east wall (with wall dip direction of 255
to 285)
Potential wedge failure mode for the west wall (with wall dip direction of 65 to
105)
Potential planar failure mode for the northwest wall (with wall dip direction of
110 to 150)
A 70 bench face angle is expected to be achievable for the pit walls except for the
northwest sectors of each pit, where adverse planar features are encountered. A slightly
flatter bench face angle of 65 appears to be more appropriate for the northwest sectors of
both pits. The maximum inter-ramp slope angle is typically controlled by the bench
geometry and/or the presence of adversely oriented large-scale structural features such as
faults, shears and bedding. An inter-ramp slope angle of 43 is recommended for the
northwest sector of the Catalina Pit to offset the potential for multiple bench planar
instability. Inter-ramp slope angles of 45 are recommended for the rest of the Catalina
Pit walls, to minimize the potential for wedge, toppling, and raveling features. A steeper
inter-ramp slope angle of 48 is recommended for the lower pit walls in the Salvadora Pit
except for the northwest wall where an adverse structural feature is present. A slightly
flatter inter-ramp angle of 45 is recommended for the lower northwest sector and for the
Upper Oxide sector of the Salvadora Pit.
The overall slope angle for the Northwest Wall of the Catalina Pit will need to be
flattened to approximately 40 due to the kinematic requirements for a flatter inter-ramp
angle. A 42 overall pit slope angle is appropriate for the rest of the pit walls in the
Catalina Pit as the haulage ramps are incorporated. The overall slope angle in the
Salvadora Pit is typically in the order of 43 to 45 due to the incorporation of the haulage
ramps and the flatter slopes in the Upper Oxide Sector.
Controlled blasting is recommended for final pit wall development to reduce the wall
damage and to minimize the raveling potential. A proactive geotechnical monitoring
program is also required during the life of mine operations.
The recommended pit slope angles are preliminary values to support the scoping level
engineering studies for the Sierra Gorda project. Additional mine development
information and rock mass characteristics data will be required to verify the assumptions
in the pit slope design. The design should be updated with the location of haul roads,
revised pit shell, refined geology model, updated groundwater model, updated rock mass
structure and additional rock mass quality data, etc.
13.2.3 Waste Rock Dumps

The foundation conditions for the waste rock dumps are expected to be similar to those
for the TMF. Based on the 2008 investigations, design recommendations for the waste
rock dumps are summarized as follows:
The foundations will be stable for the waste rock dumps
The dumps will be free draining and the potentially adverse effect of elevated
water pressure will not be a significant factor in the design
Preliminary recommendations for waste rock dump design include a height of
120 m and side slopes of 1.5H:1V for the final configuration
Additional investigations will be required to support more advanced design
phases for the waste rock dumps
The preliminary recommendations are based on the limited 2008 site investigations and
technical assumptions. The height of the waste dump can likely be increased to suit
mining requirements and/or regulatory considerations. It is recommended that additional
investigations be conducted on the waste rock and the overburden materials below the
proposed dump locations.
14. Tailings and Water
Management
14. Tailings and Water Management
14.1 Design Basis and Criteria
The design basis and criteria for the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) are based on
international standards for the design of dams. In particular, the design of the TMF has
addressed the requirements of the following documents:
Ministro de Mineria, Diario Oficial de la Republica de Chile - Decreto
Supremo (April 11, 2007) with respect to the regulations regarding design,
construction, operation and closure of tailings storage facilities.
Canadian Dam Association (CDA) Dam Safety Guidelines (CDA 2007) - The
CDA guidelines state that Tailings dams and their appurtenant structures
must be protected against the same hazards and to the same extent as
embankment dams...
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) - Tailings Dams and
Seismicity - Review and Recommendations (ICOLD 1995).
The Mining Association of Canada (MAC) Guide to the Management of
Tailings Facilities (MAC 1998).
The following general criteria have been used in the design of the TMF:
The average production rate is 111,000 dry tonnes/day for 365 days/year;
The operating life is 25 years;
The starter embankments will be constructed from borrow materials and will
have a geomembrane liner on their upstream slopes;
Embankment raises will be constructed from mine waste rock, placed in
different zones (of varying lift/layer thickness) using the centerline method of
embankment raise construction;
Sufficient storage capacity will be provided within the TMF to store any
tailings supernatant water, runoff and the design storm event, in addition to an
allowance for freeboard; and
14-1
TAILINGS AND WATER MANAGEMENT
Provisions for recovering available water will be included. A floating reclaim

pump located within the TMF will transfer water to seepage collection ponds
located downstream of the embankments. In addition, an internal drainage
collection system will be installed at lower elevations along the upstream toes
of the starter embankments. Water transferred from the TMF will be
combined in the ponds with water from seepage collection wells and will be
pumped back to the plant for use in the milling process (as available).
14.2 Tailings Characteristics

Tailings generated from processing ore will be stored in the TMF. Various tailings
parameters are required for the TMF design. The information available for this scoping
study is based on previous metallurgical testwork and assumptions based on similar
materials. The tailings characteristics used for this scoping study are summarized below.
Solids content of thickener underflow (by weight): 65%
Tailings Solids Specific Gravity: 2.73
Tailings Grain Size (Sieve Size (mm)/% Passing):
0.562/99
0.139/80
0.045/50
0.01/20
Settled Dry Density (t/m3): 1.5
Tailings slurry pH: 9 to 10
14.3 TMF Design

Tailings management options were assessed prior to initiating the TMF design and
included the following:
An assessment of potential storage locations for tailings and waste rock was
completed.
Different tailings transport alternatives were assessed and a recommended
option was determined. Results of the assessment are as follows, with the
solids content shown in brackets:
Conventional thickened (55% and 60%), ultra-thickened (65%), paste

(70%) and filtered (85%) tailings alternatives were considered (65% is
referred to as ultra-thickened in this report).
The 60% thickened system has the lowest capital cost, although there are
no significant capital cost differences between the 55%, 60% and 65%
systems.
The 65% ultra-thickened tailings option has the lowest annual operating
cost based on the median cost for make-up water, although the costs for
the 55% and 60% systems are similar.
A net present cost analysis indicated that the 60% thickened option has the
lowest life of mine cost, although the costs for the 55% and 65% options
are similar.
It was determined that the 65% ultra-thickened tailings system would be
analyzed for the scoping study.
Based on the tailings management options described above, the tailings stream will be
thickened to a high solid content of approximately 65% prior to being pumped to the
TMF. This ultra-thickening of the tailings is primarily incorporated as a cost effective
mechanism for water recovery and conservation.
The principal objective of the TMF design is to ensure protection of the environment
during operations and in the long-term (after closure). The scoping study level design of
the TMF has taken into account the following requirements:
Permanent, secure and total confinement of all solid waste materials within an
engineered facility;
Control, collection and removal of free draining liquids from the tailings
during operations, for recycling as process water to the maximum practical
extent;
The inclusion of monitoring features for all aspects of the facility to ensure
performance goals are achieved and design criteria and assumptions are met;
and
Secure reclamation and closure of the impoundment after mining is complete.
The capacity of the TMF is provided by confining embankments and natural topographic
relief. The embankment crests are sloped to take advantage of the natural ground
contours and the expected profiles of deposited tailings solids (to minimize embankment
fill requirements). The maximum height of the Stage 1 starter embankments is
approximately 20 m. The maximum height of the final embankments is approximately

85 m. The total tailings storage volume is approximately 735 million m3 (1.1 billion
tonnes) and encompasses a surface area of 1,715 ha and an overall area, including
embankments, of 1,865 ha. The total tailings storage volume is approximately 735
million m3 (1.1 billion tonnes). The TMF can be expanded beyond this capacity however.
Specific features of the TMF are:
Starter embankments with geomembrane lined upstream slopes;
Centerline embankment raises using mine waste rock;
Seepage collection ponds, pumps and pipelines;
Pipework distribution systems for the tailings;
Internal drainage collection system;
Floating reclaim pumps and pipelines; and
Downstream seepage collection wells.
The construction sequence is designed so that the starter embankments will be built first
and will provide up to 4 years of tailings storage. The construction materials for the
starter embankments will consist of local overburden borrowed from within the tailings
basin. These materials generally comprise silty sand with trace gravel, as determined
from the recent geotechnical investigations. The embankment expansions will be
constructed from mine waste rock during the initial 4-year operating period. Ongoing
embankment raises for the remainder of the operations will be built using waste rock
placed in different zones (of varying lift/layer thickness) following the centerline
construction method.
14.4 Planned Construction

Planned construction activities include the starter embankments, seepage collection and
recycle ponds, and installation of the tailings delivery pump and pipelines.
The starter embankments will be constructed from local overburden materials borrowed
from within the tailings basin. The embankments will be constructed with a
geomembrane lining on the upstream slopes in two stages, with each stage providing
approximately 2 years of tailings storage capacity. This will allow a 4-year period to
complete the Stage 3 expansions using mine waste rock. The embankments will
subsequently be raised and expanded using the centerline method of construction with a
minimum crest width of 20 m for the final embankments (40 m is generally maintained
for ongoing expansions to suit construction using large mine haul equipment).
Organic material (vegetation and topsoil) is absent and therefore foundation preparation
is expected to be straightforward, consisting of limited shaping and proof-rolling to
prepare for fill placement.
A concrete apron will be installed on rock on the upstream side of the starter
embankments to ensure a good connection with the foundation bedrock and to provide a
means to attach the geomembrane on the face of the embankments to the foundation.
The starter embankments are earthfill embankments that will be constructed using locally
borrowed silty sand and gravel materials that are available from within the TMF basin, as
described in the geotechnical investigation summary in Section 13.1. This material will
be locally excavated and is expected to be generally suitable for construction after
removal of any oversized particles.
A toe drain will be installed in the starter embankments, downgradient of the
geomembrane apron, to permit the collection of seepage during early operations before
the beaches expand and evaporation losses preclude water recovery from the facility.
The drain will consist of drain gravel material (maximum particle size 75 mm). Finger
(outlet) drains will facilitate collection of seepage flows through the embankment. The
finger drains flow to seepage collection ponds located beyond the downstream toe of the
embankments.
An internal drainage collection system will be installed at lower elevations along the
upstream toes of the starter embankments to permit additional collection of any available
process water. The internal drainage collection system will consist of drain gravel
material (maximum particle size 75 mm) that will facilitate flows to drainage collection
towers that extend upward from the embankment toes. The towers will be constructed in
clean rockfill and will be raised with the embankments as long as the drainage flows are
significant. Drainage collected in the towers will be pumped to the seepage collection
ponds described above.
All drain materials will be locally borrowed and are assumed to require processing
including screening.
The total fill requirements for the starter embankments are summarized below:
Stage 1: 2.2 million m
Stage 2: 1.7 million m
Total for starter embankments: approx. 3.9 million m
The starter embankments are required to incorporate a low permeability zone according
to the Ministro de Mineria, Diario Oficial de la Republica de Chile - Decreto Supremo
(April 11, 2007). No substantial amounts of fine grained low permeability materials are
available at or near the site and therefore the starter embankments have been designed to
incorporate a geomembrane lining system on the upstream slopes to control seepage. The
Coletanche NTP3 bituminous geomembrane liner has been selected because of the good
hydraulic properties and the relative ease of installation, especially on foundations
containing coarser particles.
The geomembrane must be anchored at the toe and crest of the embankments. Anchoring
at the toe will include a concrete apron set on rock with a mechanical fastening system.
The geomembrane is anchored in an anchor trench in fill on the crest of the starter
embankments.
Seepage collection and recycle ponds will be installed downstream of the final
embankment toes. The ponds will be used to collect water that may potentially be
recovered from the following sources:
Foundation seepage collected in seepage collection wells and pumped to the
ponds.
Toe drains the starter embankments (south and west) will include toe drains
to allow for the collection of seepage. Outlets for the drains will extend to the
seepage collection ponds and water will flow by gravity to the ponds.
Internal drainage collection system installed at lower elevations along the
upstream toes of the starter embankments. Water collected in the internal
drainage collection towers will be pumped to the seepage collection ponds.
Supernatant water although it is anticipated that there will be little to no
supernatant water accumulating in the TMF once the tailings beaches are
established, there is provision to pump water from ponds that may develop in
the TMF to the seepage collections ponds in the early years of operations.
The seepage collection ponds will be lined with 60 mil HDPE geomembrane. It is
currently anticipated that one of the ponds will be used as the main pond, from where
water will be pumped back to the plant through a single HDPE return water pipeline.
Water from other ponds will be pumped to the main pond through an HDPE seepage
transfer pipeline.
The tailings pump station, located at the plant and just downstream of the thickeners, will
consist of two trains of two centrifugal slurry pumps (one operational, one standby) for
Years 0 through 6. Warman 20/18 AHP metal pumps have been used as the basis for this
design. Each pump has a 1700 kW motor installed. Multistage centrifugal water pumps
supply the GSW requirements for the pumps.
The tailings delivery pipeline is a 650 mm nominal bore steel pipe with a wall thickness
of 12.7 mm to meet the flow and minimum operating velocity requirements. The tailings
delivery pipeline will include off-takes (end-of-pipe discharge points where the pipeline
is disconnected) to allow direct discharge of tailings into the facility from various points
along the embankments. The design includes full pipe off-takes, with valves as required
to direct and control the flow.
14.5 Planned Operations

Operation of the TMF will include ongoing embankment expansions, tailings delivery
pipe relocation, and modifications to the tailings delivery pump system.
The embankment expansion sequence will require regular placement of mine waste rock
in the embankments. The embankment expansions incorporate waste rock placed in
different zones to achieve the design requirements, as follows:
Zone A Waste rock with a maximum particle size of 600 mm will be placed
in 1,000 mm lifts. This zone is generally 40 m wide to ensure a suitable
running surface for the mine haul fleet. Material for this zone will be spread
by a dozer in lifts and compacted by the mine haul fleet. The material is
expected to generally require no processing except for the removal of
oversized particles.
Zone B Waste rock placed in 5 m lifts in the downstream embankment shell.
Material for this zone will be spread by a dozer in lifts and compacted by the
mine haul fleet. The material will not require processing.
The total waste rock fill requirements for the embankments are summarized below.
South Embankment: 5.5 million m
West Embankment: 21.7 million m
North Embankment : 30.8 million m
Total Waste Rock for the embankments: approx. 58 million m
The tailings delivery pipeline routes (length and discharge elevation) change during the
mine life to suit the TMF embankments. The pipeline will initially be sited for the first 4
years of operations. In year 5 and onwards, the tailings pipeline will be relocated. Two
operational pipelines are specified for Years 5 and onward. Only one pipeline will be
used at a time, but the additional pipeline provides standby capacity and helps simplify
the pipe raising. Between years 5 and 30, the pipeline will be progressively relocated
along the embankment crest after each embankment raise.
It is envisaged that temporary discharge berms will be constructed upstream of the

embankments to allow for temporary pipe relocation and ongoing tailings discharge
during embankment construction. The temporary berms will be constructed using
drained tailings excavated from the beaches, as is done at other large-scale mining
operations. As an alternative, it may be possible to relocate the pipeline using a crane,
depending on the embankment raise configuration and tailings deposition sequencing.
Additionally, it may also be possible to maintain the pipeline along one embankment as a
backup, although some modifications may be required during operations.
An allowance has been included for the progressive replacement of the entire pipeline
over the life of the mine life due to wear.
The pumping requirements change significantly between the end of Year 6 and the end of
year 25. In the beginning of years 7 and 15, additional pumps are added to each pump
train in the system in order to meet the system pressure requirements. The additional
pumps are high pressure rating Warman 20/18 AHPP metal pumps or similar. Each
Pump has a 1700 kW motor installed.
With respect to dust control during operations, the most effective means of controlling
dusting from the exposed tailings beaches will be to use regular rotational discharge of
the tailings solids to keep as much of the tailings beaches actively moist during
operations as possible. It is also expected that a crust will form on the tailings beaches.
This crust is fairly wind resistant as long as it isnt broken. The use of sea water in the
process is expected to enhance the crust generation. Rotational discharge of tailings will
be addressed in the filling plans.
14.6 Closure
Reclamation and closure of the TMF will follow the requirements of the Ministro de
Mineria, Diario Oficial de la Republica de Chile - Decreto Supremo (April 11, 2007).
Reclamation and closure procedures will be based on the following general objectives:
Reclamation goals/objectives will be part of the design and planning of
construction and operations;
Progressive reclamation will be implemented where possible;
Upon cessation of operations, the area will be decommissioned and
rehabilitated to allow for future land use as guided by local regulators; and
Reclamation and closure will ensure that long-term physical and chemical
stability is provided.
The primary objective of the reclamation and closure activities will be to transform the
TMF area to its pre-mining usage and capability as well as manage any remaining
impacts through a program of post-closure care and maintenance. In this environment,
and at this location, the focus will be on stabilizing the exposed tailings surfaces and
limiting dust generation by selective placement of erosion resistant rockfill and
establishing permanent surface flow (storm runoff) patterns.
The TMF will be required to maintain long-term physical and geochemical stability,
protect the downstream environment, and manage surface water (storm events).
Summaries of activities that will be carried out during operations and at closure to
achieve these objectives are discussed below. General aspects of the closure plan include
the following:
Covering the exposed tailings with waste rock; a minimum thickness of
300 mm is anticipated to suit equipment trafficability requirements.
Construction of surface runoff control channels across the facility, as required
to control storm water runoff within the TMF, as well as a permanent spillway
to route storm water flows out of the TMF.
Construction of diversion ditches and/or ensuring that embankment toes are
adequately armoured in areas where storm water runoff may concentrate.
Removal of redundant infrastructure after mining. This would include
dismantling and removal of the tailings delivery and reclaim systems and all
other equipment not required beyond mine closure. It would also include the
removal and re-grading of all access roads, ponds, ditches and borrow areas
not required beyond mine closure.
The seepage collection system would also be dismantled and removed when
water quality objectives have been reached.
The groundwater monitoring wells and all other geotechnical instrumentation will be
retained for use as long term monitoring devices.
Post-closure requirements will include annual inspections of the TMF and an ongoing
monitoring of air and groundwater quality, as well as the monitoring of embankment
instrumentation systems.
15. Infrastructure and
Ancillary Services
15. Infrastructure and Ancillary Services
15.1 Site Access
The project is about 5 km by gravel road from the village of Sierra Gorda. The village is
on a paved highway and a railway line. The small city of Calama is located about 60
road kilometers northeast of Sierra Gorda. This city serves as a local supply and service
center for several mining operations. The port city and railway terminus of Antofagasta
is located about 140 km southwest of Sierra Gorda on the Pacific Coast. The port at
Antofagasta is equipped with bulk cargo-handling facilities and commonly handles
products from inland mining operations. The cities of Calama and Antofagasta both have
airports served by national airlines, with service to the main international airport at
Santiago de Chile, about 1,200 km to the south.
15.2 Site Layout and Ancillary Facilities

The project covers 4,800 hectares. The project will be an open pit operation with an
111,000 tonnes per day milling and flotation plant. The mining operation will include:
Open pit;
overburden and waste rock;
crusher;
overland conveyor;
mill plant;
flotation plant;
tailings management facility;
maintenance shop;
warehouse;
camp; and
administration building.
15.3 Power Supply

Power for the Sierra Gorda Project will be generated by a new thermal power plant
located in the port of Mejillones. A 220 KV three phase power line capable of carrying
175 Megawatts of power will be installed from Mejillones to Sierra Gorda. An additional
15-1
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ANCILLARY SERVICES
tap line from this line to the port of Michilla, to power the water supply pumps, will also
be installed delivering 100 KV at 25 MW of three phase power.
There are currently options of self ownership of the power lines or the option of the lines
being owned by the power distributor.
The three phase 220 KV line will deliver power to one main substation at Sierra Gorda
where the power will be distributed throughout the plant and mine site by lower voltage
overhead distributions systems.
15.4 Water Supply

Table 15.4-1 shows the estimated water demand by the Sierra Gorda mine for milling and
leaching of ore, camp needs, and other mining uses, for the nominal and design
conditions.
Table 15.4-1:
Sierra Gorda Mine Water Demand1
Mill Oxide
Design Camp Mine TOTAL
Make-Up Leach
Stage
(L/s) (L/s) (L/s) (L/s) (L/s)
Nominal 586 35 43 27 691

Design 702 35 54 27 818
Notes: 1 = Mine demand numbers provided by Aminpro and Quadra
Water for the Sierra Gorda Project will be provided by a new seawater pumping facility
in Michilla. Seawater will be pumped utilizing Sulcer multi-stage pumps located near the
sea port. Transportation will be via a 34' diameter lined (external/internal) steel pipe.
The pipe will be partially buried and will parallel existing right of ways. Design capacity
for the pump station and pipeline is 818 L/s, the required amount of water for the project.
There are currently options of self ownership of the water facilities or the option of the
supply being offered by a water distributor owning the infrastructure to the mine gate.
15.4.1 Groundwater from Dewatering Sierra Gorda Open Pit
15.4.1.1 Location and Setting

Experience at adjacent mines suggests that the total amount of water produced by pit
slope depressurization wells will be less than several liters per second. Core holes are
currently being used as water elevation measurement wells on the mine site so that the
groundwater flow gradient across the site can be accurately calculated. Several of these
core holes have been outfitted with a PVC standpipe to facilitate collection of
groundwater quality samples.
Current core holes are insufficient for measurement of aquifer hydraulic properties.
Aquifer hydraulic parameters will be measured in the dewatering test wells and will be
used to predict the effect of mine dewatering on adjacent groundwater users. Information
from these wells will also be used to estimate the dewatering production potential at the
mine site and to generate parameters for long-term pit lake quality and quantity estimates.
Dewatering test data are also required to parameterize a numerical model of groundwater
flow at the site.
15.4.1.2 Quantity and Quality

It is currently unknown what the open pit dewatering production potential or quality will
be because dewatering test wells have not been installed, and sampling from properly
completed supply wells has not been performed. A single well, strategically located up
gradient of the pit may produce as much as 10 L/s (160 gpm), or as little as 1 L/s
(16 gpm). Confirmation of the production potential and quality awaits installation and
testing of additional test wells.
15.4.2 SWRO from Mejillones and/or Michilla

A detailed scoping study of the seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) option was completed
by Water Management Consultants (WMC) in May 2008. Figure 15.4-12 shows the two
seaside locations and pipeline routes that have been evaluated in detail as SWRO options.
It was proposed in the scoping study that the SWRO plant be constructed adjacent to the
sea near either Mejillones or Michilla.
Based on site visits, Michilla is a rocky coastline, and is marginally-suitable for a shore
or land based feed water supply for the purposes of SWRO. Mejillones, however, is
located adjacent to a thick alluvial outwash plain (Figure 15.4-12) associated with a gap
in the coastal mountain range where down-cutting by storm runoff has left a thick alluvial
fan system. The Mejillones coastline is sandy, and amenable to construction of a variety
of alternative intake designs. Alternative intakes are designed to minimize the SDI and
warm the water to the greatest extent practical.
15.4.2.2 Quantity and Quality

Seawater from the Pacific Ocean represents an essentially unlimited reservoir of water
supply. The SWRO scoping study was performed assuming that the initial treated water
capacity of the plant will be approximately 9.75 million gallons per day (MGD) or 427
L/s. However, the scoping study was prepared assuming seawater intake and brine
disposal infrastructure would accommodate a 20 MGD (876 L/s) plant, which would
provide the full mine demand.
15.4.3 Direct Seawater from Michilla

Direct use of seawater is currently the preferred water supply for long-term mine demand.
The regulatory hurdles to acquire seawater directly are considered minimal. The
proposed pipeline routes to the Sierra Gorda mine would be similar to that for the
Michilla SWRO option.
An intake would be constructed in Michilla for direct use of seawater at the mine, at a
similar location as the intake for the SWRO described in the previous section. The mine
would have a small treatment facility on site to generate the potable and low chloride
water required.
15.4.3.2 Permitting Requirements

There are almost no industrial facilities in Michilla. Infrastructure is limited to a small
fishing dock, a transfer pier to ship copper concentrate from the nearby Michilla Mine
owned by Antofagasta Minerals, a few small truck servicing stations and several small
shops. The intake for the Esperanza mine, which is also owned by Antofagasta Minerals,
is also located in Michilla.
15.5 Wastewater Disposal

Supernatant water from the concentrate at Mejillones will be discharged to the sea
following treatment to acceptable levels as per Chilean norms. The quantity of discharge
water is not sufficient to warrant the cost of recycle back to the process plant.
15.6 Ancillary Facilities
15.6.1 Roads
The existing access road to the site from the community of Sierra Gorda will have to be
upgraded to accommodate equipment and supplies for construction and operation
periods. The upgraded road will include reconstruction of the road embankment, surface
treatment, installation drainage culverts, and special treatment of critical sectors so that
the road meets the initial design conditions.
15.6.2 Truck Shop Complex

The Sierra Gorda site will house a Shop complex totaling 6,624 square meters. Included
in the facility will be the truck and mine equipment shop, light vehicle shop, electrical,
machine, support equipment and welding shops. In addition it will include a warehouse
facility and offices. The truck shop will have multiple bays for maintenance as well as
one bay for truck washing. Also, included within the shop complex will be a laydown
area and Bone Yard.
15.6.3 Administration Facility

The Sierra Gorda Project will have one main administration area that will be a modular
facility to house 90 staff. Included in the facility will be a First Aid Station, training
areas, and conference rooms.
15.6.4 Camp
The camp will house 800 people with single accommodations. The kitchen facility will
seat 400 people at any one time. In addition, a recreational facility will be provided for
the camp. The camp will also have potable water supply with treatment as well as a
sewage treatment plant.
15.7 Communications
Communication throughout the minesite will be via mobile radios with base stations
located in the permanent facilities on the site. A Fiber optic network will be installed
throughout the plant site and Ancillary facilities for internal communication and
networking. Cellular phone service will be enhanced by a local provider installing a
tower in the area.
Phone and internet will be serviced either by a fiber cable run down the power line to the
coast or via a microwave tower or towers , or satellite, whichever proves to be the most
economic in the pre-feasibility study.
15.8 Explosives Storage

The storage of explosives will meet all safety requirements with respect to construction
and location.
15.9 Solid Waste Management

Solid waste will be managed consistent with Chilean requirements and environmental
laws.
15.10 Fire Protection

The Project will have a dedicated fire water reserve with an automated diesel fired
pumping system. The fire system will consist of a fire hydrant system throughout the
property and its facilities. In addition all conveyance systems with be constructed with
automated fire water spray system. The camp facilities and administration facilities will
be constructed to meet all local and national fire code regulations including, but not
limited to automated detection and alarming systems. All electrical rooms will have fire
detection systems tied to the process control system. The system will meet the
requirements of all local codes and of the project underwriters.
15.11 Dust Control

A combination of water and chemical amendments will be used to control dust
throughout the project area. All the crushing and conveying systems will have spray
air/water fog suppression systems. Coarse ore stockpile with have a water spray ring
from the discharge conveyor. A salt compound will be used to coat the road surfaces to
reduce dust and will be applied as required to minimize dust generation. The project site
will be monitored for dust emissions.
15.12 Transportation and Shipping

The majority of materials and supplies for the project will be ocean freighted to the port
of Antofagasta, where it will be offloaded and hauled by truck to the project site. Diesel
fuel will be hauled by truck to Sierra Gorda from Mejillones.
Copper concentrate from the Sierra Gorda processing facilities will be pumped to the port
of Mejillones, where it will be dewatered and loaded onto ships. The ships will then
transport the concentrate to smelter facilities in Asia where it will be processed.
Chile does not currently have enough moly roasting capacity for the planned volume of
concentrate and accordingly will have to be shipped (probably) to Europe or North
America for roasting. Another option may be the construction of a roaster or a joint
venture with a custom roaster for a new facility.
15.13 Mobile Equipment

The mobile equipment list for the project is provided in Appendix D.
16. Environmental Studies
16. Environmental Studies
16.1 Overview of Chilean Environmental Regulatory Framework
Approval for a project in Chile is regulated by an accumulation of historic laws
developed by each of the sectorial authorities mostly since 1960, and by the General
Environmental Law 19300 enacted in 1994. This latter law created the national
environmental authority or CONAMA, and the environmental impact evaluation system
or SEIA that provides a means of coordinating the diverse environmental approvals that
must be obtained. Law 19300 was further regulated in detail by Supreme Decree 30 in
1997, updated by Supreme Decree 95 in 2001.
The SEIA requires that the project proponent submit an Environmental Impact Study and
defines the contents of this document. Alternatively, for projects with no significant
environmental considerations, the CONAMA may accept an Environmental Impact
Declaration or D.I.A. in Spanish, though this will not be the case for the Sierra Gorda
Project. Through the SEIA, the CONAMA directs the other sectorial authorities in the
approval of the EIA, and also the approval of the sectorial permits that are defined as
environmental. There are, in addition, a large number of other permits that have some
environmental, occupation health or safety and security content, and which are not
incorporated into the EIA, but which the proponent must obtain before construction of the
project may proceed. An example of this is the water permits. This regulatory aspect
must be taken into account in the project strategy, planning and execution.
The EIA involves both the technical, social and environmental aspects and the public
consultation process. The project proponent is expected, but not obliged, to carry out a
public consultation process prior to the submission of the EIA. The CONAMA then
conducts an official public consultation process with the participation of the project
proponent, during the evaluation of the EIA. In this way, the CONAMA is able to
incorporate other stakeholder concerns into the EIA approval process.
16.2 Permitting Process in Chile

In Chile, permits of a project can be grouped into three different categories depending
upon the type of governmental institution involved in granting them:
1. Environmental permit (RCA, acronyms in Spanish) granted by the regional
environmental authority (COREMA), if project impacts take place within an
administrative region or by the national environmental authority (CONAMA
Executive Direction), if project impacts take place in more than one
16-1
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
administrative region. This permit is the end result of the project assessment
through the environmental assessment procedure, with participation of all
governmental sectorial agencies related to the project;
2. Environmental-sectorial1 permits (PAS) in which, a) the environmental matters
are attended during the environmental assessment procedure, lead by the
environmental authority with participation of all governmental sectorial agencies
related to the project, and b) the non-environmental or sectorial aspects are
attended by sectorial agencies, once the project has been approved by the
environmental authority, and;
3. Sectorial permits granted by sectorial agencies without participation of the
environmental agency.
16.2.1 The Environmental Permit

The Environmental Assessment System or Procedure (EAS) is regulated by the
Environmental Framework Law N 19.300, enacted March 1994, and its specific
Regulation for the EAS, whose last modification was enacted 20022.
Main characteristic of the EAS in Chile include (Figure 16.2-1 and Table 16.2-1):
1. There is no need to agree on the Terms of Reference to prepare the Environmental
Impact Study (EIS) with the authority. The scope of EIS is clearly established in
the regulation and by practice.
2. Within five days after the proponent submits the EIS, the environmental authority
must determine if the EIS is deemed acceptable or not for review.
3. Within ten days after submission the proponent must publish the abstract in the
Official Newspaper and in one newspaper of the capital of the region, or of
national circulation, depending upon the case.
4. Although not legally mandatory, for large projects the environmental authority
usually promotes public presentations of the project to the neighboring
communities.
5. After 60 working days, including Saturdays, or 2.5 months, the people may
submit questions, observations, and comments about the project to the
environmental authority.
1
Sectorial refers to governmental institution regulating economic sector activities.
2
MINSEGPRES DS 95/01. Reglamento del Sistema de Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental. Diario Oficial 07 Dec 2002.
6. Usually after 6 weeks, the environmental authority submits a document to the

proponent that contains questions and comments raised by the sectorial
governmental agencies and communities during the review of the EIS. The
proponent has 1 week to reply to the document in order to maintain the evaluation
process timelines.
7. If the proponent takes more than the granted period to reply, the process is
suspended until the reply is received by the authorities.
8. This question and answer process may go on until there are no further questions,
observations, and comments or the time for the review process of 120 days,
(which can be formally extended for 60 more days) is close to being reached.
9. The authority must issue the final RCA granting or denying the environmental
permit for the project within the indicated time frame. If not, the project is
considered as approved.
10. Once the environmental permit is granted, the proponent can ask the sectorial
agencies for the required environmental-sectorial permits and initiate
construction. Sectorial agencies cannot deny the respective permit based on
environmental reasons, since they were already considered and approved under
the EAS.
Figure 16.2-1: Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Chile

Table 16.2-1:
Time Schedule to Obtain the Environmental Resolution of a Project Submitted to the EAS as an EIS in Chile
STAGE ART
(1) MAXIMUM
ACTION from STAGE
DAYS(2)
I 17 Submission of the EIS to CONAMA 0
II 20 & 21 CONAMA issues a resolution indicating that the EIS is admitted to process 5 from I
III 21 Publication of an abstract of the EIS in the Official Journal & Regional Journal 10 from I
IV 21 CONAMA sends copies of the published abstract of the EIS to municipalities and Governors Not defined. It takes place after stage I
CONAMA distribute the EIS to governmental agencies (SAG, CONAF, DGA, etc.) and Municipalities (Sierra Gorda, Calama,
V 21 3 from II
Antofagasta) for reviewing.
Public Participation Process. Public organizations and directly affected citizens can require additional information or
VI 53 60 from III
clarifications about the project. Request of information is channelled through CONAMA.
Period to review the EIS by governmental agencies. Within this time period, each agency reports their analysis of the EIS to
CONAMA. Possible outcomes are:
a. The agency requests additional information or clarifications about the EIS.
VII 23, 24 b. The agency considers that: the EIS complies with required contents; compliance with applicable regulations and standards is 30 from V
properly demonstrated; impacts are accurately analyzed and duly mitigated, restored or compensated.
c. The agency considers that the EIS has not provided adequate information to properly qualify impacts and that the lack of
information can not be fulfilled with further clarifications.
CONAMA issues a summary report requesting clarification or additional information to Minera Quadra. This summary report Not defined. Takes place after stage VII for
VIII(3) 25
can include requests of information submitted to CONAMA within the first 30 days of the Public Participation Process. case (a)
IX (3,4,5) 25 Minera Quadra/Golder prepares an addendum to the EIS addressing the request for clarification or additional information. Not defined. Takes place after stage VIII
(3,5)
X 25 Submission of addendum to CONAMA Depends on completion of Stage IX
XI (3) 26 CONAMA sends the addendum to governmental agencies Not defined. Takes place after stage X
Period to review the addendum by governmental agencies. Within this time period, each agency reports their analysis of the
XII (3) 26 15 from XI
addendum to CONAMA.
Not defined. Takes place after stage XII (case,
XIII 27 CONAMA issues the Final Technical Report of the EIS. This report is filed to Governmental Agencies for endorsement.
a) or stage VII (cases b and c)
XIV 27 Governmental agencies endorse Technical Report issued by CONAMA 5 from XIII
XV 27 CONAMA issues the Final Technical Report of the EIS endorsed by the governmental agencies Not defined. Takes place after stage XIV
XVI(6) 28 The final deadline for processing the EIS can be extended up to 60 days 60 from XII
XVII 34 COREMA issues the Environmental Resolution authorizing or not authorizing the project. 3 from XV
(1) Articles from Supreme Decree 95/01 (Environmental Impact Assessment System).
(2) Days according to Supreme Decree 95/01 (Environmental Impact Assessment System). Days are working days, including Saturdays.
(3) Stages VIII to XII can be iterated depending on the number of addenda requested by CONAMA.
(4) Stage IX. Time to answer each addendum is decided by CONAMA; it usually is a week.
(5) Stages IX and X depend on Quadra timing to answer each addendum. If completion of this task exceeds the time designated by CONAMA, the extra days involved are not counted as part of the
total processing time (180 days). In this case, the clock is stopped until Minera Quadra completes and submits the addendum to CONAMA.
(6) Processing time can be extended on a one-time basis for up to 60 days or 2.5 months. In this case the total time will be of 180 working days or 7.5 months.
16.2.2 The Environmental-Sectorial Permits

Seven environmental-sectorial permits are envisioned for the construction phase of the
project. One from Agriculture Regional Ministry Secretary (SEREMI) (Change in Land
Use), four from Health SEREMI (Industry qualification; sewage system; common,
industrial or mining waste) and two from the National Geological and Mining Service
(SERNAGEOMIN) (waste rock piling) (Table 16.2-2). PAS granted by Health SEREMI
II Region take about 1.3 months to be approved once documentation is submitted. Other
PAS take about 2.5 months to get approved.
Table 16.2-2:
Environmental-sectorial permits envisioned for the SGP construction phase.
PAS Name and Number Authority Processing Period 3
Land use change (PAS 96) SEREMI de Agricultura, II Not established sectorial phase usually
Regin takes 2.5 months
Industry Qualification (PAS 94) SEREMI de Salud, II Not established sectorial phase usually
Regin takes 1.3 months
Approval of project for private sewage SEREMI de Salud, II Sectorial phase takes 1.3 months.
system (PAS 91) Regin
Permit for construction of facilities for SEREMI de Salud, II Sectorial phase takes 2.5 months
industrial or mining waste treatment or Regin
disposal (PAS 90)
Permit for construction of facilities for SEREMI de Salud, II Sectorial phase takes 2.5 months
general waste treatment (PAS 93) Regin
Permit to pile waste rocks (PAS 88) SERNAGEOMIN, II Sectorial phase takes 2.5 months
Region
Approval of project for tailings dam (PAS 84) SERNAGEOMIN, II Sectorial phase takes 2.5 months.
Region.
Surface and Underground Water Use

Recovery and defense of water courses (PAS DGA II Region Not established sectorial phase usually
106) takes 6 months
Water pipeline construction (PAS 101) DGA II Region Sectorial phase takes 5 months.
Marine Water Option

Permit for discharges in the ocean from DIRECTEMAR Sectorial phase takes 3.8 months.
vessels, plains, constructions and ports (PAS
69)
Permit for harmful discharges to water, flora DIRECTEMAR Sectorial phase takes 3.8 months.
and fauna (PAS 73)
Two PAS (101 and 106) from the DGA Region II would be required for the water
pipelines, and two other (PAS 69 and 73) from the General Direction of the Marine
3
Original periods are usually expressed in working days, including Saturdays.
Territory and Commercial Navy (DIRECTEMAR) would be needed for the marine water
intake option. Water pipeline construction permit takes about 120 days or 5 months to be
approved.
16.2.3 The Sectorial Permits

For the mine area twenty six sectorial permits are envisioned for the construction phase
of the project:
Ten (10) from Health SEREMI, related to wastes, boilers, drinking water, sewage
systems, and cafeterias;
six (6) from the Secretary of Electricity and Combustibles (SEC); four by Road
General Direction (DGV),
two (2) from National Mobilization General Direction Region II, related to
explosives;
two (2) from Housing and Urbanism SEREMI Region II for construction,
one (1) by SERNAGEOMIN notifying initiation of mining activities; and
one (1) for CONAMA notifying initiation of construction.
Two sectorial permits from the SEC take 3.8 months to be approved; all other permits
take less time to obtain and are typically between 1.5 and 2.5 months.
Surface and groundwater use would require three (3) permits from DGA and the marine
water option would require a maritime concession from the Navy Sub-Secretary; the
latter of which takes about 8 or 16 months to obtain.
16.3 EIA Schedule

Baseline studies for the Sierra Gorda project EIS were initiated June 2008, with the
objective of collecting one full year of data for some environmental components; mainly
meteorology and air quality, by June 2009.
Once the EIS process is initiated (e.g. submission of EIS to authorities and public
participation), it will take approximately 18 months to receive final project approvals.
16.4 Site Closure and Rehabilitation
16.4.1 Conceptual Decommissioning and Closure Process

Quadra is committed to developing and implementing a decommissioning and closure
strategy that will comply with:
Chilean and lendor legal requirements and regulations; and
Quadras environmental policy;
The closure process that Quadra proposes to adopt for Sierra Gorda is a phased approach
that allows for the development of a Conceptual Closure Plan (CCP); a testing and
monitoring period of several years to evaluate the most promising options advanced in
the CCP; and the development of a Final Closure Plan (FCP) near the end of mine life.
The FCP will be developed utilizing results from the testing and monitoring conducted
during the operational period following implementation of the CCP; in addition, the FCP
will be adapted to changes in regulatory schemes, local community concerns, and site
environmental conditions. Closure planning at Sierra Gorda will be an active and
continuous process that will be constantly evolving as shown schematically in Figure
16.4-1.
Development of a detailed closure plan too early in the process may be incompatible with
proposed mining operations. This is because mining operations are continuously
evolving and the closure plan envisaged in the project planning phase will need to be
adapted as the mine plan develops during operation. Quadra therefore plans to develop
integrated/cutting edge rehabilitation and closure strategies allowing for life-of-mine
closure planning that is responsive to project planning decisions, changing regulatory
frameworks, and evolving corporate and stakeholder expectations.
Quadras goal is to restore the land to an environmentally acceptable state and manage
any remaining impacts through a program of post-closure care and maintenance.
Assessing risks and liabilities associated with decommissioning and closure is critical to
closure planning. For the decommissioning and closure processes to be effective, there
must be decommissioning and closure objectives. These objectives can then be used to
identify the detailed decommissioning and closure measures, as applicable to each
infrastructure unit (Table 16.4-1).
Mine Feasibility Conceptual

Closure Plan
Concurrent Reclamation,
Studies, and Monitoring
Interim Updates of
Conceptual Closure Plan
and Revised Cost Estimates
Final Closure Plan
Mine Decommissioning/
Demolition
Active Care
(Reclamation/Closure)
Passive Care
(Monitoring)
Post Closure
Release of Site
Land Use
Figure 16.4-1: Mine Closure Sequence

Table 16.4-1:
Conceptual Decommissioning and Closure Plan and Revegetation Measures
Re-Vegetation
Mine Facility Conceptual Decommissioning and Closure Plan Measures
Plan
Some minor reshaping may be required at end of life of mine, though the intention
is for this to be minimised by proactive mine planning and development.
Open Pit Allow pit to fill with ground water. It is expected that the pit lake level will stabilize None planned.
a decant is not currently expected but this will be confirmed during operation.
With no vegetation and steep slopes, it is unlikely to be attractive to wildlife.
Leave as is with some minor reshaping if necessary material left at angle of
Overburden repose.
None planned
Piles Dispose of material with a high impact potential in the middle of the overburden
piles so that ARD potential is minimized.
Process until depleted or uneconomic to continue.
Low Grade and
If proved necessary by ongoing test work, the material will be disposed of within None planned
Ore Stockpiles
the overburden piles.
Contour to slope by controlling tailings deposition during operation.
Construct TMF during operation for long-term stability.
Tailings Construct drainage ditches and create overflow spillway to allow storm water to
Management drain from the TMF. None planned
Facility Place suitable rockfill or coarse material over the top of tailings to control dust and
prevent erosion.
Construct and/or stabilize water diversions to minimise the risk of erosion.
Decommission pipelines, recycle material where feasible and bury remainder in Natural plant
Pipelines and place. succession if
Roads
Smooth out road surface and rip. possible
Cover domestic waste area with suitable cover followed by rockfill or coarse
material. Natural plant
Landfill Area Inert cells will just be covered with rockfill or coarse material. succession if
Shape during operations to shed water off the surface. possible
Construct and/or stabilize water diversions to minimise the risk of erosion.
Natural plant
Borrow Areas Grade for stability and safety.. succession if
possible
Surface Salvage buildings where practical and remove.
Facilities and Demolish remaining buildings with demolition material disposed of to the pit.
Infrastructure Salvage equipment where practical and remove. Natural plant
(including plant,
Remove culverts and formal drainage systems, and restore original drainages succession if
accommodation,
where practicable. possible
port facility and
other ancillary Cover concrete foundations with rockfill or coarse material.
buildings) Rip surfaces.
Reshape to restore natural drainage.
Haul Road None planned
Rip surfaces.
Natural plant
Airstrip and
Reshape to restore natural drainage. succession if
Container Yard
possible
Remove culverts (with material being disposed by burial in an appropriate place) Natural plant
Access Road and re-establish original drainage. succession if
Rip road surface. possible
16.4.2 Closure Costs

The cost estimate addresses all mining activities that are expected to occur throughout the
life of the project and land use associated with the Sierra Gorda project. The estimate is
for both direct and indirect costs required to close and reclaim the mining operation. This
estimate will be adjusted as the project progresses and if any changes are incurred. The
premise of the estimate is that if the operator is unable to complete the reclamation, a
third party entity would have to perform the work. They are conceptual and conservative
estimates and are typically used for closure planning at Chilean operations.
17. Capital Costs
17. Capital Costs
17.1 General
Capital costs are derived from several sources depending on the area and available detail.
Mine equipment capital was obtained from vendor quotes for major equipment and some
support equipment. In situations where a current quote was unavailable actual purchase
costs from other Quadra operations were used. Process equipment capital costs were
obtained from vendor quotes and engineering studies as appropriate. Construction
supplies, labor, and contingencies were estimated based on engineering studies. For
items where these more-detailed estimates are not available, costs were estimated based
on experience at Quadras operating mines or from data available for mines operating in
Chile. No escalation or inflation factors were applied and all costs are in 2009 US
dollars. The total capital costs are summarized in Table 17.1-1.
Table 17.1-1:
Total Capital Costs
Area $ Millions $/lb Cu*
Process $1,072 $0.140
Mine $287 $0.038
G&A $302 $0.040
Total $1,661 $0.218
The capital expenditures are spread over a 3-year period that ends at plant startup.
During this period the site is prepared, the facilities are constructed, and the mine engages
in pre-stripping to ready the pit for full production mining. After startup any capital
spending is considered sustaining and not included in the initial capital expenses.
17.2 Processing
Processing capital costs were estimated by Aminpro and details are described in their
report in Appendix B. Quadra reduced crushing capital by $8 million because data
received after receipt of the Aminpro report indicated an overall reduction in the rock
hardness from the numbers originally used to estimate crushing requirements. The
reduced hardness allowed for one less tertiary crusher, screen, and corresponding feeders
and conveyors, and the capital cost was reduced accordingly. The Tailings Management
Facility (TMF) capital was estimated by Knight Piesold,.
Processing capital costs are shown in Table 17.2-1 and Figure 17.2-1.
17-1
CAPITAL COSTS
Table 17.2-1:
Processing Capital Costs
Direct Process Captial Costs
Primary Crusher & Overland $27.5 $0.004
Secondary + Tertiary Crushing $224.0 $0.029
Grinding $192.6 $0.025
Cu-Mo Floation $75.6 $0.010
Reagents $7.6 $0.001
Mo Floatation $20.7 $0.003
Tailing $29.4 $0.004
Water $1.6 $0.000
Pipeline $70.0 $0.009
Port $38.6 $0.005
Power: Substation and Distribution $31.5 $0.004
Site Preparation Sierra Gorda $16.2 $0.002
Site Preparation Port $2.3 $0.000
Contingency $78.0 $0.010
TMF $55.5 $0.007
TOTAL Direct Process Capital $871.2 $0.114
Indirect Process Captial Costs

Capital Spares, 5% of Equip $17.5 $0.002
Owner's costs $12.6 $0.002
Distributable costs $9.2 $0.001
Freight & Insurance, 9.65% on Equipment $21.6 $0.003
EPCM services @ 15% of DC $126.4 $0.017
TMF $13.9 $0.002
TOTAL Indirect Process Capital $201.2 $0.026
TOTAL Process Capital $1,072.3 $0.140

CAPITAL COSTS
Process Capex
$ Millions
Primary Crusher &

Indirect Costs, $201.2, Overland, $27.5, 3%
18%
Crushing, $224.0, 20%
Contingency, $78.0,
`
7%
TMF, $55.5, 5%
Site Preparation, Grinding, $192.6, 18%

$18.5, 2%
Pow er, $31.5, 3% Flotation, Reagents,

Pipeline, $71.6, 7%
Moly, $104.0, 10%
Port, $38.6, 4%
Tailings, $29.4, 3%
Figure 17.2-1: Processing Capital Costs
17.3 Mining
Mining capital costs are divided into two categories: initial capital and sustaining or
ongoing capital. Initial mine capital is that capital spent prior to mill startup and
sustaining capital is that incurred after mill startup. Sustaining mine capital is discussed
in Section 17.5. Initial mine capital costs are summarized in Table 17.3-1 and Figure
17.3-1.
CAPITAL COSTS
Table 17.3-1:
Initial Mine Capital Costs
Direct Mine Captial Costs
Shovels $113.6 $0.015
Haul Trucks $64.8 $0.008
Drills $22.3 $0.003
Support Equipment $30.8 $0.004
Pit Power $2.4 $0.000
Truck Shop $15.0 $0.002
First Fill $4.1 $0.001
TOTAL Direct Mine Capital $252.9 $0.033
Indirect Mine Captial Costs

Pre Stripping $3.0 $0.000
10% of Direct $31.3 $0.004
TOTAL Indirect Mine Capital $34.3 $0.004
TOTAL Mine Capital $287.1 $0.038

Mine Capex (pre-startup only)

$ Millions
First Fill, $4.1, 1%
Truck Shop, $15.0, Indirect, $31.3, 11%

5%
Pow er, $2.4, 1%
Pre-stripping, $3.0,
1%
Shovels & Loaders,
Support (includes $113.6, 39%
shared cranes),
$22.4, 8%
Major Support,
$8.3, 3%
Haul Trucks, $64.8, Drills, $22.3, 8%

23%
Figure 17.3-1: Distribution of Initial Mine Capital Costs

CAPITAL COSTS
Mine supporting capital includes costs for purchase of cranes that will be shared by the
mine and by the mill, but costs for other mill and G&A equipment are in their respective
areas.
17.4 Site G&A

G&A capital costs are summarized in Table 17.4-1 and illustrated in Figure 17.4-1.
Table 17.4-1:
G&A Capital Costs
Direct G&A Captial Costs
Water supply Michilla $141.4 $0.019
Power $43.6 $0.006
Mobile Equipment $1.8 $0.000
Supplies $0.3 $0.000
Buildings & Road $11.0 $0.001
Tank Farm $0.7 $0.000
Camp $12.0 $0.002
Property Acquisition $9.3 $0.001
Feasibility -EIA $14.5 $0.002
Contingency $40.0 $0.005
TOTAL Direct G&A Capital $274.4 $0.036
Indirect G&A Captial Costs

Indirect $27.4 $0.004
TOTAL Indirect G&A Capital $27.4 $0.004
TOTAL G&A Capital $301.8 $0.040
TOTAL Capital $1,661.3 $0.218

CAPITAL COSTS
G&A Capex
$ Millions
Indirect, $27.4, 9%
Contingency, $40.0,
13%
Feasibility -EIA, Water supply

$14.5, 5% Michilla, $141.4,
47%
Property
Acquisition, $9.3,
3%
Camp, $12.0, 4%
Tank Farm, $0.7,

0%
Site Buildings, Mobile Equipment,Pow er, $43.6, 14%
Equipment, Roads, $1.8, 1%
$11.0, 4%
Supplies, $0.3, 0%
Figure 17.4-1: Distribution of G&A Capital Costs
Some of the site building capital is for office facilities in Antofagasta and the power
section includes construction of power transmission lines to water pumping facilities as
well as the mine site.
Property acquisition is the estimated cost of acquiring needed property prior to startup as
opposed to the land payments category in operating costs which includes ongoing
payments after startup.
17.5 Sustaining Capital

Sustaining capital is that capital spent after the plant starts operating and over the 25 year
mine life. The vast majority of sustaining capital at Sierra Gorda is in the mine and
consists of the purchase of new and replacement equipment. Not all of the mining
equipment is purchased at the beginning of the project but is acquired as needed
throughout the mine life in order to reduce initial capital expenditures. Additionally, as
CAPITAL COSTS
equipment ages there will be replacement requirements at some point owing to

diminished productivity or excessive wear.
The Sierra Gorda sustaining capital is summarized in Table 17.5-1.
Table 17.5-1:
Sustaining Capital Costs
Sustaining Captial Costs
New Haul Trucks $264.4 $0.035
Other New Mine Equipment $117.2 $0.015
Replacement Haul Trucks $54.0 $0.007
Other Replacement Mine Equip. $223.5 $0.029
Truck Shop $7.0 $0.001
Pit Power $2.4 $0.000
Tank Farm $0.7 $0.000
TMF $44.7 $0.006
Site Closure $20.0 $0.003
TOTAL Sustaining Capital $733.9 $0.096
Site closure capital is considered to be spent during year 25, but in reality the expense
will probably extend over several years post-closure.
18. Operating Costs
18. Operating Costs
18.1 General
Operating costs for the project are estimated from a combination of sources. Vendor
estimates were obtained for consumables, labor, and supplies. Some equipment vendors
also supplied estimated unit operating costs based on their experience and history. For
areas where these more-detailed estimates are not available, Quadra estimated costs based
on experience at other operating mines. Wherever possible, Chilean quotes are obtained
for costs and supplies. No escalation or inflation factors were applied and all costs are in
2009 US dollars.
Life-of-mine operating unit costs are shown in Table 18.1-1 and detailed costs are
provided in Appendix G.
Table 18.1-1:
Life-of-Mine Operating Costs
On-Site Costs $/tonne
Process $/milled tonne $4.90
Mining $/milled tonne $3.31
G&A $/milled tonne $1.17
Total $/milled tonne $9.38
Mining $/total tonne $0.94
On-Site Costs $/lb Cu*

Process $0.63
Mining $0.43
G&A $0.15
Total $1.21
18.2 Processing
Processing operating costs were estimated by Aminpro and details are described in their
report in Appendix B. After receipt and review of the Aminpro report, Quadra elected to
change some of the values based on new information received after the report was
finalized. These changes resulted in values slightly different from the original estimates.
The Tailings Management Facility (TMF) costs were estimated by Knight Piesold and are
described in their report in Appendix F. The final processing operating costs are shown
in Table 18.2-1 and Figure 18.2-1.
18-1
OPERATING COSTS
Table 18.2-1:
Processing Operating Costs
Area $ Millions per mill tonne
Crushing $128.2 $0.13
Grinding $1,061.9 $1.07
Flotation $394.8 $0.40
TMF $110.0 $0.11
Concentrate $48.0 $0.05
Moly Plant $73.3 $0.07
Power $2,521.1 $2.55
Plant Overhead $509.4 $0.51
Total Process $4,846.6 $4.90
Process Opex
$ per m illed tonne
Crushing, $0.13 ,
Plant Overhead,
3%
$0.51 , 11%
Grinding, $1.07 ,
22%
Flotation, $0.40 ,
8%
TMF, $0.11 , 2%
Pow er, $2.55 , 51% Concentrate, $0.05
, 1%
Moly Plant, $0.07 ,

2%
Figure 18.2-1: Processing Operating Costs

OPERATING COSTS
The changes made to Aminpros numbers and assumptions are described in Table 18.2-2.
Table 18.2-2:
Changes from Aminpro Operating Costs
Item Original Revised
Diesel fuel $/liter $0.50 $0.43
Electric Power $/kwh $0.115 $0.100
# of Plant Employees 267 240
Burden Rate 35% 30%
Ball mill costs reduced by $1 million per year
Contractors reduced and moved to G&A
Consumables (except power) vary with throughput
Camp costs moved to G&A
18.3 Mining
Mine operating costs are summarized in Table 18.3-1 and Figure 18.3-2. Note that unit
costs are per mined tonne, excluding stockpile rehandle.
Table 18.3-1:
Mine Operating Costs
Area $ Millions per total tonne
Drilling $199.4 $0.06
Blasting $603.6 $0.17
Loading $314.1 $0.09
Hauling $1,912.9 $0.55
Support $98.5 $0.03
Mine Overhead $150.0 $0.04
Total Mining $3,278.5 $0.94
Mining Opex
$ per m ined tonne
Mine Overhead,
$0.04 , 5%
Drilling, $0.06 , 6%
Support, $0.03 , 3%
Blasting, $0.17 ,
18%
Loading, $0.09 ,
10%
Hauling, $0.55 ,
58%
Figure 18.3-1: Mine Operating Costs

OPERATING COSTS
Major mining operating costs are based on vendor-supplied estimates for hourly
equipment costs; lube and fuel costs are from Chilean supplier quotes; power costs and
consumption from Quadra estimates; and labor from Chilean sources.
Drilling requirements are based on rock-mass characteristics and standard industry
practices. Drilling costs are based on quotes from equipment manufacturers currently
servicing operations in Chile. Local market rates for labor and power consumptions are
applied. The cost of wear parts was calculated using vendor quotes and experience at
Quadras other operations.
Blasting requirements are based on the deposits rock-mass characteristics and standard
industry practices. Blasting costs are based on a quote from explosive suppliers currently
servicing operations in Chile.
Hauling requirements are based on a life-of-mine haul analysis that was prepared in
conjunction with the mine production schedule. Hauling costs are based on quotes
provided equipment manufacturers currently servicing operations in Chile.
18.4 Site G&A

G&A operating costs are derived primarily from reported costs from nearby mines and
adjusted to reflect mine size and staffing levels. It is assumed that a camp will be needed
and costs for operating a suitably sized camp are included. The G&A costs are
summarized in Table 18.4-1 and illustrated in Figure 18.4-1.
Table 18.4-1:
G&A Operating Costs
Area $ Millions per mill tonne
Administration $264.3 $0.27
Power $25.0 $0.03
Seawater power+ $456.9 $0.46
Land Payments $68.0 $0.07
Permits $2.5 $0.00
Licence Fees + O $6.3 $0.01
Insurance (8MM/ $200.0 $0.20
Camp $101.8 $0.10
Closure $25.0 $0.03
Total G&A $1,149.8 $1.17
OPERATING COSTS
G&A Opex
$ per milled tonne
Closure, $0.03 , 2%
Camp, $0.10 , 9% Administration,
$0.27 , 23%
Insurance (8MM/Y),
$0.20 , 17%
Licence Fees +
Other, $0.01 , 1% Power, $0.03 , 3%
Permits, $0.00 , 0%
Land Payments, Seawater

$0.07 , 6% power+maint, $0.46
, 39%
Figure 18.4-1: G&A Operating Costs
Camp costs were based on actual costs at another Quadra Chilean operation and reported
costs from other mines in the region and vary by year due to the varying number of haul
truck drivers and maintenance personnel.
Land payments are the anticipated payments made over the life of the mine necessary to
maintain an appropriate property position.
Administration costs include office personnel in Antofagasta as well as on site, supplies,
and contract labor estimated to be 100 people.
19. Economic Analysis
19. Economic Analysis
An economic analysis of Sierra Gorda was developed using the parameters and costs
shown in Chapters 9, 17, and 18. A long-term copper price of US$2.00/lb, molybdenum
price of US$12.00/lb, and gold price of US$800/oz were used in the analysis. The
measurements chosen as gauges of Sierra Gorda economic viability are after tax net
present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). The results of the analysis are
shown in Table 19-1.
Table 19-1:
Economic Analysis Results
After Tax Results
Discount NPV MM$
Rate Millions $
0% $ 4,550
8% $ 983
10% $ 622
12% $ 355
IRR 16%
Years
Mine Life 25
Payback* 7.1
*Includes capital investment period, 3yrs
Overall costs and assumptions are summarized in Table 19-2.
Table 19-2:
Unit Costs, Life of Mine and First Eight Years
Unit Costs Life of mine Through yr 8
Per Recovered Cu lb $/lb Cu $/lb Cu
Operating (minus credits) $ 0.79 $ 0.34
Initial Capital $ 0.22 $ 0.77
Sustaining Capital $ 0.09 $ 0.20
Total Unit Costs $ 1.10 $ 1.31
The effects of changes to copper price, molybdenum price, operating costs, and capital
costs on NPV and IRR were calculated. The results are shown in Figures 19-1 and 19-2
(note that capital costs in the sensitivity analyses include sustaining capital).
19-1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Sierra Gorda Sensitivities

NPV at 8% after tax
Percentage of Base (metals prices)

130% 120% 110% 100% 90% 80% 70%
$2,000 $2,000
$1,750 $1,750
$1,500 $1,500
$1,250 $1,250
NPV at 8%
$1,000 $1,000
$750 $750
$500 $500
$250 $250
$0 $0
70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%
Percentage of Base (costs)
Capital Cost Operating Cost Copper Molybdenum
Figure 19-1: Effects of Costs and Metal Prices on NPV

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Sierra Gorda Sensitivities

IRR after tax
Percentage of Base (metals prices)

130% 120% 110% 100% 90% 80% 70%
25.0% 25%
20.0% 20%
15.0% 15%
IRR %
10.0% 10%
5.0% 5%
0.0% 0%
70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%
Percentage of Base (costs)
Capital Cost Operating Cost Copper Molybdenum
Figure 19-2: Effects of Costs and Metal Prices on IRR
Review of the sensitivity results reveals that project economics are most sensitive to
copper price with operating costs next. However, meaningful reductions in capital costs
have about as much benefit to the IRR as increased copper prices.
IRR and NPV were calculated at various copper and molybdenum prices, the results of
which are summarized in Table 19-3. Gold prices were also varied between $600 and
$1000 per ounce in the analysis but impacted the overall IRR by less than 1% and NPV
by less than $44 million.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Table 19-3:
Effects of Metals Prices on NPV and IRR
NPV at 8%, after tax $x1000
Metal Price $/lb Cu $1.50 Cu $2.00 Cu $2.50
Mo $16.00 $613 $1,406 $2,183
Mo $14.00 $393 $1,196 $1,976
Mo $12.00 $161 $983 $1,769
Mo $10.00 ($95) $766 $1,560
Mo $8.00 ($377) $541 $1,350
IRR, after tax
Metal Price $/lb Cu $1.50 Cu $2.00 Cu $2.50
Mo $16.00 14% 20% 24%
Mo $14.00 12% 18% 23%
Mo $12.00 10% 16% 21%
Mo $10.00 7% 14% 20%
Mo $8.00 5% 12% 18%
The economic analysis assumes 100% equity financing.
Taxes are estimated using the Chilean Mining Royalty Tax of 5% and the Chilean Final
Tax of 35%, on the assumption that all profits are distributed to shareholders outside of
Chile. The tax calculation includes a deduction for inter-company interest expense based
on a debt-equity ratio of 3:1, allowable under Chilean tax law..
Contingency costs were estimated on a case by case basis. Where firm vender quotes
were available (i.e. mining and plant equipment), reduced contingencies were used. In
cases where quotes were not available or not as defined, a higher contingency estimate
was used.
The production schedule and related cash flow are provided in Appendix G.
20. Interpretations and
Conclusions
20. Interpretations and Conclusions
Scoping level designs, estimates, and economics indicate that a profitable project can be
built under the stated assumptions. Areas of interest or components that warrant
additional attention are outlined below.
The Sierra Gorda Project has a significant Measured and Indicated resource that
can be developed into a reserve with the completion of a pre-feasibility or
feasibility study.
The option of using seawater as the primary source of process water for the
project has significant capital ($141M) and operating ($18M/yr) costs. Therefore,
sources of terrestrial waters need to be identified and permitted. This should
improve the project economics. Other potential sources of water in the area need
to be pursued as well.
There is a significant oxide copper resource at the project that is currently not part
of the economics. The economic contribution as a stand alone project appears
to be marginal; however, potential synergies with other companies in the area
may provide alternatives to improve the economics significantly.
Significant amounts of molybdenum are produced during the mine life that may put
negative pressure on molybdenum prices. A better understanding of the molybdenum
component of the project is needed
20-1
21. Recommendations
21. Recommendations
Completion of the technical scoping study for the Sierra Gorda project has resulted in the
identification of a number of recommendations for advancing the project. The most
salient of these findings are outlined below.
21.1 Pre-Feasibility Study

The results of the scoping study indicate positive economics for the project; however,
some areas require further study and refinement. Therefore, a pre-feasibility study of the
project should be initiated. This will include additional studies and activities associated
with geotechnical design, resource confirmation, metallurgical testwork as well as ore
grade, metal price, capital and operating cost sensitivities. Depending upon the level of
detail necessary, the pre-feasibility stage of the project may take approximately 6 to 18
months to complete.
21.2 Water Resources

Providing the project with a viable and dependable water source, specifically seawater
pumped to the project from Michilla, carries high capital and operating costs. Therefore,
Quadra needs to investigate and pursue other options for water supply for the project.
These include:
The reduction or elimination of seawater by increasing sources of terrestrial
waters. Other potential sources of water in the area need to be pursued as well
Continue with existing water acquisition program.
Pursue water delivery options for the project. Obtaining water from an existing
water provider or source water from other potential providers interested in getting
into the water supply business should be pursued.
Investigating and exploiting synergies with other water providers.
21.3 Metallurgical
Because molybdenum production impacts economics, predominantly during the first ten
years of the project, metallurgical testing needs to be performed in order to verify
molybdenum recoveries and concentrate grade after copper/moly separation and moly
cleaning. The scoping study only addressed bulk copper/moly recovery and concentrate
grades. Therefore, drilling and collection of bulk samples is needed to conduct additional
metallurgical testing to better understand the potential impact of molybdenum recovery
21-1
RECOMMENDATIONS
and concentrate grades during the early stages of the project. Also, additional testing is
required in order to improve the understanding of the variability in metallurgical
performance for a broader range of ore types.
21.4 Permitting
The EIS process for Sierra Gorda was initiated in June 2008 and was subsequently
curtailed to include only baseline data collection. Reinitiating the EIS process will help
to advance the overall permitting of the project and will also identify any key
environmental or social impacts/issues early in the project. The EIS process will take
between 14 to 18 months to complete.
21.5 Legal/Land Position

Continue to acquire property as needed.
21.6 Resource
There is a significant oxide copper resource at Sierra Gorda that should not be ignored.
Further analysis of the oxide material is recommended to determine if opportunities exist
for processing this material. Only sulphide was considered to be potentially economic for
this report.
The standard of certainty for feasibility studies and financing is that roughly 60 percent of
Measured plus Indicated resources should be in the Measured category. Upgrading of
portions of the Indicated resource to Measured can be accomplished mostly by additional
drilling. Conversion of Inferred to Indicated will also require additional drilling.
Specific recommendations towards upgrading the resource classifications, most of which
have been mentioned in the appropriate sections of this report, are:
The project is now at an infill drilling stage, for which additional drilling is
warranted, if the relative amount of Measured material is to be increased. The
project is set up with the infrastructure and technical personnel to support the
needed drilling.
MDA believes that a better understanding of the structural controls on
mineralization could be gained by using information that is, for the most part,
already in hand, with the objective of applying that better understanding in the
next resource estimate. Quadras geologists should focus on correlating and
modeling key structural features that have probably already been logged but
perhaps not fully appreciated. Special attention should be paid to the orientation
of faults, late stage dikes and vein sets. The outcome of this study could influence
RECOMMENDATIONS
some parameters in the estimation process, including the capping grade,

compositing intervals, and the degree of spatial influence given to high-grade
material.
As the project is most certainly entering the development stage, it is time to
integrate the geology already interpreted on sections with recommended alteration
interpretations and combine these with all existing geochemistry, metallurgical
data, rock hardness and geotechnical data to produce a predictive model that can
be used to optimize mine production and scheduling.
Mineralogical zoning should be studied and mapped to get a better understanding
of mineral domains and metallurgical characterization, which could aid in
exploration. Trace metal grades and distributions should be studied for the same
reasons.
It should be noted that this Scoping Study has been undertaken based on geology
resources in the measured category. The following areas should be examined in order to
increase the ratio of Measured to Indicated resources:
Deep 281 (below 700 m elevation): The porphyry intrusive source below the 281
Zone has yet to be identified, and the deepest holes have intersected significant
grades of copper and gold.
Deep Catalina (below 700 m elevation): The Catalina breccias represent a
separate mineralized center, and mineralization is open at depth.
Deep Salvadora (below 1,100 m elevation): The Salvadora breccias appear to
represent a separate mineralized center and deserve additional study, and
potentially, exploration.
Historic drill holes: There are several historic drill holes with significant reported
but unverified mineralization in them. While the data are unverified, the drill
holes have no nearby drill holes that either negate or support these mineralized
intervals. These reportedly mineralized drill holes should be investigated further
and twinning or offsetting these drill holes should be a priority.
Open-ended anomalous copper zone: The large anomalous copper grade shell is
open to the north and in many areas remains untested where it is already defined.
Other higher-grade stockwork zones could exist within the limits (or to the north
of) this shell.
RECOMMENDATIONS
21.7 Mining
While the processing of the oxide resource had marginal economics in this study,
opportunities for its exploitation may exist. Therefore, any synergies with other entities
operating in the area need to be considered. This would include offsite processing at
existing facilities in the area, and/or forming joint ventures for oxide development.
21.8 General
Other areas which require further evaluation include:
Evaluate the need for a camp and compare alternatives.
Explore possibilities for reducing electric power costs.
Continue tradeoff studies to reduce capital and operating costs.
22. References
22. References
Abzalov, M, 2008, Quality control of assay data: a review of procedures for measuring
and monitoring precision and accuracy: Exploration and Mining Geology, Vol.
17, Nos. 3-4, p. 131-144
Andes Pacific Development S.A. 2001-4: Geology, Mineralisation and Resources of

Catalina Expandida Project, Sierra Gorda II Region. Confidential Investment
Memorandum. This document exists in various iterations, all undated. The most
recent version found by MDA is in a digital document created in 2001 and last
modified in 2004.
Andes Pacific Development S.A. Undated: Catalina Expandida Project, Confidential

Investment Memorandum & Data Base. Bound compendium of maps, photos,
photomicrographs. No text. Undated.
Awmack, Henry 2004a: Pampa Lina, Chile. Consultants memorandum to Quadra

Mining personnel.
Awmack, Henry 2004b: Exploration Techniques at Sierra Gorda. Consultants

memorandum to Quadra Mining personnel.
Cannell, J., Cooke, D. R., Walshe, J. L., and Stein, H. 2005: Geology, Mineralization,
Alteration, and Structural Evolution of the El Teniente Porphyry Cu-Mo Deposit.
Econ. Geol., Vol. 100, p 979-1003.
CIMM, Divisin Metalurgia 1993: Estudio de Flotacin a Escala Laboratorio con

Muestra de Mineral Cobre-Molibdeno, Informe Final. Study done for Minera
Outokumpu S.A.
CIMM, Direccin Metalurgia 1994a: Pruebas Metalrgicas de Minerales Oxidados de

Cobre de Santa Catalina. Informe Final. Report by Centro de Investigacin
Minera y Metalurgica.
CIMM, Direccin Metalurgia 1994b: Lixiviacin en Columnas de Minerales Oxidados de

Cobre de Santa Catalina. Informe Final. Report by Centro de Investigacin
Minera y Metalurgica.
Contreras Barruel, Enrique 1993: Mediciones de Nivel de Agua, Aforo y Permeabilidad

en Proyecto Santa Catalina Segunda Regin, Chile. Report for Minera
Outokumpu Chile S.A.
Contreras Barruel, Enrique 1995: Estudio Geolgicos en Tnel Catalina, En Zona de

Muestreo en Sulfuros. Report for Minera Catalina S.A.
22-1
REFERENCES
Contreras Barruel, Enrique 1996a: Nuevos Antecedentes del Model Estructural y

Actualizacin de Datas Para Caracterizacin Geomecnica en Santa Catalina
Sierra Gorda Segunda Regin Chile. Report for Outokumpu Copper
Resources, Minera Santa Catalina S.A.
Contreras Barruel, Enrique 1996b: hequeo de 494 Muestras en Mena Oxidada,

Supergenica y Primaria del Cuerpo Catalina-Santa Catalina-Sierra Gorda-Chile.
Report for Outokumpu Copper Resources, Minera Santa Catalina S.A.
Cornejo, P., Paula and Cuitio G., Luca 1993: Estudio Petrografico. Report for Minera
Outokumpu.
Court, Ana Mara Undated: Estudio Mineralgico en Briquetas, Proyecto Salvadora.

Undated mineralogical report for Outokumpu Exploraciones S.A.
Dold, Bernhard 2005(?): Enrichment Processes in Oxidizing Sulfide Mine Tailings:

Lessons for Supergene Ore Formation, http://www.e-sga.org/news16/art01.html
(web article found in April 2005; actual publication date unspecified).
Faunes, G., Alejandro 1984: Potencial Minero de los Yacimientos de Mo-Cu Salvadora y
Catalina-Santiaguina, Distrito de Sierra Gorda, Antofagasta, Norte de Chile.
Flores Collio, Reinaldo 2005: Informe de Propiedad Minera, II Regin, Sector Sierra
Gorda. Consultants report by Tecnomin on behalf of Minera Quadra.
Franquesa, Francisco 1993: Estudio Mineralogico Informe N 0012/93. A reflected light

study of supergene sulfide minerals by CIMM for Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A.
Garza, R. A. P., Titley, S. R., and Pimentel, F.B. 2001: Geology of the Escondida
Porphyry Copper Deposit, Antofagasta Region, Chile. Econ. Geol., Vol. 96, p
307-324.
Geodatos 1995: Estudio Magntico Terrestre, Proyecto Pampa Lina, Sector Sierra Gorda,
II Regin. Consultants report for Soquimich S.A.
Greene, Fernando 1994: Informe GMA-N0148/94. Mineralogical report by Asesorias y

Servicios de Geologa y Mineraloga Aplicada for Minera Santa Catalina S.A.
Greiner, G. and Egaa (?), P. Reconocimiento de las Minas del Distrito de Sierra Gorda.
Barely legible copy of a typed report, possibly for CIMA Mines.
Hattula, Aimo 1994a: Mise-a-la-Masse Survey in the Santa Catalina Area, Chile, from 1
to 25 February 1994. Internal report for Outokumpu Metals and Resources Oyj.
Hautala, Perttie 1994b: Santa Catalina, Chile. 61 Composite Ore Type Samples.
Comparison of Cu Assays. Total Sample Set. Report for Outokumpu Mining
Services.
REFERENCES
Heimala, Seppo and Riekkola-Vanhanen, Marja 1994: Sulfidization of Copper Oxide

Concentrate and Ore. Report by Outokumpu Research.
Ihalainen, Matti 1994: Borehole Logging in Santa Catalina. Report by Suomen Malmi
Oy for Outokumpu Copper Resources.
Jordan, Joe 2004: Geophysical Report on the Induced Polarization & Resistivity and
Ground Magnetic Surveys conducted at the Sierra Gorda project Region II, Chile
on behalf of Minera Quadra Chile Ltda. Consultants report by Quantec
Geoscience Chile Limitada.
Jounela, Seppo and Lamberg, Pertti 1994a: Laboratory Froth Flotation Study of Santa
Catalina Primary and Supergene Sulfide Cu-Mo Ore Samples. Report by
Outokumpu Research Geoanalytical Laboratory.
Jounela, Seppo and Lamberg, Pertti 1994b: Laboratory Froth Flotation Study of Santa
Catalina Primary Cu-Mo Ore Sample. Report by Outokumpu Research
Geoanalytical Laboratory.
Jounela, Seppo and Lamberg, Pertti 1994c: Laboratory Froth Flotation Study of Santa
Catalina Granitic Oxide Ore Sample OK-06 Normal. Report by Outokumpu
Research Geoanalytical Laboratory.
Jounela, Seppo and Lamberg, Pertti 1995a: Laboratory Froth Flotation Study of Santa
Catalina Primary Ore Sample for the Pilot Plant Tests. Report by Outokumpu
Jounela, Seppo and Lamberg, Pertti 1995b: Study of Santa Catalina Oxide Ore Samples
for Laboratory and Pilot Plant Tests: Mineralogy of Feed and Its Subsamples,
Laboratory Froth Flotation Tests. Report by Outokumpu Research Geoanalytical
Laboratory.
Julkunen, Arto 1993a: Sierra Gorda Magnetic Survey. Report by Suomen Malmi Oy for
Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A. First of two such reports.
Julkunen, Arto 1993b:Sierra Gorda Magnetic Survey. Report by Suomen Malmi Oy for
Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A. Second of two such reports.
Kaye, Chris 2005: Sierra Gorda Project: Chemical Assays G&T and ALS. Memo, file
no. 406. Metallurgical study.
Knuutila, Kari 1993: Composite Ore Type Samples of Santa Catalina. Report for Minera
Santa Catalina S.A.
Knuutila, Kari 1994: Determination of Grain Size Distribution from the Results of Point
Counting. Report for Minera Santa Catalina S.A.
REFERENCES
Knuutila, Kari, Lamberg, Pertti and Jounela, Seppo 1994: Froth Flotation Tests for
Copper Oxide Composite Samples of Santa Catalina Copper Molybdenum Ore,
Chile. Report by Outokumpu Research Geoanalytical Laboratory.
Knuutila, Kari, Salminen, Kari and Tontti, Reijo 1995: Sulfidization Tests of Santa
Catalina Copper Oxide Concentrate. Report by Outokumpu Research.
Lamberg, Pertti 1993: Mineralogical Studies of Santa Catalina Porphyry Copper-

Molybdenum Deposit, Chile. Volume 1, Sulfide Ore Samples. Report by
Outokumpu Research Oy Geoanalytical Laboratory.
Lamberg, Pertti 1994a: Mineralogical Studies of Santa Catalina Porphyry Copper-

Molybdenum Deposit, Chile. Volume 2, Copper Oxide Ore Samples.
Lamberg, Pertti 1994b: Rhenium Analyses of Molybdenite Concentrates, Addendum to

the report: Laboratory Froth Flotation Study of Santa Catalina Primary and
Supergene Sulfide Cu-Mo Ore Samples. Report by Outokumpu Research Oy
Geoanalytical Laboratory.
Lamberg, Pertti 1994c: Mineralogical Studies of Santa Catalina Porphyry Copper-

Molybdenum Deposit, Chile. Volume 3. Chemical Data on 61 Composite Ore
Type Samples. Report for Outokumpu Research Geoanalytical Laboratory.
Lamberg, Pertti 1995a: Rhenium Content of Santa Catalina Molybdenite from the Mo
Concentrate of the Primary Ore Pilot Plant Test 1995. Report by Outokumpu
Lamberg, Pertti 1995b: Mineralogical Studies of Santa Catalina Porphyry Copper-

Molybdenum Ore, Chile. Volume 4, Oxide Samples from the Main (Cuerpo
Catalina) and New (Cuerpo Nuevo) Ore Bodies and Sulfide Samples from the
New Body.
Lamberg, Pertti, Jounela, Seppo and Liipo, Jussi 1996: Molybdenum Grade-Recovery
Estimation of Santa Catalina Primary Ore Based on Pilot Test Runs 1995/VTT
and Liberation Measurements. Report by Outokumpu Research, Geoanalytical
Laboratory.
Llaumett P., Carlos 1994: Santa Catalina Project, District Geology and
Mineralization. Report for Outokumpu Metals & Resources, Outokumpu
Exploraciones S.A.
Lustig, G. N. 2005: Review of Quality Control Results and Procedures, Sierra Gorda
Project 2004. Report prepared for Quadra Mining Ltd., August 2005.
Lustig, G. N., 2008a, Review of 2005-2007 quality control results, Sierra Gorda Project,
Chile: unpublished report prepared for Quadra Mining Ltd.
REFERENCES
Lustig, G. N., 2008b, Laboratory review Andes Analytical Assays Ltda, Santiago,
Chile: unpublished report prepared for Quadra Mining Ltd.
Martin, Dennis: 1993a: Santa Catalina Project Site Inspection, Notes May 24 to 27, 1993.
Trip report for Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A. by Piteau Associates Engineering.
Martin, Dennis: 1993b: Santa Catalina Project Preliminary Geotechnical Assessments

and Proposed Data Collection Program. Memorandum to Minera Outokumpu
Chile S.A. by Piteau Associates Engineering.
Medina, Eduardo 1994: Comentarios Acerca de los Minerales de Alteracin y Tipos de

Alteracin, en Muestras de Estudio Consumo de cido. Report by Universidad
Catlica del Norte for Minera Santa Catalina S.A.
Merino, Luis A. 1992(?): Informe Final, Estudio de Estabilidad de Taludes, Proyecto

Santa Catalina. Report for Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A.
Mine and Quarry Engineering Services, Inc. 2004a: Geotechnical Review of Catalina
Project. Consultants report for Quadra Mining Ltd.
Mine and Quarry Engineering Services, Inc. 2004b: Catalina Project Preliminary
Geologic Model. Draft of a consultants report for Quadra Mining Ltd. Not
finalized.
Minera Santa Catalina S.A. 1993: Copper Production via Autoclave and the Use of
Excess Acid in Heap Leaching of Oxides at Santa Catalina Mine.
Mintec Chile 2001: Informe Final; Estimacin Preliminar de Recursos Minerales,

Yacimiento Catalina Expandida. Consultants report for Andes Pacific
Development S.A.
Mintec Chile 2002: Informe Final; Estimacin Preliminar de Reservas Mineras,

Yacimiento Catalina Expandida. Consultants report for Andes Pacific
Development S.A.
Mrsky, Pekka, Klemetti, Markku and Knuutinen, Tapio 1995a: Laboratory Scale
Grindability Testwork for Santa Catalina Oxide and Primary Ores. Report by
Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT).
Mrsky, Pekka, Klemetti, Markku and Knuutinen, Tapio 1995b: Pilot Plant Testwork
for Santa Catalina Primary Ore. Report by Technical Research Centre of Finland
(VTT).
Mrsky, Pekka, Klemetti, Markku and Knuutinen, Tapio 1995c: Pilot Plant Testwork
for Santa Catalina Oxide Ore. Report by Technical Research Centre of Finland
(VTT).
REFERENCES
NCL Ingenieria y Construccin S.A. 1993: Outokumpu Copper Resources, Estudio

Ambiental Preliminar, Proyecto Santa Catalina. Consultants report for Minera
Santa Catalina S.A.
Nusbaum, R.W. 1970: Sierra Gorda Project, Final Exploration Report. Typed report with
a hand-written note indicating that it was done for CIMMA Mines.
Outokumpu Exploraciones 1993: Evaluacin Stock Baja Ley, Mina Catalina.
Outokumpu Metals and Resources Mine Technology Group 1995: Slopes Estimation of
Santa Catalina Pit. Internal memo.
Outokumpu 1996a: Mineral Resources, Alex 1-18, Angelita and Felicidad, Outside
Areas. Internal Resource Estimate for Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A.
Outokumpu 1996b: Santa Catalina Project, Pre-Feasibility Study. Internal study for
Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A.
Perell, J., H. Brockway, and Martini, R. 2004: Discovery and Geology of the
Esperanza Porphyry Copper-Gold Deposit, Antofagasta Region, Northern Chile,
in Soc. Econ. Geol. Spec. Pub. 11, p. 167 186.
Ristorcelli, S., and Ronning, P. 2005: Technical Report on the Sierra Gorda Project,
Region II, Chile. Report prepared by Mine Development Associates for Quadra
Mining Ltd., 146 p.
Ristorcelli, S., Ronning, P., Fahey, P., Lustig, G., 2008, Updated Technical Report on the
Sierra Gorda Project, Region II, Chile: Unpublished, NI 43-101 Technical Report
prepared for Quadra Mining Ltd.
Rowland, M., and Clark, A. H. 2001: Temporal Overlap of Supergene Alteration and
High-Sulfidation Mineralization in the Spence Porphyry Copper Deposit, II
Regin, Chile [abs]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v.
33, p. A-358.
Seedorff, E., Dilles, J. H., Proffett, J. M., Jr., Einaudi, M.T., Zurcher, L., Stavast, W. J.
A., Johnson, D. A., and Barton, M. D. 2005: Porphyry Deposits: Characteristics
and Origin of Hypogene Features, in Hedenquist, J.W., Thompson, J. F. H.,
Goldfard, R. J., and Richards, L. P., Economic Geology 100th Anniversary
Volume, Society of Economic Geologists, Inc., p. 251-298.
Sillitoe, Richard H. 1993: Comment on the Sierra Gorda Copper Properties.

Consultants report prepared for Outokumpu Chile S.A.
Sillitoe, R. H. 2000: Gold-Rich Porphyry Deposits: Descriptive and Genetic Models

and Their Role in Exploration and Discovery, in SEG Reviews, Vol. 13, p. 315-
345.
REFERENCES
Sillitoe, Richard H. and McKee, Edwin H. 1996: Age of Supergene Oxidation and
Enrichment in the Chilean Porphyry Copper Province. Economic Geology, vol.
91, no. 1, pp 164 179.
Simic S., Dragomir 1971: Informe Sobre la Revisin de la Documentacin del

Distrito de Cobre y Molibdeno Sierra Gorda, Departamento Antofagasta,
Provincia Antofagasta. Report for Empresa Nacional de Mineria, Departamento
de Ingeniera y Desarrollo Seccin Geologa.
Souza Bejares, Carlos and Franquesa R., Francisco 1993: Estudio Calcogrfico en 29
Muestras de Mineral; Certificado de Caracterizacin N 333-M/93, Divisin
Caracterizacin Materiales, Centro de Investigacin Minera y Metalurgica.
Report for Minera Outokumpu Chile S.A.
Stanley, C. R., and Lawie, D., 2007a, Thompson-Howarth error analysis: unbiased
alternatives to the large-sample method for assessing non-normally distributed
measurement error in geological samples: Geochemistry: Exploration,
Environment, Analysis, Vol. 7, pp 1-10
Stanley, C. R., and Lawie, D., 2007b, Average relative error in geochemical
determinations: clarification, calculation and a plea for consistency: Exploration
and Mining Geology, Vol. 16, Nos. 3-4, pp. 267-275
Thomas, N. 1973: Comentarios y Recomendaciones Sobre Las Exploraciones en

Sierra Gorda Antofagasta. Geological report written for an unspecified entity.
Unattributed Document: 1997: Prospecto Pampa Lina, Revisin de Exploraciones,

Geologa y Estimacin de Reservas Preliminares.
Universidad de Atacama 1994: Environmental Documentation Report of the San

Armando and Salvadore Sur Areas in the Sierra Gorda Region. Report by the
Universidad de Atacama, Instituto de Investigaciounes Cientificas y Tecnolgicas
(IDICTEC) for RTZ Mining and Exploration Limited.
23. Certificates of Qualified
Persons
MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES
MINE ENGINEERING SERVICES
I, Steven Ristorcelli, R. P. G., do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently employed as Principal Geologist by:
Mine Development Associates, Inc.
210 South Rock Blvd.
Reno, Nevada USA 89502.
2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Colorado State University in
1977 and a Master of Science degree in Geology from the University of New Mexico in 1980.
3. I am a Registered Professional Geologist in the states of California (#3964) and Wyoming (#153)
and a Certified Professional Geologist (#10257) with the American Institute of Professional
Geologists.
4. I have worked as a geologist continuously for a total of 31 years since my graduation from
undergraduate university.
5. I have read the definition of qualified person set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-
101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as
defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a
qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of Section 9 of this report titled Scoping Study for the
Sierra Gorda Project, Region II, Chile dated July 23, 2009 (the Technical Report).
7. I visited the project during the periods February 9, 2005 to February 12, 2005; March 17, 2005 to
March 27, 2005; October 5, 2007 to October 11, 2007; January 9, 2008 to January 16, 2008;
September 29, 2008 to October 3, 2008.
8. Prior to 2005, I had no involvement with the property or project.
9. I am independent of the issuer within the meaning of section 1.4 of NI 43-101.
10. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in
compliance with that instrument and form.
775-856-5700
210 South Rock Blvd.

Reno, Nevada 89502
FAX: 775-856-6053
11. As at the date hereof, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, Section 9 of this
Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed
to make that section of the Technical Report not misleading.
12. The Technical Report contains information relating to mineral titles, permitting, environmental
issues, regulatory matters and legal agreements. I am not a legal, environmental or regulatory
professional, and do not offer a professional opinion regarding these issues.
13. A copy of this report is submitted as a computer readable file in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.
The requirements of electronic filing necessitate submitting the report as an unlocked, editable
file. I accept no responsibility for any changes made to the file after it leaves my control.
Dated this 23rd day of July, 2009.
S. Ristorcelli
___________________________
Signature of Qualified person
Steven Ristorcelli
Print Name of Qualified person
Mine Development Associates C:\PROJECTS\SierraGorda\Reports\2009\QuadraSG_SteveR_cert_v3.DOCx

July 22, 2009 stever7/22/09 11:58 AM
I, Patrick L. Fahey, Professional Geologist, do hereby certify that I am currently
employed as Vice President, Exploration by:
Quadra Mining Ltd.
Suite 2414, Four Bentall Centre
1055 Dunsmuir Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V7X 1K8
I further certify that:
1. I graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geology from California State

University at Chico in 1974 and a Master of Science degree in Geology from the
University of Washington in 1979.
2. I am a Registered Professional Geologist in the state of Arizona (#38,731), a

Fellow of the Society of Economic Geologists, and a member of the Geological
Society of America, and the Geological Society of Nevada.
3. I have worked as a geologist or attended graduate school for a total of 34 years

since my graduation with a Bachelor degree.
4. I have read the definition of qualified person set out in National Instrument 43-
101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a
professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work
experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a qualified person for the purposes of
NI 43-101.
5. I am responsible for the preparation of Chapters 4-8 of this technical report titled
Scoping Study for the Sierra Gorda project, Region II, Chile dated July 23,
2009 (the Technical Report).
6. I visited the project at least 21 times during the period between August 23, 2005
and March 23, 2009 for periods of from one to ten days.
7. Prior to my first visit in August of 2005, I had no involvement with the property
or project.
8. I am an employee of the issuer, and therefore not independent of the issuer within
the meaning of section 1.4 of NI 43-101.
9. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been
prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
10. As at the date hereof, 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 the Technical Report not misleading.
11. The Technical Report contains information relating to mineral titles, permitting,
environmental issues, regulatory matters and legal agreements. I am not a legal,
environmental or regulatory professional, and do not offer a professional opinion
regarding these issues.
12. A copy of this report is submitted as a computer readable file in Adobe Acrobat
PDF format. The requirements of electronic filing necessitate submitting the
report as an unlocked, editable file. I accept no responsibility for any changes
made to the file after it leaves my control.
Patrick Fahey
Patrick L. Fahey
I, Scott Hardy, P.E., do hereby certify that:
1. I am currently employed as Manager, Technical Services by:

Quadra Mining Ltd.
2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in General Engineering
from Oregon State University in 1978 and Bachelor of Science degree in
Geology from the University of Wyoming in 1984.
3. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the state of Nevada (#11891)

and a member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.
4. I have worked as an engineer for a total of 25 years since my graduation

from university.
5. I have read the definition of qualified person set out in National

Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my
education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-
101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a
qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of Chapters 1-3, 11, and 15-21 of this
technical report titled Scoping Study for the Sierra Gorda Project, Region
II, Chile dated July 23, 2009 (Technical Report).
7. I visited the project during the period of September 29, 2008 to October 1,
2008.
8. I am an employee of the issuer, and therefore not independent of the issuer

within the meaning of section 1.4 of NI 43-101.
9. I had involvement with the property that is the subject of this Technical
Report prior to the preparation of this report in the form of preparing
various preliminary assessments of the property for Quadra beginning in
2005.
10. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has
been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
11. As at the date hereof, 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 the Technical Report
not misleading.
12. The Technical Report contains information relating to mineral titles,

permitting, environmental issues, regulatory matters and legal agreements.
I am not a legal, environmental or regulatory professional, and do not offer
a professional opinion regarding these issues.
13. A copy of this report is submitted as a computer readable file in Adobe

Acrobat PDF format. The requirements of electronic filing necessitate
submitting the report as an unlocked, editable file. I accept no
responsibility for any changes made to the file after it leaves my control.
Scott Hardy
Scott Hardy
I, David Newhook, P. Eng., do hereby certify that:
1. I am currently employed as Vice President, Project Evaluations by:
Quadra Mining Ltd.
2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Engineering Metallurgical, from McGill
University in 1991.
3. I am a registered Professional Engineer in the province of British

Columbia (#22303). I have worked in the mining/metallurgical industry
since 1991 both in technical and management positions.
4. I visited the site on May 7, 2009.
5. I am responsible for Chapters 10, 12, 13, and 14 of the technical report
entitled Scoping Study for the Sierra Gorda Project, Region II, Chile
(Technical Report) dated July 23, 2009.
6. I am an employee of the issuer, and therefore not independent of the issuer

within the meaning of section 1.4 of NI 43-101.
7. I have not had any prior involvement with this property.
8. I have read the definition of a qualified person set out in NI 43-101 and
certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional
association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I
fulfill the requirements to be a qualified person for the purposes of this
NI 43-101.
9. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has
been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
10. As at the date hereof, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief,
the Technical Report contains all the scientific and technical information
that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not
misleading.
11. The Technical Report contains information relating to mineral titles,

permitting, environmental issues, regulatory matters and legal agreements.
1-2
I am not a legal, environmental or regulatory professional, and do not offer

a professional opinion regarding these issues.
12. A copy of this report is submitted as a computer readable file in Adobe

Acrobat PDF format. The requirements of electronic filing necessitate
submitting the report as an unlocked, editable file. I accept no
responsibility for any changes made to the file after it leaves my control.
David Newhook
David Newhook
Appendix A: Exploitation and
Exploration Concessions
LIST OF CONCESSIONS
EXPLOITATION CONCESSIONS
CONCESSION CONCESSION HOLDER RECORD DATE NATIONAL ROL MINING LICENSE HA. STATUS Option Status Option Status
2009 (CH$) (2004 Argeements) (post 2004 Agreements)
ALEX 20 QUADRA 5/26/2003 02206-2771-3 $ 3,687.00 1 GRANTED Exercised

ALEX 21 QUADRA 5/26/2003 02206-2772-1 $ 3,687.00 1 GRANTED Exercised
ALEX 22 1 AL 2 QUADRA 9/17/2003 02206-2773-K $ 7,374.00 2 GRANTED Exercised
AMELIA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0643-8 $ 11,060.00 3 GRANTED Exercised
AURORA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0644-6 $ 14,747.00 4 GRANTED Exercised
BLANCA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0645-4 $ 11,060.00 3 GRANTED Exercised
EMA VICTORIA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0646-2 $ 11,060.00 3 GRANTED Exercised
LA PASCUA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0647-0 $ 7,373.00 2 GRANTED Exercised
MANUELA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0649-7 $ 3,687.00 1 GRANTED Exercised
PRESIDENTE BALMACEDA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0650-0 $ 18,433.00 5 GRANTED Exercised
PRESIDENTE ERRAZURIZ QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0651-9 $ 18,433.00 5 GRANTED Exercised
PRESIDENTE MONTT QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0652-7 $ 18,433.00 5 GRANTED Exercised
PRESIDENTE BULNES QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0653-5 $ 18,433.00 5 GRANTED Exercised
PRESIDENTE PINTO QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0654-3 $ 18,433.00 5 GRANTED Exercised
PRESIDENTE ALESSANDRI QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0655-1 $ 18,433.00 5 GRANTED Exercised
SANTA CATALINA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0656-K $ 11,060.00 3 GRANTED Exercised
ETNA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0657-8 $ 7,374.00 2 GRANTED Exercised
NUEVA ETNA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0658-6 $ 7,374.00 2 GRANTED Exercised
PETITA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0659-4 $ 7,373.00 2 GRANTED Exercised
RESGUARDO QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0660-8 $ 18,433.00 5 GRANTED Exercised
ANGELITA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0675-6 $ 7,374.00 2 GRANTED Exercised
FELICIDAD QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0676-4 $ 7,374.00 2 GRANTED Exercised
LAS GEMELAS QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-1044-3 $ 11,060.00 3 GRANTED Exercised
ALEX 1/18 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-1319-1 $ 261,749.00 71 GRANTED Exercised
ENCINO 1 AL 20 QUADRA 12/29/1997 02206-1441-7 $ 611,976.00 166 GRANTED Exercised
DURAZNO 1 AL 13 QUADRA 6/3/1998 02206-1442-5 $ 280,182.00 76 GRANTED Exercised
EBRO 1 AL 36 QUADRA 7/21/2000 02206-0802-6 $ 132,718.00 36 GRANTED Exercised
DANUBIO 1 AL 122 QUADRA 7/21/2000 02206-0803-4 $ 449,766.00 122 GRANTED Exercised
REDONDEADAS 1/50 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0420-6 $ 921,650.00 250 GRANTED Exercised

SAN ARMANDO 1/40 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0662-4 $ 737,320.00 200 GRANTED Exercised
AGDA 1/40 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0663-2 $ 737,320.00 200 GRANTED Exercised
TRECE DE MAYO 1/36 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0664-0 $ 663,588.00 180 GRANTED Exercised
MIDGE 1/50 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0670-5 $ 921,650.00 250 GRANTED Exercised
ALA VERDE 1/8 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0672-1 $ 147,464.00 40 GRANTED Exercised
SALVADORA 1/5 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0678-0 $ 92,165.00 25 GRANTED Exercised
COLORADO 1/40 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0686-1 $ 733,634.00 199 GRANTED Exercised
SANTA CATALINA PRIMERA QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-1060-5 $ 3,687.00 1 GRANTED Exercised
RIO 1/30 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0677-2 $ 552,990.00 150 GRANTED Exercised
ISABEL 1/33 QUADRA 11/30/1999 02201-0671-3 $ 608,289.00 165 GRANTED Exercised
POBREZA 1/20 DUK CASTRO, MOHAMED SA 8/12/1958 02201-0726-4 $ 368,660.00 100 GRANTED Under Option
SANTA ROSA 1/8 QUADRA 1/26/1970 02201-0981-K $ 147,464.00 40 GRANTED Exercised
SAN FEDERICO 1/19 QUADRA 2/8/1960 02201-0674-8 $ 348,831.00 95 GRANTED Exercised
ELENITA 1/20 SLM ELENITA 1 7/29/1964 02201-0680-2 $ 368,660.00 100 GRANTED Under option
YUKON 209-219-229-269-270-
280-281-287-288-293-294-295-
296-297-298-299 QUADRA 10/28/1970 02201-0989-5 $ 213,823.00 67.62 GRANTED Exercised
CARMEN QUADRA 9/9/1902 02201-0661-6 $ 22,009.00 3 GRANTED Exercised
FATME TRES II 1-35 DUK CASTRO, MOHAMED N/A PENDING $ 66,028.00 9 APPLICATION Under option
FATME SIETE 1-20 DUK CASTRO, MOHAMED N/A PENDING $ 1,467,280.00 200 APPLICATION Under option
FATME OCHO 1-20 DUK CASTRO, MOHAMED N/A PENDING $ 733,640.00 100 APPLICATION Under option
ASUNCION 1-53 QUADRA 6/25/1984 02201-1341-8 $ 1,914,800.00 261 GRANTED Exercised

LA PAZ 1-26 QUADRA 6/25/1984 02201-1343-4 $ 953,732.00 130 GRANTED Exercised
Mining Concessions Applied for by John K. Currie on behalf of Minera Quadra Chile Limitada Status
CONCESSION CONCESSION HOLDER RECORD DATE NATIONAL ROL MINING LICENSE HA. STATUS
SIERRA I JOHN K. CURRIE N/A 02201-I121-3 $ 108,461.00 200 APPLICATION Transfer pending
Mining Concessions Applied for by Antonio Ortuzar Vicua on behalf of Minera Quadra Chile Limitada Status
Exploitation Concessions
2009 (CH$)
CATALINA 3, 1/38 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA 3/5/2009 02206-4505-3 $ 276,495.00 38 APPLICATION Transfer pending
CATALINA 6, 1/7 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA N/A 02206-4507-K $ 147,464.00 7 APPLICATION Transfer pending
CATALINA 8, 1/2 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA N/A 02206-4508-8 $ 294,928.00 2 APPLICATION Transfer pending
CATALINA 8A, 1/5 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA 3/5/2009 02206-4509-6 $ 294,928.00 5 APPLICATION Transfer pending
CATALINA 10, 1 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA 3/5/2009 02206-4510-K $ 55,299.00 1 APPLICATION Transfer pending
CATALINA 10A, 1/2 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA N/A 02206-4511-8 $ 55,299.00 2 APPLICATION Transfer pending
CATALINA 14, 1/3 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA 3/5/2009 02206-4512-6 $ 55,299.00 3 APPLICATION Transfer pending
2009 (CH$)
TALINA 1 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA 8/11/2009 02206-B272-9 $ 73,732.00 100 GRANTED Transfer pending
TALITA 1 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA 12/30/2008 02206-B939-1 $ 221,196.00 300 APPLICATION Transfer pending
TALITA 9 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA 12/30/2008 02206-B9423-K $ 221,196.00 300 APPLICATION Transfer pending
TALITA 11 ANTONIO ORTUZAR VICUA 12/30/2008 02206-B957-K $ 221,196.00 300 APPLICATION Transfer pending
Appendix B: Metallurgical
and Processing Testwork
CaminodelCajn16562,LoBarnechea,Chile
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

Quadra Mining Ltd
Scoping Level Metallurgical Test work for the Sierra Gorda

Project
January 2009
____________________________ ___________________________
Peter Amelunxen, P.Eng Roger Amelunxen, P.Eng
AME Ltda Aminpro
Disclaimer
This report was prepared by Aminpro and AME Ltda. All efforts were made to ensure quality and consistency of data, and it is
believed that the information contained in this report is reliable under the conditions and subject to the limitations set forth
herein, but because the analyses are based in part on information not within the control of Aminpro/AME Ltda, Aminpro/AME
Ltda do not accept any liability to a third party arising out of the use of this report.
QuadraSierraGordaMetallurgicalScopingTestReport 1
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

1 Executive Summary
Metallurgical test work on Sierra Gordas sulfide ore focused on establishing a high level concept of ore
hardness and a spectrum of the floatability of the ores. A scoping level definition of ore types was
based on a random selection within ore types defined by mineral predominance for flotation test work
and a random spatial distribution for grinding test work. Flotation ore types were defined as SEZ
(supergene enriched), SCPD (supergene chalcopyrite dominant), and SPPD (supergene pyrite
dominant).
Hardness tests conducted include the SPI (SAG Power Index) for SAG mill sizing and the Bond Work
Index for ball mill sizing. Results show that the Sierra Gorda ore deposit is unusually hard in
comparison to nearby ore deposits of known hardness (Table 1-1) and therefore the grinding circuit
would require correspondingly larger mills.

Table 1-1 Hardness and grinding circuit configuration of nearby and relevant ores
In light of this the decision was made to use traditional cone crushing circuits for the secondary and
tertiary circuits followed by ball milling. To meet the design tonnage of 100 KTPD and 150 microns, the
test results indicate that the following equipment is required:
Three secondary crushers in open circuit with three screen decks

Nine tertiary crushers in closed circuit with eight screen decks
Four 26 by 39 ball mills with 16.2 MW motors and standard drive train
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

The flotation test program was designed to provide rougher kinetics as a function of grind and pH.
Cleaner kinetics were not measured; they were inferred from the rougher rate constants and maximum
recoveries of the rougher-cleaner tests. Locked cycle tests were performed to calibrate the flotation
model used for circuit design and to provide an estimate of concentrate grade and quality. The results,
shown in Table 1-2, indicate that the Sierra Gorda ore is very amenable to froth flotation, yielding
concentrate grades between 25% and 30% at copper recoveries averaging above 87%. The presence
of zinc was detected in all ore types but at higher concentrations in the SEZ ore, which only comprises
of approximately 5% of the ore volume1. Although the zinc levels do not exceed typical smelter limits
for the composite samples tested, it is expected that a small fraction of the SEZ concentrate may
require blending. Zinc determinations should be considered in all future work.
Average Feed Grades

Au 0.06 0.09 0.05
Cu 0.45 0.53 0.35
Mo 0.006 0.029 0.023
Zn 0.10 0.02 0.04

Cu 87% 90% 87% Cu 26.7 29.5 25.6
Mo 83% 88% 75% Mo 0.3 1.6 2.3
Au 50% 58% 49% Au 1.6 3.5 4.2
Zn 31% 14% 28% Zn 3.4 0.3 1.8
Table 1-2 Average feed grades and locked cycle test results
Flotation test results were used to calibrate the Aminpro flotation model, which was subsequently used
to construct the grade recovery curve for the optimized Sierra Gorda flotation circuit. The flotation
circuit consists of a roughing stage with two cleaning stages and a regrind section treating the rougher
concentrate and the cleaner-scavenger concentrate. The grade recovery curve showing the optimum
operating point is shown in Figure 1-1, in which the Green revenue curve is in USD per tonne of ore.
The optimized flotation circuit is expected to average 88% recovery and produce concentrates grades
of on average 25.3% Cu. Gold recovery is expected to average 39.3%, yielding approximately 2
1
As per Quadra Mining
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

g/tonne of Au in the concentrate. Moly recovery is expected to average 77.7% not including moly
section losses.
Grade-Recovery Cu - Sierra Gorda

34 18.5
18.3
32
18.1
30 17.9
$ Revenues/Ton
Grade of Cu
17.7
28
17.5
26
17.3
24 17.1
16.9
22
Model grade-recovery 16.7
Rev/T
20 16.5
75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95
Recovery, %
Figure 1-1 Sierra Gorda grade-recovery curve showing optimum operating point
With a calibrated flotation model integrated with hardness data, capital and operating cost models from
the Aminpro/AME Ltda database and newly obtained quotations, simulations were performed to identify
the optimal grind size from a net revenue point of view. The optimum grind P80 was found to be
between 169 and 174 microns.
With the expectation that the flotation could be carried out in a saline water environment, confirmatory
work was done on a composite sample of the three ore types to examine the effects of saline water.
Although the tests were not done under the same chemical conditions as the tap water tests, there
were no indications that performance would be significantly altered from those reported with the use of
fresh water. Other operations have reported improved performance with salt water.
In contrast with the sulfide ore, the test work on oxide ores was done on two ore types, classified as
Green and Brown ores. The scope of work entailed:
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

Bottle Roll test work
Column test work to evaluate performance versus crushed rock size
Column test work to evaluate effect of using sea water and/or salar water
Flotation of the feed and residue samples of the columns
Partial copper chemical analysis done on each ore, showed that the Green ore had the higher copper
values (0.68%) with 85% of the copper oxidized and readily leachable. The Brown ore assayed
0.28%Cu with 54% of its copper being readily leachable. The column leach tests were terminated
when the extraction curves leveled off. The following results were obtained.
ORE Type % Cu Extraction Acid Consumption Leach Days

Kg/Ton ore
Green 76-85 23.5 57
Brown 45 24 49
The overall copper extraction did not appear to be significantly affected by crushing to finer sizes in the
range from 1 inch to in P80 seen from a macro scale. However, from the depth of column
perspective, sizing had a large impact. Figure 1-2 depicts the extraction of copper achieved with
depth of column. Section 1 is the bottom of the column, representing 5 meters depth. The plots are for
Green and Brown ores, and show the results of all tests. In essence, there is a loss in recovery with
depth in the column, a feature that was accentuated with the use of salt water.
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

Section Extraction by Section Section
3 Sample Green 3 Sample Brown
90 60
Col-1 p80 1" Agua
Section potable Section Col-7 p80 5/8" Agua
85 2 potable
2
Col-2 p80 5/8" Agua 50
Col-8 p80 1/4" Agua
80 potable potable
Section Section
40
75 Col-3 p80 5/8" 1
Extraction, %
Extraction, %
1
Mejillones
70 30
Yalqui
65
20
Col-5 p80 5/8"
60 Mejillones+Pampa
Yalqui 10
55 Col-6 p80 1/4" Agua
potable
50 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Column section Column section
Figure 1-2: Leach Extractions with column depth
Leach work was also done using three types of salt water: ocean water, water from the Yalki wells and
a 50:50 mixture. As shown in Figure 1-3, water source did not significantly affect the outcome of the
test, nor did the acid consumption show a significant difference.
90
80
70
60
50
Variable
40
30
20
10
0
Source of Water
Figure 1-3: Comparison in copper extraction when using different sources of water.
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

As the oxide ores, in particular the abundant Green ore, contained significant amounts of molybdenum,
flotation tests were done on both oxide ores and leach residues to examine the potential of recovering
metal values. The test results produced poor moly recoveries, in fact the recoveries of moly were
nearly the same as gangue recovery; the tests produced gold recoveries that were somewhat erratic
and inconclusive for this scoping level work, most likely due to assay accuracy. QEMSCAN studies
did not find any refractory moly in these ores; as such it is recommended that further studies be
undertaken to investigate how the moly recovery could be enhanced.
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

2 Contents
2.1 Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 2
2 CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................8
2.2 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................10
2.3 LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................11
3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 12
4 SULFIDE ORE TEST WORK ........................................................................................ 13
4.1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................................13
4.2 SAMPLE SELECTION ...................................................................................................................15
4.3 TEST INTERPRETATION AND METHODOLOGIES .............................................................................18
4.3.1 Grinding ........................................................................................................................................... 18
4.3.2 Flotation ........................................................................................................................................... 19
4.4 RESULTS OF TEST WORK ............................................................................................................19
4.4.1 Hardness Tests................................................................................................................................ 19
4.4.2 Ore type assays and mineralogy ..................................................................................................... 23
4.4.3 Rougher Tests ................................................................................................................................. 25
4.4.3.1 Flotation Cell Calibration.............................................................................................................. 25
4.4.3.2 Reagent Screening ...................................................................................................................... 26
4.4.3.3 pH and grind ................................................................................................................................ 29
4.4.4 Cleaner tests.................................................................................................................................... 31
4.4.4.1 Rougher-cleaner tests ................................................................................................................. 31
4.4.5 Salt water tests ................................................................................................................................ 33
4.4.6 Locked cycle tests ........................................................................................................................... 34
4.5 PROJECTIONS OF SULFIDE BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANT .....................................................................37
4.5.1 Grinding circuit................................................................................................................................. 37
4.5.2 Flotation Circuit................................................................................................................................ 38
4.5.2.1 Grade-Recovery Curves .............................................................................................................. 41
4.5.2.2 Optimum Grind forecast............................................................................................................... 42
5 OXIDE TEST WORK ..................................................................................................... 46
5.1 SCOPE OF TEST WORK................................................................................................................46
5.2 PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................................46
5.3 OXIDE SAMPLE SOURCING ..........................................................................................................50
5.4 INTERPRETATION AND METHODOLOGIES ......................................................................................50
5.5 RESULTS OF OXIDE TEST WORK .................................................................................................50
5.5.1 Ore Characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 50
5.5.2 Oxide ores mineralogy..................................................................................................................... 52
5.5.3 Bottle Roll Tests............................................................................................................................... 53
5.5.4 Column Tests on at various sizings................................................................................................. 54
5.5.5 Tests with sea water ........................................................................................................................ 56
5.6 LEACHING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORE WITH DEPTH OF PAD ....................................................57
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

5.6.1 Copper Extraction with depth........................................................................................................... 57
5.7 MOLYBDENUM FLOTATION TEST WORK ON LEACH FEED AND RESIDUES .........................................62
6 APPENDIX 1 LIST OF SULFIDE SAMPLES ............................................................. 63
7 APPENDIX 2 LIST OF OXIDE SAMPLES ................................................................. 70
8 APPENDIX 3 GRINDING CIRCUIT SCALE-UP......................................................... 79
8.1 SAG MILL AND BALL MILL SIZING..................................................................................................79
9 APPENDIX 4 FLOTATION TEST PROCEDURES..................................................... 84
9.1 CALIBRATION OF A LABORATORY FLOTATION CELL ......................................................................84
9.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 84
9.1.1.1 Equipment.................................................................................................................................... 84
9.1.1.2 Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 85
9.1.1.3 Determination of optimum RPM and air ...................................................................................... 85
9.2 THE SF TEST .............................................................................................................................86
9.2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 86
9.2.2 Procedures....................................................................................................................................... 86
9.3 SKT TEST ..................................................................................................................................88
9.3.1 Procedures....................................................................................................................................... 88
9.4 ROUGHER-CLEANER TEST ..........................................................................................................90
9.4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 90
9.4.2 Procedures....................................................................................................................................... 90
9.4.3 Primary Grind................................................................................................................................... 92
9.4.4 Roughers ......................................................................................................................................... 92
9.4.5 Regrind ............................................................................................................................................ 92
9.4.6 Setting a Grind time vs. P80 curve .................................................................................................. 93
9.4.7 Cleaner 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 94
9.4.8 Cleaner 2 and 3 ............................................................................................................................... 95
9.4.9 Products........................................................................................................................................... 95
9.4.10 Reconciliation of Results ................................................................................................................. 95
10 APPENDIX 5 FLOTATION TEST RESULTS ............................................................. 96
10.1 REAGENT SELECTION AND CELL CALIBRATION SERIES (SF TESTS)..............................................96
10.2 ROUGHER PH AND GRIND SERIES (SKT TESTS)..........................................................................97
10.3 LOCKED CYCLE TESTS .............................................................................................................105
11 APPENDIX 6 MODELING METHODOLOGY FOR SKT TEST ................................ 112
11.1.1 The Aminpro-Flot Simplex modeling procedures .......................................................................... 112
11.1.2 Users of the Aminpro Modeling Methodology................................................................................ 114
12 APPENDIX 7: LEACH PROGRAM ............................................................................ 115
12.1 BOTTLE ROLL TESTS ................................................................................................................115
12.2 PROCEDURES COLUMN ............................................................................................................116
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

2.2 List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Sierra Gorda grade-recovery curve showing optimum operating point ................................................... 4
Figure 1-2: Leach Extractions with column depth .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 1-3: Comparison in copper extraction when using different sources of water. ............................................. 6
Figure 4-1 Minesight view of ore hardness samples in ultimate pit......................................................................... 15
Figure 4-2 SEZ sample selection histograms.......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4-3 SCPD Sample selection histograms ...................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4-4 SPPD Sample selection histograms ...................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4-5 Sampled and inferred distribution of Bond Wi values ............................................................................ 21
Figure 4-6 Sampled and inferred distribution of SPI values.................................................................................... 22
Figure 4-7 Measured and simulated SPI and Bond Wi values................................................................................ 22
Figure 4-8 Sampled and inferred distribution of abrasion index.............................................................................. 23
Figure 4-9 Cell calibration results ............................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 4-10 Elemental recoveries for various primary collectors ............................................................................ 28
Figure 4-11 Elemental recoveries for various secondary collectors........................................................................ 28
Figure 4-12 Molybdenum recoveries for various Diesel Dosages........................................................................... 29
Figure 4-13 Example of CuFeS2 Rmax vs. pH and P80, uncorrected.................................................................... 30
Figure 4-14 Flotation kinetics model scatter plot for SPPD ore type....................................................................... 30
Figure 4-15 Corrected kinetics relationships with P80 and pH for SEZ ore type .................................................... 31
Figure 4-16 Regrind size versus Concentrate grade............................................................................................... 32
Figure 4-17 Cleaner pH versus Cu concentrate grade............................................................................................ 32
Figure 4-18 Effects of Salt water tests on Rmax for various mineral species, ........................................................ 33
Figure 4-19: Flow diagram for locked cycle test, two cycles ................................................................................... 34
Figure 4-20 Distribution of zinc values in SEZ samples, data from Sierra Gorda ................................................... 37
Figure 4-21 General flow diagram for Sierra Gorda flotation circuit........................................................................ 41
Figure 4-22 Estimated grade-recovery curve for copper with revenue per tonne curve ......................................... 42
Figure 4-23 Estimated grade recovery curve for copper, showing locked cycle test results .................................. 42
Figure 4-24 Ball mill capex model ........................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4-25 Grind size optimization curves ............................................................................................................. 45
Figure 5-1; Graphical Procedures for Oxide Ore Leach T....................................................................................... 48
Figure 5-2 Procedure in treating the residue........................................................................................................ 49
Figure 5-3: Modal analysis of the oxide ores.......................................................................................................... 53
Figure 5-4: Effect of crushing on the leachability of oxide ores.............................................................................. 54
Figure 5-5: Acid Consumptions of the oxide ores vs. size ..................................................................................... 55
Figure 5-6: Rate constant versus size for the oxide ores. ...................................................................................... 56
Figure 5-7: Effect on Cu extraction and acid consumption with salt waters........................................................... 57
Figure 5-8: Extractions with Depth for the Green Ore ............................................................................................ 58
Figure 5-9: Extractions with Depth for the Brown Ore............................................................................................ 58
Figure 5-10: Green Ore: Cu extractions by size with column depth...................................................................... 61
Figure 5-11: Brown ore, Cu extractions by size with column depth ........................................................................ 61
Figure 6-1 SCPD samples selected ........................................................................................................................ 65
Figure 8-1 Transfer Size Distributions for three circuit types .................................................................................. 81
Figure 8-2 Morrell power draw predictions versus measured power draw (@ motor leads)................................... 82
Figure 8-3 ................................................................................................................................................................ 83
Figure 9-1 ................................................................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 9-2 ................................................................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 9-3 Flow diagram of rougher-cleaner test .................................................................................................... 91
Figure 11-1 Degree of entrainment curve ............................................................................................................. 113
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

2.3 List of Tables
Table 1-1 Hardness and grinding circuit configuration of nearby and relevant ores................................................. 2
Table 1-2 Average feed grades and locked cycle test results................................................................................... 3
Table 4-1: Test Program Sulfide Ore...................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4-2 Results of hardness testing (Ci = crusher index, SPI = SAG power index, BWI = Bond work index, Ai =
abrasion index) ........................................................................................................................................................ 20
Table 4-3 SPI and Bond Wi values for nearby ores ................................................................................................ 20
Table 4-4 Element and mineral assays of the ore types Wet method.................................................................. 24
Table 4-5 QEMSCAN mineralogy for sulfide samples......................................................................................... 24
Table 4-6 Zinc assays for each ore type ................................................................................................................. 25
Table 4-7 Summary of cell calibration and reagent screen tests ............................................................................ 29
Table 4-8 SEZ Locked cycle test summary............................................................................................................. 35
Table 4-9 SCPD Locked cycle test summary.......................................................................................................... 36
Table 4-10 SPPD Locked cycle test summary ........................................................................................................ 36
Table 4-11 distribution of tonnage for SABC and Cone Crusher cases.................................................................. 38
Table 4-12: Average feed assays of the ore, in percent......................................................................................... 39
Table 4-13: Rougher feed conditions ..................................................................................................................... 39
Table 4-14 Stage descriptions for Sierra Gorda flotation circuit.............................................................................. 41
Table 4-15 NPV calculations for optimum grind (fixed tonnage, variable costs)..................................................... 44
Table 4-16 NPV calculations for optimum grind (fixed tonnage, variable costs)..................................................... 44
Table 5-1: Oxide Ore Test Program ...................................................................................................................... 47
Table 5-2; Copper grades of the ore types.............................................................................................................. 51
Table 5-3: Mineralogy of the Oxide Ores ............................................................................................................... 52
Table 5-4. Bottle roll test results ............................................................................................................................. 54
Table 6-1 Samples selected for hardness testing ................................................................................................... 64
Table 6-2 SEZ samples selected............................................................................................................................. 65
Table 6-3 SPPD samples selected.......................................................................................................................... 66
Table 7-1 Brown Samples ..................................................................................................................................... 70
Table 7-2 : Green Samples .................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 10-1 Tabulated SF results ............................................................................................................................. 96
Table 10-2 Tabulated SF feed, tails, and concentrate assays ................................................................................ 97
Table 10-3 Rougher flotation rate constant k versus pH and P80, uncorrected ..................................................... 98
Table 10-4 Rougher rate constant versus pH and P80, Uncorrected (contd) ...................................................... 100
Table 10-5 Rougher maximum recovery Rmax versus pH and P80, Uncorrected ............................................... 100
Table 10-6 Rougher maximum recovery Rmax versus pH and P80, Uncorrected (cont) .................................... 102
Table 10-7 Rougher flotation kinetic model calibration scatterplots, three ore types............................................ 102
Table 10-8 Rougher flotation kinetic vs. pH for three ore types, Corrected .......................................................... 103
Table 10-9 Rougher flotation kinetics vs. P80 for three ore types, corrected ....................................................... 104
Telfono:+56(2)3214218

3 Introduction
In June 2008 Consultora Amelunxen Mineral Engineering Ltda (hereafter AME Ltda) was contracted
by Quadra Mining Ltd to develop and interpret the metallurgical test program for the Sierra Gorda
Scoping Study. The proposed test program as originally conceived was as follows.
Assistance in the development of the test program

Grinding
Flotation
Leach tests
Laboratory Management (program direction and supervision, coordination)
Test work interpretation
Grinding and flotation circuit scoping design, and
A report
Camino del Cajn 16562, Lo Barnechea, Chile
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
4 Sulfide Ore Test work

4.1 Scope of Work
The scope of work was designed to provide basic parameters for the roughers, such as reagent
information, pH, grind, etc. while providing only approximate cleaner pH and grind conditions. Details
are shown in Table 4-1 and summarized below.
The final scope of the test campaign is as follows.
1. Provide support and procedures for sample selection

2. 20 SAG Power Index tests for ore amenability to autogenous milling
3. 20 Bond work index tests for ore amenability to ball milling
4. 20 Bond abrasion index tests for media consumption determinations
5. SF flotation tests for flotation cell calibration
6. SF flotation tests for reagent screening (Cytec and Clarient products)
7. Kinetics flotation tests (SKT) for determining optimal pH for each of three ore type composites
8. Kinetics flotation tests (SKT) for determining optimal grind P80 for each of three ore type
composites
9. Kinetics flotation tests (SKT) for estimating the effects of sea water usage in flotation
10. Rougher-Cleaner flotation tests at various grind times for estimating effects of regrind size
11. Rougher-Cleaner flotation tests at various pH for estimating cleaner pH levels
12. Locked cycle test for producing final concentrate and water samples
13. Moly flotation tests on leach column residues
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Program Details
Number Number Number # Assay # Insol Water A.
QEMSCAN
TEST # of Sample Test Details Grams sample Flot Test Flot # Screen A. # Samples ICP Assay ICP
Bags -10 Mesh Procedure Assay BMA PMA SMS TMS
TOTAL of 3 ORE TYPES S-EZ

S-PPD 4 Chemical Analysis for: Cu, Mo, Fe, S
S-PCD
Sample Preparation/ bagging/ per ore type SAMPLE Wt

Stock material (to be kept in separate sealed bags): 2 kg of -3/4" per bag 0 g
Rougher Testwork each 2,300 g of - 10Mesh 0 g
Variability Tests each 2,300 g of - 10Mesh 0 g
Bulk Sample for Flotation a bulk sample(-10Mesh) weighing = 103,500 g
HARDNESS DETERMINATION
Global Composite to consist of
Scoping Study - Ore Hardness 20 Bond Wi 20,000 50%-50% blend of S-PPD and S-
20 SPI 140,000 PCD
20 Abrasion 20,000
SMC
A, b, Ta
Total Material - 0.5" 180,000
REAGENT SCREENING 2300 =bag

Test Primary Collector 30 g/t, pH=10 4 (3894, Thiono Carb, Xanth, Merc) 9,200 SF 4 4 12 48 0.5
Test Sec Collector 10 g/t, pH=10 2 (SIBX, PAX) 4,600 SF 2 2 6 24
If Mo present, kerosene dosage 3 Ker: 50,100,150 g/t 6,900 SF 3 3 9 36
THESE DONE ON COMPOSITE
20,700
ROUGHER TESTWORK/ORE Type 2,300 = bag
Cell Calibration 6 THESE DONE ON COMPOSITE 13,800 SF 6 6 18 72 1 3

time - Grind test 2 Composite and Ore typeS 4,600 2 4 0
pH - Kinetics 4 Nat, 9, 10.5, 11.5 9,200 SKT 4 4 24 96
P80 Grind - Kinetics 4 80,120, 150, 200 9,200 SKT 4 4 24 96
Test : Salt, Salar, Mixed 4 THESE DONE ON COMPOSITE 9,200 SKT 4 4 24 96
TOTAL Rougher Feed 20 46,000 18 20 94 360
CLEANER TESTWORK / Ore Type 2300 = bag
Ro-Cleaner : Vary Regrind time, pH=11.8 4 No Regr, + time 1, Time 2, Time 3 9,200 g Ro-Cl 4 2 24 96
Ro-Cleaner: Vary pH @ Op Reg time 4 pH = 11, 11.3 11.6 11.9 9,200 g Ro-Cl 4 4 24 96 4 4 3
TOTAL 8 18,400 8 6 48 192
OTHER TESTS 2300 =bag
Locked Cycle Tests - 8 cycles 8 Opt conditions 18,400 LCT 8 8 27 108 4 1 3 3
TOTAL 8 18,400
Table 4-1: Test Program Sulfide Ore
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
4.2 Sample Selection
The Sierra Gorda deposit has undergone several drilling campaigns over the years, with a result that
some areas of the deposit with significantly higher drill hole densities than others. The most recent
drilling campaign, performed by Quadra with holes designated with the QSG- prefix, is perhaps the
most comprehensive because it covers all areas of the deposit with equally or nearly equally spaced
collars. Furthermore, not all core from older campaigns is available for sampling.
A random number generator was used to select the sulfide samples. In order to avoid over-
representation of the areas with higher-density drilling (or complicated declustering procedures) and
core availability complications, only the QSG holes were considered for sampling.
Ore hardness variability samples (for Bond work index, SAG power index (SPI), and abrasion index)
were selected randomly from all QSG holes representing the ore body. 20 samples were selected of
which several were later determined to be located outside the ultimate pit (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4-1 Minesight view of ore hardness samples in ultimate pit
Flotation samples were selected by ore type. The ore types defined by Sierra Gorda are as follows:
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
SEZ - Supergene Zone

SCPD Sulfides - chalcopyrite dominant
SPPD Sulfides - pyrite dominant
As with the grinding samples, only QSG- drill holes were considered. To ensure representativity, the
samples were selected such that the distribution of copper grades in the selected samples matched the
total distribution of Cu in the resource model. Because the distribution of grades in the resource model
were not available at the time of sampling, the distribution of grades in the QSG- core database were
assumed to be equal to that of the resource model (a fair assumption given the relatively constant collar
centers). A cut-off grade of 0.2% Cu was applied in order for the average grade of the sample
composites to be approximately equal to the feed grade the mill would see. Figure 4-2 through Figure
4-4 show the sample grade histograms relative to the global grade histograms for each ore type
sampled. Mine sight views of the sample locations are appended in Section 6.
SEZ Sample Selection Criteria

8 2.5
SEZ Samples
7 SEZ Samples (Cumulative)
Sez Samples (Normal)
2.0
QSG- core distribution (global)
6
Normalized Distribution
5
Distribution
1.5
1.0
3
2
0.5
1
0 0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Cu Assay (%)
Figure 4-2 SEZ sample selection histograms
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
SCPD Sample Selection Criteria

7 1.4
SCPD Samples
SCPD Samples (Cumulative)
6 SCPD Samples (Normal) 1.2
5 1.0
Distribution
4 0.8
3 0.6
2 0.4
1 0.2
0 0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Cu Assay (%)
Figure 4-3 SCPD Sample selection histograms
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
SPPD Sample Selection Criteria

2.5 2.5
SPPD Samples
SPPD DSamples (Cumulative)
2 SPPDSamples (Normal) 2
Distribution
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Cu Assay (%)
Figure 4-4 SPPD Sample selection histograms
4.3 Test Interpretation and methodologies

4.3.1 Grinding
For autogenous grinding circuit design the SGS-Minnovex SPI (SAG Power Index) methodology is
used. This methodology ensures that the most important parameterthe average hardness and
variability of the ore within the mineral resourceis adequately captured in the design. Details on the
methodology are publicly available in numerous international peer-reviewed forums and are not
discussed further herein.
For ball mill circuit design the Bond work index determinations were performed using the SGS Modified
Bond test (a shorter version of the standard Bond test, requiring less sample) with five standard Bond
tests (or 25%) performed as calibration of the method. In all cases where a standard Bond test was
performed, the value of the Bond work index as determined by the standard procedures were used.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Section 0 contains a detailed description of the procedures used for design and scale-up of grinding
circuits from of SPI and Bond work index.
Abrasion index determinations were performed and used for estimation of ball mill and crusher steel
consumption using AME Ltda / Aminpros proprietary models and database of industrial data. The SAG
mill steel consumption models do not consider abrasion index.
4.3.2 Flotation
For flotation circuit design the Aminpro methodology was used, for which a detailed description can be
found in the appendices and brief summary below.
Two classes of flotation tests were used for this study. The first class is a simple test that does not
extract kinetics parameters but aims to reproduce plant conditions such as final concentrate grade or
stage recovery. The SF Test, the Rougher-Cleaner test and the Locked Cycle Test are part of this
category.
The second class is a timed flotation test in which the recovery of each mineral specie is measured and
kinetics parameters2 are extracted after accounting for froth recovery (or drop-back) and entrainment
recovery. The SKT test is this latter test and details of its procedures and interpretation are provided in
the appendices.
4.4 Results of Test work

4.4.1 Hardness Tests
Results of hardness testing are shown in Table 4-2. In general, the ore was found to be unusually hard
for copper porphyry ores in the region. Table 4-3 shows SPI, Bond work index, and grinding circuit
2
kinetics parameters for the purpose of this report means specifically the maximum recovery Rmax and rate constant k for
the collection of mineral particles in a bubble swarm.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
configuration for selected ore deposits in the region (Raglan, a nickel mine in northern Canada, is
included because the ore body is among the hardest known).
Modified Standard
SGS # QSG No. Ci SPI BWI BWI
% Min kWh/tonne kWh/tonne Bond Ai
2529 Grind-1 QSG06-286 13.5 266.3 18.5 20.0 20.0 0.101

2530 Grind-2 QSG07-340 181.8 17.5 17.5 0.161
2531 Grind-3 QSG06-286 12.6 224.9 18.7 18.7 0.116
2532 Grind-4 QSG07-345 13.2 238.9 19.0 19.0 0.257
2533 Grind-5 QSG07-319 2.3 240.6 20.3 20.3 0.224
2534 Grind-6 QSGC5-71 3.4 151.3 16.8 16.8 0.403
2535 Grind-7 QSG07-304 12.3 188.9 19.5 19.4 19.4 0.258
2536 Grind-8 QSG07-285 24.3 12.8 9.6 9.6 0.042
2537 Grind-9 QSG07-300 16.4 193.7 17.1 17.1 0.126
2538 Grind-10 QSG07-373 7.4 222.7 19.1 19.1 0.283
2540 Grind-11 QSG07-344 13.4 157.8 17.6 17.2 17.2 0.291
2541 Grind-12 QSG07-305 12.2 114.4 15.9 15.9 0.306
2542 Grind-13 QSG07-332 8.7 278.4 19.7 19.7 0.290
2543 Grind-14 QSG07-315 13.7 136.6 15.9 15.9 0.230
2544 Grind-15 QSG08-407 12.8 161.3 20.1 18.9 18.9 0.449
2545 Grind-16 QSG07-302 13.7 188.7 20.2 20.2
2546 Grind-17 QSG07-351 14.4 95.8 17.4 17.4
2547 Grind-18 QSG06-281 14.0 108.7 18.1 17.2 17.2
2548 Grind-19 QSG07-319 6.5 255.7 22.3 22.3
2549 Grind-20 QSG07-316A 12.6 249.0 20.7 20.7
12.0 183.4 18.2 18.1 0.2
Table 4-2 Results of hardness testing (Ci = crusher index, SPI = SAG power index, BWI = Bond work
index, Ai = abrasion index)

Table 4-3 SPI and Bond Wi values for nearby ores
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
The hardness of the entire ore body cannot be accurately measured, it must be inferred. The benefit of
using an inferred distribution (as opposed to only the test data) for grinding circuit design is that it
considers the existence of ore with hardness values that are higher and lower than those measured
values that we know exist but that were not captured by small sample population.
The hardness values detailed above were used within a Monte Carlo simulation to calculate an inferred
mean and standard deviation for the ore deposit as a whole. The resulting distributions, shown in
Figure 4-5 through Figure 4-8, show inferred distributions relative to the measured hardness.
Distribution of Wi Values
100%
90%
80%
70%
Cumulative Percent
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% Measured
Inferred Distribution
0%
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Bond Work Index (kWh/tonne metric)
Figure 4-5 Sampled and inferred distribution of Bond Wi values
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Distribution of SPI Values
100%
90%
80%
70%
Cumulative Percent
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% Measured
Inferred Distribution
0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
SPI (minutes)
Figure 4-6 Sampled and inferred distribution of SPI values
Measured and Simulated SPI and Bond Wi Values

30
Bond Work Index (kWh/tonne)
25
20
15
10
5 Inferred Hardness
Measured Hardness
Power (Inferred Hardness)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
SPI (minutes)
Figure 4-7 Measured and simulated SPI and Bond Wi values
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Distribution of Abrasion Index Values

100%
90%
80%
70%
Cumulative Percent
60%
50%
40%
30%
Measured
20%
Inferred
10%
0%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Abrasion Index (g)
Figure 4-8 Sampled and inferred distribution of abrasion index
4.4.2 Ore type assays and mineralogy
Five ore types were tested for this study2 oxide and 3 sulfideand the mineralogy was identified
using both QEMSCAN and wet assay methods. The oxide sample mineralogy is described in
Section 5.5.1.
QEMSCAN mineralogy for the three sulfide composite samples are shown in Table 4-5. The
QEMSCAN mineralogy was calibrated using the wet assay method and the complete QEMSCAN
report is contained on the accompanying CD-ROM. Average wet assay values are shown in Table 4-4.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Assay SCPD SEZ SPPD

Au 0.09 0.06 0.05
Cu 0.53 0.45 0.35
Mo 0.029 0.006 0.023
Fe 5.52 6.55 6.20
S 1.92 3.93 4.37
Cu2S 0.03 0.03 0.02

CuFeS2 1.43 1.22 0.94
MoS2 0.048 0.010 0.038
FeS2 2.63 6.69 7.60
FeOX 5.43 4.37 3.35
Gangue 90.4 87.7 88.0
Table 4-4 Element and mineral assays of the ore types Wet method
Survey Name Sierra Gorda
Id 4216 - Q56
Sample Name composito SEZ composito SCPD composito SPPD
Fraction Name -300/+3um -300/+3um -300/+3um
Mass Size Dist. (%) 100 100 100
Particle Size 33.18 37.93 37.86
Mineral Chalcopyrite 1.11 1.53 0.76
Mass Covellite 0.02 0.00 0.04
(%) Chalcocite 0.01 0.00 0.03
Pyrite 4.96 3.33 6.36
Sphalerite 0.07 0.00 0.02
Molybdenite 0.08 0.02 0.04
Other Sulphides 0.03 0.00 0.01
Quartz 31.03 24.85 32.45
K-Feldspar 6.37 8.52 5.51
Plagioclase/Albite 3.21 16.22 9.69
Epidote 0.12 0.94 0.55
Tourmaline 2.28 3.47 4.44
Amphiboles 0.24 0.54 0.16
Sericite/Muscovite 22.03 10.20 17.72
Biotite 11.64 13.57 7.55
Clays 3.27 3.88 3.98
Chlorites 7.78 6.95 5.61
Fe Oxides/Oxyhydroxides 0.80 0.69 0.36
Ti Oxides 1.48 1.33 1.81
Carbonates 2.85 3.03 2.28
Gypsum 0.22 0.22 0.18
Apatite 0.22 0.31 0.27
Other 0.19 0.36 0.18
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Table 4-5 QEMSCAN mineralogy for sulfide samples
The presence of sphalerite in the QEMSCAN results for SEZ is interesting. Because the samples
tested were composites of various parts of the pit, zinc contamination of the SEZ concentrates may be
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
a problem.3 Smelter contracts generally start penalizing zinc at $1.25/tonne for every one percent over
2.5% zinc. Concentrates are usually rejected at 6% zinc.
ICP determinations of the ore type composites for the rougher feed are summarized in Table 4-6,
indicating that the high Zinc value for SEZ may be a sampling error or other anomaly. Zinc is discussed
in more detail in the Locked Cycle Test summary (Section 4.4.6, page 34).
Ore Type % Zin

SEZ 0.099
SCPD 0.021
SPPD 0.044
Table 4-6 Zinc assays for each ore type
4.4.3 Rougher Tests

The systematic methodology for conducting the rougher test work is as follows:
1. Calibrate the flotation cell for optimum conditions

2. Using the calibrated flotation cell, perform preliminary reagent screening to select the optimal
reagents
3. Using the calibrated cell and optimal reagents, perform pH and grind series tests to select the
optimum pH and grind size on composites of each ore type
For the purposes of cost and expediency, the current scoping does not include this step, relying instead
upon the results of step 3 to estimate ore type behavior in the flotation circuit.
A summary of the results follows..
4.4.3.1 Flotation Cell Calibration

Laboratory tests in flotation are often done with equipment that has not been properly set up for the
task, the most commonly observed deficiencies being excessive impeller wear and/or imprecise or
inadequate operating air rates (it is often overlooked that most laboratory units are air-induced and
3
Generally speaking, the ratio of sphalerite to chalcopyrite in the flotation feed will be preserved in the final concentrate.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
therefore when the impeller is worn less air enters the cell). Researchers have shown that the speed of
flotation k (the first order flotation rate constant) is related to the air flux (Jg) as follows:
k = (1.5 Jg /db) EK
where db is the bubble diameter and EK is the collection efficiency. Because the rate constant and Jg
are proportional (within typical operating ranges), when using phenomenological scale-up procedures
(as opposed to empirical procedures) it is necessary to calibrate the cell such that the measured rate
constant reflects the true floatability of the ore and not artificial constraints imposed by insufficient
agitation or air rates.
The Aminpro standard flotation cell calibration procedures were used for all flotation tests performed for
this study, with the exception of the SF tests which were substituted for SKT tests at the request of the
client, hence no kinetic information is available. Graphs of copper recovery versus cell operating
parameters are shown in Figure 4-9. On the basis of these results, the standard flotation conditions for
the remainder of the Sierra gorda test program were fixed at 8 l/min and 1250.
Cell RPM Series Cell Air Rate Series
98% 98%
97% 97%
Cu Recovery
Cu Recovery
96% 96%
95%
95%
94%
94%
93%
93%
92%
1,000.0 1,200.0 1,400.0 1,600.0 1,800.0 2,000.0 92%
0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 9 11 13 15
RPM Air Rate
Figure 4-9 Cell calibration results

4.4.3.2 Reagent Screening
After the flotation cell is calibrated reagents were selected using the results of SF tests conducted on
various reagent combinations. Primary collectors screened are summarized as follows:
Cytec 3894 (thionocarbamate)
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Cytec 3418 (dithiophosphinate)

Clarient Hostaflot F (Thionocarbamate)
Clarient Hostaflot E-936 (not divulged, Xanthate-replacement)
Secondary Collectors included:
PAX (Xanthate)
SIBX (Xanthate)
Diesel dosages studied included:
Diesel, 50 g/tonne
Diesel, 100 g/tonne
Diesel 150 g/tonne
Frothers were not evaluated as these are difficult to assess at a lab scale. Note that dosages are
generally higher in lab tests due to lack of recycled water present in full-scale facilities. Results of the
screening are presented in Figure 4-10 through Figure 4-12. Reagents and dosages selected for the
remainder of the test work are as follows:
Primary collector: Cytec 3894

Secondary Collector: Diesel 150 g/tonne
Note that although the Cytec 3418 test yielded higher copper recoveries than 3894, it is thought that
this is an anomaly due to the poor pH control during test. Subsequent tests conducted with the 3894
for the diesel dosage determination yielded higher copper recoveries (see Table 4-7 below).
Furthermore, the Clarient HostaFlot F initially indicated higher molybdenum recoveries than the
alternative primary collectors, but ultimately diesel was chosen in combination with Cytec 3418, yielding
higher overall molybdenum recoveries than those resulting from the Clarient Hostaflot F trial. Further
reagent screening is recommended at the pre-feasibility level.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Reagent Screening (Roughers) Reagent Screening (Roughers)

Copper Recovery Molybdenum Recovery
100% 100%
99%
Recovery (%)
98% 95%
Recovery (%)
97% 90%
96%
95% 85%
94%
93% 80%
92% 75%
91%
90% 70%
3894 (Cytec) 3418 (Cytec) Hostaflot F Hostaflot E- 3894 (Cytec) 3418 (Cytec) Hostaflot F Hostaflot E-
(Clarient) 936 (Clarient) (Clarient) 936 (Clarient)
Primary Collector Primary Collector

Iron Recovery Gold Recovery
75% 100%
70% 95%
65% 90%
Recovery (%)
Recovery (%)
60% 85%
55% 80%
50% 75%
45% 70%
40% 65%
35% 60%
30% 55%
25% 50%
3894 (Cytec) 3418 (Cytec) Hostaflot F Hostaflot E- 3894 (Cytec) 3418 (Cytec) Hostaflot F Hostaflot E-
(Clarient) 936 (Clarient) (Clarient) 936 (Clarient)
Primary Collector Primary Collector
Figure 4-10 Elemental recoveries for various primary collectors

Copper Recovery Molybdenum Recovery
100% 100%
99%
98% 95%
Recovery (%)
Recovery (%)
97%
90%
96%
95% 85%
94%
93% 80%
92%
75%
91%
90% 70%
PAX SIBX PAX SIBX
Secondary Collector Secondary Collector

Iron Recovery Gold Recovery
75% 100%
70% 95%
65% 90%
Recovery (%)
Recovery (%)
60% 85%
55% 80%
50% 75%
45% 70%
40% 65%
35% 60%
30% 55%
25% 50%
PAX SIBX PAX SIBX
Secondary Collector Secondary Collector
Figure 4-11 Elemental recoveries for various secondary collectors
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Reagent Screening (Roughers)

Copper Recovery
100%
98%
96%
Recovery (%)
94%
92%
90%
88%
86%
84%
82%
80%
50 100 150
Diesel Dosage (g/tonne)
Figure 4-12 Molybdenum recoveries for various Diesel Dosages
Recoveries
RPM Air Rate: pH 1ry Col 1ry Col 2ry Col 2ry Col Cu Mo Fe Au
Sheet
Name
1 1200 8.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF 93.9% 74.0% 56.8% 0.0%
2 1400 8.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF 94.1% 79.4% 48.4% 0.0%
3 1600 8.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF 94.3% 75.5% 51.2% 0.0%
4 1400 11.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF 94.3% 75.3% 35.8% 0.0%
5 1400 13.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF 93.5% 78.1% 45.6% 0.0%
6 1600 13.0 10.2 5.00 E 930 10 HF 92.8% 76.9% 37.8% 0.0%
7 1250 8.0 10.5 15.00 3894 (Cytec) 0 0 95.0% 82.0% 53.1% 70.5%
8 1250 8.0 10.1 15.00 3418 (Cytec) 0 0 96.2% 78.7% 59.3% 71.7%
9 1250 8.0 8.8 15.00 Hostaflot F (Clarient) 0 0 94.1% 87.9% 50.3% 75.1%
10 1250 8.0 9.5 15.00 ostaflot E-936 (Clarien 0 0 93.4% 77.2% 46.4% 70.1%
11 1250 8.0 8.6 10.00 3894 0 PAX 97.1% 86.9% 64.5% 74.1%
12 1250 8.0 10.0 10.00 3894 0 SIBX 96.8% 87.0% 65.9% 79.9%
13 1250 8.0 10.0 10.00 3894 50 Diesel 96.8% 89.6% 43.4% 70.2%
14 1250 8.0 10.1 10.00 3894 100 Diesel 96.6% 89.4% 43.3% 70.0%
15 1250 8.0 10.1 10.00 3894 150 Diesel 96.1% 91.2% 44.4% 74.6%
Table 4-7 Summary of cell calibration and reagent screen tests
4.4.3.3 pH and grind
After standardizing the flotation conditions and reagent types and dosages, the effects of operating
parameters were evaluated, namely pH and grind. Aminpro standard SKT tests (Simple Kinetics
Tests)4 were preformed at various pH and constant P80s, then performed again varying the grinds and
holding the pH constant. Figure 4-13 shows an example of the results, in this case for chalcopyrite
4
SKT procedures are appended in Section 9.3.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Rmax (complete results for all mineral species are appended in Section 10.2 but to preserve the
continuity of this report are not included here).
CuFeS2 Recovery vs pH 100 CuFeS2 Recovery vs P80

100
95 95
Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
90 90
85 85
80 y = 81.635x0.0607 80 y = -0.0011x2 + 0.1806x + 90.442
y = 72.407x0.1103 y = -0.003x2 + 0.5561x + 72.851

75 75
y = -0.0014x2 + 0.2873x + 83.79
y = 90.133x0.0231
70 70
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
pH P80 ( m)
SEZ SCPD SPPD SEZ SCPD SPPD
Figure 4-13 Example of CuFeS2 Rmax vs. pH and P80, uncorrected
Note that some scatter exists in the data and this is due to errors in assay and balancing as well as
relatively minor differences between the pH and P80 values when they were supposed to be held
constant. For this reason it is necessary to correct the results. This is done on a per-ore-type basis;
the scattergram for one ore type (SPPD) is shown as an example in Figure 4-14 (complete results are
included in Section 10.2). The corrected relationships between flotation kinetic parameters and P80/pH
are then calculated using the new, corrected models. These are exemplified by ore type SEZ in Figure
4-15 and presented in their entirety in Section 10.2.
Rate Constant Model Calibration (Roughers) Recovery Model Calibration (Roughers)

5.0 SPPD 100 SPPD
4.5 90
4.0 80
Recovery (Model)
3.5 70
60
k (Model)
3.0
2.5 50
2.0 40
30
1.5
20
1.0
10
0.5
0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Recovery (Actual)
k (Actual) Au Rmax Cu2S Rmax CuFeS2 Rmax MoS2 Rmax
Au k Cu2S k CuFeS2 k MoS2 k FeS2 k FeOX k Gangue k
FeS2 Rmax FeOX Rmax Gangue Rmax
Figure 4-14 Flotation kinetics model scatter plot for SPPD ore type
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Rmax versus P80 at Constant pH Flotation Rate (k) versus P80 at Constant pH
SEZ 4.0 SEZ
100
90
80 3.0
70
60
Rmax
50 2.0
K
40
30
20 1.0
10
0
0.0
50 100 150 200 250
P80 50 100 P80 150 200 250
Au Rmax Cu2S Rmax CuFeS2 Rmax

MoS2 Rmax FeS2 Rmax FeOX Rmax Au k Cu2S k CuFeS2 k MoS2 k
Gangue Rmax FeS2 k FeOX k Gangue k
Figure 4-15 Corrected kinetics relationships with P80 and pH for SEZ ore type
Once the corrected models are finalized they are input to the Aminpro flotation model representing the
full-scale Sierra Gorda sulfide circuit and the model is executed at various pH and grind scenarios in
order to identify an economically optimal circuit configuration (this effort will be documented elsewhere).
4.4.4 Cleaner tests

Cleaner kinetics are generally determined as a function of grind and pH using the same methodology
described above. For the purposes of cost and expedience, the current scoping study does not include
determination of cleaner kinetics, relying instead upon rougher-cleaner tests and locked cycle tests,
neither of which can be used to extract kinetics parameters to infer cleaner circuit performance. This
section describes the results.
4.4.4.1 Rougher-cleaner tests

The goal of the rougher-cleaner tests is to identify the optimal pH and P80 of the cleaning circuit. The
relationship between regrind size (P80) and copper concentrate is shown in Figure 4-16, indicating that
the grade begins to improve significantly at regrind sizes between 40 and 60 microns.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Regrind Size vs Concentrate Grade

30.0
25.0
% Cu in Concentrate
20.0
SCPD
15.0 SEZ
SPPD
10.0
5.0
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Regrind Size (P80, microns)
Figure 4-16 Regrind size versus Concentrate grade
The trend of pH versus grade is inconclusive (Figure 4-17), hinting optimum levels between 11.3 and
11.6. To identify an optimal pH for the cleaner circuit, further work should be performed.
pH vs Concentrate
30.0
25.0
%Cu in Concentrate
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0 SCPD
SEZ
SPPD
0.0
10.90 11.00 11.10 11.20 11.30 11.40 11.50 11.60 11.70 11.80 11.90 12.00
pH
Figure 4-17 Cleaner pH versus Cu concentrate grade
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
4.4.5 Salt water tests

SKT tests were performed on the global composite (50% blend of SPPD and SCPD) using tap water
from the greater Santiago basin, sea water from the northern Chilean port of Mejillones, aquifer water
from Pampa Yalqui (proposed well field), and a 50% blend of water from Mejillones and Pampa Yalqui.
Results are shown in Figure 4-18.
The flotation tests involving 100% fresh water and Pampa Yalqui water samples yielded 2% to 4%
higher copper recoveries than those involving sea water. However, it should be noted that the flotation
conditions (pH, reagents, and air rates) were calibrated using fresh water and therefore this is
effectively a comparison between fully calibrated and optimized fresh water tests and uncalibrated sea
water tests. Therefore, it is quite possible that the difference in recovery is not a result of depressant
action by an agent or agents contained in the sea water, but rather by not operating at optimal
conditions for the water used in the test.
Effects of Water Type Effects of Water Type

100 Gold Recovery 100 Cu2S Recovery
95 98
90 96
85 94
Rmax (%)
Rmax (%)
80 92
75 90
70 88
65 86
60 84
55 82
50 80
Tap Water Mejillones (Sea) Pampa Llaqui 50%-50% Tap Water Mejillones (Sea) Pampa Llaqui 50%-50%
(Aquifer) Llaqui/Mejillones (Aquifer) Llaqui/Mejillones
Water Sample Water Sam ple
Effects of Water Type Effects of Water Type

100 CuFeS2 Recovery 100 MoS2 Recovery
98 98
96 96
94 94
Rmax (%)
Rmax (%)
92 92
90 90
88 88
86 86
84 84
82 82
80 80
Tap Water Mejillones (Sea) Pampa Llaqui 50%-50% Tap Water Mejillones (Sea) Pampa Llaqui 50%-50%
(Aquifer) Llaqui/Mejillones (Aquifer) Llaqui/Mejillones
Water Sam ple Water Sam ple
Figure 4-18 Effects of Salt water tests on Rmax for various mineral species,
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
4.4.6 Locked cycle tests
The locked cycle test is designed to estimate the changes in flotation circuit performance caused by
circulating loads. The specific test configuration depends on the flow sheet; a typical procedure is
illustrated as follows.
F1
REM
FC1
RT1
CT1
REM
F2
FC2
Agua filtrada
Pulpa
RT2
CT2
Muestra Final de
Agua C1C C2T C3T
Agua
Reciclada
Figure 4-19: Flow diagram for locked cycle test, two cycles
The other purpose of the locked cycle test is to obtain a sample of water that would be representative of
typical process water streams.
Detailed results and assays of all streams are included in the appendices and summarized results are
shown in Table 4-8 through Table 4-10, indicating excellent results with high overall copper and moly
recoveries and good concentrate grades.
Zinc assays were on the concentrates were performed with ICP, and the results indicate excellent
rejection of zinc, particularly in the cleaners, showing that the sphalerite may be locked with pyrite or
gangue. Future work should consider identifying the zinc mineralogy and flotation behavior, as
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
concentrate from the SEZ sample contained 3.4% zinc, which is above the penalty threshold for zinc.
The zinc levels in SEZ ores average approximately 1000 ppm (average of samples used for composite)
but higher and lower values exit (see Figure 4-20). Assuming the 6% concentrate rejection limit (see
discussion in Section 4.4.2) and given the 35:1 upgrade ratio of the SEZ test, SEZ ores with over
approximately 1,700 ppm zinc would be in danger of exceeded the concentrate rejection limit. From
Figure 4-20 it can be seen that this equates to approximately 25% of the SEZ ore, assuming the 20
randomly selected core samples are representative of the overall SEZ volume. Note that ore dilution
may mitigate zinc levels somewhat, and a small concentrate blending program would likely resolve the
problem.
Zinc is not likely problematic for the SCPD and SPPD ores, which constitute the bulk of the ore.
Nevertheless, given the above, it is recommend that all future test work should consider zinc assays.
Mass Grade
Stream % Cu Fe Mo S Au Zn
Rougher Feed 100.00 0.42 6.53 0.01 4.19 0.07 0.1

Rougher Conc 48.42 0.84 9.61 0.01 7.81 0.12 0.2
Rougher Tails 51.58 0.0337 3.6331 0.001 0.7898 0.03 0.0
Rougher Recovery 48% 96% 71% 91% 90% 79% 81%
Cleaner Feed 48.4 0.84 9.61 0.01 7.81 0.12 0.17

Cleaner Conc 0.9 26.7 25.3 0.3 31.8 1.6 3.4
Cleaner Tails 47.5 0.08 8.94 0.00 6.92 0.05 0.10
Cleaner Recovery 1.8% 91.2% 11% 91% 15% 63% 38%
Overall Recovery 0.9% 87.5% 7.7% 83.2% 13.2% 49.7% 30.8%
Table 4-8 SEZ Locked cycle test summary
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Mass Grade
Stream % Cu Fe Mo Au S Zn
Rougher Feed 100.0 0.48 5.3 0.03 0.09 2.02 0.021

Rougher Conc 17.3 2.61 9.1 0.15 0.39 6.56 0.064
Rougher Tails 82.7 0.04 4.5 0.00 0.03 1.07 0.012
Cleaner Feed 17.3 2.61 9.1 0.15 0.39 6.56 0.064

Cleaner Conc 0.9 29.5 26.5 1.63 3.5 32.6 0.323
Cleaner Tails 16.4 0.11 7.6 0.01 0.09 4.21 0.050
Table 4-9 SCPD Locked cycle test summary
Mass Grade
Stream % Cu Fe Mo Au S Zn
Rougher Feed 100.0 0.26 5.75 0.03 0.07 3.77 0.04

Rougher Conc 22.3 1.10 12.10 0.11 0.19 11.14 0.12
Rougher Tails 77.7 0.02 3.94 0.01 0.03 1.66 0.02
Cleaner Feed 22.3 1.10 12.10 0.11 0.19 11.14 0.12

Cleaner Conc 0.7 25.6 24.5 2.3 4.2 30.9 1.76
Cleaner Tails 21.6 0.07 11.66 0.01 0.05 10.71 0.07
Table 4-10 SPPD Locked cycle test summary
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Cumulative Distribution of Zinc in SEZ Ores

100%
90%
Cumulative Percent Less than

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Zn (ppm)
Figure 4-20 Distribution of zinc values in SEZ samples, data from Sierra Gorda
4.5 Projections of Sulfide behavior in the plant

4.5.1 Grinding circuit
The SPI tests are used for estimating SAG mill size and Bond work index tests are used for sizing the
ball mill circuits.
The grinding circuit has been designed to operate with ball mills in closed circuit with cyclones. The
ball mills have been sized from Bond Work Index (BWi) data collected in the SGS-Lakefield test work.
At an average BWi of 18 kWh/MT, the circuit was designed to produce a grind of 80 percent passing
150 micron material 97.5 percent of the time. The operating time for these mills is based on a
benchmark from other operations with similar circuits.
At a nominal rate of 100,000 tons per day, the mills will process 4,274 dry tons per hour. At this rate,
four ball mills will be required that are 7.9 meters (26 feet) inside shell diameter by 12 meters (39 feet)
effective grinding length. Each ball mill will be equipped with 14.7 MW motors (19,600 HP) and will
operate at 74% critical speed with a 33% charge of rocks and balls.
Equipment sizes were calculated for an average of 100KTPD as defined by Quadra using the inferred
hardness distributions discussed in Section 4.4.1. Details of the grinding circuit sizing methodology are
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
included in Section 8. Figure 4-11 shows the expected distribution of grinding circuit throughput
calculated using the inferred hardness distribution described in Section 4.4.1.
Distribution of SABC and HPGR circuit Tonnages

100%
90%
Cumulative Percent Less Than
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
SABC Circuit
10%
Crushing Circuit
0%
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Tonnage (KTPD)
Table 4-11 distribution of tonnage for SABC and Cone Crusher cases
4.5.2 Flotation Circuit
The process flow sheet is contained in Appendix 3 and summarized in Figure 4-21 below.
The copper concentrate from the roughers will be upgraded in a cleaning circuit equipped with two
stages of cleaning and a regrind mill. The pulp residence time in each stage of the circuit was
determined by the Aminpro-Flot model and the ultimate configuration was justified economically by
changing the number of cells or rows of cells until the economics were maximized. The revenues were
calculated from typical smelter contracts and the pricing of cells used were from Aminpros database
after normalizing for 2008 pricing.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
The rougher flotation stage feed conditions adopted for the scoping study was derived from the average
grade of the sulfide pit. The feed assays are shown in Table 4-12:
Element Nominal Case Design Case

Cu 0.44 .53
Mo 0.03 .03
Fe 5.8 7.0
S 3.0 3.5
gangue 89.4 87.4
Table 4-12: Average feed assays of the ore, in percent
The feed conditions of the roughers are summarized in Table 4-13.
Item Nominal Condition Design Condition

Feed rate, t/h 4,274 5,128
Feed % solids 33 33
Feed s.g. 2.74 2.77
Feed grind, P80, microns 150 150
Table 4-13: Rougher feed conditions
The best rougher configuration was achieved with a nominal 25 minute flotation time using 2 rows of
cells each with 10 cells, 250 cubic meters in volume.
In order to achieve saleable levels of copper in the concentrate, while still maintaining high recoveries,
the cleaners had to be configured into two stages. The first cleaner stage was partitioned into a first
cleaning stage and a cleaner scavenger stage so that the cleaning stage could operate selectively with
regards to gangue rejection. The concentrate of the first cleaner was sent onwards to a second
cleaner. The concentrate from the scavengers was sent to the regrind to further liberate any copper or
molybdenum minerals that remained locked with gangue or pyrite. An economic optimization was done
as in the roughers; the best configuration of the 1st cleaners and cleaner scavengers resulted in the use
of two rows of cells, each with 3 cells in the first cleaners and five cells in the cleaner scavengers. The
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
first cleaners and cleaner scavenger cells were sized to provide 25 minutes retention time. The size of
the cells estimated at 160 cubic meters each.
In order to reject mechanical entrainment of gangue, the second cleaning stage was designed with
column flotation units. These cells, by virtue of the addition of wash water to the concentrate, will reject
nearly 99% of the free non-floatable minerals entering the column, resulting in the production of high
grades of concentrate. The columns were sized to maintain the solid flux of concentrate at acceptable
levels of 1.5 tons per square meters of column surface area per hour, typical in industry. This resulted
in the inclusion of three column flotation units, 4.5 meters in diameter and of 12 meters height each.
The locked cycle test work and the Aminpro-Flot model agree in the Cu-Mo circuit performance and
forecast reconciled copper recoveries near 88.7% and moly recoveries of 69.7% with concentrate
grades of 26 to 27.5 percent copper and 1.25 to 1.32 percent Mo. Gold levels of 1.4 to 1.6 grams per
ton are expected in the final concentrate.
The regrind design includes four vertical regrind mills, 1100 kW each, to achieve P80 values between
40 and 60 microns as described in Section 4.4.4.1. Two clusters of cyclones have been included in the
regrind stage
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
FEED
Roughers
Ro Tail
1st Cl
Scavs:
Regrinds:
units
Cl Tail
Concentrate
2nd Cleaners
Figure 4-21 General flow diagram for Sierra Gorda flotation circuit
Stage Model Diam,m Vol,m Rows #cell/row

Roughers 250 250 2 10
1st Cleaners OK-160-TC-XHD 160 2 3
1st Cl-Scavs OK-160-TC 160 2 5
2nd Cl Col Column 4.50 191 3 1
Table 4-14 Stage descriptions for Sierra Gorda flotation circuit
4.5.2.1 Grade-Recovery Curves
Figure 4-22 shows the copper grade-recovery curve the flotation circuit as described above. The
comparison with the locked cycle test results are shown in Figure 4-23. The comparison indicates that
one sample, the SCPD, showed more improved flotation performance than the others. This is likely
due to the fact that no cleaner kinetics were derived as part of this scoping level test campaign and
cleaner kinetics were instead approximated using the rougher-cleaner tests. As a result, the SCPD
samples have some upside recovery potential.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218

34 18.5
18.3
32
18.1
30 17.9
$ Revenues/Ton
Grade of Cu
17.7
28
17.5
26
17.3
24 17.1
16.9
22
Rev/T
20 16.5
75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95
Recovery, %
Figure 4-22 Estimated grade-recovery curve for copper with revenue per tonne curve

34
32
30
Grade of Cu
28
26
Model grade-recovery
24
SEZ Locked Cycle Test
SCPD Locked Cycle Test
22 SPPD Locked Cycle Test
Average Locked Cycle Tests
20
75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95
Recovery, %
Figure 4-23 Estimated grade recovery curve for copper, showing locked cycle test results
4.5.2.2 Optimum Grind forecast
Optimal grind size must be determined on a net present value basis in which the incremental capital
and operating costs are compared with the incremental revenues. Incremental NPV can be calculated
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
in two ways: by holding tonnage constant and varying the mill size to achieve the grind (fixed tonnage,
variable costs), or by varying the tonnage and letting the grind size change for the given equipment
(fixed costs, variable tonnage). For Sierra Gorda the calculations were performed both ways. This is
described below.
Fixed tonnage, variable costs

The fixed tonnage/variable cost method assumes 100,000 tons per day grinding circuit throughput and
varying mill sizes to achieve target P80. Capital expenditure for the various mill sizes are calculated
using the Aminpro database of mill costs updated for recent Sierra Gorda quotes and assuming an
installed cost multiplier of 3.7. The mill capital cost model, in units of cost per ft of length, is shown in
Figure 4-24 as a function of mill diameter and not including the installed cost multiplier. Calculations are
tabulated in Table 4-15. Note that the column opportunity cost accounts for the lost revenue of not
increasing the throughput and grind at larger mill sizes and is a necessary component of the total cost.
Ball Mill Costs

including motors and drive train
$500,000
$450,000
Sierra Gorda Quotes
$400,000
Cost per unit length ($/ft)
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mill Diameter (ft)
Figure 4-24 Ball mill capex model
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Specific Mill Mill Steel Energy Total Opportunity Capital Copper Net
Grind Throughput Revenue Revenue NPV
Energy Diameter Length Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Recovery Revenue
microns tonnes/hr kWh/tonne ft ft K$/yr K$/yr K$/yr K$/yr K$ Installed % Cu $/tonne K$/yr K$/yr $ @ 10%
100 4274 18.0 27 47.5 $44,389 $55,732 $100,122 159,578 $308,287 88 $19.1 $695,757 $436,057 $4,491
120 4274 16.2 27 42.5 $40,108 $50,357 $90,465 80,683 $275,836 88 $18.9 $690,837 $519,689 $5,437
140 4274 14.9 26 44.5 $36,780 $46,179 $82,959 19,366 $264,868 88 $18.4 $673,380 $571,055 $6,009
160 4274 13.8 26 41.0 $34,098 $42,811 $76,909 -30,061 $244,035 88 $17.6 $643,385 $596,537 $6,308
180 4274 12.9 26 38.0 $31,876 $40,022 $71,898 -71,002 $226,179 86 $16.5 $600,853 $599,956 $6,362
200 4274 12.1 26 35.8 $29,997 $37,662 $67,658 -105,636 $213,085 79 $15.0 $545,783 $583,760 $6,196
220 4274 11.5 26 33.8 $28,379 $35,632 $64,011 -135,433 $201,180 65 $13.1 $478,175 $549,597 $5,833
Table 4-15 NPV calculations for optimum grind (fixed tonnage, variable costs)
Fixed costs, variable tonnage

The fixed costs/variable tonnage method assumes that the mill size doesnt change and the tonnage is
increased or decreased to vary the grind. Calculations are shown in Table 4-16. Curves of P80 vs.
NPV are shown for both methods in Figure 4-25.
Specific Mill Mill Energy Total Opportunity Capital Copper Net

Grind Throughput Steel Cost Revenue Revenue NPV
Energy Diameter Length Cost Cost Cost Cost Recovery Revenue
microns tonnes/hr kWh/tonne ft ft K$/yr K$/yr K$/yr K$/yr K$ Installed % Cu $/tonne K$/yr K$/yr $ @ 10%
100 3252 16.8 26 39.0 $33,780 $42,412 $76,193 0 $232,131 88 $19.1 $529,470 $453,278 $4,750
120 3599 15.2 26 39.0 $33,780 $42,412 $76,193 0 $232,131 88 $18.9 $581,848 $505,655 $5,323
140 3925 13.9 26 39.0 $33,780 $42,412 $76,193 0 $232,131 88 $18.4 $618,456 $542,263 $5,724
160 4234 12.9 26 39.0 $33,780 $42,412 $76,193 0 $232,131 88 $17.6 $637,391 $561,198 $5,932
180 4529 12.0 26 39.0 $33,780 $42,412 $76,193 0 $232,131 86 $16.5 $636,744 $560,551 $5,925
200 4813 11.3 26 39.0 $33,780 $42,412 $76,193 0 $232,131 79 $15.0 $614,625 $538,433 $5,682
220 5087 10.7 26 39.0 $33,780 $42,412 $76,193 0 $232,131 65 $13.1 $569,173 $492,980 $5,185
Table 4-16 NPV calculations for optimum grind (fixed tonnage, variable costs)
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Grind Size Optimization

$8,000
$7,500
$7,000
$6,500
NPV, $ millions
$6,000
$5,500
$5,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500 Fixed Tonnage, Variable Costs

Fixed Costs, Variable Tonnage
$3,000
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Grind Size (P80, microns)
Figure 4-25 Grind size optimization curves
The optimum grind is calculated by setting the derivatives of the polynomial functions shown Figure
4-25 equal to zero and solving for X. The resulting values are 174 microns for the fixed
tonnage/variable costs method and 169 microns for the fixed costs/variable tonnage method.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
5 OXIDE Test work

5.1 Scope of test work
Leach tests and exploratory flotation tests were done on two distinct oxide zones from the Sierra Gorda
deposit, termed the Brown zone and the Green zone. The leach tests were conducted to determine the
amenability of the oxide ores to a leach process and to estimate their acid consumption; in addition,
flotation tests were done that explored the amenability of these ores and the residues of the leach tests
to a flotation process.
The scope of work entailed:
Bottle Roll test work

Column test work to evaluate performance versus crushed rock size
Column test work to evaluate effect of using sea water and/or salar water
Flotation of the feed and residue samples of the columns
In addition, to complement the above work, sample of residue was sent to Knight Piesold for
permeability tests.
5.2 Procedures
Figure 5-1 has been prepared to illustrate the equipment and procedures used for leaching. Bottle rolls
were done on both ores. The bottle roll and column leach procedures followed SGSs standard
methodology for the test work.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
ORE TYPE ITEM
LEACH TESTWORK/ Ore type TOTAL of 2 ORE TYPES Solution Management

Height, Ft Col diam Density Aplicc Rate cc/min pH Air Rate # Tests
L/min/m2 L/min
3+
Green L1 Bottle roll -400 Mesh with and w/o bacteria (Fe ) 1,000 g 2 2
Green L2 Leaching 6" column 20 Size, 5/8" , 1/4" Agglomerated 200,314 g 6 1.8 0.15 2.74 2 TBD 2
Green L3 Leaching 10" column 20 size - 1", agglomerated 556,427 g 10 1.8 0.15 7.60 2 TBD 1
Green L2B1 Salar Water 20 Size 5/8" 200,314 6 1.8 0.15 2.74 2 TBD 1
Green L2B2 Sea Water 20 Size 5/8" 200,314 6 1.8 0.15 2.74 2 TBD 1
Green L2B3 Mix 50:50 20 Size 5/8" 200,314 6 1.8 0.15 2.74 2 TBD 1
3+
BROWN L4 Bottle roll -400 Mesh with and w/o bacteria (Fe ) 1,000 g 2 2
BROWN L5 Leaching 6" column 20 Size, 5/8" , 1/4" Agglomerated 200,314 g 6 1.8 0.15 2.74 2 TBD 2
Table 5-1: Oxide Ore Test Program
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Crush to
1 inch CSS Crush to Crush to
5/8 CSS 1/4 CSS
A Geo-Met all GREEN

Core Sample < 2
Mix Mix
Mix
kg
Grind -
- 150 mic
Extract Extract
Extract
1 sample sample
5/8 sample
kg Screen Assay
kg Screen Assay kg Screen Assay

kg Screen Assay
Store Acid Agglomerate 10%moist

Acid Agglomerate
Acid Agglomerate Bottle Roll
Reject
Sample
seawater
10 or 8
Col 8 8
Col Col
Figure 5-1; Graphical Procedures for Oxide Ore Leach T
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
All columns were started with acid agglomerated feed stock crushed to different P80 sizes; the acid
solution had a pH of 1.8.. The procedure was intended to mimic a commercial process.
The Brown samples were leached for a total of 49 days and the Green samples were leached for 57
days. The tests were terminated when the extraction rates had reached their peak and stabilized to
near zero extractions marking the end of the leach cycle. Upon completion, the columns were allowed
to drain and were then washed with water to remove any remaining copper in solution from the
residues. A special treatment was given to the residues, which followed the procedure illustrated
Feed Solution FEED OVERALL

Screen
Screen Total Total At start
Assay Assay Dry weight
Residue Middle
Residue Sample Screen
Floated for Mo/Au Screen
Assay
At end
Screen
Screen
Assay
Residue Bottom
Sample for Permeability Test

Screen Total Total
Screen
Residue OVERALL Assay Assay Dry weight
PLS
Figure 5-2 Procedure in treating the residue
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
As shown in Figure 5-2 the procedures called for columns to be separated into three sectors upon
completion of the test, to examine the extractions in depth and to examine the extraction on a size
basis. Quadra personnel also requested that permeability tests be done at varying pressures on
residue samples. The test results would provide indications of whether a permanent pad could be used
for the process and at the time of this report were in process at Knight Piesolds test facilities.
Flotation tests were conducted on feed and residue samples of the leach columns as the oxide ores
were noted to have high values of molybdenite and gold. The flotation tests that were done on the raw
feed was to examine the potential of recovering copper in addition to the moly and the gold. The
flotation tests were exploratory in nature; no optimization tests were done.
5.3 Oxide Sample sourcing
The samples source for the oxide test work are identified in the CD-ROM disc included with this report.
5.4 Interpretation and methodologies
In interpreting leach test data, the determination of maximum extraction, rate of extraction and acid
consumption are the parameters required for leach pad design and estimation of production rates. The
pregnant leach solution (PLS) concentration is determined from the extraction rates and solution
application rates. As will be seen, the test results also provided indications on pad depth and establish
whether the dumps can be permanent by examining the extraction with depth residue and permeability.
QUEMSCAN work was also done on both ores to provide the mineralogy.
5.5 Results of Oxide Test work
5.5.1 Ore Characteristics
The oxide test work was done on the Green and Brown ore types. Partial copper chemical analysis
done on each ore (Table 5-4), showed that the Green ore had the higher copper values (0.68%) and
the higher acid-soluble copper (0.55-0.58 %Cu) concentration. This tells us that at least 85% of the
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
copper is readily leachable in this ore. Any farther extraction would then be caused by the leaching of
the sulfides, which occurs at a slower rate due to microbiological leaching.
ORE TYPES
GREEN BROWN
Cu total, Cu(t), (4 acid method), % 0.68 0.28
Cu sequential Cu(seq), % 0.69 0.27
Cu acid soluble Cu(as), % 0.55 0.13
Cu cyanide soluble Cu(CNs), % 0.03 0.02
Cu residual Cu(res), % 0.10 0.12
Leachable copper (CuS+CuCN)/CuT, % 85.66 54.63
Fe total Fe(t), % 4.71 6.04
Table 5-2; Copper grades of the ore types
The Brown sample, assayed 0.28%Cu with only 54% of the total copper being readily leachable.
QEMSCAN was done on these ores. The results, documented in the accompanying CD-ROM disc,
indicated that the predominant non-sulfide copper mineral is atacamite, a chloride mineral abundant in
Chile. Relatively low amounts of pyrite were found in these ores, something that will likely result in the
inhibition of the microbiological leaching process of sulfide copper. The vast amount of chlorides
present will require special treatment of the electrolytes in the SX plant to keep the chloride
concentration low in the electro-winning area. The high presence of clays and jarosite/gypsum species
may be indicative that active (or non-permanent) pads may be the best method for leaching.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Sierra Gorda
GREEN BROWN
-300/+3um -300/+3um
Mass Size Dist. (%) 100 100
Ave Particle Size 64.06 58.16
Chalcopyrite 0.22 0.02
Chrysocolla 0.06 0.01
Atacamite 0.65 0.17
Brochantite 0.01 0.00
Pseudomalachite 0.04 0.00
Cu Wad 0.61 1.51
Pyrite 0.54 0.78
Galena 0.04 0.00
Molybdenite 0.02 0.01
Other Sulphides 0.03 0.00
Quartz 27.62 25.18
K-Feldspar 14.12 8.57
Plagioclase/Albite 13.12 9.46
Epidote 0.38 1.18
Tourmaline 5.13 8.46
Amphiboles 0.51 0.54
Sericite/Muscovite 11.73 9.66
Biotite 11.00 10.09
Clays 3.76 6.74
Chlorites 5.10 6.12
Fe Oxides/Oxyhydroxides 2.13 5.39
Ti Oxides 1.27 1.99
Carbonates 0.48 2.19
Jarosite 0.34 0.94
Gypsum 0.74 0.52
Other 0.37 0.47
Total 100.00 100.00
Table 5-3: Mineralogy of the Oxide Ores
5.5.2 Oxide ores mineralogy
QUEMSCAN studies of the oxide ores indicate that 69% and 59% of the copper is in the form of
Atacamite in the Green and Brown ores respectively, with sulfide copper taking up 18% and 4%
respectively. The heads indicate the following model distribution ( see Figure 5-3).
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
100%
90%
Cu Elemental in Sample (%) 80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cabeza Green Cabeza Brow n
Chlorite-Cu 0.44 0.54

Brochantite 0.55 0.00
Pseudomalachite 4.43 0.00
Cu Wad 3.88 25.69
Fe Oxides/Oxyhydroxides 1.31 9.90
Atacamite 69.29 58.95
Chrysocolla 2.28 0.92
Chalcocite 2.24 0.00
Bornite 2.07 0.00
Chalcopyrite 13.52 4.00
Sample
Figure 5-3: Modal analysis of the oxide ores
As will be seen later, poor moly recoveries were obtained in the flotation test work. It was suspected
that some of it was caused by the presence of other non-floatable molybdenum minerals. The
QEMSCAN work only found molybdenum in its sulfide form as MoS2. A second search for other
molybdenum minerals found nothing.
5.5.3 Bottle Roll Tests
The bottle roll tests were done over a period of 24 hours on material that was ground to 100%-10 Mesh.
The test shows (see Table 5-4) lower copper extraction levels than those obtained in the column tests.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
The acid consumption was also lower. SGS could not provide an explanation except that the tests
may have been terminated too early.
Net Acid Consumption

Sample kg/t kg/kg Cu Extraction Cu
Brown 19.43 16.90 39.7
Green 9.77 2.17 64.2
Table 5-4. Bottle roll test results
5.5.4 Column Tests on at various sizings.
The column leach tests produced copper extraction rates between 75% and 85% with the Green ores
and approximately 45% with the Brown. These values agree with the estimates done based on the
partial chemical analysis.
Leach Extractions (End of Test) vs P80size
85
80
75
70
Cu Extraction, %
65
60
55
50
GREEN
45 BROWN
40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
P80, inches
Figure 5-4: Effect of crushing on the leachability of oxide ores.
The tests performed on variations of size of crushed ore showed there was a marginal improvement in
extraction with a finer size, in particular with the Green ore. The benefits are not as apparent with the
Brown ore as shown in Figure 5-4.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
It is interesting to note that the acid consumptions (see Figure 5-5) for both ores were similar in term of
kg acid per ton of ore processed. In terms of kg acid per kg copper produced, there is a significant
difference with the Green ore at 4.5 kg/kg Cu and the Brown at 19 kg/kg. The acid consumption was
not significantly affected with the crush size.
Net Acid Consumption (End of Test) vs P80 size
28
27
Acid Consumption, kg/Ton ore
26
25
24
23
22
GREEN
21
BROWN
20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
P80, inches
Figure 5-5: Acid Consumptions of the oxide ores vs. size
The percent extraction versus time curves obtained in the leach tests were modeled in accordance to
the 1st ore rate equation.
Extraction Cu = ( 1 - e kt ) Rmax eq. 5-1
Where t is the leach time in days and k is the rate constant. Rmax is the ultimate recovery at time
infinity. The results show that the rate constant was not significantly affected by the ore sizing for the
range tested. As Figure 5-6 shows, the rate constants in the Brown ores were slightly lower than the
Green ore, 0.11 vs. 0.13 respectively.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Leach rates vs Ore P80size
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
Leach rate, 1/days
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
GREEN
0.02 BROWN
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
P80, inches
Figure 5-6: Rate constant versus size for the oxide ores.
5.5.5 Tests with sea water
The results of these tests are shown in Figure 5-7; the copper extraction levels were slightly superior for
the columns using salt water than those using tap water. There were no significant differences in acid
consumption using salt water as compared to tap water.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
90
80
70
60
50
Variable
40
30
20
10
0
Source of Water
Figure 5-7: Effect on Cu extraction and acid consumption with salt waters
5.6 Leaching characteristics of the ore with depth of pad
5.6.1 Copper Extraction with depth
The residues of all columns were examined in sectors. The columns were unloaded from the bottom
and as the ore was extracted, it was placed on a protected tarp representing the depth of the columns.
The length was divided into three portions, each being treated for further data recording as in Figure
5-2. The results of the chemical analysis showed that there are marked extraction profiles with depth,
as shown in Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-9.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Section Extraction by Section

3 Sample Green
90
Col-1 p80 1" Agua
Section potable
85
2
Col-2 p80 5/8" Agua
80 potable
Section
75 Col-3 p80 5/8"
Extraction, %
1
Mejillones
70
Yalqui
65
Col-5 p80 5/8"

60 Mejillones+Pampa
Yalqui
55 Col-6 p80 1/4" Agua
potable
50
0 1 2 3 4
Column section
Figure 5-8: Extractions with Depth for the Green Ore
Section
3 Sample Brown
60
Section Col-7 p80 5/8" Agua
2 potable
50
Col-8 p80 1/4" Agua
potable
Section
40
1
Extraction, %
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
Column section
Figure 5-9: Extractions with Depth for the Brown Ore
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
In both ores, the spread in copper extraction was nearly 20 percentage points over a depth of 5 meters
in the column. This was an important find because it may well mean that some of the copper surfaces
have been coated with precipitates, or that some of the solutions have been channeled.
Screen analysis (on 25.4mm, 15.6mm, 6mm and 0mm (the pan)) and partial assays on the feed and
residues on the screen fraction were also done. Each screen fraction was partially assayed for total
copper (TCu), acid soluble copper (ASCu) and cyanide soluble copper (CNCu). The residue copper,
being the chalcopyritic copper was estimated from:
Residue Cu = TCu - ASCu - CNCu
The percent extraction for total copper and acid soluble copper were plotted for the Green ore against
screen size fraction for three of the columns tested, namely the coarse P80=1 column, the one with a
P80 = 5/8 and for the column with P80= . The plots are shown in the next page in Figure 5-10. The
following observations of the Green ore have been made:
The top and middle (to a depth of 3.3m) portion of the column showed acid ASCu
extractions that were mostly in the nineties, provided the material was less than 6
mm in size.
The extraction of the ASCu dropped quickly with depth and with increasing particle
size above 6mm.
For ore sized above P80 of 5/8, the extractions of ASCu in the bottom sector were
less than 50%.
The above observations lead us to conclude that a preferred crushed size would be in order to
promote the extraction of copper. It is also apparent that a depth of not more than 3.3 meters should
be considered for pad design.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Cu Extraction on screen fractions Col umn P80= 25 mm

GREEN ORE
100
90
80
Cu Extraction, %
70
Bottom TCu
60
Middle TCu
Top TCu
50 Bottom ASCu
Middle ASCu
Top ASCu
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lower Screen Size, mm
Cu Extraction on screen fractions, Column P80= 15.9 mm

GREEN ORE
100
90
80
Cu Extraction, %
70
60 Bottom TCu
Middle TCu
Top TCu
50 Bottom ASCu
Middle ASCu
Top ASCu
40
0 5 10 15 20
Cu Extraction on screen fractions - Column - P80= 6 mm

GREEN ORE
100
90
80
Cu Extraction, %
70
60 Bottom TCu
Middle TCu
Top TCu
50 Bottom ASCu
Middle ASCu
Top ASCu
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Figure 5-10: Green Ore: Cu extractions by size with column depth
The Brown ore showed similar trends, as shown in Figure 5-11 but, with approximately 10% lower
ASCu extraction levels and a larger gradient in copper extraction with column depth.
Cu Extraction on screen fractions, Col P80= 15.9 mm

BROWN ORE
100
90
80
70
Cu Extraction, %
60
50
40
30
20
10 Bottom TCu Middle TCu Top TCu
Bottom ASCu Middle ASCu Top ASCu
0
0 5 10 15 20
Cu Extraction on screen fractions - COL - P80= 6 mm

BROWN ORE
100
90
80
70
Cu Extraction, %
60
50
40
30
20
Bottom TCu Middle TCu
10 Top TCu Bottom ASCu
Middle ASCu Top ASCu
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 5-11: Brown ore, Cu extractions by size with column depth
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
5.7 Molybdenum flotation test work on leach feed and residues
Exploratory test work was done on the leach feed material and leach residues to examine the viability
of recovering molybdenite. The tests we done with pulp density levels in the low thirties and the
following reagent conditions:
150 g/t of diesel

10 g/t of PAX
10-20 g/t of frother (MIBC/D250)
pH 6.5-7
The test results produced poor moly recoveries, almost at the same level as gangue; the rate constants
obtained in the tests were also similar to gangue. Gold recoveries were somewhat erratic due to the
fact that assay accuracy was between 33% and 96% with high rate constants.
Rmax Rate Constant

Test Au MoS2 Cu Min FeS2 Gangue Au MoS2 Cu Min FeS2 Gangue
Feed Brown 71 40.3 14.7 20.6 31.5 12.1 1.02 0.25 0.22 0.44 0.25
Feed Green 72 65.4 16.5 2.2 51.2 14.1 1.13 0.27 0.51 0.50 0.23
Ripio Brown 73 33.8 10.8 21.0 14.7 8.2 0.82 0.39 0.25 0.50 0.42
Ripio Green 74 96.3 27.1 27.3 18.6 13.1 1.46 0.19 0.24 0.30 0.20
Given that QEMSCAN studies did not find any refractory moly, it is recommended that further studies
be undertaken to investigate how the moly recovery could be enhanced. These tests should be done
with both feed and residue samples from the leach columns.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
6 Appendix 1 List of sulfide samples
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
SPI# SAMPLE# HOLEID SAMPLEID SAMPLETYPE FROM TO CUT % CUS % MO % AU ppm AU ppb AU gr/ton
9930 9930 QSG06-286 036363 Core_Half 398 400 0.057 0 0.0025 0 21 0.021
1 9931 9931 QSG06-286 036443 Core_Half 534 536 0.252 0 0.0025 0 27 0.027
9932 9932 QSG06-286 036445 Core_Half 536 538 0.275 0 0.0025 0 46 0.046
9933 9933 QSG06-286 036446 Core_Half 538 540 0.457 0 0.0025 0 76 0.076
4690 4690 QSG07-340 079583 Core_Half 872 874 0.365 0 0.033 0 56 0.056
2 4691 4691 QSG07-340 079587 Core_Half 878 880 0.365 0 0.009 0 40 0.04
4692 4692 QSG07-340 079588 Core_Half 880 882 0.448 0 0.013 0 60 0.06
4693 4693 QSG07-340 079589 Core_Half 882 884 0.419 0 0.029 0 31 0.031
698 698 QSG06-286 036379 Core_Half 424 426 0.102 0 0.0025 0 15 0.015
3 699 699 QSG06-286 036380 Core_Half 426 428 0.172 0 0.0025 0 14 0.014
700 700 QSG06-286 036381 Core_Half 428 430 0.12 0 0.0025 0 16 0.016
9454 9454 QSG07-345 076108 Core_Half 314 316 1.321 0 0.504 0 168 0.168
4 9455 9455 QSG07-345 076109 Core_Half 316 318 0.832 0 0.03 0 102 0.102
9456 9456 QSG07-345 076110 Core_Half 318 320 1.059 0 0.011 0 126 0.126
3455 3455 QSG07-319 043078 Core_Half 846 848 0.121 0 0.0025 0 18 0.018
5 3456 3456 QSG07-319 043079 Core_Half 848 850 0.104 0 0.0025 0 13 0.013
3457 3457 QSG07-319 043080 Core_Half 850 852 0.135 0 0.0025 0 16 0.016
3458 3458 QSG07-319 043082 Core_Half 852 854 0.107 0 0.0025 0 13 0.013
6723 6723 QSGRC5-71 081150 Core_Half 892 894 0.431 0 0.007 0 50 0.05
6 6724 6724 QSGRC5-71 081162 Core_Half 912 914 0.2 0 0.0025 0 48 0.048
6725 6725 QSGRC5-71 081163 Core_Half 914 916 0.226 0 0.0025 0 36 0.036
6726 6726 QSGRC5-71 081175 Core_Half 934 936 0.236 0 0.0025 0 92 0.092
7957 7957 QSG07-304 041544 Core_Half 350 352 1.034 0 0.01 0 133 0.133
7 7958 7958 QSG07-304 041545 Core_Half 352 354 0.81 0 0.008 0 137 0.137
7959 7959 QSG07-304 041547 Core_Half 354 356 0.899 0 0.008 0 127 0.127
609 609 QSG06-285 035775 Core_Half 250 252 0.353 0 0.008 0 0 0
8 610 610 QSG06-285 035776 Core_Half 252 254 0.275 0 0.008 0 0 0
611 611 QSG06-285 035777 Core_Half 254 256 0.331 0 0.008 0 0 0
7487 7487 QSG07-300 039846 Core_Half 252 254 0.544 0 0.005 0 40 0.04
9 7488 7488 QSG07-300 039848 Core_Half 254 256 0.571 0 0.0025 0 48 0.048
7489 7489 QSG07-300 039850 Core_Half 258 260 0.566 0 0.0025 0 73 0.073
9778 9778 QSG07-373 080235 Core_Half 974 976 0.533 0 0.022 0 110 0.11
10 9779 9779 QSG07-373 080236 Core_Half 976 978 0.565 0 0.05 0 83 0.083
9780 9780 QSG07-373 080239 Core_Half 980 982 0.508 0 0.018 0 65 0.065
9781 9781 QSG07-373 080240 Core_Half 982 984 0.733 0 0.021 0 137 0.137
5028 5028 QSG07-344 076304 Core_Half 454 456 0.461 0 0.006 0 67 0.067
11 5029 5029 QSG07-344 076311 Core_Half 466 468 0.461 0 0.0025 0 70 0.07
5030 5030 QSG07-344 076313 Core_Half 468 470 0.493 0 0.006 0 61 0.061
8112 8112 QSG07-305 041108 Core_Half 262 264 0.534 0 0.0025 0 0 0
12 8113 8113 QSG07-305 041109 Core_Half 264 266 0.587 0 0.0025 0 0 0
8114 8114 QSG07-305 041111 Core_Half 266 268 0.684 0 0.0025 0 0 0
4065 4065 QSG07-332 043410 Core_Half 656 658 0.222 0 0.053 0 47 0.047
13 4066 4066 QSG07-332 043415 Core_Half 666 668 0.189 0 0.006 0 42 0.042
4067 4067 QSG07-332 043417 Core_Half 668 670 0.203 0 0.0025 0 51 0.051
4068 4068 QSG07-332 043419 Core_Half 672 674 0.219 0 0.009 0 61 0.061
10122 10122 QSG07-315 043949 Core_Half 320 322 0.126 0 0.0025 0 13 0.013
14 10123 10123 QSG07-315 043950 Core_Half 322 324 0.277 0 0.0025 0 19 0.019
10124 10124 QSG07-315 043951 Core_Half 324 326 0.28 0 0.0025 0 9 0.009
6449 6449 QSG08-407 082210 Core_Half 520 522 0.227 0 0.0025 0 50 0.05
15 6450 6450 QSG08-407 082211 Core_Half 522 524 0.478 0 0.0025 0 45 0.045
6451 6451 QSG08-407 082213 Core_Half 524 526 0.098 0 0.0025 0 43 0.043
6452 6452 QSG08-407 082214 Core_Half 526 528 0.229 0 0.0025 0 59 0.059
7745 7745 QSG07-302 040807 Core_Half 680 682 0.568 0 0.192 0 124 0.124
16 7746 7746 QSG07-302 040812 Core_Half 688 690 0.633 0 0.016 0 170 0.17
7747 7747 QSG07-302 040813 Core_Half 690 692 0.825 0 0.014 0 279 0.279
7748 7748 QSG07-302 040814 Core_Half 692 694 0.619 0 0.011 0 103 0.103
5485 5485 QSG07-351 048662 Core_Half 356 358 0.175 0 0.852 0 0 0
17 5486 5486 QSG07-351 048663 Core_Half 358 360 0.163 0 0.308 0 0 0
5487 5487 QSG07-351 077130 Core_Half 428 430 0.385 0 0.385 0 0 0
6870 6870 QSG06-281 035215 Core_Half 428 430 0.879 0 0.023 0 413 0.413
18 6871 6871 QSG06-281 035216 Core_Half 430 432 0.617 0 0.009 0 287 0.287
6872 6872 QSG06-281 035217 Core_Half 432 434 1.328 0 0.021 0 389 0.389
3412 3412 QSG07-319 042546 Core_Half 736 738 0.179 0 0.0025 0 16 0.016
3413 3413 QSG07-319 042547 Core_Half 738 740 0.314 0 0.0025 0 23 0.023
19 3414 3414 QSG07-319 042548 Core_Half 740 742 0.449 0 0.0025 0 38 0.038
3415 3415 QSG07-319 042552 Core_Half 746 748 0.481 0 0.0025 0 33 0.033
3317 3317 QSG07-316A 043757 Core_Half 84 86 0.393 0 0.0025 0 37 0.037
20 3318 3318 QSG07-316A 043759 Core_Half 86 88 0.418 0 0.0025 0 59 0.059
3319 3319 QSG07-316A 043760 Core_Half 88 90 0.416 0 0.0025 0 52 0.052
Table 6-1 Samples selected for hardness testing
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
HOLEID SAMPLEID SAMPLETYPE FROM TO CUT % CUS % MO % AU ppm AU ppb AU gr/ton

QSG07-314 041966 Core_Half 402 404 0.532 0 0.0025 0 34 0.034
QSG07-314 042080 Core_Half 594 596 0.122 0 0.0025 0 42 0.042
QSG07-314 041943 Core_Half 364 366 0.53 0 0.019 0 59 0.059
QSG07-314 041968 Core_Half 406 408 0.611 0 0.0025 0 62 0.062
QSG07-314 041934 Core_Half 348 350 0.368 0 0.014 0 32 0.032
QSG06-298 037919 Core_Half 176 178 0.477 0 0.0025 0 70 0.07
QSG07-308 077496 Core_Half 210 212 0.385 0 0.0025 0 62 0.062
QSG07-314 041931 Core_Half 344 346 0.496 0 0.012 0 55 0.055
QSG06-296 039231 Core_Half 232 234 0.269 0 0.0025 0 32 0.032
QSG07-350 076780 Core_Half 448 450 0.438 0 0.0025 0 17 0.017
QSG07-314 041918 Core_Half 322 324 0.353 0 0.0025 0 32 0.032
QSG07-314 041913 Core_Half 312 314 0.322 0 0.007 0 39 0.039
QSG07-314 041975 Core_Half 418 420 0.578 0 0.0025 0 36 0.036
QSG07-350 076884 Core_Half 622 624 0.515 0 0.0025 0 28 0.028
QSG07-314 041942 Core_Half 362 364 0.362 0 0.01 0 68 0.068
QSG07-314 041937 Core_Half 354 356 0.389 0 0.011 0 41 0.041
QSG07-314 041903 Core_Half 296 298 0.23 0 0.006 0 26 0.026
QSG07-308 077497 Core_Half 212 214 0.309 0 0.0025 0 60 0.06
QSG07-350 076861 Core_Half 584 586 0.805 0 0.0025 0 31 0.031
QSG06-296 039231 Core_Half 232 234 0.269 0 0.0025 0 32 0.032
QSG07-350 076705 Core_Half 320 322 0.918 0 0.0025 0 40 0.04
QSG06-298 037928 Core_Half 192 194 0.269 0 0.006 0 49 0.049
Table 6-2 SEZ samples selected
Random # HOLEID SAMPLEID SAMPLETYPE FROM TO CUT % CUS % MO % AU ppm AU ppb AU gr/ton
7546 QSG07-303 046083 Core_Half 592 594 0.775 0 0.007 0 31 0.031
5557 QSG07-361 048401 Core_Half 726 728 0.213 0 0.0025 0 26 0.026
4083 QSG07-337 047085 Core_Half 738 740 0.436 0 0.0025 0 0 0
3573 QSG07-322 048912 Core_Half 392 394 0.137 0 0.0025 0 18 0.018
4254 QSG07-338 047721 Core_Half 774 776 0.267 0 0.007 0 77 0.077
910 QSG06-298 038050 Core_Half 398 400 0.49 0 0.009 0 56 0.056
6654 QSG06-281 035246 Core_Half 480 482 0.915 0 0.005 0 243 0.243
2510 QSG07-311 046851 Core_Half 634 636 0.141 0 0.0025 0 26 0.026
3774 QSG07-332 043345 Core_Half 546 548 0.409 0 0.0025 0 119 0.119
4969 QSG07-345 076097 Core_Half 296 298 0.312 0 0.033 0 48 0.048
646 QSG06-293 038708 Core_Half 562 564 0.267 0 0.006 0 8 0.008
248 QSG06-283 036722 Core_Half 576 578 0.094 0 0.0025 0 10 0.01
9238 QSG07-345 076156 Core_Half 396 398 0.761 0 0.064 0 87 0.087
9242 QSG07-345 076162 Core_Half 406 408 1.436 0 0.154 0 158 0.158
7034 QSG06-296 039351 Core_Half 434 436 0.669 0 0.0025 0 89 0.089
7029 QSG06-296 039335 Core_Half 408 410 0.77 0 0.0025 0 103 0.103
3067 QSG07-316A 043734 Core_Half 44 46 0.459 0 0.0025 0 79 0.079
9605 QSGRC4-03 039666 Core_Half 504 506 0.693 0 0.021 0 48 0.048
4972 QSG07-345 076102 Core_Half 304 306 0.407 0 0.055 0 56 0.056
4611 QSG07-343 081867 Core_Half 532 534 0.209 0 0.0025 0 37 0.037
3586 QSG07-322 048928 Core_Half 418 420 0.259 0 0.0025 0 45 0.045
7428 QSG07-301 040472 Core_Half 706 708 0.646 0 0.036 0 346 0.346
4446 QSG07-340 079580 Core_Half 866 868 0.33 0 0.031 0 53 0.053
15 QSG06-269 035626 Core_Half 268 270 0.432 0 0.017 0 0 0
8048 QSG07-312 045573 Core_Half 426 428 0.55 0 0.0025 0 82 0.082
Figure 6-1 SCPD samples selected
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Random # HOLEID SAMPLEID SAMPLETYPE FROM TO CUT % CUS % MO % AU ppm AU ppb AU gr/ton
262 QSG07-316 043534 Core_Half 266 268 0.248 0 0.0025 0 46 0.046
75 QSG07-304 041491 Core_Half 260 262 0.29 0 0.0025 0 40 0.04
283 QSG07-316 043558 Core_Half 308 310 0.421 0 0.011 0 45 0.045
433 QSG07-361 048417 Core_Half 754 756 0.169 0 0.0025 0 23 0.023
245 QSG07-315 043994 Core_Half 396 398 0.322 0 0.0025 0 36 0.036
189 QSG07-315 043917 Core_Half 266 268 0.336 0 0.006 0 31 0.031
354 QSG07-350 076709 Core_Half 328 330 0.112 0 0.0025 0 16 0.016
404 QSG07-351 048672 Core_Half 374 376 0.207 0 0.303 0 0 0
321 QSG07-337 046240 Core_Half 356 358 0.222 0 0.0025 0 0 0
526 QSG07-350 076854 Core_Half 572 574 0.998 0 0.0025 0 21 0.021
248 QSG07-315 043998 Core_Half 402 404 0.314 0 0.009 0 43 0.043
48 QSG07-303 045913 Core_Half 304 306 0.274 0 0.008 0 26 0.026
183 QSG07-315 043910 Core_Half 254 256 0.25 0 0.026 0 34 0.034
447 QSG08-407 081591 Core_Half 246 248 0.5 0 0.014 0 57 0.057
458 QSG08-407 081622 Core_Half 298 300 0.482 0 0.011 0 46 0.046
511 QSG07-315 043859 Core_Half 168 170 0.597 0 0.0025 0 42 0.042
Table 6-3 SPPD samples selected
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
7 Appendix 2 List of Oxide Samples
Table 7-1 Brown Samples

HOLEID SAMPLEIDAMPLETYP FROM TO CUT % CUS % MO % AU ppm
QSG06-278 035324 Core_Half 260 262 0.446 0.008
QSG06-278 035325 Core_Half 262 264 0.514 0.013
QSG06-278 035326 Core_Half 264 266 0.453 0.009
QSG06-278 035327 Core_Half 266 268 0.204 0.009
OK 0.404 0.010
QSG07-345 076041 Core_Half 200 202 0.114 0.033

QSG07-345 076042 Core_Half 202 204 0.308 0.02
QSG07-345 076043 Core_Half 204 206 0.285 0.027
QSG07-345 076057 Core_Half 228 230 0.183 0.035
QSG07-345 076059 Core_Half 230 232 0.164 0.036
QSG07-345 076060 Core_Half 232 234 0.265 0.028
QSG07-345 076061 Core_Half 234 236 0.139 0.017
OK 0.208 0.028
QSG08-407 081470 Core_Half 42 44 0.194 0.0025

QSG08-407 081472 Core_Half 44 46 0.104 0.0025
QSG08-407 081473 Core_Half 46 48 0.17 0.0025
QSG08-407 081474 Core_Half 48 50 0.245 0.0025
QSG08-407 081475 Core_Half 50 52 0.071 0.0025
QSG08-407 081477 Core_Half 52 54 0.096 0.0025
QSG08-407 081478 Core_Half 54 56 0.708 0.007
QSG08-407 081479 Core_Half 56 58 0.532 0.0025
QSG08-407 081480 Core_Half 58 60 0.194 0.0025
OK 0.257 0.003
S-159 0170172 Core_Half 14 16 0.47 0.09 0.0075

S-159 0170173 Core_Half 16 18 0.43 0.09 0.003
S-159 0170174 Core_Half 18 21 0.46 0.09 0.006
S-159 0170175 Core_Half 21 23 0.4 0.06 0.009
S-159 0170176 Core_Half 23 25 0.45 0.0439
S-159 0170177 Core_Half 25 27 0.28 0.021
S-159 0170178 Core_Half 27 29 0.31 0.0165
S-159 0170179 Core_Half 29 31 0.34 0.015
S-159 0170180 Core_Half 31 32 0.53 0.13 0.006
S-159 0170181 Core_Half 32 34 0.4 0.08 0.006
S-159 0170182 Core_Half 34 36 0.24 0.006
S-159 0170183 Core_Half 36 38 0.25 0.0135
S-159 0170184 Core_Half 38 40 0.15 0.0075
S-159 0170185 Core_Half 40 43 0.81 0.64 0.018
OK 0.394 0.169 0.013
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
HOLEID SAMPLEID SAMPLETYPE FROM TO CUT % CUS % MO % AU ppm
S-33 0109287 Core_Half 36 37 0.18

S-33 0109288 Core_Half 37 38 0.25
S-33 0109289 Core_Half 38 39 0.3
S-33 0109290 Core_Half 39 40 0.32
S-33 0109297 Core_Half 46 47 0.42 0.067 0.005
S-33 0109298 Core_Half 47 48 0.19
S-33 0109299 Core_Half 48 49 0.41 0.14 0.008
OK 0.296 0.104 0.007
S-35 0116523 Core_Half 28 29 0.41 0.091 0.0038

S-35 0116524 Core_Half 29 30 0.22
S-35 0116525 Core_Half 30 31 0.11
S-35 0116526 Core_Half 31 32 0.11
S-35 0116527 Core_Half 32 33 0.12
S-35 0116528 Core_Half 33 34 0.19
S-35 0116529 Core_Half 34 35 0.12
S-35 0116530 Core_Half 35 36 0.13
S-35 0116531 Core_Half 36 37 0.28
S-35 0116532 Core_Half 37 38 0.19
OK 0.188 0.091 0.004
SV-21 0133697 Core_Half 76 77 0.225 0.082

SV-21 0133698 Core_Half 77 78 0.252 0.075
SV-21 0133699 Core_Half 78 79 0.168 0.055
SV-21 0133700 Core_Half 79 80 0.269 0.084
SV-21 0133701 Core_Half 80 81 0.249 0.091
SV-21 0133702 Core_Half 81 82 0.222 0.074
SV-21 0133703 Core_Half 82 83 0.163 0.059
SV-21 0133704 Core_Half 83 84 0.14 0.056
SV-21 0133705 Core_Half 84 85 0.241 0.082
SV-21 0133706 Core_Half 85 86 0.257 0.088
SV-21 0133707 Core_Half 86 87 0.255 0.095
SV-21 0133708 Core_Half 87 88 0.244 0.076
SV-21 0133709 Core_Half 88 89 0.314 0.114
SV-21 0133710 Core_Half 89 90 0.211 0.082
SV-21 0133711 Core_Half 90 91 0.292
SV-21 0133712 Core_Half 91 92 0.4 0.158 0.0108
SV-21 0133713 Core_Half 92 93 0.236 0.052
SV-21 0133714 Core_Half 93 94 0.172 0.046
SV-21 0133715 Core_Half 94 95 0.234 0.078
OK 0.239 0.080 0.011
MineType=275
HOLEID SAMPLEID SAMPLETYPE FROM TO CUT % CUS % MO % AU ppm
S-159 0170167 Core_Half 3 6 0.42 0.09 0.015
S-159 0170168 Core_Half 6 8 0.35 0.012
S-159 0170169 Core_Half 8 10 0.52 0.07 0.006
S-159 0170170 Core_Half 10 12 0.6 0.11 0.0135
S-159 0170171 Core_Half 12 14 0.57 0.12 0.0135
OK 0.492 0.098 0.012
S-33 0109291 Core_Half 40 41 0.68 0.11 0.005 0.01

S-33 0109292 Core_Half 41 42 0.84 0.22 0.014 0.01
S-33 0109293 Core_Half 42 43 0.57 0.13 0.004 0.02
S-33 0109294 Core_Half 43 44 0.37 0.01
S-33 0109295 Core_Half 44 45 0.64 0.094 0.004 0.01
S-33 0109296 Core_Half 45 46 0.69 0.11 0.004
OK 0.632 0.133 0.006 0.012
S-35 0116519 Core_Half 24 25 1.02 0.4 0.0018 0.01

S-35 0116520 Core_Half 25 26 0.5 0.15 0.0012
S-35 0116521 Core_Half 26 27 0.51 0.13 0.0012
S-35 0116522 Core_Half 27 28 0.47 0.095 0.0239
QuadraSierraGordaMetallurgicalScopingTestReport
OK 0.625 0.194 0.007
0.010 71
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Table 7-2 : Green Samples
Twinned Hole ID HOLEID SAMPLEID SAMPLETYPE FROM TO CUT %

QSG08-536 QSG06-269 028587 Chip_Quart 20 22 0.336
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218

QSG08-535 QSGRC5-71 09565 Chip_Third 118 120 0.407

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
HOLEID SAMPLEID SAMPLETYPE FROM TO CUT %

QSG06-278 035305 Core_Half 228 230 0.415
QSG06-278 035306 Core_Half 230 232 0.236
QSG06-278 035307 Core_Half 232 234 0.154
QSG06-278 035308 Core_Half 234 236 0.160
QSG06-278 035309 Core_Half 236 238 0.202
QSG06-278 035311 Core_Half 238 240 0.352
QSG06-278 035312 Core_Half 240 242 0.385
QSG06-278 035313 Core_Half 242 244 0.339
QSG06-278 035314 Core_Half 244 246 0.363
QSG06-278 035316 Core_Half 246 248 0.427
QSG06-278 035317 Core_Half 248 250 0.348
QSG06-278 035318 Core_Half 250 252 0.307
QSG06-278 035319 Core_Half 252 254 0.228
QSG06-278 035320 Core_Half 254 256 0.257
QSG06-278 INCLUDE THIS INTERVAL 256 258
QSG06-278 035323 Core_Half 258 260 0.281
QSG06-283 036457 Core_Half 128 130 0.196
QSG06-283 036460 Core_Half 132 134 0.170
QSG06-283 036461 Core_Half 134 136 0.356
QSG06-283 036462 Core_Half 136 138 0.365
QSG06-283 036464 Core_Half 138 140 0.153
QSG06-283 036465 Core_Half 140 142 0.109
QSG06-283 036466 Core_Half 142 144 0.070
QSG06-283 036467 Core_Half 144 146 0.199
QSG06-283 036468 Core_Half 146 148 0.302
QSG06-283 036469 Core_Half 148 150 0.468
QSG06-283 036471 Core_Half 150 152 0.094
QSG06-284 036080 Core_Half 78.6 80 0.354
QSG06-284 036081 Core_Half 80 82 0.036
QSG06-284 036114 Core_Half 136 138 0.449
QSG06-284 036116 Core_Half 140 142 0.085
QSG06-284 036120 Core_Half 146 148 0.120
QSG06-284 036121 Core_Half 148 150 0.449
QSG06-284 036122 Core_Half 150 152 0.181
QSG07-305 041014 Core_Half 102 104 0.577
QSG07-305 041015 Core_Half 104 106 0.170
QSG07-305 041036 Core_Half 140 142 0.243
QSG07-305 041037 Core_Half 142 144 0.168
QSG07-305 041038 Core_Half 144 146 0.198
QSG07-305 041040 Core_Half 146 148 0.560
QSG07-305 041041 Core_Half 148 150 0.176
QSG07-305 041042 Core_Half 150 152 0.226
QSG07-305 041046 Core_Half 156 158 0.544
QSG07-305 041047 Core_Half 158 160 0.143
QSG07-305 041048 Core_Half 160 162 0.273
QSG07-305 041049 Core_Half 162 164 0.500
QSG07-305 041050 Core_Half 164 166 0.357
QSG07-305 041052 Core_Half 166 168 0.352
QSG07-305 041053
Core_Half 168 170 0.395 75
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
QSG07-305 041054 Core_Half 170 172 0.436

QSG07-305 041055 Core_Half 172 174 0.588
QSG07-305 041056 Core_Half 174 176 0.393
QSG07-305 041057 Core_Half 176 178 0.368
QSG07-305 041058 Core_Half 178 180 0.369
QSG07-305 041060 Core_Half 180 182 0.280
QSG07-305 041061 Core_Half 182 184 0.226
QSG07-305 041062 Core_Half 184 186 0.398
QSG07-305 041063 Core_Half 186 188 0.341
QSG07-305 041064 Core_Half 188 190 0.103
QSG07-305 041066 Core_Half 190 192 0.140
QSG07-305 041067 Core_Half 192 194 2.068
QSG07-305 041068 Core_Half 194 196 0.362
QSG07-305 041069 Core_Half 196 198 0.240
QSG07-305 041070 Core_Half 198 200 0.408
QSG07-305 041072 Core_Half 200 202 0.448
QSG07-305 041073 Core_Half 202 204 0.614
QSG07-306 076593 Core_Half 200 202 0.120
QSG07-306 076594 Core_Half 202 204 0.360
QSG07-306 076595 Core_Half 204 206 0.243
QSG07-306 076596 Core_Half 206 208 0.231
QSG07-306 076597 Core_Half 208 210 0.231
QSG07-306 076599 Core_Half 210 212 0.245
QSG07-306 076600 Core_Half 212 214 0.231
QSG07-306 076601 Core_Half 214 216 0.259
QSG07-306 076602 Core_Half 216 218 0.302
QSG07-332 043144 Core_Half 208 210 0.112
QSG07-332 043146 Core_Half 210 212 0.197
QSG07-332 043147 Core_Half 212 214 0.212
QSG07-332 043148 Core_Half 214 216 0.218
QSG07-332 043159 Core_Half 232 234 0.204
QSG07-332 043162 Core_Half 238 240 0.405
QSG07-332 043163 Core_Half 240 242 0.279
QSG07-332 043164 Core_Half 242 244 0.202
QSG07-343 081687 Core_Half 228 230 0.131
QSG07-343 081688 Core_Half 230 232 0.321
QSG07-343 081689 Core_Half 232 234 0.304
QSG07-343 081690 Core_Half 234 236 0.189
QSG07-344 076172 Core_Half 230 232 0.772
QSG07-344 076173 Core_Half 232 234 0.231
QSG07-344 076174 Core_Half 234 236 0.280
QSG07-345 076053 Core_Half 220 222 0.392
QSG07-345 076054 Core_Half 222 224 0.352
QSG07-345 076055 Core_Half 224 226 0.381
QSG07-345 076056 Core_Half 226 228 0.479
QSG07-321 047240 Core_Half 188 190 0.82
QSG07-321 047241 Core_Half 190 192 0.509
QSG07-321 047242 Core_Half 192 194 0.347
QSG07-321 047243 Core_Half 194 196 0.488
QSG07-345 076049 Core_Half 214 216 0.429
QSG07-345 076050 Core_Half 216 218 2.325
QSG07-345 076052 Core_Half 218 220 1.053


Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
8 Appendix 3 Grinding Circuit Scale-up

8.1 SAG mill and ball mill sizing
Whether considering HPGR or traditional SAG/AG mills, the steps involved in designing the grind circuit
remain the same. Assuming any given grinding circuit product size P80, the steps are:
Identify the ore hardness and breakage characteristics in order to properly calculate how much energy
(kWh) per tonne of ore is required to achieve the target grind. This must be done for all pieces of
equipment considered including crushers, HPGRs, SAG mills, AG mills, and ball mills
Once the specific energy consumption kWh/tonne of ore is known for the primary unit operations, the
number of equipment pieces (SAG mills, ball mills, crushers, etc) and their sizes are fixed such that
enough power is available to achieve the target tonnage and grind.
Once the equipment sizes and quantities have been identified, the layout work starts. In this step we
consider available space, elevation contours, site accessibility such that maximum use of gravity is
applied to reduce costs and provide a mechanically efficient, ergonomic and safe layout. Occasionally
constraints in this step force us to return to the step 2 to examine alternate equipment sizes.
In practice the grinding the circuit is itself only a part of the whole picture. Therefore, Aminpro / AME
Ltda. generally sizes the grinding circuit in conjunction with the flotation circuit so that relationship
between grind and recovery can be included in the cost-benefit analysis. Step two therefore is an
iterative procedure involving cost-benefit analysis iterations on grind size and the respective flotation
and milling capacity requirements.
This white paper provides the technical basis of Aminpro / AME Ltda.s methodology for Steps 1 and 2
above.
For SAG mills the Aminpro / AME Ltda. models can use either the JK technology (A, b and Ta) or the
SGS SPI or Starkey index measurements. The JK methodology is synonymous with JKSimMet and
can be used for SimMet modeling if the client has the necessary licenses available in-house. The SGS
methodology is synonymous with CEET (Comminution Economic Evaluation Tool) and its various
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
incarnations. CEET is an online modeling software accessed via HTTP (again, once the necessary
licenses and training plans are purchased).
For ball mills Aminpro / AME Ltda. uses the Bond work index and our extensive database of ball mills
circuits.
Once the designer has selected the testing methodology, the next question is deciding how many
samples to collect and how best to define ore hardness variability. This is a complex issue that is
discussed in a separate white paper (WP200801).
In practice Aminpro / AME Ltda. use neither JKSimMet nor CEET for grinding circuit power modeling.
This is discussed below.
The second step is to convert the ore hardness measurements into specific energy requirements.
The SAG mill power is determined using the SGS-Minnovex SPI or (as it was formerly known) the
Starkey Index. The SPI test procedures and calibration equations are the intellectual property of
SGS-Minnovex but the original test development program was funded by the Mining Industry
Technology Council of Canada (MITEC) and as such is available in the public domain. Since the
original publication of the test calibration Aminpro / AME Ltda. have significantly expanded and
improved the original test calibration and related technology over years of circuit design, operation and
modeling experience. For example, the Aminpro / AME Ltda. models can now accept either SPI or JK
A and b parameters as model inputs.
The Bond equation is used for ball mill sizing but several important corrections are made to ensure
adequate scale-up. The most important Bond correction factor involves the percent of finished product
in the ball mill circuit feed (transfer stream). It is well known that SAG and AG mills produce a much
higher proportion of finished product in the transfer stream (higher relative to rod mills) and this must be
considered. The same kind of correction is applied for HPGRs using experience gained at full scale
hard rock HPGR operations. Figure 8-1 shows typical transfer size distributions for three types of
closed circuits (a very hard ore ground in a SAG mill, a medium-hard ore ground in an AG mill, and a
medium hard ore ground in an HPGR). It can readily be seen that for a product size of, say, 200
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
microns, the SAG and AG mills produce approximately double the finished product in the screen
undersize. This translates into larger ball mills for the HPGR scenario (even considering energy
savings due to micro fracture effects).
Transfer Size Distributions

100
90
80
70
Cum % Pass
60
50
40
30 SAG, BWI=19.6, SPI = 155, Cfnet = 1.36
20 AG, BWI=15.2, SPI=101, CFNet=0.54
10
HPGR, BWI-15.7, SPI=NA, Cfnet = 1.02
0
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Size (microns)
Figure 8-1 Transfer Size Distributions for three circuit types
For standard gyratory crushers Aminpro / AME Ltda. uses either the JK approach (based on breakage
and selection functions) or the empiric models (i.e. Nordberg Red Book) with corrections applied as per
Aminpro / AME Ltda.s experience. Generally the choice of method depends on the equipment being
considered and test data that are available.
Once the required power draw is identified the mill dimensions are calculated using one of the various
power draw models. The Morrell model is perhaps the most used as it has been shown to remain valid
since its publication in 1993 even after new mill data have been added to the original database. Figure
8-2 shows the Morrell power prediction for autogenous mills for both the original 1993 database and the
current 2008 Aminpro / AME Ltda. database. The Aminpro / AME Ltda. database includes data
obtained from literature sources as well as data collected in-house.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Mill Power Draw Scatterplot - SAG/AG Mills

20000
18000
16000
14000
Actual (kW)
12000
10000
8000
6000
Morrell Database (1993)
4000
Equality
2000
Aminpro Database (2008)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Predicted (kW)
Figure 8-2 Morrell power draw predictions versus measured power draw (@ motor leads)
By incorporating factors for drive train losses Aminpro / AME Ltda. can accurately calculate the motor
required for a given shell size, ore SG, and charge levels in a SAG or ball mill. Aminpro / AME Ltda.
compared the calculated power at standard SAG conditions (15% ball charge, 28% total charge, 2.7
t/m3 SG) to the installed motor power published by Jones (2006). The results indicate that, in general,
industry favors over-sizing the motor by some 10% to cover high power draw when ball charging, with
overloads, etc., but some recently installed large mills including the Cadia 40 ft mill and both 38-foot
mills at Escondida and Collahuasi have wrap-around motors that can only draw, at best, some 80% of
the installed power.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Power Draw Comparison after Jones

25,000
y = 1.0991x
2
R = 0.9459
Installed Power Draw (Jones)
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Predicted Power Draw kW (Morrell)
Figure 8-3
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
9 APPENDIX 4 Flotation Test Procedures

9.1 Calibration of a Laboratory Flotation Cell
9.1.1 Introduction
Laboratory tests in flotation are often done with equipment that has not been properly set up for the
task. Either the impeller is worn or the air rate is poor. It is often forgotten that most laboratory units
are air induced and when the impeller is worn, aside from being poorly agitated, less air is pumped into
the cell. Remember, the speed of flotation k (the first order flotation rate constant) is related to the air
flux (Jg) by the following equation
k = (1.5 Jg /db) EK
Where db is the bubble diameter and EK is the collection efficiency.
It is therefore recommended that a calibration be done on the unit to certify its performance.
9.1.1.1 Equipment
A well set up flotation cell is one that has air control and agitator RPM control.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
RPM Control
Rotameter
air
The impeller should not be worn. With a new impeller, it is most likely that no external air source is
needed. Should there be a slight wear on the impeller, it may be necessary to hook the cells air intake
nozzle to an external air source. The air source needs to be oil free and equipped with a pressure
reducer (100PSI x 10 PSI) to eliminate the risk of damaging the rotameter ( 0 to 15 Litre/min). The
RPM control needs to be working.
If the test work is to be done in a 5 L cell, that cell should be used for the calibration..
9.1.1.2 Procedure
Follow the procedures of the SKT test.
The test needs to include 3 readings of air (Constant RPM) and 3 readings of RPM at a constant air
rate. The readings should be widely spaced.
9.1.1.3 Determination of optimum RPM and air
From the six SKT tests determine the kinetics of the sample floated by measuring the maximum
recovery at time=infinite (Rmax) and the rate constant (k) of each test. This is done by using standard
curve fitting procedures for the equation:
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Recovery = ( 1 - e kt ) Rmax
By plotting Rmax and k versus RPM versus air rate the optimum levels can be determined. Most likely
there will be more of an effect on the rate constant than on the Rmax. The best (highest) kinetics
(Rmax and k) are obtained at the optimum settings. One example is shown on the plot of Rmax in the
next page. In this case, the RPM had little effect on the Rmax, but the air rate showed a maximum at
15 L/min.
9.2 The SF Test

9.2.1 Introduction
The SF test is a standard flotation test used by Aminpro to quickly examine the response of an ore
where the kinetic rate constant is not a key factor in decision making.
This test may be used for cell calibration purposes, in which the aim is to evaluate air rate and rpm in
order to achieve a maximum recovery.
9.2.2 Procedures
In brief; the procedures are:
Test to be done in 4.8 L cell

The ore is ground with some 300 g excess sample for assaying
Ground slurry is placed in the cell and 300 g is extracted for assay
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Ore is floated for 20 minutes and only one concentrate is extracted

Feed, concentrate and tail samples are dried and assayed.
The flow chart is as follows:
Aminpro SF Test
(Simple Flotation Test)
Sample Weighing and
Prep Grinding assaying
Sample
prepared to
100% - 10 M Grind for a pre- Float 20 min and
Weigh dry
determined time generate one
product and
concentrate
assay
Flot sample placed Transfer grinding

in bag + 300 g pulp to cell
4 5 6
1 2 3 7 8
Add reagents to
conditioner
Float
Flotation
The test may also be represented as follows:
Grinding
Mill
SF
Flotation
Cell
FS
CS
Symbol Name Measurements

Slurry Weight Dry weight Assays
FS Sample Total Feed X X
CS Sample Total Conc X X
TS Sample Total Tail X X TS
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
9.3 SKT Test

9.3.1 Procedures
The Laboratory test is called the Simplex Kinetic Test (SKT) because no dual screen analysis with
assays is required (of feed and tails), but rather a simple screen analysis to confirm the P80 sizing.
The test, as shown in Figure 9-1 is a simple test in which concentrates are separated at pre-determined
times.
Water
Feed Conc
C1
C2
C3
Tails C4
Figure 9-1
All products are weighed wet and dry (to obtain % solids) and assayed for the necessary elements to
determine the constituent minerals and required low concentration metals.
The technicians are required to calibrate their flotation cell to operate at optimum RPM and air rate.
This will ensure that the best settings are used and will most likely yield reproducible results.
The process of recovering hydrophilic particles in a laboratory cell abide by plug flow conditions for the
collection process and as Figure 9-2 shows, are subjected to recoveries in the collection zone (the
pulp) and froth zone. In addition, the movement of water exiting with the froth, being a carrier, is
responsible for the transport of all mineral species through entrainment.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Re
Conc
Rc.Rf
Rf
Rc
1
Feed
1 - Rc
Rflot = Rc.Rf / (Rc.Rf + 1-Rc)
Rtot = Rflot + (1 Rflot).Re Tails
Figure 9-2
The collection zone recovery, Rc is determined by establishing the kinetic rate constant, k and the
collection zone recovery that occurs at time= (infinite), Rmax. The relationship is:
Rc = ( 1 - e-kt ) Rmax Eq 1
As the minerals recovered in the pulp zone pass through the froth zone, depending on the degree of
pull by the operator, some fall back into the pulp and some are recovered over the lip of the cell. The
froth recovery, Fr, depicts the fraction of particles recovered in the froth from those that were recovered
in the collection zone. The recovery by flotation, Rflot, is:
Rflot = ( Rc.Rf ) / ( 1 Rc + Rc.Rf ) Eq 2
It has been customary to assign an Rf value of 100% when dealing with laboratory test work, as the
froth beds are shallow and operator action is likely pushing the froth recovery to high levels. The FKT
test considers froth recoveries as an important aspect of kinetics determination.
As concentrate is recovered over the lip of the cell, it carries water, which in turn carries solids that did
not undergo the flotation process. These solids are said to have been recovered by entrainment, Re.
The total recovery, Rtot, experienced by the lab cell is:
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Rtot = Rflot + ( 1 Rflot ) Re Eq 3
The recovery by entrainment happens to all mineral species in the lab cell. Generally the different
sizing and specific gravities of each mineral species result in slight differences in the degree of
entrainment5. The FKT test assumes that the degree of entrainment is the same for all species. This
does not constitute a significant error in the model as the recovery by entrainment is generally a small
value.
The product of the laboratory test work is the determination of the collection zone rate constant, k and
Rmax for all minerals and water.
9.4 Rougher-Cleaner Test
9.4.1 Introduction
The Rougher-Cleaner (Ro-Cl) flotation test is a well-known test in mineral processing designed to
provide a rapid answer as to the floatability of an ore. It consists of performing a rougher (or primary
stage) flotation stage followed immediately by a cleaning stage. The cleaning stage may be composed
of a series of stages.
The Ro-Cl test is ideally suited for scoping studies where a high-level knowledge of an ores
amenability to flotation is desired.
9.4.2 Procedures
The test procedures follow the diagram in Figure 9-3.
5
The Degree of Entrainment, DE is the ratio of solids recovered to the water recovery and is a function of particle size, specific
gravity and density of the froth.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Raw Ore
Rougher
Cl-1
Cl-2
Ro Tail Regrind
Cl-3
Cl-1 Tail F.Conc
Cl-2 Tail
Cl-3 Tail
Figure 9-3 Flow diagram of rougher-cleaner test

The stages of the test are defined as follows:
Primary Grind
Roughers
Regrind
Cleaner 1
Cleaner 2
Cleaner 3
The test conditions need to be recorded every step of the way in the format shown below:
Reactivos/reagents in nominal g/t
STAGE Time, min Redox Lime pH Frother 1ry Coll 2ry Coll Other
Grind
Grind Conditions
Mill, d/l, cm = -
Charge (20rods), Kg = -
RPM = -
%Sol Feed -
Rod, d/l,cm: -
Mill Rating (kWh) -
Reactivos/reagents in nominal g/t

Flotacion Time, min Redox Lime pH Frother 1ry Coll 2ry Coll Other
Conditioner 1
Rougher
Regrind
Conditioner
Cleaner 1
Conditioner
Cleaner 2
Conditioner
Cleaner 3
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
9.4.3 Primary Grind
As with most Aminpro tests, the sample used for flotation needs to contain 200 to 300 grams excess
sample for head assay and screen analysis. The primary grinding mill has to be conditioned with the
correct reagents.
9.4.4 Roughers
The product of grinding is introduced to the roughers and water is added to the level of flotation. The
cells RPM and air rate (the latter must be measured) must be set according to optimized conditions.
Make-up water must be similar in quality (at least pH) to what the internal reclaim water will be.
The test initiation procedures are as follows:
Remove the 200-300 g head sample

Add water to flotation level (1 cm from o/f)
Add lime to desired pH
Add reagents
Add frother
Condition 1 min
The concentrate must be floated until no mineralized material is seen. At this point, the air must be
turned off.. The tails must be filtered and dried. The water then need to be collected for subsequent
cleaner test work.
9.4.5 Regrind
The regrind stage is best performed with small - 5/8 stainless steel balls in a porcelain ball mill. All
of the rougher concentrate needs to be reground (at 60% solids) in the mill. It is best to do a trial test
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
before any Ro-Cl test commences in which the grind P80 (80% passing size) is determined versus the
regrind time.
9.4.6 Setting a Grind time vs. P80 curve
Determine the P80 at t=0:

o Place all rougher concentrate into a 1L vessel; add water to the 1L mark.
o Weigh the slurry (Total less the tare)
o Calculate weight of solids (Ws) from
Ws = ( WT - VT ) / ( 1 - 1/s )
Where WT= Total weight (water + solids), VT total volume = 1000 and s is the specific gravity of
solids (an assumed value for now).
Once the initial weight of sample has been determined, the entire ungrounded and wet sample
must be passed through a 400 Mesh screen, ensuring all the screen undersized material is
collected in a bucket.
The oversize is to be placed in the 1L vessel, as done earlier then the weight of the oversize
material is to be determined, assuming the same specific gravity of the solids.
The percentage retained (Remember %pass = 100 - % Retained) on the 400 Mesh Screen (37-
38 microns) is determined and with help from the chart below the P80 value is also determined.
The solid vertical line is the 400 Mesh size.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
P80 chart for Regrinds

100
90
80
P80= 20
%Passing
70
P80= 30
60 P80= 40
P80= 50
50 P80= 70
40
30
10 100 1000
Size, microns

The P80 value next to the time T=0 should be logged
The undersize and oversize should be reterned back to the regrind mill and ground for discrete
times, measuring the P80 at the different time intervals to get a curve. Once this is done, the
P80 versus the regrind time can be plotted. Once this is completed, the Ro-Cl test can be
started.
9.4.7 Cleaner 1
The contents of the reground material of the mill is placed into a flotation cell sized to give a slurry
percentage solids near 20%. Often these stages do not require any reagent addition except for some
frother. Should any reagents be required, one-minute conditioning time should be allowed for.
Material should be floated only until the mineralization is almost all gone. This will probably be about
50% of the time it took in the rougher. If the material has been reground very fine, it tends to slow the
kinetics and more time will be required. It is because of this that a visual gauge is often the best guide.
It is important to note that the rate of removing concentrate in the cleaners must be very slow, i.e. once
every 15 seconds. The idea is to clean while recovery becomes more of a secondary issue.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
9.4.8 Cleaner 2 and 3

Cleaner two and three are to be treated similarly to cleaner one. The last cleaning stage may be
omitted if not deemed necessary.
The last cleaning stage must be floated very slowly also, aiming to achieve recoveries between 50 and
75%. The test requires this stage to produce plant-like concentrate grades. The duration of the test
must be such that when streaks of barren froth are seen, the test is stopped.
9.4.9 Products
The products of the Ro-Cl test are to be weighed wet and dry. The percentage solids need to be
estimated. The size of the cells must be recorded also.
Product Wet Wt Dry Wt
Ro Tail
Cl-1 Tail
Cl-2 Tail
Cl-3 Tail
Cl-3 Conc
All products need to be assayed for the agreed upon assays. The feed sample needs to be screened.
9.4.10 Reconciliation of Results

An area of controversy exists among metallurgists about the way a Ro-Cl test is to be reported. The
controversy arises in the way recovery is defined: the reader needs to recognize that the metal
recovered in the last cleaning stage is not a reflection of the recovery of the process. This is so
because metal is also locked-in with the hanging products, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd cleaner tail products.
These are called hanging because, had the process been continuous, these streams would have
been retreated.
Aminpro reconciles the cleaner section by assuming that the recovery of the first cleaners is applied to
the hanging streams, including the first cleaners.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
10 Appendix 5 Flotation Test Results

10.1 Reagent Selection and Cell Calibration Series (SF Tests)
This section contains only the summarized and tabulated data. The reader is referred to the
accompanying CD-ROM for complete test data sheets and tabulated data in spreadsheet format.
Test Conditions
Test RPM Air Rate: pH 1ry Col 1ry Col 2ry Col 2ry Col
1 1200 8.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF

2 1400 8.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF
3 1600 8.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF
4 1400 11.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF
5 1400 13.0 10.0 5.00 E 930 10 HF
6 1600 13.0 10.2 5.00 E 930 10 HF
7 1250 8.0 10.5 15.00 3894
8 1250 8.0 10.1 15.00 3418
9 1250 8.0 8.8 15.00 Hostaflot F
10 1250 8.0 9.5 15.00 Hostaflot E-936
11 1250 8.0 8.6 10.00 3894 PAX
12 1250 8.0 10.0 10.00 3894 SIBX
13 1250 8.0 10.0 10.00 3894 50 Diesel
14 1250 8.0 10.1 10.00 3894 100 Diesel
15 1250 8.0 10.1 10.00 3894 150 Diesel
Elemental Recoveries Mineral Recoveries

Test Cu Mo Fe Au CuFeS2 MoS2 FeS2 FeOX
1 93.9% 74.0% 56.8% 93.9% 74.0% 70.8% 52.7%

2 94.1% 79.4% 48.4% 94.1% 79.4% 45.7% 54.8%
3 94.3% 75.5% 51.2% 94.3% 75.5% 45.2% 58.9%
4 94.3% 75.3% 35.8% 94.3% 75.3% 36.3% 41.4%
5 93.5% 78.1% 45.6% 93.5% 78.1% 40.1% 53.6%
6 92.8% 76.9% 37.8% 92.8% 76.9% 38.6% 43.0%
7 95.0% 82.0% 53.1% 70.5% 95.0% 82.0% 63.0% 50.9%
8 96.2% 78.7% 59.3% 71.7% 96.2% 78.7% 83.6% 46.2%
9 94.1% 87.9% 50.3% 75.1% 94.1% 87.9% 61.9% 47.3%
10 93.4% 77.2% 46.4% 70.1% 93.4% 77.2% 61.2% 41.5%
11 97.1% 86.9% 64.5% 74.1% 97.1% 86.9% 97.7% 48.5%
12 96.8% 87.0% 65.9% 79.9% 96.8% 87.0% 96.8% 50.8%
13 96.8% 89.6% 43.4% 70.2% 96.8% 89.6% 51.1% 44.5%
14 96.6% 89.4% 43.3% 70.0% 96.6% 89.4% 50.5% 44.9%
15 96.1% 91.2% 44.4% 74.6% 96.1% 91.2% 53.0% 44.5%
Table 10-1 Tabulated SF results
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Feed Assays Feed Mineral Assays

Test %Cu %Mo %Fe %S Au %CuFeS2 %MoS2 %FeS2 %FeOX
1 0.461 0.028 5.726 3.018 1.33 0.05 4.74 5.51

2 0.456 0.027 5.650 3.057 1.32 0.04 4.83 5.35
3 0.449 0.027 5.795 3.051 1.30 0.04 4.83 5.54
4 0.441 0.027 5.696 3.000 1.27 0.04 4.75 5.44
5 0.444 0.025 5.683 3.025 1.28 0.04 4.79 5.40
6 0.450 0.027 5.746 3.051 1.30 0.04 4.83 5.47
7 0.447 0.025 5.454 3.250 0.068 1.29 0.04 5.21 4.81
8 0.436 0.026 5.505 3.260 0.064 1.26 0.04 5.24 4.84
9 0.446 0.025 5.640 3.222 0.068 1.29 0.04 5.16 5.10
10 0.419 0.025 5.314 3.071 0.058 1.21 0.04 4.92 4.77
11 0.405 0.023 5.492 2.868 0.078 1.17 0.04 4.57 5.23
12 0.434 0.023 5.616 3.013 0.088 1.25 0.04 4.79 5.30
13 0.446 0.030 5.468 3.011 0.065 1.29 0.05 4.75 5.12
14 0.445 0.029 5.452 2.853 0.058 1.28 0.05 4.46 5.29
15 0.451 0.029 5.721 3.175 0.075 1.30 0.05 5.05 5.29
Concentrate Assays Concentrate Mineral Assays

1 1.16 0.06 8.72 6.02 0.00 3.35 0.09 9.00 7.80

2 1.10 0.05 7.03 4.18 0.00 3.19 0.09 5.67 7.53
3 0.99 0.05 6.92 3.75 0.00 2.85 0.08 5.10 7.62
4 1.64 0.08 8.01 5.32 0.00 4.72 0.13 6.77 8.85
5 1.07 0.05 6.69 3.77 0.00 3.10 0.09 4.96 7.49
6 1.52 0.08 7.93 5.21 0.00 4.39 0.13 6.79 8.59
7 1.16 0.06 7.94 6.02 0.13 3.36 0.09 8.99 6.71
8 1.26 0.06 9.83 8.37 0.14 3.65 0.10 13.20 6.74
9 1.30 0.07 8.79 6.65 0.16 3.76 0.11 9.89 7.49
10 1.39 0.07 8.73 7.15 0.15 4.00 0.12 10.67 7.00
11 1.16 0.06 10.41 8.23 0.17 3.34 0.10 13.14 7.46
12 1.22 0.06 10.74 8.46 0.20 3.52 0.10 13.45 7.80
13 1.60 0.10 8.81 6.49 0.17 4.62 0.17 9.01 8.46
14 1.56 0.09 8.58 6.01 0.15 4.51 0.16 8.19 8.64
15 1.54 0.09 9.02 6.70 0.20 4.45 0.15 9.51 8.36
Tails Assays Tails Mineral Assays

1 0.04 0.01 3.95 1.23 0.00 0.13 0.02 2.21 4.16

2 0.04 0.01 4.77 2.34 0.00 0.13 0.02 4.29 3.96
3 0.04 0.01 4.95 2.53 0.00 0.13 0.02 4.63 3.98
4 0.03 0.01 4.91 2.21 0.00 0.10 0.01 4.06 4.28
5 0.05 0.01 5.05 2.56 0.00 0.14 0.02 4.68 4.09
6 0.04 0.01 4.92 2.23 0.00 0.13 0.01 4.09 4.30
7 0.03 0.01 4.03 1.66 0.03 0.10 0.01 3.03 3.72
8 0.02 0.01 3.36 0.72 0.03 0.07 0.01 1.29 3.90
9 0.04 0.00 4.14 1.59 0.02 0.11 0.01 2.90 3.97
10 0.04 0.01 3.97 1.47 0.02 0.11 0.01 2.66 3.89
11 0.02 0.00 2.96 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.16 4.08
12 0.02 0.00 2.92 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.23 3.98
13 0.02 0.00 4.23 1.72 0.03 0.06 0.01 3.18 3.89
14 0.02 0.00 4.26 1.65 0.02 0.06 0.01 3.05 4.02
15 0.02 0.00 4.43 1.79 0.03 0.07 0.01 3.31 4.09
Table 10-2 Tabulated SF feed, tails, and concentrate assays
10.2 Rougher pH and Grind Series (SKT Tests)

This section contains only the summarized and tabulated data. The reader is referred to the
accompanying CD-ROM for complete test data sheets and tabulated data in spreadsheet format.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
CuFeS2 Rate Constant vs pH CuFeS2 Rate Constant vs P80

5
5 y = 0.0002x 2 - 0.0458x + 5.3227
y = 0.5387x0.6619 4 y = -7E-05x 2 + 0.0245x - 0.3782
4 y = 1.1025x0.2138
Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
y = -0.0002x 2 + 0.0643x - 1.9781

y = 1.1677x0.315 3
3
2 2
1 1
0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
pH P80 ( m)
Au Rate Constant vs pH Au Rate Constant vs P80

5 5
2
y = -0.0306x + 0.8502x - 3.6257 y = 0.0004x 2 - 0.0924x + 6.7689
4 2
y = -0.0061x - 0.0138x + 1.1233 4 y = -6E-05x 2 + 0.0169x - 0.5442
Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
y = -0.4495x2 + 7.9314x - 33.197 y = -0.0006x 2 + 0.1394x - 6.7674
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
pH P80 ( m)
Cu2 S Rate Constant vs pH Cu2S Rate Constant vs P80

5 y = -0.0002x 2 + 0.0476x + 0.3087
5
y = -0.0027x2 + 0.2804x - 0.1134 y = -8E-05x 2 + 0.0283x - 0.5592
4 y = -0.0949x2 + 1.6481x - 5.2495 4
Rmax (Rougher)
y = -0.0003x 2 + 0.0748x - 2.4763

Rmax (Rougher)
y = -0.0808x2 + 1.4988x - 4.5114

3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
pH P80 ( m)
Table 10-3 Rougher flotation rate constant k versus pH and P80, uncorrected
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
MoS2 Rate Constant vs pH MoS2 Rate Constant vs P80

5 y = 0.0647x2 - 1.1403x + 7.5209 5 y = -9E-05x2 + 0.0212x + 0.7919
2
y = -0.233x + 3.6591x - 11.983 y = -0.0002x2 + 0.056x - 2.1687
4 4
Rmax (Rougher)
y = -0.0393x2 + 0.6863x - 0.7369
Rmax (Rougher)
y = 0.0003x2 - 0.0971x + 9.9277
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
pH P80 (m)
FeS2 Rate Constant vs pH FeS2 Rate Constant vs P80

5 y = -0.2351x2 + 4.4721x - 19.802 5 y = 3E-05x2 - 0.0079x + 1.82
2
y = -0.3629x + 5.8749x - 22.311 y = -0.0001x2 + 0.0364x - 1.3252
4 4
Rmax (Rougher)
y = -0.0513x2 + 0.6387x - 0.2243 y = -0.0003x2 + 0.0784x - 3.1764
Rmax (Rougher)
3 3
2
2
1
1
0
0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
7 8 9 10 11 12
pH P80 (m)
FeOX Rate Constant vs pH FeOX Rate Constant vs P80

5 5
y = -0.0023x 2 + 0.0064x + 0.251 y = 6E-05x 2 - 0.0163x + 1.1039
4 y = 0.0553x 2 - 0.8624x + 3.4668 4 y = 1E-06x 2 - 0.0001x + 0.3253

Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
y = -0.0185x 2 + 0.3595x - 1.6001

y = 0.0001x 2 - 0.0262x + 1.4628
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
pH
P80 (m)
Gangue Rate Constant vs pH Gangue Rate Constant vs P2 80

5 5 y = 0.0005x - 0.1108x + 6.6053
y = 0.0001x 2 - 0.029x + 2.259
4 y = -0.0181x 2 + 0.266x - 0.6207 4 y = -0.0002x 2 + 0.0537x - 1.9954
Rmax (Rougher)
y = 0.2509x 2 - 4.5552x + 20.947

Rmax (Rougher)
3 y = 0.6718x 2 - 13.496x + 67.795 3
2 2
1
1
0
0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
7 8 9 10 11 12
pH P80 (m)
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Table 10-4 Rougher rate constant versus pH and P80, Uncorrected (contd)
CuFeS2 Recovery vs pH 100 CuFeS2 Recovery vs P80

100
95 95
Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
90 90
85 85
80 80 y = -0.0011x2 + 0.1806x + 90.442

y = 81.635x0.0607
y = 72.407x0.1103 y = -0.003x2 + 0.5561x + 72.851
75 75
y = -0.0014x2 + 0.2873x + 83.79
y = 90.133x0.0231 70
70
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
pH P80 ( m)
100 Au Recovery vs pH Au Recovery vs P80

90 100
80 90
80
Rmax (Rougher)
70 Rmax (Rougher)
70
60
60
50
50
40 40
30 y = -11.72x2 + 216.26x - 908.43
30 y = 0.0275x2 - 6.0656x + 395.45
20 y = -8.3332x2 + 151.31x - 605.58 20 y = 0.0025x2 - 0.6517x + 121.02
10 10 y = -0.0007x2 + 0.1213x + 67.819
y = 3.1557x2 - 61.45x + 353.71
0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
pH P80 ( m)
Cu2 S Recovery vs pH Cu2 S Recovery vs P80

100 100
95 95
Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
90 90
85 85
80
80 y = 0.0019x2 - 0.4569x + 123.05
y = -1.2344x2 + 23.395x - 13.415
y = 0.8377x2 - 13.68x + 146.39 75 y = -0.0026x2 + 0.4623x + 77.849
75
y = -1.6213x2 + 30.64x - 46.535 y = -0.0008x2 + 0.1596x + 89.828
70
70
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
7 8 9 10 11 12
pH P80 ( m)
Table 10-5 Rougher maximum recovery Rmax versus pH and P80, Uncorrected
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
MoS2 Recovery vs pH MoS2 Recovery vs P80

100 100
95 95
90 90
Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
85 85
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 y = -0.7342x2 + 13.131x + 36.514 65 y = -0.0017x2 + 0.391x + 70.844
60 2
y = 0.5719x - 8.8443x + 119.09 60 y = -0.0025x2 + 0.4561x + 70.937
55 2
y = -4.2917x + 74.551x - 235.54
55 y = -0.0023x2 + 0.3215x + 80.639
50 50
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
pH
P80 ( m)
FeS2 Recovery vs pH FeS2 Recovery vs P80

100 100
y = -5.88x2 + 94.733x - 316.36
90 90
y = -17.375x2 + 274x - 986.79 80
80
Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
70 y = -6.2147x2 + 94.97x - 283.61 70

60 60
50 50
40 40 y = 0.0121x2 - 2.9964x + 237.02
30 30
y = -0.0053x2 + 1.3084x + 7.565
20 20
10 y = -0.0031x2 + 0.6763x + 36.287
10
0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

pH P80 ( m)
FeOX Recovery vs pH FeOX Recovery vs P80

100 100
90 y = 0.001x 2 - 0.3316x + 32.503
y = -0.4424x 2 + 9.8495x - 39.986 90
80 80 y = -0.0096x 2 + 2.2613x - 94.034
y = -0.5699x + 17.911x - 90.571
2
Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
70 y = -0.2247x 2 + 4.6821x - 8.3521 70 y = 0.0032x 2 - 0.613x + 39.273

60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20
20
10
10
0
0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
7 8 9 10 11 12
pH P80 ( m)
100 Gangue Recovery vs pH Gangue Recovery vs P80

100
90 2 90 y = 0.0021x 2 - 0.5034x + 30.585
y = -1.038x + 20.552x - 95.798
80 80
y = 0.9817x2 - 9.7307x + 21.075 y = -0.0073x 2 + 1.5541x - 57.355
Rmax (Rougher)
Rmax (Rougher)
70 70
2
y = -2.9136x + 55.398x - 254.02 y = 0.0007x 2 - 0.1722x + 11.234
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0
0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
7 8 9 10 11 12
pH P80 ( m)
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Table 10-6 Rougher maximum recovery Rmax versus pH and P80, Uncorrected (cont)

5.0 SPPD 100 SPPD
4.5 90
4.0 80
Recovery (Model)
3.5 70
60
k (Model)
3.0
2.5 50
2.0 40
30
1.5
20
1.0
10
0.5
0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Recovery (Actual)
k (Actual) Au Rmax Cu2S Rmax CuFeS2 Rmax MoS2 Rmax
Au k Cu2S k CuFeS2 k MoS2 k FeS2 k FeOX k Gangue k
FeS2 Rmax FeOX Rmax Gangue Rmax

5.0 SEZ 100 SEZ
4.5 90
4.0 80
Recovery (Model)
3.5 70
3.0 60
k (Model)
2.5 50
40
2.0
30
1.5
20
1.0
10
0.5
0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
k (Actual) Recovery (Actual)
Au Rmax Cu2S Rmax CuFeS2 Rmax MoS2 Rmax
Au k Cu2S k CuFeS2 k MoS2 k FeS2 k FeOX k Gangue k FeS2 Rmax FeOX Rmax Gangue Rmax

5.0 SCPD 100 SCPD
4.5 90
4.0 80
Recovery (Model)
3.5 70
60
k (Model)
3.0
2.5 50
2.0 40
1.5 30
1.0 20
10
0.5
0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
k (Actual) Recovery (Actual)
Au Rmax Cu2S Rmax CuFeS2 Rmax MoS2 Rmax
Au k Cu2S k CuFeS2 k MoS2 k FeS2 k FeOX k Gangue k FeS2 Rmax FeOX Rmax Gangue Rmax
Table 10-7 Rougher flotation kinetic model calibration scatterplots, three ore types
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Rmax versus pH at Constant P80 Flotation Rate (k) versus pH at Constant P80
SPPD SPPD
100 4.0
90
80
70 3.0
60
Rmax
50
Rmax
40 2.0
30
20
1.0
10
0
6 7 8 9 10 11 0.0
pH
6 7 8 9 10 11
Au Rmax Cu2S Rmax CuFeS2 Rmax pH
Au k Cu2S k CuFeS2 k MoS2 k
MoS2 Rmax FeS2 Rmax FeOX Rmax
100 SEZ SEZ
4.0
90
80
70 3.0
60
Rmax
Rmax
50 2.0
40
30
1.0
20
10
0 0.0
6 7 8 9 10 11 6 7 8 9 10 11
pH pH
100 SCPD 4.0 SCPD
90
80
3.0
70
60
Rmax
Rmax
50 2.0
40
30 1.0
20
10
0 0.0
6 7 8 9 10 11 6 7 8 9 10 11
pH pH
Au k Cu2S k CuFeS2 k MoS2 k
MoS2 Rmax FeS2 Rmax FeOX Rmax
Table 10-8 Rougher flotation kinetic vs. pH for three ore types, Corrected
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
100 SPPD 4.0 SPPD
90
80
70 3.0
60
Rmax
50
2.0
K
40
30
20 1.0
10
0
50 100 150 200 250 0.0
P80 50 100 150 200 250
Au Rmax Cu2S Rmax CuFeS2 Rmax P80
SEZ 4.0 SEZ
100
90
80 3.0
70
60
Rmax
2.0
K
50
40
30
1.0
20
10
0
0.0
50 100 150 200 250
P80 50 100 P80 150 200 250

Rmax versus P80 at Constant pH

Flotation Rate (k) versus P80 at Constant pH
SCPD
SCPD
100 4.0
90
80
3.0
70
60
Rmax
50 2.0
K
40
30
1.0
20
10
0 0.0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
P80 P80
Table 10-9 Rougher flotation kinetics vs. P80 for three ore types, corrected
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
10.3 Locked Cycle Tests
SUMMARY
Condition Grade, % Calcul. Head Assay Head
Test SGS Sample Product Weight, % % Error Cu
Flotation Cu Fe Mo Cu Fe Mo Cu Fe Mo
Combined cleaner Concentrate 0.89 27.50 24.77 0.28
3894 20g/Ton Combined Recycled Products 1.99 5.70 13.54 0.10
Test 81 SEZ DIESEL Comb.clnr scav. Tail 45.54 0.11 9.14 0.00 0.42 6.53 0.01 0.42 6.40 0.01 1.01
150G/Ton MIBC Comb. Rougher Tails 51.58 0.03 3.63 0.00
Rougher Concentrate 48.42 0.84 9.61 0.01
Test 82 SCPD DIESEL Comb.clnr scav. Tail 15.01 0.10 7.47 0.01 0.48 5.27 0.03 0.49 5.52 0.03 0.99
Test 83 SPPD DIESEL Comb.clnr scav. Tail 20.53 0.06 11.51 0.01 0.26 5.75 0.03 0.28 5.63 0.03 0.93
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Test 81
Project No: 4216 Operador Michel Moreno
Client: Sierra Gorda Fecha 12/23/2008
Sample SEZ
Objective:
Grind Size K80 150 microns
Regrind size K80 20-25 microns
Reagents (g/t) Time (min)

3894 DIESEL Grind Cond Flot pH Airflow
Stage Cal MIBC mV Inicio mV Final
20g/Ton 150G/Ton LPM
cum.
Grinding A 1.3 10 150 25' 8.6 128.7 195.6 8

Conditioning 0.98 10 15 1 10.1
Rougher 15 25 10.0
Regrinding 6'24"
Cleaner 1 0.3 3 11.6 -33 -40 4
Scavenger 1.0 8
Cleaner 2 2 11.6 -42 -22.8 4
Cleaner 3 2 11.6 -25 -21.6 4
Grinding B 1.3 10 150 25' 8.7 90.5 112.9

Rougher 15 25 10.0
Regrinding 6'24"
Cleaner 1 0.8 4 11.6 -30 -44 4
Scavenger 0.6
Cleaner 2 4 11.6 -39.6 -19.6 4

Cleaner 3 3 11.6 -22.2 -18.4 4
Grinding C 1.3 10 150 25' 8.9 55 110

Rougher 15 25 10.0
Regrinding 6'24"
Cleaner 1 1.4 4 11.6 -36.5 -14.5 4
Scavenger
Cleaner 2 4 11.6 -29.2 4
Cleaner 3 3 11.6 4
Grinding D 1.3 10 150 25' 9.0 107.3 104.8

Conditioning 0.68 10 15 1
Rougher 15 25 10.0
Regrinding 6'24"
Cleaner 1 5 11.6 4
Scavenger 12.9
Cleaner 2 4 11.6 4
Cleaner 3 3 11.6 4
Grinding E 1.3 10 150 25' 9.0 40.7 63.3

Rougher 15 25 10.0
Regrinding 6'24"
Cleaner 1 4 11.6 4
Scavenger 22.7
Cleaner 2 4 11.6 4
Cleaner 3 3 11.6 4
Grinding F 1.3 10 150 25' 8.5 97.5 78

Rougher 15 25 10.0 4
Regrinding 6'24"
Cleaner 1 4 11.6 -43.8 4
Scavenger
Cleaner 2 4 11.6 4
Cleaner 3
3 11.6 -36.5 -25.8 4
106
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
107

Test Test 81
Sample SEZ
Results
Lims 9639
Weight Grade Recovery % Metal units
Product g % Cu Fe Mo S Au Cu Fe Mo S Au Cu Fe Mo S Au
% % % % ppm
1. Concentrate 3nd clnr A 6.7 0.06 25.19 25.29 0.289 30.31 3.00 3.4 0.2 2.8 0.4 2.4 1.43 1.44 0.02 1.72 0.17
2. Concentrate 3nd clnr B 16.9 0.14 28.11 24.55 0.255 31.69 3.00 9.5 0.5 6.2 1.1 5.9 4.03 3.52 0.04 4.54 0.43
3. Concentrate 3nd clnr C 15.8 0.13 28.30 23.78 0.246 31.97 2.00 8.9 0.5 5.6 1.0 3.7 3.79 3.19 0.03 4.28 0.27
4. Concentrate 3nd clnr D 15.7 0.13 29.71 23.97 0.255 31.77 2.80 9.3 0.5 5.8 1.0 5.2 3.96 3.19 0.03 4.23 0.37
5. Concentrate 3nd clnr E 25.2 0.21 26.92 25.03 0.293 31.86 1.60 13.5 0.8 10.7 1.6 4.7 5.75 5.35 0.06 6.81 0.34
6. Concentrate 3nd clnr F 25.0 0.21 26.39 25.64 0.335 31.77 1.60 13.2 0.8 12.1 1.6 4.7 5.59 5.44 0.07 6.73 0.34
7. Tail 3rd Cleaner F 31.4 0.27 17.17 19.74 0.219 23.36 1.09 10.8 0.8 10.0 1.5 4.0 4.57 5.26 0.06 6.22 0.29
8. Tail 2nd clnr F 107.3 0.91 5.40 13.12 0.094 12.35 0.49 11.6 1.8 14.6 2.7 6.2 4.91 11.94 0.09 11.24 0.45
9. Conc Clnr Sacv F 96.2 0.82 2.30 11.98 0.057 10.00 0.30 4.4 1.5 7.9 1.9 3.4 1.88 9.77 0.05 8.16 0.24
10. 1 st Tail Clnr Scav A 644.1 5.46 0.10 9.25 0.002 7.03 0.05 1.2 7.7 1.9 9.2 3.8 0.52 50.52 0.01 38.39 0.27
11. 1 st Tail Clnr Scav B 873.7 7.41 0.14 9.55 0.003 7.54 0.05 2.4 10.8 3.8 13.3 5.1 1.04 70.75 0.02 55.86 0.37
12. 1 st Tail Clnr Scav C 904.3 7.67 0.12 9.11 0.002 6.94 0.05 2.2 10.7 2.6 12.7 5.3 0.92 69.85 0.02 53.21 0.38
13. 1 st Tail Clnr Scav D 981.7 8.32 0.13 9.15 0.003 7.39 0.12 2.5 11.7 4.3 14.7 13.8 1.08 76.16 0.02 61.51 1.00
14. 1 st Tail Clnr Scav E 1025.3 8.69 0.07 8.79 0.001 6.83 0.05 1.5 11.7 1.5 14.2 6.0 0.62 76.42 0.01 59.38 0.43
15. 1 st Tail Clnr Scav F 941.2 7.98 0.08 9.10 0.001 7.01 0.04 1.5 11.1 1.4 13.4 4.4 0.65 72.62 0.01 55.94 0.32
16. Tail Rougher A 1018.4 8.6 0.04 3.67 <0.001 0.80 0.030 0.8 4.9 1.5 1.6 3.6 0.33 31.69 0.01 6.91 0.26
17. Tail Rougher B 1007.1 8.5 0.03 3.95 <0.001 0.95 <0.03 0.6 5.2 1.5 1.9 3.5 0.26 33.73 0.01 8.11 0.26
18. Tail Rougher C 1015.3 8.6 0.04 3.71 <0.001 0.98 <0.03 0.7 4.9 1.5 2.0 3.6 0.32 31.94 0.01 8.44 0.26
19. Tail Rougher D 1004.1 8.5 0.03 3.44 <0.001 0.69 <0.03 0.6 4.5 1.5 1.4 3.5 0.26 29.29 0.01 5.87 0.26
20. Tail Rougher E 1018.0 8.6 0.04 3.49 <0.001 0.68 <0.03 0.8 4.6 1.5 1.4 3.6 0.32 30.12 0.01 5.87 0.26
21. Tail Rougher F 1020.2 8.7 0.03 3.54 <0.001 0.64 <0.03 0.6 4.7 1.5 1.3 3.6 0.25 30.62 0.01 5.54 0.26
Calculated Head 11794 100.00 0.42 6.53 0.006 4.19 0.07 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 42.48 652.8 0.59 419.0 7.23
Assay Head 0.42 6.400 0.005 4.19 0.06

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Test 82
Project No: 4216 Operador
Client: Sierra Gorda Fecha
Sample SCPD
Objective:

cum.
Grinding A 1.4 10 150 25' 10.2 103.4 127.8
Conditioning 10 15 1 10.2
Rougher 25 10.0
Regrinding 0.6 11'48"
Cleaner 1 3 11.6 -45 -38.6
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 2 11.6
Cleaner 3 2 11.6
Grinding B 1.4 10 150 25' 9.9 98 119.8

Rougher 25 10.0
Cleaner 1 3 11.6 -38.6 -25.7
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 0.1 2 11.6

Cleaner 3 0.06 2 11.6
Grinding C 1.4 10 150 25' 9.9 94.5 119.5

Rougher 25 10.0
Cleaner 1 3 11.6 -41.2 -31.6
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 0.1 2 11.6
Cleaner 3 0.06 2 11.6
Grinding D 1.4 10 150 25' 10.0 89.3 116.5

Rougher 25 10.0
Cleaner 1 3 11.6 -40.2 -29.6
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 0.1 2 11.6
Cleaner 3 0.08 2 11.6
Grinding E 1.4 10 150 25' 10.0 85.7 114.3

Rougher 25 10.0
Cleaner 1 3 11.6 -42.3 -36.8
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 0.1 2 11.6
Cleaner 3 0.08 2 11.6
Grinding F 1.4 10 150 25' 10.0 86.3 111.3

Rougher 25 10.0
Cleaner 1 3 11.6 -39.6 -28.6
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 0.1 2 11.6 -39.6 -35.6
Cleaner 3 0.08
2 11.6 -41.2 -36.8
108
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
109

Test Test 82
Sample SCPD
Results
Lims 9665
Product g % Cu Fe Mo Au S Cu Fe Mo Au S Cu Fe Mo Au S
% % % ppm %
7. Tail 3rd Cleaner F 25.6 0.22 24.80 23.10 1.408 2.51 26.81 11.2 1.0 10.8 6.0 2.9 5.45 5.08 0.31 0.55 5.90
8. Tail 2nd clnr F 67.5 0.58 11.78 15.08 0.723 1.41 15.80 14.1 1.7 14.6 8.9 4.5 6.83 8.74 0.42 0.82 9.16
9. Conc Clnr Sacv F 68.1 0.59 7.06 12.49 0.546 1.10 11.81 8.5 1.4 11.1 7.0 3.4 4.13 7.31 0.32 0.64 6.91
1 st Tail Clnr Scav C 309.2 2.66 0.10 7.71 0.006 0.08 4.07 0.5 3.9 0.6 2.3 5.4 0.25 20.48 0.02 0.21 10.81
12.
16. Tail Rougher A 1616.9 13.9 0.05 4.49 0.003 <0.03 1.10 1.4 11.8 1.5 4.5 7.6 0.67 62.37 0.04 0.42 15.28
17. Tail Rougher B 1600.9 13.8 0.04 4.61 0.003 <0.03 1.11 1.0 12.0 1.4 4.5 7.6 0.50 63.40 0.04 0.41 15.27
18. Tail Rougher C 1599.5 13.7 0.04 4.22 0.003 <0.03 1.03 1.1 11.0 1.4 4.5 7.0 0.55 57.99 0.04 0.41 14.15
19. Tail Rougher D 1618.0 13.9 0.03 4.59 0.003 <0.03 1.10 1.0 12.1 1.5 4.5 7.6 0.47 63.80 0.04 0.42 15.29
20. Tail Rougher E 1604.0 13.8 0.04 4.42 0.003 <0.03 1.05 1.0 11.6 1.4 4.5 7.2 0.48 60.90 0.04 0.41 14.47
21. Tail Rougher F 1586.5 13.6 0.04 4.46 0.003 <0.03 1.00 1.2 11.5 1.4 4.4 6.8 0.60 60.78 0.04 0.41 13.63
Calculated Head 11641 100.00 0.48 5.27 0.03 0.09 2.02 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 48.5 527.2 2.9 9.2 201.7
Assay Head 0.49 5.52 0.027 0.080 1.940

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Test 83
Project No: 4216 Operador
Client: Sierra Gorda Fecha 12/26/2008
Sample SPPD
Objective:

cum.
Grinding A 1.4 10 150 25' 9.3 97.2 122.9

Rougher 25 10.0
Regrinding 0.5 8'
Cleaner 1 0.4 3 11.6 -9.6
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 0.14 2 11.6 -18.4
Cleaner 3 0.17 2 11.6 -21.4
Grinding B 1.4 10 150 25' 9.3 88.1 122.5

Rougher 25 10.0
Regrinding 0.9 8'
Cleaner 1 3 11.6 -18.9
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 0.05 2 11.6 -14.1

Cleaner 3 0.04 2 11.6 -16.6
Grinding C 1.4 10 150 25' 9.7 51.5 76.7

Rougher 25 10.0
Regrinding 0.9 8'
Cleaner 1 3 11.6 -22.1 -4.9
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 0.05 2 11.6 -24.6
Cleaner 3 0.03 2 11.6 -18.6
Grinding D 1.4 10 150 25' 9.4 85.7 65.3

Rougher 25 10.0
Regrinding 8'
Cleaner 1 3 11.6
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 2 11.6
Cleaner 3 2 11.6
Grinding E 1.4 10 150 25' 9.5 85.7 88.8

Rougher 25 10.0
Regrinding 8'
Cleaner 1 3 11.6
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 2 11.6
Cleaner 3 2 11.6
Grinding F 0.14 10 150 25' 9.3 90.4 104.6

Rougher 25 10.0
Regrinding 8'
Cleaner 1 3 11.6
Scavenger 8
Cleaner 2 2 11.6
Cleaner 3
2 11.6
110
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
111

Test Test 83
Sample SPPD
Results
Lims 9639
Product g % Cu Fe Mo Au S Cu Fe Mo Au S Cu Fe Mo Au S
% % % ppm %
7. Tail 3rd Cleaner F 18.7 0.16 13.71 19.60 1.687 1.34 22.83 8.4 0.5 9.1 3.3 1.0 2.21 3.16 0.27 0.22 3.68
8. Tail 2nd clnr F 56.2 0.48 4.26 13.59 0.582 0.81 13.37 7.9 1.1 9.5 5.9 1.7 2.07 6.59 0.28 0.39 6.48
9. Conc Clnr Sacv F 45.2 0.39 3.01 16.16 0.503 0.50 15.04 4.5 1.1 6.6 2.9 1.6 1.18 6.30 0.20 0.19 5.86
12. 1 st Tail Clnr Scav C 453.0 3.91 0.05 11.06 0.009 0.04 9.68 0.7 7.5 1.2 2.4 10.0 0.20 43.21 0.04 0.16 37.82
16. Tail Rougher A 1475.9 12.7 0.02 3.95 0.007 <0.03 1.92 1.1 8.7 3.0 5.8 6.5 0.28 50.28 0.09 0.38 24.44
17. Tail Rougher B 1476.9 12.7 0.02 3.71 0.005 <0.03 1.46 1.0 8.2 2.1 5.8 4.9 0.25 47.26 0.06 0.38 18.60
18. Tail Rougher C 1519.5 13.1 0.03 3.98 0.006 <0.03 1.68 1.2 9.1 2.6 5.9 5.8 0.33 52.16 0.08 0.39 22.02
19. Tail Rougher D 1491.7 12.9 0.02 3.79 0.006 <0.03 <1.39 1.0 8.5 2.6 5.8 4.7 0.27 48.76 0.08 0.39 17.88
20. Tail Rougher E 1520.4 13.1 0.02 3.98 0.007 <0.03 <1.51 1.2 9.1 3.1 5.9 5.3 0.31 52.19 0.09 0.39 19.80
21. Tail Rougher F 1529.2 13.2 0.03 4.20 0.006 <0.03 <1.97 1.5 9.6 2.7 6.0 6.9 0.38 55.40 0.08 0.40 25.98
Calculated Head 11594 100.00 0.26 5.75 0.03 0.07 3.77 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 26.3 575.3 3.0 6.6 376.6
Assay Head 0.281 5.630 0.029 0.060 3.740

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
11 Appendix 6 Modeling Methodology for SKT test
The product of the laboratory test work is the determination of the collection zone rate constant, k and
Rmax for all minerals and water. This section describes how those values are used within the
industrial plant model.
11.1.1 The Aminpro-Flot Simplex modeling procedures
The Aminpro-Flot SimpleX (AFS) model works on the basis of laboratory kinetics determined for the
collection zone. It applies these values to a first order reactor (continuous flow) model to each mineral
and for each individual cell:
Rc = ( kt ) / ( 1 + kt ) . Rmax Eq 4
Where the kinetic constants are those determined in the lab for each mineral constituent and t is the
flotation time in the plant. To determine the total recovery of a single cell, the AFS model makes use of
Equations 2 and 3 described in Section 9.3.1. The only unknowns are Fr and Re. Of these two
parameters, the Re can be determined from the Degree of Entrainment (D.E. = Rs/Rw) from Industrial
databases, readily available in the public domain, and summarized in Figure 11-1.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
0.35
Relationship between D.E. and P80
0.3
y = -0.0777Ln(x) + 0.5478
Degree of Entrainme
0.25
0.2
Primary
0.15 Regrind
0.1
y = -0.0791Ln(x) + 0.5555
0.05
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
P80
Figure 11-1 Degree of entrainment curve
Knowing the P80 (size in microns at which 80% of the material passes), the user has a starting point to
determine the recovery of the solids, Rs, in the pulp after flotation has taken place, and knowing the
recovery of water, Rw, into the froth. This will lead to the determination of Re. Then the only
parameter that needs determination is the froth recovery. The calibration of a model takes place when
Re and Fr are determined so that the mass balances for all minerals in the model and actual plant are
the same. This is done with the help of the Solver function in Excel spreadsheets.
The model keeps track of Recoverable and non-recoverable species so that the Rmax and k of the
products can be calculated and used in case the circuit is configured into various stages.
In modeling circuits, it is important to know where the reagents are added or the place a stream is
altered physically (i.e scalped or re-ground). In these cases, the model requires that the modified
stream be tested in the lab to determine its new kinetics. For Green-fields projects the model
parameters are adjusted based on a database of plant audits.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
The AFS model works because the relative kinetics seen between minerals in the laboratory are similar
at an industrial scale. What makes one model better than another is the manner in which entrainment is
applied both to the lab results and the plant model.
It is always important to define the component minerals in the feed. This is because the estimated
kinetics of minerals can be influenced by erroneous assumptions. For instance, if a copper ore has
only been furnished with assays of Cu, Fe and S, it is often assumed that the iron assay represents the
iron locked with copper minerals (CuFeS2) and pyrite (FeS2), but in fact some may be associated with
magnetite.
11.1.2 Users of the Aminpro Modeling Methodology
The Aminpro-Flot methodology and model has been used by various mines:
Antofagasta Minerals Pelambres

BHP Antapaccay
BHP Tintaya
Codelco -Teniente (Moly Plant)
Freeport McMoRan Bagdad
Freeport McMoRan Cerro Verde
Ivanhoe Mines Oyu Tolgoi
KCM Nchanga/Konkola
Minas Buenaventura Uchucchacua
Newmont - Conga
Newmont Carlin
Newmont Boddington (Moly Plant)
Northern Orion Agua Rica Project
Xstrata El Morro
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
12 APPENDIX 7: Leach Program
12.1 Bottle Roll Tests
OBJETIVE
Control pH required in accordance to clients needs, adjust acid levels and record data in the registry.
EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
Sulfuric acid, balance, pH meter, filter paper, columns, funnels.
PROCESS
Weigh 1Kg mineral of -10# and identify the bottle by writing its weight in registry
Weigh 2L solution pH 1.5 with sulfuric acid.

.
Add acid over sample and agitate manually. Register total weight.
Measure starting pH.
Place bottle on rolls and start agitation.
Remove bottle at the time interval agreed on and weigh.
If the weight is different from the original weight, make up with water and measure pH.
Allow solids to settle and take 50 cc of the supernatant. Filter (vacuum) and place liquid sample in
plastic bottle of 100 cc. Send out for Cu and pH analysis.
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
If the pH is higher than 1.5, add sulfuric acid to bring pH down to 1.5. Measure the amount of acid used
in the registry.
Weigh the bottle and adjust the weight with water according to the original weight and record.
This methodology is repeated for an agreed time of leaching.
Once the test is finished, the slurry is filtered. Solutions are weighed and assayed for density, copper,
acid, pH and mV.
The moist solids in the filter are then washed in 4 stages with 2 L of water.
The moist solids are weighed, dried, re-weighed and prepared for chemical analysis.
12.2 Procedures Column
The procedures used for the column leach tests were developed by SGS Lakefield. They are in the
Spanish language are not included herein but the graphical procedures, below, are self-explanatory.
Etapa 1 Aglomeracin
Agglomeration
Agglomerated weight, kg 250
solucin a pH= 1.8 hasta que se
H2SO4 In agglomeration,
forme el aglomerado
Rest Time, hr 24
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Etapa 2 Riego
ON
solution
H2SO4
solution
OFF
solution
PLS
Irrigation
Nominal flow rate , L/hr/m2 9
Total leaching time, days 30
Temperature, C Amb
Air rate 0.005 cm3/cm2-s
ON solution
Cu, g/L 0
Fe (tot), g/L 0
Fe(II) g/L 0
Fe(III) g/L 0
H2SO4 g/L solution pH 1.8
Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Minera Quadra Chile Ltda
Sierra Gorda Scoping Evaluation
February 2009
____________________________ ___________________________
Peter Amelunxen, P.Eng Roger Amelunxen, P.Eng
AME Ltda Aminpro
Disclaimer
This report was prepared by Aminpro and AME Ltda. All efforts were made to ensure quality and
consistency of data, and it is believed that the information contained in this report is reliable under the
conditions and subject to the limitations set forth herein, but because the analyses are based in part
on information not within the control of Aminpro/AME Ltda, Aminpro/AME Ltda do not accept any
liability to a third party arising out of the use of this report.
Minera Quadra Chile Limitada 1.1

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
1 Executive Summary
Amelunxen Mineral Processing Ltd (hereafter Aminpro) and Consultora Amelunxen Mineral
Engineering Ltda (hereafter AME Ltda) were contracted by Quadra Mining Ltd to design and develop a
processing plant complete with flow diagrams, conceptual design and layouts that will extract copper
and molybdenum minerals from the Sierra Gorda deposit in the 2nd region in Northern Chile. The work
would include a +/- 30% scoping level capital and operating cost estimate for a 100 kt/d capacity
rating. Battery limits for the study are the primary crusher dump pocket to the concentrate load-out
transfer conveyor discharge at the port facilities and excluded tailing impoundment, together with the
sourcing of power and water. The scoping study was undertaken in parallel with a campaign of
metallurgical testing, coordinated by Aminpro/AME Ltda and performed at SGS-Lakefield Santiago,
designed to identify the metallurgical characteristics of the ore. The test program is reported
separately and included as an appendix herein. Key conclusions from the test program report are as
follows.
1. The ore is unusually hard. The average SAG Power index is 180 minutes and the average
Bond work index is 18.1 kWh/tonne.
2. The flotation kinetics are fast and the ore is amenable to froth flotation.
3. For the given hardness and flotation kinetics, and using current equipment pricing for milling
equipment, the optimum grind size is between 169 and 174 microns.
Because the optimum grind size of 170 microns can only be identified late in the scoping study, once
the cost models have been updated for the current quotes, this scoping study has been prepared for a
design final grind size of 150 microns. However, since the process design considers a 1.2 design
factor on tonnage and grade, the concentrator would be capable of operating at the increased
throughput of108 kt/d that is commensurate with the coarse optimized grind of 174 microns. As a
result, while the current nameplate capacity of the concentrator described herein is 100 kt/d, the
capital costs should be considered as those for a 108 kt/d concentrator.
The following grinding circuit configurations were evaluating during the course of several trade-off
studies:
SAG and ball mill circuit

Secondary cone crushing followed by tertiary HPGR crushing and ball milling

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Secondary and tertiary cone crushing followed by ball milling

Crushing, rod milling and ball milling circuit
It was determined that a circuit consisting entirely of cone crushers for the secondary and tertiary
circuits and ball mills for the grinding circuit provided the most attractive risk/reward combination and
this circuit was identified for the final design. The crushing and grinding circuit is comprised of the
following components:
a semi-mobile primary crusher with overland conveyor,

a 100 kt covered coarse ore stockpile
a secondary crushing plant with three screens and three 750 kW cone crushers
a tertiary crushing plant with ten screens and ten 750 kW cone crushers
a covered fine ore stockpile with 12 hours of live capacity and three days of total capacity
a grinding circuit with four 16.2 MW ball mills, each 26 diameter by 39 in length (EGL)
The flotation plant is designed to treat a nominal head grade of 0.44% copper and 0.03% molybdenum
and achieve copper recoveries of 87.7% and copper concentrate grades of between 27.7% and
29.3%. Design moly recovery is 69.7% in the bulk circuit and 90% in the molybdenum separation
circuit for a total combined recovery of 62.73%. Gold levels of 1.4 to 1.6 g/ton are expected in the
concentrate. The flotation separation and associated process components include:
Two Cu/MO rougher rows of ten 250 m3 tank cells,

a regrind station with four Vertimills
two mechanical cleaner rows
three column cells for final cleaning
a moly separation, dewatering, and bagging circuit
tailings water reclaim thickeners
a tailings impoundment facility
Copper concentrate is to be piped 141 km to a port facility at Mejillones where it will be thickened,
filtered, and loaded on ships. The port facility and pipeline components include:
A concentrate pipeline to the Mejillones port facility

A concentrate dewatering thickener

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Two Larox PF144 plate and frame filters

Concentrate load-out facilities.
A port facility including concentrate dewatering, filtration, and load-out

All power, water and ancillary facilities
Estimated direct capital costs for the above facilities total $760 million. Indirect costs amount to $188
million, for a total combined capital cost of $948 million. Figure 1-1 summarized the capital by process
area.
Labour &
Description Materials Equipment Total Primary Crusher &
K$ K$ K$ Overland
Primary Crusher & Overland $10,381 $17,127 $27,508 Indirect Costs
Crushing $131,908 $100,074 $231,982 Crushing
Grinding $95,200 $97,425 $192,625
Flotation, Reagents, Moly $52,127 $51,855 $103,982 Site Preparation
Tailing $20,259 $9,116 $29,375
Power
Pipeline $37,563 $32,398 $69,960
Port $24,989 $13,646 $38,635 Water & Ancillaries
Water & Ancillaries $15,508 $4,501 $20,009 Port
Power $6,343 $21,143 $27,485
Site Preparation $18,463 Pipeline
Total Direct Costs $394,278 $347,284 $760,024 Grinding
Tailing
Indirect Costs $0 $0 $188,065
Total $0 $0 $948,089
Flotation, Reagents,
Moly
Figure 1-1 Capital cost for sulfide concentrator
Not included in the process capital are:
Any activities related to mining of ore.

Water fresh pumping and piping from source
Water treatment (desalination plant) for the process either at site or port
Any treatment of desalinated water into fresh water.
Tailing impoundment (starting from discharge end of tails thickener underflow pumps) and
storage.
Power delivery from generation to plant site limits
Any ancillaries in the town of Mejillones, outside the port facilities
Any ancillaries in the town of Sierra Gorda

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Communications.
The operating cost estimate totals $225 million per year, or $6.15 per metric ton of ore. Operating
costs are summarized in Figure 1-2.
Item K$/y Costs $/T
Overhead
Port Filtering and Moly Plant
Labor Loadout
Sub Total Labor $10,080 $0.275 Labor
Energy Conc
Sub Total Energy $129,200 $3.530 storage/pipeline/receivi
Area Operations ng
Sub Total Primary $2,357 $0.064 Tailing Facility
Sub Total Secondary Crusher $2,673 $0.073
Sub Total Grinding $44,686 $1.221 Reagents
Sub Total Flotation $4,505 $0.123
Sub Total Reagents $11,379 $0.311 Flotation
Sub Total Tailing Facility $130 $0.004
`
Sub Total Conc storage/pipeline/receiving $1,404 $0.038
Sub Total Port Filtering and Loadout $563 $0.015
Sub Total Moly Plant $8,085 $0.221
TOTAL OPERATIONS $75,782 $2.071 Grinding
Overheads
Sub Total Overhead $9,876 $0.270
0 $0 $0.000 Secondary Crusher
TOTAL COSTS $224,938 $6.146 Energy
Primary
Figure 1-2 Summarized operating costs for Sierra Gorda Concentrator
In the execution of this work, opportunities have been identified:
Tonnage can be ramped up to 108,000 t/d with no equipment addition

Secondary crusher equipment has an option with the layout presented, to reduce the number
of screens by 2 units and to reduce the number of tertiary crushers by one unit.
The crusher manufacturer indicates that they now are able to make larger secondary/tertiary
units. This may reduce the number used and building requirements.
The grinding section may be able to operate with two cycplopacks rather than four by having
each of the two units operating with two ball mills.
Flotation cells of 200 m3 are used in this design. New units are being made at 300 m3, which
will bring down the costs of equipment.
Placing the molybdenum plant at the Mejillones may reduce transport costs of molybdenum
and reduce camp requirements at site.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
2 Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................... 1.2
2 CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................................................. 2.6
3 METALLURGICAL TEST SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 3.10
3.1 METALLURGICAL TEST WORK ............................................................................................................................. 3.10

3.1.1 Sample Selection ............................................................................................................................................. 3.10
3.1.2 Grinding and Abrasion Tests .......................................................................................................................... 3.11
3.1.3 Flotation Tests ................................................................................................................................................ 3.12
3.2 FLOWSHEET DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................ 3.14
3.2.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................................... 3.14
3.2.1.1 Primary crusher........................................................................................................................................................ 3.14
3.2.1.2 Overland Conveyor .................................................................................................................................................. 3.15
3.2.1.3 Coarse ore Stockpile and reclaim ............................................................................................................................ 3.15
3.2.1.4 Secondary and tertiary crushing............................................................................................................................... 3.16
3.2.1.5 Fine ore storage (F.O.S.).......................................................................................................................................... 3.17
3.2.1.6 Grinding................................................................................................................................................................... 3.17
3.2.1.7 Copper Molybdenum flotation .............................................................................................................................. 3.17
3.2.1.8 Reagents and lime preparation ................................................................................................................................. 3.19
3.2.1.9 Molybdenum Plant................................................................................................................................................... 3.20
3.2.1.10 Tailings dewatering ................................................................................................................................................. 3.21
3.2.1.11 Copper Concentrate dewatering ............................................................................................................................... 3.21
3.2.1.12 Copper concentrate pipeline .................................................................................................................................... 3.22
3.2.1.13 Raw water, reclaimed water and potable water........................................................................................................ 3.23
3.2.1.14 Copper concentrate Drying and load out. ................................................................................................................ 3.24
3.2.1.15 Water handling and disposal at port. ........................................................................................................................ 3.24
3.2.2 Process Alternatives........................................................................................................................................ 3.24
3.2.2.1 100 kt/d SAG and ball mill circuit ........................................................................................................................... 3.25
3.2.2.2 100 kt/d HPGR-based grinding circuit..................................................................................................................... 3.25
3.2.2.3 100 kt/d Traditional cone crushing circuit ............................................................................................................... 3.25
3.2.2.4 76 kt/d SAG and ball mill circuit ............................................................................................................................. 3.26
3.2.2.5 76 kt/d HPGR-based grinding circuit....................................................................................................................... 3.26
3.2.2.6 Trade-off study results and grinding circuit selection .............................................................................................. 3.27
4 PROCESS PLANT..................................................................................................................................................... 4.28
4.1 PROCESS PLANT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 4.29

4.1.1 Primary Crushing and Overland Conveying .................................................................................................. 4.29
4.1.2 Secondary Crushing ........................................................................................................................................ 4.29

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
4.1.3 Tertiary Crushing ........................................................................................................................................... 4.30

4.1.4 Fine Ore Storage (F.O.S.)............................................................................................................................... 4.31
4.1.5 Grinding .......................................................................................................................................................... 4.31
4.1.6 Bulk Flotation ................................................................................................................................................. 4.33
4.1.7 Molybdenum Separation ................................................................................................................................. 4.34
4.1.8 Concentrate Dewatering ................................................................................................................................. 4.36
4.1.9 Tailing Dewatering ......................................................................................................................................... 4.36
4.1.10 Concentrate Pipeline to Mejillones ............................................................................................................ 4.37
4.1.11 Port Site Process Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 4.37
4.2 PROCESS CONTROL .............................................................................................................................................. 4.38
5 PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................. 5.39
5.1 ANCILLARY BUILDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 5.39

5.1.1 Warehouse ...................................................................................................................................................... 5.39
5.1.2 Change house.................................................................................................................................................. 5.39
5.1.3 Clinic............................................................................................................................................................... 5.39
5.1.4 Offices ............................................................................................................................................................. 5.39
5.1.5 Laboratory ...................................................................................................................................................... 5.39
5.1.6 Guard House ................................................................................................................................................... 5.39
5.2 REAGENT MIXING AND STORAGE ......................................................................................................................... 5.39
5.3 ROADS AND ACCESS ............................................................................................................................................. 5.40
5.4 COMMUNICATIONS............................................................................................................................................... 5.40
5.5 WATER REQUIREMENTS AND BALANCE ............................................................................................................... 5.40
5.6 PLANT POWER REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 5.43
5.6.1 Substation and Power Distribution ................................................................................................................. 5.44
5.6.1.1 Power Supply........................................................................................................................................................... 5.44
5.6.1.2 Main Sub-Station ..................................................................................................................................................... 5.44
5.6.1.3 Main 11 kV Distribution and Distribution Centers .................................................................................................. 5.44
5.6.1.4 Emergency Power .................................................................................................................................................... 5.45
5.7 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................................................................................... 5.45
5.7.1 Gate House and Balance ................................................................................................................................ 5.45
5.7.2 Offices ............................................................................................................................................................. 5.45
5.7.3 Water Treatment Plant. ................................................................................................................................... 5.46
5.7.4 Change house.................................................................................................................................................. 5.46
5.7.5 Ship Loader ..................................................................................................................................................... 5.46
5.7.6 Warehouse facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 5.47
5.7.7 Main Sub-Station Port Site .......................................................................................................................... 5.49
6 PROCESS PLANT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES .............................................................................................. 6.50

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
6.1 SCOPE DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................................... 6.51

6.2 QUANTITY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 6.52
6.3 DIRECT COSTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 6.52
6.3.1 Plant Equipment ............................................................................................................................................. 6.53
6.3.2 Installed prices ................................................................................................................................................ 6.54
6.3.3 Installation labor ............................................................................................................................................ 6.54
6.3.4 Substation and Power Distribution ................................................................................................................. 6.54
6.3.5 Ancillaries ....................................................................................................................................................... 6.54
6.3.6 Sub-Contracts ................................................................................................................................................. 6.56
6.4 CAPITAL SPARES .................................................................................................................................................. 6.56
6.5 OWNERS COSTS ................................................................................................................................................... 6.56
6.5.1 Manpower ....................................................................................................................................................... 6.56
6.5.2 Initial reagent fills .......................................................................................................................................... 6.57
6.5.3 Initial ball mill fills. ........................................................................................................................................ 6.57
6.6 DISTRIBUTABLE COSTS ........................................................................................................................................ 6.58
6.7 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CAMP ..................................................................................................................... 6.58
6.8 FREIGHT AND INSURANCE .................................................................................................................................... 6.59
6.9 ENGINEERING/PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (EPCM) ..................................................... 6.59
6.10 ESCALATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 6.60
7 PROCESS PLANT OPERATING COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................................ 7.61
7.1 LABOR ................................................................................................................................................................. 7.64

7.2 CONTRACT WORKERS .......................................................................................................................................... 7.66
7.3 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND COSTS ..................................................................................................................... 7.67
7.4 WATER CONSUMPTION AND COSTS ...................................................................................................................... 7.68
7.5 CONSUMABLE COSTS STEEL PRODUCTS............................................................................................................ 7.68
7.5.1 Crusher liner wear rates ................................................................................................................................. 7.71
7.5.2 Grinding media ball consumptions ................................................................................................................. 7.71
7.5.3 VERTIMILLS ball wear ............................................................................................................................... 7.72
7.5.4 Ball Mill liners ................................................................................................................................................ 7.73
7.5.5 Lime Mill Balls and Liners. ............................................................................................................................ 7.73
7.6 FLOTATION AND DEWATERING REAGENTS. ......................................................................................................... 7.73
7.6.1 Collectors, frothers and flocculants ................................................................................................................ 7.73
7.6.2 Lime Consumption and pricing ....................................................................................................................... 7.75
7.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND MISCELLANEOUS COSTS ................................................................................................... 7.75
7.7.1 Miscellaneous repairs and parts process plant .............................................................................................. 7.75
7.7.2 Heavy duty mobile equipment maintenance.................................................................................................... 7.76
7.7.3 Heavy duty vehicle diesel requirements .......................................................................................................... 7.77

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
7.7.4 Light duty vehicles for personnel .................................................................................................................... 7.79

7.7.5 Laboratory consumables................................................................................................................................. 7.80
7.8 PLANT OVERHEADS .............................................................................................................................................. 7.80
8 APPENDIX 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 8.81
9 APPENDIX 2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 9.82
10 APPENDIX 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 10.83
11 APPENDIX 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 11.84
12 APPENDIX 5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 12.85
13 APPENDIX 6 ....................................................................................................................................................... 13.86

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
3 Metallurgical Test Summary

3.1 Metallurgical Test Work
A scoping level test campaign was initiated to provide a basis for the design criteria and flowsheet
development. The test program was developed by Aminpro/AME Ltda and the test work was
conducted at SGS-Lakefield Santiago starting in September 2008 and completed in January 2009. A
detailed report on the test results and interpretation is included in Appendix 5 of this report and
summarized below.
Metallurgical test work on Sierra Gordas sulfide ore focused on establishing a high level concept of
ore hardness and a spectrum of the floatability of the ores.
The test program encompassed the following test work:
Ore hardness determination for grinding circuit design

Rougher Flotation tests on reagents, basic variables: grind and pH
Rougher cleaner tests examining cleaner pH and regrind levels
Locked cycle tests to determine the concentrate grade levels
Leach tests on oxide ores are various crushed sizes.
Flotation work on oxide ores to review moly recovery
3.1.1 Sample Selection

Samples submitted for test work were based on a random selection within ore types defined by
mineral predominance for flotation test work and a random spatial distribution for grinding test work.
Flotation ore types were defined as SEZ (supergene enriched), SCPD (supergene chalcopyrite
dominant), and SPPD (supergene pyrite dominant). Samples selection was restricted to a recent
drilling campaign performed by Quadra and with holes designated with the QSG- prefix. This was
done because not all cores from older campaigns were available because the QSG- holes provide
comprehensive coverage all areas of the deposit with equally or nearly equally spaced collars.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
3.1.2 Grinding and Abrasion Tests

The following hardness tests were performed:
Crusher Index test, a proprietary SGS test that measures the rate of reduction in a
laboratory jaw crusher
SAG power index test (SPI), a proprietary SGS test that measures the amenability to
autogenous grinding
The Bond work index test, for amenability to ball milling,
The Bond abrasion index test, for estimating grinding media consumption.
Results, shown in Table 3-1, indicated that that the Sierra Gorda ore deposit is unusually hard. Table
3-2 shows the known hardness of nearby ore deposits of known hardness and their respective
grinding circuit configuration.
Crusher Index SPI Bond Wi Ai
% minutes kWh/tonne g
Minimum 2.3 12.8 9.6 0.042

Maximum 24.3 278.4 22.3 0.449
Average 12.0 183.4 18.1 0.236
Stan Dev 4.8 67.6 2.6 0.112
RSD 40.4% 36.8% 14.5% 47.5%
Table 3-1 Ore hardness parameters

Table 3-2 Hardness and grinding circuit configuration of nearby and relevant ores
In light of the hard nature of the ore deposit, economic tradeoff studies were performed to evaluate
alternative process configurations including SABC grinding, HPGR (high pressure grinding roll)
followed by ball milling, and rod-milling (described in Section 3.2.2). The decision was made to use
traditional cone crushing circuits for the secondary and tertiary circuits followed by ball milling. To

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
meet the design tonnage of 100 KTPD and 150 microns, the test results indicate that the following
equipment would be required:
Three secondary crushers in open circuit with three screen decks

Nine tertiary crushers in closed circuit with eight screen decks
Four 26 by 39 ball mills with 16.2 MW motors and standard drive train
3.1.3 Flotation Tests

The flotation test program was designed to provide rougher kinetics as a function of grind and pH.
Cleaner kinetics were not measured; they were inferred from the rougher rate constants and maximum
recoveries of the rougher-cleaner tests. Locked cycle tests were performed to calibrate the flotation
model used for circuit design and to provide an estimate of concentrate grade and quality. The
results, shown in Table 3-3, indicate that the Sierra Gorda ore is very amenable to froth flotation,
yielding concentrate grades between 25% and 30% at copper recoveries averaging above 87%. The
presence of zinc was detected in all ore types but at higher concentrations in the SEZ ore, which only
comprises approximately 5% of the ore volume1. Although the zinc levels do not exceed typical
smelter limits for the composite samples tested, it is expect that a small fraction of the SEZ
concentrate may require blending. It was recommended to consider routine zinc determinations for all
future metallurgical work.
Average Feed Grades

Au 0.06 0.09 0.05
Cu 0.45 0.53 0.35
Mo 0.006 0.029 0.023
Zn 0.10 0.02 0.04

Cu 87% 90% 87% Cu 26.7 29.5 25.6
Mo 83% 88% 75% Mo 0.3 1.6 2.3
Au 50% 58% 49% Au 1.6 3.5 4.2
Zn 31% 14% 28% Zn 3.4 0.3 1.8
Table 3-3 Average feed grades and locked cycle test results
1
As per Quadra Mining

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Flotation test results were used to calibrate the Aminpro flotation model, which was subsequently used
to construct the grade recovery curve for the optimized Sierra Gorda flotation circuit. The flotation
circuit consists of a roughing stage with two cleaning stages and a regrind section treating the rougher
concentrate and the cleaner-scavenger concentrate. The grade recovery curve showing the optimum
operating point is shown in Figure 3-1, in which the green revenue curve is in USD per tonne of ore.
The optimized flotation circuit is expected to average 88% recovery and produce concentrates grading
on average 25.3% Cu. Gold recovery is expected to average 39.3%, yielding approximately 2 g/tonne
of Au in the concentrate. Moly recovery is expected to average 77.7% not including moly section
losses.

34 18.5
18.3
32
18.1
30 17.9
$ Revenues/Ton
Grade of Cu
17.7
28
17.5
26
17.3
24 17.1
16.9
22
Rev/T
20 16.5
75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95
Recovery, %
Figure 3-1 Sierra Gorda grade-recovery curve showing optimum operating point
With a calibrated flotation model integrated with hardness data, capital and operating cost models
from the Aminpro/AME Ltda database, and newly obtained quotations, simulations were performed to
identify the optimal grind size from a net revenue point of view. The optimum grind P80 was found to
be between 169 and 174 microns.
Salt water flotation tests were performed on a composite sample of the three ore types to examine the
effects of saline water. Although the tests were not done under the same chemical conditions as the
tap water tests, there were no indications that performance would be significantly altered from those
reported with the use of fresh water. Other operations have reported improved performance with salt
water.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
3.2 Flowsheet Development
3.2.1 Design Criteria

The complete design criteria are found in APPENDIX 1 of this report. The design criteria was
developed using the following general criteria:
Basic conditions of field conditions, tonnage and grades of the minerals as provided by Quadra
Process equipment sizing and configuration developed through Aminpro and AME Ltda models
for:
o Crushing and sreening
o Grinding and classification
o Flotation
Stockpile sizing, holding tanks and equipment operating times from plant benchmarks and
personal experiences in plant operation
Equipment substitutions, efficiencies and maintainability through in-house operating
experience, equipment vendors and industry contacts
In the criteria, the source of the information is shown:
C Calculation
M Model
O Owner
S Standard Industry
A Assumed
T testwork
TBD To be determined
3.2.1.1 Primary crusher
In consideration of safety issues during blasting, the primary crusher is designed to operate at a
location that is 500m away from the ultimate pit. The size of the crusher was established from vendor
capacity charts, vendor consultation and from knowledge of throughputs of other installations in similar
ore. The primary crusher will use a conventional gyratory unit to reduce the run-of-mine (ROM) ore to
approximately 80% passing 150 mm. Primary gyratory crushers of the size 1524 by 2794 millimeters
(60 by 110 inches), have a long and proven record of successful operation at several installations in
the copper and in other mining industries.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
The primary crushing station will be of a semi-mobile construction consisting of several integrated and
transportable modules. Each module will be complete with factory installed mechanical, electrical and
structural components, including most of the interconnecting wiring and piping. Compared to a
permanent crushing station, a semi-mobile crusher requires less concrete work and fewer installation
job hours. Thus, field construction costs and the construction installation schedule are significantly
lower.
The primary crushing station configuration included in this scoping study comprises the following
components in series:
Two-sided truck dumping stations

Primary crusher
Crusher discharge pocket with a 320 ton capacity
High capacity crusher discharge conveyor
Surge bin with a 650 ton capacity
Belt feeder located below the surge bin to feed the downstream overland conveyor.
This configuration is similar to the one currently used in the Escondida mine in the Phase 4 expansion.
The crusher has been designed to operate 70% of the time to allow for maintenance and haulage.
The nominal capacity of crusher station has been set to accommodate dumping of ore by a 320-ton
truck in approximately 2.3 minutes, that or 8,471 tons per hour.
3.2.1.2 Overland Conveyor
The overland conveying system is designed for a daily tonnage of 120,000 tons per day with an
availability of 70%, resulting in an average hourly operating rate of 7,143 tons per hour. The
maximum inclination for this belt is 14 degrees. This belt discharges to the coarse ore stockpile.
3.2.1.3 Coarse ore Stockpile and reclaim
A coarse ore stockpile has been provided to cushion the tonnage swings from the primary crusher and
to allow 12 hours live capacity to feed the secondary crushers when the primary crusher stops
operating. This conical pile will have a total capacity of one days operation and has been designed

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
with a cover to contain the dust. The angles of repose and drawdown were set at typical values for
the industry, namely at 37 and 60 degrees respectively
3.2.1.4 Secondary and tertiary crushing
A secondary crushing circuit has been selected as a result of the following trade-off studies:
SAG Mill Ball milling

Secondary crushing HPGR Ball milling
Secondary crushing Rod milling Ball milling
Secondary crushing Tertiary crushing Ball milling
The process configuration ultimately selected for the Sierra Gorda sulfide mill consists of traditional
secondary and tertiary crushing with cone crushers, followed by a ball mill circuit. Section 3.2.2
summarizes the criteria and analysis leading to this process design configuration. Appendix 6
contains the relevant trade-off studies.
The main process areas in the secondary and tertiary crusher facilities are:
Secondary crushing
Screens
Tertiary crushing
Conveying
Dust collecting
The crushing sections have been designed with an 85% operating time, typical of similar industrial
crushing plants. The process configuration and equipment sizing is based on vendor capacity charts,
vendor reviews of the circuit and models derived from Aminpro/AME Ltdas extensive database of
industrial benchmarking audits of similar plants and equipment.
The crushing plant layout proposed by FLSmidth was first applied at Fortescue and consists of a
modular bin design that provides operational maintainability, flexibility and expandability. All crushers
are located in one building and secondary crushers are convertible to tertiary crushers. The three
secondary screens produce a plus 2-inch fraction that feeds the secondary circuit and a -inch to 2-

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
inch intermediate fraction that proceeds to the tertiary screen bins together with the crushed product
from the three 750-kW cone crushers. The minus -inch fraction joins with the tertiary screen
undersize and reports to the fine ore stockpile. The tertiary crushing circuit consists of seven 1000-kW
cone crushers and ten screens with inch lower deck openings, all located in one building. The
buildings are designed to contain the dust by the use of wet dust collectors with the collected slurries
sent to the grinding circuit.
3.2.1.5 Fine ore storage (F.O.S.)
To maximize ball ill operating time the fine ore storage facility has been designed for 300,000 tons, or
three days capacity. Of this, 60,000 tons will be live capacity, equivalent to approximately 12 hours of
running time. Should it be required to operate beyond 12 hours, the feeders will be fed with three D-9
dozers (not included).
3.2.1.6 Grinding
The ball mill circuit has been sized for a nominal rate 4,274 tons/hr (100,000 tons per day and 97.5%
operating time). The average Bond work index of the ore is 18.1 kWh/t (refer to the test program
report contained in Appendix 5). The circuit is designed to produce a grind of 80 percent passing 150
microns. The operating time for these mills is based on a benchmark from other operations of similar
circuit. To reduce downtime the grinding circuit is to be equipped with Russell re-lining machines.
The circuit consists of four ball mills, each 7.9 meters by 12 meters (26 ft by 39 ft inside shell diameter
by EGL) with 16.2MW motors (21,700 HP), operating in direct closed circuit configuration with
hydrocyclones. The mills are designed to operate at 74% critical speed and with a 33% charge of
rocks and balls. To reduce capital the drive train consists of a traditional pinion and ring-gear system.
The installed motor power allows for 10% margin (i.e. power draw is expected to be 90% of installed).
To increase flexibility, each ball mill is equipped with a dedicated cyclone cluster.
3.2.1.7 Copper Molybdenum flotation
The rougher flotation stage feed conditions adopted for the scoping study was derived from the
average grade of the sulfide pit. The feed assays are shown in Table 3-4:

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Element Nominal Case Design Case

Cu 0.44 .53
Mo 0.03 .03
Fe 5.8 7.0
S 3.0 3.5
gangue 89.4 87.4
Table 3-4: Average feed assays of the ore, in percent
The feed conditions of the roughers are summarized in Table 3-5Table 3-5.
Item Nominal Condition Design Condition

Feed rate, t/h 4,274 5,128
Feed % solids 33 33
Feed s.g. 2.74 2.77
Feed grind, P80, microns 150 150
Table 3-5: Rougher feed conditions
The pulp residence time in each stage of the circuit was determined using the Aminpro-Flot model2
and the ultimate configuration was justified economically by changing the number cells or rows of cells
until the economics were maximized. The revenues were calculated from typical smelter contracts
and the pricing of cells used were from Aminpros database normalized for 2008 pricing. The optimal
rougher configuration was achieved with a nominal 25 minute flotation time using 2 rows of cells each
with ten 250 cubic meter cells.
To achieve saleable copper concentrate grade levels while maintaining high recoveries, the cleaners
are configured into two stages with the concentrate of the first cleaner reporting to the second cleaner.
The first cleaner tails reports to a cleaner-scavenger bank and the cleaner-scavenger concentrate is
sent to the regrind together with the rougher concentrate. Like for the roughers, the cleaner residence
time requirements were calculated through an economic optimization exercise. The resulting optimal
configuration consists of two rows of cleaner/cleaner-scavenger cells, each with three 160 cubic meter
2
The Aminpro-Flot model is a phenomenological model that tracks the kinetics of each stream in a bank of cells or a flotation
process. Flotation and regrind stages can be added, subtracted, and optimized to evaluate alternative flotation process
designs. A complete description is contained in Appendix 5.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
cells for the first cleaners and five 160 cubic meter cells for the cleaner-scavengers, resulting in a total
of 25 minutes of retention time.
To maximize rejection of mechanically entrained gangue and pyrite, the second cleaning stage is
designed with column flotation units operated with wash water. The column cells will reject nearly
99% of the free non-floatable minerals entering the column and are sized to maintain the solid flux of
concentrate at acceptable levels of 1.5 tons per square meters of column surface area per hour,
typical in industry. This resulted in the inclusion of three column flotation units, 4.5 meters in diameter
and of 12 meters height each.
The test work and the Aminpro-Flot model agree in the Cu-Mo circuit performance and forecast
reconciled copper recoveries near 87.7% and moly recoveries of 69.7% with concentrate grades of
27.8 to 29.3 percent copper and 1.25 to 1.32 percent molybdenum. Gold levels of 1.4 to 1.6 grams
per ton are expected in the final concentrate.
The regrind design includes four vertical regrind mills, each with 1100 kW installed motor power.
These mills have the following advantages over ball mills in this application:
Lower installation costs

Lower operating costs
Higher energy efficiency
Less over-grinding
The regrind mills are designed according to the SGS-Lakefield test work, which gave indications that
optimum grinds for cleaning were at P80 values between 40 and 60 microns. A typical industrial value
of 16 kWh/ton was assumed for the work index of the concentrate feeding the regrind stage. Note that
Metso Minerals, the only maker of VERTIMILLS, has developed a new model unit that will draw two
times the power of the existing maximum size VERTIMILL. This will provide opportunities in price
reduction should these be included in the flowsheet.
3.2.1.8 Reagents and lime preparation
The reagent addition system is designed to operate entirely by gravity flow. There are five reagent
receiving/storage tanks:

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Primary Collector (Cytec 3894)

Frother (MIBC)
Sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS)
Moly collector (fuel oil or diesel)
Spare system with mixing capabilities
The reagent dosage has been determined through test work. Although no dosage tests were done in
the lab, the addition rate used was adopted for consumption in estimating operating costs. The lime
plant has been designed by SEMCO-TBS from Canada with a division in Chile called STANCO. The
design offered by STANCO is for a 25 t/h plant, a rate that would keep this plant operating about 5 to 7
hours per day depending on the tonnage.
3.2.1.9 Molybdenum Plant
The Molybdenum plant was designed using typical kinetic values from industrial moly plants applied to
the Cu-Mo plant concentrates. The plant will be located near the Cu-Mo plant and will operate in the
open as well. The plant design considers forced air cells operating with nitrogen gas. The nitrogen
plant will in turn be based on the combustion of air with natural gas to produce CO2 as a byproduct
which can be used to acidify the pulp to optimum pH conditions.
The feed to the plant will be drawn is tank for a period of 12 hours. The high density slurry from these
tanks will be passed through attrition machines to clean any residual collectors from the surface of the
copper minerals. It then is diluted with NaSH-bearing water from the copper thickener while fresh,
desalinated or raw water is used elsewhere in the column flotation cleaners as make-up water to
produce a moly concentrate that is devoid of chlorine.
Given the high grade moly entering the plant, the circuit has been configured with one rougher or Cu
Mo separation stage plus three cleaning stages. A small regrind stage has been included to treat the
rougher concentrate. The circuit is configured with the following equipment:
Rougher stage: 1 row of 10 cells, each 8 m3 Retention time 49 minutes

1st Cleaners: 1 row of 8 cells, each 8 m3 Retention time 53 minutes
2nd Cleaners: 1 column cell: 2.4m diameter x 12 m tall: 40 min flotation time
3rd Cleaners: 1 column cell: 1.5m diameter x 12 m tall: 38 min flotation time

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Regrind: 1 VERTIMILL, 32 kW minimum motor size.

Regrind cyclones: one 254 mm cyclone plus one standby.
The plant has been assumed to achieve a nominal molybdenum recovery of 90%. The Aminpro-Flot
model estimates that the plant will generate a concentrate grade of 50% Mo. The copper content has
been estimated at 1.4% copper, 1.5% gangue, and 6.5% iron. These values may be improved upon
when further test work is undertaken.
The circuit has been equipped with an intermediate thickener, 12 meters in diameter to handle all of
the 1st cleaner feed material in order to provide means for dewatering, to steady the flow and eliminate
excessive foaming. Final moly concentrate is thickened in a 5 meter thickener prior to filtration in the
ceramic filters. The settling rates for the concentrate have been assumed from typical installations in
Chile.
3.2.1.10 Tailings dewatering
The Cu-Mo plant tails is composed of the rougher tails and the cleaner scavenger tails. These
streams are dewatered in three 75 meter diameter high density/compression thickeners, one of the
largest proven design that exists for this type of thickener. The underflow density will have a paste
consistency and is assumed to be 65 percent by weight in solids. The settling rates for sizing the
thickeners are assumed values from other installations in Chile.
During the initial years of production, any emergency spills from the plant site, the thickeners or the
internal water reclaim pool will be channeled to the tailing impoundment facility. As the elevation of
the impounded tails increases, an emergency pond will need to be constructed.
3.2.1.11 Copper Concentrate dewatering
The bulk or Cu-Mo thickener and the copper thickener are fed by the Cu-Mo plant final concentrate
and the final copper concentrate respectively. These units are identically sized at 21 meters in
diameter. A specific surface area of 0.15 m2/ton/day has been assumed from typical installations in
the industry. The overflow of both units is recycled to the internal reclaim pool where the waters join
the water from the tailing thickener overflows.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
3.2.1.12 Copper concentrate pipeline
The scoping study assumes that the routing of the concentrate pipeline and the water line to/from the
coast will be shared along the same corridor. Water from two locations, Michilla and Mejillones, was
evaluated in the test program. Although a slightly longer pipeline two locations studied as shown in
Figure 3-2, water is required (Figure 3-2), the Mejillones route was ultimately selected because the
port facilities of Mejillones are under rapid expansion and therefore offer the infrastructure, power and
water required for copper filtering and load-out.
The pump and choke station locations were selected to satisfy the pipeline pressure requirements and
to minimize the pumping requirements. To reduce the material requirements, the pipe thickness and
flange selections were optimized for the pressure requirements along the pipeline route. For this
preliminary design, the minimum pipe wall thickness was limited to 3.96 mm. HDPE lined API
Standard 5L grade X65 piping has been selected for the entire pipeline route. A design factor of 0.8
and an external corrosion allowance of 1 mm were applied to pipe pressure rating, using a SMYS of
448 MPa in the analysis. The HDPE liner has a thickness of 6 mm. No analysis into the expected liner
wear rates or the external corrosion over the life of the pipeline has been undertaken.
Figure 3-2: The corridor for the Mejillones pipeline.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
3.2.1.13 Raw water, reclaimed water and potable water
The process plant will have four classifications of water:
Sea Water: water from the ocean without desalination.

Raw Water. Any type of water coming into the plant as make-up. It will be delivered either as
desalinated water, partially desalinated water or a mixture of waters from nearby wells.
Reclaimed water. Water that has gone through the process and has been reclaimed for re-use
Potable water. Water that has undergone treatment and is apt for human consumption
This report assumes that the raw water delivered to the plant has been treated in salinity to levels
similar to the salt concentrations of the salt flats. The use of water for ore processing from deep wells
in the Atacama salt flats is widespread. These waters have generally a lower concentration of Na and
K salts than sea water.
In designing the network for water receiving , distribution and reclaim for the Sierra Gorda process,
care was taken to take advantage of surrounding topography to place the raw water tanks
approximately 40 meters above the ball mill feed chutes to provide some 350 to 400 kPa (50 to 60
PSI) pressure. The potable water tanks will be located below this elevation to enable gravity feed to a
reverse osmosis (RO) plant. The internal reclaim water reservoir will be located below the raw water
tanks at an elevation to provide 200 to 275 kPa (30 to 40 PSI) pressure. The raw water tanks will
have 3 hours of residence time.
The supply of water from the raw water tanks for fire, human consumption and process will be done by
placing the take-off on the tank at strategic elevations: the fire water line will be placed at the bottom of
the water tanks to a volume (Chilean law) of 250 m3. The take off for the RO plant will be located
above this point and above this will be the outlet for the process. The overflow will be directed to the
internal reclaim reservoir.
The reclaimed water from the process through the thickener overflows, which all collect at the internal
reclaim water pool, will be sent to the internal reclaim water reservoir located above the plant
elevation.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Some areas of the process, such as fine ore storage and tripper areas will have fire water lines
pressurized by pumps located near the raw water tanks.
3.2.1.14 Copper concentrate Drying and load out.
The concentrate filtering, storage and load out facility in Mejillones will receive the concentrate in the
pipeline from Sierra Gorda, the lines pressure will be reduced in a series of chokes and the slurry will
thickened. The process is intended to provide flexibility for blending by having four agitated stock
tanks for a nominal of 73 hours capacity at 65% solids, a density required for the filter.
Given the possible swings in the operation of the pipeline, two horizontal press filters are provided that
will each operate at 40% of the time. This conservative value was adopted due to the swings in
accumulated concentrate in the area to prevent delays in ship loading. The design is to provide a
concentrate with moisture of 8.5%.
3.2.1.15 Water handling and disposal at port.
The port facilities will need to treat nominally 40 m3/hr of filtrate water. It is anticipated that a series of
purification stages will be required to bring the purity to acceptable discharge levels.
It is assumed sewage disposal and raw water services are available through the infrastructure of the
areas municipality.
3.2.2 Process Alternatives

The following alternative comminution circuit configurations were evaluated:

100 kt/d secondary cone crushing followed by tertiary HPGR crushing and ball milling
100 kt/d secondary and tertiary cone crushing followed by ball milling
100 kt/d crushing, rod milling and ball milling circuit.
76 kt/d single line SAG and ball mill circuit versus 76 kt/d HPGR-based circuit
The rod mill circuit trade-off study was terminated when it became known that the rods had a limited
size because of straightness issues and therefore the circuit would require at least 13 mills. Following
are descriptions of the other circuit configurations evaluated.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
3.2.2.1 100 kt/d SAG and ball mill circuit
The size of the SAG mills and ball mills selected for this configuration were determined from hardness
test data. The resulting SABC circuit would require 43 MW of installed SAG mill power and 47 MW of
installed ball mill power in a circuit consisting of the following major equipment:
Two 38 by 22 (inside shell by EGL) grate discharge SAG mills with recycle pebble
crushing
Three 750 kW cone crushers for the SAG mill discharge screen oversize
Four 24 by 38 (inside shell by EGL) overflow ball mills closed with cyclones, 150
micron product P80 size
3.2.2.2 100 kt/d HPGR-based grinding circuit
The equivalent HPGR circuit would require 2 MW of installed secondary crushing power, 18 MW of
installed HPGR power, and 57 MW of installed ball mill power. The circuit configuration would consist
of the following major equipment.
Open circuit secondary crushing with three 95mm/60mm double deck screens and the
oversize feeding three 750 kW cone crushers
Tertiary crushing consisting of three 2.6m by 1.75m HPGRs with product wet-screened
on 8 double deck 9mm/5mm screens
3.2.2.3 100 kt/d Traditional cone crushing circuit
The cone crushing circuit configuration used for the trade off studies may differ slightly in the layout
and equipment sizes used for the scoping study because it does not reflect changes made during the
circuit optimization efforts undertaken once the circuit was selected for Sierra Gorda. The circuit used
for trade-off evaluations consists of 2 MW of installed secondary crusher power, 8 MW of installed
tertiary crusher power, and 68 MW of installed ball mill power. The major equipment are:
Open circuit secondary crushing with three 95mm/60mm double deck screens and the
oversize feeding three 750 kW cone crushers

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Tertiary crushing consisting of ten 750 kW cone crushers and ten 2.6m by 1.75m
vibrating screen decks with -inch lower deck openings.
3.2.2.4 76 kt/d SAG and ball mill circuit
This study was to investigate the trade-off economics of a single large SAG mill line relative to the
equivalent HPGR-based circuit. The size of the SAG mills and ball mills selected for this configuration
are those of the largest currently operating mills at Esperanza, Chile. The circuit would require 29 MW
of installed SAG mill power and 43 MW of installed ball mill power in a circuit consisting of the
following major equipment:
One 40 by 26 (inside shell by EGL) grate discharge SAG mill with recycle pebble
crushing
Two 750 kW cone crushers for the SAG mill discharge screen oversize
Two 27 by 45 (inside shell by EGL) overflow ball mills closed with cyclones, 150
3.2.2.5 76 kt/d HPGR-based grinding circuit
This circuit requires 1.5 MW of installed secondary crushing power, 12 MW of installed HPGR power,
and 45 MW of installed ball mill power. The circuit configuration would consist of the following major
equipment.
Open circuit secondary crushing with two 95mm/60mm double deck screens and the
oversize feeding two 750 kW cone crushers
Tertiary crushing consisting of two 2.6m by 1.75m HPGRs with product wet-screened
on 8 double deck 9mm/5mm screens
Three 26 by 35 (inside shell by EGL) overflow ball mills closed with cyclones, 150

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
3.2.2.6 Trade-off study results and grinding circuit selection
Memoranda detailing the various trade-off studies are found in Appendix 6. Capital costs, operating
costs and the relative economics are summarized in Table 3-6. Note that the IRR shown is relative to
the base case and is defined as the return on investment of the additional capital costs through
reduction of operating cost.
Case Capital Cost1 Operating Cost IRR2

K$ $/ton %
100 kt/d SABC $364,769 $6.63 -

100 kt/d HPGR $419,053 $5.31 89%
100 kt/d Cone Crushing $424,480 $5.53 67%
76 kt/d SABC $243,090 $6.49 -

76 kt/d HPGR $308,398 $5.44 44%
Notes
1
Capital costs are only for the grinding circuit and may exclude some costs that are common to
all cases
2
IRR is the return on investment for the incremental capital, achieved through operating cost
reductions. It is calculated relative to the base case.
Table 3-6 Trade-off economics for various grinding circuit configurations
Results of the tradeoff study shown in Table 3-6 indicate that the HPGR circuit is more economical
than the alternative circuit configurations. The next most economical configuration is the 100 kt/d
cone crushing alternative with virtually the same capital cost requirements and only $0.22/ton
increased operating cost. Quadras decision to select this circuit over the more cost efficient HPGR
configuration is related to the additional risk associated with an open circuit secondary crushing
system combined with 2.6 m diameter rolls, neither of which has been used in hard rock crushing
circuits such as that considered for Sierra Gorda. The economics of a more traditional, and proven,
flowsheet such as the Cerro Verde process are less attractive than those considered herein3.
Note that the trade-off evaluation was performed in the absence of HPGR test work. Should the ore
prove more conducive to HPGR-based crushing, or less wear-intensive than the assumptions used for
this study, this economic evaluation should be updated.
3
The economics are less attractive because the Cerro Verde process would require larger screens required to produce a
finer secondary circuit product size and a fourth 2.4m diameter HPGR unit. Required bin sizes and operating costs would
also increase due to the additional circulating load in the secondary crushing circuit.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
4 Process Plant
The battery limits of the process plant has been defined to include the following areas
Primary Crusher and overland conveyor

Secondary and Tertiary Crushing
Grinding
Copper-Moly (Cu-Mo) flotation
Moly flotation
Plant concentrate dewatering
Plant concentrate pipeline
All port facilities including load-out
Plant tailing thickeners down to the underflow pump discharge flange.
Site area:
o Plant site preparation
o Roads within site area
o Camp (Construction and permanent)
o Desalinated water starting from the stock tanks
o Plant area reclaimed water
o Plant Area power supply and distribution starting from take-off from main supply lines
o Ancillary buildings (Mill office, General Offices, shop and warehouse, laboratory,
change house, clinic
o Sewage control
o Potable water (RO plant)
o Fire protection
o Process plant mobile equipment
o Plant area access control and weigh scale
The Process plant excludes the following areas:
Tailing storage area starting from the thickener underflow pump discharge flange
Any reclaimed water from tailing storage area
Desalinated or other water delivery to the plant area stock tanks.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Access road to plant site

Access road from plant site to Mejillones along pipeline
Plant site perimeter fences
The process description that will be described in detail is illustrated in the process flow diagrams
(PFDs) contained in Appendix 3.
4.1 Process Plant Description
4.1.1 Primary Crushing and Overland Conveying

The primary crusher consists of a semi-mobile gyratory crusher, designed with double feed ports with
a pocket capable of holding the contents of s single 340 ton haul truck. The crusher unit selected is
the largest size used in industry, a 60-110 (or 60-x113). The station will be equipped with a 115 MT
overhead crane and have a second hook rated for 20 tons. The crusher will be equipped with fog dust
suppression systems and have dust collectors. A rock breaker is also included.
The crushed rock from the primary crusher will discharge onto a 3 m wide conveyor capable of
handling 14,000 tph of ore in order to accommodate a single truck discharging in 2.1-2.4 minutes. The
crusher discharge conveyor will discharge into a free standing 650 ton capacity surge bin. The
crushed ore in the surge bin will discharge onto a 3 meter wide, variable speed reclaim belt that will
feed the overland conveyor.
The overland conveyor, 1.8m wide, travels at 4.8 m/s speed and has to 8,500 t/h. The belt will be
678.5 m in length and discharge onto a tripper conveyor located above the coarse ore stockpile.
4.1.2 Secondary Crushing

Four belt feeders, each with capacity of 1,525 tph, draw the crushed ore from the primary stockpile
onto the coarse ore conveyor belt with design capacity of 6,100 tph and total length of 317m. The
conveyor has a tripper that discharges into three secondary bins.
Material is drawn from the bins with 10m belt feeders that feed three covered 12 x 24 double deck
banana screens with 45 mm top deck openings and 12 mm bottom deck openings. The oversized
material from the top deck feeds three secondary cone crushers (Raptor XL1100, Metso MP1000, or
equivalent 750-kW cone crushers) with 32 mm closed side setting. The midsized material from the

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
middle deck joins the crushed product from the crushers and is conveyed 314 m by the 84 crusher
product belt conveyor, which lifts the material 29m to the tertiary screen feed bins. The undersize
material falls on the fine ore conveyor, which also collects the undersize material from the tertiary
screens.
The secondary crushers and screens are located in the same open air building as the tertiary
crushers. Bins are modular and tertiary crushers are convertible to secondary crushers. Secondary
crushers are serviced via a large maintenance slab and a 120 ton bridge crane to be shared with the
tertiary crushers. All belts are equipped with cross belt electromagnets and alignment sensors. Dust
control for the crushing building is accomplished through fog or atomizer type dust suppression
systems for the conveyor belts and chutes and four wet dust collectors (also shared with the tertiary
crushers) with venturi type scrubbers and dust collection take-offs from crusher discharge, screens,
and bins.
4.1.3 Tertiary Crushing

The tertiary screens are in the open and located in a separate building. Material is drawn from the
feed bins via ten 10m feeders. Screens are covered double deck banana screens with 12mm bottom
deck openings. The screen undersize joins the bottom deck undersize from the secondary screens on
the fine ore conveyor. The fine ore conveyor is 72 wide and 788m long, and is designed for up to
6,100 tph capacity. The screen oversize reports to the tertiary crusher feed belt and is conveyed 287
m and lifted 30 m to the tertiary crusher feed bins.
The tertiary crushers and feed bins are located in the same open air building and the secondary
crushers. Material is drawn via 10 m belt feeders and choke-fed to ten Raptor XL1100, Metso
MP1000, or equivalent 750-kW cone crushers operating with 12mm closed side setting. Crusher
discharge reports to the crusher product belt and returns to the tertiary screen feed bins.
Bins are modular and tertiary crushers are convertible to secondary crushers. Tertiary crushers are
serviced via a large maintenance slab and a 120 ton bridge crane to be shared with the secondary
crushers. Crushers are expandable up to a maximum of 4 additional modules on the west side of the
crushing building and two additional screen modules on the west side of the tertiary screen building.
All belts are equipped with cross belt electromagnets and alignment sensors. Dust control for the
crushing building is accomplished through fog or atomizer type dust suppression systems for the

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
conveyor belts and chutes and four wet dust collectors (also shared with the secondary crushers) with
venturi type scrubbers and dust collection take-offs from crusher discharge, screens, and bins.
4.1.4 Fine Ore Storage (F.O.S.)
The ore from the secondary/tertiary crushing plant will be distributed in the F.O.S. with a tripper
running on rails and equipped with a dust skirt and a fog spray dust suppression system.
The product from the crushing plant is delivered by conveyor to a covered fine ore storage pile, where
a tripper conveyor distributes the ore to the feeders that feed four ball mills. This facility is covered
and is an A-frame configuration with a 37 degree sloped roof. The stockpile live capacity is 60,000
tonnes or approximately 12 hours of operation. The total capacity is 300,000 with approximately
100,000 covered and the remainder uncovered and accessible via three D-9 dozers (not included).
The ore in the fine ore stockpile (F.O.S.) is drawn by three feeder belts, 1.8 meter wide (72) by 18
meters long that are fed by three static steel lined feeders imbedded in the concrete. Each is
positioned so that the moving belt draws ore from the pile above it and the distance from the feeder
discharge lip to the belt is increased downstream of the belt to allow the ore to be drawn from nine
locations per mill. Each feeder belt discharges onto the ball mill main feed belt, a 90 centimeter (36)
wide belt by 200 meters. The feeder belts are positioned at 90 degrees from the ball mill main feed
conveyor and are driven by variable speed motors to control the tonnage rate of the mill
Ball mill feed belts are each 224 m in length, allowing for an access road between the mills building
the F.O.S and sufficient space for gravity collection of spillage and cleanup material from the stockpile
tunnels. The slopes of the floors inside the F.O.S. will be downwards towards the mills to allow hosing
within the tunnels. The slurries formed will be piped to the mill discharge pump boxes. The ball mill
feed conveyors will be off the ground to permit access to the entire floor of the tunnel. Dust collecting
piping will be installed at each transfer area and the collected particulates will be mixed with water and
be sent to the grind area.
4.1.5 Grinding
The grinding process is based solely on closed circuit ball mills. The ball mill feed belts, each
equipped with weighing metes and integrator, feed the fine ore directly to the ball mill feed chute.
Water is added together with the cyclone underflow to dilute the slurry to 78% solids.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
There are four ball mills 7.9 meters (26 ft) in diameter by 12 meters (39 ft) long operating 97.5 percent
of the time at a nominal rate of 1,068 tons per hour each. Design capacity for periods of soft ores is
1,300 tons per hour each. Each mill will operate with its own cyclone cluster and own mill discharge
pump box. The cyclone cluster composed of 33 inch cyclones will be fed by single pump operating
5,102 cubic meters per hour (22,240 gpm) slurry. This provides flexibility in the operations and means
to compare circuit performance between the mills.
The ball mill discharge reports to the cyclone feed sump, and water addition to the box dilutes the
slurry in the cyclone cluster feed line to achieve the necessary densities for the cyclone operation.
The cyclones are 840 millimeters in diameter (33 inch) and operate at a nominal pressure of 70 kPa
(10 PSI).
The mills are controlled by a distributed control system (DCS) with an expert system (or supervisory
system) that controls the tonnage rate, product sizing by adjusting the slurry densities, cyclone
pressures, and pump speeds. In the grinding equipment, particle size measurement devices (PSI)
have been included together with sampling stations and reagent addition points.
The circuit is equipped with two quick release spare pumps for the four cyclones feed pumps, placed
in a strategic location where they can be refurbished and where there is crane access for rapid
deployment (1.5 hours). The arrangement between the cyclone feed elevation and pump intake
elevation has been set to allow the pump to operate at a low tip speeds for long wear.
Given the large flows being handled by the grinding mills with their associated recirculation, the
spillage from the ball mills is contained and channeled in concrete launders which serve to channel
flotation tails to the tailing thickeners. Any coarse rock that may surface in the basement will be
cleaned with a bobcat. In this manner maintenance-intensive floor sumps have been eliminated from
the grinding section.
The reagent unloading area and storage will be located in between the F.O.S. and the grinding
section, at an elevation that will permit gravity feed of all reagents to the plant. Likewise, the ball
storage area will also be located at this point so that balls can be loaded on the conveyor belts outside
of the plant. This will prevent closure of areas during ball loading periods and allow balls to be loaded
into the mills on a continuous manner.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
4.1.6 Bulk Flotation

The overflows from the primary cyclones report to a common rubber-lined overflow line that
discharges into the rougher feed distributor. At the distributor the entire feed to flotation is sampled for
metallurgical control. Lime and reagents are added at the grinding stage to provide an initial rise in pH
and complementary lime and reagents are added at the distributors to bring the pH to 9.5 10.5 and
primary collector (AP 3894) to 20 grams of copper collector per ton of ore. Frother (MIBC) is also
added to the distributor at a rate of 15 grams per ton of feed.
The distributor will be an up-flow device which will have 2 outlets equipped with darts. Each outlet will
direct the flow to a single row of rougher cells, of 10 cells of 250 cubic meters in volume. The size
selected is one of the largest commercial sizes available and proven in industry. At the time of writing,
larger sizes were being tested which may in the future be considered if they are economically justified.
The cells considered are self aspirating Wemco cells. The flotation cells sit on the floor and the
product launders are built in concrete and embedded in the floor, requiring no costly platforms. Any
spills from the cells are directly channeled into the concentrate launders that send the spill to the
proper section of the plant, eliminating the need for floor sump pumps and lessening the need for
hosing and clean-up. Tailings from the cells are also channeled into a large common launder that
ultimately joins the grinding spillage channel and directs all the waste slurry to the tailing thickeners.
The concentrate from the roughers is channeled to the regrind feed pump box. This box, located
below the floor level of the roughers, has three pumps, two operating and one standby. The
concentrate is classified in the cyclones and the underflow or coarse fraction of the slurry reports to
the VERTMILLS to be reground to approximately 40 to 60 micron P80 size (cyclone overflow size).
There are two regrind cyclone clusters of fourteen 20 cyclones, each operating at 80% circulating
load. Under normal conditions, each cluster will operate with six spare cyclones, but during periods of
soft ore and higher grades, it is expected that all 14 cyclones per cluster will be operational. The
nominal operating pressure is 124 kPa. The underflow of the cyclones will be directed to the bottom
feed port of the VERTIMILL without requiring additional pumps, as the height of the underflow is
sufficient to meet the pressure requirements by the vertical mill manufacturer. The regrind cyclone
feed pump has been located at a 8 meter level below the flotation floor level at the tailing end of the
rougher cells to receive all cyclone feed streams by gravity. The benefit of this is that when a power
failure occurs, this pump box plus all the flotation launders will serve as storage volume. Should this

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
storage volume fill, the overflow from this pump box will discharge in two agitated storage tanks 10
meter diameter by 10 meters high. During power failures these agitators will operate with the
emergency power generator.
The product of the regrind circuit is directed to the first cleaner feed distributors to be distributed
equally between two rows of 1st cleaners and cleaner scavenger cells. Each 1st cleaner row consists
of 3 cells, 160 cubic meters followed by five cleaner-scavenger cells of 160 cubic meters. The 1st
cleaners upgrade the rougher concentrate from approximately 5% Cu in the feed to 15% Cu. The
cleaner-scavengers receive the tails from the first cleaners and recover nearly 98.5% of the contained
copper. These cells will, like the roughers, are on the ground with in-floor launders (however, the first
cleaner concentrate launder is elevated so it can discharge into the 2nd cleaner feed pump box).
Cleaner scavenger tailings will discharge into the same launder as rougher tails. In-line samplers will
be place on all strategic lines in order to provide a metallurgical control and/or process control.
Regrind balls will be added with the tower crane.
The second cleaning stage will consist of 3 column cells, each 4.5 meters in diameter by 12 meters in
height. The units will be instrumented so they can operate under a positive bias through the addition
of wash water on the concentrate. They are operated from the DCS control station but can also be
operated in local control. The concentrate from the first cleaners will be upgraded in the columns to a
final grade near 28% Cu.
The entire copper-moly circuit will operate with recovery levels for copper, moly and gold of
approximately 88, 70 and 46 percent respectively. It will produce nominally 60 tons per hour of
concentrate with an operating time of 97.5%.
The flotation area was designed to operate in the open, that is, without being enclosed in a building. A
tower crane is strategically located to reach all flotation cells to assist in the replacement of agitators.
4.1.7 Molybdenum Separation

The copper-moly separation will be done in a roughing stage and 3 cleaner stages. The bulk
concentrate produced in the Cu-Mo circuit will be thickened in the bulk thickener to an underflow
density of approximately 63 to 65 percent solids by weight. There will be only one 20 meter diameter
thickener in the circuit. The thickener underflow will be piped directly to two inline pumps, one

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
operating, and one standby. These will be equipped with density gauges to enable a control of the
density through inline pinch valves.
The slurry from the thickener will be pumped to two agitated stock tanks, 10 meters diameter by 10
meters tall with a holding capacity of 1.5 days. At these tanks, CO2 will be added to eliminate any free
calcium in solution and to drive the pH down to levels between 8 and 9. The slurry is then fed to the
moly feed attrition machine to ensure the copper collector has been stripped from the copper minerals
and diesel will be added to collect the molybdenum sulfide. After a two minute period, the slurry from
the attrition machine is gravitated to the moly rougher feed box and diluted to 45% solids with NaHS-
bearing water from the copper thickener overflow stream.
The moly rougher stage consists of a single row of 10 cells, 8 cubic meters each, operating with forced
nitrogen gas and averaging 49 minutes of pulp residence time. As the incoming rougher feed is
diluted, NaHS is added for the depression of copper minerals and diesel is added to float the moly. A
small 30 kW regrind mill in conjunction with cyclones is included in the circuit to treat rougher
concentrate in the event some additional regrind is required for liberation of middlings. The tailing of
the moly rougher is the final copper concentrate and is sent to the copper thickener.
Reground rougher concentrate is subsequently upgraded in three cleaning stages:
1st Cleaners: 1 row of 8 mechanical cells, 8 cubic meters each

2nd cleaners: 1 column cell 2.44 meters in diameter, 12 meters tall
3rd cleaners: 1 column cell 1.5 meters in diameter, 12 meters tall
These stages operate in a counter current fashion, where the concentrate of the 1st cleaners feeds the
second and that of the second cleaner feeds the third stage. The tailings recycle back to the previous
stage. The last two cleaning stages have been designed with columns, operating with air and using
fresh (desalinated water) as the sole source of water-makeup to the plant. It is important to note that
the tails of the 1st cleaners should be low in molybdenum values and may at time be sent to the copper
thickener.
The circuit has been equipped with an intermediate thickener, 12 meters in diameter to handle all of
the 1st cleaner feed material in order to provide means for dewatering, to steady the flow and eliminate
excessive foaming. Moly final concentrate is dewatered in a 5 meter diameter thickener to an

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
underflow density of 55% solids. The dewatered product from the thickener will be processed by a
ceramic filter to moisture of 7.5%. The moly concentrate is expected to be sold to local Molymet for
copper removal where moisture levels up to 8% are accepted. It is therefore assumed that no drying
equipment will be required and that the filter product can be placed into one ton bags directly for
shipment.
4.1.8 Concentrate Dewatering

The concentrate dewatering section described here pertains mainly to the bulk thickening and the
copper thickening. The reason is that often these two thickeners become interchangeable in case of a
breakdown in one of the units. In the event of a failure of either the bulk thickener or the copper
thickener, the other thickener assumes the role of copper thickener and the moly circuit is operated
until no feed is left in the moly plant feed stock tanks. At that point the moly circuit is shut down and
the copper production continues. The water from both these thickeners is collected in the internal
reclaim water pool. Some waters from the copper thickener are recycled to the moly plant feed.
The underflow of the bulk thickener, as explained in section 4.1.7 is the feed source for the moly plant.
The copper thickener on the other hand, is fed by the moly rougher tailings. This stream will often be
a source of NaHS reagent that can be used in the bulk circuit for sulfidization should there be oxidized
copper present. The underflow stream of the copper thickener is stored in three agitated storage
tanks where the concentrates are accumulated prior to being pumped to the Mejillones port.
4.1.9 Tailing Dewatering

Both the rougher tails and cleaner-scavenger tails from the bulk circuit feed the tailings thickeners.
The tailings will be sent to the thickener distributor where the feed is divided into three thickeners.
There will be a dart mechanism that will allow one thickener or two to be put out of service for
maintenance. Flocculant will be added to the thickener distributor in addition to the thickener feed
well. The thickeners will have an educt system included in their design.
The flocculant storage and preparation will be located near the thickener distributor in order to
minimize pumping costs. The flocculant consumption will be 20 g/t. The thickeners designed for the
project are 90 m in diameter.
The underflow densities are designed for 65 percent solids by weight. The overflow water will be
collected at the internal reclaim water pool and will be recycled back to the internal reclaim water
reservoir at an elevation above the mill grinding circuit. There will be two underflow pumps for each of

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
the thickeners dedicated to pumping the slurry away to the next stage in the tailing impoundment
circuit. Each pump will be equipped on the discharge line with a density gauge, a flow meter and a
control valve in order to maintain control over the thickener product sent to the impoundment. In
addition a recycle pump will be provided to maintain the underflow in continuous movement at all
times to avoid sanding of the paste-like slurry.
4.1.10 Concentrate Pipeline to Mejillones

The bulk concentrate, after being thickened to 65% solids will be sent to three agitated stock tanks
measuring 11 m in diameter by 11 meters tall. Each tank will be equipped with a set of discharge
pipes that deliver the contents of a dedicated tank or a mixture of various tanks to the piston pump
charge pumps. This arrangement allows the operators to blend the contents of the tanks or to isolate
a batch of concentrate that might have either a low grade of concentrate or high concentrations of
deleterious metals. These stock tanks will have a nominal retention time of 48 hours and will permit
continuous pumping to Mejillones for over 3 days.
The pipeline route follows the proposed water supply line, with a total length of 141 km a total altitude
drop of 1740 m to sea level at Mejillones. The system will require two piston pumps, one located at
the plant and the other some 50 km down the line. An intermediate valve station is provided at 113
km for slack flow control where the terrain drops from 1200 m.a.s.l. to 500 m.a.s.l. Under normal
operating conditions the pipeline will operate 74.2% of the time
4.1.11 Port Site Process Facilities

The concentrate arriving in Mejillones through the pipeline, after passing through the choke station to
dissipate the potential energy, is sent to the port site copper thickener. The underflow of the thickener
is delivered to four 11.4 m diameter agitated stock tanks that provide nominally 3 days production
storage. The overflow is sent to the water treatment plant to remove any organic reagents and
suspended/dissolved metals.
The underflow from the thickener is sent to the Larox PF144 filters. Two units service the port facilities
to allow the process to accommodate the fluctuations of concentrate delivery and interference with
delays in ship loading. The filtrate from the filters return to the copper thickener and the filter cake is
discharged onto a conveyor which delivers the 8.5 moisture cake to the 40,000 ton concentrate shed.
The filtered concentrate is sent to the concentrate shed via conveyor equipped with a tripper that
allows multiple discharge points. The shed will house 40,000 tons of concentrate. Ship loading will be

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
carried out with two 988 front end loaders that will deposit the concentrate onto one of three reclaim
conveyors that eventually transport the concentrate to the ship. During ship loading the 988 units will
load the first reclaim conveyor from a large dust hood, where dust collectors remove any fugitive dust.
The dust collector bags are shaken to return the collected dust back onto the reclaim conveyor. The
first reclaim conveyor discharges onto a second reclaim conveyor. At the transfer point, a concentrate
sample will collect samples for metallurgical and quality control. The first reclaim conveyor will also be
equipped with a weigh scale.
4.2 Process Control

The process plant includes a comprehensive package of instrumentation and hardware for process
control. The design of it includes a PLC based control, supported by a dual server system running and
expert control system (ECS) software. The configuration is very flexible. Notably, the ECS system
included is plug compatible with the local control panels offered by many companies. This enables the
project to benefit from standard equipment supply packages while still having complete flexibility from
a control viewpoint. Allen Bradley hardware was used as a cost basis for this study, however the ECS
platform proposed readily supports Siemens, Modicon and other hardware brands.
The instrumentation package includes ECS software licenses. The hardware includes:
Two servers
Remote access server
Remote access firewall
Four client PCs with dual monitor
One engineering work station
Two server racks
Network switch, 2 printers
Control room console (5)
PLC system
o Cabinets
o Fiber modules
o I/O cabinets for all process centers

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
5 Plant Infrastructure
5.1 Ancillary Buildings
5.1.1 Warehouse
Warehouse facilities for both the concentrator and mine have been provided for. The building is 3,500
m2 and construction costs are estimated at 900 US$/m2.
5.1.2 Change house

This facility will have 420 m2 of floor space to handle some 130 people during shift change.
5.1.3 Clinic
A clinic building is included in the facilities measuring 200 m2. No equipment is provided as these are
generally equipped by the Chilean public health system. The facility has been priced at US 1,000/m2
5.1.4 Offices
Administrative offices were included near the mine site for all, mine, mill and general administration
personnel. The area provided is for 1900 m2 to include 90 offices, meeting rooms, bathrooms,
training rooms, etc. These offices were priced at 1,200 US$/m2
5.1.5 Laboratory
A metallurgical lab and assay lab will be included in the ancillaries. The idea is to provide shift assays
and metallurgical response for process problems.
5.1.6 Guard House

The gatehouse will be located in a strategic manner to monitor incoming and outgoing personnel and
visitors. The premise will have 200 m2 floor space, sufficient to house computers, and a truck weight
scale monitors.
5.2 Reagent mixing and Storage
The reagent section for the Sierra Gorda plant will be located in between the grinding section and the
fine ore stockpile. The elevation of this center allows the reagents to flow by gravity to their dosage

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
points. There will be five reagent receiving/storage tanks in the area; all with truck gravity feed
systems. These tanks will be for
Primary Collector : Cytec 3894 collector

Frother: MIBC
NaHS
Fuel Oil/Diesel (Moly)
Spare system with mixing capabilities
The tanks will be positioned at an elevation that permits gravity feed to the reagent distribution
network. The lines will have a main flow meter and integrator for reagent control and metering pumps
and/or control valves with inline flow meters for dosage control.
The lime plant will be located on the south end of the plant by the grinding circuit. This is so that two
independent loops can be used in the operation. The grinding loop would provide lime to the mills
feed chute and the flotation loop can provide lime to the VERTIMILLS and rougher feed. Two stock
tanks have been added to this circuit and two spare lime distribution loops.
5.3 Roads and access

The access roads for the process plants are shown in the general layout plots for this area.
5.4 Communications
The plant will have a communication system based on radio truncking. No capital allowances were
made in the process plant facilities for this.
5.5 Water Requirements and Balance

In preparation of a water balance, a number of considerations come into place pertaining to the
manner in which the operation will take place under the climatic conditions of the area. These
conditions are shown Table 5-1.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Condition units Nominal Design Source

Basis of water balance @ Operating time of % 100% 100% S
Moisture of Ore from Mine % 4% 4% O
Moisture of Tailing sands after consolidation % 20 20 KP
Moisture of Moly Concentrate shipped % 4 4 S
Moisture of Final Cu Conc shipped % 8.5 8.5 S
%solids Cu Concentrate in pipeline % 64 64 S
% solids of Cu-Mo Tailing Thick U/F % 65 65 S
% solids of Cu-Mo Conc thickener U/F % 65 65 S
% solids of Cu thickener U/F % 65 65 S
%solids of Mo thickener U/F % 55 55 S
%solids of 1st Cl Feed Thick U/F % 30 30 A
Water usage by Mine for dust and personnel m3/hr 100 100 S
Human water consumption m3/d 0.2 0.2 S
Tailings Wetted Deposition Area m2 4,092,460 4,839,524 A
Tailing Precipitation Area m2 225,000,000 225,000,000 A
Precipitation Rate of Area mm/y 3.95 3.95 O
Evaporation Rate of Area mm/d 7.72 7.72 O
Mill Motor/reducers cooling water evaporative losses % 10.00 10.00 S
Mill Cooling water flow m3/Hr 300 300 A
Camp bed occupation # 800 1,000 A
Plant site Wetted surfaces (Thickeners/ponds) m2 29,347 34,614 A
Table 5-1; Conditions for the water balance
The waters under consideration by the Sierra Gorda project may be classified into four categories:
Raw water, in the form of a mixture of sea water and salar/well water
Fresh water in the form of desalinated raw water.
Potable water, a product of raw water passing through a reverse osmosis plant (RO).
Reclaimed water from the operation through efforts in thickening processes.
In the process, raw will be used in its entirety in the grinding and Cu-Mo flotation circuit, as shown in
Figure 5-1. Some fresh water will be required for cooling water and column flotation wash water,
particularly in the moly plant.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Fresh Water Raw Water

Tanks Tanks
Mine Area
Pot Water
Tank
Camp
Infrastru
ct Internal
Reclaim
Reservoir
Pit Internal
ore Reclaim
Tail Thick Pool
#1
Tail Thick
#3
Tail Thick
#2
Sulphide Plant
Bulk
Thick
Cu
Mo Plant Thick
Pump
Station
Concentrate To tailing
disposal
To port
Figure 5-1: Schematics of the water flows within the plant. Solid lines are slurry and dashed lines represent
water.
The overflows of all thickeners shown will collect in the Internal Reclaim Pool (IRP) and sent onwards
to the Internal Reclaim Reservoir for re-distribution.
Fresh water will be used in the moly plant to wash the columns concentrate and the make-up will
come from the copper thickener overflow.
The total water requirements (Fresh and Raw) have been determined from Table 5-1 and considering
no recovery of water from the tailing disposal area; it is anticipated that the sulfide plant needs, for the
battery limit shown in Figure 5-1, approximately 660 L/s. The losses are distributed according to Table
5-2.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Water Losses units Nominal Design
Water Lost in Tailings L/s 614 736

Water lost in Mine dust + infrastructure L/s 27 27
Cooling water loses L/s 8 8
Camp sewage + infrastructure L/s 43 54
Water leaving with Cu Conc in pipeline L/s 9 12
Water lost with Moly Shipments L/s 0.02 0.02
Evaporative losses in Plantsite L/s 3 3
TOTAL Water Loses L/s 656 783
Table 5-2: Water losses in battery limits of Figure 5-1.
5.6 Plant Power Requirements
Plant power requirements have been established through the equipment list and the power
requirements of each piece of equipment. The list takes into account the installed load, and the
consumption of energy. It assumes 6% line losses.
Consumed
Area Installed Consumed (motor leads) Losses1
(total)
kW kW % kW
Primary Crusher 5,305 3,951 6.0% 4,188

2ry & 3ry Crushing 17,588 12,525 6.0% 13,277
Milling 75,125 66,809 6.0% 70,817
Cu/Mo Flotation 18,304 11,589 6.0% 12,284
Mo Flotation 1,444 795 6.0% 843
Pipeline, Filter, & Port 4,314 2,372 6.0% 2,514
Tailings Thickening 7,865 6,745 6.0% 7,149
Tailings Dam2 3,500 2,900 6.0% 3,074
Subtotal Mill 133,445 107,685 6.0% 114,146
Total Fresh Water 1,436 711 6.0% 753
Sea Water Stn + Desal3
Ancillaries 242 186 6.0% 198
Oxide Plant4 13,000 10,000 6.0% 10,600
Total (ex mine) 135,124 118,583 6.0% 125,697
Contingency 10% 11,858 6.0% 12,570
TOTAL 130,441 6.0% 138,267
1
Estimated losses due to transmission, transformers, and VFDs
2
Not in scope but included as placeholder. Assumed two barge pumps and a booster station
3
Not in scope but included as placeholder. Assumed two 1.7MW pump stations in series, no well field
4
Requires confirmation
Table 5-3; Summary of energy requirements by area

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
5.6.1 Substation and Power Distribution
5.6.1.1 Power Supply
Electrical power supply to the Sierra Gorda project is assumed to be provided via a double circuit 220
kV three phase, 50 Hertz overhead power line. Two short spans of reduced tension line will extend via
an angle tower to twin terminating structures in the Sierra Gorda main substation.
For the port facility at Mejillones, an electrical power supply at 33 kV, three-phase, 50 Hertz has been
assumed to be available from the local distribution utility.
5.6.1.2 Main Sub-Station
The main Sierra Gorda substation will be located within a secure, fenced and lit level site
approximately 100 meters square. 220 kV overhead tubular bus will extend to each of four main
power transformers of 40 MVA capacity. These transformers will transform voltage to 11 kV for
secondary distribution throughout the plant. Revenue metering has been allowed at 220 kV, however
if the utility requires their meters to be remote, then these meters can act as check metering. The two
incoming 220 kV circuits will each feed half of the substation 220 kV bus and either circuit will be
capable of supplying the entire project load of approximately 140 MVA. A primary 220 kV circuit
breaker will protect each of the main power transformers. Each transformer will supply a secondary
11 kV bus duct which will extend from a transformer mounted cable box to the main 11 kV switchgear
located in the substation switchroom. The switchroom will also contain a data room, a battery room
and a storage room. Auxiliary power and control wiring will be contained in covered trenches
extending throughout the substation yard area and main secondary feeder cables will be housed in
covered trenches extending to the north and south of the switchroom. The substation will be equipped
with a complete buried copper earthing grid and gradient control mats where required.
5.6.1.3 Main 11 kV Distribution and Distribution Centers
Buried 11 kV cable feeders will distribute power from the main substation switchgear to various load
centers around the plant. The plant site main load centers will be located at the Primary Crushing,
Secondary and Tertiary Crushing, Fine Ore Reclaim, Grinding and Flotation, and the Concentrate
Thickening area.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Each distribution centre will consist of an electrical room housing switchgear, motor control centers,
power panels, UPSs and minor power supplies. Step down transformers from 11 kV to 400 volts will
be located outdoors adjacent to electrical rooms and will be oil filled with spill containment and security
fencing.
5.6.1.4 Emergency Power
A 2 MW capacity emergency generator will be located at each of the plant and port sites within the
substation area or nearby and will connect directly onto the main 11 kV switchgear. Off-grid controls
will allow the emergency generator to feed selected loads in the event of a grid power failure. The
prime mover will be diesel fuelled and the generator output will be at 11 kV. Note: For the port facility
it may be decided to reduce the capacity of or eliminate the emergency generator depending on the
perceived reliability of the regional power system. Emergency power will be used for the following
areas and equipment:
Mill Offices / control room

General Offices
Fire water pumps
Plant essential compressor (instruments)
Agitated slurry tanks
Thickeners
Thickener recycle pumps
One tailing thickener underflow pump
Mill lube system
5.7 Port Infrastructure
5.7.1 Gate House and Balance

The gate house at the port facility will consist of a small shack manned by a person who controls the
incoming personnel and records the weights from the 50T truck scale
5.7.2 Offices
The offices at the port will be sufficient for 5 persons and is of 300 m2.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
5.7.3 Water Treatment Plant.

The project assumes that all the process waters must be treated prior to being discarded. The discard
will meet environmental standards. An allowance has been included for the water treatment plant,
which will be designed to recover trace copper and molybdenum minerals.
5.7.4 Change house

A small 100 m2 change house and bathroom facility has been included in this area.
5.7.5 Ship Loader

The ship loading facilities were designed by FLSmidth and are presented here. It consists of three
reclaim belts, each capable of handling 1200 tons per hour concentrate: the first belt received
concentrate that is picked up by 988 loaders. The material is weighed with a belt scale and sampled
at the transfer chute to reclaim belt No 2, one that aligns the ship loader which supports the reclaim
belt No.3.
Figure 5-2: GA of Concentrate loading system

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
The boom will be pivoted at the juncture of reclaim belt No 2 and 3 that allows the ship loader (see
Figure 5-2) to rest the other end of the loader on a rail built on pylons in the ocean as shown in Figure
5-3. A 40,000 ton shipment of concentrate will be loaded on boats in a matter of 1.5 days of
continuous loading.
5.7.6 Warehouse facilities

A 1000 m2 indoor warehouse has been included at the port site. An open area will be available for
larger items.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Figure 5-3: Ship loader by FLS

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
5.7.7 Main Sub-Station Port Site

An underground power supply has been assumed from the utilitys 33 kV distribution line terminating
adjacent to the property boundary. A single 2000 kVA outdoor transformer will step the voltage down
to 11 kV for secondary supply to a buried 11 kV feeder cable looping around the site and feeding four
load centers.
The port main load centers will be located near the Filtration, Thickening, Wash Station and
Concentrate Storage/Load-out areas.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
6 Process Plant Capital Cost Estimates
The Capital costs for the plant are summarized in Table 6-1. They cover the EPCM for the primary
crusher loading point to the secondary and tertiary crushers, grinding, flotation (copper and moly), all
thickeners, plant site water handling (both reclaim and fresh), plant site substation and power
distribution, concentrate pumping and transport to the Mejillones coast, port facilities including
dewatering and filtering, ship loading system. It also includes all plant site facilities such as offices,
clinic, guard-house, warehouse and infrastructure for personnel such as camp, mess hall, vehicles
and recreation facilities at the plant site.
Not included in the process capital are:
Any activities related to mining of ore.

Water fresh pumping and piping from source
Water treatment (desalination plant) for the process either at site or port
Any treatment of desalinated water into fresh water.
Tailing impoundment (starting from discharge end of tails thickener underflow pumps) and
storage.
Power delivery from generation to plant site limits
Any ancillaries in the town of Mejillones, outside the port facilities
Any ancillaries in the town of Sierra Gorda
Communications.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Description Mn-Hr Labour+Materials Equipment Total
Primary Crusher & Overland 850,000 10,380,881 17,126,825 27,507,707

Secondary + Tertiary Crushing 1,500,000 131,907,745 100,074,046 231,981,792
Grinding 900,000 95,200,120 97,424,940 192,625,060
Cu-Mo Flot 95,000 36,490,870 39,149,787 75,640,657
Reagents 25,000 4,626,950 2,972,700 7,599,650
Mo Flot 40,000 11,009,083 9,732,798 20,741,882
Tailing 150,000 20,259,235 9,115,705 29,374,940
Water 60,000 692,018 914,231 1,606,249
Pipeline 99,000 37,562,525 32,397,947 69,960,472
Port 250,000 24,989,496 13,645,575 38,635,071
Ancillaries 70,000 14,816,089 3,586,526 18,402,615
Power: Substation and Distribution 130,000 6,342,765 21,142,550 27,485,315
Site Preparation Sierra Gorda 20,900 - 16,175,798

Site Preparation Port 3,000 - 2,287,075
TOTAL Direct Costs 4,192,900 394,277,777 347,283,632 760,024,282
Capital Spares, 5% of Equip 17,364,182

Owner's costs 12,605,618
Distributable costs 9,167,544
Temporary Construction Camp 17,474,186
Freight & Insuranc @ 9.65% on Equip 20,489,734
EPCM services @ 10.6% of DC 80,562,574
Escalation @ 4% DC 30,400,971
TOTAL Indirect Costs 188,064,809
TOTAL Process 948,089,091
Table 6-1; Process Plant Capital Costs
6.1 Scope Definition
The estimate scope is defined by equipment lists, layouts and information as outlined below:
Design Criteria
Primary Crushing
Overland Conveying
Crushing (Secondary and Tertiary)
Grinding

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Cu-Mo flotation and Regrind

Reagent Preparation
Tailing
Concentrate Dewatering
Water Handling
Concentrate Pipeline
Concentrate Filtering and load out
Moly plant
Equipment List
Process Flow Diagrams 3 drawings
General Arrangements 3 drawings
Electrical Single Line Diagrams 3 drawings
Metallurgical Test work
6.2 Quantity Development
Mechanical equipment, main tank sizes, general equipment and materials were established by
the process needs and complemented from other installations.
Electrical equipment and power ratings and requirements were developed from in-house
database and engineering calculations (grinding mills, flotation, pumps, etc). Main power
substation and distribution were determined by Kaehne Consulting from Vancouver, based on the
equipment list, design criteria and layouts supplied to them.
Bulk material costs were developed based on material take-offs of available project drawings
and on historical in-house data for similar facilities.
Concentrate pumping, pipeline, choke stations and valve stations were estimated by
Paterson&Cooke.
6.3 Direct Costs
The estimates reflect December 2008 US dollars. Escalation has been included as a line item and is
stated separately. Plant equipment and where applicable, bulk materials pricing are based on US and

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Chilean procurement sources. Foreign equipment and materials include export packing and inland
freight to the port of exit. Overseas shipping and insurance costs on foreign goods are shown
separately.
The following exchange rates have been used:
US$ 1.00 - 620 Chilean Pesos

US$ 1.00 - 0.7 Euros
US$ 1.00 - 1.20 Canadian Dollars
6.3.1 Plant Equipment
Mechanical equipment pricing is based don budgetary quotations. These are all shown in APPENDIX
7. The following items are based on written budget quotation, based on written specifications:
Primary Crusher and overland conveyor (3 quotes)

Secondary and tertiary crusher (2 quotes)
Vibrating screens (2 quotes)
Grinding ball mills (3 quotes)
Flotation machines (3 quotes)
Regrind mills (2 quotes)
Thickeners (2 quotes)
X-Ray analyzers and samples (1 quote)
Mill lining machine (1 quote)
Filters (2 quotes)
Port Load-out system (1 quote)
Pipeline pump (2 quotes)
Metso Minerals and FLSmidth provided fairly complete quotations that included smaller mechanical
items such as pumps, feeders, tanks, agitators, dust collectors, belts, etc. which provided a fairly
complete package of information

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Any minor equipment no quoted was developed through phoning suppliers, from the InfoMine USA
2008 Mill Equipment Cost handbook and through Internet search engines.
6.3.2 Installed prices
The installed pricing was derived through factors from Aminpro data bases of other projects. In some
instances, such as in primary crushing and grinding, materials take-offs were estimated and the costs
were developed from materials take-offs of similar installations and compared with the factored value.
Instrumentation is included in most of the quotes; pricing for samplers, particle size monitors and x-ray
analyzers have been obtained and are included separately.
6.3.3 Installation labor
The labor man-hours were determined from other installations in order to arrive at camp requirements.
6.3.4 Substation and Power Distribution
The capital costs for the electrical substation and plant-site/port-site power distribution has been done
by Keahne Consulting.
It should be noted that some major electrical equipment delivery times have slowed during the recent
boom period in construction. Items like power transformers have been quoted at up to 2 years
delivery, however recent experience shows that delivery times are improving with the global economic
downturn. However, it would still be prudent to assume that delivery of some major items will be in the
order of 15-18 months.
6.3.5 Ancillaries
Ancillaries make up the support buildings and support mobile equipment. The pricing for the building
were derived from typical prices provided by TecnoFast, a provider in Chile and the mobile equipment
was obtained from vendor brochures in the internet.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
The following buildings have been included in the ancillaries:
Permanent camp facilities

Warehouse, 3,500 m2 roofed with yard
Change house 450 m2
Clinic, 200 m2
Administration office (70 people), 1,900 m2
Laboratory (metallurgical and assay lab)
Guard shack, 200 m2, with weigh scale
Camp administration (included in camp facilities)
Sewage Treatment Plant (included in camp facilities)
Potable water treatment plant (included in camp facilities)
The support mobile equipment is shown in Table 6-2.
NORMAL OPERATION SIZE # CAPITAL US$

Boom Truck 20 t 2
Forklift 5t 2 50,000
Forklift 2t 1 50,000
Mobile Crane 90 t 1 380,000
Mobile Crane 35 t 1 250,000
Franna Crane 20t 1 273,026
Skit steer loader 1t 2 72,000
Fire Truck 1 55,000
Welding Truck 1 45,000
Welding Truck 1 45,000
Service Truck 5-10 t 1 40,000
Service Truck 5-10 t 1 40,000
Dumper Truck 1 60,000
Rescue Truck 1 35,000
Ambulance 1 125,000
Front end Loader 3.8 m3 1 244,000
Front end Loader 6.4 m3 1 350,000
Scissor Lift 1 8,500
Man Lift 60 Ft 1 101,000
Portable Air Compressor 1 115,000
Crawler Tractor D10T 1 1,000,000
Vacuum Truck 1 248,000
Total 3,586,526
Table 6-2; Support Mobile Equipment Process and Plant Site

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
6.3.6 Sub-Contracts
Mass earthworks and site preparation was estimated based on other installations and checked with
estimates from the area in question. It is estimated that the construction management team will
overlook some 4.2 million man-hours of work that will go into the construction of the process facilities.
6.4 Capital spares

Capital spares for two years of operation are included at 5 percent of the equipment costs.
6.5 Owners costs

The total owners costs have been estimated at US$ 12.6 Million US dollars to reflect:
Pre-production manpower
Initial reagent fills
Initial grinding media fills.
6.5.1 Manpower
The manpower needs are for a 12 month period prior to start-up to 1 month after start-up. The labor
rates used are the same as those of Table 7-7. The 12-month pre-production period requires US 4.6
Million US dollars in owners roster build-up as per Table 6-3.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
- 12 mo - 11 mo - 10 mo - 9 mo -8 mo -7 mo -6 mo -5 mo -4 mo -3 mo - 2 mo - 1 mo
Payroll
Title
Expat or National Staff or Nonstaff Grade
E N S NS J F M A M J J A S O N D
Process Manager X X E108 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Assistant X X 99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Process Operations Superintendent X X 107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Process Operations General Foreman X X 107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Process Operations General Foreman X X 105
Process Operations Supervisors X X 103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Process Operations Supervisors X X 103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Process Control Room Operators X X 100 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Process Operators X X 4 8 8 12 18 32 64 64
Process Helpers X X 3 12 12
Process Maintenance Superintendent X X E107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Process Maintenance Engineer X X 104 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Process Maintenance Engineer X X 103
Process Maintenance GF X X 105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Process Maintenance GF X X 105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Process Maintenance Supervisor X X 103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Process Maintenance Supervisor X X 103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Process Maintenance Planner X X 103 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Process Mechanic X X 5 4 4 10 30 50 70 80
Process Electrician / Instumentalist X X 5 4 4 5 7 10 10 20
Process Maintenance Expediter X X 5 0 1
Service Equipment Operator X X 3
Process Maintenance Helper X X 3 5
Process Maintenance Inst. Tech 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Process Chief Metallurgist X X E107 1 1 1 1 1 1
Senior Metallurgist X X 104 0 0 0 0 0 0
Metallurgist X X 103 2 2 2
Chemist X X 105 1 1 1 1 1 1
Assayer/Tech/Sampler X X 101 4 4 4
Metallurgical Technician X X 102
Process Control Engineer X X E103 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Process Control Engineer X X 103 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
Port Process Supervisor X X 105 1 1 1 1 1 1
Port Process Supervisor X X 103 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Port Supervisors X X 103 1 1 1
Port Equipment Operators X X 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4
Port Mobile Equip Operators X X 3 2 2
Port Maintenance Mechanic X X 5 2 2 2 2
Port Maintenance Electrician X X 5 2 2 2 2
Total 2 3 4 9 17 43 47 59 92 138 206 232
Table 6-3: Manpower 0 to -12 months
6.5.2 Initial reagent fills

The initial reagent fill assumes one month storage of reagent plus 2 months operating for those
reagents purchased outside of Chile. NaHS is only acquired for 1 month production as it is sourced in
Argentina. Lime needs are to fill the 800 ton silo as the manufacturers plant is only 140 km away
from the site.
6.5.3 Initial ball mill fills.

The initial weight of balls required to fill each mill to 32% of the volume was estimated to be 169 tons
at a total cost for 4 mills at US$ 3.1 Million. One month supply was added to this value for a total of
US$ 6.2 million.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
6.6 Distributable costs

These costs are based on historical experience in Chile is on the average 1.5 percent of the direct
costs. These were estimated by item and account for certain temporary facilities and construction
support services that are not specifically assigned as contractors responsibilities
Construction utilities: water (10 m3/hr US$ 1.5/m3), power: 2 MW @ US$0.25/kWh

for 50% of the time
Security services (30 people with food, lodging + transport)
Non-destructive testing (15 contracts @ US$ 10,000 each)
Surveying services
On-site medical clinic
Temporary warehouse and vehicles
6.7 Temporary Construction camp

A 2,000 man construction camp has been included in the costs complete with kitchen and recreation
facilities. Quotes for the camp facilities were received from a well known Chilean supplier of most of
the Chilean mining camps.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
# buildings # rooms # Beds m2TransportTOTAL

Factory
Construction Camp
W-160 10 400 1,600 5,480 5,795,124
S2-64 6 192 384 2,856 2,941,876
M-16 1 21 21 380 413,297
Dinning Area 1 2,105 2,208,457
Kitchen 1 1,299 1,320,840
Camp Admin 1 275 299,654
Storage - Food 1 165 216,279
Recreation Area 2 448 486,357
Recreation Area Supervisors 2 352 381,400
Public Bathrooms 6 96 120,421
2,005 14,183,705
Services
Water tank, 1500 m3 747,500
Water Lines installation 52,263
Sewage Treatment 447,976
Fire/pipng and drainage Drainage area 821,278
Power Distribution 1,015,398
Civil works 26,878
Roads and parking 179,188
3,290,481
TOTAL Construction Camp 17,474,186

Table 6-4: Construction Plant
6.8 Freight and Insurance

Freight and insurance for items from overseas suppliers has been adopted from average values seen
in recent projects. This values was 8 percent during 2008 and is expected to level off at 7.5 percent
on equipment value. For locally manufactured equipment freight and insurance has been set at 3.5
percent..
6.9 Engineering/Procurement and Construction Management (EPCM)

It is assumed that the development of the Sierra Gorda project will be done under an EPCM contract.
This entails full engineering, procurement of equipment and materials and construction management
of the construction and installation process. A value of 10.6 percent of direct costs has been applied,
being a typical factor in mining projects.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
6.10 Escalation
An escalation has been applied as a line item on direct costs at a rate of 4%. This is a compromise
for the high escalation seen in the last 6 years (between 9 and 14%) and reflects early purchase
agreements on major equipment and labor contracts.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
7 Process Plant Operating Cost Estimates

Operating costs for the Sierra Gorda Project have been prepared based on commodity quotations,
received during December 2008. This estimate is based on December 2008 costs and represents the
costs for a plant treating 100,000 metric tons per day that has achieved a stable operation, within the
battery limits described at the start of section 4.
The costs are estimated at US$ 225 million per year or US$6.15/ton of ore treated. These can be
summarized into four centers shown in Table 7-1:
AREA 000 US$/y Costs $/T
Labor 10,080 0.275

Energy 129,200 3.530
Operations 75,782 2.071
Overheads 9,876 0.270
TOTAL 224,938 6.146

Table 7-1: Summary of operating costs
A broader breakdown of the costs in these four centers is described next.
Labor costs are summarized in Table 7-2.

Labor Units Usage/Y $/unit '000US$/Y Costs $/T
Expats persons 5 368,820 1,844 0.050
Senior Supervisors persons 2 134,801 270 0.007
Clerical persons 2 32,456 65 0.002
Operations persons 90 27,758 2,498 0.068
Mechanical Maintenance persons 114 30,344 3,459 0.095
Electrical/Instrumentation/Process Control persons 26 31,642 823 0.022
Chemical Laboratory persons 9 39,476 355 0.010
Metallurgy persons 3 49,455 148 0.004
Port persons 16 38,579 617 0.017
Sub-Total 267 10,080 0.275
Table 7-2: Manpower costs

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Power costs are based on a unit rate of US$0.115/kWh and the costs are shown in Table 7-3.
Energy Usage/Y $/unit '000US$/Y Costs $/T

SUBTOTAL PRIMARY CRUSHING / OVERLAND MWh 74,410 115 8,557 0.234
SUB TOTAL SECONDARY CRUSHING MWh 196,367 115 22,582 0.617
SUB TOTAL BALL MILLS MWh 632,792 115 72,771 1.988
SUB TOTAL FLOTATION CELLS MWh 109,583 115 12,602 0.344
SUB TOTAL MOLY PLANT MWh 7,787 115 895 0.024
SUB TOTAL CONC. THICKENERS /PIPELINE MWh 23,673 115 2,722 0.074
SUB TOTAL REAGENTS MWh 5,447 115 626 0.017
SUB TOTAL TALING THICKENING MWh 63,979 115 7,358 0.201
SUB TOTAL OTHERS WATER SYSTEMS MWh 6,948 115 799 0.022
SUB TOTAL ANCILLARIES MWh 2,489 115 286 0.008
Sub-Total 1,123,475 129,200 3.530
Table 7-3: Process plant operating costs
The operating costs excluding labor, energy and overheads is shown in Table 7-4.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Area Operations Units Usage/Y $/unit '000US$/Y Costs $/T

100 - 130 Primary
P. Crusher Liners tons 79 2,939 231.7 0.006
Conveyors and Feeders belts/spares, m 401 5,300 2,125.8 0.058
Sub-Total 2,357.5 0.064
200-250 Secondary Crusher
Sec Crusher Liners tons 195 2,939 574.4 0.016
Tert Crusher Liners tons 652 2,939 1,914.7 0.052
Screen Deck Panels Units 1,304 25 33.0 0.001
Screen Deck Parts Units 13 450 5.6 0.000
Conveyors meters 50 2,900 145.4 0.004
Sub-Total 2,673.2 0.073
300 Grinding
BM Liners tons 2,082 3,168 6,595.3 0.180
BM Balls,t ton 31,037 1,195 37,089.7 1.013
Lime mill balls ton 19 1,215 22.9 0.001
Lime Mill Liners ton 3 3,503 9.3 0.000
Grinding Pump Replacement set 8 90,000 720.0 0.020
Cyclone Replacement (cones+1/3 upper section) # 21 7,000 147.0 0.004
Plant Piping Replacement m 30 900 27.1 0.001
Grinding Steel Plate and repairs tons 10 5,500 55.2 0.002
Grind Motors/Instrumentation set 1 20,000 20.1 0.001
Sub-Total 44,686.4 1.221
400 - 460 Flotation
Regrind Balls ton 2,275 1,300 2,956.9 0.081
Regrind Pumps and Cyclones set 4 50,000 200.0 0.005
Flotation Pump Replacement set 2 20,000 40.0 0.001
Flot. Cell Agitators units 9 40,000 360.0 0.010
Regrind Screw Metallic Shoes set 9 58,400 525.6 0.014
Regrind Digging shoes set 5 24,400 122.0 0.003
Flot. Motors/Instrumentation units 2 150,000 300.0 0.008
Sub-Total 4,504.5 0.123
470 Reagents
P. Collector 3894 ton 732 3,942 2,885.8 0.079
S. Collector ton
Frother MIBC ton 549 2,365 1,298.6 0.035
Lime ton 48,314 118 5,693.7 0.156
Flocculant for Concentrate ton 3 1,911 4.9 0.000
Flocculant Tailing ton 722 1,911 1,379.0 0.038
De-scalant ton 55 2,132 117.0 0.003
Sub-Total 11,379.0 0.311
710 Tailing Facility
Tailing Pump Maintenance yearly set 4 25,000 100.0 0.003
Tailing Piping Maintenance m 100 300 30.1 0.001
Sub-Total 130.1 0.004
630 Concentrate Storage/pipeline/receiving
Pipeline system Maintenance Costs Days 366 2,301 842.3 0.023
Pipeline Control and Instrumentation Days 366 1,534 561.5 0.015
Sub-Total 1,403.8 0.038
800 Port Filtering and Loadout 0.0 0.000
Filter and Cloth Replacement days 366 438 160.4 0.004
Filter Parts and Maintenance days 366 444 162.4 0.004
Port Conveyor replacement/repairs m 10 2,900 29.1 0.001
Port Misc Parts and Maintenance days 366 575 210.6 0.006
Sub-Total 562.5 0.015
500,650 Moly Plant
N2 Plant gas mmBTU 35,132 8 263.5 0.007
NaSH reagent Ton 2,056 1,495 3,073.2 0.084
Misc (Parts and Maintenance) set 12 5,000 60.0 0.002
Moly reagent: diesel Ton 5,516 850 4,688.3 0.128
Sub-Total 8,085.1 0.221
TOTAL OPERATIONS 75,782.1 2.071
Table 7-4: Costs in operations excluding labor, energy and overheads

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Mill overheads is shown in Table 7-5
Mill Overheads Units Usage/Y $/unit '000US$/Y Costs $/T
Misc Items
Fuel (heavy D vehicles, lube mills, etc) L 1,353,499 1 1,353.5 0.037
Mill Laboratory Consumables days 366 2,740 1,002.7 0.027
Mill General Overheads days 366 1,358 497.0 0.014
Large Mobile Equipment days 366 3,014 1,103.0 0.030
Light Vehicle use (truck rentals)/day # 15 31,110 466.7 0.013
Power/Instrumentation Maintenance days 366 3,104 1,136.1 0.031
Contract Employees No 267 15,512 4,141.8 0.113
Water Treatment - RO Plant 000m3 1,757 40 70.3 0.002
Desal Water Treatment m3 3,953
Misc Fresh/Reclaim Pump Maintenance set 3 35,000 105.0 0.003
Sub-Total 9,876.1 0.270
Table 7-5; Mill overhead costs
From this point on, a description is given on the manner the operating costs were developed:
7.1 Labor
Plant manpower requirements have been determined in accordance to:
Process requirements for unit operations
Process tonnage and scale-up from other plants for
Mechanical maintenance requirements
Electrical and instrumentation requirements
Operating schedule (12-hour shifts)
Safety considerations (2 people for remote areas)
Expat presence has been kept to a minimum. Five positions will be occupied by experienced expats:
Plant Manager
Chief Metallurgist
Maintenance Manager
Process Control (DCS) Engineer (2 engineers)

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Once the plant is in full operation, at the start of year 2, it is expected that the plant roster needs to be
in place and all positions need to be filled. The maximum number of people employed by the
concentrator will be 267.
Payroll
Title Expat or National Staff or Nonstaff
Grade
E N S NS Typ
Process Manager X X E108 1
Assistant X X 99 2
Process Operations Superintendent X X 107 1
Process Operations General Foreman X X 107 1
Process Operations General Foreman X X 105 0
Process Operations Supervisors X X 103 2
Process Operations Supervisors X X 103 2
Process Control Room Operators X X 100 4
Process Operators X X 4 64
Process Helpers X X 3 18
Process Maintenance Superintendent X X E107 1
Process Maintenance Engineer X X 104 2
Process Maintenance Engineer X X 103
Process Maintenance GF X X 105 1
Process Maintenance GF X X 105 1
Process Maintenance Supervisor X X 103 2
Process Maintenance Supervisor X X 103 2
Process Maintenance Planner X X 103 2
Process Mechanic X X 5 80
Process Electrician / Instumentalist X X 5 20
Process Maintenance Expediter X X 5 2
Service Equipment Operator X X 3 2
Process Maintenance Helper X X 3 20
Process Maintenance Inst. Tech 5 2
Process Chief Metallurgist X X E107 1
Senior Metallurgist X X 104 0
Metallurgist X X 103 2
Chemist X X 105 1
Assayer/Tech/Sampler X X 101 8
Metallurgical Technician X X 102 1
Process Control Engineer X X E103 2
Process Control Engineer X X 103 4
Port Process Supervisor X X 103 1
Port Process Supervisor X X 103 1
Port Supervisors X X 103 4
Port Equipment Operators X X 4 4
Port Mobile Equip Operators X X 3 2
Port Maintenance Mechanic X X 5 2
Port Maintenance Electrician X X 5 2
Total 267
Table 7-6; Plant Manning Chart and Classifications

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Table 7-6 has been prepared to show the job classifications and positions required to run the Sierra
Gorda plant. It makes a distinction of staff (Monthly paid) and non-staff (Hourly paid).
The job classifications have been assigned an annual salary, as per Table 7-7, which reflects current
practices for the mining industry in Chile in the area of Sierra Gorda. The labor rates include base
salary, extra salaries for mid year and end of year bonus, vacation, holidays allowance, and benefits
including insurance, camp costs, meals, transportation and laundry.
1.25 $/Manday
With Burden Camp & Clothing/PPE
Position Grade Calc. Added Mandays/Yr Trans Allowance Total Annual $
Trainee T $7,192 $8,990 240 $25.00 $2.00 $15,470

Nonprofessional 1 $15,121 $18,901 175 $25.00 $2.00 $23,626
Supervisor/Staff 101 $23,339 $29,174 175 $25.00 $2.00 $33,899
Sr. Supv/Staff 104 $51,025 $63,782 240 $25.00 $2.00 $70,262
General Supv. 105 $62,473 $78,091 240 $25.00 $84,091
Superintendent 106 $78,737 $98,421 240 $25.00 $104,421
Superintendent 107 $103,041 $128,801 240 $25.00 $134,801
Manager 108 $131,383 $164,229 240 $23.00 $169,749
Expat Supervisor E102 $223,640 $279,550 240 $23.00 $285,070
Expat Gen Supv E105 $305,640 $382,050 240 $23.00 $387,570
Expat Gen Supv E106 $305,640 $382,050 240 $23.00 $387,570
Expat Manager E107 $310,640 $388,300 240 $23.00 $393,820
Expat Manager E108 $330,640 $413,300 240 $23.00 $418,820
Expat Manager E109 $363,640 $454,550 240 $23.00 $460,070
Table 7-7; Salaries of job classifications
The expat costs include salaries, overseas allowance, housing, transportation, R&R and leave
allowances, education, and relocation.
7.2 Contract Workers

It is a reality and necessary practice in Chile to complement the typical process plant roster with a
contract labor ratio of 1:1 contractor/employee. The high use of contract labor in Chile (relative to
North America) is thought be a result of regional differences in labor efficiency caused primarily by a
variety of factors including skill, availability of tools and transport, turnover, and competition for and
sharing of resources with other nearby mining operations. The contractors fill the positions at the low

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
end of the job skills, such as cleaning and laborers. An allowance for contract work based on a 1:1
contractor/employee has been set at an average contractor classification of T (trainee). With camp
privileges, the total cost is US$ 14,700/ year per person. For a total of 267 contractors, this amounts
to US$ 4.1 million per year.
7.3 Energy Consumption and costs

Energy needs and consumption was determined from the equipment list. A power cost of 11.5 cents
per kilowatt-hour was obtained through the project team.
Sierra Gorda has an overall (Concentrator and port) energy consumption of 30.7 kWh/MT, which, as
shown in Figure 7-1. This is approximately 10% higher than the average consumption of
benchmarked plants4.
Benchmark: Plant Energy Consumptions

4 1
0.9
3.5
Benchmark 0.8
3
Frequency 0.7
Number of Plants
Cum Frequency
2.5 0.6
2 0.5
0.4
1.5
0.3
1
0.2
0.5 0.1
0 0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Consumption, kWh/MT
Figure 7-1: Benchmarking energy consumptions
The area in the plant where most of the energy is consumed are crushing and grinding; they account
for nearly 80% of the energy usage at the plant.
4
Benchmark values obtained from the SME Mineral Processing Plant Design, Practice and Control handbook-2002

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Energy Consumption per area (kW)

0.2%
1%
8% 6%
1%
Primary Crushing
10% 17%
Secondary Crushing
Grinding
Cu-Mo Flotation
Mo Flotation
Dewatering/Pipeline
Water
Ancillaries
57%
Figure 7-2: Energy Consumption by area
7.4 Water Consumption and costs

The process area water consumption costs do not include pumping costs associated with delivery to
the plants raw water tanks; these costs are accounted for in a different cost center. Raw water is
gravity fed to the plant from the main tanks located above the plant elevation. Water costs are those
associated with gravity distribution, gland water booster pumps, cooling water pumps, fire water and
potable water. Energy is the main cost; other maintenance costs are being accounted for in section
7.7.
7.5 Consumable Costs Steel Products

Steel products account for a large portion of the operating costs in the plant. Steel is used in items
such as crusher liners, grinding media and mill liners. With the current state of flux in the
manufacturing industry, milling equipment that is steel based, has in the last half of 2008 seen
unprecedented rises in capital and operating costs and is experiencing towards the end of the year a
rapid downfall in price. In order to bring realism to these fluctuations, it has been necessary to
establish a basis to normalize the pricing of steel products. Figure 7-3, a plot of the major mining
related price indices since December 1996 is showing a reversal of the exponential trends that
happened six month ago.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Relevant Indexes Mining-Construction- US Bureau of Labor Stats

Source: http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm#data
280
260 Inter Materials Materials/Compon

Commodities Steel Mill Prod
240
Capital Equip Machinery
Chemicals
220
200
Index
180
160
140
120
100
Dec-95 Dec-96 Dec-97 Dec-98 Dec-99 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09
Year
Figure 7-3: Relevant Indexes for Mining and Construction
The steel index (see Figure 7-4) has, since 2003, risen at an annual rate of 13 % as marked by the
line drawn. The spike in price experienced during the second half of 2008 has started to reverse
towards the end of 2008, as indicated earlier, and will be assumed to continue its rise as per the
earlier trend. The quotations for steel liners and grinding balls obtained during the month of
December 2008, likely reflect a pricing experienced by the manufacturers two months earlier where
the index was 240 and in a sharp decline. A realistic index value in December 2008 is projected at
205. It is therefore assumed that steel pricing by manufacturers should be 85% (or 205/240) of the
quoted prices and should escalate 13% annually.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Steel Index- US Bureau of Labor Stats

280
260 Steel Mill Prod
240
220
200
Index
180
160
140
120
100
Year
Figure 7-4: Steel Index
Table 7-8 shows the pricing for steel products used in process wear after applying the CPI factor.
2008 Scoping Costs Commodity Chart - Steel Products

Imp. Total 2008 Total CPI Escalatio
Item 2008 Quote per Unit Insurance Agent Duties Freight to Site Logist. Cost Factor n, %/y
Logistics
Crusher Liners 2,850 tons 4.2750 500.00 504.28 2,939 0.854 13.0
SAG Mill Liners 3,510 tons 5.2650 500.00 505.27 3,503 0.854 13.0
SAG Feed End 2,720 tons 4.0800 500.00 504.08 2,827 0.854 13.0
SAG Grates 2,720 tons 4.0800 500.00 504.08 2,827 0.854 13.0
SAG Mill Balls 909 tons 1.3635 500.00 501.36 1,278 0.854 13.0
Ball Mill Liners SHELL 3,510 tons 5.2650 500.00 505.27 3,503 0.854 13.0
BM Liners F End 2,720 tons 4.0800 500.00 504.08 2,827 0.854 13.0
BM Liner D. End 2,720 tons 4.0800 500.00 504.08 2,827 0.854 13.0
Ball Mill Balls 1,195 tons 1,021 0.854 13.0
Regrind Mill Liners 2,720 tons 4.0800 500.00 504.08 2,827 0.854 13.0
Regrind Mill Balls 1,300 tons 1,110 0.854 13.0
Lime Mill Liners 3,510 tons 5.2650 500.00 505.27 3,503 0.854 13.0
Lime Mill Balls 1,215 tons 1,038 0.854 13.0
Table 7-8: Steel Pricing

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
7.5.1 Crusher liner wear rates

Crusher (primary, secondary and tertiary) wear consumption has been determined from the abrasion
index, measured in the scoping level test work. Figure 7-5 compares Bonds prediction of the crusher
liner wear in grams of liner per kWh energy usage. Bonds estimates are mostly applicable to the
smaller size crushers of his time and therefore generate slightly higher crusher steel consumption than
what is seen in current operations. Aminpros database predicts a lower consumption in light of better
wear components and the use of larger/more efficient equipment. The steel consumption for crusher
liners, using the abrasion index measured in the lab is estimated to be 15.5 g/kWh.
Crusher Liner Consumption
40
35
30
Wear (g/kWh)
25
20
Bond 1963
15
Aminpro Databse
10 15.5 g/kWh Aminpro Model
5
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Abrasion Index, g/t0.50 0.60 0.70
Figure 7-5; Crusher Liner Consumptions versus Abrasion Index
7.5.2 Grinding media ball consumptions
Grinding ball wear rates have been established using the abrasion index corrected to reflect current
industrial practices. Aminpro has a ball wear database of 14 operations, eight of which are applicable
to crushing/grinding. To determine the ball wear for Sierra Gorda, it has been assumed the slope of
the curve of Bonds relationship of ball wear and abrasion index (see Figure 7-6) is true and that it
currently passes through the data base average (DB) of modern operations. With the quality of media
during Bonds times (1950s) being inferior to todays media, coupled with the benefits of process

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
control, the lower media wear rates are seen in current operations. The Sierra Gorda ball
consumption has been established at 60 g/kWh (Ore hardness: Bond Wi of 18 kWh/T).
No measurable effects would be anticipated in ball wear rates should the operation use salt water in
grinding. For reference, Batu Hijao, an operation using salt water, the ball wear rate is 53 g/kWh
(Bond Wi = 10.9 kWh/T).
Ball Mill Ball Consumption

179
Bond 1963
159 Aminpro DB
139 Aminpro Model
Wear (g/kWh)
DB Average
119 Sierra Gorda Study
99
79
59
60 g/kWh
39
19
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Abrasion Index, g/t
Figure 7-6; Ball consumptions versus abrasion index compared to Bonds prediction
7.5.3 VERTIMILLS ball wear
Regrind ball wear rates at the Escondida plant has been adopted for this project. A recent
investigation by Aminpro into the regrind power and steel consumption at Escondida determined that
the ball consumption for two different types regrinds were similar in terms of grams of balls per unit
energy. One concentrator operated with cylindrical mills and the other with vertical mills processing
ores from the same area in the pit. The ball consumption, monitored over a two year period was
similar between mill types and registered 68 g/kWh.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
7.5.4 Ball Mill liners

Ball mill liner wear has been established in a similar fashion as ball wear, by observing the Abrasion
Index at Sierra Gorda and comparing it to Bonds curve and correcting for modern day operations.
As shown in Figure 7-7, the liner wear rates for Sierra Gorda have been pegged in accordance to the
database average (DB) assuming Bonds curve profile. The liner wear is 2.3 grams of steel liner per
kWh energy of the mill.
Ball Mill Liner Consumption

Bond 1963
11.7
Aminpro DB
9.7 Aminpro Model
Wear (g/kWh)
DB Average
7.7 Sea Water
Sierra Gorda Study
5.7
3.7
1.7
2.3 g/kWh
-0.3
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Abrasion Index, g/t
Figure 7-7
7.5.5 Lime Mill Balls and Liners.

Average values were used from lime mills operating in Cu-Mo operations.
Ball consumption : 390 g/t feed

Liner consumption: 54.7 g/t feed
7.6 Flotation and Dewatering Reagents.
7.6.1 Collectors, frothers and flocculants

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Flotation reagent prices have, like steel, been under sharp increases over the past year and are
showing signs of returning to normal levels. Extracting the price index for chemicals from Figure 7-3,
we can observe in Figure 7-8 that the costs of chemicals have, since 2003, increased at a rate of
9.5% annually, until the start of 2008, when an exponential rise occurred. Towards the end of 2008,
the index started its reversal likely to assume normal values. The reagent quotes received in
December 2008, likely reflected the pricing from two months earlier, when the chemical index was
260. By years end, the adjusted index (depicted by the line) is assumed to be 225. This indicates that
all reagent quotations for December 2008 need to be normalized by a factor of 0.79 (= 205/260).
Escalation for this product is assumed at 9.5% annually.
Chemical Industry- US Bureau of Labor Stats

280
260
Chemicals
240
220
200
Index
180
160
140
120
100
Year
Figure 7-8; Chemical Price Index
The consumptions of primary collectors for copper and moly were derived per test work at SGS-
Lakefield. Frother has been assumed from typical operations
The normalized reagent costs FOB mine site is shown in Table 7-9.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Sierra Gorda
Consumption
Reagent Placed at Minesite Units Cost g/t ore
US$/unit ore Units/y
Primary Collector (A-3894) ton 3,942 20 732

Frother (MIBC) Aerofroth 70 ton 2,365 15 549
Flocculant Tailing ton 1,911 20 722
Flocculant Concentrate ton 1,911 5 3
Descalant ton 2,132 1.5 55
NaSH - Moly ton 1,495 4,000 2056
Diesel - Moly ton 17 151 5,516
Lime, 76% purity ton 117.85 1,320 48,314
Table 7-9; Reagent Costs and Consumptions
7.6.2 Lime Consumption and pricing

The consumption of lime has been based on the SGS-Lakefield test work which gave an overall
consumption of 1.00 kg/T of CaO, 100% pure. Lime manufacturing facilities are 140 km away at La
Negra, where it is sold for 118 US$/MT at 76% purity FOB mine site
7.7 Infrastructure and miscellaneous costs
7.7.1 Miscellaneous repairs and parts process plant

Miscellaneous repair parts and services have been estimated for the different areas of the plant,
based on actual plant operating databases and with help from vendor quotations on parts. Table 7-10
provides a summary.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Consumption
Misc repairs and parts for process equipment US$ '000/unit units Units/Y 000 $/Year
Conveyors and Feeders belts/spares, 5.30 m 401 2,126
Screen Deck Panels 0.03 set 33 1
Screen Deck Parts 0.45 set 6 3
Conveyors 2.90 m 145 422
Grinding Pump Replacement 90.00 set 8 720
Cyclone Replacement (cones+1/3 upper section) 7.00 units 21 147
Plant Piping Replacement 0.90 m 30 27
Grinding Steel Plate and repairs 5.50 tons 10 55
Grind Motors/Instrumentation 20.00 set 1 20
Regrind Screw Metallic Shoes 58.40 set 9 526
Regrind Digging shoes 24.40 set 5 122
Flot. Motors/Instrumentation 150.00 set 2 300
Tailing Pump Maintenance 25.00 set 4 100
Tailing Piping Maintenance 0.30 m 100 30
Misc (Parts and Maintenance) 5.00 set 12 60
Maint parts: Pipeline and port 1966 set 1 1,966
TOTAL,'000 6,624
Table 7-10; Plant miscellaneous maintenance costs
7.7.2 Heavy duty mobile equipment maintenance

The plant has been equipped with the following mobile equipment that will be used in the day-to-day
maintenance and operation of the plant and port facilities. The maintenance costs/rental equipment
has been determined in part from rates applied in the Chilean industry and contributions from Quadra
construction personnel.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Power Lease Hours Maintenance Service

Descripcin Caract. N HP Own Leased Time Operation
months Hr/y $/ Hr US$/y
NORMAL OPERATION
Boom Truck 20 t 2 300 x 1460 37.00 54,020
Forklift 5t 2 95 x 1460 15.00 21,900
Forklift 2t 1 57 x 730 15.00 10,950
Mobile Crane 90 t 1 390 x 365 170.00 62,050
Mobile Crane 35 t 1 170 x 365 150.00 54,750
Franna Crane 20t 1 275 x 365 100.00 36,500
Skit steer loader 1t 2 75 x 2920 35.00 102,200
Base Machine 2.8 m3 1 180 x 1095 25.00 27,375
Fire Truck 1 200 x 52 15.00 780
Welding Truck 1 250 x 730 15.00 10,950
Welding Truck 1 250 x 730 15.00 10,950
Service Truck 5-10 t 1 250 x 730 15.00 10,950
Service Truck 5-10 t 1 250 x 730 15.00 10,950
Dumper Truck 1 300 x 730 25.00 18,250
Cistern Truck 0 250 x 730 30.00 21,900
Rescue Truck 1 300 x 104 15.00 1,560
Grader 160H 0 180 x 2 520 73.00
Ambulance 1 265 x 52 15.00 780
Front end Loader 3.8 m3 1 311 x 730 65.00 47,450
Front end Loader 6.4 m3 1 550 x 2190 75.00 164,250
Scissor Lift 1 180 x 208 20.00 4,160
Man Lift 60 pies 1 150 x 208 20.00 4,160
Portable Air Compressor 1 50 x 156 22.00 3,432
Mobile Lighting units 0 50 x 2 260 8.00
Crawler Tractor D10T 1 580 x 730 110.00 80,300
Backhoe 450E 0 125 x 2 624 90.00
Dozer D9 D9 3 253 x 2190 150.00 328,500
Vacuum Truck 1 300 x 365 30.00 10,950
Mobile Crane 45t 0 150 x 2 624 150.00
TOTAL 1,100,017
Table 7-11; Plant mobile equipment repair costs per year
7.7.3 Heavy duty vehicle diesel requirements
Diesel price and price indices were investigated. From the chart in Figure 7-9 it shows that the price
index for both Oil and Gas (Norway Stats) escalates at 14% annually. US prices, released by the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics for December 2008 suggests the price be set at 3.8 US$/gal or US$
1.00/Litre.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
Oil Gas PI - Stats Norway - CPI - USLS

http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/08/02/20/ppi_en/tab-06-en.html
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
200 5
4.5
180
Oil and Gas
US$/gal 4
160
3.5
140
US$/Gall - US Stats
3
Index-Norway
120 2.5
2
100
1.5
80
1
60
0.5
40 0
Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06 Dec-07 Dec-08
Year
Figure 7-9: Diesel/Fuel oil price Index and pricing
Plant heavy mobile equipment has been determined from the mobile equipment list and equipment
power rating. Table 7-12 costs applied.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
gr fuel x HP 200 gr Operator

density 0.8 gr/ml US$/month 2,000 US$
Power Lease Operation (each) Maintenance

Descripcin Caract. N HP Own Leased Time Fuel Operator Fuel, Unit
months h/a m3/h m3/a US$/a US$/a
NORMAL OPERATION
Boom Truck 20 t 2 300 x 1460 0.075 109.5 0 116,234
Forklift 5t 2 95 x 1460 0.024 34.7 0 36,808
Forklift 2t 1 57 x 730 0.014 10.4 0 11,042
Mobile Crane 90 t 1 390 x 365 0.098 35.6 0 37,776
Mobile Crane 35 t 1 170 x 365 0.043 15.5 0 16,467
Franna Crane 20t 1 275 x 365 0.069 25.1 0 26,637
Skit steer loader 1t 2 75 x 2920 0.019 54.8 0 58,117
Base Machine 2.8 m3 1 180 x 1095 0.045 49.3 0 52,305
Fire Truck 1 200 x 52 0.050 2.6 0 2,760
Welding Truck 1 250 x 730 0.063 45.6 0 48,431
Welding Truck 1 250 x 730 0.063 45.6 0 48,431
Service Truck 5-10 t 1 250 x 730 0.063 45.6 0 48,431
Service Truck 5-10 t 1 250 x 730 0.063 45.6 0 48,431
Dumper Truck 1 300 x 730 0.075 54.8 0 58,117
Cistern Truck 0 250 x 730 0.063 45.6 0 48,431
Rescue Truck 1 300 x 104 0.075 7.8 0 8,280
Grader 160H 0 180 x 2 520 0.045 23.4 4,000 24,839
Ambulance 1 265 x 52 0.066 3.4 0 3,657
Front end Loader 3.8 m3 1 311 x 730 0.078 56.8 0 60,248
Front end Loader 6.4 m3 1 550 x 2190 0.138 301.1 0 319,644
Scissor Lift 1 180 x 208 0.045 9.4 0 9,936
Man Lift 60 pies 1 150 x 208 0.038 7.8 0 8,280
Portable Air Compressor 1 50 x 156 0.013 2.0 0 2,070
Mobile Lighting units 0 50 x 2 260 0.013 3.3 4,000 3,450
Crawler Tractor D10T 1 580 x 730 0.145 105.9 0 112,360
Backhoe 450E 0 125 x 2 624 0.031 19.5 4,000 20,699
Dozer D9 D9 3 253 x 2190 0.063 138.5 0 147,036
Vacuum Truck 1 300 x 365 0.075 27.4 0 29,059
Mobile Crane 45t 0 150 x 2 624 0.038 23.4 4,000 24,839
1,349.8 1,432,814
Table 7-12: Fuel Costs for Plant Mobile Equipment
7.7.4 Light duty vehicles for personnel
It is assumed that there will be 10 rental vehicles for selected personnel and 5 permanent vehicles
owned by the plant. The costs for renting and fuel have been lumped together into a single value of
US$ 85/day. Vehicle replacement costs for the five permanent units have been accounted for in the
Mill Overheads.

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
7.7.5 Laboratory consumables
Laboratory costs have been set in accordance to Escondidas costs for a metallurgical lab and assay
facilities at US$ 1,000,000/year.
7.8 Plant overheads
The overheads for the process plants have been established to cover stationeries, travel permanent
vehicles for the site and social events. The details are presented in Table 7-13.
Description No Justification Value/Year

computers 3 average of 3 units bought per year 6,000
Printer Cartridges 60 Assume 5 Printers each using about 1 cartridge/month 3,000
Printers 3 72,000
Paper/pens/clips, etc 20 bundles 5,000
Telephone 35 At a nominal value of (US$ 30 rental + 110$)/Mon phones 58,800
Travel by Staff 35 Assume 35 trips: 20 abroad-15 national 167,500
Courses 25 courses @ 2000 a piece 50,000
Perm Vehicles at site 5 vehicles for plant - life 3 years 58,333
Ceremonies + dinners 1 events at US45k/ea 45,000
Safety ceremonies 2 events at 15,000 each 30,000
Total Costs 495,633

Table 7-13: Plant overhead costs

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
8 Appendix 1

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
9 Appendix 2

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
10 Appendix 3
Process flow diagrams

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
11 Appendix 4

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
12 Appendix 5

Telfono: +56 (2) 321-4218
13 Appendix 6
Grinding Circuit Trade-off Studies

Appendix C: Pit Phases
Appendix D: Equipment
Lists and Mine Personnel
Sierra Gorda Initial Mine Capital
Total Max Frt & Asmbly Unit cost Total
EQUIPMENT Unit cost Units 7% Base Capital
BUCYRUS 495 HR SHOVEL $35,000,000 5 $35,000,000 $175,000,000
BUCYRUS 49RIII ELECTRIC DRILL $5,569,550 6 $5,569,550 $33,417,300
5000 KVA SUB STATION FOR PIT EQUIPMENT $400,000 5 $400,000 $2,000,000
TAILING CABLE HANDLER $1,337,500 1 $87,500 $1,250,000 $1,337,500
IR Viper 271 Drill $1,872,500 4 $122,500 $1,750,000 $7,490,000
CAT 24M Grader $1,765,500 2 $115,500 $1,650,000 $3,531,000
CAT 16M Grader $936,250 3 $61,250 $875,000 $2,808,750
CAT 797F HAUL TRUCK $5,395,843 56 $352,999 $5,042,844 $302,167,208
CAT 954 RUBBER TIRE DOZER $1,979,500 2 $129,500 $1,850,000 $3,959,000
CAT 834F RUBBER TIRE DOZER $1,391,000 2 $91,000 $1,300,000 $2,782,000
LETOURNEAU L2350 LOADER $8,560,000 1 $560,000 $8,000,000 $8,560,000
LOADER, CAT 938F $235,400 2 $15,400 $220,000 $470,800
FORD F250 4X4 EXTENDED CAB FLATBED (entire site) $37,450 18 $2,450 $35,000 $674,100
PICKUP, FORD F250 4X4 CREW CAB (entire site) $37,450 50 $2,450 $35,000 $1,872,500
PASSENGER BUS $53,500 6 $3,500 $50,000 $321,000
FORD MECHANICS TRUCK (entire site) $107,000 10 $7,000 $100,000 $1,070,000
KW LUBE TRUCK $385,200 3 $25,200 $360,000 $1,155,600
KW LUBE TRUCK ( Smaller Capacity) $214,000 2 $14,000 $200,000 $428,000
CAT EXCAVATOR 350L $588,500 2 $38,500 $550,000 $1,177,000
BACKHOE EXTENDAHOE CAT IT-420D 4X4 $37,450 1 $2,450 $35,000 $37,450
CAT SOIL COMPACTOR CP563 $26,750 1 $1,750 $25,000 $26,750
GENIE GS-2646 SCISSOR LIFT MODEL#GS-2646 (site) $16,050 3 $1,050 $15,000 $48,150
CRANE, 60' JLG 60 HA MANLIFT $10,000 3 $10,000 $30,000
CRANE, 80' JLG 80HX MANLIFT $10,000 1 $10,000 $10,000
FORKLIFT SUSPENDED PLATFORM $13,910 2 $910 $13,000 $27,820
CRANE, MOBILE AP410 10TON $128,400 1 $8,400 $120,000 $128,400
CRANE, MOBILE RT528C, 28TON $481,500 1 $31,500 $450,000 $481,500
CRANE, MOBILE TM9120, 120TON $321,000 1 $21,000 $300,000 $321,000
CRANE, MOBILE TR855BM, 55TON $695,500 1 $45,500 $650,000 $695,500
CRANE, TRUCK MOUNTED L9000 MOD. 969 $160,500 1 $10,500 $150,000 $160,500
FORD F800 KNUCKLE BOOM MOD. N50 $160,500 1 $10,500 $150,000 $160,500
CRANE, F800 BOOM TRUCK MODEL #ECI-3-70 $160,500 2 $10,500 $150,000 $321,000
FORD L9000 BOOM MOD. N205 $160,500 3 $10,500 $150,000 $481,500
Caterpillar 793 Water truck chassis $2,675,000 5 $175,000 $2,500,000 $13,375,000
WATER TRUCKS (45,000 GALLS) $313,214 5 $20,491 $292,723 $1,566,070
WATER TRUCKS (4,000 GALLS) $160,500 2 $10,500 $150,000 $321,000
ARTICULATED TRUCKS, (40 tons) $401,250 3 $26,250 $375,000 $1,203,750
DUMP TRUCK 95 FORD L8000 $128,400 2 $8,400 $120,000 $256,800
DOZER. CAT D10T $1,185,560 10 $77,560 $1,108,000 $11,855,600
VARIOUS FORKLIFT $32,100 10 $2,100 $30,000 $321,000
LARGE FORKLIFT $267,500 1 $17,500 $250,000 $267,500
MINE RESCUE TRAILER $5,000 1 $5,000 $5,000
PORTABLE AIR COMPRESSOR $35,000 7 $35,000 $245,000
SKID LOADER BOBCAT 463 $35,000 4 $35,000 $140,000
TIRE HANDLER $535,000 2 $35,000 $500,000 $1,070,000
SWEEPERS $11,000 4 $11,000 $44,000
TRAILER, LOWBOY 60 TON LOAD KING $150,000 1 $150,000 $150,000
150 TON LOW BED TRAILER $500,000 1 $500,000 $500,000
TRACTOR UNIT FOR THE 150 TON TRAILER $1,070,000 1 $70,000 $1,000,000 $1,070,000
TOW TRUCK, KENWORTH T800B $107,000 1 $7,000 $100,000 $107,000
40" 40 ton trailer $50,000 1 $50,000 $50,000
8'x20' SHOP WELDING TRAILER $20,000 1 $20,000 $20,000
8'x20' SHOVEL REPAIR SHOP TRAILER $20,000 1 $20,000 $20,000
12,000 lb.TANDEM AXLE TRAILER $5,000 1 $5,000 $5,000
MAXI LIGHT LIGHT PLANT $15,000 24 $15,000 $360,000
Various Generators sets $30,000 7 $30,000 $210,000
WELDER, MILLER PORTABLE $36,000 17 $36,000 $612,000
PORTABLE SYKES WATER PUMP $45,000 3 $45,000 $135,000
40,000 GAL FUEL SKID $483,000 2 $483,000 $966,000
PIT ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE $2,788,500 1 $2,788,500 $2,788,500
Sierra Gorda Replacement Mine Capital Schedule
# Units Replaced per Period
EQUIPMENT YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 YEAR 11 YEAR 12 YEAR 13 YEAR 14 YEAR 15 YEAR 16 YEAR 17 YEAR 18 YEAR 19 YEAR 20 YEAR 21 YEAR 22 YEAR 23 YEAR 24 YEAR 25
BUCYRUS 495 HR SHOVEL 1
BUCYRUS 49RIII ELECTRIC DRILL 1 2 1 1 1
5000 KVA SUB STATION FOR PIT EQUIPMENT
TAILING CABLE HANDLER 1 1
IR Viper 271 Drill 2 1 1 2 2
CAT 24M Grader 1 1 1 1
CAT 16M Grader 2 1 1 2 1
CAT 797F HAUL TRUCK 5 10
CAT 954 RUBBER TIRE DOZER 1 1 1 1 1
CAT 834F RUBBER TIRE DOZER
LETOURNEAU L2350 LOADER 1 1 1 1
LOADER, CAT 938F
FORD F250 4X4 EXTENDED CAB FLATBED (entire site)
PICKUP, FORD F250 4X4 CREW CAB (entire site) 10 10 10 10 10 10 16 10 10 10 10 10 16 10 10 10 10 10 10
PASSENGER BUS
FORD MECHANICS TRUCK (entire site)
KW LUBE TRUCK 1 1 1
KW LUBE TRUCK ( Smaller Capacity) 2
CAT EXCAVATOR 350L 1 1
BACKHOE EXTENDAHOE CAT IT-420D 4X4 1 1 1
CAT SOIL COMPACTOR CP563 1
GENIE GS-2646 SCISSOR LIFT MODEL#GS-2646 (site) 1
CRANE, 60' JLG 60 HA MANLIFT 1 2
CRANE, 80' JLG 80HX MANLIFT 1
FORKLIFT SUSPENDED PLATFORM 1 1
CRANE, MOBILE AP410 10TON 1
CRANE, MOBILE RT528C, 28TON 1
CRANE, MOBILE TM9120, 120TON 1
CRANE, MOBILE TR855BM, 55TON 1
CRANE, TRUCK MOUNTED L9000 MOD. 969 1
FORD F800 KNUCKLE BOOM MOD. N50 1
CRANE, F800 BOOM TRUCK MODEL #ECI-3-70 1 1 1
FORD L9000 BOOM MOD. N205 1 1 1
Caterpillar 793 Water truck chassis 1 1
WATER TRUCKS (45,000 GALLS) 1 1
WATER TRUCKS (4,000 GALLS) 2 2
ARTICULATED TRUCKS, (40 tons) 3 3
DUMP TRUCK 95 FORD L8000 2 2
DOZER. CAT D10T 4 2 4 4 1 4 2 4 4 1 4 2 4 4 1
VARIOUS FORKLIFT 6 6 6
LARGE FORKLIFT
MINE RESCUE TRAILER
PORTABLE AIR COMPRESSOR
SKID LOADER BOBCAT 463 1 1
TIRE HANDLER 1
SWEEPERS 4 4 4
TRAILER, LOWBOY 60 TON LOAD KING
150 TON LOW BED TRAILER
TRACTOR UNIT FOR THE 150 TON TRAILER
TOW TRUCK, KENWORTH T800B
40" 40 ton trailer 2
8'x20' SHOP WELDING TRAILER 1
8'x20' SHOVEL REPAIR SHOP TRAILER 1
12,000 lb.TANDEM AXLE TRAILER 1 1
MAXI LIGHT LIGHT PLANT 4 4 4 4 4
Various Generators sets
WELDER, MILLER PORTABLE 3 5 5 5
PORTABLE SYKES WATER PUMP 3 3 1 3
40,000 GAL FUEL SKID 1
Mine Staff
Position Number Annual Salary Total
w/burden Annual
Mine Manager 1 $ 418,820 $ 418,820
Technical Services Manager 1 $ 200,150 $ 200,150
Chief Geologist 1 $ 95,000 $ 95,000

Senior Geologist 2 $ 70,262 $ 140,524
Geologist 3 $ 53,147 $ 159,441
Geo-Tech 1 $ 95,000 $ 95,000
Ore Technician 4 $ 27,732 $ 110,928
Chief Engineer 1 $ 95,000 $ 95,000

Senior Mine Engineer 2 $ 70,262 $ 140,524
Mine Engineer 3 $ 53,147 $ 159,441
Junior Engineer 2 $ 38,500 $ 77,000
Survey / Technicians 4 $ 27,732 $ 110,928
Mine General Foreman 1 $ 134,801 $ 134,801

Clerk 2 $ 32,456 $ 64,912
Senior Shift Supervisor 4 $ 95,000 $ 380,000
Drilling Foreman 4 $ 53,700 $ 214,800
Blasting Foreman 0 $ 53,700 $ -
Loading Foreman 4 $ 53,700 $ 214,800
Hauling Foreman 4 $ 53,700 $ 214,800
Mine Maintenance General Foreman 1 $ 134,801 $ 134,801

Senior Maintenance Planner 1 $ 95,000 $ 95,000
Maintenance Planner 6 $ 53,147 $ 318,882
Mechanical Engineer 1 $ 70,262 $ 70,262
Cost Analyst 1 $ 53,147 $ 53,147
Chief Electrician 1 $ 53,147 $ 53,147
Electrical Engineer 1 $ 70,262 $ 70,262
Clerk 6 $ 32,456 $ 194,736
Senior Shovel and Drill Foreman 1 $ 95,000 $ 95,000

Shovel and Drill Foreman 6 $ 53,147 $ 318,882
Senior Truck Foreman 1 $ 95,000 $ 95,000

Truck Foreman 4 $ 53,147 $ 212,588
Support Equipment Foreman 2 $ 53,147 $ 106,294

Light Vechile Foreman 4 $ 53,147 $ 212,588
PM Foreman 4 $ 53,147 $ 212,588
Welding Foreman 2 $ 53,147 $ 106,294
Senior Tire Foreman 1 $ 95,000 $ 95,000

Tire Foreman 4 $ 53,147 $ 212,588
Surface Crew Foreman 2 $ 53,147 $ 106,294

Surface Crew 8 $ 26,455 $ 211,640
Total 101 $ 6,001,862
Operators 46 to 110 $ 27,732

Mechanics 9 to 34 $ 27,732
Appendix E: Process
Flow Diagrams
PROCESS WATER
CRUSHER DUST
SUPRESSION SYSTEM
FRESH WATER
COARSE ORE
SURGE BIN TRIPPER
TOTAL ORE
FROM MINE
SECONDARY
SURGE BIN TRIPPER
350 T HAUL TRUCK DUST 350 T HAUL TRUCK
3 - 200T
(SUPPLIED BY THE OWNER) COLLECTOR (SUPPLIED BY THE OWNER)
SECONDARY BINS
0.7 HOUR CAPACITY
10 - 200T (600 T) PRIMARY CYCLONE
PRIMARY CRUSHER TERTIARY BINS
OR
CLUSTER
0.7 HOUR CAPACITY BALL MILLS
EY
60-110 7 7.9m dia.
NV
(1800 T)
BALL MILL 12 m L.
CO
FEED CHUTE 16,200 kw MOTOR
R
SCREEN FEED
PE
6
BELTS
IP
MAGNET SCREEN
TR
TRUMMEL
SELF CLEANING
E
OR 4 MAGNET PSI
METAL DETECTOR CRUSHER FEED 3 - 3.7x7.3m 11
9 10
SE
BELTS SCREENS
AR
45/12 mm BALL MILL

CO
#1
METAL
TROMMEL BIN FOR BALL
SCREEN CHIPS
CYCLONE FEED
DETECTOR PUMP - VFD PRIMARY CYCLONE
8
7 CLUSTER
MILL #1
3 - MP 1000 BALL MILL DISCHARGE SUMP
AL R
or EQUIV. GS
FEED CHUTE
SC YO
E
500 Ton Bin

10 - MP 1000
L T VE
6
or EQUIV.
BE ON
2 2 2 TRUMMEL
C
Y OR E MAGNET PSI
E L 11
NV SCA
9 10
O BALL MILL
C LT 1 #2
BE D
R F EE TROMMEL BIN FOR BALL
E YO ILE SCREEN CHIPS CYCLONE FEED

PRIMARY CYCLONE
O NV CKP 7
8 PUMP - VFD
CLUSTER TO RO FLOATATION
C TO
AND E S TERTIARY SCEENS 11 PFD - 0002 - 0
MILL #2
E RL OR TRIPPER BALL MILL
E DISCHARGE SUMP
OV RS FEED CHUTE GS
A
CO 6
R
FO F.O.S. TRIPPER TRUMMEL
MAGNET PSI
10 - 200T 11
9 10
TERTIARY SCREEN BINS BALL MILL
0.7 HOUR CAPACITY #3
COVERED (1600 T) TROMMEL BIN FOR BALL
COARSE ORE STOCKPILE (C.O.S.) SCREEN CHIPS CYCLONE FEED

PRIMARY CYCLONE
LIVE CAPACITY = 50,000 T
COVERED 8 PUMP - VFD
7 CLUSTER
Total = 100,000 T FINE ORE STOCKPILE
SCREEN 60,000T LIVE MILL #3
FEED BALL MILL DISCHARGE SUMP GS
BELTS FEED CHUTE
6
10 - 3.7x7.3m TRUMMEL
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
TERTIARY MAGNET PSI
11
SCREENS 5 9 10
20/12 mm BALL MILL
#4
5
TROMMEL BIN FOR BALL
SCREEN CHIPS CYCLONE FEED
5 8 PUMP - VFD
5 MILL #4
DISCHARGE SUMP GS
Stream Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Description
Coarse Ore
Reclaim 2ry Crush D/C 3ry Screen Feed 3ry Screen O/S BM Fresh Feed
Cyclone U/F
(per mill)
Water to Cyc
U/F (per mill)
BM D/C (per
mill)
Water to BM
D/C (per mill)
Cyc Feed (per
mill) Cyc O/F
Quadra Scoping Study
Stream Phase
Nominal Solid t/h
solid
5294
solid
2444
solid
8240
solid
4346
solid
4615
slurry
4038
liquid
0
slurry
5192
liquid
0
slurry
5192
slurry
4615
Sierra Gorda
Design Solid t/h 5882 3100 9888 5700 5128 4418 0 5700 0 5700 5128
Nominal Liquid t/h 221 102 343 181 192 1271 230 1549 2060 3608 9351
Design Liquid
Nominal Slurry Flow
t/h
m3/hr
245
2160
129
997
412
3362
238
1773
214
1883
1364
2750
283
0
1700
3451
2261
0
3961
5510
10390
11041
PROCESS 108 kt/d
Design Slurry Flow
% Solids (w/w)
m3/hr
% by mass
2400
96.0%
1265
96.0%
4034
96.0%
2325
96.0%
2092
96.0%
2995
76.1%
0
0.0%
3788
77.0%
0
0.0%
6049
59.0%
12268
33.0%
CRUSHING - GRINDING
Solids SG t/m3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.7 2.7 SCALE:
Liquids SG t/m3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 DATE:
Slurry SG t/m3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 1.9 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.6 1.3 DWG. No. REV.
Area Asset Eff % 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% DRAWN BY: PFD - 0001 2
FRESH WATER
950 FRESH
WATER POT
TANK WATER
TANK MINE SITE
910
AREA
901 914
INTERNAL RECLAIM
RESERVOIR
CAMP
902
INFRASTRUCTURE
PIT
909 908
1 2
903
905
RESIDUE
SULPHIDE OXIDE PLANT EVAPORATION
PLANT SX-EW
904
30
906
EVAPORATION PERMAMENT
PLS STACKING
907 RAFF
31
TAIL Cu BULK Mo 1st
Thick Thick Thick Thick Thick
32 69 40 63 64
72
CONCENTRATE LEGEND
PUMP STATION
PORT LIQUID
913
SLURRY
WATER 912
TREATMENT SHIPMENT
Stream Number 1 2 30 31 32 69 63 72 62 901 40 64 950 902 903 904 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914
Potable
Piston water to plant Oxide watedr Oxide Cooling
Sulf Plant Ox Plant Cu Thick Mo Thick Pumps Moly Internal
R eclaim Bulk Thick 1st Cl Net Intake c a m p + evaporatio Water losses to make-up Process mine water Conc To Water Process Raw
Stream Description Feed Feed Thick Feed Thick U/F Thick O/F o/f O/F Feed Shipment Pumps o/f Thick o/f of Water infrast n losses tails water water water losses Shipment Treatment Water Quadra Scoping Study
Stream Phase Slurry Slurry slurry slurry Liquid liquid Liquid slurry slurry liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid liquid Liquid Slurry Liquid Liquid
Nominal Solid t/d 108,000 10,263 106,508 106,508 - - - 1,460 31 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,460 - - Sierra Gorda
Design Solid t/d 120,000 14,368 118,141 118,141 - - - 1,816 44 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,816 - -
Nominal Liquid L/s 52 5 2,636 664 1,972 21 0.8 10 0 2,045 33 18 740 43 11 43 664 38 2,677 27 8 2 8 2,473
Design Liquid L/s 58 7 2,981 736 2,245 22 1.6 12 0 2,325 37 20 819 54 11 43 736 36 3,026 27 8 2 10 2,722 108 kt/d
Nominal Slurry Flow L/s 508 48 3,088 1,116 - - - 14 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 8 2,473
Design Slurry Flow L/s 565 68 3,478 1,238 - - - 17 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 10 2,722

WATER BALANCE
% Solids nominal (w/w)
Solids SG
%
t/m3
96.0
2.74
96.0
2.74
31.9
2.73
65.0
2.73
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
64.0
4.02
96.0
4.66
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00 SCALE: AND MASS
Liquid SG t/m3 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATE:
Slurry SG t/m3 2.56 2.56 1.25 1.70 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 4.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 0% 0% DWG. No. REV.
Basis Op Time % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
DRAWN BY: PFD - 0005 2
FRESH WATER
THICKENER
21m dia.
VALVE STATION No. 3
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT
TERMINAL
CHOKE STATION
WATER DISPOSAL
73 76 78
THICKENER GS
PUMP
79 77
DISTRIBUTION
BOX
BULK BULK
BULK BULK
CONCENTRATE CONCENTRATE
CONCENTRATE CONCENTRATE
STOCK TANK No 3 STOCK TANK No 4
STOCK TANK No 1 STOCK TANK No 2
CHOKE STATION
VALVE STATION No. 2

GS GS GS GS
FILTER FEED FILTER FEED FILTER FEED FILTER FEED
PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP
COPPER CONCENTRATE FILTRATION COPPER CONCENTRATE FILTRATION

PRESS FILTER PRESS FILTER
144 m2 144 m2
VENDER
PACKAGE
VENDER
PACKAGE
CHOKE STATION
VALVE STATION No. 1 LAUNDER

FROM COPPER CONSENTRATE LOADER
PFD - 0004 - 0 72 WASHDOWN
74 PUMP
LOADER
OVERLAND CONSENTRATE PIPELINE
WASHDOWN
SUMP PUMP
LOADER
WASHDOWN
DUST COLLECTOR
RECLAIM HOPPER FRONT END LOADER RECLAIM HOPPER FRONT END LOADER
COPPER CONCENTRATE COPPER CONCENTRATE
FEEDER No. 1 CAT 988G FEEDER No. 2 CAT 988G
40,000 TONS TOTAL 40,000 TONS TOTAL
SHIP
LOADER
RECLAIM HOPPER
RECLAIM HOPPER
FEEDER No. 2
FEEDER No. 1
DISCHARGE CHUTE
DISCHARGE CHUTE RECLAIM CONVEYOR No 1
BELT SCALE WEIGHTOMETER
RECLAIM CONVEYOR No 1
75
RECLAIM FEED
SAMPLER
RECLAIM CONVEYOR No 2 DOCK SHIP
Stream Number 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
Pipeline Filter Ship

Thick o/f
to water Filtrate
Filter
Disposable Feed
Stream Description
Stream Phase
slurry
Slurry
Thick U/f Cake
Slurry slurry
Loading treatment water
slurry Liquid Liquid
water
Liquid
Water
Liquid Sierra Gorda
Nominal Solid t/h 82.0 60.9 72 869 - - - -
Design Solid t/h 75.6 75.6 89 1,081 - - - -
Nominal Liquid t/h 46.1 32.8 6.7 103 30 29 32 2.0 PROCESS 108 kt/d
Design Liquid t/h 46.1 40.7 8.3 103 38 35 39 2.0
Nominal Slurry Flow m3/hr 66.5 47.9 24 386 - - - - PIPELINE AND
Design Slurry Flow m3/hr 61.2 59.4 30 386 - - - -
% Solids (w/w)
Solids SG t/m3
64.0
4.02
65.0
4.02
91.5
4.02
91.5
3.93
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
-
-
SCALE: PORT FACILITIES
Liquid SG t/m3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 DATE:
DWG. No. REV.
Slurry SG
Area Asset Eff
t/m3
%
1.93
74.2
1.95
100
3.20
85
3.15
7.0
1.00
100
1.00
85
1.00
100
1.00
85
TO INTERNAL RECLAIM
FRESH WATER GLAND SEAL WATER

35 GS
PROCESS WATER 68
FROM BULK CONCENTRATE

69
PFD - 0002 - 0 19 40 68
CONCENTRATE COPPER CONCENTRATE

THICKENER BULK THICKENER SAMPLER
SAMPLER 21 m dia D10
CYCLONES
COPPER THICKENER
65 51 64 21m dia.
48
THICKENER
12 m dia.
DISTRIBUTION
BOX
70
AGING TANK No. 1 AGING TANK No. 2

92 49
TRASH SCREEN
THICKENER U/F GS
PUMP
REGRIND O/F
SAMPLER
GS GS DISTRIBUTION
ATTRITION MACHINE ATTRITION MACHINE DISTRIBUTION BOX
41
FEED PUMP(BACK-UP) FEED PUMP BOX
REGRIND O/F
COLLECTION BOX COPPER CONC. COPPER CONC. COPPER CONC.
STOCK TANK No.1 STOCK TANK No.2 STOCK TANK No.3
ATTRITION
MACHINE
GS
ROUGHER FEED 52 47
42 PUMP
GS CHARGE GS GS CHARGE
CHARGE
PUMP PUMP PUMP
ROUGHER
1 ROW, 10 CELLS, 8m3 VM-40HP
72
CYCLONE FEED
PUMP - VFD
PISTON PUMPS PISTON PUMPS
44 5050 PSI 5050 PSI PIPELINE TO
GS
MEJILLONES
43 PFD - 0004 - 0
ROUGHER
CONCENTRATE REGRIND MILL OVERLAND CONCENTRATE PIPELINE
SAMPLER DISCHARGE SUMP
50
1st CLEANER
1 ROW, 8 CELLS, 8m3 66 67 63
59
MOLY THICKENER
5 m dia.
58 53
45
WATER
54 60
46
56
1st CLEANER FLOTATION COLUMN GS
CONCENTRATE FEED PUMP
SAMPLER 57
2nd CLEANER THICKENER U/F 3rd CLEANER
FLOTATION COLUMN PUMP FLOTATION COLUMN GS
GS
2.44m dia x12 m 1.2m dia x 12m
THICKENER U/F
PUMP MOLY FILTER MOLY PACKAGING TO MOLY MARKET
FLOTATION COLUMN AND DRYING 1 - TON BAGS
FEED PUMP SUMP FILTER FEED 61 62
TANK
GS FILTER FEED
PUMP
Stream Number 19 41 40 68 42 45 44 46 43 50 65 57 58 52 54 47 49 48 56 59 60 63 61 62 92 66 67 70 72
Piston
69
Stream Description Colum Bulk Thick rougher 1st Cl 1st Cl Final Cu 2nd Cl Reg P. 2nd Cl 3rd Cl Final Mo Mo Thick Mo Thick Mo Moly 1st Cl 2nd Cl Col 3rd Cl Col Cu Thick Pumps Cu Thick
Conc Thick u/f o/f water Ro Feed 1st Cl Tail Ro Tail Conc Ro Conc Feed Conc 3rd Cl Tail Tail Box water Feed Cyc Feed Cyc u/f Cyc O/f Feed Conc U/F O/F Filtrate Shipment Thick u/f wash wash U/F Feed o/f Sierra Gorda
Stream Phase slurry slurry liquid liquid slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry liquid slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry Liquid Liquid slurry slurry liquid liquid slurry slurry liquid
- -
Nominal Solid
Design Solid
t/h
t/h
64
79
64
79
-
-
-
-
64
79
9
10
54
68
11
13
10
12
20
23
62
78
3
4
10
11
-
-
15
17
18
21
8.12
9.55
10
12
4.81
5.43
1.34
1.87
1.34
1.87 -
-
-
1.34
1.87
20
23
-
-
-
-
62
78
62
78
- PROCESS 108 kt/d
Nominal Liquid t/h 157 37 123 40 78 43 69 38 9 81 112 32 73 32 73 47 6.65 41 32 4.16 1.10 3.1 1.0 0.06 47 14.9 4.2 34 35 79
Design Liquid
Nominal Slurry Flow
t/h
m3/hr
178
173
47
53
135
- -
50 97
94
39
45
83
82
53
40
14
11
92
86
122
128
36
33
81
76 -
34 81
76
56
52
7.82
8.57
48
43
36
33
7.26
4.44
1.53
1.39
5.7
-
1.5
-
0.08
0.34
54
52
25.2
-
7.3
-
42
49
44
51 -
80 MOLY FLOTATION &
Design Slurry Flow
% Solids (w/w)
m3/hr 197
28.9
66
63.0
-
0.0
-
0.0
117
45.0
57
16.9
100
43.7
40
23.3
17
53.4
98
20.0
141
35.7
38
9.7
85
12.2
-
0.0
85
17.0
60
27.9
9.39
55.0
51
20.0
38
13.0
4.85
24.4
1.93
55.0
-
0.0
-
0.0
0.48
96.0
59
30.0
-
0.0
-
0.0
61
65.0
63
64.0
-
0.0 SCALE: DEWATERING
Solids SG t/m3 4.03 4.03 0.00 0.00 4.03 4.17 4.00 4.36 4.23 4.28 4.02 3.29 2.98 0.00 4.40 4.23 4.23 4.23 4.57 4.66 4.66 0.00 0.00 4.66 4.28 0.00 0.00 4.02 4.02 0.00
Liquid SG t/m3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATE:
DWG. No. REV.
Slurry SG
Asset Efficiency
t/m3
%
1.28
97.5%
1.90
97.5%
0.00
97.5%
0.00
97.5%
1.51
97.5%
1.15
97.5%
1.49
97.5%
1.22
97.5%
1.69
97.5%
1.18
97.5%
1.37
97.5%
1.07
97.5%
1.09
97.5%
0.00
97.5%
1.15
97.5%
1.27
97.5%
1.72
97.5%
1.18
97.5%
1.11
97.5%
1.24
97.5%
1.76
97.5%
0.00
97.5%
0.00 4.07
97.5% 97.5%
1.07
97.5%
0.00
97.5%
0.00
97.5%
1.58
97.5%
1.55
97.5%
0.00
97.5%
FRESH WATER
GLAND SEAL WATER

PROCESS WATER 35 GS
FROM PRIMARY CYCLONE TAILINGS FLOCCULANT

OVERFLOW TO DISTRIBUTER
ROUGHER
PFD - 0001 - 0 14 35 CF
1 ROW, 10 CELLS
250m3 CELLS
FLOTATION FEED ROUGHER
SAMPLER TAILING SAMPLER
15
CL SCAVENGER
TAILING SAMPLER
18 FINAL
TO INTERNAL RECLAIM
TAILING SAMPLER
ROUGHER FEED 30 32
DISTRIBUTION BOX TAILING BOX
2 - REGRIND MILL
ROUGHER CYCLONES
1 ROW, 10 CELLS 14xD20 CYCLOPACS
250m3 CELLS
33
204 REGRIND O/F TAILING
SAMPLER CF DISTRIBUTION BOX
34
ROUGHER
CONCENTRATE
ROUGHER SAMPLER
CONCENTRATE REGRIND REGRIND
LAUNDER GS DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION
BOX BOX
1st CLEANER FEED HIGH HIGH HIGH
17
PUMP BOX COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION
SCAVENGER THICKENER THICKENER THICKENER
1 ROW, 5 CELLS 16 90m dia 90m dia 90m dia
REGRIND O/F
160m3 CELLS
SAMPLER
1st CLEANER
1st CLEANER FEED 1 ROW, 3 CELLS 20
DISTRIBUTION BOX 160m3 CELLS
SCAVENGER
1 ROW, 5 CELLS 201 4 - REGRIND MILLS
160m3 CELLS 1500 HP
THICKENER U/F GS THICKENER U/F GS THICKENER U/F GS
VFD (BACK UP) PUMP PUMP PUMP
1st CLEANER GS
1 ROW, 3 CELLS 21
160m3 CELLS GS SURGE TAILINGS
DISTRIBUTION BOX
CL SCAVENGER FLOTATION
GS DISTRIBUTION
CONCENTRATE
CYCLONE FEED CYCLONE FEED BOX
SAMPLER
PUMP BOX PUMP - VFD TAILINGS SURGE TAILINGS SURGE
1st CLEANER TAILINGS SURGE TAILINGS SURGE
FLOTATION TANK No.1 TANK No.2 TANK No.3 TANK No.4
SCAVENGER
CONCENTRATE
LAUNDER
22
1st CLEANER
CONCENTRATE 19
SAMPLER
19
BY KNIGHT-PIESOLD TO TAILING IMPOUNDMENT
FLOTATION COLUMN 31
FEED PUMP
GS
FLOATATION COLUMN
FEED PUMP SUMP
3 - 2nd CLEANER SECTION TO CONCENTRATE THICKENING
FLOTATION COLUMNS 23 PFD - 0003 - 0
4.5m Dia x 12m L.
Stream Number 14 17 19 16 22 21 18 15 20 34 203 33 23 30 31 32 204 201
Rougher Cl-Scav 1st Cl-SCV Rougher Cyclone Water to 1st Water to Cyc
Stream Description Ro Feed 1st Cl Feed 1st Cl Con Conc Column Tail CON Tails Tailings Feed Cyc O/F Cyc U/f washwater Colum Conc Total Tails Thick U/F Thick O/F Cl Feed Feed Box Quadra Scoping Study
Stream Phase slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry slurry Liquid slurry slurry slurry Liquid Liquid Liquid
Nominal Solid t/h 4,615 1,382 250 340 186 856 277 4,275 2,154 1,197 957 -
-
64 4,552 4,552 -
-
-
-
-
-
Sierra Gorda
Design Solid t/h 5,128 1,228 301 460 222 547 380 4,669 1,812 1,007 805 79 5,049 5,049
Nominal Liquid t/h 9,371 5,530 718 832 738 3,619 1,193 8,539 5,302 4,786 515 157 157 9,732 2,451 7,281 6 336
Design Liquid t/h 10,412 4,913 802 1,243 822 2,272 1,838 9,169 4,460 4,026 434 178 178 11,007 2,719 8,289 - 512
Nominal Slurry Flow
Design Slurry Flow
m3/hr
m3/hr
11,055
12,265
5,926
5,275
784
883
933
1,384
798
894
3,864
2,432
1,278
1,960
10,123
10,881
5,924
5,002
5,132
4,328
792
675
157
178
173
197
11,401
12,841
4,120
4,570
7,281
8,271
-
-
-
-
PROCESS 108 kt/d
% Solids (w/w)
Solids SG
%
t/m3
33.0
2.74
20.0
3.49
25.8
3.75
29.0
3.37
20.1
3.06
19.1
3.50
18.8
3.25
33.4
2.70
28.9
3.46
20.0
3.46
65.0
3.46
0.0
0.00
28.9
4.03
31.9
2.73
65.0
2.73
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00 SCALE:
BULK FLOTATION
Liquid SG t/m3 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 DATE:
Slurry SG t/m3 1.27 1.17 1.23 1.26 1.16 1.16 1.15 1.27 1.26 1.17 1.86 0.00 1.28 1.25 1.70 1.00 0.00 0.00 DWG. No. REV.
Area Asset Eff % 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5%
Appendix G:
Period Y1_Q1 Y1_Q2 Y1_Q3 Y1_Q4 Y2_Q1 Y2_Q2 Y2_Q3 Y2_Q4 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Trucks
Hours 18,300 21,900 22,400 25,800 29,800 46,500 49,600 46,700 193,200 266,900 204,300 224,900 227,100 270,000 342,300 346,600
Operators on Shift 10 13 13 14 17 26 28 26 27 37 28 31 31 37 48 48
Dollars $ 7,459,270 $ 8,986,950 $ 9,159,841 $ 10,524,076 $ 12,190,069 $ 19,001,799 $ 20,262,300 $ 18,976,667 $ 69,822,255 $ 96,437,828 $ 73,754,720 $ 81,254,978 $ 82,015,697 $ 97,509,751 $ 123,641,230 $ 125,128,091
Fuel (liters) 5,490,000 6,570,000 6,720,000 7,740,000 8,940,000 13,950,000 14,880,000 14,010,000 57,960,000 80,070,000 61,290,000 67,470,000 68,130,000 81,000,000 102,690,000 103,980,000
Shovels
Hours 4,200 4,000 4,000 3,900 4,300 4,900 4,900 5,000 24,400 24,200 29,600 31,600 30,900 30,900 31,100 31,100
Dollars $ 2,778,896 $ 2,662,414 $ 2,662,414 $ 2,604,173 $ 2,837,136 $ 3,297,509 $ 3,297,509 $ 3,355,750 $ 14,654,455 $ 14,537,974 $ 17,793,902 $ 19,069,645 $ 18,551,032 $ 18,551,032 $ 18,778,441 $ 18,778,441
Power kw/hrs 5,460,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,070,000 5,590,000 6,370,000 6,370,000 6,500,000 31,720,000 31,460,000 38,480,000 41,080,000 40,170,000 40,170,000 40,430,000 40,430,000
Production Drills
Hours 3,735 3,965 3,780 4,033 4,690 5,881 6,584 6,264 24,282 25,559 25,278 25,455 25,372 25,685 24,683 25,960
Dollars $ 1,387,916 $ 1,563,853 $ 1,511,559 $ 1,583,142 $ 1,768,726 $ 2,216,046 $ 2,525,773 $ 2,324,440 $ 7,414,983 $ 7,886,732 $ 7,807,306 $ 7,857,297 $ 7,833,937 $ 7,922,207 $ 7,528,315 $ 7,999,831
Power kw/hrs 2,427,506 2,577,070 2,456,758 2,621,448 3,048,414 3,822,341 4,279,710 4,071,717 15,783,356 16,613,485 16,430,752 16,545,767 16,492,022 16,695,101 16,044,096 16,873,688
Wall Drills
Hours 2,473 2,473 2,473 2,473 2,764 2,764 2,764 2,764 9,309 13,382 17,455 18,036 18,618 18,618 18,618 18,618
Dollars $ 686,803 $ 686,803 $ 686,803 $ 686,803 $ 852,431 $ 852,431 $ 852,431 $ 852,431 $ 1,972,244 $ 2,848,967 $ 3,725,690 $ 3,835,089 $ 3,944,489 $ 3,944,489 $ 3,944,489 $ 3,944,489
Power kw/hrs 1,236,364 1,236,364 1,236,364 1,236,364 1,381,818 1,381,818 1,381,818 1,381,818 4,654,545 6,690,909 8,727,273 9,018,182 9,309,091 9,309,091 9,309,091 9,309,091
24M Grader
Hours 14 14 14 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
Dollars $ 112,261 $ 112,261 $ 112,261 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522
Fuel (liters) 1,027 1,027 1,027 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055
16m Graders
Hours 41 41 41 41 41 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Dollars $ 335,121 $ 335,121 $ 335,121 $ 335,121 $ 335,121 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828
Fuel (liters) 1,438 1,438 1,438 1,438 1,438 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918
854 Rubber Tire Dozer

Hours 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
Dollars $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261
Fuel (liters) 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671

Hours 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68
Dollars $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919
Fuel (liters) 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877
L2350 Loader
Hours 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
Dollars $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681
Fuel (liters) 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123
Water Trucks
Hours 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Dollars $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978
Fuel (liters) 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959
D10 Dozers
Hours 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170
Dollars $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382
Fuel (liters) 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500
Production Blasting
Holes 7,671 8,144 7,764 8,284 9,633 12,079 13,524 12,867 49,877 52,500 51,923 52,286 52,116 52,758 50,701 53,322
Dollars $ 5,801,043 $ 6,103,783 $ 5,860,255 $ 6,193,611 $ 7,057,849 $ 8,624,389 $ 9,550,170 $ 9,129,163 $ 32,835,197 $ 34,515,497 $ 34,145,619 $ 34,378,425 $ 34,269,637 $ 34,680,698 $ 33,362,971 $ 35,042,184
Fuel (liters) 669,536 710,788 677,605 723,028 840,791 1,054,249 1,180,398 1,123,031 4,353,247 4,582,207 4,531,807 4,563,529 4,548,706 4,604,718 4,425,162 4,653,974
Wall Blasting
Holes 4,250 4,250 4,250 4,250 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 16,000 23,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000
Orica Operators on Shift 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Dollars $ 276,896 $ 276,896 $ 276,896 $ 276,896 $ 309,472 $ 309,472 $ 309,472 $ 309,472 $ 1,042,432 $ 1,498,496 $ 1,954,560 $ 2,019,712 $ 2,084,864 $ 2,084,864 $ 2,084,864 $ 2,084,864
Fuel (liters) 21,357 21,357 21,357 21,357 23,870 23,870 23,870 23,870 80,404 115,580 150,757 155,782 160,807 160,807 160,807 160,807
Total Operators on Shift 61 65 65 67 71 83 86 83 83 95 88 92 91 97 108 109

Total Mechanics on Shift 13 15 15 16 17 23 24 22 23 29 24 25 25 29 34 34
Total staff 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Staff/Overhead $ 1,500,466 $ 1,500,466 $ 1,500,466 $ 1,500,466 $ 1,500,466 $ 1,500,466 $ 1,500,466 $ 1,500,466 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862
Total Dollars $ 23,047,891 $ 24,937,768 $ 24,814,835 $ 26,638,030 $ 29,785,012 $ 39,182,682 $ 41,678,691 $ 39,828,958 $ 137,123,999 $ 167,107,926 $ 148,564,230 $ 157,797,579 $ 158,082,088 $ 174,075,473 $ 198,722,743 $ 202,360,332
Total Tonnes 30,867,000 32,815,000 31,248,000 33,393,000 39,704,000 49,784,000 55,741,000 53,032,000 205,570,000 216,382,000 214,002,000 215,500,000 214,800,000 217,445,000 208,966,000 219,771,000
Total $/tonne $ 0.75 $ 0.76 $ 0.79 $ 0.80 $ 0.75 $ 0.79 $ 0.75 $ 0.75 $ 0.67 $ 0.77 $ 0.69 $ 0.73 $ 0.74 $ 0.80 $ 0.95 $ 0.92
Period Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25
Trucks
Hours 295,400 281,300 236,300 253,800 301,500 290,400 331,800 197,300 135,000 131,000 145,700 151,900 147,600 18,000 8,600
Operators on Shift 41 39 33 35 42 40 46 27 19 19 20 21 20 3 3
Dollars $ 106,669,760 $ 101,605,662 $ 85,385,466 $ 91,625,222 $ 108,873,317 $ 104,846,563 $ 119,821,945 $ 71,239,960 $ 48,754,876 $ 47,371,749 $ 52,643,317 $ 54,881,452 $ 53,300,302 $ 6,506,936 $ 3,256,589
Fuel (liters) 88,620,000 84,390,000 70,890,000 76,140,000 90,450,000 87,120,000 99,540,000 59,190,000 40,500,000 39,300,000 43,710,000 45,570,000 44,280,000 5,400,000 2,580,000
Shovels
Hours 31,100 28,000 28,000 28,000 25,100 20,800 16,100 12,500 14,500 8,900 7,600 7,800 7,900 7,600 4,200
Dollars $ 18,778,441 $ 16,862,050 $ 16,862,050 $ 16,862,050 $ 15,173,068 $ 12,557,788 $ 9,709,545 $ 7,612,878 $ 8,777,693 $ 5,405,283 $ 4,648,153 $ 4,764,635 $ 4,822,875 $ 4,537,225 $ 2,557,040
Power kw/hrs 40,430,000 36,400,000 36,400,000 36,400,000 32,630,000 27,040,000 20,930,000 16,250,000 18,850,000 11,570,000 9,880,000 10,140,000 10,270,000 9,880,000 5,460,000
Production Drills
Hours 22,873 20,513 19,187 19,347 19,041 14,922 14,536 9,483 6,741 6,143 6,251 6,159 6,097 0 0
Dollars $ 7,016,751 $ 6,350,106 $ 5,864,541 $ 5,909,760 $ 5,823,226 $ 4,548,606 $ 4,439,712 $ 2,901,117 $ 2,126,279 $ 1,957,449 $ 1,987,884 $ 1,961,954 $ 1,944,300 $ - $ -
Power kw/hrs 14,867,158 13,333,431 12,471,516 12,575,550 12,376,464 9,699,197 9,448,669 6,164,085 4,381,442 3,993,019 4,063,041 4,003,385 3,962,769 0 0
Wall Drills
Hours 18,618 18,618 18,618 13,382 13,382 13,382 13,382 13,382 9,309 9,309 9,309 9,309 0 0 0
Dollars $ 3,944,489 $ 3,944,489 $ 3,944,489 $ 2,959,895 $ 2,959,895 $ 2,959,895 $ 2,959,895 $ 2,959,895 $ 2,194,100 $ 2,194,100 $ 1,972,244 $ 1,972,244 $ 110,928 $ - $ -
Power kw/hrs 9,309,091 9,309,091 9,309,091 6,690,909 6,690,909 6,690,909 6,690,909 6,690,909 4,654,545 4,654,545 4,654,545 4,654,545 0 0 0
24M Grader
Hours 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
Dollars $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522 $ 224,522
Fuel (liters) 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055
16m Graders
Hours 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 27 27
Dollars $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 446,828 $ 223,414 $ 223,414
Fuel (liters) 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 1,918 959 959

Hours 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 14 14
Dollars $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 337,261 $ 112,420 $ 112,420
Fuel (liters) 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 2,671 890 890

Hours 68 68 68 68 68 68 55 41 41 41 27 27 27 14 14
Dollars $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 559,919 $ 447,935 $ 335,951 $ 335,951 $ 335,951 $ 223,968 $ 223,968 $ 223,968 $ 111,984 $ 111,984
Fuel (liters) 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,301 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,151 1,151 1,151 575 575
L2350 Loader
Hours 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 14 14
Dollars $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 229,681 $ 114,840 $ 114,840
Fuel (liters) 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 7,123 3,562 3,562
Water Trucks
Hours 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 27 27
Dollars $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 459,978 $ 229,989 $ 229,989
Fuel (liters) 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 10,959 5,479 5,479
D10 Dozers
Hours 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 85 85
Dollars $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 1,122,382 $ 561,191 $ 561,191
Fuel (liters) 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 4,250 4,250
Production Blasting
Holes 46,981 42,135 39,411 39,740 39,111 30,650 29,859 19,479 13,846 12,618 12,840 12,651 12,523 0 0
Dollars $ 30,980,681 $ 27,876,197 $ 26,131,557 $ 26,342,139 $ 25,939,159 $ 20,519,988 $ 20,012,883 $ 13,364,415 $ 9,756,090 $ 8,969,867 $ 9,111,602 $ 8,990,847 $ 8,908,635 $ - $ -
Fuel (liters) 4,100,548 3,677,527 3,439,800 3,468,494 3,413,584 2,675,160 2,606,061 1,700,132 1,208,456 1,101,325 1,120,638 1,104,184 1,092,981 0 0
Wall Blasting
Holes 32,000 32,000 32,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 0
Orica Operators on Shift 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 0
Dollars $ 2,084,864 $ 2,084,864 $ 2,084,864 $ 1,498,496 $ 1,498,496 $ 1,498,496 $ 1,498,496 $ 1,498,496 $ 1,042,432 $ 1,042,432 $ 1,042,432 $ 1,042,432 $ - $ - $ -
Fuel (liters) 160,807 160,807 160,807 115,580 115,580 115,580 115,580 115,580 80,404 80,404 80,404 80,404 0 0 0
Total Operators on Shift 101 98 91 93 100 96 100 79 71 70 68 69 67 18 18

Total Mechanics on Shift 31 30 26 27 31 30 34 23 18 18 19 20 19 9 9
Total staff 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Staff/Overhead $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862 $ 6,001,862
Total Dollars $ 178,857,419 $ 168,105,800 $ 149,655,399 $ 154,579,995 $ 169,649,594 $ 156,313,769 $ 167,712,925 $ 108,735,226 $ 81,809,935 $ 76,099,345 $ 80,452,114 $ 82,660,046 $ 78,133,522 $ 18,624,383 $ 13,393,851
Total Tonnes 193,637,000 173,661,000 162,435,000 163,790,000 161,197,000 126,327,000 123,064,000 80,284,000 57,066,000 52,007,000 52,919,000 52,142,000 51,613,000 40,900,000 19,531,000
Total $/tonne $ 0.92 $ 0.97 $ 0.92 $ 0.94 $ 1.05 $ 1.24 $ 1.36 $ 1.35 $ 1.43 $ 1.46 $ 1.52 $ 1.59 $ 1.51 $ 0.46 $ 0.69
Appendix H: Production
Schedule and Cash Flow
Sierra Gorda
Copper price ($/lb) $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00
Molybdenum Price ($/lb) $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00
Gold Price ($/oz) $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800
Period (years) -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOTALS

365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 366 365 174 8935
Sulfide Mill
Tonnes Milled (000's) 31,300 39,900 40,500 40,900 40,500 40,500 39,800 41,200 42,000 40,200 41,200 41,200 40,500 40,900 39,100 40,200 40,500 40,500 41,200 41,600 41,600 41,600 42,000 40,900 19,531 989,331
Copper Grade 0.44 0.39 0.41 0.35 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.48 0.47 0.41 0.25 0.25 0.422
Molybdenum Grade 0.029 0.048 0.042 0.055 0.051 0.057 0.055 0.046 0.016 0.030 0.029 0.040 0.024 0.022 0.007 0.010 0.011 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.015 0.019 0.016 0.009 0.009 0.027
Gold Grade (gpt) 0.026 0.035 0.043 0.076 0.073 0.067 0.063 0.070 0.085 0.092 0.077 0.070 0.067 0.079 0.097 0.081 0.056 0.067 0.073 0.080 0.080 0.084 0.080 0.036 0.036 0.069
Strip Ratio 3.10 3.97 4.08 4.29 4.28 4.32 4.40 4.28 3.98 4.47 3.70 3.22 3.01 3.00 3.12 2.14 2.04 0.98 0.39 0.25 0.27 0.25 12.01 - - 2.59
Waste 000's Tonnes 97,023 158,361 165,070 175,482 173,502 175,000 175,000 176,245 166,966 179,571 152,437 132,461 121,935 122,890 122,097 86,127 82,564 39,784 15,866 10,407 11,319 10,542 9,613 2,563,262
Pre-Strip 000's Tonnes 3,000 -
Total Tonnes Moved 3,000 128,323 198,261 205,570 216,382 214,002 215,500 214,800 217,445 208,966 219,771 193,637 173,661 162,435 163,790 161,197 126,327 123,064 80,284 57,066 52,007 52,919 52,142 42,000 40,900 19,531 3,542,980
Mill Recovery Minimum grade

Copper for moly 84% 82% 83% 81% 85% 86% 86% 86% 87% 86% 86% 86% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 88% 88% 88% 87% 87% 87% 81% 81% 85.76%
Molybdenum 0.002 74% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 52% 78% 76% 78% 68% 64% 30% 38% 40% 27% 30% 32% 50% 58% 52% 35% 35% 58.74%
Gold 30% 33% 36% 43% 44% 43% 42% 43% 46% 47% 45% 43% 43% 45% 47% 45% 40% 43% 44% 45% 45% 46% 45% 35% 35% 42.39%
Moisture Content 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8.00%
Copper Concentrate Production

Tonnes (000's) DMT 413 451 492 413 418 445 478 509 533 483 495 495 607 599 560 576 580 698 697 691 623 610 533 297 142 12,835
WMT 446 487 531 446 451 481 516 549 575 521 534 534 655 647 605 622 627 753 753 746 673 658 575 321 153 13,862
Copper Grade % 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28.00%
Gold Grade (gpt) 0.58 1.01 1.26 3.25 3.11 2.61 2.20 2.46 3.08 3.59 2.87 2.53 1.91 2.43 3.20 2.57 1.58 1.66 1.90 2.18 2.41 2.63 2.85 1.71 1.71 2.3090
Molybdenum Concentrate Production

Tonnes (000's) 13.3 30.1 26.5 35.1 32.2 36.0 34.1 29.6 6.9 18.7 18.2 25.7 13.2 11.5 1.6 3.0 3.6 1.3 1.7 2.1 6.2 9.2 6.9 2.6 1.2 371
Grade 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Concentrate Payable Metals

Copper 1% (M lb) 246 268.6 292.6 245.9 248.8 265.0 284.4 302.7 317.0 287.3 294.4 294.4 361.2 356.8 333.4 342.8 345.4 415.3 414.8 411.1 371.0 362.9 317.0 176.9 84.5 7,640
Copper tonnes Gold pay if con grd is > 1 111.5 121.8 132.7 111.5 112.9 120.2 129.0 137.3 143.8 130.3 133.6 133.6 163.8 161.8 151.2 155.5 156.7 188.4 188.1 186.5 168.3 164.6 143.8 80.3 38.3 3,465
Gold 96% (k oz) 1 - 14.1 19.1 41.4 40.2 35.8 32.5 38.6 50.7 53.4 43.8 38.6 35.8 45.0 55.4 45.6 28.2 35.8 40.8 46.4 46.4 49.4 46.9 15.7 7.5 907
Molybdenum (K lb) 14701 33197 29250 38682 35518 39697 37642 32590 7659 20659 20072 28339 14529 12716 1786 3323 3929 1441 1882 2370 6810 10142 7659 2832 1352 408,778
Off-Site Expenses ($ in 000's)

Concentrate
Conc. Transport US$/WMT $ 40.00 17,833 19,494 21,238 17,845 18,058 19,233 20,643 21,968 23,008 20,851 21,370 21,370 26,214 25,892 24,198 24,879 25,064 30,140 30,103 29,833 26,926 26,335 23,008 12,841 6,132 554,477
Treatment Charge US$/DMT $ 70.00 28,896 31,588 34,414 28,916 29,261 31,165 33,450 35,597 37,281 33,786 34,627 34,627 42,476 41,954 39,209 40,313 40,613 48,838 48,779 48,340 43,630 42,672 37,281 20,808 9,936 898,459
Refining Charge US$/# recovered $ 0.070 17,200 18,803 20,485 17,212 17,418 18,551 19,911 21,189 22,192 20,111 20,611 20,611 25,284 24,973 23,339 23,996 24,175 29,071 29,035 28,774 25,971 25,401 22,192 12,386 5,915 534,805
Gold Refining US$/oz $ 5.00 - 71 95 207 201 179 163 193 253 267 219 193 179 225 277 228 141 179 204 232 232 247 234 78 37 4,536
Molybdenum Selling Charge 10% 17,641 39,836 35,101 46,419 42,622 47,636 45,171 39,108 9,191 24,790 24,086 34,007 17,435 15,259 2,143 3,988 4,714 1,729 2,258 2,844 8,172 12,170 9,191 3,399 1,623 490,534
TOTAL 81,571 109,792 111,333 110,600 107,560 116,764 119,337 118,055 91,925 99,806 100,912 110,807 111,588 108,303 89,167 93,403 94,708 109,957 110,380 110,023 104,930 106,824 91,906 49,512 23,644 2,482,811
On-Site Expenses ($ in 000's)

Mining (includes stkp rehandle) $ 0.92 3,000 96,439 150,475 137,124 167,108 148,564 157,798 158,082 174,075 198,723 202,360 178,857 168,106 149,655 154,580 169,650 156,314 167,713 108,735 81,810 76,099 80,452 82,660 78,134 18,624 13,394 3,278,532
Milling $ 4.90 - 184,026 201,804 201,400 200,775 198,135 198,137 198,278 198,408 198,715 198,024 198,863 198,407 198,147 198,299 198,065 198,030 198,145 198,152 198,876 198,572 198,568 198,567 199,171 198,281 90,782 4,846,628
Leaching -
G&A (includes site closure) $ 0.99 - 50,599 54,118 46,354 46,620 46,439 36,518 36,504 36,649 36,871 36,885 36,728 36,674 36,514 36,553 36,711 36,642 36,758 36,296 35,099 35,084 35,080 35,107 35,065 34,191 54,191 984,261
TOTAL 000's 3,000 331,064 406,397 384,879 414,504 393,139 392,453 392,864 409,133 434,309 437,270 414,449 403,187 384,316 389,432 404,426 390,986 402,616 343,184 315,785 309,756 314,100 316,335 312,370 251,096 158,367 9,109,420
TOTAL EXPENSES 000's 3,000 412,636 516,189 496,212 525,104 500,699 509,217 512,202 527,188 526,235 537,076 515,361 513,995 495,905 497,735 493,593 484,390 497,324 453,141 426,165 419,779 419,031 423,159 404,277 300,609 182,011 11,592,232
Revenue ($ in 000's)
Concentrate - Copper 000's - 491,442 537,219 585,279 491,781 497,648 530,021 568,885 605,397 634,046 574,602 588,896 588,896 722,399 713,518 666,838 685,598 690,715 830,590 829,583 822,126 742,020 725,730 634,046 353,881 168,989 15,280,145
Concentrate - Gold 000's - - 11,286 15,265 33,157 32,121 28,676 26,003 30,906 40,549 42,738 35,014 30,906 28,676 35,981 44,296 36,502 22,568 28,676 32,676 37,143 37,143 39,518 37,500 12,543 5,990 725,832
Concentrate - Molybdenum 000's - 176,415 398,363 351,005 464,190 426,221 476,365 451,705 391,079 91,913 247,904 240,860 340,069 174,346 152,588 21,433 39,882 47,144 17,293 22,584 28,438 81,716 121,698 91,913 33,986 16,230 4,905,338
TOTAL REVENUE 000's - 667,857 946,868 951,550 989,128 955,990 1,035,062 1,046,593 1,027,382 766,507 865,244 864,771 959,870 925,421 902,087 732,567 761,982 760,427 876,560 884,843 887,707 860,878 886,946 763,458 400,410 191,208 20,911,316
Gross Profit (3,000) 255,221 430,679 455,338 464,024 455,291 525,845 534,392 500,194 240,272 328,168 349,409 445,875 429,516 404,352 238,974 277,593 263,102 423,419 458,678 467,927 441,847 463,787 359,181 99,802 9,197 9,319,084
Capex ($ in 000's)
Project $ 1,699,551 57,400 669,964 972,187 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,699,551
Sustaining $ 733,881 - - - 53,641 125,364 77,534 48,111 8,539 3,821 25,075 78,797 15,421 48,197 18,415 14,941 13,727 41,078 18,806 60,447 5,562 20,382 18,882 12,930 3,644 567 - - 20,000 733,881
TOTAL Capex $ 2,433,432 57,400 669,964 972,187 53,641 125,364 77,534 48,111 8,539 3,821 25,075 78,797 15,421 48,197 18,415 14,941 13,727 41,078 18,806 60,447 5,562 20,382 18,882 12,930 3,644 567 - - 20,000 2,433,432
Pre-Tax and Pre-Financing CF (57,400) (669,964) (975,187) 201,580 305,315 377,804 415,913 446,751 522,024 509,317 421,397 224,852 279,972 330,994 430,934 415,789 363,274 220,168 217,145 257,540 403,037 439,796 454,997 438,204 463,220 359,181 99,802 9,197 6,905,652
Cumulative (57,400) (727,363) (1,702,551) (1,500,970) (1,195,655) (817,851) (401,938) 44,813 566,837 1,076,154 1,497,551 1,722,403 2,002,374 2,333,368 2,764,303 3,180,092 3,543,365 3,763,533 3,980,679 4,238,219 4,641,256 5,081,051 5,536,049 5,974,252 6,437,472 6,796,653 6,896,455 6,905,652
Pre-Tax CF (14,350) (167,491) (246,047) 23,128 56,756 141,992 192,847 236,432 324,451 324,491 249,318 141,998 279,972 330,994 430,934 415,789 363,274 220,168 217,145 257,540 403,037 439,796 454,997 438,204 463,220 359,181 99,802 9,197
Taxable Income - - - - - - - 54,051 297,930 294,896 213,115 37,498 215,655 276,905 378,629 367,931 313,239 176,821 168,133 216,983 353,940 392,030 407,349 393,051 418,359 323,888 79,462 - 5,379,866
Tax 35.0% - - - - - - - 18,918 104,276 103,214 74,590 13,124 75,479 96,917 132,520 128,776 109,634 61,887 58,847 75,944 123,879 137,211 142,572 137,568 146,426 113,361 27,812 - 1,882,953
After-Tax FCF (14,350) (167,491) (246,047) 23,128 46,459 130,893 181,221 206,372 202,281 203,095 158,693 125,921 190,605 218,534 277,700 266,926 234,992 147,985 146,268 169,883 259,457 280,958 290,306 279,757 294,745 228,774 67,808 9,197 4,214,069
Cumulative (14,350) (181,841) (427,888) (404,760) (358,301) (227,408) (46,187) 160,185 362,466 565,561 724,253 850,174 1,040,780 1,259,314 1,537,014 1,803,940 2,038,931 2,186,916 2,333,184 2,503,068 2,762,524 3,043,482 3,333,788 3,613,545 3,908,290 4,137,064 4,204,872 4,214,069
Appendix-production-sched-cash-flow June12.xls SierraGorda 6/17/2009 11:46 AM

2009 07 23 Scoping Study For The Sierra Gorda Project Region II Chile

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009 07 23 Scoping Study For The Sierra Gorda Project Region II Chile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scoping Study

for the Sierra Gorda Project

Region II, Chile

2. INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

5. ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE

6. EXPLORATION AND RESOURCE HISTORY

7. GEOLOGY, EXPLORATION AND DRILLING

7.3.1 HYPOGENE MINERALIZATION ............................................................................................ 7-13

8. ASSAY QUALITY CONTROL

9. MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

9.3.1.5 OTHER..................................................................................................................... 9-9

10. METALLURGICAL TESTING

11. MINING OPERATIONS

13. GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES

14. TAILINGS AND WATER MANAGEMENT

15. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ANCILLARY SERVICES

16. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

17. CAPITAL COSTS

18. OPERATING COSTS

18.2 PROCESSING .............................................................................................................................. 18-1

19. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

20. INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

23. CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS

APPENDIX A: EXPLOITATION AND EXPLORATION CONCESSIONS

APPENDIX B: METALLURGICAL AND PROCESSING TESTWORK

APPENDIX C: PIT PHASES

APPENDIX D: EQUIPMENT LISTS AND MINE PERSONNEL

APPENDIX E: PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX G: MINE OPERATING COSTS

APPENDIX H: PRODUCTION SCHEDULE AND CASH FLOW

FIGURE 8.4-3 SIGNIFICANT LABORATORY ANALYTICAL EVENTS ...................................................... 8-9

FIGURE 18.4-1 G&A OPERATING COSTS ............................................................................................ 18-5

TABLE 8.4-1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF ROUTINE ANALYSES OF STANDARD REFERENCE

TABLE 16.2-1 TIME SCHEDULE TO OBTAIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOLUTION OF A PROJECT

TABLE 16.4-1 CONCEPTUAL DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PLAN AND REVEGETATION

1.1 General Description of Sierra Gorda Project

Figure 1.1-1: Sierra Gorda Project Location Map

Sierra Gorda at an elevation of approximately 1,700 m.a.s.l. The village is on a paved

1.2 Geology of the Sierra Gorda District and Property

mineralization and alteration is considerably larger than the volume of breccia

2. The Leached/Oxide Zone is the product of in situ oxidation of the hypogene

3. The Supergene Copper Sulphide Zone is an irregular zone of secondary copper

1.3 Assay Quality Control

1.4 Resource and Reserve Estimates

Sulphide Measured Plus Indicated

Oxide Measured Plus Indicated

1.6 Metallurgy and Processing

2. The flotation kinetics are fast.

SAG and ball mill circuit

Secondary and tertiary cone crushing followed by ball milling

Crushing, rod milling and ball milling circuit

two Cu/Mo rougher rows of ten 250 m3 tank cells,

a regrind station with tower mills

two mechanical cleaner rows

three column cells for final cleaning

a moly separation, dewatering, and bagging circuit

tailings water reclaim thickeners

a tailings impoundment facility

Copper concentrate is to be piped 141 km to a port facility at Mejillones where it will be

A concentrate pipeline to the Mejillones port facility